jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk&e[/youtube]

Obama just relost Joey Vento's vote.

That's legitimately funny.


It's also funny that stuff like this is gonna work against him for the next four months.

I'd love to hear someone who is planning on voting for McCain's reasons for leaning that way.

Not trying to be condescending, I am genuinely curious. I just wouldn't even consider voting McCain and I think I am pretty well on the right side at this point. (For example, boo welfare)

pacino wrote:How did he come off 'unsure'? He came off hilarious.

I don't think he came off as unsure, but he did put his foot in his mouth three or so times in about a minute there, which is impressive.

mpmcgraw wrote:I'd love to hear someone who is planning on voting for McCain's reasons for leaning that way.

Not trying to be condescending, I am genuinely curious. I just wouldn't even consider voting McCain and I think I am pretty well on the right side at this point. (For example, boo welfare)

Until election day, you'll probably find that the McCain voter will spend his/her time talking about why Obama is a bad candidate and not much time talking about why McCain is the best one.

Except for LAExile, who genuinely likes the guy. Actually I like him too, but I'm probably more motivated to vote against Obama than for McCain.

But McCain is the real deal on spending, and I think he's the right guy for commander in chief, and hopefully he'll be very liberal in his usage of the veto pen, going up against a stacked Democratic Congress.

mpmcgraw wrote:I'd love to hear someone who is planning on voting for McCain's reasons for leaning that way.

Not trying to be condescending, I am genuinely curious. I just wouldn't even consider voting McCain and I think I am pretty well on the right side at this point. (For example, boo welfare)

This is easy.

McCain's measured and thoughtful outlook on Iraq gives the best chance for success. Obama will be too pressured by myopic peaceniks to retreat.

Obama will raise taxes, McCain won't. Higher taxes will suppress economic activity and do nothing for the "deficit." Controlling spending would, but no one can hope for fiscal restraint from a Democrat.

Obama will appoint activist SCOTUS judges like Baby Ruth Ginsburg, eager to disregard the founders' intent so as to use the courts to advance the social cause du jour that the voters and legislatures have rejected.

Obama's record as the most liberal member of the US Senate is a pretty strong indicator that he will seek to expand the welfare state and repeat all the dramatic failures of LBJ's Great Society.

Democrats in general are in the pockets of unions, never a good thing.

Democrats in general are closely aligned with trial lawyers, never a good thing.

McCain is seasoned and experienced and capable of dealing with other world leaders. Obama would have to learn on the job.

I think either Obama or McCain will have a reasonable, non-xenophobic plan to deal with immigration.

I think both Obama and McCain have naive views on Global Warming, but neither is much of a threat to do more than lip service.

There is not one thing where Obama would be a better choice than McCain.

Obama's record as the most liberal member of the US Senate is a pretty strong indicator that he will seek to expand the welfare state and repeat all the dramatic failures of LBJ's Great Society.

What does this even mean?

The Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Transportation. All that crap.

McCain at this point is offering the Bush Policy Collection, minus the social-reactionary rhetoric (not that Bush did all that much on that anyway), with less partisanship and more competence. If you think Bush had the right set of ideas but was a screw-up in execution, then you probably should vote for McCain.

TP, that sentence pacino quoted might well be the silliest thing you've ever written on this board. Which is saying something. If you know anything about the political history of the '60s, the respective personalities of Johnson and Obama, the dumbassed way National Journal ranks Senators, the budgetary context of the '60s versus the late '00s, or the progress of the civil rights movement then versus now, you'd understand just how profoundly dim that line was. Unlike either the Great Society liberals or the Loyal Bushies who denigrated the "reality-based community," and who sadly seem to have "reached" McCain on economics (he was already there on foreign policy), Obama is an empirical thinker who will go with what proves to work rather than abstract theories.

It's also worth noting that we've had this "welfare state" argument probably a half-dozen times, and it always goes the same way: you say some ignorant thing about a culture of dependency and the pansy-assed libburls who perpetuate it; pacino and I--who actually work in this world--explain how it really works; you concede that you don't know what you're talking about; we move on. I guess we could do it again, but really, doesn't everyone have better things to do?

Meanwhile, I was thinking yesterday how much fun it would be to run an experiment where a social service agency gets to contract with government on a "cost-plus" basis, a la Halliburton. I doubt there are more than a handful of corporate executives who could successfully run non-profits, where they're basically screwed six different ways in terms of drawing enough revenues to effectively deliver services, pay their staff--mostly mission-driven people; I promise you nobody's working in that world to get rich--and keep the lights on.

The right wants to paint Obama as both a Cuh-Razy Lefty and a Flip-Flopper (imagine--the exact same critiques they make of every single Democratic candidate!). He's pretty clearly not the former, and he's no more the latter than pretty much every pol of note in public life, absolutely including McCain. Granted that his actions of the last few weeks regarding government spying on Americans have made me a good deal less enthused about him, that action and all the other supposed panders (most of which are actually consistent with things he's said and written for years) indicate a guy who's playing to win.

mpmcgraw wrote:I'd love to hear someone who is planning on voting for McCain's reasons for leaning that way.

Not trying to be condescending, I am genuinely curious. I just wouldn't even consider voting McCain and I think I am pretty well on the right side at this point. (For example, boo welfare)

You really need to get out more and stop listening to the Democratic propaganda about McCain. Just as there are many people who wouldn't dream of voting for McCain, there are a lot of people who are really repulsed by Obama and a lot of others who find a lot to love about McCain.

Or you could just wait two years for my documentary and find out then.

dajafi wrote:McCain at this point is offering the Bush Policy Collection, minus the social-reactionary rhetoric (not that Bush did all that much on that anyway), with less partisanship and more competence. If you think Bush had the right set of ideas but was a screw-up in execution, then you probably should vote for McCain.

TP, that sentence pacino quoted might well be the silliest thing you've ever written on this board. Which is saying something. If you know anything about the political history of the '60s, the respective personalities of Johnson and Obama, the dumbassed way National Journal ranks Senators, the budgetary context of the '60s versus the late '00s, or the progress of the civil rights movement then versus now, you'd understand just how profoundly dim that line was. Unlike either the Great Society liberals or the Loyal Bushies who denigrated the "reality-based community," and who sadly seem to have "reached" McCain on economics (he was already there on foreign policy), Obama is an empirical thinker who will go with what proves to work rather than abstract theories.

The right wants to paint Obama as both a Cuh-Razy Lefty and a Flip-Flopper (imagine--the exact same critiques they make of every single Democratic candidate!). He's pretty clearly not the former, and he's no more the latter than pretty much every pol of note in public life, absolutely including McCain. Granted that his actions of the last few weeks regarding government spying on Americans have made me a good deal less enthused about him, that action and all the other supposed panders (most of which are actually consistent with things he's said and written for years) indicate a guy who's playing to win.

It's a weird game being played. In one instance he's painted as a crazy liberal losers, and in the other he's painted as 'flip-flopping' by people that apparently haven't previously read any of his long-held viewpoints. So which is it? Is he a crazy libburl bent on socializing the nation or a centrist in all the wrong ways?!

Laexile wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:I'd love to hear someone who is planning on voting for McCain's reasons for leaning that way.

Not trying to be condescending, I am genuinely curious. I just wouldn't even consider voting McCain and I think I am pretty well on the right side at this point. (For example, boo welfare)

You really need to get out more and stop listening to the Democratic propaganda about McCain. Just as there are many people who wouldn't dream of voting for McCain, there are a lot of people who are really repulsed by Obama and a lot of others who find a lot to love about McCain.

Or you could just wait two years for my documentary and find out then.

Because the only reason someone wouldn't like McCain is because they're listening to Democratic propoganda?

If your point is that there are people who dislike each candidate, I'd have to believe you are correct. I'd also have to believe it's partly because of propoganda coming from both sides. Unless I'm missing a deeper point here.

LAExile wrote:Or you could just wait two years for my documentary and find out then.

OMG!

dajafi wrote:McCain at this point is offering the Bush Policy Collection, minus the social-reactionary rhetoric (not that Bush did all that much on that anyway), with less partisanship and more competence. If you think Bush had the right set of ideas but was a screw-up in execution, then you probably should vote for McCain.

While I think "Bush Policy Collection" is an oversimplification, I pretty much agree. McCain's is pushing for Republican solutions to issues. He's going to be similar to Bush that way. People who believe in those solutions either believe that competency or circumstances were the problem.

the dumbassed way National Journal ranks Senators,

The Journal is non-partisan and doesn't set out to rank Senators in order to smear them. If you look at their lists of liberal and conservative their system makes sense. Obama has gone 16th to 10th to 1st. Is he the most liberal Senator? Of course not. In 2007 his voting record was most liberal.

