Bye Bye Obama? Is the Writing Already on the Wall?
As I've stated on several occasions, I find the resurgence of McCain and the GOP from the jaws of inevitable defeat to be simply astounding. In a way, the feeling is like when I, as a Phillies fan, watched the Red Sox improbable run towards a World Series victory when they were one out away from losing down 3 games to none to the Yankees in 2004. I was amazed. Not really sad, not really elated....just amazed. I was witnessing an improbable historic run.
As I watch McCain do nothing while surging ahead of Obama in the polls in a country that hates the Bush Administration, I'm intrigued.
Thoughts that go through my mind...
-Are the Democrats that unpopular with too much of the country that the GOP can't even give them the White House?
-What is it about the Democratic brand that can't win an election handed to them on silver platter?
-What is it about Americans that no amount of political harm from Bush can get them to vote Democratic in droves?
-What is it about the GOP that are seemingly always at an electoral advantage for President no matter what they do....but not so for the Dems?
-Is Modern liberalism THAT unpopular?
-What would make the Democrats stronger in national elections regardless of what the GOP does?
Some in the Democratic faithful may think my questions are unfair or biased. I don't think so. After all, I'm the independent here. No rose colored glasses on the end of my nose.
So, while I'm watching and sensing a possibly imminent Democratic demise, I can't help but shed even more suspicion when I see this reason article which cites a new article from across the pond
in London that talks about internal strife and frustration in Democratic Leadership circles that Obama is "squandering a once-in-a-generation chance to win back the White House."
In short, party insiders and pollsters say Obama is ignoring advice about how to beat McCain. They think they got the answers and are bombarding Obama HQ with advice that is simply falling on deaf ears. OnBill Clinton guy (unnamed) said with disgust:
"
"These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They're the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won't accept that they are losing and they won't listen."
Ouch. Some Democrats watching the numbers are apparently getting restless.
Democratic strategists and campaigners think Obama needs to roll up sleeves and get nasty with more pointed attacks and rhetoric to connect with Main Street because they don't think he's doing and McCain is winning them by sheer default.
Others are also trotting out the word "race" saying Obama needs to ignore the polls and understand that he's really 4 to 6 points behind what the polls say because of the color of skin and that means winning more votes than he thinks he has.
Meanwhile Conservatives like Peggy Noonan are putting it all Palin and Left's reaction to her:
Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speechwriter, blamed the defection of women voters from Mr Obama on the atom bomb of ritual abuse by left-wing bloggers and Democratic officials, painting Mrs Palin as a bad mother and religious weirdo.
Ms Noonan wrote: "The snobbery of it, the meanness of it, reminded the entire country, for the first time in a decade, what it is they don't like about the Left."
The Republican strategist Dan Schnur said that the effect was to repel blue collar, family-oriented voters. "They didn't like Obama in the primaries and voted for Hillary. And they still don't like him now so they're voting for Palin.
Personally, I think this is all fine and good. Some of thoughts from across the political spectrum may have merit in some political way. Personally, I think there's more to it than that. I think something's wrong with the Democratic Brand. And whatever it is, it has mushy middle voters leaning GOP in spite of every blunder and gaffe from the GOP to throw them in the Dem's lap with bubble paper.
Is it that they need to be more populist? I hope not. Is it that they need to be more libertarian? possibly. ;)
Either way, I think it's clear that whatever they got as a national image sucks because this race shouldn't be close...not because of the Dems have something to offer but simply because the GOP has done everything to piss off Amercia for the last 8 years and yet the GOP can't seem to shed enough voters for the Dems to have this thing thing wrapped already. It seems like no matter how much people hate the GOP, they seem to dislike the Dems just a little more when it comes to the WH.
Sure, a lot can change as we head into the debates. We'll see. Obama may rebound. But it must be said that this vulnerable position he's in should be alarming all by itself.
- John's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
A few thoughts:
I'm not sure if the questions you ask are quite the right ones:
Consider what the "stickiest" criticisms have been of Obama: he's too inexperienced, he doesn't sing the national anthem, he might be a Muslim, he votes "present", etc. We tend to talk policy and punditry here, but these are the criticisms being circulated in emails, passed around as casual conversation at church meetings (not an exaggeration: that's how I first heard the "he doesn't sing the national anthem" thing - via my mother-in-law).
(Compare McCain: we make fun of him for his constant trotting out of his POW status, regardless of its relevancy to the discussion, but it means that McCain=POW is the most essential meme of his candidacy. That's better than ideological, it's biographical and tangible. "Hope" is a weaker animal to hitch your campaign to.)
What's significant about this is that neither liberalism nor Democrats seem to be an essential line of attack. Except for one thing: "They want to raise taxes."
And we can see this in the Congressional elections: conventional wisdom has a Democratic majority picking up more seats. So it's hard to pin this on a malaise with liberalism or Democratic policies per se. Whether the executive branch attracts a different perception of those policies is a legitimate question, but I think we're dealing with a battle of personalities here.
Now, I agree with you that the Democrats are doing a piss-poor job if they can't take widespread dissatisfaction with arguably one of the worst presidencies in recent memory and not turn that into a victory. Then again, I think Howard Dean has had the right approach: the Dems are way behind on the most basic aspects of party-building, and it'll be a good generation before they have as strong a grassroots infrastructure as the Republicans do.
This is a severely partisan country, and even the much-courted independent vote doesn't seem as fluid as one might think. I certainly can't speak for independent voters, but if I had to pick one major reason Obama isn't doing better, I'd suggest that he hasn't conquered the "inexperience" criticism nearly well enough. Attacking Palin doesn't cut it, and just makes him look worse.
As for those "top Democratic officials", you have to admit that this is a little laughable:
Consider who's saying this:
They lost Gore/Bush
They lost Kerry/Bush
They lost the Hillary Clinton primary
All things considered, I wouldn't take their advice either!
A lot can happen in the next month, but I'm weirdly confident that this election won't be nearly as close as the polls are saying. Call it a hunch.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
hehehe, like I said, Pico:
But anyway,
Do you really, REALLY, REALLY think it's simply a matter of national anthems, religion and "present votes"??
Would you really minimize this political stew down to such innocuous little things? I think you're kidding yourself if you do.
Yes and no. Liberalism as it manifests itself as a national brand is constantly being attacked. Every minute of every day and it hurts Dems and its worst wounds are self-inflicted. And yes, raising taxes is big deal to many people. I'd venture to say that a lot of people are a bit wise to this shtick and are fed up with hearing that Congress always needs more money. People don't buy it and they shouldn't. It's a crock. Sorry.
I truly wonder if an Obama platform that simply vowed to get tough and cut and/or freeze spending while not raising any taxes would have had an insurmountable cushion over McCain. Could it really be this simple? Think about that. Could that be all that separates the Dems from a secure majority of the voting public? Is the key that stupidly simple?? I truly wonder.
Local elections are a bit different and viewed differently by voters IMO. I think Presidential elections get voters to show their broadest and deepest viewpoints about the nation.
If I had to give one piece of serious advice to the Dem cause, it would be to employ more libertarian sounding rhetoric on economic issues and accentuate libertarian-friendly policies it already holds. Drop the doom and gloom populism and be more positive.
Sure, you'll say "But, John, you're a libertarian. Of course you'll say THAT.". Perhaps. But that doesn't mean it isn't sound advice.
Kidding myself?
It's funny, you post a link one day that suggests the electorate is stupid, but now you're suggesting that a particular policy branding will help the Democrats' cause. You agree we have an uninformed electorate, and now you argue that voters are turning away from Democrats because of a policy they're apparently ignorant of to begin with.
I didn't suggest the questions were "unfair" or "biased" - but you're welcome to point out where you got that impression. I'm arguing that the questions are aimed at the wrong audience: you're asking whether Democrats have the wrong platform to attract voters, and I'm arguing 1. that the things Obama's having the most trouble with aren't ideological, and 2. your criticism falls apart when we look at any other level of government.
It's not policy branding, John - Kerry didn't lose because he didn't have "libertarian sounding rhetoric on economic issues", but because he was a boring and uncharismatic speaker, he was the target of a particularly ugly political attack on his military service, and because the things that "stuck" were memes like "flip-flopper" and "French-speaking". Heck, does anyone even remember what Kerry's platform consisted of?
Yes, I most certainly would.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes. that link and this diary are not mutually exclusive
Branding is needed for ignorant voters. You need a theme...not gory details. Those two ideas about stupid voters and branding go hand in hand.
Yes, voters are ignorant about a lot of complex issues. I agree. But that doesn't mean people don't respond to a general idea. They do.
It's a pity that exit polls
aren't more open-ended. I'd love to hear people's candid opinions about what drives their votes, rather than a multiple-choice question that already determines their responses ("Economy? Uh - sure, we'll go with that.")
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Sure, I do.
He served in Vietnam ... never mind that he claimed he threw his medals back at the Whitehouse ... before he didn't. Was there more? If so it got lost in the noise. You couldn't read a news story that didn't mention that he, you know, served in Vietnam. They typically mentioned the fact that he served in Vietnam multiple times in each article, and sometimes there were whole articles about how he served in Vietnam ... oh and Cambodia at Christmas.
Did you know he served in Vietnam? I think I read that someplace.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Funny you bring that up
The Daily Show made a very interesting observation:
The point in question is approx. 7 minutes in.
I about fell off the couch.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ha, that's perfect! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I do
I think its enough of that to swing the election. I think as we've discussed on the site it is obvious that the "low information" voter who uses chain emails to get their news is a sizable enough electorate to swing the election. Frankly, I believe if Obama and McCain swapped policy positions, McCain would still be up on the polls. This election, even more than in 2000 and 2004 is about personality. Will you vote for the POW war hero or the black guy with the funny sounding name?
Who are these people who worry about the raising of other people's taxes? Obama has made it very clear he's only raising the taxes of people who make over $250,000 and cutting just about everyone else's. If you're talking about the people who make over $250,000, there must be more than I know about. I don't know anyone who makes $100,000/yr let alone $250,000/yr. Maybe I'm just out of the loop.
Like what? Less government regulation for corporations with multi-billion dollar market caps? Yeah, thats a winner! I know what the hicks from where I'm from want. They want the golden parachute CEOs beaten with baseball bats and jimmy sticks. No, I'm not kidding.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Stiner
on the first quote:
I'm talking about general branding. I think you underestimate the ability to change the party's image with good results.
on the second:
I understand that. I'm simply saying that perhaps people don't like the idea in a magnanimous way. Perhaps people don't think the government needs any more money. Period.
On the third,
I've covered this elsewhere. So no, that;s not it. Obviously.
Re:
To some extent the whole idea that branding is even needed irks me to no end. People can decide for themselves whether they like Coke or Pepsi. The advertising strategy of Coke and Pepsi has no impact on the drinks' taste. Why someone would buy Coke because they have better commercials or were prisoners in Vietnam or have a hot librarian running mate even though they prefer the taste of Pepsi is foreign to me.
And if you must know, I like RC cola, but they don't make it in a caffeine free variety, so I'm a Pepsi drinker unless Coke is on sale. I suppose that makes me a moderate.
In my paradise the candidates would put out position papers, people would read them, and that'd be that. This whole idea that we look to the president as a leader, much less a guy we'd invite to our cookout astounds me. I don't Ralph Nader to "lead our country". I don't want him over at my house. I want him to sign the right bills into law and veto the wrong ones. Nothing more.
Oh, my fault. Would you cover Hawking radiation
so we can put that issue to bed once and for all?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
hehehehe
hehehe
Yeah, in mine too. But it doesn't work that way. Voters couldn't be bothered to go through all that and they are low information people anyway (as you say). So branding will have to do.
Heh. RC Cola ... it's the libertarian of cola's!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4(Raises Hand) I do!
I don't make anywhere near $250,000 per year but I don't want their taxes raised. We should be cutting spending, not raising taxes.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why can't we do both?
If I were to solely vote based on who will leave the smallest deficit, I'd vote for Obama.
And, of course, I don't need to tell you that most people in the US are getting a cut under Obama's plan. In fact, you are probably getting a cut under Obama's plan. Your boss's boss will only be getting a cut under McCain's.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry, I don't play the class envy game ...
As for doing both, I want spending cut enough that we have a surplus WITHOUT raising taxes ... and then some. The current budget level is totally ridiculous.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We're too far in debt for that to work
I've read that we can zero out discretionary spending in quite a few places and still wouldn't be balanced.
I can't find the link, but I can make a parallel case using Fedfolder
:
The estimated deficit for this year is about $407 billion. To make up that deficit WITHOUT cutting taxes we would have to zero out the budgets for the following departments:
Agriculture
Labor
Transportation
Education
HUD
Energy
Interior
NASA
State
Commerce
Those added up to ~$412 billion. So reducing each of these departments by half wouldn't likely be enough to balance the budgets, even accounting for reasonable growth in the economy. Not gonna happen.
And that's just to balance us. I'd like to pay this stuff down someday. As our mutual friend Sen. Voinovich reminds me in his newsletter, if interest on the debt was a government program, it would rank 4th in expenditures behind SS, Medicare, and Defense.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You sound like my local high school ...
they always want to raise my taxes or they claim we won't be able to afford school sports. Except even when the levies fail and we still have high school sports. Go figure. This is all hand waving, smoke, and mirrors.
$400B is roughly 15% of the total $2.8T budget. Just implement an across the boards 15% reduction in spending. Deficit spending problem solved.
OR
Cut most of the departments you mention to take a smaller hit on things like Social Security and Medicare. I don't care which. But to say it can't be done is ludicrous.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4See but the problem is
...these bureucrats will whine so bitterly when their department is cut 15% that they will have to prove themselves right by almost purposefully failing at their department mission.
Here's my plan for surplus within 3 years:
1. Cut defense by about 40% including bringing the troops home from Europe, Korea, Japan etc. and let these other countries finance their own defense for a change of pace
2. Eliminate about $100 billion of our least effective bureacracies in other departments across government
3. Wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible and
bring those troops home to a ticker tape parade with confetti made from
the useless forms, disclaimers, memos, and paperwork from all the bureacracies we closed in step (2);
4. Cut government salaries 10% across the board and outlaw unions for federal government jobs;
5. Raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70.
Once we are running at a surplus, we will find that the economy starts humming along quite nicely and we can start thinking about the nice goodies both sides have always wanted, like tax cuts and expanded health care coverage, as we can afford them.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You are dreamin' bud
The defense department cut their budget....... ? Ha!
Raise the eligibility age for social security.....? Ha! Say hello to the next for profit business, the poor house.
Cut govt salaries....... Ha Ha Ha! LIke that's gonna happen!
I'm only half stupid
Well of course
None of my plans ever get enacted :-(. That's why we'll never have the money for my pet porkbarrel projects, like the bridge/tunnel across the Bering Strait to Russia, connecting the Sarah Palin Western Alaska Highway to the Vladimir Putin Trans-Siberian Highway.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Not bad.
But like MissL says, it's a dream scenario. It's difficult to make government do this TO ITSELF.
Government incentives do not work like life. It's disgusting how things really work when you're talking about bureaucracies and unions. It's also very easy to scare voters into thinking it's dangerous to do these things.
Public Choice Theory really hits home on these matters.
Are you predicting a McCain blow-out of a win then? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yadda, yadda, yadda
I challenge anyone on this site to prove to me that Sarah Palin and the McCain Campaign in general are not bald-faced liars.
qui tacet consentire
It's a good question, though:
half the media outlets in the country are calling the McCain campaign outright liars for the distortions in the latest attack ad, but McCain's stock continues to rise. Why is that?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Because lying works
If you tell enough lies and you keep telling them and you deny that your lies are lies and you keep coming up with new and better lies then you win.
qui tacet consentire
I think there's something wrong
with the Dems branding...like I said.
Besides, I think people may very believe McCain will do what he says he will do if elected...regardless of campaign trail lying which I think most people expect.
irrelevant
though your response is relevant in one sense. From the article:
And I would extend "camp" to mean his supporters as well.
Look, you can sit there and tell me McCain is a liar and make yourself feel better. But that isn't speaking to the issue at hand.
You are dodging the question
Is McCain a liar or not?
qui tacet consentire
Of course he is
Big deal. Happy, now?
But that's not why he's winning. Now back to my diary...
Do you really want to go there? I think not!
Obama flat out lies all the time!
There are dozens of examples of this, but here is one that doesn't get much attention, it is a stunner, there is no gaffe here, no mis-statement, he knows the facts here, yet he unequivocally states this, even though he knows it is a lie, and if you think about as you watch it - it is almost like he can not help himself, he realizes it - but just keeps on going?
Does he remember his home address, can he recall what kind of car he drives, of course he does, and he knows what Senatorial committee's he is on!
Unbelievable!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Next time I need a break from reality
I want whatever it is you've been smoking.
qui tacet consentire
At least one difference
Is that within hours of saying this, the Obama campaign owned up to it being a mis-statement. It was Obama's bill, not his committee, which is what he meant to say. The McCain campaign, on the other hand, not only doesn't acknowledge the pre-meditated distortions of the truth (I'm being generous and not calling them outright lies) when the facts are plain to see, but in fact continues saying the same thing over and over again.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You bitch, but like Obama...
..give no facts?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sorry, I figured the facts were self evident. :)
The facts regarding Obama's statement: Yes, he said "my committee" when talking about the Iran Sanctions Act passing through the Banking Committee, which he is not a member of. Later, it was clarified
(see Update at that link) that this was a mistake, and he meant to say "my bill." Mistake? Yes. Lie? Hardly.
As far as McCain's premeditated distortions of the truth, I'll refer you to the leftist rag known as the Associated Press
.
Oh, and if you honestly think the tone of my initial comment warrants being categorized as "bitching" than you seriously need to get a grip.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yea, right. That clears it ALL up ...
Gee, it seems so clear to me now that he wasn't claiming membership on the committee of which he is not a member. What were we thinking?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What were you thinking?
Perhaps you were thinking, as you often seem to, that anyone who disagrees with you on policy matters (i.e. Democrats) must be immoral, stupid, or both.
Never mind the fact that within hours the statement was rescinded by the Obama campaign as incorrect, whereas McCain not only won't own up to his lies, but continues to spout them.
For example, on Friday, McCain said, on national television
, that Palin never requested any earmarks as Governor. Was this a mistake, or a lie? If it was a mistake, why the heck hasn't he retracted it yet? Republicans, the party of personal accountability. Ha!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Thanks but No Thanks
to McCain Palin
They are clueless as to the challenges this country faces.
I'm only half stupid
Yadda, yadda, yadda right back.
I challenge YOU to prove that ANYONE (yourself included) is NOT a bold faced liar. Hard to PROVE a negative since I obviously can't enumerate and analyze every statement that they ever made.
Besides, stop being lazy. The burden of proof in this country lies with the accuser. So you prove that they ARE bald faced liars ... and no cherry picking outlier statements, we want solid proof that a significant proportion (> 50%?) of their statements are demonstrably false. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think you are
a woman. Prove to me that your not.
I'm only half stupid
Huh?
It only takes one lie to make one a liar
Sic semper tyrannis
Imagine these lines in Obama's stump speech
in that smooth sultry and captivating well spoken voice of his:
-----------------------------------
Washington doesn't need any more money. They waste of enough your money at it is. I'm not gonna raise taxes. Instead, I'm gonna ask Congress to freeze all discretionary spending for my entire 4 year term. We've got one trillion in new spending from Bush that wasn't there the last time a Democrat was in the White House! (applause) And I don't see all this new spending from Bush making anyone's life better. (applause)
Too many people are struggling and I don't think taking even $60 dollars out of the paychecks of our poorest hard working Americans is doing them any good. I'm going to ask Congress to [insert tax cut or EITC expansion here]. I don't think it makes sense to tax hard working Amercians into neediness. (applause)
Not only that, but I'm gonna cut some spending. I will get rid of the DofEd and pass that authority to the states. I think you all know better than me how to educate your kids (applause). I think the American people should have a greater voice in Education and government should be more accountable to you at a local level. Not all states are the same and I'm not gonna sit here and tell you how it should it be done. We've had enough children left behind with DC calling all the shots (applause)
I will veto any corporate welfare. (applause!). I believe markets work best when we in DC aren't loading the deck for special interests. (applause)
-----------------------------------
Get the drift? That wins the mushy middle hook, line and sinker.
I think what you're really asking for here
is for him to win you over. ;)
Not that that's a bad thing, and it speaks to what you consider weak spots in his platform. Fair enough, and there are certainly things I'd like to hear him say that he won't, either.
From a purely strategic perspective, it's about that elusive middle, and isn't there a bit of Conventional Wisdom that suggests presidential candidates always begin to offer some weak milk to that middle in the last weeks of the campaign, knowing they've already got their supporters behind them? Would a genuine appeal to the kind of values you're suggesting lose the more party-entrenched in either side? (Which you may not think is important, but are necessary for winning the nomination in the first place.)
To be honest, though, I don't think this is an election that will be decided by independents per se: they'll play a very important role, but I suspect the key factor for victory will be voter turnout. Palin was a real coup for McCain because she'll pull more of that base than he would alone, but it's going to be hard to compete with Obama's. That's one of the reasons I'm a little suspicious of the polls.
Of course, I'm basing this on nothing but my own hunches. There's plenty of time for either side to blow it, and if Obama's latest ad is any indication ("McCain can't use computers"), then it very well could be the Democrats.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Ah but pico
I'm talking about the mushy middle who are generally less economcally liberal and more economically restrained than the base of the Dem party.
I see nothing that deters the base but I see rhetoric and branding that make the many in the middle lean Dem.
The best part is, it attacks the GOP in their perceived strength as the party of less government and less spending. What could be better??
Tell me, as a Dem, does anything in that mock stump speech actually bother you? because if it doesn't, then you have your answer about accentuating a more libertarian angle to Dem branding.
Well, for one thing I'm not quite so down on the DoE,
and I suspect a great many Democrats aren't, either. That particular angle was popular with Republicans in the mid-90s but never went anywhere.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Why not?
explain. I'm curious.
A couple of reasons.
Education in this country is in a lot of trouble, and I'm not sure either the federal government or state and local governments have a good handle on what to do about it. I want to be clear about that at the outset, because it's also an answer to skymutt below me: no, the Department of Education hasn't improved many things, but given that localities still have far more control over school system than the feds, they aren't inspiring much confidence in me, either.
But the DoE does a lot of things I do like. The main one is federal funding for students at all levels of education, in areas that states would be hard-pressed to develop funding solutions on their own. To give one example, the feds know that we have a dearth of speakers of what they call "critical languages", like Arabic, Chinese, and Russian. The DoE provides a crapload of money for students and programs aimed at increasing our numbers there, and they've been modestly successful. There is no incentive for individual states to support these kinds of programs, nor for the private sector.
When you look at all the such programs that the DoE administers, it makes more sense to have a department than to rely on individual discretionary funding.
You mentioned in your stump speech that you want to return control of education to individual communities. Can I ask you what that means, exactly? What federal control of education, specifically, do you dislike? NCLB, I don't disagree, but for the most part the DoE's control of local education is limited to enforcing things like equal access laws in programming. Not exactly a massive role. If anything our DoE is far less involved than in any other country I can think of.
All in all, education is a topic for another diary. We have a mess of a system right now that just stumbles by, and that's true from kindergarten through college.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I don't know about that
There's too many assumptions there that don't jive.
Why would states be hard pressed to develop funding for them?....perhaps because there's little room for them to further tax its citizens given how much goes to DC?
If states had full control, you simply don't know what they would do. You're also judging these actions based on a terrible system of federal design.
Why exactly would feds have more incentive than state education people to push these languages? Do really you really think they know better about anything? I certainly don't.
As for the private sector, look up language schools and institutes. There's plenty there for those who want to learn. Besides, considering the terrible level of spanish in your average gringo in light of how much it is taught in schools should tell you something.
Ideas and intent aren't enough. That's a huge problem with policy that gets ignored.
People who learn these languages learn them because they want to and they do....either at universities or private language schools.
But again, there's something interesting to me in the idea that things don't happen unless some central office does it. It's totally wrong in my opinion and totally fascinating.
As for the stump speech, it's just that a speech. But it would mean more autonomy at the state and local level...in terms of everything. States would try different things with more freedom. Better ideas would get shared.
Simple enough reason for this:
Because these languages are designated critical precisely due to their place in national and international affairs. There's no particular reason why Russian is critical for any individual state (except Alaska - zing!), but the federal government has plenty of interest in having more Russian speakers at its disposal. This is a simple enough concept.
Check out the situation before there was a DoE, when we had practically no resources for students who wanted to pursue these languages outside specialized schools with little funding. Yes, the federal government has improved the situation somewhat.
Improved enough to justify a cabinet-level department? Well, that's where we can debate this issue. But I'm afraid from your comment that you're basing this more on a hypothetical notion of big-government v. local government rather than how the DoE actually operates and what its function in education is.
The best argument I can see for eliminating the DoE is that it might not do enough to justify having such an enormous machine behind it. It's a hands-off department in charge of doling out money to programs, it creates no national curriculum, it doesn't administer any kind of accreditation, and apart from being in charge of what little regulation Congress gives it, it's basically a bank for education projects. From that angle I could see a legitimate complaint that it shouldn't exist at all.
EDIT: you addressed a lot of it down here
as I was posting this.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The assumptions
And? sorry. nothing follows from that IMO. State school systems do not simply think in terms of what's useful for living in that state. And again, there's nothing but a hunch to think it yields more Russian competentence. Intent doesn't matter.
You don't need federal funding to expand language teaching.
Not just a hunch.
We can also look at enrollment in these programs, and voilà: here's a report from the Modern Language Association
(requires JSTOR access):
Now I'm sympathetic to the fact that political and world events have a massive impact on language enrollment, but I also don't think it's an accident that language enrollment began increasing again - after a steady dip through the 70s - with the creation of the DoE, then those numbers peak toward the end of the Clinton presidency. Whether that's an inherently good or bad thing is another question, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea that federal funding impacts student choice in a way that state funding might not.
World events do play a major role, but the feds have been better about responding to them:
So that's my contention: programs like this, administered by the federal government, have been better about meeting certain education goals that state- or local-run programs.
Give me some meat here, John. You're making a lot of claims and hypotheticals, but I'm starting to get the sense that your opposition to the DoE is based more in a general philosophy of Big Government than on the way the DoE actually works, or on its impact on education.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Just look at the test scores...
...in the 50-odd years since the establishment of the Department of Education; we have not even moved the needle. I see no evidence that federal involvement in primary education has even budged the needle-- and they even unashamedly teach to these standardized tests now. That wasn't the case when I went to public school... seems to me that we just showed up at school one day and were told to go to the library or wherever and took the test.
I think we totally miss the boat on education. Teach the 3 r's and other basics well, and then turn the kids loose in the library for a couple hours a day, I say :-) Kids have a natural curiosity, get em started and they will teach themselves. Somewhere past about 5th grade, teachers should not be "teachers" but rather just people educated in various disciplines themselves. They should be given wide latitude in creating their own lesson plans.
I don't know how you can have a kid for like 8 hours a day, 180 days a year for 13 years and turn them out after all that time not knowing how to read and write well and do basic calculations, but our school system manages to do it millions of times over.
As it is now, school is tedious and boring for the kids who are ahead of their class, and frustrating and humiliating for the kids who are behind. It basically works well for nobody, and I don't see any improvements coming out of Washington.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
A+ for you skymutt
There's really nowhere to hide on this one for liberals who defend our centralized, ossified and moribund educational system. The system stinks and there's nobody left to blame. Worrying that decentralized change will hurt our children is totally laughable in light results.
Education needs to be decentralized and reformed with more choice. I'd rather smaller and more numerous schools with different approaches and techniques to choose from.
Our system is decentralized.
NCLB is a rare exception. I'm not sure what you're talking about here - can you be more specific?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well, yeah, NCLB...
...and all this stuff
. Why do we need all the endless programs and the bureaucracies to administer them? Is our approach working? Outcomes seem to indicate that it's not.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What does that have to do
with a supposedly centralized education system? Almost nothing in there involves anything other than voluntary programs for teacher and school enrichment, or funding for students. But it's not about a centralized system of education, which is what I was responding to.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well, if you want to say that all these programs...
...don't add up to "centralized" education, then fine-- what *do* they add up to? It looks to me like most of them are simply earmarked funds that may appear to have a high-minded purpose, but my guess is that they are just extra bureaucraces which distribute funds to the states with all kinds of strings attached. I'm thinking that it might be best just to wipe the slate clean. These programs run in the tens and hundreds of millions apiece, by the way-- it's not huge money, but it's not pennies either.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It is funny to hear you guys dicuss this...
...Because this is exactly what Obama wants, except on a expanded level never seen before, a super bureaucracy!
DoE's gone wild!
Dare I say what Obama really wants is...More of the same?
LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You got a link?
I didn't think so.
On education, absent few specifics from either candidate, I'll take my chances with the guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and was president of law review over the guy who finished 5th from last in his class.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Wow Skymutt...
...to hear you talk logically about this, then default to this is disappointing.
It is scary to think what that guy from Harvard is planning -
which scares me buddy.
In that case
- I'll take the guy who graduated from Annapolis.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Did you even read your own source?
'Open to evidence'... 'interested in the empirical research'... scary stuff indeed! Note the swipe at your man Bush too! Better start reading your links farther than the first paragraph, my man!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It is not a biased hit piece...but you have selectivly chosen...
...what suits you. What about the tone of the whole article, what about everything else, like;
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You're the one that said that Obama was "scary"
...and then, as your only evidence, you chose a source that painted a picture of Obama as a moderate Democrat... Even from your quote there, we learn that Obama's views on trade are more moderate than people may have been led to believe.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Moderate...Naw!
On many of the most disgusting giveaways
in recent years to Big Farm,
Big Oil, and Big Pharmaceutical, Bush and Obama were perfectly in
alignment, whereas McCain was among the few lonely votes against these
budget-busting giveaways!
Barack Obama views
America (and the world, which I’ll get to in a
minute) as a huge banquet table in which the Government foots the bill.
America is not a culture, nor has it ever been, where this kind of socialist scheme
is accepted.
Now Barack Obama is determined to repeat the mistakes of the past
,
proposing a slew of new tax hikes and an entirely new regulatory regime
that is bound to stifle the innovation and dynamism that has been so
integral to the growth and success of the investment banking industry.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes, it is decentralized
Perhaps I should have been more specific. The DofEd is still a gateway for federal laws and standards on education that are enforced through the department. This is a debatable function as it most certainly prevents school systems from taking certain measures toward improvement. The funding also upsets the system. I don't think the department should be funding anything. The tax money should simply be returned to the states it came from through some population based, or income based formula that gives the money back in some proportion to how it arrived. States can fund these programs as they see fit.
Then I'd like to see some states expand school choice even further and rethink how it operates from the ground up.
Either way, the DofEd is a terrible waste of money and hindrance. get rid of it.
Can you give me an example
of federal laws that have prevented school systems from taking measures to improve themselves?
Before NCLB, that is. I agree that the test standard has cramped a lot of schools. But the call to disband the DoE existed long before then.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am not well versed in this
I've been told most of this by teachers in my family. They weren't specific. I can't recall details right now.
And yes, calls to disband it have been going since it was created in 1979. Starting with Reagan in 1980. Why do the dems fight to keep this department?
John, simple...
...It gives them and the ACLU a way to reach into the fabric of America, and usurp states rights - so they can implement liberal policies, homogenize the basics of an American cultural education with their multiculturalism and all that intails, all which have led to the ruin of American education.
Democrats support teachers unions that won't make teachers be held accountable for their performance and job knowledge.
The DoE is the Democrat Party's inroad to indoctrinating our children to the liberal way of thinking, and they won't let it go, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional.
I can tell you this was feverishly debated at the platform committee in MN before the convention. It will come up again.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And to bring this back to the points in your diary,
given that the main function of the DoE (for better or worse) is to give out money to education programs, can you imagine the negative branding that would attach itself to whoever tries to disband it? The Republicans couldn't get their constituencies to support them - so you know it's a killer for Democrats. I'm not sure the independents who'd applaud the decision would make up for the ads showing angry teachers and sad students whose programs were pulled, and can no longer learn to read!*
* Exaggeration of what the result of disbanding DoE would be, yes. But that's the nature of political branding, right?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It;s only a frightening thought
til it's well explained how useless and hurtful in can be.
Easily branded!
To paraphrase Reagan: "Get government out of the way of teachers!" Nobody likes government in the abstract, especially when times are tough. Just try to run your ads with the sad teachers against my simple anti-government message!
As an aside, I am not against federal subisdies for student loans, nor am I against all federal education grants, but I don't think that you need a separate cabinet level department to administer that stuff.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Not bad...
I'd vote for the candidate who had that in his speech, but do you really think that it's Obama's speeches that are really the problem? I don't. His speech at the convention was very well received. The problem is Palin-mania. Nobody's even been paying attention to Obama's speeches the past couple weeks, so he could make this speech and not catch much notice.
Maybe if Obama made this speech, *with* the Ross Perot pie charts. That would get me all tingly inside :-) If Obama had pie charts, that would catch media attention.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That's just it.
He's a great speaker. So why not encode more suggestions about limited government and less spending and taxes in there and win over more of the economically moderate to conservative centrists who would otherwise have little reason to vote for McCain?
The gist of that strump blows the "same ol' tax and spend liberal" image out of the water.
The Dems win a lot of good will from the middle with this.
Well I don't know that he really hasn't
He did after all say this in his acceptance speech:
It may not have been the emphasis of his speech, but it was there. Weren't you clapping at that point? I was!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
No.
I was rolling my eyes at that.
Closing loopholes and tax havens is empty talk that makes little practical sense. The second part was good....sort of.
We will disagree on that
I happen to think that stuff like this is unfair to the conscientious American taxpayer,and unfair to small busineses which do not have the money and resources to set up these kind of sham tax shelters:
This is an old article, but this tax loophole has yet to be addressed by Congress.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
How do you do that when...
..He is raising every conceivable tax, asking for 300 billion in NEW spending, and is planning to expand government greatly?
Oh.. What am I saying, It's Obama we're talking about here, he'll just lie, say what he thinks you want to hear, then go into his, "They're bamboozling you, they're hoodwinking ya" speech!
LOL!
Worked for him in the primaries?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
By the way, Skymutt
If I was ever stupid enough to run for office, those lines would be in my stump speech. I can promise you that.
SO I guess I got your vote? ;)
BTW, I'm not an LP member. They're worse with image problems than the Dems.
Why wouldn't you run for office?
You'd have a great shot.
You understand the concerns of small business owners. You're .... Italian. Aren't Italian-Americans big in eastern Pennsylvania?
That sure beats me -- someone who's never really had a full-time job, hasn't lived in the same place for more than 2 years on his own, has never been outside the country (no foreign policy experience), ferret owner
(loses me at least half of the moderate Republican vote)!
Now I've gone and upset myself. ;-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'd be embarrased
and left feeling icky all over. ;)
Besides, I'd have to run as a Democrat in my very Red district because I could never win the GOP primary. Then I have to differentiate myself on economic policy while winning conservative votes, defend my foreign policy and social policy without losing too many conservative votes and still get all the Dems to show up and vote for me.
And in the end, still look at myself in the mirror.
Black and white thinking
Or is it red and blue?
Run as an independent. Or a Libertarian (if they have party status in Penn).
Running for office isn't about winning (at least for me its not), its about highlighting issues that aren't highlighted by the other two parties.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sure I'd vote for you
I've said before that we need at least 100 budget hawks in Congress if not more. Government is so bloated it can't even tie its own shoes anymore. We're spending 20% more than we bring in every single year and the interest expense on all the debt is building, building, building, even at near historic low interest rates. It's got to end eventually; we can end it now more or less on our own terms with some pain, or it will end on its own in one of several extremely unpleasant and permanently damaging ways.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Lines Will only be that...
...regardless of the speech. I think people get the idea of libertarians--get rid of Dof Ed, Energy, etc...But the system is entrenched to the point where it won't be going anywhere. Have we ever had any departments (in recent history) go away? Most are just absorbed into another agency/department and the budget just grows for that department.
Tax cuts are nice. You'll find very few people who say "I want my taxes raised.." However, when you have businesses who don't want their profits taxed heavily (if at all) but suddenly run the The Fed and the federal government when things go under (see Bear Sterns, Fannie, Freddie, and the near-misses of Lehman Brothers and WaMu, and AIG...) you can see that the government can't borrow forever. Ideologically, tax cuts and free-market works in practice but if you become to big you can't fail. People hand-wring about how "bad" it is but very few in government actually work to make sure it doesn't happen.
To continue the "deceive the public" line of attack, at least Obama admits that he will raise taxes for people over 250,000/yr. And it's not by that much--returning to 1990s (38%) levels, a far cry from say the 70% rate of the 1960's. . You may be able to rap Obama over his $300 billion dollar spending plan which $85 of which includes tax relief (that Marxist!), but McCain has $400 billion in tax cuts and has no stated how to pay for it except by saying he'll "cut spending" (without saying where) and railing against earmarks (which isn't nearly enough to close the current deficit, let along getting us to a point of financial parity).
McCain's chief economic adviser at least privately admits
that the next President will have to raise taxes, although McCain is making it seem that we can be OK if we raise no one's taxes at all.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
McCain is toast.
He's got nothin'. His idea is to do exactly what dubya & Darth have done for 8 years. How many old friends can one shoot in the face? How many feet can one shoot themselves in?
The only thing he has is dragging Obama through the mud.
The Media is asking questions finally. It's going to be a Dem year in both Houses & the Executive.
Sorry John. You are wrong. Obama wins. You just have to wait the 55 days like the rest of us.
Wow.
that was insightful.
Thanks.
Not all of us
My absentee ballot is ready in 16 days. I hope the Obama volunteers are really pushing this early voting stuff.
The 5-day loophole is in court and will go down. The Ohio Constitution clearly states that to be an "elector" you must have been registered to vote for 30 days. Only "electors" can be given absentee ballots.
Ohio law is very explicit on this point. SoS Brunner is trying to pull a Blackwell, but from the other side. Why we tolerate partisan election officials in this country is beyond me.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
We Democrats have seen this many times before; we're nonplussed
I think what you're seeing now is the total dissatisfaction that the people have with both parties. The current crop of Democrats in Congress has been an abject failure, and Obama has been a part of that, let's face it. Might not have been his fault, but he was there as the Democrats stumbled on Iraq, stumbed on ethics reform, and haven't really accomplished anything.
And now, Democrats have screwed up this drilling thing and handed Republicans an issue in this campaign. Heck, the Democrat running for Congress in my district, Mary Jo Kilroy, is running advertisements saying she supports drilling. Ohioans could care less if a herd of caribou have to walk around a little oil equipment in the barren plains of northern Alaska if it has a chance to lower oil and gas prices and help the economy. Ohioans also grasp that industry means jobs, and no industry means unemployment lines. A polar bear cub might be cute, but it never gave anyone a job.
And now McCain picks a young, good looking VP whois pro-oil and pro-gas and can tout that she helped get this Alaska gas pipeline project going. It has turned out to be a great strategic choice-- so far. Worse, the left has just gone batsh*t insane trying to bring her down, that they have lost all credibility by pounding the table on several "scandals" that have proven to be false. It ends up looking like Obama is just being supported by a bunch of liars, when he keeps trying to tell them in not so many words: shut up, you're not helping me!. But these a$$h*les are so self-righteous and arrogant that they don't listen to him. And so then by the time Palin screws up badly in her first interview on national TV, a bunch of people have their mind made up and will view Palin favorably no matter what because they think all the attacks against her have been so unfair.
So you can chalk up a good deal of Obama's 5-point or so slide in the polls to these single-minded, foaming-at-the-mouth "progressives", the 5% fringe far left socialist-populist dead-enders who somehow have come to think that they are the center of the Democratic Party. Obama is actually running a good campaign himself but he has so many screw-ups on his side that he has to make up for. I swear that Code Pink themselves are worth half a point to McCain :-(
By the way, John, instead of wringing your hands about the failures of Democrats (failures that have come along like clockwork every 4 years of this millenium and should be no surprise to anyone by now) you should be noticing that there's an opportunity for you and the yellow-bars to actually piece together a viable 3rd party in this country. Perhaps if you all had run Ron Paul on your ticket, you could have made a run as successful as Ross Perot in 92.
But again, despite the fact that Democrats are expert at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory, this election is a tossup at this point, and this will be won or lost in the debates.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Good write up skymutt
it makes an excellent addendum to my diary.
And yes:
This ties into my thoughts about why the Dems look unfavorable to so many people. And it also ties into what I said to pico upthread when I said:
Indeed. I simply wish more Dems saw this the way you do and cut those freaks loose. Noonan nailed them in that quote I provide.
Like I've said before, too bad more Dems aren't like you. If they were, I probably wouldn't be writing this diary. ;)
Here's an honest question
Why is it that crazies on the far left of the Democratic Party are shunned by the rest of the country but their counterparts in the Republican Party aren't?
Its always "OMG TEH DEMOCRATS ARE TEH SOCALISTS!" when the left wing of the party makes a peep but when the nutjobs on the right assert their power, the leadership just kind of smiles and chuckles to themselves and goes on with their business.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I never said they weren't
But if there's a double standard on them, I couldn't tell you why.
I despise both equally.
I will say that I get the impression that crazies on the Right are not as visible in the national conservation as the moonbats on the far left.
Internal strife? That's rich
After running a campaign based around trashing Obama in every major battleground state, mostly in primary contests that were held *after* it was clear that Hillary had almost no chance of winning, the Clinton advisers have a lot of nerve talking about what Obama should be doing differently.
Hillary is doing what she can to help Obama. Many of her advisers are not.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
A lot of it is the media
which has done everything possible to make it a close race.
They did the same thing in the primaries. Honestly that's part of why McCain was able to come back with no money -- he got lots of free favorable press.
It's not about the media being biased towards or against a particular candidate or party. Most of the reporters are hacks both ways at different times. It's all about keeping things as "exciting" as possible to maintain interest.
The next stage is a backlash against McCain/Palin now that they've taken the lead. It's already happening, actually.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Whoever yells the loudest wins
The media is the message.
Why do GOP 'strategists' always talk longer and louder than anyone else sucking all the air out of the room.
If you think about it, the Strategists, have tried to take the most unifying issue for the democrats off the table. The Iraq War. It hasn't been in the 'news' much.
The Strategists sucked all the air out of Obama's DNC convention, which was a moving and unifying experience for many, with Hillary throwing her support behind Obama.
Less than 12 hours after the DNC convention, for an hour the talking heads were impressed with how the Democrats had grown up with their flag waving, and the spectacular site of thousands honoring our nominee's.
Literally every 30 seconds the gang on morning Joe, was breathlessly checking the blackberries for who McCain would pick for VP. It destroyed the happy interviews with happy democrats and sucked all the air out of his campaign.
The critical moment came when the first TV personality said the word reform and Palin in the same breath. That should have been counterpunched immediately.
The Strategists have created a myth around Sarah Palin. The question is how long can they keep it going?
It is also a nice jolting wake up call for the dems to get behind an appealing and repetitive message, which seems to be the key to winning the masses over.
They can win, if they get it together. I still have hope!
Especially after seeing ALL of these photos of the largest women's protest ever
in the history of Alaska!
I'm only half stupid
The writing is on the Waffle Box
Good Christians at the Vote Values Conference are allowing vendors to sell
this!
When asked questions they seemed very proud of their product.
link
There is video of Lou Dobbs saying that his wife would just love that!
Is it good or bad? It just is.
I'm only half stupid
So what's the problem?
Let me guess, you think this is racist? It isn't. Barry actually IS a black man.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Exactly
There is no problem GoRight.
Other non-problems:
Being a community organizer.
Muslims
I'm only half stupid
Its not like McCain doesn't "waffle" too,
so I don't get bringing up the "waffle" part.
I think the group is thinking:
"Our guy 'waffles' less"
"Its waffles not pancakes, so everything is a-ok"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The upside down and crazy world
of Republican campaigns.
It's not about the issues, why? Because the Republicans want to make this about "character' (race) Period. They lose on the issues.
Then they deny it as if they are innocent cherubs.
That is why when talking to a conservative, you should never ever deal with the facts. It just sets up a straw man argument that will go on for an eternity.
I am still hopeful. Yes I am. I don't trust the polls particularly. And frankly I think they are purposefully trying to deflate democratic enthusiasm.
It has already been reported that McCain's crowd numbers were vastly exagerated.
It is strange that they are attacking Obama by emulating him.
At the RNC every GOP speaker was trying to out Obama Obama's speech style. Now they pretend they are for 'change'. They make up crowd numbers so McCain can be the celebrity.
I do think Obama made a mistake by being too complacent, and underestimating the ferocity of the GOP attack machine.
That they will be unleashing the Swiftboaters, can be a sign of comfort. In an upside down world, that means they don't think they have sealed the deal.
I'm only half stupid
Since when does character = race?
If anything said here is racist, that's it right there. We are juding Barry by the content of his character, NOT the color of his skin. MLK would be proud.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I now know how the soldiers of Black Hawk Down felt!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That link is working now
Check out the link to the article:
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
But it's
not racist.
That's what they say. They are all proud of themselves.
Let's post a photo of Sarah that goes to a stereotype and hear the shrill cries of sexism from the once identity-phobic conservatives.
She's a perky cheerleader for John McCain.
___
Trust me. The facts don't matter for now. That is one lesson the democrats haven't learned.
A man was overheard to say, after falling from a 90 story building, "But for the first 89 floors I felt like I was flying.'.
It's not the truth, it's the 'truthiness'. (tm: Stephen Colbert)
I'm only half stupid
Sullivan is holding out
He believes that if a candidate lays out his policy and ignores obvious false statements made by his opponent, he will win on policy.
I'm not so sure. I suppose that we'll find out come November 4th.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
What the Hell?!
OK, someone mentioned the above pic/link is critical of Obama's character. What does Obama wearing a headscarf/turban and the "Point box toward Mecca for tastier waffles"
have anything to do with his character? wait, let me guess--it's just a joke, right? The caricature is NOT funny, unless Step and Fetch-It is your kinda humor. And of course, it was present at the "Value Voters" forum and conference.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Pretty ugly
ain't it.
If I point to a man holding a nose, behind a black man, it makes me a racist because I pointed to the man holding the nose.
The logic a mind bending.
I'm only half stupid
The Culture War Lives On
For all the handwringing and consternation at the death of the Republican brand, their successful electoral model – one that cleaves the electorate primarily along cultural lines into a regular "us" versus an elite "them" – is alive and well.
American presidential elections are driven by emotion, personality and biography, not reason, issues or ideology. Democrats lose because they are exceptionally bad at assessing and reacting to the electoral landscape as it is, not as they wish it to be. For one, they are not nearly as ruthless—and I mean that as a complement to the latter—as their Republican counterparts. Winning the presidency is a binary zero-sum game. Republicans understand that, and compete hard to win. Sure, they frequently fight dirty – with mischaracterizations, ad-hominems, and even outright lies – but ultimately, winning is all that matters. In the grand scheme, who gives a damn about the chicanery that gained W. the presidency in 2000? He won – by whatever means were available and necessary – and Gore lost. In Obama’s case, there’s the added problem of having relinquished the initiative. Since the European trip, the McCain campaign has dictated the narrative, while Obama’s has been reactive and defensive: even after a convention speech that should have dominated the national discourse, McCain was able to undercut him with the Palin announcement and its predictable aftermath.
Unless Obama puts in strong debate performance, and is able to turn the elitism charge on its head – by tying it to policy rather than style – he will lose this election.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
Heh. Maybe the answer is simple and staring you in the face ...
maybe, just MAYBE, this little piece of common sense logic is wrong? Just sayin' maybe the rest of the citizenry doesn't look at everything the way you think they do ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4McCain has done what he needed to do
If this is a referendum on Bush, he loses big. If this is a referendum on Obama, he's got a better than even shot.
Only in the greatest democracy in the world does not liking candidate A require you to vote for candidate B.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
No.
This:
I'm not buying into. I refuse to vote for either one of the two Presidential Candidates that we have now, and will either vote for a viable third party or write in my own ticket.
What a difference a week makes, eh John?
Care to re-think your premise?
Especially after Obama has take a 5-point lead in Gallup Daily Tracking and is ahead in PA by 3, Michigan by 7, Colorado by 10.... and is just 2 back in Indiana and tied in Ohio.
If the election were today, Obama would have about 310 electoral votes.
I survived the Bush Administration
It's just a premise
I'm not rooting for McCain. I'm just going on a feeling. Things change. And they'll continue to change.
Examiner endorses McCain-Palin... Here's why.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Link? n/t
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,