Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think this election will be VERY close. I still have no strong feeling about who will win, but barring disaster or serious misstep, I don't think we see a blowout by either side.

Probably so. We're at the end of July, and Obama is up by about 3 points in the average of all of the current polls. At this point in past election cycles, Dukakis had a 17 point lead over GHWB, and Jimmy Carter had a 33 point lead over Gerald Ford.

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

For some reason, we're not hearing anything about the most recent Gallup Poll of likely voters.

I don't know what to make of this poll. No crosstabs given. The numbers don't make too much sense...how is McCain up 4% among the 791 likely voters yet down 3 amongst the 900 registered voters.

hxxp://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/about-that-mccain-4.html

Also, kind of weird that Gallup is involved in this poll considering their tracking poll has Obama +8 today.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by yacovfb

Also, kind of weird that Gallup is involved in this poll considering their tracking poll has Obama +8 today.

Yes, my reaction precisely. It's almost as if they're looking for a poll that is much closer - perhaps commercial interest in their polls drops when it begins to look like a foregone conclusion. I suspect that a higher proportion of party-dedicated voters, rather than the result-determining "swing voters", that makes up this "likely to vote" group and therefore produces a closer result.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

For some reason, we're not hearing anything about the most recent Gallup Poll of likely voters.

Well, I just read about it today, but both fivethirtyeight.com and electoral-vote.com have commentary on it. I've stated before that I take all polling with a grain of salt, and this just reaffirms my thinking.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think this election will be VERY close. I still have no strong feeling about who will win, but barring disaster or serious misstep, I don't think we see a blowout by either side.

Oooo, go out on a limb there....

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Probably so. We're at the end of July, and Obama is up by about 3 points in the average of all of the current polls. At this point in past election cycles, Dukakis had a 17 point lead over GHWB, and Jimmy Carter had a 33 point lead over Gerald Ford.

Why did you pick those two races in particular?

[NoMyths]

Link: AP: McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge

Full Story:

McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge
By CHARLES BABINGTON

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain drew a sharp rebuke Monday from conservatives after he signaled an openness to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, contrary to previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind.

Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security, saying: "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table."

He went a step farther Sunday with his reponse on a nationally televised talk show to a question about payroll tax increases.

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

That comment drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."

Indeed, McCain frequently has promised not to raise taxes.

At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."

In a March 16 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, McCain said he would cut taxes where possible, and not raise them.

"Do you mean none?" Hannity asked.

"None," McCain replied.

Both candidates have said Social Security's funding formula needs to be changed to ensure the program's long-term viability. Obama has called for imposing a new payroll tax on incomes above $250,000. Currently, only incomes up to $102,000 are subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax, which employers and employees split evenly.

When Obama announced his plan June 13, McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters that as president McCain would not consider a payroll tax increase "under any imagineable circumstance."

McCain has made no specific proposals for Social Security, refusing to rule in or out anything to strengthen the benefit program for retirees and the disabled. Both candidates have said that, if elected, they would try to work out details with Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Asked for an explanation of McCain's latest comments, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Arizona senator "has a clear and demonstrated record of opposing tax increases. John McCain is going to cut taxes" and improve government discipline, he said.

Promises never to raise taxes have bedeviled past Republican officeholders. Before being elected president in 1988, George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." But facing severe budget problems, he reneged on the promise. Some conservative groups never forgave him.

[BrianD]

Two questions. One, why does SS tax currently stop at $102,000? Two, if Obama is looking to add a tax on incomes above $250,000, why leave the hole between $102,000 and $250,000?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Yes, my reaction precisely. It's almost as if they're looking for a poll that is much closer - perhaps commercial interest in their polls drops when it begins to look like a foregone conclusion.

I think that Rasmussen Tracking is colluding with Gallup to make the race appear closer, as they have Obama leading by only 1 point today.

[NoMyths]

I'd like to know why people are still listening to McCain when, for example, he held a town hall meeting yesterday devoted to "argu[ing] in favor of lifting the ban on offshore drilling as a way to reduce high gas prices and give the ailing economy a boost" (Link). This is demonstratively a bald lie, as it will be many years, and probably decades, before any impact from offshore drilling would occur. He knows this. How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch with the energy situation, but chooses to lie about it?

[NoMyths]

dola...

By comparison, Obama spent Monday meeting with a group of financial and business experts including Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Google Inc. Chairman Eric Schmidt, and Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (also from the article). Today he's meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to further discuss the economy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'd like to know why people are still listening to McCain when, for example, he held a town hall meeting yesterday devoted to "argu[ing] in favor of lifting the ban on offshore drilling as a way to reduce high gas prices and give the ailing economy a boost" (Link). This is demonstratively a bald lie, as it will be many years, and probably decades, before any impact from offshore drilling would occur. He knows this. How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch with the energy situation, but chooses to lie about it?

Come on, that is so one-sided it belies your intelligence. There is a lot of ways it can provide economics boosts in the short-term - much needed construction jobs in coastal communities, ramping up of employment in energy and supplies companies, plus the wave effect of housing, retail and services. If they lift the ban, you will see futures speculation go short, as all do when something new and dramatic takes effect. So this can be spinned as a bald lie or as a bald truth, depending how one wants to interpret/ignore all factors to make a political point.

Personally, I am against wide-spread opening up of new leases - Congress can make it is easier for the companies to use existing leases. This is one of many short-term (decade-long) solutions to bridge the gap towards an aggresive private and public effort towards alternatives to foreign oil.

Besides, if you want to play this "How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch" game, one can say that about any candidate and their proposed governmental solutions. Anyone who proposes tax increases, universal healthcare, extravagent farm, energy and mortgage bills without slashing federal spendings is so out of touch, it boggles the mind.

[ace1914]

So reading posts, I am getting this thought: since Obama is running a non-traditional campaign, a campaign that appeals to a greater number of potential voters, he's not a viable candidate?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Come on, that is so one-sided it belies your intelligence. There is a lot of ways it can provide economics boosts in the short-term - much needed construction jobs in coastal communities, ramping up of employment in energy and supplies companies, plus the wave effect of housing, retail and services. If they lift the ban, you will see futures speculation go short, as all do when something new and dramatic takes effect. So this can be spinned as a bald lie or as a bald truth, depending how one wants to interpret/ignore all factors to make a political point.

Personally, I am against wide-spread opening up of new leases - Congress can make it is easier for the companies to use existing leases. This is one of many short-term (decade-long) solutions to bridge the gap towards an aggresive private and public effort towards alternatives to foreign oil.

Besides, if you want to play this "How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch" game, one can say that about any candidate and their proposed governmental solutions. Anyone who proposes tax increases, universal healthcare, extravagent farm, energy and mortgage bills without slashing federal spendings is so out of touch, it boggles the mind.

All of those things take a significant chunk of time that he's not alloting, though, Bucc. The reality of the situation is that even if they completely revise the process by which offshore drilling could open up, get the equipment and jobs and other things in place that could affect the economy, it won't be within any time frame that could be considered near. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. On a long enough timeline yes, those things can occur. But could any of them happen within a four-year presidential term?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ace1914

So reading posts, I am getting this thought: since Obama is running a non-traditional campaign, a campaign that appeals to a greater number of potential voters, he's not a viable candidate?

How is that a non-traditional campaign? He's running a very traditional campaign, much like other new hope candidates like FDR, JFK, Carter, Reagan and Clinton had done. He's getting more coverage that they had because, well, there is a whole lot more coverage opportunities now.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Two questions. One, why does SS tax currently stop at $102,000? Two, if Obama is looking to add a tax on incomes above $250,000, why leave the hole between $102,000 and $250,000?

That's a lot of Democrat voters he'd be fucking with there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

All of those things take a significant chunk of time that he's not alloting, though, Bucc. The reality of the situation is that even if they completely revise the process by which offshore drilling could open up, get the equipment and jobs and other things in place that could affect the economy, it won't be within any time frame that could be considered near. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. On a long enough timeline yes, those things can occur. But could any of them happen within a four-year presidential term?

A mere decision to drill offshore, and certainly actions to that end, can itself impact oil prices and oil speculation.
(Look how the price is impacted by mere statements from OPEC)

I certainly don't agree with that as a policy matter, but calling someone a "liar" essentially because they disagree with you is a little much.

The most interesting thing to me in this thread (and I guess any political discussion), is when people make points when they obviously have already decided, 100%, that one candidate/issue is good or correct and the other is bad. Once someone has reached that level of total allegiance to a candidate or idea, their opinions become absolutely useless in a discussion, because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything. ANY news about McCain, you'd spin as bad, and ANY news about Obama, you'd spin as good. So who do you think you're convincing?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

All of those things take a significant chunk of time that he's not alloting, though, Bucc. The reality of the situation is that even if they completely revise the process by which offshore drilling could open up, get the equipment and jobs and other things in place that could affect the economy, it won't be within any time frame that could be considered near. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. On a long enough timeline yes, those things can occur. But could any of them happen within a four-year presidential term?

I don't think it really matters - people want to hear solutions from politicians, placating the fears and paranoia that have been drummed into them. The actual benefits of solutions seem to come to a selected few, whether a special interest or a geographical group, but as long as politicians talk like they are "doing something" and lambast the opposition for "not doing something", the cycle will continue.

To me, the best solutions are those that Congress can do to not penalize things but instead, to promote things. In other words, don't penalize energy providers for staying within the EPA mandates but instead, promote entreprenuership in making environmental controls better.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Two questions. One, why does SS tax currently stop at $102,000? Two, if Obama is looking to add a tax on incomes above $250,000, why leave the hole between $102,000 and $250,000?

I'm not sure why SS payroll tax stops at the first $102,000 of earnings. I would imagine, though, that this is because that's all that was felt necessary when it was started up.

On Obama's proposal, I think you might be conflating two different things. On his info sheet there isn't anything about $250,000. He says he'll expand the payroll tax past $102,000 and eliminate all taxes for all seniors who make under $50,000/year.

The $250,000 number might be coming from Obama's plan to roll back the Bush payroll tax cuts on those earning over $250,000/year.

Hope that helps.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not sure why SS payroll tax stops at the first $102,000 of earnings. I would imagine, though, that this is because that's all that was felt necessary when it was started up.

That is what I figured. If this is the case and SS needs to be fixed (even though I still like the idea of being able to opt out...) wouldn't an obvious solution be to say that the $102,000 cap doesn't make sense anymore and raise it?

On Obama's proposal, I think you might be conflating two different things. On his info sheet there isn't anything about $250,000. He says he'll expand the payroll tax past $102,000 and eliminate all taxes for all seniors who make under $50,000/year.

The $250,000 number might be coming from Obama's plan to roll back the Bush payroll tax cuts on those earning over $250,000/year.

Hope that helps.

If two different things are conflated here, I blame it on really sloppy writing in the article above. Putting that statement in-between two different comments about SS tax was confusing if the $250,000 wasn't related.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'd like to know why people are still listening to McCain when, for example, he held a town hall meeting yesterday devoted to "argu[ing] in favor of lifting the ban on offshore drilling as a way to reduce high gas prices and give the ailing economy a boost" (Link). This is demonstratively a bald lie, as it will be many years, and probably decades, before any impact from offshore drilling would occur. He knows this. How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch with the energy situation, but chooses to lie about it?

The reason he said it is obvious. From the Washington Post:

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

Further confirmation that there is no position McCain won't reverse if he thinks it'll help him win this election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is what I figured. If this is the case and SS needs to be fixed (even though I still like the idea of being able to opt out...) wouldn't an obvious solution be to say that the $102,000 cap doesn't make sense anymore and raise it?

I've generally thought so. Of course, bear in mind that a) you can't suggest this kind of thing if you're a Republican candidate and b) it may actually take more than this to keep SS solvent for the long term (I haven't run the numbers).

If two different things are conflated here, I blame it on really sloppy writing in the article above. Putting that statement in-between two different comments about SS tax was confusing if the $250,000 wasn't related.

Yep.

[NoMyths]

I'd be interested to know what those who believe what he's saying feel would be the specific impact on oil prices/speculation if he convinced Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling (remember, President Bush already lifted the executive order prohibiting it, so McCain wouldn't have that particular tool in his toolbox).

According to the numbers McCain has stated, we have untapped offshore reserves of approximately 21 billion barrels -- that amounts to about two and a half years worth of recoverable oil, not counting the energy that will go into recovering them (all of those jobs and infrastructure previously mentioned). As I've said before: do the research, and the math, yourself if you think it will come out to a more significant impact. But to state that I'm only irritated at his position because I'm '100% against McCain' as molson states is to miss the point. Speaking of which...

Originally Posted by molson

A mere decision to drill offshore, and certainly actions to that end, can itself impact oil prices and oil speculation.
(Look how the price is impacted by mere statements from OPEC)

I would argue that your statement does not show a thorough understanding of the issue. I'd be happy to consider any evidence you might supply to back it up.

And since you brought it up:

The most interesting thing to me in this thread (and I guess any political discussion), is when people make points when they obviously have already decided, 100%, that one candidate/issue is good or correct and the other is bad. Once someone has reached that level of total allegiance to a candidate or idea, their opinions become absolutely useless in a discussion, because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything. ANY news about McCain, you'd spin as bad, and ANY news about Obama, you'd spin as good. So who do you think you're convincing?

You're overstating my "allegiance to a candidate or an idea", and I'd challenge you to point out what must be a large number of posts that have convinced you I feel that way. What news about McCain have I spun as bad? What news about Obama have I spun as good? Look at the posts, ask yourself whether they accurately reflect reality, and then decide. But this idea that because I'm clearly irritated about McCain's position on oil drilling it means that the arguments I'm making have no value is a logically fallacious view. Rather, they are a reflection of my consideration of energy issues and my analysis of McCain's position as unsupportable, as first outlined in this thread.

Casting me as an extremist is not supported by the arguments I've made, and happily the fact that this board archives everything means that I don't even have to hope you believe me -- you can check for yourself. But I will say that you are wrong in stating that I'd spin all news bad or good depending on the candidate. I agree or disagree with news based on my own analysis of the information, not because of whichever suit is on TV spouting it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The reason he said it is obvious. From the Washington Post:

Further confirmation that there is no position McCain won't reverse if he thinks it'll help him win this election.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the Race is Tied

Obama:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

All politicians do it, I think it's necessary to get this far in an presidential election.

Is there anything you don't like Obama, or like about McCain? Did you agree with Obama's FISA vote?

[rowech]

Does anyone have state-by-state polling? These stupid polls mean nothing without the context of the states. It is the only polling that would give a decent picture.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If they lift the ban, you will see futures speculation go short, as all do when something new and dramatic takes effect.

Originally Posted by molson

A mere decision to drill offshore, and certainly actions to that end, can itself impact oil prices and oil speculation.
(Look how the price is impacted by mere statements from OPEC)

Both of you suggest that speculation is a big part of the problem. I'm going to assume that you both agree that more drilling is unlikely to affect supply-and-demand in the short term. Further, as we've discussed elsewhere, the current runup in oil prices doesn't seem to match supply-and-demand dynamics.

So, if you want a short-term solution (and to discuss long-term solutions elsewhere) the obvious answer to me would seem to be to repeal the expansion of oil speculation passed by the GOP in 2001 (when they controlled Congress) which expanded the group of people/corporations allowed to purchase oil futures. In the intervening years, the percentage of futures owned by these "speculators" (i.e., people who do not intend to actually use the futures), has risen from 30% to 70%.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Come on, that is so one-sided it belies your intelligence. There is a lot of ways it can provide economics boosts in the short-term - much needed construction jobs in coastal communities, ramping up of employment in energy and supplies companies, plus the wave effect of housing, retail and services.

No, McCain's promise of a near-term "boost to the economy" is flatly a lie along these lines. For one, it'll take a long while for these jobs to filter into the infrastructure, if they do at all. For two, this assumes that oil companies will actually drill on the new leases they'll get. Given they don't drill on a huge amount of leases they currently own, that doesn't seem very likely.

Bottom-line: there is absolutely no way this gives a "boost" to the economy in 2008 or 2009 as McCain is suggesting and any reasonable economist understands that.

Personally, I am against wide-spread opening up of new leases - Congress can make it is easier for the companies to use existing leases.

Like what, drilling for them? Presumably you mean removing more of the environmental regulations the oil companies claim slow them down from doing exploratory drilling. But removing these regulations has a long-term impact, so where do you want to suffer? Besides, playing the regulations legal game should be something that a) the oil companies are now well-versed in and b) have the legal and financial resources to do.

Anyone who proposes tax increases, universal healthcare, extravagent farm, energy and mortgage bills without slashing federal spendings is so out of touch, it boggles the mind.

Look, McCain's the one who can't talk about the cost of milk, at a grocery store, without reading off an index card.

Seriously, though, I know you don't like either candidate Bucc, but bear in mind that the money Obama's planning to spend on all of his programs pales in comparison to the money McCain is preparing to spend on one initiative alone: Iraq.

Obama's asking people earning a lot of money ($250,000 and up) to cough up as much as they were in 2000 (so, a little more) to help rebuild the country. McCain's asking people to not notice the continued deficit spending he wants to rebuild another country.

[NoMyths]

And to hopefully make the point a bit clearer:

Link: NPR: Candidates Clash On Impact Of Offshore Drilling

Excerpted Text:

Candidates Clash On Impact Of Offshore Drilling
By Christopher Joyce

"No one says that drilling offshore would change gas prices today. The Department of Energy says there may be 18 billion barrels of oil in coastal waters, but they also say that drilling for it would not have a significant impact on production or prices until 2030.

"Even people in the oil industry say drilling won't ease the oil pinch. Matthew Simmons is head of Simmons and Company, among the largest banks investing in energy. "We basically wasted away 20 years," he said. "Now, basically, it's a terrific idea, but we ran out the clock. It's really misleading to hold that out as a panacea. It won't work. It might work for our grandchildren."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rowech

Does anyone have state-by-state polling? These stupid polls mean nothing without the context of the states. It is the only polling that would give a decent picture.

fivethirtyeight.com does full composites. electoral-vote.com has individual pages of polling for each state.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Both of you suggest that speculation is a big part of the problem. I'm going to assume that you both agree that more drilling is unlikely to affect supply-and-demand in the short term. Further, as we've discussed elsewhere, the current runup in oil prices doesn't seem to match supply-and-demand dynamics.

So, if you want a short-term solution (and to discuss long-term solutions elsewhere) the obvious answer to me would seem to be to repeal the expansion of oil speculation passed by the GOP in 2001 (when they controlled Congress) which expanded the group of people/corporations allowed to purchase oil futures. In the intervening years, the percentage of futures owned by these "speculators" (i.e., people who do not intend to actually use the futures), has risen from 30% to 70%.

It's too bad that both candidates are going to be in a position to pander to Americans that just want the promise of cheaper gas prices now. There are no real short term fixes, and I don't think either candidate is bold enough to do what we really need to do to get off of foreign (or at least mideast) oil....So the world is just sentenced to do it the hard way instead.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by molson

It's too bad that both candidates are going to be in a position to pander to Americans that just want the promise of cheaper gas prices now. There are no real short term fixes, and I don't think either candidate is bold enough to do what we really need to do to get off of foreign (or at least mideast) oil....So the world is just sentenced to do it the hard way instead.

It seems to me that you're the one who has made up his mind 100%.

McCain's energy position

Obama's energy position

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It seems to me that you're the one who has made up his mind 100%.

My views change all the time as I learn and read more. I actually changed my mind over the Gitmo torture ruling over the course of that thread. I certainly won't conform my views to identically match those of any individual candidate, as many seem to have done with Obama.

[NoMyths]

At the end of the day, though, there are two people in the world who can still be elected president. Our job as citizens is to choose the one who supports positions we feel reflect a vision for strengthening America. I wouldn't argue that anyone has to conform their views to match either candidate identically -- rather, I would say that we have to choose which one has the vision for the future of this country that reflects what we want America to be, and to consider whether that candidate's plans are realistic in moving towards that goal.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Our job as citizens is to choose the one who supports positions we feel reflect a vision for strengthening America.

That's one thing, and it's an important thing. But supporting a "vision" only goes so far. I know what visions both support. But what will actually happen with an Obama or McCain in the White House? That's a much more difficult question to answer.

[NoMyths]

And yes, I realize there are a substantial amount of folks who support third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates. None of them will be president, but supporting them may help promote visions for the country which are underrepresented.

At the very least, supporting a vision goes as far as the voting booth, and there are only two people on it who will be able to give enacting that vision a shot. One might also argue that it should extend into doing the kind of work throughout the years (not just in election ones) that will enact the vision.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Seriously, though, I know you don't like either candidate Bucc, but bear in mind that the money Obama's planning to spend on all of his programs pales in comparison to the money McCain is preparing to spend on one initiative alone: Iraq.

But aren't both candidates going to be spending a great deal of money - on top of the budget - for resources in the Middle East between 2009 and 2012? I am not convinced that foreign aid to the Middle East, including Iraq, will go down significantly no matter who's President or in Congress. Even though I suspect that priorities will change, there will be too much pressure not to make things even worse than they are now.

Even if one were to "free up" significant expenditures, it is not available to spend elsewhere.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

dola...

And yes, I realize there are a substantial amount of folks who support third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates. None of them will be president, but supporting them may help promote visions for the country which are underrepresented.

Or to give a voice to what the traditional parties can and should do differently. So far, both are heavily touting the "same tired rhetoric" of their party lines.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

At the end of the day, though, there are two people in the world who can still be elected president. Our job as citizens is to choose the one who supports positions we feel reflect a vision for strengthening America. I wouldn't argue that anyone has to conform their views to match either candidate identically -- rather, I would say that we have to choose which one has the vision for the future of this country that reflects what we want America to be, and to consider whether that candidate's plans are realistic in moving towards that goal.

....then there is Congress.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

....then there is Congress.

True enough. I wonder which candidate will be most effective in working with Congress to enact his vision? Clinton did a suprisingly effective job given his non-experience. With it being a Democratic Congress (as well as a number of other factors including temperment, ability to unite, etc.), my sense is that Obama would be more effective.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

Common sense. I can't see how anyone can argue with this.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

Yep, I didn't like this.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

"Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control" is a mischaracterization of his lifetime stance on gun control which has been marked, again, by common sense. Also, "he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms" is also a mischaracterization of his stance on gun control. Obama's always supported the 2nd amendment, and his view on the need for, and effectiveness of, various types of gun bans, has evolved over the course of the past 15-20 years.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

Again, Morris is torturing the semantics of Obama's own statements to make a false point here. Having said that, it would have been better if he had said little to nothing about the issue. He's on record as saying he doesn't want a wall to go up through the middle of Jerusalem, but he got carried away in his rhetoric to the Israel lobby. Big deal.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

Incorrect, his abortion position has been consistent. Many pro-choice advocates (note "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion") oppose 3rd-trimester abortions. Further, Obama has only agreed to look at legislation like this where there is a clear and unambiguous provision regarding the health of the mother.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

"For the first time"? Pure, unmitigated BS.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

He's always consistently said the President consults the military on tactics, and then makes the strategic decision which becomes the military's job to implement. Obviously I'd like us out of Iraq immediately, but I understand the logistics involved.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

Uh, wow. This is simply flat-out wrong. Before the NEA Obama talked about merit pay and still supports it. Even a cursory google shows that. Frankly, this puts the rest of Morris' article in serious doubt.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Yeah, this isn't true either. At least, I can't find anything approaching a cite here. Morris doesn't offer a cite either, so I'm going to assume this is more hackery.

Is there anything you don't like Obama, or like about McCain?

I liked McCain in 2000. I wouldn't have voted for him over Gore or Bradley, but that's just because we diverge on too many issues.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I am not convinced that foreign aid to the Middle East, including Iraq, will go down significantly no matter who's President or in Congress.

Definitely, and Obama seems to be slowly coming to this realization.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

That's one thing, and it's an important thing. But supporting a "vision" only goes so far. I know what visions both support. But what will actually happen with an Obama or McCain in the White House? That's a much more difficult question to answer.

Obviously I agree with a lot of Obama's positions. It's part of the reason I'm excited about him as a candidate. And I haven't conformed my positions to match his. Why would I do that?

What I really like, however, is Obama's approach. He's a thoughtful guy who surrounds himself with experts who possess differing opinions and seriously tries to make sure that every decision, proposal, or program is well thought-out and challenged prior to implementation and that measurable success factors exist for these. That's a level of reasonableness and accountability I like to see in any leader, especially one who's spending my money.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

my sense is that Obama would be more effective.

And there lies the crux of the issue (for me). I am less concerned with Congress approving some of Obama's "vision" than I am Obama signing off on Congress' "visions".

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And there lies the crux of the issue (for me). I am less concerned with Congress approving some of Obama's "vision" than I am Obama signing off on Congress' "visions".

So...you would prefer to elect a president that will be unable to work with Congress?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

So...you would prefer to elect a president that will be unable to work with Congress?

Yes. Or a President with the balls to veto (and not be overridden). Or a libertarian-minded Congress.

Of those three, unfortunately the most realistic option is the first one. The massively wasteful bills such as the farm, energy and mortgage bills will be small potatoes compared to a friendly Legislature/Executive. It would be on par with the disaster from the Rep Congress/Executive of the early-mid 2000s (war fundings, homeland security bills, etc.).

[CamEdwards]

Just for you, Bucc:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

BTW, that's George Washington, not Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. :P

[Buccaneer]

That's cool, Cam. The Spirit of Revenge is still strong, as we saw with Reagan undoing Carter, Clinton undoing Reagan/Bush and Bush2 undoing Clinton. At least now it's all name calling and spiteful rhetoric. Back then, people actually got maimed or killed for being the opposition.

I actually don't have much of a problem with "undoing" things, it's adding on that I don't like. That and the incessant opposition for opposition's sake, in framing things that you are either for us or against us, or red or blue.

[rowech]

In many ways, I'd rather see a system every time where the president and congress are from opposing parties. Make sure nothing gets done unless it really needs to be done.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

So...you would prefer to elect a president that will be unable to work with Congress?

This would be awesome. Sadly, it almost never actually happens.

[Raiders Army]

When people ask me who I want to be president, I respond with the same response I had from the Superbowl: I hope they both lose.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

He's a thoughtful guy who surrounds himself with experts who possess differing opinions and seriously tries to make sure that every decision, proposal, or program is well thought-out and challenged prior to implementation and that measurable success factors exist for these.

I know he's been in the Senate for 3 1/2 years, but I wasn't aware of the experts that he's surrounded himself with during that time to help him with his decision making process.

[JPhillips]

Look at his economic panel yesterday that included two Bush appointees. Look at his record in Illinois working with the opposition. Look at his time on the Harvard Law Review where conservatives praised his leadership. Whether or not you agree with him, it's impossible to say he doesn't listen to opposing viewpoints.

Experience in the Senate is the only way to work with the opposition.

[flere-imsaho]

The new polls:

State       Obama  McCain  Start   End     Pollster  
California    50%   35%    Jul 08  Jul 22  Pub. Policy Inst. of  
Florida       46%   44%    Jul 23  Jul 29  Quinnipiac U.  
Idaho         37%   53%    Jul 28  Jul 30  Research 2000  
Kentucky      35%   56%    Jul 28  Jul 30  Research 2000  
Kentucky      39%   49%    Jul 29  Jul 29  Rasmussen  
Montana       44%   45%    Jul 29  Jul 29  Rasmussen  
Ohio          46%   44%    Jul 23  Jul 29  Quinnipiac U.  
Pennsylvania  49%   42%    Jul 23  Jul 29  Quinnipiac U.  
Texas         41%   50%    Jul 30  Jul 30  Rasmussen  

Commentary:

California: No surprise here, except that anyone thought CA was ever in play.

Florida & Ohio: Statistical ties, which I think will remain the same until November.

Idaho, Kentucky & Texas: No surprises here.

Montana: We now have multiple polls showing that Montana's in play, so I think we have to assume that it's in play. Which is crazy.

Pennsylvania: Obama pulling away, still potential for McCain here.


The promotion of Rove disciple Steve Schmidt has borne fruit this week with the beginning of truly negative ads from the McCain campaign. We'll see if they work - they usually do.

Despite this, I expect a bit of a mid-summer lull (barring VP announcements) until the conventions.