I am a conservative and I will be voting for Barack Obama. Here’s why (sanitized behind a cut-line so as not to get in the way of your zombies and warhammer posts!):
Foreign Policy: I admit it – I’m a foreign policy wonk and history nutter. I have a bit more of an interest in such things than most, which does shade how I view the various candidates, and also means I have a bit more authority (even if self-granted) to comment on this than other issues.
John McCain would, at first blush, appear to have the more serious foreign policy credentials. However, almost every statement he has made on foreign policy issues has been reckless and, well, ignorant. His constant attacks on Barack Obama’s willing to “meet with dictators without preconditions” is silly. Of course one would hope America deals with our enemies using diplomacy. That is, after all, how countries interact. It does not mean going off to Teheran hat in hand hoping for a “peace in our time” speech (and it wasn’t what Obama meant when he gave the quote that McCain has been hammering on since), but it does mean challenging those who oppose American interests with every tool in the US arsenal, not simply that of the gun.
And speaking of the gun, America has been far too inclined to use it this past decade. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified (I don’t believe it was; neither does Obama), the fact remains that the war being fought there now is *not* a “war on terror” or a “war on al’Qaeda” (nor was it when we invaded, something Republicans consistently conflate), but a civil war between ethnic groups within Iraq. This is not a war American lives should be be shed for, and our troops must be withdrawn with all due possible haste. Obama has promised to do this, and McCain has mocked those (including the bipartisan Iraq Study Group) which insisted on this, calling them “defeatists” and accused them of demanding America’s “surrender”. Yet given the overstretch our military is suffering, keeping our military engaged in Iraq, in a war we have zero vital interests in other than national ego, those who insist on our remaining in Iraq do America harm. On this issue alone, a vote for Obama over McCain is a necessity.
On other issues, both candidates tend to agree: a stronger intervention in Afghanistan (whose rehabilitation is in America’s interests), challenging Iran and using American influence to halt its nuclear weapons development, and a careful eye on Pakistan and Russia. It does bear noting that an Obama presidency would find it far easier to achieve these goals, simply because the Bush administration has burned so many bridges among our putative allies in blind pursuit of unilateral goals. McCain, by contrast, seems willing to continue this pattern (most notably more willing to insult Spain, a NATO member state and key ally, rather than admit he had confused President Zapatero of Spain with President Calderon of Mexico during an interview).
Given Obama’s thin resume, It was his job this campaign to convince the voters that he is capable of handling America’s foreign policy requirements; he has done so admirably.
The Economy: We are in the early stages of a recession. Arguing over whether it is due to Republican deregulation or Democratic mortgage law manipulation is a sideshow at this point; the clear duty of the next President will be to propose budgets that have some hope of minimizing the damage. Paradoxically for those of us who have lived through the 1970s and 1980s, the Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility, while the Republicans, in their last decade of power, have shown a complete inability to control spending, while enacting fiscally irresponsible tax cuts aimed at the wealthy top 1% or less of society.
McCain has recently hammered Obama as something of a socialist (ironic given the Bush adminstration’s effective nationalization of the mortgage and banking industries) for advocating “redistribution of wealth”. This is specious. Taxation by its nature is redistributive; any alternatives (such as flat tax or sales VAT schemes) would unfairly burden precisely the segment of society that can least afford it. The argument is not over whether taxation itself is welcome; John McCain is far from a libertarian, and his attempting to make that argument is absurd. The argument is simply over how that burden will be distributed – in effect whether the tax burden will be redistributed to the wealthy or the poor. Most fair people, regardless of their political leaning, would argue the former. This is why we have a progressive tax system, after all.
