Presidential election may be up for grabs

[Chortle]

Zogby polls also showed McCain had a one point lead on October 31 while, McCain was crowing about Zogby numbers all over the news, Zogby was right every other polling including CNN, FOX, and Karl Rove was wrong. Before November 5th I could understand you having some faith in Zogby polls but after...

Hey you dont need to be informed when all you have to do is vote party ticket.

That about sums it up.

As long as Republicans are sniping at Sarah Palin or "dumb voters" they don't have to ask the hard questions about their own party, they don't have to fix anything. All they have to do is stay on course and hope that Obama screws up before 2012, that is way easier than fixing anything.

 

[a_majoor]

While the election is now over, it is interesting to look at party platforms and see how well they are followed:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-program-mirrors-the-cpusas

Election 2008

Help Make History

Turn Our Country Around

A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility.

1. Immediate Relief

A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Reset mortgages so payments are affordable. No bail outs for banks.

Extend unemployment compensation, increase payments and eligibility. Increase food stamps, WIC, children’s health insurance, and low income energy assistance.

Assist deficit-ridden state and local governments so they can preserve services and jobs. Fund “ready-to-go” infrastructure projects.

EMERGENCY PROGRAM TO REPAIR, RENEW AND REBUILD

2. A Peacetime, Green Jobs Economy for All

Enact massive public works job creation to make existing buildings energy efficient, construct new schools, hospitals, affordable housing, mass transit and bridges. Priority to areas hurt by loss of manufacturing, loss of family farms and highest unemployment areas including the Katrina-devastated Gulf Coast.

Major clean, affordable energy development project for solar, wind and biomass electricity generation. Immediate program to cut greenhouse gas emissions and for environmental cleanup. Restore Federal energy regulation and encourage public ownership of utilities.

Enact the Employee Free Choice Act to enable workers to form unions without intimidation and win higher wages and benefits, dignity and respect.

Enact HR 676 the US National Health Insurance Act to provide universal health insurance with single-payer financing. Fully fund public education from pre-school through higher education and technical training. No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Expand and improve benefits.

Oh, BTW:

Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA

 

[CougarKing]

Oh, BTW:

Issued as a public service by the Communist Party USA

Is there any article you've posted on this thread that doesn't come from a conservative blog?

Your hate for the American left is almost as overwhelming as T6's.


BTW, here's a development that hopefully will end the question of his citizenship once and for all:

Dec 8, 11:54 AM EST


Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
 
Supreme Court Won't Review Obama's Citizenship
 
Supreme Court:
Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth - his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject - he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

 

[tomahawk6]

Whats wrong with being conservative ? ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Whats wrong with being conservative ? ;D

Well, the meaning of the word has changes, but this aphorism is still in broad circulation:

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

 

[dapaterson]

In breaking news, the Governor of Ilinois has just been arrested for corruption, for planning to sell off the Senate seat Sen Obama will vacate, and for telling the Chicago Tribune that they would get state aid for restructuring only if they fired certain editorial staff who opposed the Governor.

Sounds like a a banana republic - or Louisiana...

 

[CougarKing]

Whats wrong with being conservative ? ;D

I never said there was anything wrong with being conservative; both of you are welcome to say whatever you want. I was just reacting to his constant use of conservative blogs for his sources, although a number of posters here have a low opinion of MSM articles posted here as well, that are also supposed to be non-biased but which clearly show a tilt either way.

 

[Teflon]

I never said there was anything wrong with being conservative; both of you are welcome to say whatever you want. I was just reacting to his constant use of conservative blogs for his sources, although a number of posters here have a low opinion of MSM articles posted here as well, that are also supposed to be non-biased but which clearly show a tilt either way.

It's not like Thucydides isn't including the link, One simply has to follow it and they can decide it's worth and or bias

 

[Kirkhill]

I would second Teflon's comment CD.

The Conservative Blogs have the advantage of being a known commodity.  Their bias is clear.

By contrast, I don't need to go to Rabble or Huffpo to hear what the Left thinks as the unbiased Mass Media generally hews to a centre-left path.  Rabble and HuffPo are not so much the counterpart to Conservative Blogs as homes for raving maniacs. ;D

Conservatives, by and large, don't have many media homes to choose from.

