![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigou[originally written as reply elsewhere, and posted here instead b/c of length & topic.]
My focus is, I expect, slightly different from yours, in that as an ultra-conservative (little-c, note) in fiscal and economic affairs, I require satisfaction on those issues first and foremost. I am not entirely satisfied if (and only if) I look at Obama within a vacuum; I'm not completely convinced Dem congress + Dem president will go the fiscally wise course, but hey, it's not like the Repub congress bothered to balance the national checkbook. After all, we've already topped three trillion in national debt, so what's another few billion among friends? (Yes, I kid, but still. It's a hard act to top, certainly.)
My eventual conclusions were based on three major points a) Obama's economic advisers hail from political as well as academic fields [and economic academia per Univ of Chicago is so freaking conservative it makes me look downright free love and all that] and b) his background is constitutional law and c) he keeps his cool and is articulate even under pressure and I'd like a president who can actually form a sentence with proper grammar instead of making the rest of the world think a backwater hick is the best we can do for the highest office of the land. You betcha.
Constitutional law is an important point, in that his legal opinions/arguments (in court, after court, and in the classroom) are on the web & available, and mark him very clearly as a strong conservative (again, little-c). That is: that significant changes in our culture must come from society, and not handed down by the courts. If you recall, the issues of aging Supreme Court Justices was also a matter of some worry in '04, as well; we've got a court full of old folks. I would not be surprised, though, if a Pres. Obama were to startle folks by nominating conservative (yes, still a little-c) judges.
As for the economic and fiscal policies, wanna know who Obama most resembles in his economic policies? It sure as hell ain't Clinton. It's Bush 41.
Which to my mind is a strong point in anyone's favor, as I liked Bush 41's economic mindset and policies (and was pleased with Clinton at least insofar as he extended/continued those policies during his own tenure). But then, 41 got flack because he willingly negated the pipedream of Reagonomics, and did his best to reverse the damage. It makes sense to me that to undo Reagonomics Part II, that is, Bush 43, one's probably going to follow the same steps as before -- but supply-side theories remained popular because they benefit the upper class. It doesn't surprise me when the Repub hoi polloi diss such reversals much as they often dismiss Bush 41 in favor of worshiping at the altar of Reagan.
Incidentally, we are not a capitalist country; we might more precisely (in strict economic terms) be considered fair-market socio-capitalist: a kind of managed capitalism with socialist elements. We've always had that, as a country, from the very beginning with the govt supporting the third branch (non-profit organizations) by doling funds to foundations and groups willing to perform work the govt can't or won't -- hospitals, universities, museums, libraries.
It's especially ironic when I consider that the original terms offered for the recent bailout were so outright text-book socialism that it's almost laughable to see that brush tarring anyone else (and doubly so when you consider that Sweden experienced a similar situation in the 90s and chose not to go the whole-hog Socialism approach, wishing to avoid bail-out standards like the current Administration had suggested -- yeah, that's right, the current White House is just toosexy socialist for its hat).
We have socialist elements already, and they're positive by dint (IMO) of being limited: public highways maintained by state & fed, jails, school systems, the FDA, the DEA, even OSHA: these are govt agencies owning and operating in lieu of allowing private corporations to do it themselves. Socialism. Whatever.
A few other points to consider: Rashid Khalidi is Palestinian, and a scholar, and certainly not a radical. In fact, he was one of the authors of the Middle East Peace Accord, and has more than a few times been critical of the Palestinian position on Israel. Again with the brush tarring everyone: Obama rubbed shoulders as a fellow professor at the Univ of Chicago, while McCain headed a foundation that bestowed three grants (one topping a million USD) to Khalidi to continue his work. Pot, meet kettle, both of you, shut up.
As for me, I've read some of Khalidi's articles available on the 'net, and in case there is any doubt, I have long leaned more towards a pro-Arab position than pro-Israel, which may tender my view of Khalidi somewhat. On the other hand, Khalidi was also a visiting professor at the Univ of Chicago and if there's any one thing I do know for a fact it's that Chicago does not hire stupid people to teach its classes. Maybe Khalidi does hold opinions that differentiate him from a doormat, but I sincerely doubt he's a moron about it.
As for the donations? That one cracks me up. A neo-con article I saw a week or two ago firmly concluded these must be donations converted from non-USD because none of them end in .00! They end in .11 and .22 and .01, that's got to be coming from overseas and oh noes probably illegal! (You think all military folks stationed overseas only back at Pentagon Federal? Plenty have local accounts, sheesh.)
