elkston on 30/8/2008 at 18:24
Quote Posted by heywood
Now, it's possible that Obama may make the right choices for his cabinet and come to grips with the executive branch quickly. That didn't happen with GWB, it didn't happen with Clinton, and I'm skeptical that a Washington newbie can do better. Especially considering some of the people Obama chose to associate with before getting into national politics (e.g. Resko, Ayers, Wright). Maybe he's a shrewd politician who was just using these people while they could help him and dumping them when they couldn't, or maybe his judgment is flawed and he just got lucky in hooking up with Axlerod. I don't know the answer, but I'm not inclined to gamble against experience and history just because the man can deliver a good speech.
So instead you'd like to gamble on someone who decided, in an impulsive and reckless decision, to pick a woefully unqualified VP candidate (Sarah Palin)?
Time and time again Obama has shown measured and steady leadership and judgment in the campaign he runs and the people he chooses around him.
McCain got gobsmacked by the wild success of Obama's hard-hitting speech and the unity of DNC convention. Maybe some of his choices for VP turned him down. But instead of regrouping and taking a bit more time to come up with a more suitable replacement, he
paniced and chose Palin.
It was more important for him to control the news cycle and MAYBE get more votes for a win than to actually THINK about what happens in the long term with respect to governing and the security of the nation.
Its a DIRECT HIT against his jugdment and
temperment (which Obama brought up in his speech) to be Command in Chief.
And while Obama may be just a frehsman Senator, he has 8 years experience in the State Legislature working with others and getting things done for his district.
Is Obama a slight risk? Perhaps. But when compared to McCain and the disaster of the Bush years, its a solid choice, IMHO.
elkston on 30/8/2008 at 18:36
Quote Posted by heretic
If the past and present lovefest (regarding Obama) that has been propagated by the majority of the media outlets is anything to go by then that should only continue to work in the man's favor.
Even my most fervent Obama-supporting friends openly admit that he has been getting off easy.
Actually, I admit that the media was favorable to him during the Primaries. But NOW, during the election, it is more negative and actively trying to keep the race "close" to maintain viewer interest.
Of course we always know where FOX stands, but suprisingly, CNN & ABC in particular are quite anti-Obama. Actually pay attention to the stories they run and the talking points. "Why isn't Obama closing the deal? Why is the election so close? Is he aarrogant? Is he aloof?"
No. Right now the media is not on his side and Obama knows it. That's why they focus on outreach, voter turnout, and the ground campaign.
He is making the election about the people and cutting out the corporate-driven and biased media.
heretic on 30/8/2008 at 19:12
Quote Posted by elkston
Of course we always know where FOX stands, but suprisingly, CNN & ABC in particular are quite anti-Obama.
Right now the media is not on his side and Obama knows it. That's why they focus on outreach, voter turnout, and the ground campaign.
In regards to the last few weeks I'd have to agree that there isn't much of a slant overall, though I would certainly stop short of calling any of the big boys (aside from Fox) "anti-Obama".
This recognition is only exacerbated by the fact that a significant percentage of the media had been carrying Obama's torch beforehand, and for quite some time.
a flower in hell on 30/8/2008 at 20:55
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It just ain't that one sided - otherwise you could use all those arguments against educating people. There is good reason (ie empirical evidence) to believe that investing in education, health and social infrastructures will produce increased productivity, wealth, health, improved quality of life and so on. There is no empirical evidence that I can find - and I have tried looking (the assumption is nearly always based on work by Keeney how identified a relation between wealth and health but not cause) - that supports the assumption that increased wealth causes improved health, productivity and so on. It would appear that little oft' repeated chestnut is a fallacy, yet it underpins a hell of a lot of conservative policy thinking; it certainly hasn't been seen working too well over the last 8 years. It is good health and good education which cause wealth, not the other way around.
I think a lot of people are aware that education and health costs, but are also aware how much not having those things costs - and they do the math. You're not frittering money away by spending it on health and education - you are making an investment that will pay returns. To say wages will go down ignores the economic growth that results from that investment.
You're assuming that the government won't totally cock it all up. Look, we've heard this song before. Look at how wonderfully the government's doing with education.
When humans cannot fail, they do not try. Humans are inherently lazy and will take the path of least resistance if available. The only thing a socialistic society leads to is a screeching halt to progress.
Why do you think nearly all of the greatest innovations in human history came about during or as a result of war? We need conflict to survive. Remove that conflict, remove the urgency and the need, and we stop moving forward.
Chimpy Chompy on 30/8/2008 at 21:06
I would argue some of that but my spider-sense tells me you're one of those people to whom anything at all short of unregulated capitalism in all things is "omg commies". Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong!
Anyway I'm excited about Obama not so much because I've read up on him in detail (I haven't) as because people who's opinions I respect, like Stitch, are excited. If he fucks up I'm holding you guys responsible for my crushed spirits!
fett on 30/8/2008 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
If he fucks up I'm holding you guys responsible for my crushed spirits!
The first truly American sentiment I've seen in this thread so far. :laff:
SubJeff on 30/8/2008 at 21:17
Quote:
Why do you think nearly all of the greatest innovations in human history came about during or as a result of war?
Evidence please.
SD on 30/8/2008 at 21:21
The obsessive anti-social-anything mob never seem to have a problem with a socialised military. Funny that.
The pooled risk provided by nationalised healthcare is incredibly useful on a level that (for example) nationalised farming or nationalised energy utilities isn't, as poor health isn't something you choose but something that you suffer from.
It's also very efficient. British per capita healthcare spending is a fraction of that in the US, but we have broadly similar outcomes. Of course, you can still purchase health insurance and have all the frills if you want, but the NHS is great value for what it provides. And I'm not some socialist who is dogmatically in favour of state provision, merely a pragmatic liberal who believes in what works best.
SubJeff on 30/8/2008 at 21:30
The NHS is great value for lower earners, people with chronic diseases and those who need really expensive treatment. These are the people that would not ordinarily by able to pay for treatment. For everyone else it's not so economic since they just supplement the others. There are plenty of treatments that you and I could afford privately but which make up masses of NHS spending. And for some insane reason there is a block on people supplementing NHS treatment (it's all private/NHS or none) so people who would ordinarily have opted to "help" the NHS out can't. And those who can afford better, more expensive, treatment (that is sometimes lifesaving) aren't allowed to without losing the NHS input.
It's a great idea in theory (the NHS that is), but Nu Laybore's handling of it is... questionable.
Bah. That was an NHS rant, not a political one. There are a few small policy changes that would effectively revolutionise healthcare in the UK. Brown won't make them. I wonder if Cameron will? And I've no idea what the Lib Dems would do.
heywood on 30/8/2008 at 22:42
Quote Posted by elkston
So instead you'd like to gamble on someone who decided, in an impulsive and reckless decision, to pick a woefully unqualified VP candidate (Sarah Palin)?
No, as I said in my last post, picking Palin was the last straw for me with McCain. I used to admire the guy some years ago, but since then he's sold out his principles to get back in the party's good graces. And he's had a few "senior moments" in the last year, so I'd want a competent VP there to back him up. So I'm either going to skip the top of the ticket or maybe write-in a protest vote.
