About to head to Virginia for voter protection stuff on election day. Democrats will be there to make sure every eligible voter is permitted to vote a regular ballot. Should be fun.
Posts Tagged ‘obama’
The real reason the National Review types are upset, of course, is that the media is reporting on Biden’s comment, Rev. Wright, lipstick on pigs, etc., and nobody gives a shit.
Times are too serious, and Republican policy (to the extent that any such thing exists) and talking points so discredited, that the outrage and umbrage assault can’t make a dent in public opinion anymore.
As awful as the Washington Post editorial page is, I don’t want to lose my elitist cred by siding with Joe on this one.
The entire world, except Jordan, has more confidence in Obama than McCain. I would guess that about 3 percent of Americans know that the world has strong views on this, and that maybe a quarter of them care.
Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan’s emailer never seem to be too concerned with facts. They tend to dismiss policy proposals, such as expanding the number of Americans with health insurance, as embodying “collectivist strands” without considering the likely results of the proposal.
In a world with a collective action problem, multiple equilibria, and a whole bunch of countries that have a better, more cost-efficient means of insuring their citizens, it sure seems worth taking a look at these proposals rather than merely rejecting them out of hand.
But hey, I’m just a conservative empiricist, so I don’t really have anything in common with Republicans.
Carpetbagger notes the McCain camp’s proposal of a series of debates.
I hope it happens. Anything that forces discussion of issues, and backs us away from the brain-off, balls-out style of political discourse that the Lee Atwater/Newt Gingrich/Karl Rove GOP has favored is good for America.
I’d love to see a variety of formats— town hall with audience, no audience, no moderators, etc. It will be harder for McCain to say silly things like that Gen. William Odom wanted to “surrender” in Iraq, and that our problem with health care is that there isn’t enough “choice.” Obama doesn’t tolerate that sort of nonsense.
Obama knows more, speaks better, and has more popular positions than McCain. I think it would go well. And it would be great to think that people cast their votes because they prefer one candidate over the other for substantive reasons, rather than because Obama is too Muslimy.
Benen writes that “There’s a reason the McCain campaign is pushing the idea, and it’s not their love of spirited discourse.” But I think that McCain actually might just like spirited discourse. Back in 2000, he proposed doing a US version of questions for the Prime Minister. He thinks of himself as a modern day Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe he’s sincere in proposing this. Regardless, I think it would work to Obama’s benefit.
Somebody somewhere was saying that Obama should name a VP really soon to tamp down the clamor for him to name Clinton. But the air is going out of the Clinton balloon. Her speech last night managed to make McCain’s look regal and inspiring by comparison.
She lost, the focus turns to Obama vs. McCain. Her appeal is on the decline. Obama should just let it happen, if she chooses to “stay the course” Bush-style.
Here’s an effort by a Republican columnist to provide some sort of intellectual justification for the usual GOP savagery, charmingly entitled “Michelle Obama is fair game.” (Hmm, “fair game,” when have we heard a woman targeted in those terms before?) We’ve already seen the GOP run an ad attacking Mrs. Obama in Tennessee.
You’d think that they might think better of this.
Cindy McCain, after all, had an affair with John McCain when he was still married to his first wife, stole drugs from the charity she ran in order to feed her habit, and, despite bankrolling his early political career with her inherited wealth, refuses to release anything more than a brief summary of her tax returns.
Do they really want to do this?
These are Republicans we’re talking about here, so obviously no moral argument will convince them to refrain from targeting a candidate’s spouse. Maybe, though, they can realize that these rules they’re setting up are not in their self interest.
“Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.”
“The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”
… sort of. He defends Obama on the Wright issue, but adds, “It’s interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what … Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable, years ago.”
Wright is uninfluential because of his political views— after they’re aired in public, a week-long news attack on Obama ensues. Obama instantly criticizes the views his revered expressed.
Whereas John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, Rod Parsley, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, et al are influential because of their political views.
There is no moral equivalence here.
One party is pleased to cozy up to people who believe crazy things about the Middle East and whether gays should be stoned or merely arrested. The other party distances itself from the extreme statements of its pastors.