Friday, September 05, 2008
You know what I found out? Lynn Westmoreland, the guy who called Obama 'uppity,' represents a district that is 38.5% black. Basically, assuming equal turnout between the races (likely due to it being a Presidential election AND having Obama on top of the ticket), if the Dem gets 90% of the Black vote, he need only get 25% of the other vote to win.
I made this post on my Facebook notepage. Thought it bore repeating here.
I was genuinely scared in 1992 that we were headed to a second Depression because Clinton was going to tax us all to oblivion.
This didn't happen.
No one is talking about returning to 70% or 90% tax rates that prevailed in the 1950s or 1970s.
If we could innovate, create jobs/wealth, and generally prosper in the 1990s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%, we can do the same thing in the 2010s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%.
The Republicans have had six years in which to achieve their stated goals.
Was abortion reduced? No. In fact, it's gone back up.
Are more people working? Not really, if you consider population growth. More jobs were created during Carter's four years than during Bush's eight, and Carter is rightfully regarded as a Presidential failure.
The stock market is essentially unchanged from 2000. In fact, we've re-entered a bear market.
Are we safer from Islamic terror? Probably. Would Obama make us less safe? No. Clinton acted decisively when he believed the perpetrators of terror could be caught/killed, and came closer with that cruise missile strike than Bush has in the past seven years. I fail to see why Obama would act a radically different manner from Clinton.
And finally -- what are we prepared to give up, in terms of convenience, genuine civil liberty, and treasure, to prevent another 9/11?
I was genuinely scared in 1992 that we were headed to a second Depression because Clinton was going to tax us all to oblivion.
This didn't happen.
No one is talking about returning to 70% or 90% tax rates that prevailed in the 1950s or 1970s.
If we could innovate, create jobs/wealth, and generally prosper in the 1990s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%, we can do the same thing in the 2010s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%.
The Republicans have had six years in which to achieve their stated goals.
Was abortion reduced? No. In fact, it's gone back up.
Are more people working? Not really, if you consider population growth. More jobs were created during Carter's four years than during Bush's eight, and Carter is rightfully regarded as a Presidential failure.
The stock market is essentially unchanged from 2000. In fact, we've re-entered a bear market.
Are we safer from Islamic terror? Probably. Would Obama make us less safe? No. Clinton acted decisively when he believed the perpetrators of terror could be caught/killed, and came closer with that cruise missile strike than Bush has in the past seven years. I fail to see why Obama would act a radically different manner from Clinton.
And finally -- what are we prepared to give up, in terms of convenience, genuine civil liberty, and treasure, to prevent another 9/11?
I didn't get to listen to McCain's or Obama's acceptance speeches -- Melanie was sick for Obama's speech and getting her to sleep was a delicate operation that we didn't want to reverse. Last night, she started to fuss when the crowds really started to cheer (either that or she is a Democrat). So, I wasn't able to listen to McCain's speech.
Hanna is headed our way (sort of) and I am in the midst of getting the generator installed.
I donated $30 to the Obama campaign. In 2004, I donated some to the Kerry campaign and to the DNC. In 2005 (I think), I donated to my (Republican) cousin running for Board of Supervisors back home.
One of these days, I will learn how to add links and make this blog all purty. Right now, it's time to post regularly. I might start adding hyperlinks to my points, but if any reader is confused or doubts my assertions, just make a comment.
The Palin scandal tap seems to have moderated, but the Republicans are hiding her from just about any situation that cannot be controlled. Smart move. However, the media will continue to vet Palin for us, and Independents and some moderate Republicans may not like what comes out.
The Palin positive potential has already occurred (the base is solidified and women who will support the Sisterhood have coem on board.) I think most of the other Hillary supporters will come on board for Obama, as Palin's initial conciliatory gestures she made in the first 48 hours were booed by the base.