Except that in this case, back before there was a way to track by what means you'd donated, some of the political sites online came up with a system: if you're on Daily Kos and click the donate box and said you'd donate $25, Kos added one penny. If you were on Digby's Hullaballo, I think the addition is 11 cents. Every site picked a random amount they'd add, and they still do it -- and Kos and the rest would track X donations made through the site and X showing up in proper pockets, trackable by that peculiar extra penny oddities.
Which I think is rather ingenious, even if not really needed these days with improved internet technologies, but it's a kind of tradition, now... it's just a tradition that one conclusion-leaper didn't know about, so his panic -- while understandable -- is a bit over the top for nothing more than tripping over a bassackwards stint of legacy software.
As for the voter fraud, here's what you're not getting told: this apparently happens almost every election (and ACORN is a foundation that's worked with both Repub and Dem, in the past, to get folks registered). Employees go out, register voters, bring back the forms: and somewhere in the stack is Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Mother Goose. Those employees -- having basically committed voter fraud -- are fired. But! It's illegal for Acorn to ditch the questionable forms; these must be turned over the proper govt office because, hey, you never know, maybe the guy's parents were really cruel to name him Donald with a surname of Duck. Granted, Acorn sorts the "we think these are false" completed forms into a secondary stack but all completed forms are dutifully handed over.
The voter fraud argument is basically that Acorn handed in, say, 2K registered voter names and omg 100 of them were fake names! and these people are all going to vote because of this horrible organization sneaking extra names on the roles!... but the fact is that no matter how those names got on the forms, Acorn is legally required to turn the forms in and let the govt sort 'em out. Which the govt does: for it to be fraud it must have demonstrable intention of defrauding the govt. Acorn's proven its non-malicious intentions by reviewing the forms ahead of time and putting big question marks on the ones it thinks may have been forged. As for the employees? Still not guilty of voter registration fraud in the govt point of view because the employee intention wasn't to get a hundred more people on the voter roles but to pad out their daily quota so the boss would think they were working instead of asleep in the bushes -- and since the employee's already fired, well, done deal, then.
Sigh. Time and again, there are charges in nearly every blooming election of oh noes voter fraud! But -- try looking for a case that held water long enough to go to court. Given the number of cries of outrage you'd probably expect a pretty high number, right? Have fun looking. Go on, it's okay, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
Although that's particularly amusing to me since this is one of the ways the Republicans padded the voter registries during Reconstruction, but hey, that's water way under the bridge, right? Well, it is: but I also mention it as gentle reminder that these kinds of shenanigans -- or at least accusations of shenanigans -- have been going on since, well, we first started doing state-controlled elections. That's why we have govt agencies who sort through the registrations submitted, who will prosecute upon finding evidence of fraud. La, la, la, rinse, repeat.
[If that's not enough, then removing Obama from that vacuum and comparing him to McCain and as far as I'm concerned... any man who would put air-quotes around the phrase "health of the mother" just lost my vote right there, period, end of sentence, no further discussion needed. As someone with friends and relatives inside the danger zone for child-bearing, I have absolutely no sense of humor about that topic. If ever I may have waffled previous, such uncertainty ended in that single instant.]
Frankly, fearmongering about how the world will change if someone (anyone) is elected president is just muddying the waters. I mean, my life, and our world, has changed radically in the past eight years. For crying out loud, eight years ago I had an excellent job, I had top benefits, our nation was running a surplus, and for the most part, things were manageable, if not pretty damn good. Now we're so far into debt that our country owes $30K for every man, woman, AND child; we're fighting two different wars and we just bombed Syria; health insurance and medicine costs are astronomical; our environment's screwed; New Orleans remains in shambles and no one even remembers Biloxi and Ocean Springs; the Patriot Act is still around and the govt still maintains constitution-mutilating rights to spy on its own citizens; we have a pro-torture policy in violation of the Geneva Convention; we have a president who violates constitutional and legislative due process using line-item vetos and signing statements to negate laws even as he's signing them into law; and a good chunk of the jobs I qualify for are now being occupied by workers in Montreal and India.
Yeah, from where I stand, when someone says, "the world will change! it will be completely different from what it's like now!" I say: I sure as hell HOPE so.
