Obama's Election Campaign

[Guest thaiworthy]

I was wondering how expats vote in general elections and so I found this:

 

http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/2010vag.pdf

 

I was going to vote again for Mr. Obama, but now I'm not so sure.

 

In fact, what I may do instead is vote against all the incumbents. Nobody's doing a very good job. Guess what happens to any of us when we don't do our jobs?

 

Missing from last night's campaign speech:

[kokopelli]

What is the source of your statistics?

[Guest thaiworthy]

Mind you I am not Republican, but this does not add up well for Obama. The numbers don't seem alarmingly wrong. I did vote for him, but unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat pretty darn quick, you can expect to see more ugly things like these in the coming months. No one likes to see this stuff, but it's expected in an election year. Mebbe there's an error somewhere or mebbe it's just biased propaganda.

 

http://rpc.senate.go...earDisplay=2012

[KhorTose]

. Mebbe there's an error somewhere or mebbe it's just biased propaganda.

 

http://rpc.senate.go...earDisplay=2012

 

I think you just answered you own question. I am not thrilled with Obama's leadershifp either, but it could be worse. Just look at the Republican line-up for Pres. and you can see what I mean

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm not American and so can not vote. My only two pennyworth is this.

 

1. Obama inherited the worst economic disaster any of us have seen in our lifetimes. He did not create it. Nor, in fact, did a Republican administration create it. It was a pot that has been brewing since the early 1980s and it happened to spill over on George Bush's watch. But I believe Bush's team considerably exacerbated the situation, and their reaction to it made it all a whole lot worse. FDR took how long to get over the Great Depression? Certainly more than four years. I don't think you can expect Obama to sort out the Bush mess in just four years, the more so when the European troubles seem to have made his job a whole lot worse.

 

2. I'd have one eye on the Supreme Court. Of the conservative faction, only one, Scalia, is in his mid-70s. Of the liberal faction, Ginsberg is 80 and Breyer is 75. Kennedy, a conservative who occasionally votes the other way, is 77. Personally I'd not want a died-in-the-wool Republican President replacing any of these justices!

[Guest thaiworthy]

Fair enough. All good points. As my father used to say before he lost his mind and turned conservative, "I vote for the man and not the party, anyway."

[Bob]

I belong to no poltical party (believing in the Groucho Marx theory that I wouldn't belong to any party that'd have me as a member!) and, like Thaiworthy's dad, I vote for the person and not the party; regardless, I've voted 95% for Democratic candidates throughout my voting life.

 

It amazes me that "good" (semi-sane, respectable, intelligent) people generally don't want (or can't stomach) running for poltiical office and we too often get the choices of dumb or dumber. Too many damn times have I pushed a lever effectively selecting what I thought was the "lesser of two evils."

 

But absent a traumatic head injury, I see no choice but Obama and I see him personally as the class of the entire field (although, if I had my dream team, Biden would bow out and Hillary would run as VP to set herself up for the following election). Romney's a relatively decent guy but I just can't abide anybody switching tunes that often to appease the political winds du jour. Ron Paul's also a decent guy but his thinking on many issues is almost bizarre. Gingrich is in my view the ultimate nasty and mean politician and has grandiose visions of being God (for the right wing only, of course). But he too hasn't practiced what he's preached.

 

If Gingrich is the nominee, at least we'll all be spared the usual regurgitation by the Republican Party that they are the one and only party of "family values." Thanks, Newt, for fucking around....hahahahaha.

 

On the other hand, if Romney is the nominee, then we can trot out our Mormon jokes. [A mormon is happy as a lark to live in Tennessee as then he gets to marry all his cousins!]

[kokopelli]

On the other hand, if Romney is the nominee, then we can trot out our Mormon jokes. [A mormon is happy as a lark to live in Tennessee as then he gets to marry all his cousins!]

 

Agree with what you posted Bob but how can anyone, other then a rich person, vote for Romney with all his wealth? He has it all and now he wants to top his career as President of the USA. Just an ego trip as well as a recruiting effort for more people to become Mormons.

[Bob]

Agree with what you posted Bob but how can anyone, other then a rich person, vote for Romney with all his wealth? He has it all and now he wants to top his career as President of the USA. Just an ego trip as well as a recruiting effort for more people to become Mormons.

 

In perhaps a bit of a surprising defense of Romney, I see neither his wealth (apparently legally obtained) or his religion (his choice) as a source of true criticism of the guy. The issue I have with him is his lack of personal backbone - the shifting of core beliefs and principles to correspond to whatever electorate he happens to be facing at a given time. And I also take some issue with some of the over-the-top right-wing pap he's occasionally spouting in this election cycle (especially his hawkish comments about various foreign policy issues).

