Vice Presidential Picks and the Art of War

[SteveO]

[quote rgG][quote SteveO]
Just so you know, Obama IS in his prime and has been helping Americans in elected office for 10+ years now. Before that, he worked in public service helping inner city underprivileged poor. He chose to take a terribly underpaid position helping the poor instead of taking a Supreme Court Clerkship which would have been hugely lucrative and would have fast-tracked his career, did you know this?

Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar and edited the Harvard Law Review. Do you know how incredibly gifted this man is and what a gift he would be to this nation as president? Not since JFK has there been a candidate with this much promise for our nation. Have you been asleep the past four years? Go watch his speeches, read up on him, get to know the man and what he stands for...which is America and doing the right thing.
SteveO,
I watched the same CNN profile of Obama that you apparently watched, since the points you make are the same ones I saw in the piece. It was informative and I came away with a better idea of who he was. However, he has not served long enough on the national scene to suit me. Because I would like him to be more experienced does not make me a bad person. As I just said in my post above, I am leaning towards voting for him. However, people like you who act like anyone who questions him in any way is an idiot really turn me off. I don't drink anyone's Kool-Aid, not even Steve Jobs, the original "Oh Yeah", man. I have a right to make up my own mind and I am doing my research, I do not need people like you trying to make me feel like I am an idiot if I question his experience.
Actually, I didn't watch the CNN profile, didn't know there was one (I don't have cable). I didn't mean to insinuate you are an idiot, rgG, nor did I mean to make you uncomfortable. As I said in my post that appeared shortly after yours (I hadn't seen your post above when I posted that, btw), I don't agree with Obama on everything (and yes, his FISA vote and a few other things still anger the hell out of me) and no, I don't "drink the Obama Kool-Aid" (or the Steve Jobs for that matter) -- I could be upset with you for saying that, btw, but I'm choosing not to be.

My comments stem from the events of the past 8 years starting with the supreme court selection of our president in a crooked election and continuing on through all the wrongs this administration has done the nation. From 9/11 to Iraq to Katrina to the Plame incident to domestic wiretaps to torture to Swift Boats, Abramoff and beyond, these people (and I use the term loosely) have shown nothing but utter contempt for our nation, our constitution, our voting process, and our citizens and yet somehow the media has given them a giant pass.

When I get emotional about it with questions like "have you been asleep" it is a reflection of my anger at all that's transpired. McCain has come out and said he supports the Bush administration and their decisions. He has voted with them more than 90% of the time. He would continue their bad policies. He has made his bed and now must lay in it. So please don't take my comments personally.

What I want is for our country to be steered in a positive direction again where doing the right thing is not scoffed at or seen as "off the table." Where the VP doesn't spout family values and then tell a senator to "Go F*ck yourself" (what kind of "leader" says that, honestly?), and where the president is actually held accountable for taking the nation into a morass. As a nation, we have lost our dignity, our self-respect and our world respect and so it rings hollow when we attempt to bring influence where it is desperately needed as with the current situation in Russia / Georgia.

It IS hard to talk with those we disagree with, it IS hard to make politically unexpedient choices, and it should not be hard to say no to your friends when defense and military contracts come around by keeping the process on the up and up. This ship needs to be righted before it sinks.

Obama may not have age, but the guy has wisdom beyond his years. He is a measured fellow who WANTS people that disagree with him in his Cabinet advising him. He WANTS to hear all sides of an issue b/c he knows that he is human and not always right. And yeah, it bears repeating, Barack Obama was one of the only people who voted against the Iraq war which is siphoning our nation's future as we speak and will continue to do so for the next umpteen years thanks to the neocons and the media who didn't do their due diligence on the lead-up to the war.

Age does not equal wisdom. Look at Bush-Cheney, they are plenty aged but sorely lacking in wisdom. As is McCain from his 90% + voting record to his pick of Palin who I think we all agree is wholly unqualified.

[PeterB]

[quote freeradical][quote PeterB]

... and before someone (cough, freeradical, cough) brings this up, yes, I am aware that correlation is not causation, and that, yes, it's possible Clinton was not responsible for this. But-- it's hard to deny that it happened under his leadership, and... it wouldn't have happened if, at the very least, he hadn't been doing things which at least did not work against it, if not encouraged it. .
Bill Clinton got on the elevator at the right time. The cold war was over and defense spending was dramatically cut. Let's also not forget that a Democrat, I mean Republican controlled Congress sent Clinton budgets that restrained spending.
The cold war was already over and defense spending dramatically cut by the time that G. Bush, Sr. was President (excepting spending on the first Iraq war), that predates Clinton. Likewise the Republican-controlled Congress, which does not really correlate with the above graphs.

