Third Party & Independents Archives

Maybe it is time for Government 2.0, where the people run the government, instead of some random guy like McCain or Obama.

Herbert R., direct democracy has many proponents, but, the dozens of Constitutional Amendments or Constitutional Convention that would be required to set it in place, is about as likely as a trip to Vega by astronauts before the end of this year.

We have the candidates.

For the folks who will determine who is president, the moderates and independents, John McCain and his policies and temperament toward our nation’s problems, will be a deciding factor.

His speech tonight revealed his temperament with the use of the word ‘fight’ 25 times. McCain’s presidency will be defined by that word he has made central to his candidacy. Putting McCain in office is akin to drafting an Army platoon sergeant or Marine Captain into the Oval Office.

War is what McCain was trained for, fighting is how he approaches challenges, and conflict is what motivates him. He made that abundantly clear tonight. The only war he got to fight in cost him more than his POW horrors, it cost him the vindication of victory. He is a man still seeking that vindication. It is what drives him, as his speech tonight made so very, very clear. His Viet Nam experience is never out of his mind, and never escapes an interview or public speech. The man is fighting a war America put behind it 3 decades ago.

The moderates and independents could not have asked for clearer or starker choice in presidential candidates. One who is living in the present and seeking to address the challenges of the present, and one who seeks in the last years of his life, justification for the suffering he experienced 40 years ago which he simply cannot move past.

It fills his thoughts, his emotions, his policies, and even has made him a combatant toward his own party as he indicated tonight by condemning its actions under President Bush. McCain is a man in conflict, and he wants all of America to share in that conflict with him.

You had me until cometh…:)

Though not a great speech at all (though the last fifteen minutes were very good, especially the ‘fighting’ remarks) he did come across as an adult compared to Obama. The man-child, it is my destiny, bit is getting old and Palin really stole the spotlight away from Obama last night. It’s a whole new race after today…

Yes, it’s a race to the bottom.

David H., as evidenced by even your own comment, Palin stole the spotlight from McCain. And its McCain the moderate and independents will be focused on in making their decision. If he is the lesser desired candidate of his ticket, it doesn’t help McCain.

goo said: “You had me until cometh…:)”

Yeah, sorry, McCain got my religiosity up and running, with images of Ancient Moses parting the Democratic and Independent Seas to allow his GOP people’s exodus to the promised land of elitism, oil in every bathtub, and at least 6 Democrats and Independents in servitude to each GOP household to clean the bathtub ring after each oil bath. It was truly uninspired Cecil B. Demented and required an appropriate allusion at the end.

I think Sen McCain is real…real old.
I think Sen Obama is real…real young.
I think both want change…they both want more.
Strange, they are becoming more alike to me as the campaigns go along.

Direct democracy my ass. That’s the last thing the elitists that run this country want. What would happen to The New World Order, NAFTA and the illegal immigrants? Do you think the people will continue to tollerate trickle down and food stamps? Give the people direct democracy and elititists of both ilks will be telling us they know what is best for us with their backs up against the wall, MFer’s. Remember, the elitists have done a rather good job of uneducating the masses.

I thought McCain’s speech did a good job of appealing to the base and the neocons. At least it was genuine in the since of what you see is what you get, unlike Obama’s condecending and dishonest speech.

One think you have to commend the Republicans for is that they are all inclusive, I think every minority person in the building got to speak at the podium.

There is only one thing that is certain in this election. We are going to elect a person that has no respect for the laws of this country and feels that he is not obligated to follow them. Illegal immigration has put that beyond dispute.

jlw,

And both candidates have no understanding of what our crushing debt is going to mean to the workers as the dollar declines year after year while it increases.

The real sad truth is that it doesn’t really matter who we vote for this election, there will be very little difference because of that decision.

David

But, is more fighting, war, and conflict what America needs at this juncture in its history? Does America need a Republican president who will fight with Congress and the Supreme Court, or a Democratic president who can and will work with a Democratic Congress to solve our nation’s problems? The Congress will be even more Democratic in January, that is nearly certain.

I am just now watching a replay of the fight portion on the tube. All I am hearing is support old policy, support old policy, support old policy!

No it is not what American needs at this point in time. What we need is to return to a country that practices the principles of peace and democracy which is what we were pre Bush and Co. We need a military that is primarily defensive and an executive that recognizes the need for diplomacy before attack. Of course repetition of the word fight is nothing more than a motivational tool used to excite the brain cells of the easily led in whatever endeavors those leading might decide to pursue.

David

Yeah, sorry, McCain got my religiosity up and running, with images of Ancient Moses parting the Democratic and Independent Seas to allow his GOP people’s exodus to the promised land of elitism, oil in every bathtub, and at least 6 Democrats and Independents in servitude to each GOP household to clean the bathtub ring after each oil bath. It was truly uninspired Cecil B. Demented and required an appropriate allusion at the end.

Thanks for this vision. It is hilarious. Nothing like a good laugh first thing in the morning. It is nice to see a little humor from you. More people should do it here. The type of humor one uses helps to define us all as humans. Giving us a little better understanding of each other.