 

I don't even see the recent news about his tax return and his effective tax rate as a source of criticism for him as all he did was legally take advantage of tax laws that do exist (i.e., nobody ought to be criticized for paying more taxes than the law compels). But I do see that news as another impetus to change what I think is an absolutely corrupt income tax system, a system peppered with provisions that favor this group or that (all, of course, bought and paid for via donations to politicians).

[kokopelli]

My comment on Romney's wealth is that I believe he is unable to understand or relate to the plight of the common man and likewise, I don't see how the common man can relate to him. On the other hand one of the richest woman in the world is a Queen and one of the richest man a King and both are held in highest regard by their commoner subjects.

Being a Mormon is not an issue to me but having a Mormon as President sure won't hurt their recruitment efforts which likely will annoy the evangelicals and established religions.

[Bob]

which likely will annoy the evangelicals and established religions.

 

Hmmmm.....that's a cause I could support (annoying the hell out of the evangelicals). Praise the lord....and pass the basket!

[TotallyOz]

2. I'd have one eye on the Supreme Court. Of the conservative faction, only one, Scalia, is in his mid-70s. Of the liberal faction, Ginsberg is 80 and Breyer is 75. Kennedy, a conservative who occasionally votes the other way, is 77. Personally I'd not want a died-in-the-wool Republican President replacing any of these justices!

 

IMHO, this is one of the main reasons to vote for any party. I am VERY disappointed with Obama and I think he is a pussy when he tries to work with Republicans. That said, in the end, I'll ask myself who will do better in the White House for the Supremes. He wins on that.

 

My personal take is I wish a third party candidate would come forward. Ex: Michael Bloomberg. He is a great mayor and a good businessman. I'd love to see him as President.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I am VERY disappointed with Obama and I think he is a pussy when he tries to work with Republicans.

 

Good for you, Michael. That was my concern and the underlying reason for starting the thread. These next 9 months could be very critical.

[kokopelli]

I propose Michael Bloomberg on the Repub ticket and Warren Buffett on the Demo ticket. Both are among the wealthiest men in the USA and both do seem like decent men.

[KhorTose]

Okay, I propose it is time to open a new kettle of worms. What we really need is a Constitutional Convention where we can correct and imporve our present Constitution to include, who is a citizen, what standings do corporation have, how are voting process whould work and detail who can spend and how much, include a clear right to privacy, and I could go on and on. I wonder if a constitution convention would lead to a civil war.

[Bob]

Okay, I propose it is time to open a new kettle of worms. What we really need is a Constitutional Convention where we can correct and imporve our present Constitution to include, who is a citizen, what standings do corporation have, how are voting process whould work and detail who can spend and how much, include a clear right to privacy, and I could go on and on. I wonder if a constitution convention would lead to a civil war.

 

Maybe in a new thread although I see no (zero) possibility of any "consitutional convention" being held. First you'd need to get 34 (2/3rd's) of states' legislatures to agree for the need and, after the convention is called by Congress and proposes any change, you then need 38 (75%) of the states to agree to it. Hmmmm.....when is the last time 66% or 75% of any group in the US ever agreed to anything? Ain't gonna happen.....

[kokopelli]

. First you'd need to get 34 (2/3rd's) of states' legislatures to agree for the need and, after the convention is called by Congress and proposes any change, you then need 38 (75%) of the states to agree to it. .

 

Bob, did you include the newest, 51st, State in your analysis? No, not Puerto Rico, Mr. Gingrich is not interested in Puerto Ricans, but the colony he is proposing on the Moon by end of his second term as President? Once the colony has enough inhabitants he proposes they apply for Statehood.

A good name for the latest State might be Lunacy (Luna + City).

[Guest thaiworthy]

A good name for the latest State might be Lunacy (Luna + City).

 

That was very funny, Kokopelli. Don't ever lose your sense of humor. Actually you know, we won't need to annex the moon in order to achieve the state of lunacy. These political campaigns of late have shown we're already there.

[KhorTose]

That was very funny, Kokopelli. Don't ever lose your sense of humor. Actually you know, we won't need to annex the moon in order to achieve the state of lunacy. These political campaigns of late have shown we're already there.

 

I could not agree more. The sad thing is I am too big to cry, and it hurts to much to laugh. ((Apologizes to A. Lincoln)). What has happened to our country?, and why can't we get people like Bloomberg or Buffet to run for President, who I agree would make good choices. I remember a plan by the democrats once to draft Iacocca to run. Sadly, he decided not to run as he felt he could not get anything accomplished in the present system. I'd suggest that in time of troubles we should appoint a dictator for a set period of time, but the Romans tried that and it did not work well for them, and I doubt it would for us.

[Bob]

I remember a plan by the democrats once to draft Iacocca to run. Sadly, he decided not to run as he felt he could not get anything accomplished in the present system.

 

Iococca also supposedly added at some point in time words to the effect that "why should I put up with all that crap and, on top of that, take a 15 million dollar pay cut?"

 

The sad reality of our "best and brightest" not being willing to step forward and run is not only at the national level but even at the lowest poltiical level in the US. This has been going on since the early 90's when both political parties seemed to head left and right (although I'd give special mention to the beginning of the purge in the Republican party of all moderates and reasonable people under the tutelage of none other than Newt the salamander). At the lowest level - county, city and township, the people who generally had knowledge and respect in a community refused to get involved and, more pointedly, refused to take political positions that they justifiably felt were totallly irrelevant for the given political office. For example only, what does the abortion issue have to do with being Registrar of Deeds? Doesn't sound logical but that's the only question ("are you for or against abortion?") that the local Republican party asked the woman who they then supported and then won the office. Hell, silly me, I would have at least asked her if she could spell "deed" and knew a little something about real estate descriptions.

 

In Michigan (and my guess most states), this partisan bullshit has invaded the poltiical system at every level - from the Sheriff's office (yea, it's stupid to elect a lawman!), Treasurer's office, the city councils, and even at the local Boards of Education. One of the last reasonable Republican moderate we've had in Michigan politics was Mitt Romney's father! (George).

 

Unless and until a strong independent party can take over national poltics, I see no chance or hope for any significant change. But it'd be nice to see people like Bloomberg or even Buffett take the plunge and form a party based on moderate positions. But I'm a dreamer.

[Guest fountainhall]

Speaking once again as an outsider, is not another problem with the US electoral system the fact that the process lasts the better part of two entire years? In most other western-style democracies, the process is completed in a matter of weeks - or a few months at most.

 

I read today that Sheldon Adelson has given $10 million to the PAC backing Gingrich.

 

"It is an arms race of money. You can imagine a world where you can't get elected without the backing of a billionaire," said Professor Noah Feldman, a constitutional law expert at Harvard. "Adelson is not breaking any rules. But the rules are mad," he added.

 

Adelson and his wife do not see it that way. "Our motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that we hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy," they said in a joint statement issued to the Observer.

 

http://www.guardian....son-billionaire

 

Uh-huh? Oddly, therefore, the Chinese are indirectly helping Gingrich. No, not the Beijing government, but a lot of the individuals who have brought enormous wealth to his Macao casinos. But for that revenue, the entire Adelson Sands empire might have collapsed a few years ago and Adelson might not have had so much cash to give away!

[Guest thaiworthy]

Unless and until a strong independent party can take over national poltics, I see no chance or hope for any significant change. But it'd be nice to see people like Bloomberg or even Buffett take the plunge and form a party based on moderate positions. But I'm a dreamer.

 

Absolutely! But I wonder if power corrupts no matter who is elected. You'd have to examine history and all the favorite presidents and see what they did and when to really win the hearts of the American people.

[kokopelli]

Absolutely! But I wonder if power corrupts no matter who is elected. You'd have to examine history and all the favorite presidents and see what they did and when to really win the hearts of the American people.

 

There was one president above all, "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen". Even you Brits should know this one.

[Guest fountainhall]

It probably helps when you have won a war - although Churchill was booted out by a weary electorate desperate for change. Ike and Margaret Thatcher certainly benefitted from having been involved on the winning side in wars.

 

But I suspect very few politicians qualify for the description koko has given. (I'll not give the game away as to who it refers to - I had to look it up!)

 

I wonder if power corrupts no matter who is elected

 

You basically confirm what Lord Acton actually said: "All power tends to corrupt . . ." He did not mean that it automatically follows. Yet . . .

 

This is an interesting conclusion to a short essay written in 1952 which is included on the The Future for Freedom website (an organisation I know absolutely nothing about!)

 

If the benevolent ruler stays in power long enough, he eventually concludes that power and wisdom are the same thing. And as he possesses power, he must possess wisdom. He becomes converted to the seductive thesis that election to public office endows the official with both power and wisdom. At this point, he begins to lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally right and what is politically expedient.

[Rogie]

There was one president above all, "first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen". Even you Brits should know this one.

 

Ha! My guess for such an inimitable accolade would be Roosevelt (FDR).