With Palin 100% under lock and key, it will be impossible for anyone to start being impressed with her (as if people vote based on a VP choice, anyway) and either (1) she will be innocent of the various scandals or (2) one of the scandals will really come up and bite her. With the first, there's no plus, and with the second, there is potential for downside, ranging from mild to pretty bad (worst case scenario, Troopergate report reveals hitherto unknown dirt, one other scandal to be named later erupts, and Stevens is found guilty.)
I've heard the Enquirer is digging into the Palin family dirt. Some of it is tabloid fodder. However, if the Enquirer has some evidence about Palin herself having an affair in the past 8-10 years, this might be interesting. For, as you know, character counts and all that.
Hanna is headed our way (sort of) and I am in the midst of getting the generator installed.
I donated $30 to the Obama campaign. In 2004, I donated some to the Kerry campaign and to the DNC. In 2005 (I think), I donated to my (Republican) cousin running for Board of Supervisors back home.
One of these days, I will learn how to add links and make this blog all purty. Right now, it's time to post regularly. I might start adding hyperlinks to my points, but if any reader is confused or doubts my assertions, just make a comment.
The Palin scandal tap seems to have moderated, but the Republicans are hiding her from just about any situation that cannot be controlled. Smart move. However, the media will continue to vet Palin for us, and Independents and some moderate Republicans may not like what comes out.
The Palin positive potential has already occurred (the base is solidified and women who will support the Sisterhood have coem on board.) I think most of the other Hillary supporters will come on board for Obama, as Palin's initial conciliatory gestures she made in the first 48 hours were booed by the base.
With Palin 100% under lock and key, it will be impossible for anyone to start being impressed with her (as if people vote based on a VP choice, anyway) and either (1) she will be innocent of the various scandals or (2) one of the scandals will really come up and bite her. With the first, there's no plus, and with the second, there is potential for downside, ranging from mild to pretty bad (worst case scenario, Troopergate report reveals hitherto unknown dirt, one other scandal to be named later erupts, and Stevens is found guilty.)
I've heard the Enquirer is digging into the Palin family dirt. Some of it is tabloid fodder. However, if the Enquirer has some evidence about Palin herself having an affair in the past 8-10 years, this might be interesting. For, as you know, character counts and all that.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
I posted this on Fark at 9:40pm, and I figured to keep this preserved for posterity.
I'll survive if McCain gets elected. In fact, I'll even stay in America.
I agree with McCain more than Obama on some issues.
I'm pro-life (see: Seamless Garment and Consistent Life Ethic) but I'm willing to see a pro-choice politician oversee a reduction in abortions. The rate of abortions decreased under Clinton and it increased under Bush. I'd hold it doubly against a pro-choice politician if he/she oversaw an increase in the number of abortions.
I don't think coddling Russia does any good, and I am pissed that the US frittered away international goodwill and our ability to react militarily in Iraq. It annoys me when I hear people talk of Russia's right to have a near abroad -- it's as if the opinions of people in the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc., don't matter.
I won't lie, who wouldn't mind seeing more money in their wallet? But if paying more in taxes will help this country prepare for a time when we need to run deficits, then so be it. I don't mind. I've even contributed money to help pay down the public debt (you can deduct it the same as charitable contributions, too.)
I agree with Obama more on environmental issues, trade issues, capital punishment, and Iraq/jihad against Islamic radicalism issues.
But I just can't convince myself that the past eight years have been a success.
While I've done well, it seems many Americans have not.
I want to see a macro-environment where lots of people can succeed. In the late 1990s, even the 20th and 30th percentile of people in terms of ambition and drive were doing well. Today, that bar has gone up to the 40th or 45th percentile. Many Republicans don't seem to care, choosing to blame the victim instead of asking, how can we create a country where there is more opportunity for all.
Reagan gets mocked here a lot -- but it's not as if Carter was tearing up the charts with American success at home and abroad. Instead, Carter blamed the American people. Then Reagan asked, 'Are you better off than you were eight years ago?' and people answered that question at the ballot box.
It was time for the Democrats in 1932.
It was time for the Republicans in 1980.
It is time, I believe, for the Democrats in 2008.