The problem then is not the nature of taxation, but its application or lack thereof. P J O’Rourke, in one of his breezy travelogue/political diatribes, looked at the essentially libertarian government of Hong Kong (pre-Chinese takeover) and noted that for government to truly get itself out of the way actually requires a lot of effort. For government to be invisible, it must be effective – and that requires funding. By contrast, the Federal government this past decade has been anything but. FEMA’s fumbling response to Katrina should be uppermost in everyone’s minds, but that is not the only example – our highway system is collapsing (sometimes literally), and our health care system is in a state of siege. The few things our government SHOULD be involving itself in, it is failing at. Some of this is a failure of leadership and priority, but much of this is also due to a simple lack of funding. Before all else, our government must simply do its job, and part of that is in enacting budgets that are balanced and realistic. A balanced budget will also help shore up our collapsed currency, and restore some confidence to the global economy.
Again, Obama is the more serious candidate here. Neither Obama nor McCain have promised balanced budgets (which is probably for the best given a recessionary economy) but Obama’s proposals are better thought out than McCain’s, who relies on railing against congressional earmarks, which while good theatre are a small fraction of the Federal budget.
This is not to say that there are not many issues that I disagree with Obama on in terms of economic policy. Simply put, I am a fiscal conservative and Obama is a classical liberal. Yet, ironically, he still is the more attractive choice for fiscal conservatives, if for no other reason then because he is the one candidate apparently capable of using a calculator, which says more to the bankruptcy of Republican thought than anything else.
Culture, Palin, and thought: The last point is something that the Republican party has to face if it will survive the next decade: among many other ill-concieved decisions, in embracing Sarah Palin and the social conservatism that she represents, the Republican party has made itself the standard bearer for anti-intellectualism.
Sarah Palin, as best as anyone can tell, has no opinions. On anything. In her few unscripted interviews, she has been unable to answer such simple questions as what newspaper she reads in the morning. Her one policy speech has been to support care for disabled children, which while certainly something that we should do as a society as a general rule, is to put it mildly not chief among the issues facing us as a nation. Yet Palin’s, and McCain’s response to the very simple questions raised by Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity is to attack those who ask the questions, and moreover, to attack the very question itself. “Joe Sixpack” or “Joe the Plumber” wouldn’t ask if Sarah Palin has a foreign policy beyond a woolly grasp of geography.
Instead they would go to political gatherings strongly, horribly reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s Nuremburg rallies to rail at their enemies for being terrorists and socialists and Arabs and the other. Literally. Raising the Republican bogeymen, much as Jews were for the Nazis – no actual meaning, simply the other to scare the faithful with in lieu of an actual reasonable dialogue. This is not merely troubling. It is deeply frightening for anyone with a sense of history, and the Republican campaign has been extremely irresponsible in its prosceution of the campaign and its consequent corrosion of the national dialogue. I disagree with many people politically – this does not mean they are Insert-scary-meaningless-word-here.
This is not occurring in a vacuum. It is part of a pattern shown by today’s Republican leaders and the current Administration – a lack of respect for dissent, an all too easy appeal to fear and the other – sadly made all too easy, and all too quickly exploited, by the 9/11 attacks. If you ask many people today if Saddam Hussein bore responsibility for 9/11, many would say yes. Our government, in this as in so many other ways, has simply failed us. It has devolved to primitive threats of fear and anti-intellectual rejection of reason, something cheered on by the shock-talk conservative partisan media. And we see its application in the McCain campaign and its apparent existence in a strange time continuum where William Ayers is responsible for the stock market collapse and Barack Obama is an Arab terrorist.
This must be confronted. It must be rejected. We as Americans are simply better than this, and we must show this, cleanly and clearly. The appeals to fear and horror must be rejected.
And I have faith, given all of the above, that in a week they will be.
#1 by sanyaweathers on October 28th, 2008
I have an Obama yard sign, an American flag, an ACLU membership, and I know all the words to God Bless America.
According to some, I cannot possibly exist.
This bothers me.
Not as much as waterboarding done in my name bothers me.
#2 by Jason Ballew on October 28th, 2008
A-fucking-men.
#3 by Recursion on October 28th, 2008
Really well said.