My focus is, I expect, slightly different from yours, in that as an ultra-conservative (little-c, note) in fiscal and economic affairs, I require satisfaction on those issues first and foremost. I am not entirely satisfied if (and only if) I look at Obama within a vacuum; I'm not completely convinced Dem congress + Dem president will go the fiscally wise course, but hey, it's not like the Repub congress bothered to balance the national checkbook. After all, we've already topped three trillion in national debt, so what's another few billion among friends? (Yes, I kid, but still. It's a hard act to top, certainly.)
My eventual conclusions were based on three major points a) Obama's economic advisers hail from political as well as academic fields [and economic academia per Univ of Chicago is so freaking conservative it makes me look downright free love and all that] and b) his background is constitutional law and c) he keeps his cool and is articulate even under pressure and I'd like a president who can actually form a sentence with proper grammar instead of making the rest of the world think a backwater hick is the best we can do for the highest office of the land. You betcha.
Constitutional law is an important point, in that his legal opinions/arguments (in court, after court, and in the classroom) are on the web & available, and mark him very clearly as a strong conservative (again, little-c). That is: that significant changes in our culture must come from society, and not handed down by the courts. If you recall, the issues of aging Supreme Court Justices was also a matter of some worry in '04, as well; we've got a court full of old folks. I would not be surprised, though, if a Pres. Obama were to startle folks by nominating conservative (yes, still a little-c) judges.
As for the economic and fiscal policies, wanna know who Obama most resembles in his economic policies? It sure as hell ain't Clinton. It's Bush 41.
Which to my mind is a strong point in anyone's favor, as I liked Bush 41's economic mindset and policies (and was pleased with Clinton at least insofar as he extended/continued those policies during his own tenure). But then, 41 got flack because he willingly negated the pipedream of Reagonomics, and did his best to reverse the damage. It makes sense to me that to undo Reagonomics Part II, that is, Bush 43, one's probably going to follow the same steps as before -- but supply-side theories remained popular because they benefit the upper class. It doesn't surprise me when the Repub hoi polloi diss such reversals much as they often dismiss Bush 41 in favor of worshiping at the altar of Reagan.
Incidentally, we are not a capitalist country; we might more precisely (in strict economic terms) be considered fair-market socio-capitalist: a kind of managed capitalism with socialist elements. We've always had that, as a country, from the very beginning with the govt supporting the third branch (non-profit organizations) by doling funds to foundations and groups willing to perform work the govt can't or won't -- hospitals, universities, museums, libraries.
It's especially ironic when I consider that the original terms offered for the recent bailout were so outright text-book socialism that it's almost laughable to see that brush tarring anyone else (and doubly so when you consider that Sweden experienced a similar situation in the 90s and chose not to go the whole-hog Socialism approach, wishing to avoid bail-out standards like the current Administration had suggested -- yeah, that's right, the current White House is just too
We have socialist elements already, and they're positive by dint (IMO) of being limited: public highways maintained by state & fed, jails, school systems, the FDA, the DEA, even OSHA: these are govt agencies owning and operating in lieu of allowing private corporations to do it themselves. Socialism. Whatever.
A few other points to consider: Rashid Khalidi is Palestinian, and a scholar, and certainly not a radical. In fact, he was one of the authors of the Middle East Peace Accord, and has more than a few times been critical of the Palestinian position on Israel. Again with the brush tarring everyone: Obama rubbed shoulders as a fellow professor at the Univ of Chicago, while McCain headed a foundation that bestowed three grants (one topping a million USD) to Khalidi to continue his work. Pot, meet kettle, both of you, shut up.
As for me, I've read some of Khalidi's articles available on the 'net, and in case there is any doubt, I have long leaned more towards a pro-Arab position than pro-Israel, which may tender my view of Khalidi somewhat. On the other hand, Khalidi was also a visiting professor at the Univ of Chicago and if there's any one thing I do know for a fact it's that Chicago does not hire stupid people to teach its classes. Maybe Khalidi does hold opinions that differentiate him from a doormat, but I sincerely doubt he's a moron about it.
As for the donations? That one cracks me up. A neo-con article I saw a week or two ago firmly concluded these must be donations converted from non-USD because none of them end in .00! They end in .11 and .22 and .01, that's got to be coming from overseas and oh noes probably illegal! (You think all military folks stationed overseas only back at Pentagon Federal? Plenty have local accounts, sheesh.)
