Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[TimeForGuinness]

I do think everyone should do a little research on what fascism is,because it ain't what some people think it is.

I can recommend the following (I read a lot about politics these days):

The Third Reich - Burleigh
The Anatomy of Fascism - Paxton (very deep read, but excellent)
It Can't Happen Here - Lewis (fiction, but a good depiction of how fascism arises)
The End of America - Wolf
The Authoritarian Specter - Altemeyer

We should also remember Godwin's Law: as a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I sometimes wonder if Godwin's Law wasn't invented
by fascisti to neutralize any objections to fascistic
thinking.

Although it's also true that the tendency to play
the slippery slope card to either extreme (Nazi!
Commie!) is very much alive and well on the
internet.

Pinko Commie!

[Socnorb11]

I think the experience issue is a fair argument, and a point of concern. But comparing her to Obama I don't see a deficit there. I don't have any idea how she'll do with Putin, Sarkozy, etc...but i really have no idea how Obama will do either. I agree that people have largely decided that he'll do okay. But I see an attitude that Palin doesn't even deserve that shot, and her selection is automatically laughable or irresponsible. Let her do some interviews and debates and let the public decide.

I knew this from working in France this summer, but Obama is almost universally liked and respected by the Europeans I worked with. Based on some articles I've been reading in the French speaking newspapers Europeans are well aware of her shortcomings and are highly skeptical and not trusting of McCain.

Just my personal experience, but at least on the European front I would say Obama would have a much easier time than McCain. Electing McCain will just reinforce to that part of the world their perception of what Americans are all about.

I agree that they like him, and that may make some things easier and that overall it's better if we're liked. At the same time, being liked isn't the most important thing and my guess is other countries will get over Obama-mania pretty quick. Bush had only been in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened. Clinton was burned in effigy in more than a few places during his time. We're big and we export our culture and products, and that generates resentment. I don't think we ought to count on Obama changing that.

YES WE CAN!!


Er...... I mean, what Jim said.

[haltz]

Right. Bin Laden got mad at Bush Sr., then he sat on his hands for 8 years until Bush Jr. got in office. He liked everything about Clinton, so he didn't do anything during that regime.

It doesn't matter who's in office. He's going to do all he can to cripple us.

I haven't said anything serious in like four pages, and I assume the part about Clinton was sarcasm.

The fascist tangent was a little weird. Though I don't think anyone's arguing that America will become a totalitarian theocracy anytime soon, and using that sort of rhetoric to talk about the right isn't anything new.

[BW23]

Yes. It was sarcasm. I don't like the blue font.

I wasn't trying to really be serious either. I'm just no good early in the morning.

[ghostrunner]

There's no governor or mayor that doesn't try to get some earmarks or federal funding.

That's not actually true, but that's not my point. My point is that she is disingenuously painting herself as a reformer and an opponent to earmarks and she is lining herself up with McCain on this issue, who has not only criticized earmarks for a long time, but has specifically called out earmarks that Palin herself has been awarded on at least three different occasions. And you use the qualifying word of "some" earmarks, but the quantity of earmarks relative to the populations of the city and state that she has gotten them for puts her earmarking on the highest end of the spectrum. Ted Stevens is the second largest earmarker in the Senate this year (at $500 million) and that's for the 47th largest state in the country! And who was lining up to benefit from those earmarks and supported him even as he was being indicted? Palin. There are some Senators that have never requested a single earmark. Palin as a small-time mayor lobbied for them, hired professionals to help her do so, and succeeded in getting $27 million dollars for ~8000 people (that's more than $3000 per person while she was mayor). And as governor she has now overseen the largest request for more earmarks per capita in the country.

You can paint it as a "that's the rules so why not try and get the most for your constituents", but then don't turn around and say she is a reformer.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2434.story

And it's a lot easier to cut local property taxes on a population of a few thousand people when you are bilking the federal government out of huge amounts of money through a powerful, corrupt and now indicted Senator (who is now up for re-election) to pay for projects that will attract new business and new people to your village. And while cutting property taxes, she supported and later increased the sales tax in Wasilla. Overall tax revenues went up while she was mayor, though that was largely due to growth in population (though that was largely due to her ability to secure federally funded earmarks for significant economic development projects).

everything I've read (I linked to an article on this earlier) suggests she's willing to make tough choices in this regard and even tick off people her own local party establishment. That is very much a quality I'd like to see in a President, and one we haven't seen in a while. My guess is she'd probably be tougher than McCain in this respect.

It's an admirable quality, especially if you're tired of the partisan party politics, but there has to be more to a good candidate for any office than just that. I'm looking for the rest of the story. So far the only thing I can find is her far right positions on social issues and her disregard and ignorance about environmental issues. Obviously neither of these aspects of her substance are appealing to me.

I don't object to earmarks as a whole. I think improving rural areas access to certain things is a good use of that money. It's one of the better things LBJ did as a congressman. I don't know all there is to know about the needs of Alaska, but I assume they're pretty well behind on some things. So their ranking in terms of federal funding doesn't tell me anything. What they did get doesn't tell me what they could have gotten, and I don't know how it compares to the past. What I do know is that she cut the state's spending significantly, and over the objections of people in her own party.