[quote freeradical]Oh, I like your graphics; they are indeed silly examples that do nothing to prove what caused an event. One could just as easily substitute "Congress" for "President" in each graph to "prove" a point.
As I stated, correlation is not causation. Still, if the sun rises every day in the east and sets in the west, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a generally valid assumption. I'm not sure what's "silly" about these examples. Please come up with some of your own, and then we can analyze yours. See above regarding Congress' role (or lack thereof) in these facts.

[karsen]

rgG's sentiments pretty much echo my own.

[quote SteveO] but for starters on how some of this would be funded, Obama plans to roll back the tax breaks and corp welfare that Bush gave the RICHEST AMERICANS, OIL companies and corporations ... which all adds up to millions (perhaps billions) of dollars.. Did you know that corporations pay very little income tax? The American tax burden is pretty solidly on the middle class, period. So when you see those McCain TV spots saying Obama is going to raise taxes, yeah, he's going to raise taxes but not on the middle class...he's going to raise them on the super-rich who are not paying their fair share!
[quote factcheck.org]This is misleading. Even by his own campaign’s estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won’t pay for all of Obama’s new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.

But Obama’s claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.
[quote SteveO]As for how Obama will get our troops out without destabilizing the region...um, in case you didn't notice, WE were the ones who destabilized the region. (!) And Obama has said that he will withdraw troops in a measured manner in consultation with the Iraqi government and other nations in the region to ensure the most stability possible. The Bush administration has recently adopted this policy as well. We don't belong there and are not wanted there. Our troops are dying every day, and all for what? Nothing! The hubris of cooked-up intelligence to start a false war. And where is boogeyman Osama bin Laden? He is on the loose, STILL. After 7 years!
Yes, WE are the ones who destabilized it. My mother always told me if I break it, it's mine. In other words like it or not, it's our mess to deal with.

We were lead into that mess with lies and fabrications. Bush screwed it up big time. But bailing out and leaving innocent people to potential genocide is worse than what we did in the first place.

Everyone wants the Iraq war over (even McCain if you care to listen to him) I just want to make sure we're not going to leave people to the wolves by bailing out on them. If we can withdraw in a timely manner and the people there are safe, great. If they aren't safe then unfortunetly I think we need to stay a bit longer. I have family there I'd like home, but I understand that people who live there every day face a threat by us leaving too soon.

[Lux Interior]

[quote freeradical]
Bill Clinton got on the elevator at the right time. The cold war was over and defense spending was dramatically cut. Let's also not forget that a Democrat, I mean Republican controlled Congress sent Clinton budgets that restrained spending.
Talk about kool-aid! Yep, 12 years of Reagan-Bush set Clinton up for growth and then Clinton screwed it all up and that's why the economy under Bush is so dismal!

[freeradical]

[quote Lux Interior][quote freeradical]
Bill Clinton got on the elevator at the right time. The cold war was over and defense spending was dramatically cut. Let's also not forget that a Democrat, I mean Republican controlled Congress sent Clinton budgets that restrained spending.
Talk about kool-aid! Yep, 12 years of Reagan-Bush set Clinton up for growth and then Clinton screwed it all up and that's why the economy under Bush is so dismal!
So what you're saying is that Clinton taxed us into prosperity?

What macro economic model suggests this is possible?

[mikeylikesit]

I thought only Congress had the power to tax anyone into either prosperity or the poorhouse. Seems you want it both ways, credit when things work out and avoidence of blame when they don't.

BTW, if you want to credit the GOP controlled Congress for the surplus under Clinton, shouldn't you also hold them liable for the deficit under Bush?

[Lux Interior]

[quote freeradical]
So what you're saying is that Clinton taxed us into prosperity?

What macro economic model suggests this is possible?
Just as much as you're suggesting that Bush's record deficit spending has been great for the dollar and the economy.

I assume you support zero federal taxes? Because taxes under Slick weren't as high (and under W weren't as low) as the hyperbole leads one to believe.