#3
I'm shocked. You can get a cup of (just) "coffee" at starbucks?
Who knew.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/03/2008 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Stsrbucks supports Israel, and just purchased Procter & Gamble's Folgers division, with all its people. I'm not suggesting anything about the stock in the near term, especially given current volatility (the world of investing is far beyond my ken), just providing some useful information.
Olbermann, on the other hand, clearly had an overindulgent mother.
Whatever the exact result of the US elections tomorrow, we must assume that the whole governing machinery of Washington and the state capitols will soon be hostile to laissez-faire thinking.
It is not just that the Democrats will win a crushing victory in both houses of Congress, perhaps reaching the 60-seat Senate threshold that lets them steam-roll legislation. It is also that the incoming class of 2008 is of a new creed. Many no longer believe or actively reject the free trade and free market catechisms.
As commentator Markos Moulitsas put it in Newsweek: "The big question is, will Democrats nationwide simply 'win' the nightor will they deliver an electoral drubbing so thorough that it signals the utter rejection of conservative ideology and kills the notion that America is a 'center-right' country?" he said.
No matter that statist policies were responsible for this global crisis in the first place. It was Western governments that set interest rates too low for too long, encouraging us all to abuse credit.
It was Eastern governments that held down their currencies to pursue mercantilist trade advantage, thereby accumulating vast foreign reserves that had to be recycled. Hence the bond bubble. This is the deformed creature known as Bretton Woods II. Protectionist Democrats are right to complain that the game is rigged. Free trade? Laugh on.
But at this point I have given up hoping that we will draw the right conclusions from this crisis. The universal verdict is that capitalism has run amok.
In any case the damage caused as credit retrenchment squeezes real industry is likely to be so great that Barack Obama may have to pursue unthinkable policies, just as Franklin Roosevelt had to ditch campaign orthodoxies and go truly radical after his landslide victory in 1932. Indeed, Mr Obama if he wins may have to start by nationalizing the US car industry.
For those who missed it, I recommend Edward Stourton's BBC interview with Eric Hobsbawm, the doyen of Marxist history.
"This is the dramatic equivalent of the collapse of the Soviet Union: we now know that an era has ended," said Mr Hobsbawm, still lucid at 91.
"It is certainly greatest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s. As Marx and Schumpeter foresaw, globalization not only destroys heritage, but is incredibly unstable. It operates through a series of crises.
"There'll be a much greater role for the state, one way or another. We've already got the state as lender of last resort, we might well return to idea of the state as employer of last resort, which is what it was under FDR. It'll be something which orients, and even directs the private economy," he said.
Dismiss this as the wishful thinking of an old Marxist if you want, but I suspect his views may be closer to the truth than the complacent assumptions so prevalent in the City.
To those who still think that business can go on as normal now that EU taxpayers have had to rescue the financial system, I can only say: what will happen to London if EU exchange controls are imposed, or if leverage is restricted by draconian laws as demanded by the German, Dutch, and Nordic Left?
Does the UK still have a blocking minority under EU voting rules to stop a blitz of directives that could shut down half the activities of the City or the 'Casino' as they say in Brussels? I doubt it.
Who thinks that the three key Commission posts single market, competition, and trade will still be held by free marketeers when the new team comes in next year?
In Germany, Oskar Lafontaine's Linke party now has 23pc support in Saarland on a Marxist pledge to nationalize banks and utilities. Needless to say, the Social Democrats (SPD) are shifting hard Left to protect their flank.
"The rule of the radical market ideology that began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan has ended with a loud bang," said Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister and SPD candidate for chancellor next year.
"We need a comprehensive new start, so we can reestablish our society on fresh foundations. People create value, not locusts," he said.
France has its own Gaullist version on this, seizing on the crisis to launch the most far-reaching strategy of state intervention since the 1970s.
"Laissez-faire, c'est fini," said President Nicolas Sarkozy. "We will intervene massively whenever a strategic enterprise needs our money."
Such language can now be heard daily across Europe. It can only intensify as the fall-out from the EU's 1.8bn trillion (£1.4 trillion) bank rescue becomes clearer, and as Europe's elites discover that their own banks are the most leveraged in the world and have played their own Wagnerian part in Gotterdammerung.
European and UK banks are five times more exposed to emerging markets than US banks. They alone hold the collective time-bomb of $1.6 trillion (£990bn) in hard currency loans to Eastern Europe now starting to detonate in Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, and even Russia.
At some point, Europe's political class will face the awful truth that their own credit bubbles are just as bad and perhaps worse than the excesses of US sub-prime property. As that occurs, the shock will move by degrees from revulsion to political rage.
Professor Hobsbawm, who spent his youth watching Hitler's rise in Berlin, has a warning for those who think this will help the Left in any recognizable form. "In the 1930s, the net political effect of the Depression was to enormously strengthen the Right," he said.
America was the great exception, as it may prove to be again. I for one will take the enlightened "socialism" of Barack Obama any day over the Hegelian broth nearing the boil in Europe.
#3
CHINESE MIL FORUM Poster > opined that the 2008 US POTUS ELEX is likely the MOST CRUCIAL ELECTION + MOST IMPORTANT EVENT E-V-A-A-A-R-...
IN US PRESIDENTIAL, POLITICAL, + NATIONAL HISTORY.
* "Whole Governing Machinery of Washington and State Capitols will soon be Hostile to Laissez-faire thinking" > WORLD MIL FORUM [paraph = Chinglish translation]= US INTELLIGENCE SPENDING INCREASES BY US$40MILYUHN TO GROSS AT US$47.6BILYUHN, UP FROM US$43.5BILYUHN IN FISCAL 2007!?
