Going off Obama big time
I have followed Barack Obama’s career since around a year before he got elected to the Senate in 2004, as even back then people were saying he might be the first Black President of the United States.
He gave a great speech to the 2004 Convention, and I have hoped he would do well enough to one day be elected President, because I do think it should be a great day when an African-American is elected President of the United States. That of course is not reason enough alone to support them, but recognising their legacy of slavery and segregation which didn’t even centuries ago but just in the last generation.
I always thought he should not stand until 2012 or even 2016, when he would have more experience than not even a full term as a backbench Senator. But the opportunity to stand in 2008 became real, and he went for it – and will probably be the Democratic candidate.
I started off as a fairly strong supporter of Clinton over Obama for the Democratic nomination, mainly due to said inexperience. But over the months I started to be far more favourable towards Obama. His speeches were amazing, Clinton was over-exaggerating her own experience and Bill Clinton was starting to over-shadow his own wife and make it look like she was running for a third term for him, not for herself.
I thought a McCain vs Obama contest would be a good outcome, as both men were not creatures of their parties, but their own man.
But I have to say I have gone off Obama in a major major way. Yes he gives good speeches, but his policies are crap, his inexperience keeps showing, and I really don’t know what the guy thinks or will do if in office. I may not like Hillary Clinton, but at least you know what she is.
Mort Kondracke, the Executive Editor of Roll Call, notes:
He’s also now revealed as the most liberal Member of the U.S. Senate — and one who has never, ever departed from party orthodoxy to form the kind of bipartisan coalition he says — correctly — that it will take to solve America’s problems.
Unlike McCain, who has voted against his party often, Obama has never done any major deals with politicians from across the aisle.
Karl Rove (yes I know he is the Prince of Darkness, but he knows his subjects) writes in the Wall Street Journal:
His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.
Mr. Obama’s call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King’s “fierce urgency of now” in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.
Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.
John Judis at the New Republic looks at his electability:
Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn’t crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics–losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn’t vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama. …
Indeed, if you look at Obama’s vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the ’70s and ’80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State’s Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.
Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as “very liberal.” In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among “very liberal” voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost “somewhat conservative” voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.
As mentioned earlier, Obama’s position on every issue is pure “liberal”. His voting record is now the most leftwing in the Senate.
The Washington Post looks at the cost of pledges made by Obama (and Clinton). He has pledged US$333 billion of extra annual spending.
When you add on other pledges Obama is looking to impose extra annual costs of half a trillion dollars, and this is compared to an existign federal budget if $2.9 trillion. So that is an increase which wuld give even Michael Cullen the horrors.
And Obama is a protectionist, as identified by The Independent:
The most extraordinary thing is that Obama has actually been pandering to the “bitterness” he identified – the “anti-trade sentiment”. In the rust belts of Ohio and Pennsylvania the Senator from Illinois has lost no opportunity to blame America’s economic woes on the free-trade treaty with Canada and Mexico (Nafta) – which had been enacted by President Clinton.
Obama is one of three Congressional sponsors of “The Patriot Employer Act”, which seeks to give preferential tax status to American companies that choose not to invest overseas. His anti-globalisation rhetoric goes far beyond criticism of free-trade deals such as Nafta. Obama told voters in New Hampshire:”I would stop the import of all toys from China”. China supplies 80 per cent of the toys sold in the US, so that’s one heck of a pile of embargoed fluffy bunnies.
Why stop at banning the import of toys from China. Just ban everything.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“As mentioned earlier, Obama’s position on every issue is pure “liberal”. His voting record is now the most leftwing in the Senate.”
Bollocks. He supports a pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment!
And the “most liberal” tag is a Republican sham. See: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/31/obama_record/index.html
I read that months ago, and then the very next day who should turn up repeating it over and over again on Faux News? Yup, the evil genius himself.
You should know better than to fall for that sort of garbage.
[DPF: The ACU gives Obama an 8 for his voting record. Now that's great if you are claiming to be a Ted Kennedy, but not great when you claim to be the great bipartisan hope. National Journal gave him a 95.5 for liberalism.
Your claim he is pro-gun just shows you, like most, have fallen for his spin. He has an F from the NRA, and has voted for all but one anti-gun law there is. He has served on the boards of anti-gun groups. Now again that is great if you are claiming to be anti-guns, but your claim he has a pro-gun 2nd amendment stance is pure spin.
Obama is 8th= for most often voting with his party.
The Washington Post record of key votes has Obama voting only twice against his party - once to the left to oppose defence funding and once to restrict class action lawsuits.
Now again this is all an excellent voting record if he wants to campaign as John Kerry. But it is not a voting record that suggests he know anything at all about bipartisan co-operation]
April 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Unlike McCain, who has voted against his party often, Obama has never done any major deals with politicians from across the aisle.
1. Smart candidates work with the opposition.
2. McCain has worked with the opposition.
3. Obama has not worked with the opposition.
4. Therefore, McCain is smarter than Obama.
1. Smart candidates work with good ideas.
2. McCain and Obama are both smart candidates.
3. McCain has worked with the Democrats.
4. Obama has not worked with the Republicans.
5. Therefore, Democrats have better policy ideas.
I’m not sure I see the value in bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake, even in parties so similar as the Democrats and Republicans.
[DPF: The translation of what Ryan says is "the other side are wrong on everything]
April 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
This ‘bittergate’ thing has certainly not helped.
http://savethehumans.typepad.com/weblog/2008/04/president-barac.html
There was talk early on about Obama being wonderful on the first hearing, but the gloss wore off on the second. Maybe that is what has happened – people have got to know him better.
The anti-free-trade rhetoric is not necessarily heart-felt – many politicians say things like that when faced with an audience that expects it. In office it is highly unlikely that he would actually bad imports from China!
So who’s going to win the nomination?!
April 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
been a most interesting campaign season. You have the pretty young black man, who seems to stand for nothing, and has deliberately tied himself to liberal and inflammatory left identity politics throughout his very brief career. He also seems to have a major chip on his shoulder about his dad, and not being black enough. His latest political endorsement was from Hamas incidentally.
On the other side you have a Clinton – calculating, focused, and absolutely dedicated to power for its own sake (why does the Terminator spring to mind).
Both are pandering, and seem to have embraced protectionism.
Hmmm. No thanks.
and for the GOP you have granddad, who has had an amazing personal story of enormous integrity and bravery, who ought to be well past a futher political career, and was responsible for mccain feingold a rather farcical attempt to reform campaign finance, but who seems to be sleepwalking to victory while the democratic party shreds itself.
McCain at believes in free trade, which from a NZ perspective should be very important in deciding which side is in our interest to support.
I have got in the popcorn and booze, its going to be fun to watch.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Nice logic construction Ryan, but it tells us nothing at all. Unless you are seriously suggesting that all the good ideas come from the Democrats – you know, Democrats good, Republicans bad. Funny how the Republicans seem to get somewhere between 45% and 55% of the votes every election though. Maybe all their supporters are stupid too?
April 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Sad really.
I too, even as a right-winger who would oppose almost all of his policies, once had some hopes for Obama as a President who might have a shot at quieting the raucous shouting of the hate-Amerika brigade around the world. That he would be an exemplar of a society that can overcome it’s own limitations and as such, worthy of more respect than it gets.
Hell, just to have an articulate US President would make a nice change, and I felt that his more fanciful themes would, as the saying goes, be mugged by reality once he was in office. And I too also thought he would be formidable if he ran in 2012 or 2016.
In my case this was probably all due to the influence of several leftie friends from Chicago who have adored the guy for years. During a visit to the city last June one of them (a 60’s survivor no less) warned me that the Tribune editorial would gradually move to endorsing Hillary despite any other fawning reporting of Obama it might produce, and that this was simply another example of the traditional racism of that city!!!
However, as pointed out, even these thin hopes seem to be evaporating and the man is turning out to be just another politician. He’s still got the skills and the gifts – but he was supposed to be more than that. Actually I have to chuckle at the fact that I could still have believed such a thing about any politician.
But what is worse is what is now coming out about the associations made during his climb to power – not to mention his very politician-type attempts to divert or obfuscate on these (…….when I was 8 years old…… and so on).
What’s probably more important to note is what all this says about left-wing politics and idealogy nowadays. I thought the following piece particularly appropriate, as well as it’s key question:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/worse_than_jere.html
April 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Just a further thought – one that arises from a Kiwiblog commentator’s disingenuous remark a while back that Ayers was now a ‘respected’ professor at a Chicago university.
Up until now Ayers has been even less known than the Weather Underground movement of which he was a part. But not in Hyde Park, where he has long been a minor celebrity to the local left-activist community. He’s planting mind-bombs nowadays rather than real ones:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html
Not just the poor, but their children, being educated as the future shock troops in remaking US society – a transformative vision of ’social justice’ incorporated into even science and maths – one that appears to already be screwing over the poor in making their way in US society.
All this while a white, male, left-wing git who grew up in comfortable, well-educated surroundings urges them over the top.
It was ever thus.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Obama’s current likelihood of being the Democratic nominee is absolutely astounding in its audacity.
Obama,elected to the senate in 2004, really has been riding on an uncertain cv ever since then. Hillary Clinton was so flawed that very few wise heads would really support her- the Clinton baggage was massive. After all, Bill was impeached and Hillary was the brains trust in that whole “stinky” presidency.
So the good old US press and networks decided to ride the Obama bandwagon, how noble to have the first Afro American nominee. No research and little effort early on to see who this Obama guy is.
Now with Jeremiah Wright, ignorance of small town USA, Obama’s wife’s inane comments,very questionable Chicago backers and his general inexperience, the Democratic party are now left holding a candidate prime for roasting in November from the GOP.
However if the superdelegates reverse the voters desires and support Hillary, look for a violent counterreaction – the black base would withdraw support from the Democrats and stay at home and in the long term create a real problem for the Democrats.
All I say is, this is a typical problem of the “liberal” Democrats eager for a big spending populous candidate. No thought and no real feeling about the feeling and understanding of all the USA just the small elites who think they speak for all.
How the Democrats get out of their mess will be interesting to see, as Hillary Clinton would be barbacued in November as well.Maybe they will have to draft gallant Al Gore, the Don Quixote like individual,who is trying to save the planet.
Well done Howard Dean,Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the nominee heads of the bankrupt US Democratic party.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Obama convinced Illinois Republican legislators to vote for a law requiring police to videotape interrogations. That must have taken some skilled bipartisanship. He’s also worked with Senate Republicans on nuclear non-proliferation.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s major bipartisan achievement was authorising the Iraq war. This is why judgement is more important than experience.
[DPF: I mean in the US Senate. Citing state senate deals as experience for the Presidency is very unconvincing]
April 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Bittergate has only been an issue amongst the media elites. Obama was making the valid point that working class voters are angry at (both sides of) the government for ignoring their economic needs. These voters were intelligent enough to understand what he meant, whatever the condescending media might imagine.
Polls have shown no effect of bittergate. The racist coverage of Wright on the other hand…
[DPF: The point was valid, the way he said it is what was condescending, not the media]
April 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
‘pete’ possibly you are right about bittergate, it does have a bit of an air of a manufactured scandal. Having said that, it really is a worrying look inside the guy’s mind. He must hope that it hasn’t found its way into the mainstream media too much – probably it hasn’t as they mostly love him. He has been a breath of fresh air in US politics and the media like that too.
As for the preacher, come on! That guy is a nut case! Have you read some of the things he has said? What does it say about Obama when his preacher of 20 years vomits such inane negativity about the USA? Surely something.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Money to be made here. CB have Oby @ $1.90, Mc Cain @$2.75.
Watch McC shorten when white middle America has the opportunity to elect as their Pres a fella whose self described mentor and confident for 20 years is a delusional racist.
Look for the trend whose premise is false…and bet against it punters.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
…but why did he have to mention people turning to religion and guns as a reaction to government neglect? Couldn’t he just have said that people are upset and bitter?
And picking up the free trade point, what exactly is he supposed to do? Ban imports? Send warships to China to force them to buy US steel? Surely the only realistic option is for these regions to move with the times.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Are you kidding? It’s all over the mainstream media. I’ve watched way to much CNN these last few days, and it’s all they can talk about.
Less nutty than John Hagee, who has recieved far less media attention.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Because being upset over the economy doesn’t explain why they vote Republican.
He should push for greater worker and environmental protection, as well as health and safety standards, for trading partners. Which will benefit both sides, as trade should.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Contention 1: Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Senate.
The methodology used in these Roll Call like assessments is open to debate and the votes open to interpretation. That noted however, in early assessments he was closer to the centre of the Senate. Clinton herself sits closer to the centre of the Senate. Much to the admiration of the Bush Whitehouse she’s been quite hawkish – she had to prove she would tough enough to be CinC in the age of the war on terror. Obama did move leftwards (votes the Democratic line in the Senate) in advance of his announcement to run. No surprise here its primary politics – Clinton = Washington/support for the war Obama = change new start. Clinton could afford to not vote the Democratic line because she had the nomination wrapped up – she was trying to drop her negatives with independents and republicans.
Contention 2 He’s not bipartisan i.e. he’s a tribal “old Democrat” Democrat.
This is actually about the attractiveness of Obama to some ex Republicans and independents. Rove has beaten this drum – an advisor who has always counselled total partisanship and playing the base. This is actually a message to Republican and Republican leaning voters.
Republican insiders don’t seriously believe it – what they fear is Reagan type cross over appeal. What they also know is the Obama represents a generational shift from boomer generation and post Vietnam culture wars – this divide has been the dominant cleavage in US politics and the Republicans have done well out it. Obama as the Democratic nominee is the start of the end of that cleavage; Obama as President is the end of it.
The Republicans expected to face a candidate that had zero cross over appeal: Clinton. Rove encapsulates this nicely in the piece linked to by DPF:
“Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse”
The Republican establishment also have payback for Obama: his potential killed their candidate Romney and all but gave them McCain (who they neither like or admire or trust) – as Republican primary voters (who are the base) looked to a candidate who could match Obama in cross over appeal.
Contention3: Penn takeout: there was a candidate advantage
Actually no advantage to either Obama or Clinton. Yes she won but eight months ago she was the presumptive nominee. Her campaign remains a shambles and in debt. Obama spent a lot (he is a good fundraising and has better campaign management) and cut her advantage by half but at 9.5% ahead she limps on.
Contention4: His lack of experience is showing
Lack of experience compared to what and in what regard? His campaign is better than Clintons. Politically he has come from being a rank outsider to the presumptive nominee. Saying that Clinton is already experienced to be President even worse than say that Dr Peter Davis could be PM – at least Davis built a career in his own right unrelated to the influence of his wife. The same cannot be said for Mrs Clinton whose entire career flowed from that of her Husband.
Contention5: Obama’s policies are worse than Clinton’s and much much worse than McCains.
In realty Obama and Clinton are largely offering the same product (much like Labour and National here) what they are offering is a difference in personalities and generations (again much like Labour and National here). The Republican platform is only marginally better, and in one area (overseas adventurism) definitely worse. All three are into big government (the Democrats on domestic programmes and McCain on military expenditure – the ability to fight three simultaneous wars).
As Dominic Lawson points out Obama plays to the base on trade issues whereas McCain speaks the truth. Traditionally however the Republicans have favoured free trade. A greater sign of bravery on McCains part is his support of immigration reform which does not appeal to the republican base. The act of bravery on Obama’s part is his campaign itself – Clinton was the unbeatable candidate and the heir.
Contention6: He makes pretty speeches – that’s all.
Well President’s spend a lot of time and energy making speeches and those words carry the might and prestige of the US behind them. Craft together good communication skills and a brain and one has a formidable opponent. His speechifying scares because its better than Bill Clinton and up their with Reagan. He has the swagger the “x” factor that both Mrs Clinton and McCain do not.
Contention7: Bitter = elitist, Wright = lack of judgement etc
The bitter remarks are a beat up all he said is what most US pols know to be true – they’re just more careful about being recorded saying it. However what it indicates (and what republicans fear) is that he is quite good at analysis. Again this makes him a formidable challenge for McCain – who has character but isn’t as bright, isn’t as good a communicator and doesn’t represent the change of leadership to the post boomer generation.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
DPF,
You said: “As mentioned earlier, Obama’s position on every issue is pure “liberal”. His voting record is now the most leftwing in the Senate.”
Note the words “position” and “pure”. A position that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals as well as militia isn’t “pure liberal”, is it? It can’t be, because then a position that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals would be purer than pure.
You responded, “your claim he has a pro-gun 2nd amendment stance is pure spin.”
Where exactly do I say that “he has a pro-gun 2nd amendment stance”? I don’t. I said, “He supports a pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment”, and I stand by that. He then goes on to say that this doesn’t rule out things like controls on automatic weapons.
You also say, “The ACU gives Obama an 8 for his voting record. Now that’s great if you are claiming to be a Ted Kennedy,…”
Wrong again. Kennedy scored a big fat zero! Clinton got an 8 as well, BTW.
You say, “National Journal gave him a 95.5 for liberalism.”
Yeah right. Just like they awarded John Kerry the “most liberal” tag in 2004, and then that became a mandatory Republican talking point. Funny that.
First, they gave Obama that rating for one year only, last year. His rankings over the previous two years were 10th and 16th. So he is not the most liberal senator, but according to that right-wing rag, the most liberal senator for just one year. Second, Obama wasn’t present to vote most of the time, and didn’t. You should know a bit about small samples and unreliability. Third, other, less conservative sources don’t bear out this labelling. GovTrack finds Obama to be a rank-and-file Democrat according to its analysis of bill sponsorship. The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) ratings of Obama’s liberalism declined from 100% in 2005 to 95% in 2006 and 75% in 2007.
The idea that Obama is more liberal than the avowed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is preposterous. It’s worthy of… Karl Rove!
So, DPF, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.
[DPF: Your arguments are inane. Merely because he doesn't think the 2nd amendment can be read to support a total ban on all guns, you think this makes him bipartisan. It's like arguing that because a Republican candidate doesn't support stoning to death of women who have abortions, they are pro women's rights]
April 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Nice logic construction Ryan, but it tells us nothing at all. Unless you are seriously suggesting that all the good ideas come from the Democrats – you know, Democrats good, Republicans bad. Funny how the Republicans seem to get somewhere between 45% and 55% of the votes every election though. Maybe all their supporters are stupid too?
It tells us that there’s not enough information there to derive such dodgy conclusions as “democrats have all the good ideas” or “McCain is smarter than Obama”. It all depends on which dodgy unsupported assumption you begin with – such as “smart candidates work with the opposition”.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
The dream is over
What can I say?
the Dream is Over
Yesterday
I was the Dreamweaver
But now I’m reborn
I was the Walrus
But now I’m John
and so dear friends
you’ll just have to carry on
The Dream is over
Some honesty from J Lennon
April 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
No wonder you dislike Obama if this is where you’re getting your spin. Next you’ll be telling us that “The Corner” is a must read.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The corner is a must read.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
DPF: “Merely because he doesn’t think the 2nd amendment can be read to support a total ban on all guns, you think this makes him bipartisan.”
Where did I say anything at all about “bipartisan”? I merely questioned your assertion that, “Obama’s position on every issue is pure “liberal”.”
If you’d said, say, “Obama is very liberal on most issues”, I would have said “fair comment”.
Instead, you talked in absolutes and mouthed off a conservative distortion about Obama’s voting record that is best placed under the “swiftboat” tag. Not the way to make a compelling argument, except for the true believers.
[DPF: Oh amazing difference. Your great rebuttal is that Obama is not 100% (pure) liberal but only 95% liberal. You are missing the wood for the trees which is that Obama's voting record and history is very very different to the image he tries to portray. Now all politicians can be accused of this to some degree, but Obama is taking this to a new level]
April 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I repeat again the prediction I made before the primary season started …. the race in November is going to be McCain & Huckabee vs Clinton & Edwards and the GOP will win simply because the US isn’t ready for another President Clinton.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I’m still reeling from the shock of McCain’s nomination. As a matter of fact, I’m still pretty much speechless at the bunch of mediocre dimbulbs who fronted up for the Republicans. What can one say about them? Has politics reached such a low that only dumbarses and or power freaks are interested?
As for the Democrat nomination, it doesn’t matter too much. They’re each as bad as the other, pretending to be a lot closer to the center than they really are. The Presidency don’t matter too much either. McCain is just another far left sell out. Obama, Clinton or McCain, there’ll be trouble in River City. Big trouble.
I’ll go out on a limb and predict a Clinton win. (if she doesn’t cock it up somehow) Too many Republicans will just stay home.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
DPF
“The corner is a must read.”
Bloody funny!!!!!
Isn’t it sad that the dopy Dems seem only able to pick flakes for candidates?
Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton 1, Clinton 2.
Poor old Red. Seems he won’t be happy until the GOP puts up John The Baptist.
BTW, what’s with the funny numbers attached to each commenter?
April 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
What is more interesting to me is whether DPF has gone off George W Bush or not. For someone with such a strong interest in American politics he really hasn’t had much to say about the current administration over the last year or two. Bush is now coming to the end of his second term and the silence from DPF on anything relating to the Bush administration has been deafening.
[DPF: Bush has been disappointing. Not for the decision to go into Iraq (which reasonable people could disagree about on the basis of what was known at the time) but for the conduct of the occupation where some strategic blunders were made. Also domestically he has failed to be fiscally prudent, failed to get individual saver accounts and failed to get immigration reform. So his sucesses are very limited - a couple of good Supreme Court nominees, some tax cuts, and keeping the homeland safe from a repeat of 9/11. He is not the worst President ever, but he would be in the bottom quarter I would say]
April 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Redbaiter, the GOP had some great candidates – Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes. And yet the liberal media ignored them, so they didn’t get the media oxygen that fuckups like McCain, Romney and Guiliani got. How surprising. If it wasn’t for my TOTAL faith in the pure, unbiased reporting of the US media, why, I’d suspect they were a fully paid branch of the Democratic-Socialist party, but SURELY not
April 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Redbaiter, the GOP had some great candidates”
Yeah, well maybe. I was hoping against all hope that Hunter would get up, and as a fall back Fred Thompson, although I cooled off on him somewhat. But you’re right, the left/liberal media still has far too much to say during elections. Anyone who doesn’t drink the progressive cool aid is carrying a 50 point handicap to start off with.
BTW, if Clinton wins the White House, George better lock the prize silver cutlery away before he vacates.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Well hopefully Duncan Hunter will have another shot in 2012… regardless of whether so-called ‘Republican’ McCain wins or not
April 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Adolf Fiinkensein (395):
It all started when someone registered as Helen Klark (666). More seriously, I’m guessing it’s got something to do with the user registration number – to differentiate newbies from oldtimers (which, I admit, doesn’t quite account for Redbaiter’s 2475 ranking). Don’t quite see the point of it. Any comments, David Farrar (711)?
April 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Agreed. The shine is starting to dull with the US media (viz. voters) starting to see through the great oratory (and the attractive proposition, in terms of symbolism if nothing else, of the first black president) and realise that he is basically a flake with his only identifiable policies (and you have to look closely to find them) to the far left. This includes trade so from a purely NZ POV I wouldn’t back him.
As I have said before I am backing McCain come November. Clinton’s 10 point win the other day was a great boost – the longer the Donks keep eating their own young the better!
Chris Diack – interesting contribution above. Do not fully agree with it but a useful addition to the debate. Not sure if I agree with the Pavis vs Clinton link. Quite apart from the fact that Clinton is a senator it’s well known that she wore the pants in the White House (indeed one could argue that she is barred from standing as she already has had two terms)!!
April 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“BTW, what’s with the funny numbers attached to each commenter?”
And the numbers, they change! It’s a conspiracy!
Nah, it’s the number of posts.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Obama’s liberal views ahve been exposed on US Bulletin Boards for some time. Many conservatives dislike GW for various reasons but see the policies that Obama has espoused as lacking in any reality check or grasp of economics.