Unfortunately my faith in the American people is not as strong as yours. It does seem that some are starting to take notice to all the shenanigans going on, but it seems there are still a huge amount of people whose motors run on right wing propaganda. I think the majority have not been rattled enough yet to actually “get up, stand up”.
Of course, my paranoid delusional side is mostly convinced that this whole political hoodamaroo is made for television, that both candidates are in fact already bought and paid for by the same “powers that be”, and that any choice “in this matter” that we have as a people is merely an illusion.
I mean.. come on.. its just too perfect… here you’ve got the young, well spoken, intelligent black man rallying around “change”, and the old crotchety, poorly spoken, white man representing a continuation of the same old crap. And “all the little people” polarized to the side of their choosing, bickering with each other about the minutia of the matter.
If I were an evil overlord, keeping the masses in check through a complex system of carrot chasing and debt slavery, that’s *exactly* how I would do it.
P.S. – The Matrix has you.
=)
#4 by J. on October 28th, 2008
I suppose it was inevitable that you would bring up Nazi Germany.
Countdown until you get spammed by “NObama” minions citing obscure documents that make about as much sense as tea leaves and are slightly less relevant or able to be boiled and imbibed.
#5 by pharniel on October 28th, 2008
“Arguing over whether it is due to Republican deregulation or Democratic mortgage law manipulation is a sideshow at this point; ”
Which democratic mortgage law manipulation? if you mean the CRA from 1977 I’d have to say the latest data pretty much puts the cause squarley on entities that were immune to that law.
Country Wide and the other originators of alt-a, sub prime and prime loans were selling loans that only had to be good for 90 days. they tehn sold those instruments in the same way that fannie and freddie had, only with tons less underwriting (achieving record efficency with automatic underwriting). These MBs were then backed by CDS (unregulated insurance) and the SEC allowed banks to have spin off arms that were allowed to create x12 leverage.
If there’s other mortgage manipulation i’d love to hear of it, but so far it sounds like standard main stree to wall street greed (as the ‘independent’ appraisers, brokers and officers were paid by the piece it was in thier best intersts to process as many piecies as possible instead of having to worry about performance reviews based on the health of an employer).
#6 by All Of Them on October 28th, 2008
Well said. I’d only quibble with: “arguing over whether it is due to Republican deregulation or Democratic mortgage law manipulation is a sideshow at this point” I don’t think it’s a sideshow, it’s not about blame – understanding the origin is crucial to understanding the way out. While the attitude that you don’t need to understand the origin to get out might work with war, it doesn’t work so well with the economy. I’m not going to post it here, but the evidence is very, very strong that this has vanishingly little to do with “Democratic mortgage law manipulation” and much more to do with deregulation (or simply a lack of regulation, which is not just a Republican problem), Greenspan’s policy (fed rate <2% for 3 years = lots of money demanding a better home), corporate focus on near-term profits, and criminal-level incompetence at the rating agencies.
#7 by TPRJones on October 28th, 2008
I agree with many of your premises and many of your conclusions. But I still can’t bring myself to vote for Obama. I do hope he wins over McCain, but there are so many things about his ideals that I despise that I can’t give him my vote.
Bob Barr ftw!
#8 by AcidCat on October 28th, 2008
Nice summation of the main reasons that Obama is clearly the reasoned choice. I would also argue that by the basic virtues of his intelligence, temperament, and yes age, that he is a much safer, saner choice for commander in chief.
#9 by Pandanapper on October 28th, 2008
/start2cents
I voted for Bob Barr. This 2 party rule needs to end.
/end2cents
#10 by Tem on October 28th, 2008
I changed my registration to Democrat and will vote as such until the Republicans smell what they’ve been shoveling for the last 12 years and decide to extricate their collective head from Jesus’ ass.
#11 by dartwick on October 28th, 2008
There are a lot of legit reasons a moderate conservative might choose Obama over McCaine(although guns and abortion wouldnt be among them.)