SAME " > OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS REPLACED RUSSIA AS THE US' TOP RIVAL AFTER THE 2008 ELECTION. US may broadly suffer SERIOUS OR WORSE GEOPOLITICAL + MULTI-DIPLOMATIC CRISES OF GREATER CONSEQUENCE THAN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS OR FOLLOW-ON???; + US MEDIAS: AFRICA IS THE NEW PROXY BATTLEFIELD BWTN THE US AND CHINA FOR COMPETITION, CONTAINMENT.
*SAME > OTHER > GERMAN MEDIA: CENTRAL ASIAN STATES MORE LIKELY TO HEED/FOLLOW CHINA THAN RUSSIA, + AUTHOR ZHENGE SEN: ARE BOTH CHINA + WEST NOW CAUGHT IN MUTUAL PRE-SET STRATEGIC TRAPS. Mutual failure to comprehend eash side's agendum + pragmatic reactions, espec the West's failure vee the true power of China's logic and methodisms. THE TRADITIONAL PASSIVE METHOD HISTORICALY PREFERRED BY CHINA, AND ITS CONSEQUENT CHIN-ANTICIPATED SUCCESS IN GAINING ACCEPTANCE IN THE WEST/WESTERN SUSTEMS WILL SERVE TO PROMOTE AND EMPOWER THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION [China? World?].
#4
More from WORLD MIL FORUM > POST-2008 ELECTION THE US WILL HAVE TO ENGAGE IN CONSTRUCTIVE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WID CHINA, espec as US ABSOLUTE POWER DECLINES WHILE CHINA [Asia] RISES.; + SCHOLARS: TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE CHINA SEAS, CHINA MUST CHANGE ITS GEOSTRATEGIC THINKING AND EXPAND ITS NAVAL, MILITARY, AND ECONMIC POWER BEYOND ITS NEAR ABROAD.
IOW, China must STOP BEING ISOLATIONIST + MILITANTLY HOMOGENOUS iff it expects to become a TRUE GLOBAL POWER, LET ALONE A SUPERPOWER!
* SAME > RUSSIA: NOTHERN AND PACIFIC FLEET WARSHIPS [Non-CV Major + Other Surface warfare units] TO TRAIN IN THE INDIAN OCEAN.
WAFF.com > US INTELLIGENCE: RUSSIA, CHINA, + INDIA MAY CAUSE [future]INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, by or about the Year 2025 iff MADONNA IS STILL ALIVE ["Year 2525" song].
"Emperor Misha" @ "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler"
I really hope this guy is right.
We keep telling you: THIS AINT OVER.
Unless you decide to let the Eeyores convince you that it is. In which case the Obamamedia really ought to cut you a check for doing their work for them. . . .
Remember how we've told you time and time again that the only polls you can even remotely trust are the campaigns' internal polls? For the very simple reason that those internal pollsters have absolutely no agenda other than finding out what's really going on in order to know what they should be doing next. Those pollsters, while certainly plagued by the same unknowns that every other pollster in history have had to deal with, have to get the right numbers or they could cause their campaigns to lose the election.
Ever wondered why both campaigns are investing heavily into, say, Pennsylvania, one of the states that, according to the Eeyoremedia, is going to go fully in the tank for the Obaminable Blowman to the tune of 127% voting for him and -7,443% voting for McCain/Palin? What? You think they like throwing money into already settled races, especially with so many much tighter races to choose from?
C'mon. Even Obambi isn't daft enough to throw money into a race he's leading by double digits and McCain/Palin, being considerably more strapped for cash since he hasn't committed massive election fraud by deliberately turning off basic security features in order to get donations from various caves in Pakistan, certainly isn't about to.
So, again: The only polls we've ever been interested in seeing were the internals, and neither campaign is particularly forthcoming with sharing those.
People, if Dear Leader isn't landsliding by double digits in the People's Socialist Republic of Kalifornikate??? We rest our case.
Oh, and the state we mentioned before that Obambi is supposedly going to carry in a double-digit clobbering, yet for some reason he is focusing a LOT of effort in?
We guess they really don’t like being called racist, redneck, bitter, gun and bible-clinging xenophobes after all. Imagine our surprise.
Number one reason among Democrats breaking for McCain? They're pissed off that he's cheating and trying to buy the election.
And that's all from the horse's mouth, pollsters who have absolutely zero interest in being wrong and who will most likely never work again if they are, so it's safe to assume that they're working their little butts off overtime trying to identify and eliminate whatever unknowns they can find. And we can guarantee you that those are the same numbers staring the Obamessiah in the face from his internal pollsters, because they're operating under the same conditions.
Which would go a long way towards explaining why he's been so pissy and irritable as of late, kicking reporters from newspapers whose only offense has been not endorsing him and generally being a whiny little pissant. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/03/2008 14:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I really hope this guy is right too. I have never believed the BO press or polls. Former Secretary of State Eagleburger referred to BO as a con-man and charlatan on FOX TV.
#2
I think the public polls are wrong and McCain has a good shot of pulling this thing out. But the above internal poll numbers claimed simply can't be accurate.
"Pennsylvania: McCain 55% - Obambi 33%"?
Please.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
11/03/2008 15:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In case McCain wins it would be a major blunder verging to treason let trhe things stay like they are. McCain should use his prtesidency to dismantle all the connections who made an Obama possible. Acorn, the daed voters, unions using their members money, people allowed to vote without a credential with photo, financing from foreign countries.