In addition, while his 20 year relationship with the Rev, Wright’s congregation has been highlighted, it’s his friendship with Ayers that is the more frightening.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Quite predictably, this election has come to the “who is worst” scenario. I conclude that no intelligent, capable, honest , brave mover and shaker actually wants the job. So Americans have once again to juggle shysters in the vain hope of continuing a decent standard of living and avoiding being blown up by increasingly violent, remorseless enemies. Jeez, I wouldn’t take the job with bells on! Ah. Being a pollie is a filthy job, but I suppose someone has to do it.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“In the rust belts of Ohio and Pennsylvania the Senator from Illinois has lost no opportunity to blame America’s economic woes on the free-trade treaty with Canada and Mexico (Nafta) – which had been enacted by President Clinton.”
I don’t think that there’s really that much to worry about with either Obama or Clinton with free trade – they both have to at least appear a bit protectionist when they are talking to unionists but in office neither of them are going to deny the benefits of NAFTA etc.
Also Obama has gone after NAFTA for more base political reasons – because he has based most of his campaign on going after the Bill Clinton presidency – he’s tried (and failed because he isn’t) to market himself as the Washington outsider who doesn’t stoop to “politics” and will go to Washington and Unite etc etc. An argument which necessarily entails attacking every other Democrat “insider” and especially Bill Clinton, for obvious s reasons. That Obama is actually a Senator and therefore a Washington insider is as slight problem with all of that but it’s a marketing strategy that has worked to a degree.
And a quick look at his early political career shows he can be as ruthless and economical with the truth as any other politician –
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
There is a bit of a growing concern amongst Dems that Obama will face a greater challenge come Nov that Hillary –
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/26/21548/1865
April 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
There’s another problem for the super delegates, Counting the disenfranchised Michigan and Florida voters CLinton is ahead in the popular vote.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Alas mara “a decent standard of living” may be America’s impossible dream in the next 50.
Helicopter Ben’s deliberate longterm US$ down trend means the US is attempting to inflate away debt.
Holders of $USs know what’s going on. See China.
A story that may mean reality is running way ahead of the financial press.
A matey in ME was looking for some of the supposed distressed US residential property to spend his tax free money on.
A bank in Florida had 2 props for sale @ $320k each, he put in a joke bid for $102k each and got them both.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“[DPF: Bush has been disappointing. Not for the decision to go into Iraq (which reasonable people could disagree about on the basis of what was known at the time) but for the conduct of the occupation where some strategic blunders were made."
If finally getting it right means anything, then he's been better than Lincoln, although similar in going through generals till he got the right one. And there he has an edge too, over other presidents who never did recognise quality and innovation when they saw it.
"Also domestically he has failed to be fiscally prudent, "
Yep.
"failed to get individual saver accounts and failed to get immigration reform."
Rather Congress failed. Whether a more articulate president could have succeeded is also doubtful in the face of the "me" generation.
"So his sucesses are very limited - a couple of good Supreme Court nominees, some tax cuts, and keeping the homeland safe from a repeat of 9/11. He is not the worst President ever, but he would be in the bottom quarter I would say]”
Top quarter, like Truman. His achievements are planet changing. The Middle East and it’s external terrorism was stopped in it’s tracks. He has the expansionist Iran surrounded in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and has bottled up Syria.
He’s done more for Africa than any previous president and has finally given Asia some assurance that America won’t run away from committments either overt or covert.
Could he have done better? Yes, most obviously in communication and fiscal prudence, but it’s difficult to fight two hot wars and several cooler ones whilst playing nice with a Western world that has lost it’s culture and sense of morality.
JC
April 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Cherry-picking, justified by post-hoc reasoning.
The media were very condescending during bittergate — millionaire northeastern media elites pretending solidarity with midwestern working class Americans.
Did you hear Clinton in her acceptance speech tell them they should be proud to have the fewest vacation and sick days in the developed world? And Obama is condescending?
Given the people involved in the invasion, would any reasonable person have expected any different?
April 27th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
JC , probably correct.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“it’s difficult to fight two hot wars and several cooler ones whilst playing nice with a Western world that has lost it’s culture and sense of morality.”
Damn good post Mr. Cawston.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Counting the disenfranchised Michigan and Florida voters CLinton is ahead in the popular vote.”
There’s going to be an attempt to solve this curly one at the DNC Rules committee on May 31.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/26/122555/394
Any reasonable solution would benefit Hillary as she won both primaries but Obama would do better than he would have otherwise as he’d get the benefit of the Edwards voters who voted “uncommitted” in Michigan. (Obama did some tricky bit of politicking with the Michigan party hierarchy and took his name off the ballot and talked Edwards into doing the same – they got their supporters to vote “uncommitted”). Hillary got 60%. He’d get the other 40%.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
*sigh* ahhh, David, always behind the times….
As for Redbaiter, his complaints about McCain are ludicrous. If McCain was the National Party leader, he (and I) would be praising him to the high heavens. Hell, he manages to make ACT look left wing by comparison. Just because Ann Coulter (May She Bear My Children) doesn’t like him, doesn’t mean he’s no good.
Read this for some perspective:
http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/mulholland_drive/2008/03/stop-the-mccain.html
April 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
JC – good post.
Just to argue around the periphery – Pretorious said right from the start that they needed more troops. Franks (no doubt pushed by Rumsfield who had some weird concept of a quick/limited war) threatened to sack him. Indeed a large number (I forget, i think over 20) Generals resigned over the Iraq war plan. In short the focus was on toppling Saddam with very little thought to the next step which required around another 100,000 troops (as in the numbers there now). That has made Iraq a longer and costlier war in my view AND has left Afghanistan unwon. At the time, on the information to hand, I supported the Iraq war but I am disappointed with the lack of post-war planning.
On the plus side, as you note, America has (finally) backed up a committment for the long haul and if it can bring about some form of stability to Iraq (not a given with both domestic and military pressures) it may well serve as a bulwark against Iran, Syria and Middle East terrorism. Time will tell on that.
The greatest tragedy would be for a new president to simply pack up the troops and go home. It would be like blasting a tunnel at great expense with huge loss of life and then going home because it’s too hard to put the railway in. The nominees can blast away at each other all they like on who voted to go to war but the upshot is that America started the damn thing and they have an obligation to finish it and that should apply whether you thought it was a good idea or a bad idea. Do any of these populists who go on about bringing the troops home actually have a plan for how that is going to work or do they just say something vague about the Iraqi govt should do it and then play three monkeys?
April 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Here’s a good little article about Obama’s problems:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020384.php
And ‘pete’ re your comment: He should push for greater worker and environmental protection, as well as health and safety standards, for trading partners. Which will benefit both sides, as trade should.
This shows contempt for international trade. The idea is partly that different countries have different standards in these areas. Were we to take your advice, we would import nothing from China and neither would the USA. Non-tariff barriers are a key impediment to trade.
To take this further imagine a third world country exporting bananas. For internal supply they would just do their normal thing. For export they would need hugely costly environmental controls, much higher wages and a large lobbying group in the capital of each trading partner. These sorts of costs disproportionately disadvantage such countries. Have you ever found that a decent coffee is ridiculously expensive in a dodgy country? It is for the same reason – you are so far about the ‘normal’ market in that country that you have only the 1% political elite for company. Just getting a clean cup is an enormous expense when all the rest are dirty.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
This presidential election will be decided by four factors: 1) who is the most electable; 2) who can address, much less solve the myriad (some self-made, some not) problems inherited from the W. Bush administration; 3) who brings the best team to the game next January; and 4) unforeseen intervening events between now and November that could alter the dynamic of the race (including the always possible “October Surprise” and “Wag the Dog” scenarios). I shall briefly address them in order.
1) Electability. Barack Obama has mobilised new constituencies and re-energised the Democratic grass-roots. He has not, however, had as much success in attracting the support of the broad middle of American voters, the so-called Reagan Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans, that will be decisive in this campaign and who vote as much on bread and butter issues as they do on moralistic grounds. He is perceived as a major threat by conservative whites, be they religious or not. Hillary Clinton has the middle ground better covered and can afford to trade-off some of the new black constituency (a total of just 17% of the US population, and not all of them are descendants of slaves) for the Hispanic vote that she has cultivated for many years. Her appeal and her “appall” are both equally broad based–the voters either love her or they hate her. John McCain is a sympathetic figure, war hero in person and independent of mind in persuasion. But he is intensely disliked by the right wing of his own party and outside of security issues is considered to be less informed than his rivals. His age and health, unfortunately, are factors. As a Republican he is stuck with the W. Bush legacy much more so than either Democratic candidate (hence his trying to put distance between himself and most of Dubya’s policies). Advantage in November: Clinton.
2) Fix the mess. This was an election that the GOP could afford to lose. Put up a decent fight with a candidate such as McCain (who is rewarded for his service with a run at the presidency as his swan song), but lose because the problems left by the W. Bush administration are so severe so as to cripple any successor. The GOP can wait four years as the Democratic administration founders, then run a revitalised campaign with a new face that has little connection to the debacles of the W. Bush era. Thus, if the mess is going to be fixed within the next four years, it will be Democrats who most likely will have to do it. McCain still has not shown a desire for dramatic change, and Mr. Obama only speaks of change (and hope) without specifying the details. For example, does anyone really believe, given what he would inherit, that Obama will summarily withdraw US troops from Iraq as promised? If he does not he betrays his constituents. If he does he looks weak to foreign opponents and unreliable to allies. Similarly, is McCain serious when he likens the occupation of Iraq to the US military presence in South Korea and Germany? His lack of historical depth and understanding of political context would be of comfort to opponents and frightening to allies. Mrs. Clinton wants to straddle that bridge–between pragmatism in dealing with the situation at hand (both domestically and abroad) but interested in changing the ways in which the US engages policy in both arenas. That could be tricky. But here again, the advantage seems to be hers. In part that is because…
3) …of who will have the best team. The issue of governance is not about the talking head in the Oval Office, it is more about the policy management team surrounding him or her. McCain could attract previously displaced moderate Republican cabinet officers, returning after the demise of the neoconservative-Christian conservative coalition that dominated W. Bush administration until the 2006 mid-term elections. Most important for NZ, he will bring a more realist, as opposed to neoconservative perspective to foreign affairs, and is of course pro free trade. He will not be as prone to appoint right-wing Supreme Court justices, and his social policies will be less regressive than that of the last eight years. Ms. Clinton will assemble the best Democratic policy team in the last 40 years, better than her husbands because they have been blooded by the experiences in and out of office. It will be significant in the field of foreign affairs–watch for much more multilateral and “soft power” approaches– but it will be most dramatically felt in domestic politics (even more so than McCain). Mr. Obama has the problem of being a self-defined “outside agent of change.” Should he win, the very people he now accuses of being part of the problem will of necessity have to be part of his solution (given the relative dearth of expertese in his campaign). That invites rejection by Democratic policy managers, or, even if the Democratic power-hungry join his team, a modification of his policy prescriptions (such as they are). Again, that courts resentment amongst his supporters who feel that they deserve what they voted for: whole-scale change. This consideration–who each candidate will bring with them–will loom larger the closer we get to the election. Thus, in terms of the management team who will be brought in to fix the mess, Clinton holds a slight advantage over McCain.
4) Intervening events. Anything that threatens the US between now and November will be favourable to McCain. That includes economic as well as military security threats. The simple reason is that the W. Bush administration will have the first response and whoever inherits the mantle will have to shoulder the burden of that response as well as its consequences. Under such conditions relative continuity of policy as opposed to change is the American voter’s preferred option. The only scenario that would alter this is if the W. Bush administration is caught, before November, in the stage-managing of a diversionary event. That would doom McCain’s chances and hand the election to the Democrats.
There are obviously many other independent and intervening variables that will influence the run-up to the second Tuesday in November. I cannot do justice to them here. Instead, it seems to me that the four general themes outlined above will be the key to reading how things will turn out on that day.
In sum, with apologies for the length of the post, this is an election for the Democrats to lose, but which they are very well capable of losing due to their partisan in-fighting. Yet the Republicans are not entirely sure that they do, in fact, want to win this particular race (as many rabid conservative media pundits have stated), so it would take a really epic internecine conflict to derail the Democratic march to the presidency (barring again, an intervening externality to the campaign). Advantage in November: Democrats, assuming they can get their act together and unite after the convention.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“If McCain was the National Party leader, he (and I) would be praising him to the high heavens”
Is it too much to allow people to speak for themselves? Mccain is a Democrat. Fuck him. I’d never support him. I’ve had it up to here with weak leftist compromisers. These are the useless inarticulate no idea slow thinking bastards who need to be held to account for the left’s almost total domination of the western political scene.
- He wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay and liberate hundreds of terrorists
- He demands that no terrorist interrogation be “degrading” FFS..!!! Obviously the people forced to jump from the Twin Towers would appreciate that.
- He wants to give amnesty and social security to 20 million illegal immigrants
- Since 1998, only four Republican senators have had worse ACU (American Conservative Union) scores than John McCain- Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. Look them up and see what liberal fuckwits they are.
- McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts twice.
- He wants to limit drilling for oil in Alaska and other “environmentally sensitive” areas.
- He advocates for the global warming scam.
- He pioneered the McCain Feingold legislation, a direct attack on freedom of expression
- So desperate to grovel to the far left, he attacked the Swift Boats ads on John Kerry as “dishonest and dishonorable”. They weren’t either.
- He has compared President Bush to Clinton, implying he was a twister of the truth. Once again playing straight into the hands of the hard left.
If you agree with all of the above, you’d vote for McCain. I know you’re pretty confused Blair, but really, are you that badly fucked up??
Oh, and one other thing. He can’t be trusted. I wouldn’t believe any promises he made concerning what he might do if elected. Its what politicians do that counts, not what they say, and McCain over the years, has done nothing other than prove he is an unrecoverable lefty.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Thanks Paul – a great comment.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
The “Reagan Democrats” problem is completely overstated. Clinton beats Obama amongst working class whites more because she’s a very strong candidate with that group, than because Obama is particularly weak.
The idea that working class preferences run Clinton > McCain > Obama is a result of media elites over-estimating there own blue-collar cred.
If I’m wrong in that analysis, Obama could always choose someone like Edwards as VP.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
David has realised Barack Obama is a bit of a lefty.
I think this sudden realisation tells us more about you thn him David.
On the election, assuming Obama wins the nomination he has the big trump card. The failed war in Iraq. McCain is tied to Bush, the president with the lowest approval rating of any sitting US head of state in history. Despite the recent “surge” propaganda the war is more unpopular than it ever was.
Tying the obscene cost of the war to the decline in the US economy should not be beyond even the Democratic party. They could still blow it, but McCain, despite his free ride over the last few months, is still only scoring 40%-45%. That can only go down.
Pat Buchanan summed up McCain’s weaknesses amongst even core Republican voters very well.
“The jobs are not coming back, the immigrants are not going home, but expect a lot more wars”
Not really a winning platform.
I also found Paul’s comments interesting especially especially the idea that this is a bad election to win (I remember a similar meme when the Tories fluked the 1992 vote in the UK) anyone coming in facing the economic meltdown that may happen will have to inflict such pain on the electorate that it will take a decade to shake off the blame.
I wonder if that thought Keeps Mr Key awake at night.
[DPF: Great to see Sonic is conceding the election already and trying to make a loss look like a good thing]
April 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
If I’m wrong in that analysis, Obama could always choose someone like Edwards as VP
There was a famous physicist (Fermi I think), who had a well-known phrase that other physicists feared hearing – that their analysis was “not even wrong”. That’s about where I’d put the one above.
The idea that ‘working class’ preferences (and the term ‘blue-collar’ is a better one for the US) run towards any modern Democrat among the general election population (as opposed to Democratic primary voters) simply does not measure up beside the $100 million wealth of the Clintons, Michele Obama’s complaints about how tough life is on a $300,000 per year income, and the multi-millionaire trial lawyer Edwards in his 25,000 square foot mansion.
When a candidate has pounded the blue collar counties of Pennsylvania as much as Obama did, both in meetings and TV ads, and still come such a distant second in those areas to someone like Clinton, and when he’s pulling so strongly with high-income voters, then it is most certainly a sign of weakness with blue collar voters.
As far as Edwards is concerned, no one else focused as much as he did on this group, and he failed completely, which means those voters either are not there in sufficient numbers or (more likely) they simply refused to associate the rhetoric with the hairstyle. In fact his attempts to ingratiate himself with blue-collar voters were regarded as an embarrassment. There is no reason to think he would add to the appeal as the VP candidate any more than he did as Kerry’s Veep nominee.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
- He wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay and liberate hundreds of terrorists
One is not the same as the other. Gitmo is a political liability, and McCain recognises this. I don’t think this makes him soft on terrorists. But it does make him a man who respects the rule of law. Surely that is what America should be fighting for?
- He demands that no terrorist interrogation be “degrading” FFS..!!! Obviously the people forced to jump from the Twin Towers would appreciate that.
America has never needed torture to win wars… up until now. What makes the WoT different? You can’t gain anything from a confession under torture. We didn’t defeat Hitler this way, and don’t need to defeat Bin Laden this way either.
- He wants to give amnesty and social security to 20 million illegal immigrants
And the alternative is? Those people are vital to the American economy. Deport them and you destroy the livelihood of millions. McCain is smart enough to look past the redneck bluster and recognise this. Immigrants who don’t bleed state resources (which constitute the majority of them) should be welcomed and given amnesty.
- Since 1998, only four Republican senators have had worse ACU (American Conservative Union) scores than John McCain- Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. Look them up and see what liberal fuckwits they are.
I don’t think one lobby group holds the monopoly view on what is a conservative.
- McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts twice.
The US Treasury is in debt. Personally I disagree with that decision, but it is justifiable. Why not decrease spending before cutting taxes?
- He wants to limit drilling for oil in Alaska and other “environmentally sensitive” areas.
Nobody is perfect.
- He advocates for the global warming scam.
Examples please.
- He pioneered the McCain Feingold legislation, a direct attack on freedom of expression
Yes. He is a dick. But not as much as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
- So desperate to grovel to the far left, he attacked the Swift Boats ads on John Kerry as “dishonest and dishonorable”. They weren’t either.
As an ex serviceman I can understand his perspective, while still thinking those attacks were valid.
- He has compared President Bush to Clinton, implying he was a twister of the truth. Once again playing straight into the hands of the hard left.
Well hello?
April 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Yep, as you apparently agree with McCain on so many issues, I can see why you might want to vote for him. I disagree with them all. (as I disagree with your opinions) I would never vote for McCain.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
So, could you please share with us exactly what Hillary Clinton is? Her last major policy initiative was healthcare reform — and she made an utter hash of that. While you’ve dismissed simple facts in the past, it’s a simple reality that Clinton’s sole experience of elected office is one and a half terms as the junior Senator from New York. And I’m yet to see any evidence that another Clinton Presidency is going to see a renaissance of fiscal conservatism.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I’m sure there’s a middle ground somewhere between “import nothing from China” and giving lead-based toys to your children.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Sonic:
According to Lord AlanBrooke, the CIGS at the time, when Churchill went to sleep during WWII he said words to the effect “Buggar everyone,” and drifted off.
I guess it depends on whether you’re in the game for yourself or for the country.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Excellent contribution from Dr Buchanan……. give that man his job back.
1) Electability Clinton, Obama & McCain
Theoretically Clinton might have an advantage (depending on how one constructs the assessment criteria) in November her problem is getting there.
We know Clinton polarises and as Rove as pointed out her negatives are high and have remained so. Both McCain and Obama have independent appeal potential. Obama is not as bright and shiny as he started off as but that was always going to happen.
Obama supporters represent a demographic that is smaller than Clintons if extrapolated from Penn turnout to nationwide – the young in particular can be fickle in turnout. However it’s the future of the Democratic party and Clinton’s support largely represents the past.
Clinton supporters (who may well be ex Clinton supporters at the general) have a habit of voting and are unlikely to stay at home if their preferred candidate doesn’t win. I don’t put much store in “I won’t vote for the other guy if he/she is my party’s nominee” polls of Democrats – I think partisan supporters of each candidate would say that at the moment while both are still live.
The issue is how the impasse is resolved – I suspect that whoever bows before the other will have to decide whether to go nasty or nice. It’s more tempting for Clinton to go nasty (it fits the sense of entitlement and the pattern in the primary) as her chances of ever leading again are zero. Look at Bill Clinton today on the race issue – strong chances of Après moi le déluge if Clinton must bow out – that will play badly with Democrats. Obama still has hope if he is required to bow out.
2) & 3) The withdrawal method ….. Iraq that is.
Clinton has promised an almost immediate withdrawal too – in fact she’s gone further in setting a tighter timeframe than Obama. I doubt anybody seriously believes either. But nor is a South Korea, Japan or Germany like permanent stationing scenario likely to work in Iraq either. Trying to station large numbers of foreign troops in Muslim countries doesn’t seem to work.
Can Obama attract a good foreign policy team – you beta ya – as the Democratic nominee he’s still the biggest game in town and if he looks like a winner wow it will be exciting trying to rebuild American prestige and influence. I doubt most of his voters will be concerned about a greater subtlety in foreign policy – they will be overjoyed he’s there – the programme matters but so does the symbolism of his Presidency. I doubt he will much different from previous Presidents on free trade or stem the flow of Chinese goods because then Chinese would no longer be in the position to continue the purchase of US government debt nor to buy into failing US financial institutions.
4) Intervening events – domestic and foreign.
Can the Republican’s escape responsibility for the economic situation – I am not so sure. The problem with the Government as first responder to economic problems is the options open to government are limited. Any Republican response is likely to be economically literate and therefore unlikely to have immediate affect. McCain tried to be principled and economically literate on the subprime issue and then lost his nerve. Will Bush do something that is a populist response to an economic problem when the advice is it won’t work…. I don’t think that’s in character. Thus any first response to a big economic problem is going to have to be both popular and economically literate – a tall order.
Agreed on the any act of terrorism – that will play to McCain’s benefit he’s the National security candidate. Many US voters would probably correctly perceive it as an attempt to influence their vote.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:18 am
“He did poorly among Catholics–losing them 71 to 29 percent.”
Um – you’re quoting a guy who doesn’t appear to know that Clinton’s a Catholic DPF? And you also quote the nefarious McRove? If these are the “pundits” that you’re basing you’re opinions on perhaps you should be looking elsewhere?
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2007/08/rove_family_man.html
[DPF: You are wrong. Do you ever checks facts before your assertions. She is Methodist.]
April 28th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Yeah, but influence it in which direction?
The “destroy America” faction will want McCain, in the hope that he’ll do as much damage to America as Bush.
The “get the infidels out of our land” faction will want Obama, on account of his plan to get the infidels out of their land.
Since an attack will favour McCain, the first faction will want to make an attack. But the mess in Iraq means that most of the new recruits are from the second faction.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Catholic????
News to me. I was living in the US during Bill’s 1992 run for the presidency and I could have sworn they were both Protestant – Hill’s nominally a Methodist I think!
In any case it’s a nonsense: occasional church attendance and the right noises. Given everything else we know of her history I’d bet she’s at least an agnostic, probably even a stone atheist.
Oh well, if current affairs knowledge is gained from Flash cartoons set to rap music in Mother Jones………..
April 28th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Am I the only one terrified by Redbaiters posts? At least with D4j there’s a chance he might be kidding…….
Citing Mccain’s desire to ensure humane treatment of those in Gitmo as a negative. Human Decency is suddenly a vote loser these days.
In terms of Obama, I think for someone as left wing as him, there hasn’t been a better time to run for president in years. Bush has been such a failure, economically, morally, militarily, diplomatically, that people are convinced major changes are needed. So someone completely different to Bush, both in rhetoric, presentation and policy, has a great shot at being elected, even if it’s just on “It’s time for a change” sentiment and his likability (Though look how far that’s got John Key).
When discussing Obama’s “big government” ideas, I think DPF hasn’t really given Obama credit for the things he does want to do to cut government spending, in order to fund his policies. Ending the war in Iraq etc will leave some big money in the coffers. Not enough so Obama won’t increase spending overall, but enough that figures like the half trillion a year increase being tossed around aren’t really accurate.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:17 am
“Am I the only one terrified by Redbaiters posts ?”
Am I the only one terrified by the fact that every Political Science student is a subliminally mindfucked Leftist, mindlessly spewing trendy Leftist pieties and talking points ?
April 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Yes Grant you are.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Don’t often agree with Chris Diack but his 11.56 is spot on especially comment re Buchanan.
Roger Nome … wrong again old son (its becoming somewhat tedious pointing this out) Clinton’s are not Catholic … Bills a Southern Baptist while Hillary is a Methodist. Why can’t you guys from the 9th Floor get your basic research right?
April 28th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Yes Grant you are.
No he isnt.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Kindly refer to this comparison of current US Senators:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr09.html
In terms of dreaded “liberalness” Obama and Hillary are unexceptional (and pretty much identical). Also note that McCain is not this moderate some people seem to think he is. Any traces of “maverickness” he might have had were extinguished by his desperate attempt to sell his soul to get the support of the Republican Establishment (which had shafted him in 2000).
It really is hilarious how many utterly clueless individuals have bought into the Republican line about Obama being “most liberal Senator”. The US Right always arranges it so that any lists they produce have the Democratic Presidential nominee as “most liberal …” It then becomes a talking point circulated among talkback radio (which in the US is even more full of right-wing crackpots than in NZ), and so a part of the campaign of whomever happens to be the Republican nominee.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Out of the 3 remaining candidates IMHO Obama is the least equipped to be President.
1. Too inexperienced. What has he ever run that qualifies him to be the President?
2. Doesn’t take a punch very well and doesn’t know how to knock opponents out either. His new politics seems to have am unwanted elitism about it.
3. Doesn’t know how to put lingering issues to bed that are hanging over him.
4. Most important of all he’s too far over to the left.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
“Am I the only one terrified by the fact that every Political Science student is a subliminally mindfucked Leftist, mindlessly spewing trendy Leftist pieties and talking points ?”
Actually, we should be outraged. This is a disgraceful perversion of the purpose of the education system that extends right through from pre school. The left cannot win the argument on rational grounds. They have to indoctrinate our children.
Everywhere leftists are in control, education and children are at risk. Why I find it hard to have any feeling but contempt for leftists. Of course the indoctrination only lasts a relatively short period, unless you’re a complete and utter dumbfuck.
Shame is, there’s far too many of them fit into that category. With only half an education, and socially cloistered from any opposing viewpoint, they therefore have only half a frame of political reference, and go clod hopping about the globe on their mission to change the world, and with their shallow, barbaric and ignorant perceptions only end up utterly fucking it up for people not similarly indoctrinated.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Grant S (8:17am) – you are not alone! It’s painfully obvious for all to see.
Sonic (8:30am) – sorry old chap, wrong again! 0/10
April 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Wait hang on Redbaiter, so the reason I think it is worrying that people think attempts to uphold humane treatment of prisoners are a reason not to vote for someone is because I’ve been brainwashed by the evil left that runs the school system?
Huh…I guess your right, they did teach us “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” in primary school. My god…..
As for the “All political Science students are leftist” arguments, I thank God it isn’t true. The most interesting thing about taking pols courses is getting to debate politics with those who don’t agree with you, in a forum that encourages rational presentation of arguments.
I realise it’s tempting too view anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or brain washed, but that’s just not how the world works. And to think that it does….well thats the part that scares me.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Poor 3-coil, no-one has ever moved in minus numbers on reading, until now!
hayden, don’t worry about ratbleater, even his own side is embarrassed by him.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“I realise it’s tempting too view anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or brain washed, but that’s just not how the world works. And to think that it does….well thats the part that scares me.”
Maybe if your schooling had been an educational experience rather than an induction into socialist society, you’d realize how completely you have contradicted yourself in the above paragraph. Half educated. Fully indoctrinated.
That aside, there’s a rational argument for Guantanamo and that you apparently don’t know of it is proof of your one dimensional approach to global politics. The discussions you refer to were obviously extremely limited in their scope and no doubt were designed to produce pre-determined outcomes. Outcomes that of course were subtely consistent with leftist doctrine.
..and don’t worry about Sonny. He spends all his time here desperately labeling anyone who criticizes socialism as an extreme right lunatic. Entirely predictable and like a goat who keeps butting the same old tree.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Of course theres a rational argument for Gitmo. There’s a rational argument for everything, that doesn’t make the argument convincing. But hey, I came here for discussion, so why in your view should Gitmo be kept open?
And I don’t think there is a contradiction in what I wrote. You yourself in this very thread said you felt nothing but contempt for anyone on the left. Nothing but contempt doesn’t exactly imply your ready to listen to reason does it? If you don’t mind me asking, where were you schooled, that you were so lucky as to avoid indoctrinisation?
Again though, your tendancy to right off anyone who doesn’t agree with you as an idiot is showing through, especially when you say “that you apparently don’t know of it is proof of your one dimensional approach to global politics.” What makes you think I havn’t heard the argument for Gitmo staying open before, if not a thousand times. Is it not possible I have heard it and simply don’t find it convincing, given the black mark it leaves on the reputation of the US, especially in the Arab world, at a time when they need to be ‘winning hearts and minds”.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“There’s a rational argument for everything, that doesn’t make the argument convincing.”
So to you, a rational argument would be unconvincing. Very strange. What is it with you then? Feelings?
“Nothing but contempt doesn’t exactly imply your ready to listen to reason does it?”
Actually I listen FOR reason, but see precious little of it from your side of the political fence.
“If you don’t mind me asking,”
I do.
“your tendancy to right off”
A spelling mistake and a context mistake. Its “tendency and “write”. See what I mean? So well schooled in left wing political perceptions but hopeless at English. Without such basics, how can you hope to understand and appreciate complex and sophisticated arguments? You’re just putty in the hands of leftist indoctrinators.
“given the black mark it leaves on the reputation of the US”
A left liberal media perception that mentally damaged sloths like you suck up with glee and is rooted in extreme left wing hate America propaganda.
“at a time when they need to be ‘winning hearts and minds””
..and yet another nauseating left liberal media cliché. These misconceptions are the foundations of your opinions, yet they’re all extremely subjective and contentious. Why are you so certain therefore that you are right??
April 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Apologies for the spelling mistakes, they have more to do with the fact I’m typing while watching TV, and an admitted laziness when it comes to proof reading, than any problems with my education. Also, can I just say I’m glad we are getting into a bit more of a serious discussion here, as I do find the things you are saying quite interesting.
An argument can be rational, yet unconvincing. An example of this I ran into just the other day is the ontological argument for the existence of God. Logically sound if presented right, but not enough to convince me to run to church this coming Sunday. It’s the same thing with the argument for Gitmo. A strong argument can be made it is useful, and that the techniques there can stop potenital terrorist attacks. But there are counter arguments to that, such as the inhumane treatment of the detainees, that convince me it should be closed.
there were quote marks around hearts and minds for the very fact that it is something of a cliche. That of course doesn’t change the fact that America needs support from those in the Arab world, and that the outrages at Gitmo are used by their enemies as recruiting tools, while eroding vital public support support for the War on Terror (Which I do support in principle by the way). Is the idea that a democratic government may need the support of it’s citizens to enact policies a liberal misconception? Or am I wrong in saying that there are many people opposed to Gitmo?
Again I repeat the request for you to lay out you’re argument for why Gitmo should stay open. Who knows, you might be the one to convince me I’ve been wrong. It has happened before.
And it’s fine if you don’t want to discuss your educational background, although it does seem a little unfair, since mine seems to be fair game for discussion.
Also found some interesting stuff on the budget here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27fiscal.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
April 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“Clinton was over-exaggerating ”
tsk tsk, the pesky little tautological wench.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I’m a little late to this thread ironically because I am on a visit to New Zealand and have been incredibly busy. I enjoyed David’s comments and Paul Buchanan’s post. I was never ‘on’ Obama so never went off him. As his defenders from the left on this blog admit, he’s a lefty. That, and all it encompasses, is why he’ll lose to McCain. I have come to the view that, baring something new and even more damaging than Rev Wright and Bittergate (entirely possible), Obama will be the nominee. Clinton will not give up without a fight and will do all she can to inflict mortal damage on Obama to enhance her chances in 2012 but ultimately, the super delegates will break his way. If the remaining primaries break the way the RCP average polls indicate and if the Florida vote is counted, Clinton will win a narrow plurality of the popular vote but Obama will still hold a handy lead in pledged (or elected) delegates.
Obama cannot prevail in the fall for the following reasons:
1. There are more McCainocrats than Obamicans. The Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries (key battleground states that Obama has to win in the fall to be President) show us that both states have too many older, working class Catholic Democrats who gave Clinton her strong victories in both States who will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. When reputable polls show almost 30% of registered Democrats will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, the Dems have a MAJOR problem.
2. There are twice as many over 60’s voters than voters aged 18 – 29. In PA (and across the country) Obama managed to greatly boost the youth vote but it was still out voted almost 2 – 1 by the oldies. In election after election, the youth vote promises much and never delivers because they are the lowest voting age chort. Over 60’s in comparison are the most motivated cohort and will vote for McCain in huge numbers.
3. No one has ever run for President with such a thin resume. The only candidate to even come close is Eisenhower but he had D-Day as his calling card. JFK had 14 more years in Congress (both Houses) on Obama PLUS he too was a war hero.
4. Obama is the furtherest to the left than any previous Democrat candidate. The US electorate is slightly to the centre-right and so he is out of synch with the electorate. He can only disguise his lefty positions so far by fawning media coverage. The fate of other left leaning Dem Presidential candidates is well documented (Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry). Many of his more extreme positions have not been exploited by Clinton because she is a lefty as well. McCain will have no such problem. Obama’s lone failure to support the Infant Born Alive Act equivalent in Illinois before he was a Federal Senator places him to the left of Ted Kennedy and the highly liberal California senators Boxer and Feinstein
5. His troublesome associations betray his far left ideological roots providing the GOP and 527’s with a rich treasure trove of video footage for the General Election. Rezko, Wright, Ayers/Dohrn … and maybe more to follow. Wright is a gift that keeps on giving. He says he was misquoted or quoted out of context and yet reading the entirety of his more notorious speeches (the “Goddam America” and “chickens coming home 9/11″ sermons) are even more chilling than the oft repeated clips.
6. Obama is a peacenik dove and his policy to withdraw the troops from Iraq now runs against the slow movement of US opinion in favour of backing Petraeus’ strategy – a strategy that McCain advocated before anyone else and support for which became a tailwind that assisted him greatly in the GOP primary. Add to this his war hero/POW status and its a slam dunk in favour of McCain on the all important issue of national security.
7. Obama has used soaring rhetoric to make up for his thin legislative record. This invites even greater scrutiny than normal of his associations and history. The cumulative weight of his gaffes and far left associations have stripped him of his messiah-like purity and have rendered him as just another pandering politician.
8. He has a tin ear (the bitter clinging to guns and God comments uttered from millionaires row in San Fran) that will play far more against him in the swing states in the fall than in the primaries and he has a glass jaw as we witnessed in the last debate and his failure to agree to any further Clinton debates.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:46 am
” When reputable polls show almost 30% of registered Democrats will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, the Dems have a MAJOR problem.”
When pollsters ask that particular question they can get that kind of answer. but when they do just head to head polls there is very little difference between Obama and Clinton vs McCain. Are these polls hiding giant switches of voters between the candidates? Possibly a small one but no where near 30%
“Over 60’s in comparison are the most motivated cohort and will vote for McCain in huge numbers.”
difficult to say. Turnouts are low in US election and if Obama can persuade a significant cohort to vote that normally does not, as he has been doing in primaries, that could be significant. I also think there is a potent affirmative action vote to be tapped, where people who are politically indifferent are motivated vote so they can boast the first black president.
“No one has ever run for President with such a thin resume. ”
Abraham Lincoln?
“4. Obama is the furtherest to the left than any previous Democrat candidate.”
to be honest, I think he is pretty opportunistic, as is Hillary!. Given he is quite capable of dissembling his opinions, assuming he has many apart from being voted in, it may not be a problem.
“6. Obama is a peacenik dove”
With around 80% of Americans opposed to the war being a peacenik dove is a fairly strong position politically.
7 and 8
This probably going to be a drover’s dog election where the democrat party could put up just about anybody and get elected it. McCain is old, economically uncertain, vague, not convincing and looks a bit like a drugged teddy bear. Obama will run rings around him in debates, as would Hillary!
April 29th, 2008 at 11:10 am
NPOG
You display your ignorance of the reality of the Electoral College. Obama needs PA and OH since its clear he’s never going to win FL. His poll leads in places like CO and NV are nowhere sufficient to overcome the problems he has in the rust belt states like OH and PA. I don’t believe for a minute that 30% of Clinton’s supporters will switch to McCain but, in a tight contest in these battleground states, if only 3 -5 % switch, Obama is toast.
You have not read the exit polling data from PA. The turnuot in the primary in PA on the Democrat side was simply massive – something like 35% higher than the highest previous vote and that was in the days before Super Tuesday rendered a later voting state like PA as having a meaningless say in selecting a presidential nominee. A huge percentage of this increased turnout was the youth vote and it broke massively for Obama. The point is that even with this huge boost in the 18 – 29 vote and even with it going largely to Obama, Clinton still spanked him. There are just so many more over 60 voters and they are THE most reliable consistent getters out to vote. And there are too many blue collar, Catholic, working class voters offended by ‘Bittergate’ to be outvoted by star struck young Obama voters.
Using Abraham Lincoln as an example is a pretty long straw – US politics have become infinitely more complex than in the 1860’s. Furthermore Lincoln gained huge notoriety in the Lincoln – Douglas debates. Obama has shown he has a glass jaw in any debate where he gets seriously questioned and he has chickened out of Clinton’s offer to replicate the Lincoln – Douglas style (ie moderator free debates). That proves that debating is a weak spot for Obama and that answers your laughable claim that he would run rings around McCain in the debates.
Dissembling his left wing stance might work in the Democrat primary – it aint going to fly in the General Election when he faces the full force of the GOP and 527’s dissecting his clearly identified left leaning background. How will he be able to explain the fact that he was the only legislator in the entire US (Federal and State) who blocked a law that required doctors to revive an infant born alive during a late term abortion. Even Planned Parenthood had the sense to at least stay silent on that law. Dissembling and giving a cool speech wont undo the damage of such extreme positions.
Your comments regarding public support for the war again betrays your ignorance of opinion in the US. Opposing the war is a different matter to supporting a precipitate withdrawal of US troops. US public opinion has now reached a point where a slim majority of voters support Petreaus’ strategy to stay the course thus rejecting Obama’s long held policy of immediate withdrawal. McCain supports Petraeus and it would appear that the success of the surge means he not Obama is on the right side of public opinion on this issue.
I note that yesterday Obama’s incendiary preacher Jeremiah Wright, at no less a place than the National Press Club in front of 30 TV cameras defended some of his more inflammatory rhetoric. Mainstream media doyen Dana Milbank of the Washington Post summed up the effect of this speech thus:
“Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama’s presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama’s longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered – and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks (“God damn America”) and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright’s audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama’s vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio’s April Ryan, confirmed that Wright’s security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamas_pastor_reignites_race_c.html
April 29th, 2008 at 11:15 am
“Going off Obama Bigtime” – still can’t trust those Hillbilly Clintons though.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
KIA, Obama may have lost PA to Hillary, but there would be no way McCain would win it