U.S. Elections 2008

[Whoaccio]

Very sad as her grandson will win the presidential election tomorrow.

I'm not saying Obama is going to loose, but I'm not holding my breath either until this is over. A lot of his support stems from groups which have, historically, been strangers to the voting booths. Are his student, black or hispanic supporters going to vote with as much weight as some of the polling has assumed? I hope so, but I also thought Gore & Kerry were shoe ins, so who knows.

 

[Moonmoth]

There will be riots

If Obama does not win tomorrow, clearly and decisively, if the neo-conservatives attempt another hijacking of an election, there WILL be riots, and not just by disenfranchised populations, but riots and protests that transcend all the classes.

 

[Mongo]

obama's grandmother just died... http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=ca&q=obama+grandmother&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n

jeez. just one day before the election. WTF! very sad.

And believe it or not, the US rightwing fringe is already claiming that Obama ordered her death in order to get the "sympathy vote". On second thought, I can easily believe that they would say that, since they are completely disconnected from reality, not to mention filled with hate against anybody who does not 100% agree with them.

 

[kEiThZ]

If Obama does not win tomorrow, clearly and decisively, if the neo-conservatives attempt another hijacking of an election, there WILL be riots, and not just by disenfranchised populations, but riots and protests that transcend all the classes.

Hardly....

The only reason that he would loose are exactly as Whoaccio pointed out, all those that love to proclaim his praises decided they have better things to do on Tuesday....a realistic possibility for many of the voting groups that Obama plans to rely on. For the sake of the world, I hope they show up, but given voter apathy in North America, I am not holding my breath either....

As for riots....let's not get overly dramatic.

 

[Whoaccio]

Looking back in hindsight is always fun, and it makes you look smart to! FP magazine has compiled lists of the 10 worst policy proposals of Obama and McCain.

Obama:

Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement

What he said: “I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.†—Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Feb. 26, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: Trade agreements take years to negotiate, and Mexico and Canada would almost certainly seek new concessions of their own in a new round. Obama is right to argue that more economic development in Mexico will lower illegal immigration; he’s wrong to think that bashing NAFTA is the right way to address the Rust Belt’s economic woes. Happily, since the Ohio primary, Obama has backed off his harshest criticisms of the agreement.

Opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

What he said: “And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.†—Speech to Philadelphia AFL-CIO, April 2, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: Although Obama cited antilabor violence, the murder rate for union members in Colombia last year was 4 per 100,000, well below the rate for the general population. The deal carries little to no cost for the United States; economists actually predict modest increases in U.S. exports. The upshot for an important ally in the war on drugs, however, is high, and consolidating Colombia’s commitment to open trade with the United States is a worthy goal.

Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan

What he said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.†—Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007

Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging in military strikes in Pakistan happens to be established policy. But, as none other than Joe Biden pointed out last August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.â€

Sitting Down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

What he said: Asked if he’d be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,†Obama replied: “I would.†—Democratic primary debate, Charleston, S.C., July 23, 2007

Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging rogue states can be a savvy move, and even the Bush administration has negotiated with Pyongyang and sent envoys to meetings with Iran. But sitting down with heads of state without precondition? That’s another thing entirely, especially when it comes to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Carnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour told the Wall Street Journal, “Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage.†No wonder Obama’s foreign-policy team has walked back its candidate’s off-the-cuff remarks

Pushing the Patriot Employer Act

What he said: “When I am president … I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate—we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America.†—Speech in Janesville, Wis., Feb. 13, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: British economists Willem Buiter and Anne Sibert slam the bill as, “reactionary, populist, xenophobic and just plain silly.†That’s a bit much. A little populist pandering is hardly a threat to the global economic order—the bill offers employers a small tax credit if they meet six conditions, including the probably unworkable provision that they keep their headquarters in the United States. It’s never smart economic policy to reward companies for placing limitations on their own profitable activities, but as The Economist put it, “Obama deserves a slap on the wrist†for this one, not a full-throated indictment.

Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels

What he said: “The people I meet in town hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in Southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia. We already have the technology to do this in a way that’s both clean and efficient. What we’ve been lacking is the political will.†—Statement introducing the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006, June 7, 2006

Why it’s a bad idea: Obama’s energy policy has much to commend it. But borrowing an idea from World War II Germany and apartheid South Africa? Bad move. Coal-to-liquid fuels produce nearly twice the greenhouse gases of ordinary petroleum, experts say, and it’s foolish to subsidize an industry that easily could go under if oil prices fall. Under withering fire from environmentalists, the Obama camp clarified his position in June 2007 as, “nless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.†It’s since been dropped from campaign materials.

Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Under $50,000

What he said: “I’ll make retirement more secure for America’s seniors by eliminating income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year.†—Speech on Nov. 7, 2007, in Bettendorf, Iowa

Why it’s a bad idea: Most seniors already pay no income taxes. That’s because they already get preferential treatment in the tax code. Plus, why are seniors more deserving of tax relief than struggling young families? The Tax Policy Center—run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute—criticized the idea in a recent report, saying that because government spending on seniors is already set to balloon due to retiring baby boomers, “it seems inappropriate to target special income tax breaks to this group.â€

Boosting Ethanol Subsidies

What he said: “[Ethanol] ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.†—Statement at the opening of a VeraSun Energy ethanol processing plant in Charles City, Iowa, August 2007

Why it’s a bad idea: As economist Paul Krugman has written, corn-based ethanol is “bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet—what’s not to love?†World Bank economist Donald Mitchell blames biofuels, including ethanol, for a 75 percent increase in global food prices since 2002 that has led to economic distress and rioting in such countries as Haiti, Egypt, and Somalia. There’s also little evidence that they do much to prevent global warming. A recent study published in Science demonstrated that the farmland needed to grow corn for ethanol results in deforestation on a massive scale, negating any benefit the reduction in carbon emissions might have. So why does the senator support such a wasteful and damaging subsidy, even voting for the recent farm bill’s billions in pork for ethanol producers? “ecause Illinois … is a major corn producer,†he said in April. At least he’s honest.

Taxing Oil Companies Extra

What he said: “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.†—Speech in Raleigh, N.C., June 9, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: He’s attacking the symptom, not the disease. It’s certainly hard to defend oil companies making record profits while consumers are struggling to fill their tanks, but Big Oil has very little control over day-to-day gas prices, which are set by global supply and demand and, of course, OPEC. By discouraging oil companies from making big profits, such a tax could potentially discourage them from making investments in new refineries and finding new oil sources, resulting in fewer jobs and even higher prices at the pump. Jimmy Carter tried this in 1980, and it only increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Singling out one particular industry for punishment because it is politically unpopular doesn’t make much economic sense, either.

Opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

What he said: “We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less-expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.†—Speech in Lansing, Mich., Aug. 4, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: Obama was right in July when he said that the strategic oil reserve “has to be reserved for a genuine emergency.†Selling oil from the 700 million barrel reserve would increase domestic supply and could drive down prices in the short term, but encouraging consumers to use more oil isn’t going to fix anything. And depleting the reserve would leave the United States vulnerable to a supply disruption caused by a natural disaster or further unrest in the Middle East. Obama swapped common sense for this dangerous boondoggle in August after McCain started to hammer him on offshore drilling. So much for tough truths.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

And believe it or not, the US rightwing fringe is already claiming that Obama ordered her death in order to get the "sympathy vote". On second thought, I can easily believe that they would say that, since they are completely disconnected from reality, not to mention filled with hate against anybody who does not 100% agree with them.

well, they don't call them wingnuts for nothin'.

but why stop the conspiracy there?

maybe the whole bush presidency was a conspiracy? maybe they made a white guy make a mess soo bad that come election time, people would actually look past the race issue.

didn't lincoln free the slaves? and he was a republican. maybe the obama win is all part of llincoln's plan. 1. free the slaves, 2. make time go by, 3. make a white leader mess up really bad so people lose their prejudices, 4. black man runs for democratic party, wins election & becomes president.

maybe george bush & the republican party love black people soo much they did everything they did to get a black guy elected?

i'm sure it's in there in the da vinci code. i wouldn't know though. i've only seen hustler's da vinci load.

 

[ShonTron]

I don't think Proposition 8 was part of Lincoln's conspiracy, however. Lincoln, unlike contemporary New Englanders or especially John Brown, was comparatively a relunctant abolitionist.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

who started that whole prop 8 thingy? (besides the religious groups that support it)

 

[Mongo]

didn't lincoln free the slaves? and he was a republican.