Rick,
Political issues are murky but…history shows in a cruel and unyielding fashion that a nation can be strong and not got to war but it CANNOT be weak and not go to war.

And both candidates have no understanding of what our crushing debt is going to mean to the workers as the dollar declines year after year while it increases.
The real sad truth is that it doesn’t really matter who we vote for this election, there will be very little difference because of that decision.

Obama may have talked about cutting stuff from the budget and McCain may have talked about vetoing spending, but that’s not good enough. Neither one of them mentioned balancing the budget or cutting the debt. How can we take either one of them seriously on economic issues?

When McCain talks about “winning” the Iraq war I get confused. In order to win a war all you have to do is kill so many Iraqis that the other ones surrender. We’re really good at killing people. That should not be a problem. The trouble with the “war of terror” is we’re having trouble finding the people we want to kill. Because it’s a police action not a war!

As far as the Vietnam goes Didn’t we lose the Vietnam war? If I remember right, we left Vietnam on helicopters form the top of buildings as the Viet-Kong moved in. Then ten years later they were trading partners with us. Makes me wonder why we fought the war in the first place.

David, good article. I think there was one other word …well other than POW, that came up a lot, change. I had to laugh at McCain as it is his party and himself that the Country needs change from.
Then I realized what he is actually saying in his speech, fight change, fight change, fight change and it all became clear to me. Of course it wasnt nearly as humorous then as we truely need change.

David R, I agree with you that we’re not going to have some sort of Government 2.0 system until well after this election. So yes, we’ll be stuck with a President Obama or (realistically) a President Palin (shiver!).

But I’m not investing any more time in worrying about these leaders who we anoint as kings, whether or not we use the word “democracy” to describe this system we live in. I am through being a subject to their whim.

Have a look at some of the sites linked from the page I provided. Namely, FreeGovernment, which is running candidates for the ‘10 election who will be accountable to the participants in their website. Or my favorite, Metagovernment, which is building a sophisticated system to replace every kind of representative democracy.

The latter particularly is not at all like direct democracy. It isn’t rule by the masses, it is a system which encourages and helps build consensus, so that people can come up with solutions that the vast majority can agree on.

The thing people never seem to understand about the current system is that it is built around conflict. Politicians have no desire to come to agreement with each other, because then we might not have a reason to vote for them. They prefer to divide us, set us against each other, and feed off that discord.

And no, I don’t think Obama is some great knight in shining armor who rises above that fray. He is a Democrat and that means he is intrinsically linked to party politics. His acceptance speech was nothing but an attack on McCain. In other words… politics as usual: dividing people for political gain.

I say screw the politicians. I am looking to building a real future, not their pie-in-the-sky promises that they have no intention of ever fulfilling.

Tom Besley

Political issues are murky but…history shows in a cruel and unyielding fashion that a nation can be strong and not got to war but it CANNOT be weak and not go to war.

And who is advocating a weak military? Going to war by way of poor judgment and deception is a clear sign of weak character and a weak mind.

Rick
Barack has NO experience=weak.

McCain has been in Washington for over 26 yrs - how much more time he needs in Washington to deliver on “change?”

I was a Hillary supporter, giving chance to McCain. Selecting Palin for VP shows it’s all Republican party business as usual again: pit-bull mentality, guns, hunting, anti-environmental attitudes, isolating US from the rest of the world, talking but doing little in terms of the economic good of the common person - in summary only representing a segment of whites, instead of the national majority. Even the convention hall crowd did not represent the US demographics.

RNC speeches lacked substance, so did most of the DNC speeches. I’m leaning towards “Biden-Obama” ticket or staying home. Still elections are 2 months away. Focus needs to turn to issues and more importantly on substantive approaches of solving them. Americans are not fools - they don’t get sentimental from speeches and vote, they use objectivity when voting. I am just another person in Michigan still looking for a real, substantive debate on “change.”

Furthermore,I stumble a clash yesterday and overlook to post it but anyway this clash video is entitled Obama v. McCain on Iraq & Afghanistan. US Presidential candidates have clashed sharply in recent days on Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Watch both two statements, who do you think or believed is right?

Obama v. McCain on Iraq & Afghanistan:
http://clashorama.com/index.php?id=192

David Remer is reading way too much in the metaphors used by candidates in their speeches. And further seems to have mistaken the duties of the presidency with the duties of a family counselor or motivational speaker.

One says elect me and I will fight for you. The other candidate says elect me and we will work with each other.

Actually BOTH candidates have said both of those things at different times. Here is Barack Obama saying pretty much the same thing.

“Fighting” for the interests of the American people is actually what the President is supposed to do, and if you read McCain’s speech it is clear that (just like Obama) he is talking about a LOT more than just military fighting.

If a President DOES NOT fight for the interests of America—on all fronts—then what the hell good is he?

Yes, McCain also promises to fight militarily when necessary, but so does Obama. Does David believe that Obama will never fight militarily no matter what? Is that something, if true, that would recommend Obama?

And McCain was very clear that fighting on the diplomatic front was part of his agenda in order that other Americans would not have to make the same sacrifices that he and his family have made.

Using David’s logic, a fireman who vowed to “fight” fires on behalf of the public is hoping that the whole town will catch fire—and that he’ll light the fires himself if he has to. It’s like saying that a doctor wants people to be sick and will make them sick so he can cure them. In other words, it’s nonsense.

I’m already missing the discussions on Governor Gorgeous. And her kids have the coolest names. The R’s have caught lightning in a bottle.

Tom

Rick
Barack has NO experience=weak.

This retort is weak at best.

I believe I heard this morning that the latest job report is 84000 more jobs lost. Unemployment up to a five year high of 6.1% 500,000 jobs lost on the year so far. Finally I hear some rumblings of being so bold as to actually admit to recession. How long will it be until we are talking depression?
What does this sustained downfall in the economic outlook say about republican policy? Why should I even on a whim entertain for a moment the notion that somehow more republican policy will deliver us from a mess of their own making? Can some of you devout hard core republican lemmings explain this to me and keep a straight face?

RickIL,

You realize that for the past two years the Democratic party has been the ones controlling the pursestrings/budget of the US and are complicit in where we are atm?

Rhinehold, the Democrats have had control of 1 budget year, and are accountable for $455 billion in deficits. Compare that to the previous 6 years and over $3 Trillion in deficits racked up by Republicans.

Republicans have fought Democrats on PayGo wherever convenient and promoted it when inconvenient for Democrats. I don’t believe Democrats could possibly be worse with budgetary matters, and in some ways, Americans might actually get government service for their tax dollars they didn’t get under Republicans with massive transfers of tax dollars to Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan with no end to these transfers on the Republican agenda.

When Democrats deficit spend, Americans get health care, better teacher salaries and education infrastructure, roads and bridge maintenance, and complete recovery from devastation from hurricanes like Hugo. When Republicans deficit spend, all Americans get is more debt heaped on their children’s future tax burden while the benefits of that spending go into the pockets of foreign citizens, regimes, and international shareholder/CEO pockets.

Seems like a no brainer. If one is forced to pay taxes by law, one should at least get something of benefit in return. Clear difference between Republican and Democratic deficit spending.

Though both parties are full of it when they extoll the virtues of fiscal discipline and responsibility. That too is very obvious.

Loyal Opp, your comment ignores entirely the difference between the words, fight, and work. 25 times in one speech McCain use the word fight, and alluded to conflict another dozen or so times. Obsession is what McCain revealed.

No such obsession and repetition can be found in any of Obama’s speeches. Different problems require different strategies and tactics to resolve them. McCain has but one, fighting.

Fireman fight fire. McCain is all about fighting people and destroying them if they get in his way or he deems them to be ‘evil’. Given time, McCain will have revealed his own axis of evil to justify his need for war to define himself as the warrior president to compensate for having been a POW who capitulated under torture to the enemy.

To dismiss the psychology of a person’s background and how it shapes them is a very dangerous thing to do. Would you give Charles Manson control of the military given his background of torture and neglect? Of course not. McCain is not insane like Manson, but, people are shaped by their experiences in life. And horrible experiences can often take control of a person.

McCain cannot conduct an interview, a speech, or a public chat without obsessing over his POW torture and imprisonment 40 years ago. That, Loyal Opp, is a maladjustment to one’s experience, and an obsession with an event in his life which simply cannot get past and grow beyond. That is why fighting occurs in his speech 25 times, almost like a Howard Dean scream!

You can ignore, overlook, or rationalize away these facts, but, his speech stands as testament and historical record of these facts, nonetheless.

David

You realize that for the past two years the Democratic party has been the ones controlling the pursestrings/budget of the US and are complicit in where we are atm?

I would not be so foolish as to exonerate either party of having a hand in our economic situation. But I am also aware as many have argued here in the past that economic realities are generally the result of long term policy.

Oops! Sorry David the last post was directed at Rhinehold. Comment #261799

David, I hope you realize that if Obama is elected and he tries to do anything of the things you hope he will, he will have to fight to accomplish them. He will have to fight like hell. That’s not a bad thing, and you shouldn’t think of it as such. The word “fight” which you’re resisting so much, has many different meanings. Even bipartisanship is something that you have to fight for.

Different problems require different strategies and tactics to resolve them. McCain has but one, fighting.

Again, it depends on what you mean by “fight.” Your definition is very simplistic.

A fair consideration of McCain’s record—one you seem unwilling to give—shows your characterization of him as one who always seek confrontation and demonizes his enemies to be quite unfair. You are focusing only on the word “fight” and ignoring the man’s actual record.

As you may remember, John McCain was one of the leaders of the “Gang of 14,” a bipartisan group of Senators which compromised and prevented the Republicans from exercising the so called “nuclear option” when it came to judicial appointees. Whatever one thinks of this decision, it is certainly an approach which sought compromise over confrontation.

This, along with his outspoken defense of John Kerry and Max Cleland when their service records were questioned, has hardly earned John McCain the reputation of one who only knows “fighting people and destroying them if they get in his way.”

He has coauthored many bills with Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold (McCain-Feingold, for example), and is known to be very friendly with Hillary Clinton, who counts him as a friend. Although these people are his political foes and he “fights” them on many issues, he can hardly be said to be one who attempts to destroy and villify his political foes.