Though I suppose the good news is (as far as I am concerned) that the number of mainstream outlets for the Left are declining as the Chicago Tribune system goes into Chapter 11 and the New York Times hawks its buildiing as it watched its sales decline despite/because of beating up on Bush.....and now promoting Bush policies that Obama has seen fit to pursue.

As to Edward's comment:  Funny how orthodoxy develops

John Stuart Mill:  Modern scion of conservatism and historical pal of Radical Jack  - Do you suppose that's the reason that Quebecers are disinclined to modern Conservatism?

 

[tomahawk6]

During the election it was found that 80% of the MSM had a bias towards the democrats and Obama.Nothing has changed.Look at the media reports of the arrest of Blago and you would be hard pressed to find any mention that he was a democrat.If he had been a republican that would have been stressed.If you want to get your lefty slanted news then watch CNN.I watch Fox because most of the time you get a fair version of the news.Just dont be a lefty and complain about how biast FOX is. The bottom line is our media will spin stories so that republicans are bad and democrats are good.Another example is the financial meltdown caused by Democrat policies.You wont see that mentioned in the media for that you need to go to Ace of Spades,Gatewaypundit or Redstate - those are on my daily reading list.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mill, of course, lived in interesting times – political philosophy was not just forming (as it always is) it was in a state of boiling, roiling fermentation.

Mill was, above all, a staunch utilitarian and a Radical (when the Radicals were a political party often allied with the Whigs). He was, also history’s preeminent feminist ... period. All the others are Janie come latelies.

Mill defined liberty as the only state in which the individual could coexist with such collectives as the state and the Church because the natural rights which define liberty exist independently of all social constructs – even the family. Society, from the simplest to the most complex, is how we agree to constrain ourselves, in the most limited ways in order to achieve efficiency – which is how economics serves man – and ‘happiness.’

Happiness is one of the most misunderstood of the ‘rights’ – especially when Jefferson et al wrote that “among these [inalienable rights] are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Happiness, to the newly enlighten men of the late 18th and early 19th century, meant being able to fulfill one’s potential, in the words of a former US Army recruiting ad to: “be all you can be.” For most people in the 18th and 19th centuries equality of opportunity was rare. Class and money determined one’s future – in America, too. Lock, Hume, Jefferson and Mill (and many others) were determined that should not be the case because both the individual and society were short changed by the system.

Conservatives, in Mill’s day, were unrepentant Tories – not necessarily bad or stupid men, in the main. But their philosophy, rich and complex though it certainly was, could be easily oversimplified and it appealed to the intellectually lazy – especially the middle and upper class intellectually lazy.

 

[tomahawk6]

not necessarily bad or stupid men, in the main. But their philosophy, rich and complex though it certainly was, could be easily oversimplified and it appealed to the intellectually lazy – especially the middle and upper class intellectually lazy.

Ah that would apply to liberalism today. No new ideas just the old recycled ideas. Obama is calling for a New New Deal. It didnt work then and wont work now.

 

[daftandbarmy]

During the election it was found that 80% of the MSM had a bias towards the democrats and Obama.Nothing has changed.Look at the media reports of the arrest of Blago and you would be hard pressed to find any mention that he was a democrat.If he had been a republican that would have been stressed.If you want to get your lefty slanted news then watch CNN.I watch Fox because most of the time you get a fair version of the news.Just dont be a lefty and complain about how biast FOX is. The bottom line is our media will spin stories so that republicans are bad and democrats are good.Another example is the financial meltdown caused by Democrat policies.You wont see that mentioned in the media for that you need to go to Ace of Spades,Gatewaypundit or Redstate - those are on my daily reading list.

Oh, you mean like the CBC? Our publicly funded, national, officially billingual Loonie Left promulgator...

 

[vonGarvin]

In breaking news, the Governor of Ilinois has just been arrested for corruption, for planning to sell off the Senate seat Sen Obama will vacate, and for telling the Chicago Tribune that they would get state aid for restructuring only if they fired certain editorial staff who opposed the Governor.

Sounds like a a banana republic - or Louisiana...

Heard this on the news last night.  One line in the news story made me go "Hmmm..."