My basic understanding is this: to run for office and stay in office in Alaska, you have to do certain things and cater to certain people. That's true anywhere, but they have some peculiarities with respect to natural resources and Alaska's remote location. West Virginia (and Robert Byrd) is also notorious for getting federal funds and pork projects. So she seems to have said some things to get elected, and done some things while in office to stay there. Within that framework, she seems to have made some brave and bold choices that could have hurt her, and I can only imagine she did so on principle. So i don't think the reformer label is inconsistent with the facts.

I have a lot of trouble with her on issues, but so far I don't see her being an obviously poor choice.

EDIT: I should add - the delinquent tax payments do bother me. I'd like to see the full story and her explanation, but I don't like the sound of it.

[Popeye_Card]

Re-posting this graphic.



Now I have heard some rhetoric from the Republicans during this election that "in these tough economic times, when people are struggling to make ends meet..." folks should steer away from those tax-happy Democrats who want to take YOUR hard-earned money.

According to the graphic, the tipping point is ~$112k, and 60% of the population is in the bottom 3 brackets, and save a significant amount more with Obama's plan.

So if the issue is YOU paying less taxes, you should probably be voting for Obama unless you make more than $112k. That brings up the middle class, most of which are above that threshold with their combined family income. Is the middle class *that* concerned about that $400? (yes, I know the answer to that)

[ghostrunner]

I think the experience issue is a fair argument, and a point of concern. But comparing her to Obama I don't see a deficit there. I don't have any idea how she'll do with Putin, Sarkozy, etc...but i really have no idea how Obama will do either. I agree that people have largely decided that he'll do okay. But I see an attitude that Palin doesn't even deserve that shot, and her selection is automatically laughable or irresponsible. Let her do some interviews and debates and let the public decide.

I knew this from working in France this summer, but Obama is almost universally liked and respected by the Europeans I worked with. Based on some articles I've been reading in the French speaking newspapers Europeans are well aware of her shortcomings and are highly skeptical and not trusting of McCain.

Just my personal experience, but at least on the European front I would say Obama would have a much easier time than McCain. Electing McCain will just reinforce to that part of the world their perception of what Americans are all about.

I agree that they like him, and that may make some things easier and that overall it's better if we're liked. At the same time, being liked isn't the most important thing and my guess is other countries will get over Obama-mania pretty quick. Bush had only been in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened. Clinton was burned in effigy in more than a few places during his time. We're big and we export our culture and products, and that generates resentment. I don't think we ought to count on Obama changing that.

It's not Obama mania. It's simple respect for the man, something that has been missing for sometime. In my opinion, if you think our perception is completely based on us being the biggest kids on the block you are misguided.

I don't, but I know that we weren't well-liked by a lot of people prior to Bush. So I'd flip it and say that anyone who thinks the perception is completely based on Bush (or Republicans) is misguided. He's part of it, but there's been a perception long before him that we're forcing our culture and products (and our military for that matter) on other people. Which is true in some cases.

My larger point was that being liked isn't necessarily enough to accomplish what we need to accomplish in dealing with other countries. Obama has to have other things going for him (and I think he might) but we don't know that yet.

[jim]

Re-posting this graphic.



Now I have heard some rhetoric from the Republicans during this election that "in these tough economic times, when people are struggling to make ends meet..." folks should steer away from those tax-happy Democrats who want to take YOUR hard-earned money.

According to the graphic, the tipping point is ~$112k, and 60% of the population is in the bottom 3 brackets, and save a significant amount more with Obama's plan.

So if the issue is YOU paying less taxes, you should probably be voting for Obama unless you make more than $112k. That brings up the middle class, most of which are above that threshold with their combined family income. Is the middle class *that* concerned about that $400? (yes, I know the answer to that)

I'll divulge a little personal info against my better judgement and tell you that based on that plan Obama will cost me more tax dollars than McCain.

It's ok, I can afford it. Really I can. Actually I can afford more than what is being proposed, and if it comes to that and makes sense I will pay it. See, taxes are ok. They aren't evil. If spent responsibly, I actually get quite a bit out of them and am glad to pay them.

[jim]

I don't, but I know that we weren't well-liked by a lot of people prior to Bush. So I'd flip it and say that anyone who thinks the perception is completely based on Bush (or Republicans) is misguided. He's part of it, but there's been a perception long before him that we're forcing our culture and products (and our military for that matter) on other people. Which is true in some cases.

This IS true, and the reason is globalization. The fatcats love
it...the rest of the world, not so much.

I liked Clinton for a lot of reasons, but him being a proponent of
globalization/NAFTA/CAFTA had me tearing my hair out.

Single biggest mistake of his presidency, and I knew it from day 1.

[Popeye_Card]

It's ok, I can afford it. Really I can. Actually I can afford more than what is being proposed, and if it comes to that and makes sense I will pay it. See, taxes are ok. They aren't evil. If spent responsibly, I actually get quite a bit out of them and am glad to pay them.

I've talked on here before about the psychology of taxes. People get upset when they see that 30% or whatever of their paychecks goes to taxes. They get upset when their salary is supposed to be $75k, and it ends up really being only $50k.

But you know what? If the taxes weren't there, you wouldn't be getting $75k. You would be making $50k. Because that's what the market has determined that you're willing to take home as pay for the work that you do. Taxes are so ingrained into our system that they've just become part of or salary.