Obama vs. McCain = Clinton vs. Dole

rod,

this comment is cynical & really beneath you:

The silver lining: Obama and the Democrats are going to own this godawful mess.

Yup. I found myself wondering if either of them really want to be president, because they sure don't act like it. Neither of them seriously addressed the economy, made specific recommendations on what to cut in spending ("we'll have to look at entitlements"--"we all know what the problem is..."--no, we don't, spell it out) and some of the questions were so irrelevant, it's like they were written a month ago. Hello, the economy is in the toilet and neither of these men know how to work a plunger.

I'm back to writing in Ron Paul. Sheesh.

Good call, Rod. I couldn't agree more. It's over for me, too. McCain said "no on the job training" and that killed it for me. He forget *HE* picked Palin as his trainee. It is OVER!

"Hello, the economy is in the toilet and neither of these men know how to work a plunger."

Great line, Little Red Hen! It about sums it up, too.

Alex, hmmm, October Surprise, maybe? Nah, if they held those kind of cards they'd have played them by now.

Rod, only difference between Dole and McCain is that the product McCain will be hawking on late-night TV ads will be a cure for insomnia, because all they've got to do is figure out how to turn this debate into a pharmaceutical product.

Why is it cynical for me, a conservative, to be happy that the Democrats will own this economic mess? I don't think they'll be able to fix it, and in the meantime, maybe the Republicans will come up with some ideas on their own. And if the Dems can fix it, well God bless them, they'll govern for a generation. I mean that.

Ha. Ha.

~ N. Muntz

Q. If we know that terrorists are in Pakistan, are we going to act without asking Pakistan?

Obama said:"Yes" but he referred only to Bin Laden. McCain did not answer this question. McCain was saying that you can not reveal your plans to the whole world. Obama responded:" What about bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

I disagree with both of them regarding Russia. I am against participation of Russian neighbours in NATO. Russia will feel threatened and cornered and it will respond. Knobody wants to have foreign military presense in its backyard. Remember American reaction during Carribian crisis? We have to help to integrate Russia in the world community. As of now there is a very strong anti American propoganda in Russia. Nationalism and Nazism are rasing their heads. Do not corner that country. Do not corner any country.

McCain talked about the surge in Afganistan. We do not have either resouces or army to do it. We have to leave Iraq first.

My question to McCain about Irag is: nobody likes defeats but how long will it take to achieve the victory? A year, five, ten, a hundred, ever? Our economy is in trouble and we are waisting our resources there.

Fortunately, Democrats have lots of experience cleaning up after Republican messes. Roosevelt did a wonderful job after Hoover. Obama hinted at that sort of leadership tonight, one which inspires ordinary Americans to take part, to give, to serve, to sacrifice the way our grandparents & parents did during the Depression. That was a hard time, but people came together and helped each other, and everybody was better off for having gone through the experience together.

And, yes, as Democrats put things back together, conservatives will regroup to their think tanks, figuring out ways to tear it all down again...such is life in American politics.

I'm still waiting for McCain to tell us exactly what victory in Iraq means to him.

At this point it's a little transparent to scan 60 years of history with an eye to indicting the Democratic party as I see in the post above. I understand the temptation, watching McCain tonight. He came off like a guy auditioning for a dinner theater leading role in 'Death of a Salesman'.

God bless him. I would have walked 2000 miles to have seen John McCain in the oval office on Setember 11, 2001. But not Jaqnuary 20th, 2009.

Face the news that between this apocalyptic fiscal meltdown and Sarah Palin's embarrassing and insulting (fill in the blanks) it's time we consider being good sport Americans and wishing whoever become president our sincere ptayers.

No politician in his right mind would dare ask the American people to sacrifice anything for two reasons. First, they won't! Second, if we are heading into a serious recession the only way out of it is to get money moving, which means having people spending it. Sacrifice and savings means only one thing, everyone gets poorer.

Of course if you really want everyone to live like Amish, or better off, in huts digging turnips and praying, yeah, mass poverty makes sense. But for those of us who actually enjoy living, it is a stupid idea and one well cast into the dustbin of history.

Linda @ 11:32 PM writes:

"Democrats have lots of experience cleaning up after Republican messes. Roosevelt did a wonderful job after Hoover."

Franklin Demonic Roosevelt gave us Social Security and other collectivist programs. And please remember that Hoover was considered a great proponent of interventionism during his tenure in office; his experience in such things dated to the "War That Wrecked the World". I have nothing good to say about either of them.

"Obama hinted at that sort of leadership tonight, one which inspires ordinary Americans to take part, to give, to serve, to sacrifice the way our grandparents & parents did during the Depression. That was a hard time, but people came together and helped each other, and everybody was better off for having gone through the experience together."

Would someone please tell me how "giving" and "service" to the State is such a good thing ? I do enough sacrificing every April 15th when I write my check to the IRS to pay for all those SocSec-receiving freeloaders (since, like most commoners, most of my taxes go to entitlements). Sacrifice for my children ? That's a given. Sacrifice for my extended family ? No problem. Sacrifice for my neighbors ? All right, after I've taken care of my family. Sacrifice for my faith ? Fine with me.

But "sacrifice" for some slick-talking politician and his/her dependent-class hangers-on ? Absent a gun pointed at my head, the day after it snows in Hell !

Senator Obama is cordially invited to "lead" his followers someplace else. Preferably far away from me.

Senator McCain and his followers can join him.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Regarding the Clinton vs. Dole comparison...Clinton did a wonderful job with the economy. Republicans hate to hear that, but the fact is that if four years from now our devastated economy looks the way it did in the year 2000, Americans everywhere will be eternally grateful, and Obama will be re-elected in a landslide.

Second, anyone with an open mind could see Obama's "seriousness" regarding the health care issue, which is in fact a central problem for the American economy (for employers, for individuals, and for the government). When Obama spoke about his mother, fighting with insurance companies for coverage while dying of cancer in the hospital, he wasn't fooling. Dislike the candidate if you wish, but please, recognize the obvious (as Marc Ambinder did) and say that yes, Obama is serious about health care reform. Maybe his plan will work, maybe it won't, maybe it'll be killed in the Congress. But to say he's not serious about it is just nonsense.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/live_blogging_second_half_hour.php

Finally, let me point out that, as I predicted, McCain despite his obvious hatred for his opponent, did not dare claim that Obama was some sort of "terrorist sympathizer" to his face. Watching on CNN, it was fascinating to see how McCain's sympathy/approval ratings dived when he attacked Obama. The Ayers charge is red meat for the Right, but stinks to high heaven for everyone else, clearly.

Senator Obama is cordially invited to "lead" his followers someplace else. Preferably far away from me.

And I cordially invite all Republicans, not one of whom has the brains or decency God gave Sen. Obama, to leave the country. Disgusting, the lot of you.

Rod, on this we agree. I was never excited about McCain, and only with the introduction of Sarah Palin did I become energized about his candidacy. What a pathetic performance tonight.

His campaign's inept introduction of the new $300 billion bailout for irresponsible "homeowners" tonight just about lost me. Yet another Hail Mary pass, and one that seems almost willfully designed to tick off responsible (and conservative in every sense of the word) homeowners. For goodness sake, his own surrogate Mitt Romney didn't even know the details about this new bombshell bailout plan and was left floundering around in an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX! How insulting to Romney. And how friggin' incompetent are McCain's campaign staffers?

I was watching CNN and observing the focus group trend lines tracking live with the debate, and it occurred to me that people have simply made up their minds at this point. Practically anything Obama said had an off-the-charts positive reaction, while McCain could barely get those registers above the midline. People have made their decision. In 2000, the debates were such an important factor because people had not yet solidified their decision. Gore's sighing theatrics hurt him. Same with '04 - people saw a botoxed Lurch in Kerry and decided they didn't like him very much.

I actually voted for Clinton in '96 over Dole, and it was because of the sort of contrast we saw tonight. If that makes me "ageist" so be it.

As much as I'm troubled by Obama's past, something also solidified in my own mind this week. My own life would be a year's worth of SNL skits; I would be a cartoon under the scrutiny presidential candidates are subjected to. Considering that, I revile the media and the left for the way they've tried to destroy Palin and make a mockery of her solid Alaska life. But I really feel that much the same thing is going on with respect to the way the right wing is trying to portray Obama, and it's unfair.

I think you've quoted it here before, and Christianity Today actually highlighted a statement by Martin Luther to the effect that he'd rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. That's pretty much the way I feel tonight.

Lord Karth at 11:49 PM said "...Roosevelt gave us Social Security and other collectivist programs."

Your point being...?

As an independent, and a Christian, it is beyond me that there are no conservatives standing against Senator McCain and Governor Palin trying to cast Senator Obama as 'the other'. In a rally yesterday, a man shouted "kill him" and while it was hard to understand if he meant Senator Obama, or Ayers, there was no response from any leader there about how wrong that statement was. There is no excuse for that kind of hate mongering, or lack of accountability. Where are the Christians in the Republican party? Where are the people of integrity?

Are you kidding?

The silver lining?

After your ideology created this mess the silver lining is that someone else will have to clean up your mess.

It's like pooping on someones floor and laughing that they now have to clean it up.

Class.

"Son, who in the name of George Armstrong Custer would you suggest to leader (sic) our nation?"

Rodney,

Who would you suggest to proof my copy?

Perhaps I'd better put up my statements accurately or, well, you know....

Linda @ 12:16 AM writes:

""...Roosevelt gave us Social Security and other collectivist programs."

Your point being...?"

My point being that SocSec and its related programs are profoundly immoral, financially dangerous, and ultimately destructive to families, the economy and the country.

Eradication Now !

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Lord Karth,

Good luck on eradicating those programs. I think it's quite interesting that folks who espouse extremely unpopular opinions resort to using pseudonyms. If you truly felt so strongly about anything you're willing to assign a fake name to, you'd use your real name. Nothing says believing what you say on the Internet than using your real name.

James Hare

The "silver lining" reminds me of what the German communists said around 1932, "After Hitler, us!" That didn't turn out to well, even if they got a rump state on the bayonets of the Red Army 12 years and millions of dead later.

Who's going to inherit the GOP? Creepy Mitt Romney? Lindsey Graham? Sarah Palin (I like her persona, but come on!)? Jeb? Jindal's interesting but two brown guys going at it might be too much for us.

It won't be the paleocons/libertarians, it seems to me; for some reason we're inefficacious. Not chauvinistic enough, I suppose. If I were younger, I'd say let's build stone towers somewhere in the hills, farm, learn crafts, and keep our powder dry.

KO, before you get carried away with your boldness in speaking truth to power and referring to our host as a jerk, consider, if you will, the sad and sorry fact that the greedheads of Wall Street keep just as many Dems as they do Reps. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were not given hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions in order to advance populism. Nancy Pelosi is more comfortable sipping Chardonnay with San Francisco Beautiful People and George Soros than singing "Solidarity Forever" on the picket line. Joe Biden busted his behind to pass the so-called reform of the bankruptcy laws so earnestly sought by his Delaware bankster contributors. Face it, KO, both of the major political parties are accomplished at whoring after the big bucks and giving the rest of us the middle fingered Universal Sign Of Good Fellowship. But don't take my word for it. Simply watch and learn.

Mark in Houston @ 12:50 writes:

"The rest of us (or, to be more precise, the rest of us who are Democrats or sensible Republicans) will go on to the serious business of running the country and trying to fix the problems America faces."

In case you haven't gotten the news, Medicare is already technically insolvent, Social Security is rapidly becoming insolvent, and Medicaid is proving more of a burden than most states can handle. Bush's prescription-drug benefit didn't help matters, either.

The programs in question are immoral because they require the forcible taking of resources from families that might have otherwise gone to support their members. Parents are forced to give their tax money to the central government, which in turn sends it to unrelated elderly that they do not know. This results in breaking the normal chain of support between generations (first parents support their children, then grown children support their elderly) Because they break the chain of support between generations, they pit parents and children against each other---deliberately. Just how much more immoral can you get ?

In addition, the higher taxes necessitated by these programs have driven many mothers into the workforce, which stresses families and children.

The unfunded liabilities of the said programs total some $ 60 trillion; calling them financially dangerous is an understatement. They are economically destructive because they discourage people from saving (a certain Martin Feldstein proved this back in the 70s) and result in the productive working-age people subsidizing the unproductive elderly.

They are bad for the country because, among other things, the reckless borrowing to support these parasitic programs needlessly boosts the national debt, floods the world financial system with an excess of American dollars (contributing to the weakness of the world financial system) and gives foreign lenders overmuch power over the American economy. Is funding the collective unearned leisure of the retiree class really worth giving up control over our economic destiny to the Red Chinese ? Should we take food from the mouth of a child so that some (unrelated) retiree can pay his greens fees or gas up his Winnebago ?

In case you didn't catch the debate, one of the major questions posed to both candidates focussed on the problems imposed by entitlements on the American economy. (Neither one handled the question at all well.) Apparently the candidates and their handlers considered it a serious enough problem to allow the question to come to the floor. You may wish to reconsider whether dealing with such parasitism qualifies as "serious business".

These programs are far, far more troublesome than they are worth. Indeed, I would go so far as to characterize them as open acts of war by the beneficiary classes against GenX, the Millennials and the productive classes as a whole. They needed to be eradicated years ago, and the longer we wait to do so, the worse the consequences will be when they do get eliminated.

SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid must be recognized for the profound evils they are, denounced as such and eradicated. Now.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Alex, you are exactly right about expansion of NATO to Russia's borders and other actions of both the Bush and Clinton administrations that have as their apparent objectives both the securing of alliances with several newly-democratic European nations (the goodwill of which has, alas, been largely squandered on our Iraq adventure) and the rubbing of Russian noses in something foul. As much as certain Republicans like to cry Munich 1938 as of late, I'm thinking more of Versailles 1919 and the way the Western humiliation of post-War Germany and Austria laid the groundwork for the Nazis to assume power. Putin may be evil, and is certainly a despotic thug, but he also appears to be wildly popular in Russia, a country whose cooperation we desperately need in the struggle against Islamofacism.

Dmitri D,

You don't get it. You act as though raising taxes will solve the problem.

We have $54 trillion in unfunded liabilities with Medicare and Social Security. We could not possibly raise taxes high enough to solve that problem. And in the process, we would destroy the economic growth we must have to fund the programs. Fundamentally, the problem lies in the way in which these entitlement programs are structured. And it is DEMOCRATS who resist any attempt to reform and / or means-test Social Security and Medicare.

The current financial crisis is only the tip of the iceberg. There are only two ways to deal with Social Security and Medicare.

1. Fundamentally reform the programs into defined contribution arrangements, rather than defined benefit schemes ( partial privatization and means-testing ).

OR...

2. Start having lots of babies, fast, so we have more people paying into the system.

Rod,
You had your chance to elect someone who would have exhibited true leadership and understood the economy, but because he wasn't dynamic enough, you poo-pooed him.

Listen and weep for our stupidity:

http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2008/09/romney-talks-economy-in-8-minute.asp

This is exactly why the presidential debates needed to be opened up to third party candidates. Obama and McCain wouldn't have been allowed to live in talking point la-la land if in addition to facing each other they also had to face Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.

I'm feeling as if I have to choose between the flu, or the measles. Neither of these candidates are really offering anything more than what we've been hearing for decades now. Accusations and empty promises.

"Lord Karth makes some good sense ..."

rr,

Normally I avoid Karth. Mother always taught me to humor the children, but rarely to encourage the folly. The first six words of your post above are, I respectfully submit, a non-starter and defy all logic. Not your fault, of course. Understand that Karth never has, and never will, be confused with much in the way of horse sense, savvy, or general wisdom.

Instead, here's a thought: relax. Now is not the time for any additional major policy and/or fiscal changes. The market chaos will all eventually end. And sooner than we fear. Markets go up. Markets go down. Been that way since, oh, the B.C. days. (And I ain't talking aging comic strips, son.)

Will we have to address Social Security? And health care? Yes. From the cost side. But not, at the earliest, until late 2009 or early 2010. Derivatives, as Warren Buffett learned with General Re, cannot merely be sold, but must, instead, be unwrapped. Right now derivatives, things with fancy titles such as collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and the like, have the world around the throat. Kind of like more than a few of us want to have our hands around the Adam's Apples of the odd ex-AIG boss, ex-Lehman CEO, Phil Gramm, or Fannie/Freddie type of our choosing.

Like you, I am a fiscal conservative. That means that I do not subsidize personal want with plastic. I tell myself no and then slap myself upside the brain box for even considering a lapse of financial discipline. I possess a superb credit rating, an abhorrence towards personal debt, pay my bills days before they arrive in the mailbox, and buy that which I need. Period.

Does it upset me to live in a nation where the culture has long encouraged child-like consumption with no regard to the long-term financial consequences? Damn right it does. Have I told people since reading Roger Lowenstein's magnificent book, "When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management," roughly a seven or eight years ago that derivatives would bring this nation, if not the world, to its collective financial knees? You betcha. Did I get more and more frustrated when everyone told me that I was a pessimist, unwilling to enjoy life, or, my personal favorite, "an anti-American, anti-capitalist bastard?" Sure.

But this kind of financial tomfoolery has occurred before. Mankind survived. Not without pain or loss, mind you, but we made it. Such financial insanity, relentless in its scope and and blind to political views, national origin, race, ethnicity, and/or religion, also caused some of the greatest horrors in our brief time on this turf. About, oh, 75-80 years ago, financial suffering fueled mass fear that catapulted the devil incarnate to power in Europe. We all know what followed. A world at war. The slaughter of millions based upon collective terror and misplaced rage. The death of tens of millions to end that conflict. The creation, and use, of a power - the nuclear weapon - that continues to amaze, horrify, and control our species.

That's what happens when raw fear causes people to act with collective madness and absent thought for the rest of society. Ironic, isn't it, how Karth seems to be pitching the same general theory directed this time towards an age group rather than a religion?

What it all boils down to is something a man told me a few years back:

"Community," he said, "is just one step shy of communism."

"No," I replied. "Actually it's just two letters off. Two letters and the suspension of all common sense."

"He was at times not quite coherent, while Obama came across as smooth, warm and reassuring (even when he was talking shite)."

Smooth? Warm? Reassuring? Who were YOU watching???

Obama gave me the willies... Maybe because he was robotic, condescending, unsmiling, detached; maybe because I grew-up in Chicago, back in the day, and he is so much the machine politician; maybe because I remember those watershed years of the '60s and early '70s, and shiver to think who his neighbours and co-workers are; maybe because he used a turn of phrase or a certain verbiage that harked back to something I had heard or read from those ideologies...

Look. McCain is not my first choice by a long shot. But I sat here and easily and readily picked apart almost everything Obama said. It was, IMNSHO, a duck shoot. Obama may be smart and all that, but he has neither the wisdom nor the experience nor the history to see us through the next 4 weeks, much less the next four years.

And the folk he consistently surrounds (and has surrounded) himself with are problematic...to say the least. You're telling me that sitting under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years hasn't affected his world- and life-view? Puhleeese!

Like sitting under the teachings of a bunch of entitlement (ie, Name-It-And-Claim-It) evangelical preachers hasn't affected "Christians" who are in foreclosure and cannot understand why they can't get their Princess Perks anymore?!?

Corey: The problem isn't with the candidates, it's with the American people. [A]ny serious call to conserve, whether it be money or energy, will be met with hostility by most Americans - they'll be portrayed as shrill, moralistic lecturers.

I agree in spades. As I've often said around here, many of the problems of the candidates (not all, but an awful lot) are a result of problems with the electorate. The last President to tell Americans unpleasant truths and to exhort them to change their lifestyles for the greater good was Carter. We see how well that strategy worked for him, don't we? Face it--if Armageddon were breaking out, Americans would still rather hear s*** like "It's morning in America" or "A town called Hope" (just to get both sides' pandering in) than anything that actually might help alleviate the stituation.

One more thing: In fairness to both Obama and McCain, it's probable that neither one really knows what the best course it through the economic disaster occuring and are trying to come across as best they can in the debate context. Hell, if there's anyone else around who knows what to do, I haven't seen him or her yet.

Mark,

I don't thing you understood the main point in my last post. Even if Lord Karth is nuts, I think my point remains. Sure, this current trouble in the market will in time end. We may have a recession, but it will be temporary.
That isn't my main worry. Even if the current economic situation was great, we are going to have major problems in the near future (2009 and 2010 are just around the corner) funding extremely expensive entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. And who is going to foot the bill to keep these programs solvent, if indeed they remain solvent? My generation, that's who. Will we get anything out of this? I seriously doubt it. And I'm not alone. Most people who are GenXers or younger don't think we will ever collect much in the way of Social Security. I'm not worried about the sky falling now or even down the road. But I think it is quite likely that I'll have to pay very dearly and possibly see the quality of life for me and my children decline for programs that will largely never benefit me.

rr

Man, sometimes I can't believe the Audacity of some American people.

To say you hope that they (dems) own this mess implies that you are also hopeful for their failure. Do you want the American Economy and everyone in it to fail just so you can say "I told you so?"

Despicable.

Krath, I also don't understand how you can confuse socialistic principles with communistic ones. They are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum and fundamentally represent what even the most extreme left and right of the American capitalist system can't acknowledge.

The clash between conservative and liberal is a contrived one in this country. Even the "liberals" at this point recognize the importance for fiscal conservatism. Conversely all well-informed conservatives recognize the inherent liberties afforded by our founding principles - such as how the right of same-sex living arrangements (gay or not) to share a financial burden has nothing to do with marriage under God.

I find these labels slanderous to any reasonably intelligent person who understands there is room for all manner of personal beliefs in this country and recognizes that as a major contribution to American greatness. Our diversity is the only thing we have.

We're all on the same side. Your fears of the Democratic-spending-machine are completely unfounded. There's nothing left to spend.

So...is it possible that a "throwaway" vote (for someone other than the Big Two) will amount to anything? i just can't stomach voting for a lesser of two really lame evils. What would happen if everyone who feels "blah" (or worse) about both McCain and Obama voted for someone they can stand behind? Would it send a message that anyone would hear or pay attention to? i'm not usually this idealistic, but the future looks pretty bleak, especially when no one will settle down and talk straight.

John,
Will you run for president? You've got my vote!

Perhaps McCain will lose so much ground after last night that he'll decide to go for broke in the next debate and take some risks. This might not win him the election (it seems that the time for that has passed, unless Obama kills someone), but it might earn him back some respect. And it would be far more interesting to see.

I'm worried and scared like everyone else, but that said, I do still have faith that we, as Americans, can weather through the (probable?) depression that's coming. My biggest fear stems from the link between a strong economy and good national security...

Here us how wierd the situation is. I'm either going to write in Ron Paul, who I supported from the begining, or vote for either Barr or Obama. McCain and his fundie crowd (not real christians in my book) is not an option.