The line was words to the effect that "...President Elect Barack Obama said that he had no knowledge of the affair."  Why would he say such a thing?  One would think that his comments would have been along the line of "If proven true, this would represent a complete disregard for democracy", in other words, show his disgust at the alleged act, instead of distancing himself from it.  Why would he need to do that?

Just askin', is all...

 

[observor 69]

The New York Times

December 10, 2008
Obama’s Intervention for Ethics Bill Indirectly Led to Case Against Governor
By MIKE McINTIRE and JEFF ZELENY
In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama’s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich’s efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama. One official whose name has long been mentioned in Chicago political circles as a potential successor is Mr. Jones, a machine politician who was viewed as a roadblock to ethics reform but is friendly with Mr. Obama.

More at link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10chicago.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

 

[CougarKing]

Ah that would apply to liberalism today. No new ideas just the old recycled ideas. Obama is calling for a New New Deal. It didnt work then and wont work now.

I would strongly disagree on your characterization of liberalism and whether FDR's 1st New Deal failed. If the New Deal failed why would you see FDR reelected to at least 3 more consecutive terms? And then even lead the United States for most of WW2 to eventual victory? The POTUS back then had just as much as role in that victory as the military members he commanded.

And as for your characterization of modern Liberalism, that is a gross oversimplification. But I am not going to take this thread on a further tangent by discussing ideology with you and it would be a futile exercise given the stands of many posters in this thread. You can go ahead and bash it as much as you want.

Mill, of course, lived in interesting times – political philosophy was not just forming (as it always is) it was in a state of boiling, roiling fermentation.

Mill was, above all, a staunch utilitarian and a Radical (when the Radicals were a political party often allied with the Whigs). He was, also history’s preeminent feminist ... period. All the others are Janie come latelies.

Mill defined liberty as the only state in which the individual could coexist with such collectives as the state and the Church because the natural rights which define liberty exist independently of all social constructs – even the family. Society, from the simplest to the most complex, is how we agree to constrain ourselves, in the most limited ways in order to achieve efficiency – which is how economics serves man – and ‘happiness.’

Happiness is one of the most misunderstood of the ‘rights’ – especially when Jefferson et al wrote that “among these [inalienable rights] are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Happiness, to the newly enlighten men of the late 18th and early 19th century, meant being able to fulfill one’s potential, in the words of a former US Army recruiting ad to: “be all you can be.” For most people in the 18th and 19th centuries equality of opportunity was rare. Class and money determined one’s future – in America, too. Lock, Hume, Jefferson and Mill (and many others) were determined that should not be the case because both the individual and society were short changed by the system.

Conservatives, in Mill’s day, were unrepentant Tories – not necessarily bad or stupid men, in the main. But their philosophy, rich and complex though it certainly was, could be easily oversimplified and it appealed to the intellectually lazy – especially the middle and upper class intellectually lazy.

Locke's Social Contracts aside, somehow I am hoping that you included De Tocqueville among your "many others".

And as for your emphasis on society/government being more of a contraint while economics serves our "pursuit of happiness", one can only say "yes" and "no". Why? In the search for any good government, one thing is needed to try to address all concerns and problems: balance. Too much of anything is bad. Just as too much government may result in communism or marxism, having no government may result in anarchy. And we all know where each of us already stand on the issue and which party each of us believes can restore or maintain that balance. To each their own.

 

[Kirkhill]

....To each their own

Yes and no. 

The real question in our society is less about what one does when they are in power, although that is very important, but how does one handle disagreeing with the party in power and the transition from being in power to being in opposition. 

Can politicians, elected and "extra-parliamentary", hold their elections, accept the result and head to the clubhouse to drink with the opposing side until the next campaign?

Nothing is more of a threat to the sovereign nation-state than internal dissent.

As long as governance is uninterrupted the state will survive.

Policies that have a negative impact can be observed, oriented to the plan, decisions made and actions taken to reverse the impact. 

But, if the OODA-Master doesn't hand off smoothly to the next watch then the controls fail and the state is imperilled.

Having said that, if you can be as gracious in defeat as you are in "victory" then the state will do well. 