Half the democratic party and probably a few republicans too should end at Leavenworth
#5
Word i get from sister in MI is that while folks are spouting Obambi, the McPalin yard signs are sprouting. and ever since the famous Joe the Plumber episode, they have been growing ever faster ( don't pissoff Joe Six Pak / blue collar. despite what the union tells you to do)
#6
The only thing I'll say on CA is that we have a young friend who moved to CA earlier this year and most everyone she has talked to in the LA area was for McCain.
#7
I think that CA could be a shocker. Who is the one group that we heard so much about awhile back, how they were going to have such a big impact on this election, yada, yada, ad nauseum. And then suddenly... silence. And since then, it is as though this demographic no longer even exists. Hear the wind blow. I've been listening for it and I have not heard ONE SINGLE COMMENT about this very large group and their impact on this election.
Can you guess who I'm talking about? Hint - they will have the biggest impact in CA and FL.
Posted by: Francis ||
11/03/2008 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Hispanics!
That said, someone just told me that NPR says they are breaking for Obama ~70-30. Hmmm. I haven't heard ANYTHING about hispanics. Not one word! But maybe I'll have to eat crow pie on this. Has anyone else heard anything?
#10
Ok - I went out and did a bit of googling. Back around the end of the year there were multiple articles touting the hispanics. Most of these were sourced to real surveys. Then, not so much except in the last couple of days CNN and NPR claim they are all breaking for Obama. I don't consider those reliable sources. Also big claims from a poll paid for by the Obama campaign.
#11
The problem is commercial polls are show Obama retaking and widening his lead over McCain since the financial meltdown.
As for Hispanics, most will vote for the One who promises $2700 (or was it $3600) a year free, to them, money disguised as a tax rebate.
Posted by: ed ||
11/03/2008 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I hope you guys are right. If McCain wins then I will give up something - Like Sex "What dear ? - oh I already gave that up. Have to think of something else - not beer somthing else
#18
Only poll that truly counts is the one on election day.
EVERYBODY VOTE!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/03/2008 23:01 Comments ||
Top||
#19
A Wizard Of Id Parody;
Scribe: What are you offering the peasants in your election speech today?
Obama: Nothing they can afford to refuse
Elect me, and I promise you Free health care! Free housing! Free clothing! Food Stamps! And jobs for everybody. Any questions?
Peasant: What do we need jobs for?
_________________________________
Think positive for tomorrow!
Posted by: Jan ||
11/03/2008 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
Nationwide: Going in to election day, Obama will be leading 47% to 44% with 7% undecided. McCain wins the undecided almost 5:2. Increased support from black voters in the three Ds (DC, Detroit, and the Deep South) along with gains in other reliably red states runs up Obamas popular vote totals, but adds nothing to the electoral bottom line. The only states he turns in his favor are two very white ones (Iowa 2% black and Nevada 6% black), providing evidence against the charge of racism. But facts dont get in the way of the story line that racism decided the race.
Final popular vote tally: Obama 49.2%, McCain 48.8%, Other 2%.
Whether he's right or wrong, GET OUT THERE AND VOTE.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/03/2008 14:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My prediction is that the promise to bankrupt the coal industry will cost him PA.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/03/2008 18:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
COmpare wid WORLD MIL FORUM [CHina] > ARTICLE = Generally, OBAMA leads MCCAIN in nearly every pre-Elex Poll indicator/category except WHITE CATHOLIC VOTERS + MARRIED WOMEN [no race-ethnicity specified].
From The Politico and the Mason-Dixon poll. I have no idea how many PUMAs are represented, how many will vote or stay home, how many frustrated conservatives likewise will stay home, and how much of the vaunted 'youth vote' will turn out.
The final round of Mason-Dixon polls has Obama enjoying small leads in the red states that would deliver him the presidency, but he's below 50 percent in each and there are enough white undecided voters to leave some too close to call.
As Brad Coker, who runs the Mason-Dixon poll, notes, the vast majority of the undecided voters in these states are whites.
If these undecided voters all break for McCain, it may be enough for him to eke out a small win. But there is another possibility: that some of these undecided voters who can't bring themselves to support a black candidate but are also unhappy with the GOP just stay home.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/03/2008 01:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What amazes me in all these polls are the number of "undecided". I think it is people who want to vote for McCain but are embarrassed to say they will because of their environment or demographic or a friend standing next to them. Or they could be the PUMA's who are legitimately torn between their Democratic/Progressive/Liberal inclinations and voting for someone like Obama who they see as a threat to American exceptionalism. Whatever, if they are likely voters, I say that favors McCain. Lets hope so for the sake of the republic.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/03/2008 7:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The "undecided voter" of this election has significantly more to be concerned about than a political contest, I assure you. Quite frankly, I hope to never meet one, either in person, at a stop sign, or in oncoming automobile traffic.
#3
If you vote, your guy may lose, or your vote might not "count" for a host of other reasons. Or it might be decisive. My father won his first general election by 0.5 votes per precinct. W won Florida by 537 votes.
If you don't vote, it is 100% certain your vote will not count.
Therefore, vote.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/03/2008 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've talked to several friends over the last couple of weeks, and they've all said the same thing - they're tired of robo-calls and "polls". Most either hang up on them, or tell them politely they're not interested and THEN hang up on them. Since most of my friends are conservatives, I'd say the conservative voice in Colorado polls is greatly under-reported. I don't see Obama with a 5-point lead, especially after his comments about bankrupting coal. Colorado produces a LOT of coal, and anyone that say ugly things about it isn't popular for very long. There are some places in Colorado (the People's Republic of Boulder, for instance) that Obama will carry. His comments about coal will doom him with the western half of the state, although those are usually "blue" voters. It's going to be "interesting" watching the returns tomorrow night.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/03/2008 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
We thank Colorado for its wonderful anthracite coal from the Canyon City area. I thought the west and east were red and the urban strip on the east side of the rockies was blue?
#6
I've talked to several friends over the last couple of weeks, and they've all said the same thing - they're tired of robo-calls and "polls". Most either hang up on them, or tell them politely they're not interested and THEN hang up on them. Since most of my friends are conservatives, I'd say the conservative voice in Colorado polls is greatly under-reported. I don't see Obama with a 5-point lead, especially after his comments about bankrupting coal. Colorado produces a LOT of coal, and anyone that say ugly things about it isn't popular for very long. There are some places in Colorado (the People's Republic of Boulder, for instance) that Obama will carry. His comments about coal will doom him with the western half of the state, although those are usually "blue" voters. It's going to be "interesting" watching the returns tomorrow night.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/03/2008 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
A curiosity of this Presidential campaign has been the way former media idolaters of John McCain have suddenly turned on him. They now claim to be horrified by his choice of Sarah Palin, or by his ad hoc economic decision-making, or his TV ads, or something. Whom do they think they've been praising all these years?
The John McCain of this campaign is the same as he ever was. The former Navy pilot's politics has always been more personal than ideological. His core convictions are duty, honor and country. He has always been passionate to the point of being impulsive, an unguided policy missile until he locks on target. Then he can be tenacious, and sometimes moralistic. These traits have characterized the McCain candidacy for better or worse and, we suspect, would also mark his Presidency. What the media can't say with a straight face is that they are shocked by any of this; they should admit they've simply found a new romance in Barack Obama.
If the 2008 election were solely about character and experience, Mr. McCain would be winning in a walk. Few Presidential nominees have been better known or more admired. A McCain Presidency would have its surprises, but they would not be from personal vice or political scandal. His courage has been tested far more than most -- both in a personal sense in Vietnam, and in a political sense during the Iraq war.
Arguably the finest hour of Mr. McCain's career was his support for the Iraq surge at the height of the war's unpopularity. It was gratifying to see this virtue vindicated as he won the GOP nomination. But in an irony of history, his very far-sightedness on Iraq and the success of the surge have made national security seem less urgent as Election Day nears. His commanding edge over Mr. Obama as a Commander in Chief seems less compelling to many voters than do their current fears about the economy.
If Mr. McCain does lose, a President Obama would also now inherit a far more stable and pro-American Iraq thanks to the Republican's efforts and no thanks to Mr. Obama's antiwar opportunism. In a further irony if he loses, Mr. McCain would return to the Senate and do his utmost to support a President Obama's campaign in Afghanistan or against Iran. That favor would not be returned if Mr. McCain wins. This too is a sign of the Arizonan's honorable character.
Mr. McCain's bad luck is to be running in a year when character and experience aren't enough. His party is at a low public ebb and the financial system imploded only weeks before Election Day. The first problem he could overcome with his history as a GOP apostate. The second hasn't played to his strengths but has instead revealed his penchant for -- let's be charitable -- political wanderlust.
Looked at individually, most of Mr. McCain's economic proposals are sensibly conservative, and some are even bold. They are superior to Mr. Obama's, and if implemented would make a recession shallower and shorter. They are also politically braver, especially his support for free trade. His health-care plan in particular amounts to genuine "progressive" change in the sense that it would redistribute tax benefits from the well-to-do to the uninsured working class. Mr. Obama's health plan by contrast is one more incremental -- if larger than usual -- increase in government control. But Mr. McCain was never able, or willing, to explain the differences.
More broadly, he has never explained to fearful Americans how an economy with Republicans at the helm could fall into this ditch. His one-line explanation for the financial panic has been "greed and corruption" on Wall Street and Washington. Voters know that's simplistic and would have been open to a larger, and truer, argument.
Once the panic hit in September, Mr. McCain's penchant for hyperactivity was also less than reassuring. He suspended his campaign to lead the "bailout" talks without a clear idea of what he favored. He offered to bring all sides together but in the process made himself hostage to Nancy Pelosi and House Republicans. All of this let Mr. Obama pose, paradoxically, as the steadier hand, even if all he did was sit back and bow to Congressional Democrats.
In the final days, Mr. McCain has finally gained traction by pounding away on Mr. Obama's enormous tax increases. But this would be a far more powerful argument if it were linked to the larger challenges that the U.S. faces in a world of competition from China and India, or to the dangers of making the U.S. into a European welfare state. Without such an argument, millions of anxious voters may default to Mr. Obama's alluring if vague case for "change."
Mr. McCain's surprising choice of Governor Palin was another example of his brand of politics by personal instinct. The Alaska Governor has fired up the GOP base, and as a candidate she has been less embarrassing by far than Joe Biden. But it is also true that her performance in early interviews gave the media a chance to assail Mr. McCain's judgment and has diminished her own political standing. The campaign -- and Mr. McCain -- should have been better prepared for the media assault that always hits a GOP unknown.
Perhaps the best case for the McCain candidacy -- apart from national security -- is that he would be a check on what is likely to be an emboldened and dangerous left-wing Congress. He would surely work with Democrats on some things -- for the better perhaps on immigration, for the worse on energy "cap and trade" regulation. However, unlike President Bush, Mr. McCain wouldn't wait four years to use his veto pen.
In this difficult year, Mr. McCain has had the harder sale to make. His admirable personal tenacity has been better than his variable political argument. We'll find out Tuesday if biography trumps hope.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
His admirable personal tenacity has been better than his variable political argument.
Yes indeed. A "political arguement" that promises free gummit money, education, food stamps, relief from debt.... pretty damn hard to compete with.
#1
The best way to discourage mindless voting is to tie it directly to jury duty. 'You will be called', if for no other reason than to count heads, will have a far greater effect of weeding out the slackers and frauds from the civic minded.
#3
Ditto P2k. It really is a lovely piece of irony that attendees of the Obama "victory party" at Chicago's Grant Park must show proper IDENTIFICATION!
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong." Robert Heinlein
#6
How do you think they get your info for jury duty now?
One, in some areas they've reverted to drivers license data to send notices, because of people who don't register to avoid jury duty.
Two, everyone should get a call whether they're asked to serve or not, just to get a head count every two or three years to keep the rolls certified. Those caught in Ohio registering and voting [and then withdrawing their vote] were playing the game that a lot of individual engage in that they are statistically unlikely to be called for such duties. Let's remove the game out of process and insure that one shows or has legitimate reason [performing federal duties like service in Iraq et al] not to be present.
#7
Black or White, that's all democrats need to know to make an informed vote this year. Oddly enough, they are the ones who have made it that way. Republicans were happy to set race aside as they could never get a fair shake on any discussion of race as a factor. It always ends with one person pointing their finger and yelling "racist" when they run out of arguments.
#8
We should separate the Federal ballot from the state ballot. The Federal should only include Pres/Senate/Congress so it is short and sweet. Scan tron to make sure everyone who went to school understands it. We should promote mail-in voting so that these ballots are simply dumped into a machine and counted on election day. If the ballot is spoiled you get a new one on election day when you turn in the old one and watch it get shredded on the spot (after an ID check).
Such a system would remove butterfly ballot nonsense, or electronic voting issues. It would allow time for the names to compared with registration lists that is not available on Election day and would allow for a massive, quick vote once they start voting.
The states can handle the other ballot stuff anyway they want. Yeah the feds can't institute this sort of thing but a group could put a ballot measure in every state and implement it.
#9
In the old paper ballot days, protesters could receive a ballot and return it unmarked. A large number of unmarked ballots indicated rejection of all candidates and parties.
Posted by: Bob Gleagum3700 ||
11/03/2008 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No politician will dare allow a ballot with the option 'NONE of the ABOVE' on any candidate selection.
#11
OTOH, consider WAFF > MUSLIM UMMAH'S TOTAL STRENGTHS by 2020!? Pan-Muslim Unity and MilPol, etc. Power Scenario, circa Year 2020.
POSTER > ALL THINGS EQUAL, THE GREATEST OBSTRUCTION TO MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC POWER IS OTHER MUSLIMS = MUSLIM DISUNITY, which does nothing for Muslims save to serve the interests and power of the US-West and JudeoChristianity.
Richard Brookheiser, "The Corner" @ National Review
What was Abraham Lincolns position on the Mormons? In their funky, pre-Mitt Romney days they were an issue of national importanceLincolns Democratic predecessors thought of sending the army to Utah to suppress themso its not surprising that Lincoln had an opinion too. In 1863, when a Mormon visited the Oval Office, Lincoln told him that when he had cleared land for farming as a young man there were often dead trees too hard to split, too wet to burn, and too heavy to move, so people plowed around them. Thats what he intended to do with the Mormons. That may have been the opinion that caused some voters to vote for or against him.
Lincoln had opinions on a number of other issues toorailroads (pro), nativism (anti), temperance (feinted pro), trade (protectionist in the tradition of Henry Clay)and any of these opinions, or any combination of them, may have caused some voters to vote for or against him.
Yet we would treat with contempt any historian who said that the dominating issue of Lincolns career, from 1854 to his death, was anything other than the slave power: whether it would rule America, or failing that, ruin it. That was the question of Lincolns time.
There are many questions in this election: gay marriage, immigration, taxes, abortion, the financial crisis. But the question of our time is the war waged on us since the 1990s, which had its Pearl Harbor on 9/11. Charity will prevent us from feeling contempt for those who dont realize this, but survival requires us to realize it ourselves.
The Iraq war records of the two candidates show that John McCain realizes it and Barack Obama doesnt.
McCain joined the Bush administration and most of Congress in the war to bring down Saddam, as poisonous and low-hanging fruit. McCain continued to support the war as congressional Democrats and much of the public lost heart. He saw earlier than almost anyone that the post-war strategy the coalition was pursuing would end in failure, and urged that it be changed. The change came, and success proved him right.
As a state legislator, then a freshman senator, Barack Obama opposed the war, and resisted fighting it to win. His policies would have left Saddam in power, then let his followers murder their way back to it.
McCain owed his position to military experience; his grasp of such issues over a long career; and his character. Obamas position shows a lack of the first two qualities. It is no bad reflection on his characterhe had to buck the political climate to take his initial anti-war standbut it shows that he was bold in a bad cause.
Obamas failure is more conspicuous because it is the only significant public act of his life. His candidacy is not a disgrace, like those of the amateurs who have infested the process for twenty yearsJesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan. Obama knows the political game from the inside, and he has held positions of responsibility. He has moved through them, however, without a traceexcept for his early opposition to the Iraq war. He did one thing in his career, and he did the wrong thing.
Maybe Barack Obama will change over time. Its possiblehe is shrewd, ambitious and relatively young. Lets let him change before we reward him with the football. Tuesday I vote for the man who knows where we are.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/03/2008 08:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe Barack Obama will change over time. It's possible--he is shrewd, ambitious and relatively young.
So was Robert Mugabe back in 1980. He 'changed' as well. Over the years he has become even more cunning, ruthless, and diabolical!
Derb on what the Pakistanis are doing in rebel-held territory.
Rubble Doesn't Make Trouble (Cont.) Well, at least somebody gets it. The Pakistani army is going Roman on the Taliban, according to this report from Strategy Page.
Most of the civilian population has fled, as trying to use civilians as human shields does not work against the Pakistani army [O]utsiders have conquered Bajaur before. Alexander the Great did it 2,500 years ago, and the Mongols did so 700 years ago. But in both cases, conquest was accomplished in the Roman fashion ( "they created a desert and called it peace.") [T]he army is going old-school on the Taliban, with most of the civilians fleeing, and any resistance getting blasted to rubble. When victory comes, it will be celebrated in a depopulated desert of rubble and empty homes.
Hey, if it worked for Alexander and the Romans, it works for me. I only wish we had the guts to do it ourselves, as our fathers did over Germany and Japan, instead of bribing corrupt third-world gangsters with armies of illiterate peasant boys to do it for us while we strike moral poses and swoon in admiration of our own high-mindedness.
#2
Why should we bounce rubble and anger the Afghans when the Pakistanis are finally doing part of what should have been done a generation or more ago? Or possibly wouldn't need to be done had they even half tried to run their country properly in the first place? Because the Pakistanis are finally cleaning out the wasp nests they fostered in the lands of the Pashtuns, etc., the wasps are swarming Punjabistan. May it bring them as much joy as they've bestowed on the Less Pure over the years.
#3
Americans have long been rubble conscious. Even in WWII, we went to tremendous lengths to not destroy religious and historical sites, if at all possible. Entire cities were bombed to rubble, but smack in the dab would be a 700 year old cathedral with only a window or two cracked.
Japan was different, both because we had little understanding of their cherished places, and their cities were built of wood. And there were times when we definitely targeted things that would hurt their leaders, such as burning down the Imperial groves. Which, I might add, strongly impacted them.
#5
My uncle was in the USAAF during the Battle of Midway & was somewhat amazed that military personnel were obliged to avoid molesting protected species on Midway.
#6
The Japanese military made their HQ right around Shuri Castle in Okinawa, and put up a tremendous resistance there. The battleship Mississippi shelled it for 3 days in late May, 1945 and reduced it to rubble. But because of the extensive underground fortifications, bouncing the rubble did not stop the trouble, in this case.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/03/2008 22:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Going ROMAN" > similar prob = plot defect for THE DA VINCI CODE movie [Tom Hanks] ala HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL Book. NO ONE MORTAL SURVIVES THE ROMAN CRUCIFIXION PROCESS - FOR THAT MATTER, TMK DITTO FOR THE NON-ROMAN ONES AS WELL.
As Americans go to the polling booths today they have received the clearest evidence yet that their economy is going into a very deep recession.
The ISM manufacturing index has crashed to 38.9, its lowest level since 1982. Just two months ago this index was at 50, which is the neutral level that separates growth from recession.
And the most dramatic changes have been in prices and exports, although all components of the index are going backwards. But a month ago prices and exports were rising; now they are falling very sharply. They were both well above 50 and are now well below that level.
This mornings other news is that Ford has reported a 30 per cent drop in sales for October. Sales of Porsches are down 50 per cent, Toyota 23 per cent, and Mercedes Benz 24.5 per cent. Even the people who want to buy cars cant get finance.
In the circumstances its tempting to think that all bets will be off when it comes to the economic policies of the US presidential candidates.
The campaigns began and the policies were written when there was a subprime mortgage problem and the beginnings of a bear market in stocks. Now there is a full-blown recession, the financial system is demoralised and dysfunctional and the stockmarket is down 45 per cent.
There has been a lot of talk lately comparing the current situation to the presidential election of 1932, won decisively by Franklin D Roosevelt and leading to two 'New Deals', in 1933 and again in 1935-36.
Some of the recent comparisons have been way off the mark, such as John McCains accusation that Barack Obama is imitating Herbert Hoover, who lost in 1932 and is usually accused of helping cause the Great Depression. If anything, todays Hoover is George W Bush.
In fact Obamas economic advisors have recently been hinting that the Democrat President would imitate Roosevelt's 'First Hundred Days' legislative program of 1933, during which he met continuously with Congress and was granted every legislative request. One of the first of these was the closure of all of the nations banks on March 4th, 1932.
If Barack Obama is elected President today it will decisively bring the Reagan era to an end, an era in which conservatives have been working to undo the New Deal state set up by FDR in 1933.
Bill Clintons eight years the only Democrat administration since Ronald Reagan did nothing to reverse that process; in fact, Clinton was a fiscal conservative who managed to balance the budget before George W Bush destroyed it again with tax cuts for the wealthy and laissez faire economics.
An Obama Presidency, with the impetus of a new Great Recession, would bring to an end the Reagan-inspired unwinding of the 1933 and 1936 New Deals and mark the beginning of a new era of activist government.
The germs of this are already present in his policies, but as I said at the start, all bets would probably be off after inauguration.
The most dangerous aspect of his economic policies is his tendency towards protectionism. He has condemned free trade and free trade agreements, opposing several of them in Congress. In this respect, the comparison with Herbert Hoover is valid: Hoovers Smoot-Hawley Tariff was instrumental in turning the 1930 recession into the Great Depression.
Based on the policies released during the campaign, Obama would cut taxes less than McCain: $US2.9 trillion over the 2009-18 period, versus $US4.1 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center.
McCain would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 per cent; Obama would raise the top two personal income tax rates to their Clinton levels of 36 and 39.6 per cent (from 33 and 35 per cent). This is behind the socialist tag that McCain has been flinging at Obama.
Both candidates, by the way, assume a baseline in which the Bush tax cuts become permanent, and do not expire as planned.
Normally youd say Obamas tax policy is more responsible than McCains, since he will be spending less of the deficit, but these are not normal times.
When the new President is inaugurated, the deepest recession since 1982 will have been officially confirmed possibly the deepest since 1930, although we wont know that for a year so spending will be required and justified.
But unlike Roosevelt, the new President faces a massive blow-out in health care expenditures that will force a big increase in government spending as a share of GDP, and require government revenues to increase, not decline.
The estimates of the cost of each candidate's health care policies range from $US1.2 trillion to $US2 trillion, but in any case Americas health care problem must limit the incoming Presidents room to move on the economy.
#3
Reagan was about ensuring deregulation and getting political chicanery out of the economy. Sure wish we would have listened with regard to Fannie and Freddie.
But yes, Obama would cut taxes less than McCain, since Obama will raise them sharply.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/03/2008 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
America doesn't have a health care problem it has a metastasis of lawyers problem.
#5
WORLD MIL FORUM [paraph] > 2008 US ELECTION BENCHMARKS A FUNDAMENTAL CHIFT IN WORLD GEOPOLITICS, NAMELY THE FINAL END OF US-WESTERN GLOBAL DOMINATION AND THE STEADY RISE OF ASIAN ORDER IN EURASIA AND WORLD.
#4
While it seems hyperbolic, I would not be entirely dismissive. Bernanke and Paulsen, who are not stupid, were virtually terrified by what they saw coming. That bailout was not about protecting the minor fortunes of their buddies in the corporate stratosphere. Whether their fears were correct I do not know, but I am convinced they were real, and that they have a lot more information and background than I or virtually anyone else.
#5
Their fears are correct WRT the possibilities. What actually occurs will be in good part the result of actions taken by governments and the response from investors and consumers.
#6
Krassimir Petrov has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.
Capitalism it's, it's DOOMED. We're DOOMED I tell you, DOOMED! And Petrov will be soon bye writing out obits from his new posting in the UAE. Sniff, Sniff sniff.... I smell, Bulgaria? No, no, it's Putin, KGB.
or Michigan. So how's all that union based welfare oriented nanny state political hack economy doing? Are people streaming in to the state to get a 'piece of the future'? There's the O'man future for the nation.
#10
That may be somewhat pessimistic, but I do believe that we have been taken to the edge of disaster by corporate greed and ignorance. A great reckoning may be more accurate of a description than a depression. Credit and leverage have been misspent because if its low cost and relative ease of access compared to the past. Consumer debt is especially vile and pointless in nature, unsecured CC debt will be the next "bubble" and Yes, they will claim a bailout is needed for them also or it will surely be another GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!
#13
It's everybody. Bernanke & Paulson were terrified by bankers refusing to trust other bankers even over night. This is a moral crisis, not a financial one. Articles like this are a reflection of the moral weakness that is almost willing the crisis upon us. If this does turn out to be worse than the GD, it will be because we willed it to be so. I never really understood the true meaning of "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" until early this October.
Wrong, if it does turn out to be worse than the Great Depression it will be because the growth in debt/malinvestment was bigger, AND the economic damage was hidden for longer (by allowing dodgy accounting) and removed slower (by corporate socialism TARP).
Will has very little to do with it. Economics is more like gravity than Jedi tricks.
#15
I listened when my mom & dad (and grandparents) discussed the Great Depression, and the current "economic crisis" can't hold a candle. During the GD, foreclosures reached as much as 50%, not the current two to six percent in most places. Unemployment was 25% for most of the Depression, and under-employment was as great as 50%. Every aspect of society was hurting. The Dust Bowl crippled agriculture for ten years. The current retrenchment is the result of arrogance, greed, and corruption, both within the government and within the private sector. Bad laws led to bad financial decisions, compounded by the Fed trying to micromanage a $40-trillion economy by micromanaging the money supply. We STILL haven't addressed one of the most significant factors in today's economic collapse, the Community Reinvestment Act and its attendant legislation. Sarbanes/Oxley is another disaster for American business, and I'm sure there are dozens of others. The last thing we need right now is a socialist president.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/03/2008 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I really don't understand the waves of hyperventilation about this economic crisis, with words like greed, corruption, etc thrown around with abandon. Busts - like booms - are part of the business cycle, which contrary to the conventional wisdom, remains a part of all economies, communistic, socialistic, mercantilistic and capitalistic alike. The fundamental cause of this bust was not greed or corruption - it was irrational exuberance. Expectations got out of hand, just as they did during the internet, oil, railroad and other booms and busts. Those who committed crimes should certainly be punished, but they are not the fundamental reason for this bust. The real reason is that we are at the tail end of an over-exuberant boom - and it is only in hindsight that we see that there was over-exuberance.
#17
Unemployment in Kansas rose to 4.6%, no banks have failed and are in fact looking for borrowers. Cessna just broke ground on a multi million dollar plant, AAA bonds can be purchased on numerous school district. Now if we can get those wheat prices back up all is good.
#18
ZF the greed and corruption has to do with the start, aka sub-prime mortgages.
It's no coincidence that sub-primes where pushed by Chris Dodd who got big buck deals from Countrywide. Follow the Fannie Freddie money and see how all those derivatives were invended with a wink and a nudge with Fed bailouts gauranteed.