But the thought of a Democtatic President, House, and Senate is fucking scarey. We may quickly be reminded that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
#12 by TimR on October 28th, 2008
You should check out two books by Thomas Frank, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” and “The Wrecking Crew”, for background and explanation of the Republican electoral and governance strategies of the last 20 years. Mostly it’s about business first and the rest as smokescreen.
#13 by xzzy on October 28th, 2008
I was behind Obama for a while, until he voted yes on FISA. It really cemented the view that no matter how admirable his campaign promises are, he’s still a politician and just as much as ever, our selection of a president is simply a question of which is the lesser evil.
I understand democracy’s function is dependent on compromise, and that’s probably what triggered his vote on FISA, but I think as a presidential candidate who has built his campaign on the concept of “change”, to do something we expect from a normal slimy politician completely undermines the message. If he wants our government to operate at a higher standard, he really should have at least held himself to it.
#14 by Bman on October 28th, 2008
WORD.
#15 by Paks on October 28th, 2008
Sadly, I agree with this from Recursion Of course, my paranoid delusional side is mostly convinced that this whole political hoodamaroo is made for television, that both candidates are in fact already bought and paid for by the same “powers that be”, and that any choice “in this matter” that we have as a people is merely an illusion.
I stopped listening to all the hype and have tried to focus on which candidate I feel is the lesser of two evils. It’s just too easy for candidates to talk a good game then produce squat once elected. I’ve decided that voting for president here in the US has become more of a crap shoot then anything else.
My last throw of the dice had Obama winning out.
#16 by aet on October 28th, 2008
Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Conservative principles are a political religion. Thanks for not drinking the kool-aid this year.
#17 by Anti-Bunny on October 28th, 2008
The only difficult decision I have this voting cycle is between voting for Barr or not bothering to vote at all.
Though I do agree that McCain and the GOP need to lose. If Obama is a socalist, then Bush’s nationalization of our financial institutions must make him a Marxist.
#18 by wowpanda on October 28th, 2008
Come on man, the choice is clear, Bob Barr!!
Obama = socialist big government given checks to leechers.
McCain= better than Obama on tax issues, but lousy on internation issues (see his reaction on Russia over Gerogia).
Barr = smaller government, lower tax, fiscal responsibility.
#19 by wowpanda on October 28th, 2008
@Anti-Bunny You just realized Bush is a Marxist??!! You are 4 year too late. If you still have some fighting spirit in you, go vote Barr.
#20 by Sinnach on October 28th, 2008
I will never understand the people who complain about the two mainstream candidates then throw in a ‘Bob Barr!’ Its like complaining the chicken coup isn’t safe enough then voting for a fox to guard it.
If you want to vote 3rd party, vote for a decent third party candidate. Don’t vote for a man who was a very vocal participant in the war on drugs, authored a bill to ban same-sex marriages, voted for the Patriot Act, voted to restrict what religion the military allows, and now wants you to believe he’ll lead the ‘keep government small’ charge.
#21 by Kade on October 28th, 2008
You’re not a conservative. Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard Mr. “I put up banners celebrating the October Revolution without consideration that one of my co-workers may have actually suffered through that tragedy of human history”.
#22 by IainC on October 28th, 2008
Obama is not even close to being a socialist and the fact that you think he is speaks volumes for the level of the political debate amongst low information voters.
Plus, there’s a pretty clear correlation for the past forty years or so for actual fiscal responsibility mostly happening under a Democratic administration while the polar opposite tends to happen under Republican presidents.
Finally the government is bigger under Bush (who certainly is not a socialist of any stripe) than it ever has been since WWII. Small government does not automatically equal efficiency. You need to achieve efficiency first then government can scale back, otherwise you end up with a third-world society.
#23 by Scrote on October 28th, 2008
Not one word from anyone on the environment and green issues
#24 by Scott Jennings on October 28th, 2008
I had a co-worker that was over 90 years old? The gaming industry is more inclusive than I thought.
#25 by Jackbnimble on October 28th, 2008
I think the republican party might be approaching a split of some point as the portion of republicans who believe in small government/lower taxes pull away from the republicans who believe in social conservatism/bigger government/under educated.