In fact, a main gripe against McCain by conservatives has always been that he TOO friendly with Democrats. Personally, I remember being extremely irritated when right after John Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, John McCain was interviewed and began singing Kerry’s praises. There was even talk (at the time) of Kerry asking him to be his running mate (something which might actually have happened according to some rumors).

What all of this shows is not that McCain isn’t a fighter—because he is one—but that fighting to him means fighting for what he believes in WHILE be highly respectful of his political opponents.

No one has to agree with McCain or support him. But a fair account of his record should at least give credit where credit is due.

Obama wants to sit down and talk to friend and foes alike and to see if there is peaceful way to make all the bad stop.
Well way back when Chamberland and the League of Nations did the same thing. Sit down and talked to a foe, to have Peace in Our Life Time, then the foe said kiss my a** and World War II started.

Sometimes talking works, sometimes force is the only way. I perfer to have someone leading the country who is not afraid to use force, instead of talking someone one to death and do nothing but standing by and voting present..

Coming from a international background,my family lives in Philly, Russian mom, Syrian dad, as a guy in his mid-20’s I found it hard to not say “Whatever” to either party on their campaigns of “paint the other guy this way”. But what caught me about Obama, who I’ve decided to vote for, is not the guy, I personally don’t think he can get 1/4 of the things he says done, like most presidents, but that he does represent a view of a new America to the rest of the world.

I visited my grandparents last summer, and they don’t know anything about Obama except he’s a black guy, and the French like him. So they think he’s the black JFK, he’s not, but if an 80 year old Russian textile worker thinks he is, all the better.

My second point would be not McCain himself, as I do think he’s too old for the office, and during the debates may screw himself over, but his VP star.

I could not watch this woman with a straight face, the stuff she said was just so out there, that I was flabbergasted when people cheered her. Myabe it was that the speech was so well written or whatever, but her saying stuff like “Islamic terrorism” to rile up the crowd? That’s the exact mentality that gets me bad looks as an American at one airport and the next.

I know that this country was founded on the basis of compromise that we do realize that we’re not all going to get along, and therefore are the best compromisers on the planet, or that’s my opinion anyways, which I truly believe.

Saying hateful stuff in your party’s main rally before elections about Iran, Russia, and the other party who makes the “two-party” system dosen’t sit well with me, especially since none of their speeches have included the horrid education system in inner city schools, the fact that the college system needs reform badly, or why we have more news about the VP’s pregnant kid, and not the 4 guys who got shot tonight in Detroit, or Philly, or Atlanta.

KT, you miss Obama’s point entirely. Talk first, to determine if solutions can be found without war. If that fails, then war becomes necessary, and he has said repeatedly from the beginning, if other options to achieve our ends fail, he will not hesitate to use the military option in defense of our national interests.

And that is another point, Obama will weigh our national interests and the costs of defending them, unlike GW Bush. Saddam Hussein was contained and at a fraction of the cost now spent on the invasion - occupation. Obama would not have made the mistake of indebting our children by a trillion dollars on an invasion of Iraq that would have cost our nation so dearly in lives, limbs, shattered families, and treasure.

It is the difference between intelligent and rational and headstrong and combative as a style and approach to problem solving. Had Obama been president these last 7 years, Saddam would still be no threat to our homeland, Afghanistan would have been resolved, Pakistan would not be hosting Osama bin Laden, more than 4000 of our soldiers would still be alive and more than 10 thousand would have their bodies intact, and our national debt would be a trillion dollars lower.

Loyal Opp said: “David, I hope you realize that if Obama is elected and he tries to do anything of the things you hope he will, he will have to fight to accomplish them.”

No! Your comment is wrong. Obama will have to work at negotiation to get what we the people want from Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

That’s the difference between McCain and Obama. He works with people. McCain makes demands and becomes beligerant and combative when he meets resistance. Many a fellow colleague in Congress has spoke of this style.

When it comes to threats to our nation, Obama will not hesitate to defend us as CIC. But, when it comes to cutting spending or rebuilding infrastructure, he will negotiate rather than shut down government with endless vetoes as McCain has said he will do in typical combative fashion for McCain. Obama will keep government operational so that the services it provides all Americans continues to work for us all.

The difference between a pragmatist intent on service, and an idealogue intent on his way or the highway. Another 4 years of Bushlike policy we do not need.

David, an effective negotiator has to be tough as nails, and if you think that negotiating doesn’t involve confrontation, and that a good negotiator doesn’t have to be a fighter, then you’re laboring under a delusion.

Washington is filled with entrenched competing interests and members of Congress who have opposite goals. It’s just laughable to think that Obama is going to just put an end to this by giving stirring speeches or whispering sweet nothings into people’s ears. That kind of thing might influence voters, but it’s not going to work with a conservative Republican Congressman representing a conservative district. It’s not going to work with the CEO of an oil or drug company. It sure as hell isn’t going to work with Vladimir Putin.

If Obama isn’t a fighter, if he’s not going to take people on when he negotiates and FORCE them into accepting his positions, then he’s going to be nothing but an impotent joke.

