luka
Well-known member
its here among other plasces
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/18/barackobama.uselections20081
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/18/barackobama.uselections20081
Is this the end of the Reagan/Rove right?
- Thread starter Gabba Flamenco Crossover
- Start date
Gabba Flamenco Crossover
High Sierra Skullfuck
Obama needs to start looking for a dull, uncontroversial running mate who's strong on policy, particularly economic policy.
Then he can do the 'hope' thing without looking like a lightweight. Plus if mccain gets nailed on economic policy for 6 months, from someone who knows what thy're talking about, he won't be able to keep up.
Then he can do the 'hope' thing without looking like a lightweight. Plus if mccain gets nailed on economic policy for 6 months, from someone who knows what thy're talking about, he won't be able to keep up.
Looks like we have two more Obama speeches to go ( On Iraq and ... Iraq =economy connection ?)
this week alone.
Was good to hear him say what he said, but yeah, will it get Joe Sixpack's vote in Penn. another thing ...
McCain's verbal gaffes in Iraq yesterday were in line with ol' George W's own.
Voices of experience !
this week alone.
Was good to hear him say what he said, but yeah, will it get Joe Sixpack's vote in Penn. another thing ...
McCain's verbal gaffes in Iraq yesterday were in line with ol' George W's own.
Voices of experience !
vimothy
yurp
He just fired his best adviors! Ri-cock-ulous
What the hell was McCain talking about, Iran training al Qaeda? Pretty worrying...
crackerjack
Well-known member
He just fired his best adviors! Ri-cock-ulous
who?
vimothy
yurp
Powers & Goolsbee
At least, I think he fired them -- it's hard to tell from google, and I ain't too up on what's going on. Powers I think has definitely gone, which is a real shame, and I think Goolsbee was fired for telling Canadian diplomats that Obama's politicking over NAFTA was only politicking, and not to worry because he won't do anything stupid that wrecks the Canadian economy.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Oh, she's the one who called Clinton a monster. Yeah, she's definitely out, which is a shame since she clearly meant it in the modern sense of being brutal and ruthless rather than 'evil dragon', which is how it looks when it's stripped down to a headline.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Not the first time either.
So the Rep's great foreign policy candidate turns out to be just another bloke who doesn't know Sunni from Shia, a GW Bush with a bit less torture. Great.
Well when you've got a prez who says things like the quote i see on the news crawl right now
' I think the spending on the war helps with jobs ... because we are buying equipment , and people are working ...'
The door can't shut on this period soon enough.
' I think the spending on the war helps with jobs ... because we are buying equipment , and people are working ...'
The door can't shut on this period soon enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
heroesandvillains
Lono ̴
Well with the Democrats eating themselves alive I don't know if this period is ending anytime soon...
N
nomadologist
Guest
Question mark?
it's pretty obvious the dems are poised to win this election...
Absolutely!nomadologist said:
'Tis just a matter of time. HRC's chances have run out (today, in fact, permanently, thanks to the Michigan decision) and it's time to get on with it and get behind Obama. His speech on the Reverend Wright comments a couple of days ago was a beautiful thing.
crackerjack
Well-known member
I really hope you're right, though I'm not convinced. If the economy falls apart (or continues to), will McCain take the hit or does he have plausible denial, not being that close to Bush or part of his admin?
I'm still gobsmacked by this gaffe over Iran/Al Q - twice, ffs. I hope he gets hammered over that.
btw, anyone else see Huckabee's defence of Obama and his preacher? I was surprised and impressed.
Gabba Flamenco Crossover
High Sierra Skullfuck
Understandable though. The republicans must be a bit squeamish about laying into an ordained minister given their christian base. What are they going to do, come over as the reasonable voice of secularism? I don't think so.
Which isn't to say that Huckabee isn't someone of considerable integrity, I think he probably is. Even if some of his ideas are loopy.
This election is shaping up to be the ultimate test of whether it really is all about the economy, stupid. Will the old-style sabre rattling work for the GOP if Reagan republicans are losing thier houses? It doesn't help that McCain is not renowned for his economic nous - he needs to be able to talk authoritively and in detail about economic matters if he's going to differentiate himself from the Bush administration, I don't know if he's up to it.
He also needs Bush to shut up and go quietly. His comments on the economy in the past week have been asinine, even by his standards. McCain must be fuming.
But then again, deep down, how much of a favour does Bush really want to do McCain? Personally, he's home free. Once you start taking little things like that into account, I think McCain is in a very tight position here.
And I think the extended primary race will help the democrats, not hinder them. It toughens up the candidates and purges a lot of the dem's internal strife before they get to the election proper. The high level of coverage makes sure that the whole electorate are absolutely clear what these candidates are all about, in every policy area. Meanwhile, McCain can only get press when he does something stupid, and the unfinished business between him and the GOP grandees festers away in the dark. Not good for the republicans.
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
Do you think the Rove-ites are so attached to their vision of Republicanism they'd want a Dem victory so next time they can say that they tried the liberal wing (in as much as McC is that) and it failed? It would be nice to think those unscrupulous bastards are secretly working for a Dem win.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I was overjoyed when Bush won his second term, if only because I knew there was no other way that the Reagan/Rove right would ever end were they not allowed to push their ridiculous ideology to its furthest possible ends and self-destruct.
In my opinion this war is exactly what the democrats needed, and they will win the White House. The real question is: will they use it to revitalize the left and unite the "swing voters" (who win most elections for or against a candidate, btw) under one big happy umbrella of foreign policy repair and economic growth through investment in medical and other technologies, or will they sink us farther into misery?
The McCain gaffe got airtime for a bit but went nowhere, didn't stick, has already fallen out of discussion on the cable networks. Perhaps it will come back. Will take an artful and relevant framing of the issue in some news-making way to get it back, though, b/c the market drives the cable networks to focus on flashy controversies. There may also be here a buried implication that McCain's gaffe wasn't so shocking to a US audience since the vast majority of Americans know virtually nothing about the Iraq conflict any way - which is sad and ridiculous but oh so true.
As for Huckabee's comments, they received no airtime at all, so far as I can tell, on any of the US 24-hour cable networks. I'm a junkie so I see that crap almost every day, it's a way of taking a certain pulse on the situation (as fked up as the cable networks are, and they are), and I'm sad to say that the Huckabee response has garnered zero attention. If someone's heard or seen different, I'll be happy to hear that I'm wrong.
All the rage today is the passport breaches of all the candidates.
And maybe Richardson's endorsement of Obama today will edge the Reverend Wright story further into the background for at least one day's news cycle.
vimothy
yurp
Thought I'd post this graph of American political economy. It's from Larry M. Bartels' new book, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Pretty stark stuff:
vimothy
yurp
Must read stuff:
Why Embrace Economic Change? -- Lane Kenworthy
Also really liked this:
Substance, not style -- Daniel Koffler
Why Embrace Economic Change? -- Lane Kenworthy
I suggested in an earlier post that it would be good if leading Democrats encouraged Americans to embrace economic change. Doing so would increase the political feasibility of putting in place a policy package that enhances economic security and promotes mobility.
I want to try to spell out the argument a little more clearly and elaborate a bit...
I want to try to spell out the argument a little more clearly and elaborate a bit...
Also really liked this:
Substance, not style -- Daniel Koffler
Obama's preference for reducing healthcare costs while preserving the freedom to choose whether or not to participate in the healthcare system, as against Clinton's (and Edwards's) insistence on mandating participation, is not a one-off discrepancy without broader implications. Rather, Obama's language of personal choice and incentive is a reflection of the ideas of his lead economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, a behavioural economist at the University of Chicago, who agrees with the liberal consensus on the need to address concerns such as income inequality, disparate educational opportunities and, of course, disparate access to healthcare, but breaks sharply from liberal orthodoxy on both the causes of these social ills and the optimal strategy for ameliorating them.
Instead of recommending traditional welfare-state liberalism as a solvent for socioeconomic inequalities and dislocations, Goolsbee promotes programmes to essentially democratise the market, protecting and where possible expanding freedom of choice, while simultaneously creating rational, self-interested incentives for individuals to participate in solving collective problems. No wonder, then, that Obama's healthcare plan is specifically designed to give people good reason to buy in, without coercing them. Likewise, as George Will reported in a column from October, Goolsbee's proposal for reducing income inequality is to lower barriers to higher education, the primary factor in determining future earnings, and noticeably does not rely on state interventions in the market, which can succeed at equalising income at the price of reducing it across the board.
Instead of recommending traditional welfare-state liberalism as a solvent for socioeconomic inequalities and dislocations, Goolsbee promotes programmes to essentially democratise the market, protecting and where possible expanding freedom of choice, while simultaneously creating rational, self-interested incentives for individuals to participate in solving collective problems. No wonder, then, that Obama's healthcare plan is specifically designed to give people good reason to buy in, without coercing them. Likewise, as George Will reported in a column from October, Goolsbee's proposal for reducing income inequality is to lower barriers to higher education, the primary factor in determining future earnings, and noticeably does not rely on state interventions in the market, which can succeed at equalising income at the price of reducing it across the board.