I'll survive if McCain gets elected. In fact, I'll even stay in America.
I agree with McCain more than Obama on some issues.
I'm pro-life (see: Seamless Garment and Consistent Life Ethic) but I'm willing to see a pro-choice politician oversee a reduction in abortions. The rate of abortions decreased under Clinton and it increased under Bush. I'd hold it doubly against a pro-choice politician if he/she oversaw an increase in the number of abortions.
I don't think coddling Russia does any good, and I am pissed that the US frittered away international goodwill and our ability to react militarily in Iraq. It annoys me when I hear people talk of Russia's right to have a near abroad -- it's as if the opinions of people in the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc., don't matter.
I won't lie, who wouldn't mind seeing more money in their wallet? But if paying more in taxes will help this country prepare for a time when we need to run deficits, then so be it. I don't mind. I've even contributed money to help pay down the public debt (you can deduct it the same as charitable contributions, too.)
I agree with Obama more on environmental issues, trade issues, capital punishment, and Iraq/jihad against Islamic radicalism issues.
But I just can't convince myself that the past eight years have been a success.
While I've done well, it seems many Americans have not.
I want to see a macro-environment where lots of people can succeed. In the late 1990s, even the 20th and 30th percentile of people in terms of ambition and drive were doing well. Today, that bar has gone up to the 40th or 45th percentile. Many Republicans don't seem to care, choosing to blame the victim instead of asking, how can we create a country where there is more opportunity for all.
Reagan gets mocked here a lot -- but it's not as if Carter was tearing up the charts with American success at home and abroad. Instead, Carter blamed the American people. Then Reagan asked, 'Are you better off than you were eight years ago?' and people answered that question at the ballot box.
It was time for the Democrats in 1932.
It was time for the Republicans in 1980.
It is time, I believe, for the Democrats in 2008.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I won't go on about Sarah Palin's being unqualified. If McCain can hold on for 12-18 months, I suspect she will be perfectly suitable as President -- she won't be going in without any support and will have Condi and other GOP foreign policy figures to advise her. The 'realists' have defeated the 'neocons' and 'paleocons' in America's internal foreign policy battle. Of course, if McCain doesn't last that long, we could be in for a rough learning curve.
But I do think Palin's selection neutralizes any Republican arguments about Obama's 'lack of experience.' The job, of course, is about judgment, and what sort of experience could possibly prepare someone for
With that said, she does have some baggage, and I'm not kooky enough to go on about how Trig is really Bristol's (first) baby.
The first potential problem is Troopergate. My understanding is that the report on Troopergate is due sometime in October, just when a mistimed sneeze can hit the front pages. So McCain is counting on Troopergate to reveal nothing embarrassing that hasn't already been revealed. A report slamming Palin's actions, but not revealing anything, will help the Democrats some, but nothing like a bombshell could help.
The second potential problem is Dairygate. McCain is assuming that (1) Dairygate won't have some sub-scandal float to the surface or that (2) some new scandal, either political or personal, will not float to the surface.
The biggest problem, however, is not Sarah Palin. It is, rather, her erstwhile Senatorial ally, Ted Stevens.
He seems to want a speedy trial, knowing full well that if his trial is not completed, his Senate career is probably over. On the other hand, anything with an (R) after their name will want this trial completed sometime in November or December.
The Democrats' case to 'let us have the reins' will be made all the stronger with a Stevens conviction as opposed to merely an ongoing trial. I honestly think a timely Stevens conviction will be akin to the Mark Foley case from October 2006. Whether Foleygate's convenient timing was due to a brilliant Democratic strategist who can never be named or due to an angry page/staffer vowing timely revenge on Foley and/or all things Republican will never be known.
Should Stevens be convicted, the news will be amplified as the media and the Democrats unearth every single link between Palin and Stevens. We already know Palin headed a Stevens 529 committee, and the media will surely do a better job vetting Palin than McCain would.
A Stevens conviction at this point will mean President Obama winning with 350+ electoral votes, a 58-59 seat Democrat majority in the Senate, and perhaps 255 seats in the House.