Not ONE president in the nation’s history who accomplished ANYTHING wasn’t a fighter. Was George Washington not a fighter? Was Abraham Lincoln not a fighter? Was FDR not a fighter? Didn’t FDR take on and defeat all sorts of influential forces in order to institute the New Deal? Did LBJ not have to fight ferociously, against his own party much of the time, to achieve landmark Civil Rights Legislation?

Your understanding of the meaning of “negotiation” is incredibly deficient and ahistorical. If this is how you feel, I’d absolutely love to “negotiate” with you over a business or real estate deal.

McCain makes demands and becomes beligerant and combative when he meets resistance.

Oh, to negotiate with someone who doesn’t make any demands! I’d love to meet such a person in my business negotiations. But you’re talking about the Republican leader of the bipartisan “Gang of 14” here, who despite wanting to see Roberts and Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court, found a means of bipartisan compromise against the wishes of his own party.

Many a fellow colleague in Congress has spoke of this style.

Many, eh? I notice that once again you don’t provide even one example among this supposed “many” and let us decide for ourselves if McCain didn’t have good reason.

I’m aware that he’s lost his temper before. The instances I’m aware of, however, were toward members of his own party. And you know what, good for him.

A little fire in the belly is exactly what we need to clean up Washington. A passive shrinking violet who is either too afraid or tempermentally unable to take anybody on because he thinks sweet words and grand sweeping speeches are going to make everybody bow down before him will be a lamb going to slaughter.

And do you think that crap will work with Vladimir Putin? Give me a break.

LO, neither side has effective fighters in terms of how “other” nations have effective political fighters, in Russia for example, before Putin and Medvedev, it was, and to an extent it is a mess.

But those guys really can argue, loudly and with force. McCain nor Obama has the fire that Putin does, because he’s an old soldier type, something that McCain half-here half-there tries to put himself as at the same time being a reformer, but neither man would make a dent in Putin personality wise, but Russia isn’t even near a threat to the US or the world that the media paints it out to be, they have their own troubles to deal with.

Which is why the Russia vs. USA thing that’s arisen recently has no point nor reason, the invasion of Georgia was their own business, to them it’s national security, so we can’t be hypocrites about saying it’s wrong and treat the country as the antagonist.

McCain’s already been painted by both sides as angry, by his republican opponents and by the democrats, but anger and threats of military action, or use of military action don’t sway whatever a regional power wants to do.

Russia could invade the Ukraine saying they’re concerned about it’s western leanings, and it’d be justified in the Russian people’s eyes as a national security issue, and there’s not much the US could do about it in the long term short of starting a war.

Obama’s talked a little about it, and McCain’s talked nothing about it, but not one member of Congress has said about the possibility of talks with Russia to secure Central Asia, in partnership with China to protect their borders within and without to create a western, Russian and eastern power bloc that at the very least keeps nuclear weapons in the control of those nations and their allies and out of rogue states with no worry of political fallout for themselves.

If subjects like these were addressed in conventions or debates we’d, as a country, be a whole lot more informed about our standing in the world, and possibly rebuild some of the bridges that were burned in the past decade.

Loyal Opp., your comment demonstrates very little knowledge of negotiation outside of TV Land and the movie, The Negotiator.

Real Negotiators are bright, smart people, with an understanding or even education in psychology and sociology, or diplomacy.

The military is tough as nails so the negotiator doesn’t have to be: the negotiator needs to be intelligent, have a broad understanding of human behavior and motivation and defense mechanisms, and be capable of strategy and tactics using words, not guns and bombs. We pay very high taxes for Generals and Admirals to be really good with strategy and tactics with guns and bombs.

If America prizes peace like McCain feigns to, then America needs a negotiator intelligent enough to know when the negotiations will not take us where we need to go, and call in the military at that point. Not someone who begins negotiations with the military threat and a hot temperament and short fuse when frustrated, like John McCain has exemplified on numerous occasions in front of other people.

Negotiators need a cool head and persistent probing that does not give up seeking peaceful resolution until all the methods and intelligence and talent for peaceful resolution have been exhausted without progress.

Now let’s be clear, the time for negotiation is not when missiles are fueling and targeting the U.S. And on this score, either Obama or McCain will have absolutely no problem taking the counsel of our military on the most effective way to neutralize that threat with dispatch.

Its where brinkmanship has not gone to that extreme that a cool head, harvard graduate intellect, and broad education in humanities and social sciences negotiator can make the difference between war and peace. McCain does not have that reputation as so very many of his colleagues with first hand experience have attested on many occasions. And McCain’s entire educational experience, poorly graded as it was, is centered on military history, tactics, and strategy. Which is why McCain knows next to nothing about economics, the Constitution, the legal history or precedent, or the art of diplomacy.

If we were voting for a Secretary of the Navy or General of the a wing of the Air Force, McCain would be qualified, perhaps, with some fudging of his scholastic scores. But he would not even come close to rivaling Gen. David Petraeus in intellect and breadth of human knowledge. Yet, the military is McCain’s almost sole justification for being president by his own words.

That and having been a POW which is meaningless. Most former American POW’s would freely admit their experience as a POW would not qualify them to be president of the U.S. McCain has been a known name in America for a very great many years, and yet, he has not the ability to even negotiate and persuade a fifth of the grassroots volunteer organization that Obama, a virtual unknown 19 months ago, has been able to organize, persuade and motivate.

Obama’s motivational skills, persuasive skills, and diplomacy skills are every evident in the grass roots campaign manpower and fund raising power that he has created from nothing more than a very divided Democratic Party following. One that now includes small numbers of Republicans, greater numbers of independent voters, and a growing number of third party leaners.

The tools of a negotiator and diplomat are words and psychology. Obama has demonstrated incredible acumen with those tools. So on this issue of who would make the better negotiator, Obama has McCain pinned in 3 seconds flat without even increasing his pulse rate. Which leaves McCain seething between Obama’s pin and the cold mat.

If you want to talk about which candidate will have the most adept communication skills with the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the first 180 days in office, McCain would no doubt, have a decisive advantage over Obama. But, Obama has demonstrated inordinate learning abilities.

McCain unfortunately demonstrates only persistence and a willingness to keep losing until he finally gets a break and wins at something out of sheer determination. That is no way to run the United States of America in these highly complex and challenging times which our nation faces. America needs the smartest president it can put in office, and between McCain and Obama, that clearly means Obama should be our next president on that criterion.

Jon, impressive summary of some of the international issues at play.

I would add that the greater threat to the U.S. in this century is the combination of our debt to China and China’s enormous economic growth capacity through the rest of this century.

The key to modern slavery is debt. As with all slavery, indebtedness limits ones options, choices, and alternatives. Our rapidly growing and mountainous debt to China has every potential of making the United States China’s bitch by 2050. All bitches have canine teeth, but, dare not use them on the hand that feeds them.

Obama said today:

I hope you guys are up for a fight. I hope you guys are game because I haven’t been putting up with 19 months of airplanes and hotel food and missing my babies and my wife – I didn’t put up for that stuff just to come in second.

Oh, that bellicose, confrontational, Obama. He used the word “fight.” And as David has instructed us, that means that he’ll take us to war without trying to negotiate first.

And, as the left has also taught us in recent days, if he misses his babies so much, he’d better stay home and raise those babies.

Loyal Opp, once? One time, vs. McCain’s obsessive 25 times in 25 minutes?

What a stretch, there guy!

David,
Since the McCain Campiagn wants to make this election on everything else, but the Issues facing the Children of the 21st Century. I wonder how the Conservatives in America are going to deal with the fact that their Po9litical Party has broke 233 Years of Principles and Standards in electing the first Party Ticket under active investigation?

For why not an expert on the Political History in America, I cannot find or remember a time in History where a Party chose a Party Ticket knowing that it is not honoring the Traditions of Our Ancestors and Founding Fathers. Yet, they still insist the Left is Liberal.

David, thanks.

I’m glad you brought up debt, and I hope that people on this board and others realize the economic, not social or military, threat that China and India pose to the U.S. in the near to long term future.

While obviously, China and India both have complete freedom from us to do whatever they want, the outsourcing not just of jobs, but of higher learning, product manufacturing, and the seemingly unending supply of manpower of both those nations will no doubt wash over the U.S.A. in the next 2 decades.

What’s that mean? As good as both candidates talk about American jobs, and if Obama can hold up his speech by actually creating clean and hybrid energy sector jobs within 1-2 years of taking office, it might ease up this problem. Aside from that, we’re still going to have trouble with a majority of the plastic products, and a lot of cheap manufacturing heading to China and India.

If McCain as a Republican could address how we can compete on the world stage economically with 2 countries with millions of “dollar-a-day” workers producing a majority of the goods we buy here, then he’d have a very strong position to stand on. Poored Democrats are union people as well and they get nervous when hearing that China is producing the same goods they are and selling at a 1/10th of the price.

Above abortion, the war and terrorism, the main issue for me and many of my friends is if we’re going to have jobs after school, how we pay off our loans without eating Ramen for 5 years, and if we can go out in the city at night without hearing or being part in a gun fight.

Henry, the explanation for the McCain/Palin ticket is simple. They had a divided constituency, and no candidates who would stick to their views like Guiliani and Romney, who could bring the party together. So, by default, they ended up with UnPredictable McCain (synonym for Maverick), who felt he owned the military security issue but, couldn’t reach the religious right. Enter Palin.

That is the long and short of how the GOP ended up with this ticket. No real conscious deliberated decision, just a default McCain and a patch, Palin. They are even at odds with each other on some issues, but, they have brought a large portion of the base together to relatively enthusiastically support the ticket.

Of course, there base has shrunk during the process. Folks like Jim Leach and that GOP Philanthropist lady of many decades have put together Republicans for Obama, with a pretty hefty amount of money and organization of their own, though not quite the numbers of followers they probably hoped for.

In contrast, the Democrats have expanded their base over the 2000 and 2004 periods, such that the independents now outnumber Democrats, and the Democrats now outnumber the Republican registered voters.

Hence, the McCain strategy is very cut and dry and straightforward. He can’t win on the issues or by GOP registered voters. So, he has to either, or both, attempt to destroy Obama’s following among independents or broaden his agenda beyond what his base would call for to pull in independents.

