Sara Palin was probably wearing a Carhartt jacket when she voted. If you live in certain parts of the country or have certain interests you probably know the name.Given the credit crisis and recent velocity of deterioration of the capital markets I think it is clear that McCain has had no chance to win (BTW I generally prefer McCain) so in a way he had to go rogue (Rogue was one of my college nicknames) with the VP choice.
Whoever wins has a good chance of being viewed as a great president due to the likelihood that the crisis will end under his watch. Policies implemented will either facilitate the recovery or hinder it (this is probably unknowable) but it is very likely to end all the same.
Any other thoughts come to mind?
21 comments:
I think Obama is a lock and my stomach is queasy at the thought of it. His wife thinks he's the second coming but she and his followers are in for a big surprise.
Unfortunately, we didn't have a good choice in this election and we Will be in a bad place in 4 years.
God help us, please.
I have watched a steady and slow backlash against the Palin pick from Republican strategists and pundits.
But, when Duberstein rolled over to Obama and mentioned Palin as one of several reasons that had to shake up the base a bit more.
But, the mistake in picking Palin was that this was never a base election.
Palin, shes a scary communist. Look at what she did with oil in Alaska. Its a Trailer Park Paradise.
Could you tell what kind of jeans she was wearing?! ;-)
A right winger being called a communist, wow. What does that make politicians who say they need to be in charge so they can "spread the wealth"?
DE
Politics is a contact sport and McCain and Obama are both professionals with strategic and tactical teams to match; e.g., the McCain team's decision to "go rogue" as you put it was largely tactical because they had to increase market-share in the news cycle and the Obama team was successfully defending their cut -- with neither the funds nor the 'fresh news face' to acquire more the options were limited (it continues to amaze me how many pundits appear unable to grasp even the most basic elements of political calculus in the US).
After the past eight years of miserable governance I would have had trouble voting Republican under the best of circumstances so, with the third party candidates completely out of the running everywhere nationally (thank goodness I had some options in my state), the choice wasn't hard: Time for good old fashioned Keynesian stimulus, domestic spending on infrastructure in particular; puts a bit more in working folks pockets that, along with tax-cuts in the lower income categories, should increase domestic consumption and money velocity*
It's not over until it's over but, assuming Obama wins, I think the US will recover sooner than most of the developed international markets, possibly somewhat more strongly than many suspect too, and I plan to allocate accordingly in the intermediate term (basically through 2009 although I still think more really bad news is on its way and maybe another market crash too).
I was going to ask if anyone wanted to make a side-bet on how many socialist/commie, soft on terrorist, anti-American, anti-liberty snarks (or full-on rants) we get here before the day is done but, jeez, we already got a couple w/ one a "preemptive strike" to boot. Woot, woot! Personally I think Obama is more conservative than people realize (some liberals are going to be disappointed) but that's just another persons opinion (shrug).
*Note: Lower income groups tend to spend most of what they make, largely in their own communities, and those they typically spend it on do the same which fosters a much stronger multiplier effect than wealthier folks who tend to passively invest and/or spend non-domestically; e.g., since lower income groups also rent, particularly these days, my limited partner rental unit position just keeps looking better and better.
Could it be that McCain did not really want to win because, like Hoover, his name might be used to illustrate what happens to a president when faced with an impossible situation? In any event, we all hope up here that you guys down there can get your act together because we need a working locomotive to get this train going again. Willy
funny, i've asked my wife a couple of times, rhetorically, why would either of them want the job?
I got a Carhart I bought in high school in 96. My wife continually wants to throw it away, I tell her no way in hell.
I voted so that my vote would cancel out the illegal vote of some felon or illegal alien. If I cancel out even one of that guy's votes then it's worth it.
Get ready for Obama Vs. Palin in 2012
I think Palin gets enough soccer mom democrats to vote for a woman.
I would agree with you Roger except Obama will reign along side a Democrat controlled congress, one that is far more leftist than any Democratic congress in the past. The likelihood that Obama will over-reach is quite high. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - we saw it under Bush.
I've spoken to many folks (like RW) who are voting for Obama who think he is "more conservative than people realize". I don't think so, but they'll have to live and learn. The media has failed in vetting Obama on both the ideological and policy front. We only learned this week his inclination to bankrupt the coal industry.
I've also spoken to many small business owners over the past several weeks, none of which I would consider politically interested let alone activists. All of them have to one degree or another calculated the impact of Obama's tax policies and all of them are talking of layoffs and downsizing. My guess is we're going to see a significant John Galt-like reaction over the next few years; not a work stoppage, but a work slowdown/downsizing (work = job creation and capital investment).
The economy will technically recover on Obama's watch, yes, but in 4 years government will consume a much larger percentage of GDP, our national debt will balloon and compared to the growth rates in the rest of the world, the U.S. will decline.
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/10/pjb-obamas-first-100-days/
It's really funny to me how people forget every four years that our Presidents don't make laws, determine business cycles, raise (or lower) taxes, repeal court decisions, outsource jobs, or whatever else the conservative talk show hosts would have them believe. Does anyone even remember what Bush promised four years ago? Eight years ago? How much of it has come to pass? The real issue in this election is how the balance of power may shift in Congress but nobody remembers high school civics.
Roger
I live in Alaska and Carhardt's are fantastic. Try their extra heavy flannel shirts. Mitchelg
i.e. "national debt will balloon"
Have you even bothered to look at how it's ballooned under Bush?
It's so funny to this American abroad that "socialism" is such a curse-word in the States. The fact is, most Americans, not being rich, would benefit from a little redistribution of the wealth. But all you have to do is call'em a socialist and it gets everyone's ire up.
"Have you even bothered to look at how it's ballooned under Bush?"
Yes. For the millionth time, Bush isn't a fiscal conservative! And there are few fiscal conservatives left amongst the Republicans in congress.
Your comment is just another example of the drumbeat we've heard from Democrats and the media over the past 4 years. The ballooning nation debt isn't a result of conservative policies, policies that reduce the size of government, it's the result of our FAILURE TO CUT SPENDING. Government doesn't have an income crisis, it has a spending crisis.
Do you really believe deficits will go down under an Obama administration? Look at his spending plans. Do you really think he can offset his spending by raising taxes on those who make over $250,000? Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
we are f'd
I can't wait to see the look on the middle class when Obama raises their taxes to pay for welfare (and yes, that is what it is called when you give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes).
The next 4 years are going to be truly classic.
yes you are right. you are f'd. but most of the country is not.
A Liberal Rant (you are forewarned...)
Before I went to law school, I too thought the world was a simple as I saw it.
And when I went to B school, I marveled at how my classmates could remain so clearly fixated on profits, and "what's in it for me"?
By now, I guess I have lived long enough to accept if not understand that the blind confidence of youth, ignorance and a certain self-possession is a big part of what has made America what it is. (It is a part of our culture: the "self made man"; the iconoclastic individualist, the "Howard Roarks", the Donald Trumps, etc etc.)
How much of this is the uncontrollable urge to prove oneself to oneself, I don't know. I do think that in the midst of such proving, considerations given to the other guy, the other gal, and to something as true and trite as the golden rule are simply "put aside".
And then, when these fury driven consumption-machines have accumulated more and more and more (including homes, wives, and companies) they begin to slow down and the - guilt? - catches up to them. Hospitals are dedicated in their name (for their selflessness has a limit, even as they're drowning in sheepish acknowledgement that maybe they stepped on a few toes, broke a few noses, derailed a few lives along their road to the top), or concert halls have plaques on the wall with their names carved in the best marble money can buy, announcing to the world with pride (in salve of the wounded ego, as the man begins to see that his invulnerability and immortality are also illusions, and that time has stolen his confidence in an endless future) just how generous he really is.
To those that would insist, with the simplistic world view of Ayn Rand, that people are generally lazy and that the world [should] belong to the industrious only, and that there is no recession that can't be cured by interest rate cuts, I say: time to grow a pair.
The tragedy of the commons, it's called... there will always be those that think they are individually capable of doing what is only best done by a common contribution. It's called the "free rider" problem, and the self-proclaimed libertarians among us are guilty as charged.
Consider the cost of raising a developmentally challenged son or daughter. Consider the challenge faced every single day by a broken warrior who has returned from Iraq (or any other mission dreamed up on ideological pretensions covering for the true reason: energy needs) who has lost his legs. Consider the challenge felt by the inner city single mom who, as a child the same age as Palin's daughter becomes pregnant, but who lives in a world that is not color blind, not filled (on a personal level) with successful male role models (at least none that do not involve athletics, violence or the perpetuation of males subjugating females).
Those parents of the challenged child, the wounded vet struggling to figure out how to get around a city without legs, and that single mom inherited - as in DID NOT CHOOSE - a set of circumstances that, sure, could be "overcome" with "gumption, grit and lots of hard work", but before we all just indulge in the masturbatory pleasure of blaming the unlucky for failing to avoid their bad luck, maybe we might give some thought to whether or not in a country of such wealth and opportunity, we might do well to pitch in and lend a hand.
We do it as a point of pride when we are among our friends; what is it that turns the "god fearing" christians into Limbaugh loving pukes? And what is it that makes paying taxes such an anathema to the narrow minded? (Consider your chances in a world with NO taxes - and no sewers, no water, no public rights of way for communications, electricity, heck, roads for that matter. Of course it is a matter of degrees we're really talking about, but why is it, when speaking to a libertarian, I hear echoes of all or none behind most of their arguments? I guess the black and white, good and evil, capitalist/communist dialectic is just that much easier to hold in one's head...)
Maybe the fear of taxes comes from the Reagan "cadillac welfare mom"? Urban myth, well and truly debunked.
I live down the street from some projects in Brooklyn - I see very tired men and women coming home very late on the bus, likely worn out by what is - given their economic realities - a menial mind-numbing job. I also see the occasional 16 and 17 year old girls - children - dragging their 2 year olds to the playground, and I think about my 2 year old and the enormous gap between my daughter and this child's daughter.
The future in front of my daughter is all but COMPLETELY INACCESSIBLE to this other 2 year old.
"Dem's the breaks?" If you say so.
I see the Iraq war vet (probably Gulf war) setting in front of the "package" store, nursing a bottle in a brown bag, and snatching cigarette butts that aren't fully smoked from the sidewalk.
"Brought it on himself?" Yes, Rush, and how about that Oxycontin habit?
"Compassionate conservatism" Bush said.
And then he said the war was about WMDs.
So, for those disappointed McCain voters, I hope they'll come to terms with their disappointment, however unjustified I might think it is. (The financial disaster we are in was always going to require sacrifice - a word not used as much as "paraded" by those seeking an appearance of patriotic nobility - and taxes may be just one form such sacrifice might take.)(Here in NY, the mayor just announced that he is removing a perennial real estate tax rebate scheduled for next fall, and has canceled the winter class of police cadets - I mention the latter to bring home a reality that some in the wonderland of suburbia may not experience: try coming home in my neighborhood after midnight knowing that there are fewer police required to do more patrols. When the unemployment runs out, desperation may bring back a rise in muggings, a term largely unused of late in the City. Don't you think most people would give up another marginal one percent of their take home to avoid being beaten and robbed, or more pointedly, to decrease the likelihood that your wife/daughter/mother is beaten and robbed?)
The "small business tax" attack is/was a trojan horse hiding who knows what sort of fears about not having McCain/Palin in charge.
For my money, I'd rather give the chair in the oval office to someone with the brains of a constitutional law scholar.
We tried the "who'd you rather have a beer with", and sure, I'd probably enjoy hearing stories from the fighter jock whose taste in women runs from hooker/strippers whose names end in an "i" to fabulously wealthy X-rays, but this time, why not at least give elitism a chance to justify the envy it so often attracts?
Congrats for reading this far...
R in NY
(I voted for Ralph; my taste for change - and "excessive regulation" - runs much further left than will ever be proposed or approved by BHO...)
R in NY...Thank you for articulating your thoughts.
"Consider your chances in a world with NO taxes - and no sewers, no water, no public rights of way for communications, electricity, heck, roads for that matter."
You know a debate is futile when your adversaries are prone to construct insanely ridiculous straw men to justify their own twisted view of reality.
There's one hell of difference between a publicly funded EMT coming to your aid in a time of need and making healthcare a fundamental human right. Liberals can't see the difference.
Post a Comment