#19
It doesn't seem to matter what the facts are, people have it in their head that G.W.Bush has brought this pestilence upon us and made all the profit from it. A brilliant piece of propaganda from the left. So brilliant they are poised to have the authority to top it in spades. No sleazy KY racial pun intended.
Will has everything to do with it. We have been in much more difficult straits since WWII. But there has never been such fear and irrationality. You clearly do not understand the importance of trust and confidence in keeping the wheels of commerce turning. The problems that will take this still mild economic downturn to a depression are moral. And I would include resorting to irrational "solutions" like corporate socialism as symptoms of that moral decay.
And I am sure we disagree about the cause of the crisis which I see to be the continuous easy money supplied by Greenspan/Bernanke since 1997 in an effort to avoid the consequences of each succeeding asset bubble, the last of which was real estate caused primarily by the disconnection of risk from reward through securitizatioon.
#21
NS has nailed it regarding lending money at below the cost of doing so. Had Greenspan moved the interest rates 2-3% higher in 1997, or in 2003 or so, much (not all) of the current mess would never have occured, at least with regards to the housing mess.
The next bubbles to pop will be personal credit and the education industry. Both are so massively overvalued that they will crash heavily. Count on the education one getting worse when people lose interest (no pun intended) in using the tax-dodge donation loophole. Many private colleges in the U.S. will not survive the next ten years.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/03/2008 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#22
it is only in hindsight that we see that there was over-exuberance Nope, many of us small-potatoes-people say this coming years ago, unlike the vast majority of economists. I knew something was awry when I read of seasonal farm laborers getting 0% down $350,000 mortgages. So I sold all my stock holdings in August 2007, something I had never before done. You don't need to be a weatherman to know way the wind blows.
The cited article attempts to predict the ultimate extent of the current crisis. The outcome remains to be seen. Recall during GD I that 3 years elapsed between the 1929 stock market crash and 1933 bank closures and FDR's bank holiday. The US Treasury & central banks all over are trying to manage the crisis to minimize damage. There is a lot at stake, and only in hindsight will we know how bad it will get & what remedies worked and what didn't.
#23
October sales of US & Asian makers were ghastly. The best performer was Honda, which was down only 25%. Chrysler will most likely go under. If so, tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. GM could well be the next to go, along with even more jobs. Auto parts makers are the largest employers in seven states: Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee. Maybe the government can help by tightening emissions and fuel economy standards /mockery
Usually presidential elections are billed as "the most important election in our history." Sometimes those who say that are right. Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 turned our country away from 'stagflation' and malaise and found us, a decade later, as victors in the Cold War. George Bush's reelection in 2004 ensured that our country would stay the course in Iraq.
But some elections are less important. I don't know that Clinton versus Dole in 1996 would have had a profound impact on our country, though gratefully we would have learned nothing about a blue dress. Eisenhower versus Stevenson would have made little difference in 1956.
Tomorrow it appears that the election truly will be important, and most people who read Rantburg know why. We have a dramatic choice in front of us.
We could choose a man who originally campaigned on 'hope' and 'change'. It turns out that Senator Barack Obama is a much more traditional politician than he first presented himself to be, since he's a progressive, liberal, big-city machine Democrat. He's made clear that he's going to 'spread the wealth' in various ways, from tax credits to new spending to new social programs. While he won't say it, we can be pretty sure that he'll cut the military substantially. His original promise to remove us from Iraq doesn't quite have the punch it had a year ago since our country is on the verge of victory there. That is an irony that must be appreciated: Barack Obama might win the election not because Iraq has fallen apart but because it has pulled itself together.
Standing against him is a man who says he'll put the country first. Senator John McCain has walked that walk in the past in his own, iconoclastic, 'maverick' way. He's been tested in ways few other men would consider without blanching. He's a social conservative in some ways, an economic moderate and populist in other ways, and sometimes difficult to pin down. But what we do know about him is that world leaders understand him and find him predictable. That means no challenges early in 2009 to test his mettle. John McCain is a conservative in a traditional way, standing for values that these days seem to come from another time and another world.
Our country is evenly divided between these two men, and that means tomorrow, each of our votes matter. The Democratic campaign has done its level best to persuade us that the election is over. It isn't and won't be until the polls close. Our votes matter, even if we're in the bluest neighborhoods in the bluest states. There are choices to make, and we must make them.
Margaret Thatcher once counseled George H. W. Bush just after Saddam invaded Kuwait: "this is no time to go wobbly."
Tomorrow too is no time to go wobbly. Tomorrow is a time to make a choice.
It is time to step up. Go to the polls tomorrow and vote. Don't listen to the media.
Vote.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Steve, with all due respect (don't you just love that turn of phrase), you are being too polite to Obama and his inclinations. For me he is a true empty suit. There is only about 1% of him and his mind that we know. I think he is a very sophisticated plant by the MoveOn folks coupled with extreme leftists from the 60's and 70's as well as possible Mid-east Islamic connections. You don't raise that kind of money from donations smaller than $200 and you know it. There is just too much we don't know and what we do know is scary as hell in its own right.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/03/2008 7:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Jack, personally I agree with you. We don't know a lot about Obama, and what we do know troubles me. I was writing the op-ed piece (more difficult to do than I first supposed) to encourage people to vote, as opposed to just trashing Obama. Rantburg is an Eeyore-free zone, and I want everyone to vote tomorrow.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/03/2008 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A curiosity of this Presidential campaign has been the way former media idolaters of John McCain have suddenly turned on him. They now claim to be horrified by his choice of Sarah Palin, or by his ad hoc economic decision-making, or his TV ads, or something. Whom do they think they've been praising all these years?