Obama is an empirical thinker who will go with what proves to work rather than abstract theories.

It doesn't seem that way. His view on Iraq, if it's still his view, is to pull out all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. It appears he wants to do that because it's popular. How can he possibly know what the conditions will be January 2009? How can he know everything a President knows? I want to get out too, but I want a President that withdraws based on what's smart and not on an arbitrary timetable that might make things worse.

Yes, he appears to be moving to the center. That'd be a good thing, but he seems difficult to nail down. He keeps "clarifying" his positions. How much is he raising capital gains tax? People can try to trip up McCain on words he says or doesn't say but everyone knows where he stands on torture, campaign finance reform, and immigration. He has stances on record. We know what he'll do if he's President. if you like it, vote for him. If not, go for Obama. Obama was for public financing and now is for private financing. He says he's open to Republican ideas, but can't name a time he voted against his party. What scares me isn't Obama being a big liberal or a flip-flopper. I don't know for sure what he believes.

I would think dajafi is talking about even defining certain votes as 'conservative' or 'liberal'.

meatball wrote:Because the only reason someone wouldn't like McCain is because they're listening to Democratic propoganda?

My point is that if you can't see why someone would vote for McCain you're only listening to Democratic propaganda. I can tick off a lot of reasons someone wouldn't vote for McCain. On both sides of the aisle.

pacino wrote:I would think dajafi is talking about even defining certain votes as 'conservative' or 'liberal'.

Point taken. If we throw out some votes as being neither then his rating likely won't change that much. It's the guys in the center who could really move one way if all those type of votes are defined heavily one way. When you have one type of data that's imperfect you don't throw it out. You just don't count it for 100%.

Laexile wrote:

meatball wrote:Because the only reason someone wouldn't like McCain is because they're listening to Democratic propoganda?

My point is that if you can't see why someone would vote for McCain you're only listening to Democratic propaganda. I can tick off a lot of reasons someone wouldn't vote for McCain. On both sides of the aisle.

I'm sure there's a lot of reasons why someone would claim they'd never vote for McCain, other than listening to Democratic propoganda. But we're debating a small point here. I'd debate larger political points with you but I don't know much about anything else.

dajafi wrote:The right wants to paint Obama as both a Cuh-Razy Lefty and a Flip-Flopper (imagine--the exact same critiques they make of every single Democratic candidate!). He's pretty clearly not the former, and he's no more the latter than pretty much every pol of note in public life, absolutely including McCain.

How so? I would imagine the answer has to do with painting your meaning of Cuh-Razy Lefty as pretty out there (never mind the fact that
"lefty" and crazy aren't closely related in your book to begin with). I don't believe any of the serious people who accuse Obama of being very liberal compared to Clinton or Kerry are referring to Rage Against the Machine/Keith Olberman politics.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:The right wants to paint Obama as both a Cuh-Razy Lefty and a Flip-Flopper (imagine--the exact same critiques they make of every single Democratic candidate!). He's pretty clearly not the former, and he's no more the latter than pretty much every pol of note in public life, absolutely including McCain.

How so? I would imagine the answer has to do with painting your meaning of Cuh-Razy Lefty as pretty out there (never mind the fact that
"lefty" and crazy aren't closely related in your book to begin with). I don't believe any of the serious people who accuse Obama of being very liberal compared to Clinton or Kerry are referring to Rage Against the Machine/Keith Olberman politics.

One way we could do this is to take Kucinich as the starting point for what could be defined, with some fairness, as "crazy" on the left. (Never mind that Kucinich is about as far left as Tom DeLay was right, and he was the guiding spirit of the Republicans for most of the last decade.) I hope you'd agree that Obama isn't out there with Kucinich, who was sort of a nightmare combination of Henry Wallace, Ramsey Clark and a Politburo economic planner.

Another way would be to look at the methodology by which the various prominent Democrats suggest solving problems. Clinton and Kerry were/are top-down thinkers who believed that government mandates and intervention were always the way to go. Obama seems to me agnostic as to means. (As his support for a faith-based initiative suggests; perhaps Clinton or Kerry might have spoken about that as well, but with less detail and certainly less credibility. Or is it that when liberals propose non-liberal ideas, they're automatically disqualified as fakers and hypocrites?) On health care, he was and is criticized for not calling for mandates. His "behavioral school" economics advisers from the U of Chicago probably wouldn't get much of a hearing among other Democrats.