Except that in this case, back before there was a way to track by what means you'd donated, some of the political sites online came up with a system: if you're on Daily Kos and click the donate box and said you'd donate $25, Kos added one penny. If you were on Digby's Hullaballo, I think the addition is 11 cents. Every site picked a random amount they'd add, and they still do it -- and Kos and the rest would track X donations made through the site and X showing up in proper pockets, trackable by that peculiar extra penny oddities.
Which I think is rather ingenious, even if not really needed these days with improved internet technologies, but it's a kind of tradition, now... it's just a tradition that one conclusion-leaper didn't know about, so his panic -- while understandable -- is a bit over the top for nothing more than tripping over a bassackwards stint of legacy software.
As for the voter fraud, here's what you're not getting told: this apparently happens almost every election (and ACORN is a foundation that's worked with both Repub and Dem, in the past, to get folks registered). Employees go out, register voters, bring back the forms: and somewhere in the stack is Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Mother Goose. Those employees -- having basically committed voter fraud -- are fired. But! It's illegal for Acorn to ditch the questionable forms; these must be turned over the proper govt office because, hey, you never know, maybe the guy's parents were really cruel to name him Donald with a surname of Duck. Granted, Acorn sorts the "we think these are false" completed forms into a secondary stack but all completed forms are dutifully handed over.
The voter fraud argument is basically that Acorn handed in, say, 2K registered voter names and omg 100 of them were fake names! and these people are all going to vote because of this horrible organization sneaking extra names on the roles!... but the fact is that no matter how those names got on the forms, Acorn is legally required to turn the forms in and let the govt sort 'em out. Which the govt does: for it to be fraud it must have demonstrable intention of defrauding the govt. Acorn's proven its non-malicious intentions by reviewing the forms ahead of time and putting big question marks on the ones it thinks may have been forged. As for the employees? Still not guilty of voter registration fraud in the govt point of view because the employee intention wasn't to get a hundred more people on the voter roles but to pad out their daily quota so the boss would think they were working instead of asleep in the bushes -- and since the employee's already fired, well, done deal, then.
Sigh. Time and again, there are charges in nearly every blooming election of oh noes voter fraud! But -- try looking for a case that held water long enough to go to court. Given the number of cries of outrage you'd probably expect a pretty high number, right? Have fun looking. Go on, it's okay, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
Although that's particularly amusing to me since this is one of the ways the Republicans padded the voter registries during Reconstruction, but hey, that's water way under the bridge, right? Well, it is: but I also mention it as gentle reminder that these kinds of shenanigans -- or at least accusations of shenanigans -- have been going on since, well, we first started doing state-controlled elections. That's why we have govt agencies who sort through the registrations submitted, who will prosecute upon finding evidence of fraud. La, la, la, rinse, repeat.
[If that's not enough, then removing Obama from that vacuum and comparing him to McCain and as far as I'm concerned... any man who would put air-quotes around the phrase "health of the mother" just lost my vote right there, period, end of sentence, no further discussion needed. As someone with friends and relatives inside the danger zone for child-bearing, I have absolutely no sense of humor about that topic. If ever I may have waffled previous, such uncertainty ended in that single instant.]
Frankly, fearmongering about how the world will change if someone (anyone) is elected president is just muddying the waters. I mean, my life, and our world, has changed radically in the past eight years. For crying out loud, eight years ago I had an excellent job, I had top benefits, our nation was running a surplus, and for the most part, things were manageable, if not pretty damn good. Now we're so far into debt that our country owes $30K for every man, woman, AND child; we're fighting two different wars and we just bombed Syria; health insurance and medicine costs are astronomical; our environment's screwed; New Orleans remains in shambles and no one even remembers Biloxi and Ocean Springs; the Patriot Act is still around and the govt still maintains constitution-mutilating rights to spy on its own citizens; we have a pro-torture policy in violation of the Geneva Convention; we have a president who violates constitutional and legislative due process using line-item vetos and signing statements to negate laws even as he's signing them into law; and a good chunk of the jobs I qualify for are now being occupied by workers in Montreal and India.
Yeah, from where I stand, when someone says, "the world will change! it will be completely different from what it's like now!" I say: I sure as hell HOPE so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 31 Oct 2008 03:32 am (UTC)And our children's children will be paying off the debt they have run up so far.
As the bumper sticker said, "I love my country, it's the government that scares me."
no subject
Date: 7 Nov 2008 08:04 am (UTC)I see you're the optimist in the crowd. I've been betting on our children's grandchildren, myself.