It's easy to say "To each his own" when your government is making decisions you agree with.  It's harder when the other guy/gal wins.

Graciousness can be perceived as dismissiveness by those with whom you disagree.

 

[a_majoor]

While I hope you are not taking my choice of sources as a personal attack, CougarDaddy, it is quite true that the MSM provides a very one dimensional view of the issues. In Canada, for example, the CBC and CTV have been going through heroic contortions to deny the BQ is what is holding this putative coalition together (the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition taking power is laughable, since they have only 114 seats together, yet how is the coalition characterized in the news?).

In the United States, corrupt politicians who belong to the Democratic Party are rarely investigated, and if the story is too big (i.e. the current scandal involving the Governor of Illinois) the party affiliation is almost never mentioned...why is that?

My choices of posts provide counterpoints to the MSM and "conventional wisdom", and are there to spark some thought, argument (as in an exchange of views) and maybe even convince a few people things are not what they seem.

WRT FDR; the econometrics of the Great Depression demonstrate without a doubt that the New Deal failed and prolonged the Depression (just the simple fact that economic activity virtually collapsed in 1937, almost ten years after the 1929 crash, should be telling evidence). As to why FDR remained popular, he was a very effective demagogue who could deflect the blame from these crisis situations and ask the people to support his efforts to "fix" them. My namesake wrote about this in the "History of the Peloponessian Wars" of events in the period of the mid 400's BC, so this isn't anything new or unusual, and the rhetoric surrounding the current financial crisis convinces me that politicians world wide are trying to use this as a means of gaining and securing more power over the population.

 

[CougarKing]

Having said that, if you can be as gracious in defeat as you are in "victory" then the state will do well. 

It's easy to say "To each his own" when your government is making decisions you agree with.  It's harder when the other guy/gal wins.

Graciousness can be perceived as dismissiveness by those with whom you disagree.

Point well taken.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
And as for your emphasis on society/government being more of a contraint while economics serves our "pursuit of happiness", one can only say "yes" and "no". Why? In the search for any good government, one thing is needed to try to address all concerns and problems: balance. Too much of anything is bad. Just as too much government may result in communism or marxism, having no government may result in anarchy.
...

I’m not sure I can agree. In fact, I’ll have to disagree.

It seems to me that all successful systems of government – those that serve the governed – rest, firmly on one attitudinal base: respect for the rule of law.

Government, in any form, must be useful to the governed or it cannot, indeed will not, exist for long. It must be useful to most people most of the time – providing them with, in Bentham’s terms, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” (But Bentham (1748-1832) did not share my, newer, more correct, definition of “happiness.”)

Governments must be creatures of laws, not of men and the laws and customs that regulate the conduct of the citizen must, equally and without fail regulate that of the sovereign or governor, too. The system can only work when, the sovereign and her councillors (the government) and the people both respect the idea of the rule of law and when both agree to be bound by it. That, not the popular will, is the core principle of modern, parliamentary/representative government.

Anne-Marie Slaughter tells us, in her latest book that the framers of the US Constitution drew a clear distinction between democracy, which they saw as something akin to unbridled mob rule and rejected, and republicanism – ordered, lawful, representative government, which they (and we – through our Fathers of Confederation) embraced.

Too much government leads to more than ‘just’ repression and silly economics – it intrudes into one of the less well understood natural rights (one detested by many modern ‘conservatives’ and, especially, by the religious right, by the way): the right to privacy. We, free people, need to keep governments and collectives at arm’s length because they all want (need) to impose their will on us. Some religious groups, for example, feel compelled to force others to accept their moral imperatives by e.g. forbidding abortion. No one should be able to force another to have an abortion but, equally, no one has a right to tell anyone that she cannot have an abortion - not even if they believe (know in their heart ands soul) that their god demands it. Each of us is a sovereign individual and we must carefully and sometimes forcefully defend ourselves against all collectives – even the ones we impose upon ourselves.

Too little government is a problem that can be easily corrected – traffic lights are my favourite example of ‘just enough’ government to address a societal problem. Too much government is hard to undo but, in my opinion most modern democracies – lineral and conservative alike – have too much government.

I expect that Barack Obama, like George W. Bush before him, will give America what it needs least: more and more and more government.