Co-opting Obama’s agenda has been a major part of his strategy, and he has had some success with that. But, how far he can go toward being like Obama on the issues without marginalizing some in his base and Independents is a gamble at best between now and Nov. 4.

Jon said: “the main issue for me and many of my friends is if we’re going to have jobs after school, how we pay off our loans without eating Ramen for 5 years”

As it is for most young voters coming into this election, and many not as young as well. This election should be about the economy because our own economy poses a much larger threat to Americans than insurgents in Iraq, al-Queda in Afghanistan, or Hezbollah here in the U.S. The amount of damage and harm they can cause is limited. The economic meltdown coming as a result of a 53 Trillion dollar shortfall, will negatively impact nearly every American outside the top 5% of the wealthiest, or about 280 million Americans.

David

It sounds like the government has officially taken over Freddie and Fannie. Sounds like the initial fears are much worse than they expected. If I am understanding this correctly the status of all stocks will revert back to zero if this is the case. I think this may be indication of a much more harsh economic future than our financial experts have been willing to admit. More and more with each new intervention and bailout it seems as though they are working to forestall the inevitable in hopes of some sort of miracle. I hope I am wrong, not just for me. But all of us and especially all these young folks like John. My oldest son who is 31 is finally getting his act together and doing his schooling. He has spent life since high school moving from dead end to dead end job. I sure would like to think that there will be a job for him after finally taking the initiative to get it done.

I don’t think we can emphasize enough the importance of these young people taking an active approach in the politics of this country. It is theirs, and probably even their childrens future that are most at risk should they choose wrong come Nov 4th. As I think the first paragraph here indicates the old financial institutions and old market forces simply are no longer effective in keeping jobs and wages at a high enough level to insure a secure future for these young people.

I absolutely believe that Obama has the right approach in pursuing new avenues of modern technological advancements. We need to pursue and lead the world in an effort to bring alternatives to the forefront. It is a no brainer. We create jobs that will be worthy of the education these young people are getting and at the same time decrease dependence on oil, while cutting down on carbon emissions. If we start early enough rather than procrastinating as we have been doing for the last 30 years we should be able to be the leader in what will surely be a world market. I think it would be extremely foolish not to take an aggressive proactive approach in the renewables field.

These young folks need to realize that McCains world advocates maintaining profits for the old institutions that would prefer we remain in their reality. A road leading us out of their realm is not in their best interests. But it is in the best interests of all these young people who are looking to have some say in the direction and success of their future.

RickIl, our reads are somewhat different. The taxpayer picking up the tab for the losses at FreddieMac and FannieMae, will actually improve the environment in the credit, financial, and banking sectors, indirectly, by shoring up the house buying market and keeping credit available for home buyers, which in turn will stimulate some economic activity.

Another Bank failed this week, and such failures will not be helped by the taxpayer’s bailing out the mortgage corporations. But, it will prevent the credit, and financial markets from getting a lot worse and tighter going forward as the otherwise would if FMae and FMac were allowed to dissolve and be bought out and piecemealed over time to other buyers at horrendous losses to their shareholders, many of which are other banks and financial lending institutions.

The move is akin to putting a thumb in the dike in the short term for credit and financial markets and investors. The longer term problem is the fulfillment of my prediction in 2003 that under GW Bush, the national debt could exceed 10 trillion dollars before he leaves office.

I have written about this 10 trillion dollar and doubling of the national debt dozens of times since 2003 here at WB, and been poo-poohed as not having a clue as to what I was talking about. I have earned the right to say it, they were wrong, I was right. I paid attention and did the homework in philosophy of economics while GW Bush and others in government slept through those classes.

But, the numbers always were there for anyone to see into the future under the Republican’s policy of cutting revenues and increasing spending adding enormous deficits under GW Bush each and every year of his presidency.

And this was no accident. Their motives and plan has been apparent all along. Republicans hate the entitlement programs. The shortest route from Bush’s election in 2000 to ending entitlement spending was to raise the national debt as high as possible, forcing the nation to not be able to afford helping taxpayers and seniors in their retirement years, by so elevating future taxes on workers to the point that they would reject the entitlement programs as unaffordable for their own work lives.

Of course, while this Republican plan has been highly effective toward achieving its objective, it comes with something else Republicans are famous for, unintended consequences. Specifically turning the U.S. into China’s bitch by virtue of our debt held by the Chinese. And Putin’s insight that it is America now who can’t afford a cold war arms race, and thus sees no downside to invading Georgia while testing their belief that the U.S. can’t afford to play World Cop with Russia anymore.

In other words, as long as China, India, Malaysia and others are willing to help us into the grave of debt and become their bitch which dares not bite the hand that feeds, along with enormous wealth losses we are losing our military strategic capacity and political influence to lead as well. The great downside to bailing out FreddieMac and FannieMae is not our short term market situation which will actually improve somewhat, but, the longer term losses caused by adding another 1/2 to 1 trillion dollars to the national debt by bailing them out.

Any lower middle class American with credit card debt understands very clearly what I am talking about. They know how the growing interest rate payments on their debt prevents not only their paying off their debt, but, prevents them from making ANY other moves to increase wealth or status. One cannot save at 4% earnings while paying 29% on credit card debt, without losing 25% in the attempt to save money.

Similarly, with 406 Billion dollars spent on interest payments in 2006, and 430 Billion in 2007, more than half going to foreign treasuries and investors, one can readily see that America is losing nearly 2 trillion dollars a year of opportunity under each 4 year President’s term.

And these figures represent LOW interest rates. Interest rates on our national debt will be rising in the future as our creditworthiness becomes more risky, and $53 Trillion in legislated scheduled debt to come for entitlement spending, it is not unreasonable at all to anticipate our ANNUAL interest payments approaching 1 Trillion dollars a year over the next 14 to 20 years.

Which means dramatically higher taxes for workers and wealth owners, or, dramatically increased suffering and poverty for lack of government assistance and perhaps even default on Soc. Sec. or Medicare/Medicaid programs for workers and retirees.

Republicans hate entitlement spending, and growing national debt is the way to end it. Once Americans grasp that fact, they will understand Republican’s behavior these last many years, and never elect Republicans again to federal government.

It was no accident that Republicans outspent and out deficited the Democrats by a very large margin. Democrats deficit spend in the effort to help the American people. Republicans deficit spend to kill the entitlement programs as fast as possible. Hence, deficits and debt rise very MUCH faster under Republican rule than under Democrats.

The historical record is what it is. The why, is all that is debatable. But, the why is as plain as the nose on McCain’s or Bush’s face. Entitlement spending will be killed if they have the power of elected federal office. It is what they were elected to do by the power brokers behind the GOP.

David

I was not implying that intervention in Freddie and Fannie is a bad thing. Only that I think it may be more indication of an economy faltering at a greater rate than our financial speculators would like to admit. I will admit to having a fundamental problem with bailing out investor based institutions. The process of never allowing them to fail also never allows the necessary market corrections. They are relying on tax payer money to sustain a degree of guarantee to investors that their investments will not be allowed to fail.

I do understand that the big picture is more important than my fundamental concerns. But I do think that if we are going to insure this institution with tax payer money the influence of lobbyists should be removed from the equation. Once again I see a fundamental conflict of interest by allowing lobbyists of a soon to be government backed institution to lobby government.

All in all I think your finger in the dike analogy fits the situation well. My reasoning in my last post has more to do with moving beyond that finger by plugging the hole and at the same time re enforcing it by way of new approaches to old issues. The sad reality though is that we are in such a mess by way of poor financial policy that the hole will probably have to get much bigger before we can effectively seal it. I think a lot of families and individuals are caught up in the fray of living for today by way of circumstance. The result is that rather than suffer a little for a better tomorrow, they would rather procrastinate and hope that the rest of the dam does not break away around that finger.

And kudos on your prediction of our current assessment. I have been following your predictions for a few years now and have always been in agreement. While you understand the specifics of the condition, people like myself who are not money minded tend to equate the generalities and form a perception of the big picture. I think you have painted that picture nicely.

RickIL, the solutions can no longer be cheap, easy, convenient, and leave everyone feeling good about them. Thanks to Pres. Bush and a grotesquely irresponsible Congress, we are way beyond such comfortable solutions, now. I absolutely agree with your assessment that most would rather ignore the nightmare and hope we wake up to discover it was just a bad dream, than confront the reality and pay the price for having allowed it become so dire for so many going forward.

It takes a certain moral courage to face a negative reality and acknowledge it, because then one has to act to alter it, which involves a lot more work and cost than just denying or ignoring it. I commend you highly for your moral courage to accept the reality and seek choices and decisions to effectively deal with it.

Obama will take measures to deal with it, bearing in mind that millions of Americans are going to hurt as a result, and therefore taking actions which both work to solve the problems and minimize the hurt.

McCain will take measures to deal with it, but will, as a multi-millionaire, refuse to empathize or take actions to minimize the hurt for those less well off than he, since he has stated he will NOT rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy. McCain is about protecting the wealth of the wealthy while working to restore fiscal sanity in government.

Obama is about minimizing the harm to the non-wealthy as best as he can while restoring fiscal sanity, which means folks like himself and McCain will have to pony up the taxes they had to pay under Clinton, which obviously didn’t prevent them from being wealthy.

That is but one fundamental difference between these two candidates. World Cop vs. Active International Group Leader of a world force, is another. McCain will tax the poor and middle class to police the world. Obama will tax the wealthy more, and require other nations to help police the world with us through compromise and cooperation.

Folks often regard the word compromise as a dirty word in foreign affairs. But, history teaches that compromise more often than not, makes the difference between whether mutual goals are ever achieved or not. That history dates back thousands of years to Ancient Greece and Rome. And even further back in India’s history.

Compromise is not intrinsically good or bad. If struck wisely, one gets more from it than could have been gained without it. We need a president who understands this, and doesn’t just pay lip service to it in deference to those whose votes he needs to win like McCain who still to this day, defends the invasion of Iraq as a cost effective and prudent measure for US National interests.