This is one of the great ironies of American politics. Lincoln was indeed a Republican, but the Republican Party of 1860 had very little in common with the Republican Party of today.

I prefer to look at political movements instead of parties. Movements occasionally "jump ship" from one party to another -- such as the Southern Democrats (the political descendants of the old Confederate slaveocracy) who moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in the 1970s and 1980s, after the Democrat Lyndon Johnson passed a series of sweeping civil rights bills. He even said at the time that those bills would lose the South to the Democrats forever.

During Lincoln's time, the Republicans were dominated by the Progressive movement, which were focused on civil rights and supporting the "common man". The other main movement within the party were the pro-business supporters (who remain inside the party to this day). At the time, the two movements were surprisingly compatible, since workers needed good jobs and businesses needed prosperous customers, and both movements were fundamentally opposed to the Southern slave-holding culture. The Progressives remained inside the Republican Party, continuing to enact pro-worker and pro-consumer legislation, until the election of 1912, when prominent Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt found themselves being shut out from leadership positions, and left the party.

They tried going it alone for a while (Roosevelt ran as leader of the Progressive Party) without breaking through to electoral success, and by 1920 had found a home in the northern Democratic Party (the younger Roosevelt had run as Democratic Vice-President candidate that year). The "traditional" Democrats, based in the South since before the Civil War, still with the attitudes you would expect from the former supporters of the Confederacy, tolerated this as long as the black population was denied the same civil rights as the white population had. Once Johnson signed his legislation establishing black civil rights, they started to abandon the Democratic Party, first moving to George Wallace and then turning to the Republican Party, which was inviting them to join under Nixon's "Southern Strategy". These people were the reason that Reagan won his landslides.

So two of the most influential political movements in the US, at opposite ends of the political spectrum, switched parties. That is why I personally consider the party of Lincoln to be part of the same political tradition as the Democratic Party of today, and the party of the Confederacy to be at least partly ancestral to today's Republican Party.

Bill

 

[Edward]

I'm not saying Obama is going to loose, but I'm not holding my breath either until this is over. A lot of his support stems from groups which have, historically, been strangers to the voting booths. Are his student, black or hispanic supporters going to vote with as much weight as some of the polling has assumed?

There's massive advance polling in states where Obama made major pushes. This bodes well for him. People will have misread the mood in the US in a major way if McCain wins.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

it's a tragedy that happened to the republican party. you think a guy like lincoln could run for president with the republican party today? very unlikely. especially with lincoln's ambiguous views of religion. you really didn't know if he was a believer or non believer. back then that wasn't important. today it's everything.


the confederate states of america may have lost the civil war but its ghost is still around haunting the US.

 

[Mot]

If Obama does not win tomorrow, clearly and decisively, if the neo-conservatives attempt another hijacking of an election, there WILL be riots, and not just by disenfranchised populations, but riots and protests that transcend all the classes.

Sadly if these things (to name a few) didn't bring on riots then I fear neither will another stolen election:

The shredding of the Constitution

$10 billion/month on a war of choice

Spying on Americans

Treason by outing a CIA agent

Overt graft and corruption including a Vice President war profiteer

Torture/Rendition

Hurricane Katrina

 

[Roy G Biv]

HUGE turnout reported so far. This can only be good for Obama.

 

[Edward Skira]

One reason of many why I'd vote for Obama.

Will Democrats Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine?
The Wall Street Journal
If the polls are right, the country will wake up tomorrow with a federal government dominated by the Democratic Party -- one empowered to effect considerable change in the nation's laws. One possible change that hasn't yet gotten much attention: the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

The doctrine, which dates back to the 1950s, requires broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues in equal measure. The FCC repealed the law in the 1980s, but given the conservative dominance of talk radio, Democrats may want to use their newfound muscle to bring it back.

"As things now stand, if Barack Obama is elected, he could simply snap his fingers, and we would have a Fairness Doctrine because he selects the FCC chairman. With a majority vote, the FCC could declare the re-imposition of it," said L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog. - Read the whole story...

 

[Mongo]

The FCC repealed the law in the 1980s, but given the conservative dominance of talk radio, Democrats may want to use their newfound muscle to bring it back.

Not to mention FOX "News" -- which is currently little more than a Republican propaganda outlet.