If Foleygate was the work of a shadowy Democratic operative who can never be known, I am nearly certain a salacious scandal is in the wings for October. The Democrats marginally succeeded in 2000 with the Bush DUI, failed miserably in 2004 with the Rather memo, and then hit it out of the park with Foleygate in 2006. Given that most voters have political news as background noise until August/September of an election year, embarrassing items about one party or the other have a magnified impact in swing voters' minds.
Foleygate was brilliant because it hit at one of the core 'Value Voters' issues and came entirely out of the blue. It was also too late to remove Foley from the ballot, so the Dems got a free seat from the deal. The 2000 and 2004 pre-election scandals were really no surprise, as everyone knew Bush was an alcoholic and that his devotion to National Guard service was questionable. No one anticipated Foley. The spin machine had to start from scratch. George Allen's 'macaca' comment was just the icing on the cake, as it enabled the Democrats to get seat #51.
So, let's start wondering what the pre-election scandal will be. Will it be something re-inforcing what we already know, or will it be a bolt from the blue?
But I do think Palin's selection neutralizes any Republican arguments about Obama's 'lack of experience.' The job, of course, is about judgment, and what sort of experience could possibly prepare someone for
With that said, she does have some baggage, and I'm not kooky enough to go on about how Trig is really Bristol's (first) baby.
The first potential problem is Troopergate. My understanding is that the report on Troopergate is due sometime in October, just when a mistimed sneeze can hit the front pages. So McCain is counting on Troopergate to reveal nothing embarrassing that hasn't already been revealed. A report slamming Palin's actions, but not revealing anything, will help the Democrats some, but nothing like a bombshell could help.
The second potential problem is Dairygate. McCain is assuming that (1) Dairygate won't have some sub-scandal float to the surface or that (2) some new scandal, either political or personal, will not float to the surface.
The biggest problem, however, is not Sarah Palin. It is, rather, her erstwhile Senatorial ally, Ted Stevens.
He seems to want a speedy trial, knowing full well that if his trial is not completed, his Senate career is probably over. On the other hand, anything with an (R) after their name will want this trial completed sometime in November or December.
The Democrats' case to 'let us have the reins' will be made all the stronger with a Stevens conviction as opposed to merely an ongoing trial. I honestly think a timely Stevens conviction will be akin to the Mark Foley case from October 2006. Whether Foleygate's convenient timing was due to a brilliant Democratic strategist who can never be named or due to an angry page/staffer vowing timely revenge on Foley and/or all things Republican will never be known.
Should Stevens be convicted, the news will be amplified as the media and the Democrats unearth every single link between Palin and Stevens. We already know Palin headed a Stevens 529 committee, and the media will surely do a better job vetting Palin than McCain would.
A Stevens conviction at this point will mean President Obama winning with 350+ electoral votes, a 58-59 seat Democrat majority in the Senate, and perhaps 255 seats in the House.
If Foleygate was the work of a shadowy Democratic operative who can never be known, I am nearly certain a salacious scandal is in the wings for October. The Democrats marginally succeeded in 2000 with the Bush DUI, failed miserably in 2004 with the Rather memo, and then hit it out of the park with Foleygate in 2006. Given that most voters have political news as background noise until August/September of an election year, embarrassing items about one party or the other have a magnified impact in swing voters' minds.
Foleygate was brilliant because it hit at one of the core 'Value Voters' issues and came entirely out of the blue. It was also too late to remove Foley from the ballot, so the Dems got a free seat from the deal. The 2000 and 2004 pre-election scandals were really no surprise, as everyone knew Bush was an alcoholic and that his devotion to National Guard service was questionable. No one anticipated Foley. The spin machine had to start from scratch. George Allen's 'macaca' comment was just the icing on the cake, as it enabled the Democrats to get seat #51.
So, let's start wondering what the pre-election scandal will be. Will it be something re-inforcing what we already know, or will it be a bolt from the blue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)