I agree with the republican ideal of smaller government to a certain extent, but despise their position on social issues.
Personally I want to see a democrat have the balls to go in, keep taxes high enough TEMPORARILY to pay down our horrendous debt, then do some careful program slashing.
FYI It is absolutely imperative that the US start improving it’s educational provisions if we are to remain economically and socially competitive in the changing world before us, by the way, global dominance is now due much more to economic and social competitiveness then military might.
#26 by TPRJones on October 28th, 2008
Obama is not even close to being a socialist and the fact that you think he is speaks volumes for the level of the political debate amongst low information voters.
I would have to say you are wrong. I would additionally characterize McCain as too socialist. As well as almost every President since Coolidge.
#27 by Werit on October 28th, 2008
The Internet is left leaning? Who knew?
#28 by Merkwurdigliebe on October 28th, 2008
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could vote for a candidate who encompassed ALL of your views and not just 49% of them? Too bad we were raised by government schools that told us we had only two choices.
#29 by J. on October 28th, 2008
It might have helped if America was at all united as a country on more than a few issues, or probably more importantly, most of us recognized politics as necessarily about informed, respectful and intellectual debate and compromise.
Obama was the only candidate this election who consistently talked about America having the chance to come to the table without a shield in one hand and a machine gun in the other.
That counts for something.
#30 by Amaranthar on October 28th, 2008
Scott, you’re an intelligent guy, but I think you are wrong. Here’s why, and I hope you’ll take the time to go through this and rethink your stance.
The Iraq war:
First off, why do you feel that rehabilitating Afghanistan is important but not Iraq?
Secondly, the Iraq Study Group report did not call for an immediate withdrawal.
To quote that study:
“The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by
increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and
to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military
personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these
actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.”
Third, the Iraq invasion was necessary, here’s why.
First of all, you know it would be very bad to allow Iran to get Nukes. Once they have them, it’s too late. Why do people fail to recognize this with regard to Iraq?
To get nukes, you need several things, all of which Iraq either had or was very close to getting.
1) Missile delivery system- Check, Iraq had missiles that would go even beyond the range that was dictated in the peace accord from the first Iraq war and was a serious claim against them by itself. North Korea was selling even farther range missiles, and after reading the rest of this you’ll see that Iraq buying these would be a clear sign they had succeeded in making Nukes.
2) The tech- check, hidden under the rose bush primarily, and elsewhere in related tech. Scientists from the original nuke program, which was closed, were hiding various documentations related specifically to the nuke program. Included were parts for reference when the nuke program was started back up (more later on this). Pic below of some of what was found under that rose bush, and link to that article from CNN.
3) The yellowcake, processed uranium that needs further processing, to make weapons grade uranium- Check. The US shipped 550 metric tons (enough to make about 100 nuclear bombs) of yellowcake to Canada in a secret project earlier this year. The yellowcake itself was known and controlled by the inspection teams, from Iraq’s earlier nuke program. But the shipment of it was a closely guarded secret for fears of sabotage or ambush. This was a large operation.
4) The equipment to refine the yellowcake. This was the one thing Iraq was missing. It included things like the aluminum tubes, you know, duo use things that the world was blaming bush for including in his arguments. And while Iraq was going about trying to gain the ability to produce these things, or buy them directly, most of the world was screaming fowl at Bush instead of Saddam.
5) The technicians and scientists to operate a renewed secret nuke program- Check. Most of Iraq’s nuclear techs and scientists from the dissolved first nuke program were hired on in jobs that would maintain their knowledge and skills in further development in a new nuke program. They were ready to go, all they needed was the equipment to refine yellowcake into weapons grade material. Remember that super cannon Iraq was making? How ludicrous was that, a single, unmovable canon that could be taken out with one quick strike. Why did they put so much effort into building it? The skills to bore that were something like “duo use” in making aluminum tubes for refining yellowcake, as an example.
6) Money- Check. The Oil for Food scandal was supplying Saddam with lots of money. Moreover it was untraceable money so that Iraq could better hide a reconstituted nuclear program.
7) A blind eye from the world- check, or almost so. And you can thanks Bush for this. The Oil for Food scandal also provided Saddam with influence around the world and within the UN. Kofi Annan’s own son was involved. Others involved in the scandal were military leaders and wealthy businessmen in France, Germany, and Russia, as well as around the world.
And if you’ll remember, Saddam was trying to get rid of the WMD inspectors. He tried to say that they were no longer needed, tried to get that through the UN. When it failed due to the Bush administration’s efforts, Saddam outright kicked them out. The UN was almost ready to go along with it, except for the US and a very few key allies.
So, in a nutshell, Iraq was almost there, almost ready to restart a nuclear program, secretly, without trace, and quickly. And thanks to Jimmy Carter’s dismantling of intelligence in the Middle East, we would not know about it unless we got very lucky. And even if we did, we’d still have to deal with the influence Saddam was buying through the Oil for Food scandal. And once Iraq had nuclear capability, well, they’d already used WMDs (chemical and biological) something like 8 times.
But the world’s response to all this is “well, I hate Bush” and “your a dumb ass”. You know, sensible things like that.
Now on to economics. Yes, the Republicans have failed us. So have the Democrats. They are lumped together in this through infighting and bad ideas from both sides.
But the Democrats “give a man a fish” system is not what we need. We need more jobs and better pay scales at the lower ends.
Obama’s plans to increase taxes on business will cost jobs. Not only will it take funds away from businesses, increasing their expenses with no profits to show for it, causing business growth to slow and reinvestment to slow, costing us fewer new jobs and more layoffs. And more business will go outside our country. Supplies will cost less from foreign sources while American companies’ expenses go up because of higher taxes, meaning they must charge more for their product. Selling to other countries will become more difficult also.
As far as all the talk, yes it does go too far. It’s politics. It’s sound bites and catch phrases. Obama is not innocent of this either. He’s made plenty of accusations himself, from neo-cons to Bush buddies to racism. And perhaps you shouldn’t neglect MSNBC, ABC, and all the liberal publications when you bring up Fox News.
Between the two, it has been McCain who has been the one to cross political lines to get things done. Obama has voted in lock step with the Democrats all the way along. McCain is the one who really represents “change”, to the point that he had trouble with conservative support. Obama has not had that problem.
#31 by Elinor on October 28th, 2008
G. W. Bush, John McCain, Robespierre . . . we are living under a reign of terror in this country. I too hope that this reign of terror will end soon. It’s time we stop letting the fear-mongers lead us.
#32 by Toastrider on October 28th, 2008
When they throw Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann in a gulag, I will believe in this ‘reign of terror’.
Until then, I will point and laugh.
#33 by Elbows on October 28th, 2008
Great post, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I would like two point out two things:
1. Up until roughly a week and a half ago, McCain was still promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, all while maintaining the Bush tax cuts and our presence in Iraq indefinitely.
2. At the policy speech by Palin, she highlighted the need for autism research while simultaneously decrying a study being funded by the government dealing with fruit flies. As it turns out, the fruit fly study she was talking led to a breakthrough in autism research. She is beyond incompetent.
#34 by Anonymous on October 28th, 2008
“Simply put, I am a fiscal conservative and Obama is a classical liberal.”
Classical liberals are fiscal conservatives, in that classical liberalism promotes minimal state intervention in the economy. Obama is an American-style liberal, i.e. a social democrat.
While the point is moot since Obama is up better than twenty points in my state, I can’t vote for him. He’s definitely the lesser of two evils, but there’s not enough good there for me to actively support his candidacy. On three issues of the past year that have been particularly important to me–the FISA/telecom immunity bill, the bailout bill and the South Ossetia crisis–Obama either dithered impotently or absented himself from taking any sort of stand. Beyond that, nothing in either his government career or his work in the private sector suggests any profound capacity for leadership: he was an invisible member of the Illinois Senate, a rank-and-file member of Congress, a failed community organizer and an law school instructor who produced no legal scholarship. His shifting the goalposts on Iraq withdrawal and his silly threat to invade Pakistan don’t exactly fill me with confidence either.
Not that McCain has much of anything in his favor aside from his POW story, his rich wife and his long-forgotten love affair with the press back when he was badmouthing the religious right. But I’d be tempted to support his lost cause if only to uphold the virtue of divided government, if not for the fact that Congressional Democrats have demonstrated throughout Bush’s lame-duck term that they’re willing to toady to the White House as long as it allows them to disavow any responsibility for their actions.
#35 by Todd Ogrin on October 28th, 2008
“Barr = smaller government, lower tax, fiscal responsibility…”
…eats Borat’s cheese.
#36 by Over00 on October 28th, 2008
There’s something surreal watching the elections in the US. Here in Canada, what is considered “right” would be considered “left” in the US link. When I hear comments about Obama being a socialist, I can only wonder what conservatives here are…
I was curious and did a quick check and according to http://www.bls.gov, unemployement rate is about the same in the US as in Canada, 6.1%. It’s needed to consider that about half our paychecks disappear before reaching our pockets (companies are also heavily taxed).
And our roads are also in a very bad state link 1 link 2
So going left or right doesn’t matter much, the results are the same.
#37 by D-0ne on October 28th, 2008
Eventually we’ll end all this voting stuff and go straight to death matches for President. Want to be President? Hope you’re willing to kill for it or die trying. A national broadcast sponsored by the commercial interests with proceeds going to education of course.
#38 by impeachobama on October 28th, 2008
You are clearly not a conservative. If calling yourself one makes you feel better, then go right ahead, but you spout liberal talking point after liberal talking point.
Obama will raise your taxes (and not just income taxes) and support more gun control. And our enemies will celebrate all over the world.
impeachobama.wordpress.com
#39 by Gawain on October 29th, 2008
I still have a Dennis Kucinich sticker on my car. Obama? Way too conservative for me, thanks.
hahaha. impeachobama.wordpress.com “Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!” I think that’s going to be my new catch phrase.
“Flagship studios is going down! Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!”
“Fable 2 has shitty multiplayer! Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!”
“They totally didn’t give me the sale price on a gallon of milk the other day at the supermarket, even though it was clearly marked! Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!”
#40 by Juppstein on October 29th, 2008
As someone not living in the US I find it quite interesting that Mr. Obama is considered as a “socialist”. Looking at my neighbors the Germans, French and Italians I cannot see Mr. Obama as being a left-winger or even a socialist. But I think due to only having two major parties in the country one can only see the black and white picture.
#41 by Leo on October 29th, 2008
I hope you guys make the right choice for your country.
Being from Europe I can’t really say that your image is as shiny as it was back in the day.
But I know it is mostly down to your government choices, everyone did not agree with them.
I think it is sad that a lot of people who are not American look at the US now and think “Oh these guys are awful they just want money and war, while chanting God Bless America”.
Anyway I hope that Obama will be elected because I can’t see your image getting better with McCain!
#42 by Impaling myself on pencils on October 29th, 2008
Nit to pick:
Spain is a constitutional monarchy, with a king as head of state. Consequently, Spain does not have a president. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is “el presidente del gobierno” – in function equivalent to what in the English-speaking world is more commonly called a prime minister.
The interviewer got it wrong too but McCain didn’t know enough to correct that. Not only did McCain not know Zapatero by name, he apparently didn’t even know the first thing about the government and constitution of one of America’s strongest European allies.
Ain’t I glad that at least McCain’s (other-)wordly running mate has such extensive foreign policy credentials, knowing as she does that her next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that she is the executive of…
#43 by pharniel on October 29th, 2008
@ 20 & wowpanda
wowpanda Says:
“Come on man, the choice is clear, Bob Barr!!
Obama = socialist big government given checks to leechers.
McCain= better than Obama on tax issues, but lousy on internation issues (see his reaction on Russia over Gerogia).
Barr = smaller government, lower tax, fiscal responsibility.”
Funny, did you know that Alan Greenspan was one of the original members of the Randian school that was setup? That he is a very devoted objectivist?
Guess what happened when he got in charge of the fed? All the good little producers turned out to be ‘leechers’.
Objectivism fails.
#44 by Therrik on October 29th, 2008
Very well said Scott.
#45 by Ardua on October 29th, 2008
Gawain Says:
October 29, 2008 at 12:27 am
I still have a Dennis Kucinich sticker on my car. Obama? Way too conservative for me, thanks.
hahaha. impeachobama.wordpress.com “Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!” I think that’s going to be my new catch phrase.
“Flagship studios is going down! Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!”
“Fable 2 has shitty multiplayer! Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!”
“They totally didn’t give me the sale price on a gallon of milk the other day at the supermarket, even though it was clearly marked! Our enemies will celebrate all over the world!”
Ouch I snorted at that. Luckily I had finished my coffee.
And hey, even if Mr TinFoilHat is right, what’s the problem? Americas enemies all over the world wouldn’t be in any fit state to get up in the morning let alone plan the downfall of nations with the hangover that much supposed celebrating would cause.
#46 by Elbows on October 29th, 2008
Wow you managed to get every single word of that sentence wrong, grats.
#47 by Anonymous on October 29th, 2008
Not every single one, Elbows. If a justice that supports the individual-right approach to the Second Amendment retires during Obama’s presidency–both Scalia and Kennedy are 72, and may not have the staying power of Justice Stevens–the 5-4 majority in Heller will likely be reversed. The collective-right approach of the minority would allow for sweeping restrictions on legal gun ownership.
Both ideological wings of the Court like to restrict certain constitutional freedoms while building up certain others. Just as with our elected representatives, it’s often a case of having (at best) a lesser-of-two-evils decision. (Although for those who are single-issue voters on gun control, abortion or what have you, the decision is probably easier.)
#48 by wowpanda on October 29th, 2008
When ever you attack, you need to specify your sources.
@sinnch, check http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html
@pharniel Greenspan is a republican, not a libertarian. There are 2 school of leechers, the demos courts the poor welfare mothers with 8 kids, and republicans courts failed wall street execs.
Obama/Demos: raise taxes for working people, hand to people who are too lazy to work, and get their vote. That is Obama’s idea of share wealth.
Republicans (nowadays): pour billions to failed (and stupid) executives who should be bankrupted and broken right now. And they tell us it is for our own good.
You want to share wealth? then lower taxes, let the good people create wealth, let the bad ones bankrupt and their wealth will be managed by more capable people.
Want to lower debt? instead of raise taxes, stop pork first! Those in Washington will prefer to spend what ever amount is raised first.
#49 by D-0ne on October 29th, 2008
Wowpanda where do you get your information on Obama’s tax plan? You’re so wrong it’s laughable.
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/how-much-would-you-pay-taxes.html
#50 by kildy on October 29th, 2008
I don’t grasp why people think Obama’s going to jack everyone’s taxes up.
Lowering taxes MORE with a debt and two wars is… insanity. It’s not possible. It’s just not at all doable. I mean, we could cut all of social security, medicare/medicaid and slash the education budget and MAYBE pull it off, but it would suck. Also be monumentally stupid.
As for taxing the workers and giving to the lazy: if you think people making under $250,000 a year are lazy.. Fuck You.
Lowering taxes to promote trickle down economics is what we’ve been doing for ages. It’s not helping reduce the wealth gap. Turns out trickle down economics assumes everyone on the planet is a saint, and nobody’s a dick. Anyone on the internet should understand that what you’re essentially asking is that everyone in every MMO ever roll greed on things they won’t equip immediately, and pass if they think they’ve gotten enough loot this run.