Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy

by **Polar Bear Phan** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 18:33:04

Barry Jive wrote:But was John McCain inviting Al Gore over for tea and crumpets, holding out hope that he'd pick him? There's no way anyone who respects Al Gore as a political figure was trying to figure out which candidate he'd endorse.

Based on the way Al Gore's waistline has grown over the past 8 years, he probably would've accepted the invitation. :lol:

by **dajafi** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 18:41:10

pacino wrote:these things do solidify 'the base' behind a candidate to, and speak to the larger donors and players in a party, with all their money. this was probably as much for that as 'environmentalists'. fwiw, i would consider myself one of those and don't really like the way al gore conveys his message.

At the risk of reminding pacino about that bad thing I did in 2000, there's also this:

Gore is the man who suffered the ultimate electoral highway robbery when he was robbed in 2000. Furthermore, his presence will serve as a warning to any disgruntled Hillary supporters: Just as the Nader voters' obstinacy gave us Bush, a lack of party unity can hurt us all by helping to elect McCain.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 19:14:03

Werthless wrote:Wait, I don't follow. Who are you calling jocksniffer? I must have missed something. Your justification for calling jerseyhoya names is because he admits to caring more about sports than politics?

I don't know who you even are, let alone what business it is of yours, so I'm replying out of native courtesy - but where I'm from, "jocksniffer" is a term of endearment, applied to one with a preternatural love of sport of all kind - and as my quote indicates, I believe jh counts himself in that camp.

those of onionskin-thin epidermis may understandably take offense. To all of you I am sorry, and hope santa brings you a pair for christmas 08.

jersey and anybody else should know by now that while I care little for his politics, no one has a greater share of my respect when it comes to his overall rhetorical resilience, to say nothing of his sports acumen.

by **traderdave** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:12:45

pacino wrote:all of these endorsements do mean something to some people out there, or politicians wouldn't covet them so.

Exactly. One of the most important things an endorsement like this does (as late and seemingly obvious as it is) is gives Obama another big name surrogate. Obama obviously can't be in 50 states at once so it is very helpful to have people like Gore/Edwards/Clinton, etc. speaking on his behalf at places he isn't (as long as they are able to answer Chris Matthews' questions properly).

by **Bob Loblaw** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:23:58

This is a good article from last week regarding the candidates and your taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... erecommend

by **Werthless** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:35:47

drsmooth wrote:
Laexile wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
Laexile wrote:The President has less impact than he ever had.

any number of ex-residents of New Orleans would 2nd you there

They really shouldn't. While the Federal government failed, FEMA's job is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has overwhelmed the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurred must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. This usually occurs 2-3 days after a disaster.

The responsibility before Hurricane Katrina was with the city and state governments as well as the citizens of New Orleans. Due to today's technology New Orleans had several days warning that the hurricane was going to hit. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco failed to implement New Orleans' evacuation plan and for ordering residents to a shelter of last resort without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. The city had hundreds of buses sitting idle that were never used to evacuate people.

Nagin delayed his emergency evacuation order until 19 hours before landfall, even though the National Hurricane Service had warned him of the seriousness two days before. Fifty or one hundred years ago this storm would've hit New Orleans without warning. Because of today's technology most people did evacuate.

While some people certainly did die because FEMA bungled the disaster relief more died due to the ineptitude of Nagin and Blanco. Yet Bush got the blame. Maybe it was because he was a Republican and those two were Democrats or maybe it was because the media was present when FEMA messed up but was not when Nagin and Blanco let it happen.

In fact an ABC News Poll on September 2, 2005 showed that more people blamed the state and local governments than the Federal government. In a later CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll Bush was blamed by 13%, while state and local officials were blamed by 25%. I'm guessing that they wouldn't disagree with me.

The Federal government deserves the most blame in the Army Corps of Engineers shoddy levee construction. This work was done before Bush became President.

wow, that's a lot of yammering in response to a 1-line post. And some here feel I ramble on incoherently.

allow me to summarize: when the POTUS is disinclined to act, 'the law' keeps him from it; when he is, it doesn't.

I believe we agree that that's what happened.

The tendency toward the status quo and inertia is not limited to the POTUS. Most citizens overstep laws deemed less important, such as speed limits, while maintaining the law as a driving force behind other actions (perhaps refusal to do certain drugs - marijuana - that have less quantifiable risk than driving fast). Are you suggesting that Bush has a unique moral failing, or should he simply have made better judgments about the restrictions of the power of the execute branch? I think it's the latter, but I'd be interested in your reasoning if you choose the former.

Edit: Wait, you don't know who I am. Is this post readable without a personal introduction?

by **Werthless** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:44:50

Bob Loblaw wrote:This is a good article from last week regarding the candidates and your taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... erecommend

I enjoyed the breakdown, but I'd like to see the overall spending projections before I endorse how the other side of the ledger should look. Additionally, I don't like how cnnmoney breaks down the differences in this way (you pay 2200 less under obama, and 2,600 less under McCain). Because then there is an increasing incentive to propose a plan punishing a slim majority with tax raises and then, in essence, offering unicorns for everyone.

In other words, I think it's irresponsible to offer all these plans of "tax cuts for all!" while not taking bigger steps to close the deficit.

by **jeff2sf** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:56:02

Could someone offer a half decent argument in favor of the Windfall Profits Tax that doesn't make me wonder if I moved back in time to the USSR? "You can do good, just not TOO good". It's Un-American, dammit. And this is from someone who's more or less in favor of the progressive tax system (in other words, I may not think the current tax system is perfect, but I get and approve of the general idea that as income goes up, so does tax rate).

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:57:52

Buncha good stuff on FiveThirtyEighttoday. Their own battleground analysis and side-by-side comparison of the states Obama and McCain have identified as such is particularly interesting.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 14:58:05

jeff2sf wrote:Could someone offer a half decent argument in favor of the Windfall Profits Tax that doesn't make me wonder if I moved back in time to the USSR? "You can do good, just not TOO good". It's Un-American, dammit. And this is from someone who's more or less in favor of the progressive tax system (in other words, I may not think the current tax system is HAMELS, but I get and approve of the general idea that as income goes up, so does tax rate).

Good politics is not the same as good economics.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 15:08:40

I'm shocked at how good this NYT piece--by Elisabeth Bumiller, someone many of us viewed as an administration sycophant--is on the question of how close Bush and McCain are in terms of policy views. I think she gets it exactly right: they're pretty much indistinguishable on the economy and judiciary, close but not exactly aligned on foreign policy, and clearly distinct on the environment as well as in leadership style, personality and mindset.

(I'd add integrity. Anyone who saw David Iglesias on the Daily Show last night probably got a reminder of just how Stalinist the current administration can be in terms of using government power for political ends. McCain's maverick/reformer cred might be overstated, but I can't imagine him doing anything like that.)

My contention remains that on the issues McCain simply doesn't care about that much--the economy and the culture war stuff--he cedes ground to the relevant Big Republican. That's the true similarity to Bush, though it's possible Bush wasn't aware that he was outsourcing administration policy to the Dobson and Norquist crowds.

by **Werthless** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 15:10:44

jeff2sf wrote:Could someone offer a half decent argument in favor of the Windfall Profits Tax that doesn't make me wonder if I moved back in time to the USSR? "You can do good, just not TOO good". It's Un-American, dammit. And this is from someone who's more or less in favor of the progressive tax system (in other words, I may not think the current tax system is HAMELS, but I get and approve of the general idea that as income goes up, so does tax rate).

In the context of monopolistic pricing, especially with regard to an essential good like water, it could make sense. It could be framed as a fine for anti-competitive pricing. However, the windfall profits with respect to oil companies is pretty absurd; why should these companies forfeit profits just because of the large scale of their company?

by **jeff2sf** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 15:15:57

TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:Could someone offer a half decent argument in favor of the Windfall Profits Tax that doesn't make me wonder if I moved back in time to the USSR? "You can do good, just not TOO good". It's Un-American, dammit. And this is from someone who's more or less in favor of the progressive tax system (in other words, I may not think the current tax system is HAMELS, but I get and approve of the general idea that as income goes up, so does tax rate).

Good politics is not the same as good economics.

Well then shame on Obama.

I guess this sort of thing happens when an independent supports any candidate, there are going to be policies I naturally don't like. But I just expected more after he avoided the obvious pandering that McCain and Clinton succumbed to with the gas tax holiday.

by **Philly the Kid** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 15:54:46

drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:Wait, I don't follow. Who are you calling jocksniffer? I must have missed something. Your justification for calling jerseyhoya names is because he admits to caring more about sports than politics?

I don't know who you even are, let alone what business it is of yours, so I'm replying out of native courtesy - but where I'm from, "jocksniffer" is a term of endearment, applied to one with a preternatural love of sport of all kind - and as my quote indicates, I believe jh counts himself in that camp.

those of onionskin-thin epidermis may understandably take offense. To all of you I am sorry, and hope santa brings you a pair for christmas 08.

jersey and anybody else should know by now that while I care little for his politics, no one has a greater share of my respect when it comes to his overall rhetorical resilience, to say nothing of his sports acumen.

I don't remember seeing "Smooth" on the ropes so much ?!

by **Woody** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 15:58:11

Me either ?!

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 16:47:18

"I'd make a great president. I 'd make a great Secretary of State. I'd make a great vice president" -- Joe Biden

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 16:48:46

I'm a bit of a Biden fanboy.

by **BuddyGroom** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 16:48:56

The middle of those three statements actually is probably correct.

But I think Obama can win Delaware without Biden's favorite son pull as running mate.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 16:59:05

I think all three statements would be fine about Joe Biden if they were said by someone other than himself.

I just find it hilarious that he would say it.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 17:08:58

I really like Biden--I actually agree with at least the last two statements, maybe all three--but his ginormous ego (by normal-human standards if not DC standards) would give me some concern as a running mate for Obama. Biden's obvious self-regard as the smartest guy in any room can be pretty unappealing.

Archived

Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy