US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the way the Republicans in Congress have governed and behaved during the years that Obama has been in DC, I can't say that I fault him for not crossing partisan lines.

In some cases, being bipartisan is bullshit, and I feel that way about a lot of the legislation they tried to pass. So frankly, I see nothing particularly wrong about this. The GOP has done nothing but blindly follow Bush, blocked the passage of a number of actually good ideas (hello immigration), threatened with an array of methods to stop the work of the Congress and so on. These are not people that you can deal with at this point. Perhaps when they are an even smaller minority, they'll stop acting like the country is their personal toilet to shit all over.
 
I'm reviewing McCain's and Obama's bill sponsorships since 2005 right now. So far, it looks like the overwhelming majority of these bipartisan bills McCain sponsored are very minor Committee on Indian Affairs bills, plus about a half-dozen Senate resolutions 'urging' various former Soviet republics to ensure fair elections.

Haven't made it to the present session yet though.
 
Irvine511 said:
you know, i wouldn't doubt this. but it begs the question: why isn't McCain running on his record?

why is he running on outright, provable lies and know-nothing, facts-be-damned cultural identification platform?
Click to expand...

You know why. We all do: Because his record would alienate his base. Have we all forgotten how despised he was by many of the various ones who are now championing his cause?

And besides the the lies and cultural identification platform seem be a winning formula.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This election--for me--really is a referendum on the electorate, not the candidates. If McCain wins based on the campaing he's running, it will reflect poorly on the American voter.
 
I love that the ladies on The View were the most right about McCain than any reporter in America.

Including the fact that he's a different John McCain now than he used to be.
 
Dreadsox said:
Washington Times - Records show McCain more bipartisan
Click to expand...
OK, so, yeah, I checked all the bills each of them have introduced as sponsors since 2005. I didn't look at bills where they served as co-sponsors--that would've meant reading over an additional 666 ( :uhoh: ) entries for Obama and an additional 288 for McCain. It's undeniable that McCain has a much higher percentage of bipartisan-sponsored bills (just as it's undeniable that Obama is far more prolific overall as a sponsor and cosponsor); however, it's also easy to cherry-pick a handful of impressively weighty-sounding bills, while simultaneously emphasizing a high bipartisanship rate, in order to exaggerate an image as bridge-builder on Stuff That Really Matters, and I think reviewing just the bills they respectively sponsored illustrates that well enough.



McCain has introduced a total of 97 bills, as sponsor, in the Senate since 2005. (Committees he belongs to: Indian Affairs; Armed Services; and Commerce, Science & Transportation.)

Of those 97 bills, 61 had at least one Dem co-sponsor (13 of the 61 were actually the same bill being reintroduced, but I counted them anyway).

21 of those 61 were Indian Affairs bills--expanding Native American domestic violence prevention measures here, arbitration support for some specific reservation's land dispute there, etc. etc. Good on McCain for keeping active on behalf of his Native American constituents :up: ; that said, there's nothing particularly impressive about securing bipartisan support on these issues, since receptivity to Indian Affairs proposals has much more to do with which state a Congressperson is from than which party s/he belongs to.

6 more of those 61 were resolutions urging Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka (twice), and Belarus, respectively, to ensure fair elections.

The remaining 25 bipartisan-sponsored bills (minus the reintroductions):

--Resolution: Russia's G8 membership should be contingent on adherence to democracy.
--Resolution: Russia should withdraw its new legislation limiting foreign NGO activity.
--Resolution: We support Georgia's South Ossetia peace plan.
--Jan '06 is Nat'l Mentoring Month.
--Resolution: Int'l Football Assoc. shouldn't let Iranian teams participate.
--Establish a US Boxing Commission (as in, the sport of boxing).
--Amend Fed. Campaign Act to clarify which organizations are PACs.
--Resolution: US should strengthen democracy globally through peaceful means like advocacy, alliances and implementation support.
--Implement FCC regulations re: low-power FM services.
--Funding for a resource study of sites associated with Cesar Chavez.
--Funding for research on climate change and reducing greenhouse emissions.
--Sanctions against certain Burmese officials and gem and lumber imports from Burma.
--Allow Armed Forces members to designate their own beneficiaries.
--Expedite the transition to digital TV.
--Eliminate the annual operating deficit backlog of the Nat'l Parks.
--Reinstate FCC's video programming description rules.
--Modernize child porn reporting methods.
--Establish a working group to study public safety spectrum (spectrum as in radio) needs.
--Enhance US border security.
--No new state-imposed discriminatory cell phone taxes.
--Increase rail transport security.
--Greater transparency on lobbying activities.
--Curtail Congressional earmarks.
--Sanctions against Uzbek officials linked to the Andijan massacre.
--Minor technical correction to 1971 Campaign Act.



Obama has introduced a total of 136 bills, as sponsor, in the Senate since 2005. (Committees he belongs to: Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Veterans Affairs; Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs; and Foreign Relations.)

Of those 136 bills, 36 had at least one Republican co-sponsor (6 of the 36 were reintroductions).

9 of those 36 were were resolutions honoring a historical figure (like the Rosa Parks stamp mentioned in the article). Nice gesture, but irrelevant to voters.

The remaining 23 bipartisan-sponsored bills (minus the reintroductions):

--Reduce US dependence on oil through alternative fuels and new technology.
--Increase fuel economy standards for autos.
--Relief, security and democracy promotion measures for the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
--Establish an alternative diesel standard.
--Increase alternative-fuel vehicle refueling capacities.
--July 13 is National Summer Learning Day.
--Require notification of state and local officials when excess, unplanned fission products release occurs.
--Resolution: We condemn the violent acts of the Zimbabwean gov't.
--Add flu pandemic provisions to Public Health Services Act.
--Measures to limit deceptive practices in federal elections.
--Improve care of Armed Forces members recovering from injuries.
--Allow state and local gov'ts to direct divestiture from companies with >$20 mil. invested in Iran's energy sector.
--Prohibit sale, transfer and export of mercury.
--Require POTUS to develop and implement comprehensive US strategy for eliminating extreme poverty/meeting Millennium Development Goals.
--Increase transparency and accountability in federal spending.
--Support research on microbicides to prevent transmission of AIDS and other diseases.
--Expand genomics research re: diagnostic and treatment methods.
--New procedures for discharging mentally ill Armed Forces members.
--Restore access of campus and safety-net clinics to discount drug prices.
--Support Nat'l Science Foundation development of a climate change education program.
--Education Dep't creation of public-access database of all available scholarships and other financial aid.
--Increase Public Health Services Act supports for SIDS and stillbirth resources.
--Coordinate the nat'l science, tech, engineering and math initiatives.



Both have demonstrated an ability to work across the aisle--whether and when that also constitutes significant breaks with their parties depends on the issue, and whether said breaks should be applauded depends on what you think was the right stance to take.
 
How white, working-class women view the candidates

By The Associated Press | September 15, 2008

An Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted Sept. 5-10 found John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, taking a slim lead over Democrat Barack Obama. Results showed that blue-collar white women were more likely to see McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as sharing their values and principles. They were 10 percentage points more likely than voters overall to say so about Palin.

How much do you think each candidate shares your own values and principles?

Non-college-educated women who are considered likely voters:

John McCain - 71%

Sarah Palin - 65%

Barack Obama - 52%

Joe Biden - 46%

Likely voters overall:

McCain - 67%

Palin - 55%

Obama - 58%

Biden - 47%
 
Here we go, former McCain shill turns on him.

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

...

And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.
Click to expand...

washingtonpost.com
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
How white, working-class women view the candidates

By The Associated Press | September 15, 2008

An Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted Sept. 5-10 found John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, taking a slim lead over Democrat Barack Obama. Results showed that blue-collar white women were more likely to see McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as sharing their values and principles. They were 10 percentage points more likely than voters overall to say so about Palin.

How much do you think each candidate shares your own values and principles?

Non-college-educated women who are considered likely voters:

John McCain - 71%

Sarah Palin - 65%

Barack Obama - 52%

Joe Biden - 46%

Likely voters overall:

McCain - 67%

Palin - 55%

Obama - 58%

Biden - 47%
Click to expand...

Poor Joe. Do people not remember the Violence Against Women Act? Apparently not. :sigh: Biden does more for women than Palin.
 
eat it, Al Gore!

you might have invented the internets ... but John McCain invented the goddamn BLACKBERRY!!!!


In a session with reporters today, (McCain economic adviser Douglas) Holtz-Eakin was asked:

Q: “What has he (McCain) done on (the) Commerce Committee (which McCain chaired from 2003-2005) that will convince Americans he understands financial markets?

Holtz-Eakin: “He didn’t have jurisdiction over financial markets, but first and foremost he did this (Holtz-Eakin holds up his BlackBerry), telecommunications of the United states, the premier innovation in the past 15 years comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you’re looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create.”

Q: Did he regulate the industry?

“He both regulated and de-regulated the industry as appropriate.”
Click to expand...
 
Wow, between being a POW (you may not have known this, but he was - shocking, I know), spending all that time crossing party lines, and being a maverick, he had time to work as a developer for RIM? Amazing.
 
I guess that makes him ultimately responsible for the California train crash then, eh? :hmm:
 
Obama says he's better on economy - CNN.com

As part of his proposal to get out of the economic crisis, Obama said he is proposing a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan to "jump-start job creation." Obama said the plan would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding infrastructure and repairing schools, among other things.

The senator from Illinois said the country also must continue to address the housing crisis and build a "21st-century regulatory framework." Obama vowed to "get serious" about regulatory oversight.

"If you're a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision," he said.

Obama said the United States needs leadership to get the country out of its financial problems.

"I'll provide it, John McCain won't, and that's the choice for the American people in this election," he said.

But Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist and special adviser to the U.N. secretary-general, said neither candidate will be able to stop continued financial woes in the near future.

"I think right now that this is a recession that's going to happen," he said."I don't see anybody being able to stop that giant wave. The question is how we get out if it."

Sachs said he thinks Obama's plan is "closer" to being on target, with his calls for regulation. McCain also has started talking about increased regulation, but Sachs said McCain has "reinvented himself in the last 24 hours" with such talk.
Click to expand...


As I've hinted at before, people criticize Obama for not having a clear economic plan (although McCain doesn't, either), but they miss the crucial foundation of the ideas that Obama presents. His plans are rooted in the very principles that helped steer us out of the Great Depression (aside from WWII, of course)---that is, the notion of government-funded organizations that not only create jobs, but also work toward the betterment of the infrastructure of the nation at the same time....helping the economy of today and nurturing that of tomorrow.

This "Emergency Economic Plan (EEP)," consisting of creating jobs that would fix deteriorating schools and other infrastructure, as well as the notion of creating and nurturing a whole industry of alternative energy, smell strongly of the Tennessee Valley Authority (Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and other FDR-inspired Depression-busters.

I'd love to see Obama and his campaign relay this fact and elucidate the details to the public through commercials, speeches, etc. People criticize him for not having a plan, but the ideas are there. "They're real, and they're spectacular!" :wink:
 
Utoo said:
As I've hinted at before, people criticize Obama for not having a clear economic plan (although McCain doesn't, either), but they miss the crucial foundation of the ideas that Obama presents. His plans are rooted in the very principles that helped steer us out of the Great Depression (aside from WWII, of course)---that is, the notion of government-funded organizations that not only create jobs, but also work toward the betterment of the infrastructure of the nation at the same time....helping the economy of today and nurturing that of tomorrow.
Click to expand...


:up:

welcome to the the 21st century. here's hoping the rust belt independent white people who've been brutalized by the republicans can put race aside and vote for the thuddingly obviously better candidate for their economic future.
 
looks like Obama has pounced:

Obama Ridicules McCain's Economic Response

By Anne E. Kornblut
GOLDEN, Colo. -- Ridiculing his rival for sticking with "an economic philosophy that has completely failed," Sen. Barack Obama laid out his approach to managing the current financial crisis -- promising to play a proactive role if he is elected president in order to prevent future meltdowns.

Obama has delivered a series of economic speeches over the last year-and-a-half on the campaign trail, and he recapped some of his top proposals here on Tuesday. But the core of his argument was against Sen. John McCain, who has a long record of promoting deregulation and who has repeatedly said the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Obama poked fun at McCain for proposing a commission to examine the crisis, calling that "the oldest Washington stunt in the book."

"This isn't 9/11. We know how we got into this mess," Obama said. "What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it, John McCain won't, and that's the choice for the American people in this election."

Obama also pointed to a history of Democratic presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, who commanded the country through rough financial waters. And he hammered McCain repeatedly -- for failing, he said, to grasp the root of the problems and for only belatedly deciding that greater regulation is needed.

"John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," Obama told a crowd of about 2,100 at the Colorado School of Mines.

"In fact, one of the biggest proponents of deregulation in the financial sector is Phil Gramm -- the same man who helped write John McCain's economic plan," Obama continued. He said Gramm is "the same man who said that we're going through a 'mental recession,' and the same man who called the United States of America a 'nation of whiners.'"

"So it's hard to understand how Senator McCain is going to get us out of this crisis by doing the same things with the same old players," Obama said.

Obama, appearing in the same town that Gov. Sarah Palin visited a day earlier, drew an enthusiastic response -- with supporters cheering even some of his more wonkish lines. As he wrapped up his speech, Obama's advisers embraced two apparent gaffes by their rivals -- economic adviser Doug Holt-Eakin's claim that McCain had created the BlackBerry, and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's admission that neither Palin nor McCain would be qualified to run a major corporation.

Still, Obama took a subdued approach, far from the fiery manner that McCain displayed on the campaign trail when discussing the same topic. And he placed renewed emphasis on his history of reform, citing his efforts to ban lobbyists' gifts to legislators in Springfield, Ill., as a state senator and his subsequent work in the U.S. Senate -- a seeming counterpunch to Palin's frequent references in her stump speech to her work shaking up the Alaska establishment.

The McCain-Palin campaign responded that Obama had both "inflated his own resume" and disparaged American workers with his attacks on McCain, who had revised his earlier claim that the fundamental of the economy are strong to state that, in fact, it is American workers who are strong. "Barack Obama offered nothing new except for sharp criticisms of the most fundamental elements of the American economy and pessimism about genuine efforts to restore our country's prosperity," McCain-Palin spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
Click to expand...
 
EconomicIndicators.jpg


Heckuva job, Republicans.
 
anitram said:
EconomicIndicators.jpg


Heckuva job, Republicans.
Click to expand...

Well, if you wanna be a little more precise about economic performance, you'll take into account all the years someone was in office, not just the month they started and one of the last months they were in office. Thats just not very representitive of 8 years. Unemployment initially went up during the Bush administration to 6.3% in 2003, but was brought back down to 4.4 by 2007.

A more accurate way of looking at these figures is to take a look at the average over the time the President was in office. Here is a comparison of Clinton and W administrations on a number of economic indicators and statistics looking at the average performance of each through out their time in office.

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%




Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%




Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%



Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%




Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%




Notice that the average annual poverty rate under W is the 3rd lowest of any administration in the history of the United States. Only Nixon and Carter have had an average annual poverty rate lower than W.



Also, lets not forget that Clinton started with a national debt of $4,064,620,655,521.66 and left us with a national debt of $5,674,178,209,886.86, a 42% increase despite the fact the country was at peace and with the world enjoying the lowest gas prices in history. Bush has had to deal with much higher gas prices and fight two extended wars.
 
Actually, Bush did not "have" to deal with all of that. He fought two wars and had high gas prices when only one was necessary (the less expensive one) and did nothing to combat the gas prices.
 
phillyfan26 said:
Actually, Bush did not "have" to deal with all of that. He fought two wars and had high gas prices when only one was necessary (the less expensive one) and did nothing to combat the gas prices.
Click to expand...


The number of people who think the world would be safer today and the energy market in better condition with Saddam in power in Iraq gets smaller and smaller.
 
Strongbow said:
The number of people who think the world would be safer today and the energy market in better condition with Saddam in power in Iraq gets smaller and smaller.
Click to expand...

Yes, the world is safer now that instead of one nutjob trying to get a finger on the button, Iraq is now filled with thousands hoping to get their fingers on one. And the energy market was going to hit bottom anyway. Oil is antiquated. Face it--the world needed to move on, and this was the impetus. (Actually, it's America that needs to move on--several places in the EU are already doing great with alternative energy, mostly government-sponsored like Obama proposes.)

Saying "Drill, drill, drill!" in 2008 is like saying "Typewriter, typewriter, typewriter!" in 1992. Just plain dumb.

STING, I enjoy it when you say things like "the number of people is growing smaller" when you base the thought entirely on your own opinion. I then enjoy it even more when you follow up by quoting one or two op-ed pieces as proof of a massive movement. :love:
 
Utoo said:
Yes, the world is safer now that instead of one nutjob trying to get a finger on the button, Iraq is now filled with thousands hoping to get their fingers on one. And the energy market was going to hit bottom anyway. Oil is antiquated. Face it--the world needed to move on, and this was the impetus. (Actually, it's America that needs to move on--several places in the EU are already doing great with alternative energy, mostly government-sponsored like Obama proposes.)

Saying "Drill, drill, drill!" in 2008 is like saying "Typewriter, typewriter, typewriter!" in 1992. Just plain dumb.

STING, I enjoy it when you say things like "the number of people is growing smaller" when you base the thought entirely on your own opinion. I then enjoy it even more when you follow up by quoting one or two op-ed pieces as proof of a massive movement. :love:
Click to expand...


The threat that Saddam posed to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the worlds key source of energy, no longer exist in the Iraq of 2008. Not only does Iraq currently not possess the military capabilities of Saddam's Iraq, but more importantly it does not have a government with the history of behavior like that of Saddam's regime, or that has intentions for the future similar to what Saddam's regime had.

Oil is vital to the current global economy and will be for years to come. It impacts the price of nearly everything that you purchase, including the food that you eat. Despite all the talk of alternative energy, nothing currently impacts the global economy more than the price of oil. Even a country like Brazil that no longer imports oil is still impacted by any sort of oil crises, because they import and export billions of dollars worth of goods every year with the rest of the world. The price that Brazil pays for its imports goes up, as the price of oil goes up. When the price of oil negativelly impacts the global economy, it impacts how much Brazil can export.

There is currently no alternative energy source that has been able to change the global economy's current dependence on oil. Hopefully this will change in the future, but in the short term, its vital to keep the planets most important source of energy safe, secure, and as cheap as possible.
 
Strongbow said:
The threat that Saddam posed to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the worlds key source of energy, no longer exist in the Iraq of 2008. Not only does Iraq currently not possess the military capabilities of Saddam's Iraq, but more importantly it does not have a government with the history of behavior like that of Saddam's regime, or that has intentions for the future similar to what Saddam's regime had.
Click to expand...

The latter statement is true only because Iraq has a government with no history at all. The future and safety of the country, the region, and its oil have not been determined--and it would be folly for one to believe that they have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Police Brutality Against 73 Year Old Woman With Dementia
Replies
4
Views
568
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
A
The little stranger chapter 13
Replies
0
Views
566
annj
A
MrsSpringsteen
Fox News, Fake News!
Replies
4
Views
700
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 3 Listening Thread
3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
5K
iron yuppie
iron yuppie

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom