erice Wrote:No, you're right, they both do it (and I never said Obama's campaign didn't). I think both candidates had good intentions about running a "clean" campaign at the outset, but eventually political reality set in. Unfortunately, as you said, Negative sells.

Let's face it, negative sells in this campaign even more than most because there really isn't much positive about either candidate.

I can understand hating Bush. I do too.

I can understand the negatives about McCain. If what we've seen over the past few weeks is what we'd get, then he's not the right guy.

What I simply cannot understand is the love affair with Obama that so many seem to be having. I have some very bright friends who are Obama supporters. When I ask them for something positive about Obama I get, "Well he's not Bush, and McCain is Bush."
" No, I mean something positive about Obama, not something negative about the others."
"Well, don't worry, he won't really do what he says he's going to do."
"How do you know that?"
"Oh, I just believe in him. Besides, he's not really going to be able to do it all."

I'm having that conversation (or a close facsimile) over and over. To say that I find that troubling is a huge understatement.

We're about to make someone the most powerful man in the world, and the best thing that even his most ardent supporters can tell me is that he's not going to do what he says he's going to do.

I simply cannot imagine a reason why I would want to live in a country with Barack Obama as president.

I am surprised and disappointed that Obama's campaign has gone negative at all. Negativity works sometimes, but not always, and generally more for the underdog than the leader. It is easy but not smart considering his position. Meet the new kind of politics, same as the old kind of politics.

McCain is doing a fine job of discrediting McCain anyway.

S.A. Owl Wrote:1. Based on the people Obama has gathered around him, I have trouble thinking of him as far-left.

2. If Pelosi and Reid are at all sensitive to polls, they have to know that the Dem Congress has nothing like a mandate. (I know that won't necessarily stop them.)

Here's the problem with this logic...

Even if we accept that Obama the candidate will behave differently from Obama the legislator... and that despite Pelosi and Reid's far left leanings... that the addition of more centrist Democrats will keep the party from pulling left overall.... The problem is getting votes to pass legislation.

The Democratic party, acting with a Democratic President won't need 60 votes to override a veto threat. The Republican's did the same thing... Rather than seek the votes of 20 centrist Republicans... they are more likely to seek the votes of 20 leftist Democrats. They will do so by turning centrist policy left. Pelosi and Reid are the ones who would be collecting the votes, so that makes it a virtual certainty. Now, perhaps they'll still miss the most liberal of Congress... but obviously, they'll go for a 55-45 straight party vote... rather than 35 centrist Democrats teaming with 20 centrist Republicans, leaving the 20 most liberal and 25 most conservative on the wrong side of the vote.

On the other hand, a McCain Presidency with a Democratic Congress would be met with a bill designed to be veto-proof... thus include enough centrist Republican votes to get to 60+.

This is how things worked under Clinton... and how things failed under Bush Jr and Carter.

S.A. Owl Wrote:1. Based on the people Obama has gathered around him, I have trouble thinking of him as far-left.
2. If Pelosi and Reid are at all sensitive to polls, they have to know that the Dem Congress has nothing like a mandate. (I know that won't necessarily stop them.)

Re: 1. I don't.
Re: 2. They don't want to know that. And it won't stop them.

When the strongest argument that you can make in favor of your guy is that he's not going to do what he says he's going to do, that's not a great situation.

Hambone10 Wrote:The Democratic party, acting with a Democratic President won't need 60 votes to override a veto threat. The Republican's did the same thing... Rather than seek the votes of 20 centrist Republicans... they are more likely to seek the votes of 20 leftist Democrats. They will do so by turning centrist policy left. Pelosi and Reid are the ones who would be collecting the votes, so that makes it a virtual certainty. Now, perhaps they'll still miss the most liberal of Congress... but obviously, they'll go for a 55-45 straight party vote... rather than 35 centrist Democrats teaming with 20 centrist Republicans, leaving the 20 most liberal and 25 most conservative on the wrong side of the vote.

On the other hand, a McCain Presidency with a Democratic Congress would be met with a bill designed to be veto-proof... thus include enough centrist Republican votes to get to 60+.

This is how things worked under Clinton... and how things failed under Bush Jr and Carter.

This is why I think McCain will be a mitigated disaster, whereas Obama will be an unmitigated disaster.

I'm not actually certain which will be better--crash and burn, or get nibbled to death by ducks.

Gravy Owl Wrote:I am surprised and disappointed that Obama's campaign has gone negative at all. Negativity works sometimes, but not always, and generally more for the underdog than the leader. It is easy but not smart considering his position. Meet the new kind of politics, same as the old kind of politics.

Most of Obama's negatives have been either McCain's policy/voting record (whether representing it 100% truthfully or not) and the Keating Five.

With Keating Five, the Obama campaign had basically told everyone that if McCain tried to run with Rezko or Ayers, Keating would be coming out. McCain ran with Ayers and Obama couldn't be seen as backing down. They didn't really push Keating that hard... they released the video they've probably had in the can since McCain won the primary and sent out a bunch of emails about it. The press did the rest (as they manage to do with all these web ads that run 3 times on WPDK in Podunk).

Hambone10 Wrote:The Democratic party, acting with a Democratic President won't need 60 votes to override a veto threat. The Republican's did the same thing... Rather than seek the votes of 20 centrist Republicans... they are more likely to seek the votes of 20 leftist Democrats. They will do so by turning centrist policy left. Pelosi and Reid are the ones who would be collecting the votes, so that makes it a virtual certainty. Now, perhaps they'll still miss the most liberal of Congress... but obviously, they'll go for a 55-45 straight party vote... rather than 35 centrist Democrats teaming with 20 centrist Republicans, leaving the 20 most liberal and 25 most conservative on the wrong side of the vote.

On the other hand, a McCain Presidency with a Democratic Congress would be met with a bill designed to be veto-proof... thus include enough centrist Republican votes to get to 60+.

This is how things worked under Clinton... and how things failed under Bush Jr and Carter.

Hmm... Your numbers don't quite make sense to me. My vague recollection of Civics class tells me a veto over-ride requires a 2/3 vote, not 60. However, 60 votes in the Senate will prevent a fillibuster. The fillibuster is a pretty effective way of roadblocking bills that the minority party is against. It's the fillibuster-proof majority (unlikely for the Democrats... but possible) that makes me a little queasy about what the Dems might do if unfettered. I'm with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but let 'em totally loose and I worry a little. As long as the Republicans have at least 41 they won't be impotent.

(BTW here's a related article from CNN about the Dems' chances of winning a fillibuster-proof Senate majority. I think they're slim.)

erice Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:The Democratic party, acting with a Democratic President won't need 60 votes to override a veto threat. The Republican's did the same thing... Rather than seek the votes of 20 centrist Republicans... they are more likely to seek the votes of 20 leftist Democrats. They will do so by turning centrist policy left. Pelosi and Reid are the ones who would be collecting the votes, so that makes it a virtual certainty. Now, perhaps they'll still miss the most liberal of Congress... but obviously, they'll go for a 55-45 straight party vote... rather than 35 centrist Democrats teaming with 20 centrist Republicans, leaving the 20 most liberal and 25 most conservative on the wrong side of the vote.

On the other hand, a McCain Presidency with a Democratic Congress would be met with a bill designed to be veto-proof... thus include enough centrist Republican votes to get to 60+.

This is how things worked under Clinton... and how things failed under Bush Jr and Carter.

Hmm... Your numbers don't quite make sense to me. My vague recollection of Civics class tells me a veto over-ride requires a 2/3 vote, not 60. However, 60 votes in the Senate will prevent a fillibuster. The fillibuster is a pretty effective way of roadblocking bills that the minority party is against. It's the fillibuster-proof majority (unlikely for the Democrats... but possible) that makes me a little queasy about what the Dems might do if unfettered. I'm with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but let 'em totally loose and I worry a little. As long as the Republicans have at least 41 they won't be impotent.

(BTW here's a related article from CNN about the Dems' chances of winning a fillibuster-proof Senate majority. I think they're slim.)

My recollection of high school civics aside... I stand by my contention. I never said impotent... it's just a reflection of how far you'll have to go against the CENTER OF YOUR PARTY... not the center of America... to get things passed.

If you honestly believe Obama is a centrist... Fine... Centrists will vote for his proposals... however... Reid and Pelosi will be the ones collecting votes. Do you think they will push Obama's centrist proposals right to get more conservative Republicans, or left to get more liberal Democrats?

texd Wrote:Most of Obama's negatives have been either McCain's policy/voting record (whether representing it 100% truthfully or not) and the Keating Five.

The Keating-Ayers thing makes intuitive sense. Policy is fair game, but at this point they should stick more to facts and avoid misrepresentations. They really don't need to unfairly associate McCain with Bush. And the whole "out of touch, doesn't know how to use teh in+3rw3bz" line of attack was petty and mean-spirited, very much the old kind of politics, and again unnecessary.

Granted, none of this is anything like the Swift Boat ads, but that to me is not the litmus test for good campaigning.

erice Wrote:Hmm... Your numbers don't quite make sense to me. My vague recollection of Civics class tells me a veto over-ride requires a 2/3 vote, not 60. However, 60 votes in the Senate will prevent a fillibuster. The fillibuster is a pretty effective way of roadblocking bills that the minority party is against. It's the fillibuster-proof majority (unlikely for the Democrats... but possible) that makes me a little queasy about what the Dems might do if unfettered. I'm with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but let 'em totally loose and I worry a little. As long as the Republicans have at least 41 they won't be impotent.

(BTW here's a related article from CNN about the Dems' chances of winning a fillibuster-proof Senate majority. I think they're slim.)

www.fivethirtyeight.com, which uses probablistic modeling and computer simulations of voting currently puts D(senate)>=58 at 30% probability and >=60 at 10%. The 58 number is important because caucusing with Lieberman and Sanders (the two I's) would get them to 60.

The Ds are likely to need Lieberman which is why you don't see nearly as much bitching about him as you did about Zell Miller four years ago... They're handling him gently until they can learn if they need him.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:1. Based on the people Obama has gathered around him, I have trouble thinking of him as far-left.
2. If Pelosi and Reid are at all sensitive to polls, they have to know that the Dem Congress has nothing like a mandate. (I know that won't necessarily stop them.)

Re: 1. I don't.
Re: 2. They don't want to know that. And it won't stop them.

When the strongest argument that you can make in favor of your guy is that he's not going to do what he says he's going to do, that's not a great situation.

You're putting words into my mouth. There was nothing about my post that posed #1 as my "strongest argument" in favor of Obama. And I didn't say that he's not going to do what he says he's going to do. It was my way of opining that conservatives may not need to be as worried about his presidency as they are.

I believe Obama is more fiscally liberal than I am. And I'm with erice: a D majority short of 60 would be fine with me. But I want Obama to be president. Why? The first reason is simple: I'm more comfortable with the Democratic Party's core ideology than with the Republican (e.g., the role of government, a progressive income tax structure, etc.). And I am very uncomfortable with the religious conservatism and anti-rationalism that Bush et al. (and others before them) have attached to the Republican Party in order to broaden its base. (I know that's a negative, but it means a great deal to me.)

So why Obama? As Krauthammer writes, he has a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. He has run a strategically and tactically brilliant campaign, which says something about his wisdom, discipline, acceptance of counsel, and hiring acumen. He has the support of some smart, rich capitalists who know a lot more about business and the ecomony than I do. He has leadership qualities; he can inspire people in a positive way. And, yes, oratorical skills are a good thing for a president to have. His demeanor is calm and gives the impression that he will not act impulsively. I believe he will be particularly reluctant to get us into unnecessary military actions. He will immediately improve our international relations. I could write more, but I'm already boring you to tears.

Lest there be any doubt, these are all IMO. Many of you will find fault with my reasons, and my purpose is not to start yet another debate. Some of these points could end up being wrong-headed. My only point here is that you'll have to agree that my reasons do not come down to "he won't do what he says he will do."

Sorry, I did not mean to put words in your mouth so much as to quote what others have said. I realize upon rereading that my intent was not clear. Probably should have worded things a bit differently.

I find the prospect of an Obama presidency terrifying. Literally terrifying. Hurricane Ike passed close to my house. When the wind was whipping everything around and there were strong possibilities of tornadoes in my immediate area, I was sitting in my living room watching. I did not find the prospect of that hurricane to be anywhere nearly as terrifying as I find the prospect of an Obama presidency.

I simply can't imagine the Obama regime being as benign as you anticipate. I hope you are right and I am wrong. I really do. I love this country, and I hate to think that the things I anticipate will happen. I'm pretty sure I won't be around to find out, because at this point I truly believe that the only appropriate response to an Obama presidency is to get the h*ll out of the country. I only hope that I can get my @$$ and my assets out before they make it illegal for me to do so.

I do know that many people whom I believe to be quite intelligent seem to have the opinion that Obama will be the neatest thing since sliced bread. I've tried to engage them to find out their reasons. It is those people who say that they support him because he won't do the things he said he will. Although I didn't intend the comment for you, I don't think it is entirely inappropriate. You say that you don't think of him as far-left; what he has said that he will do is far-left. You can't say he's not going to be far-left without saying that he's not going to do what he says he's going to do. I guess you are saying that's not your strongest argument.

If the other reasons you cited work for you, that's your right. They don't work for me, probably more than anything else because I think of Obama as nothing but a con artist who's trying to con me, and I reject that. I have absolutely no confidence in his ability to anything but deliver the knockout blow to an economy that is already reeling.

S.A. Owl Wrote:You're putting words into my mouth. There was nothing about my post that posed #1 as my "strongest argument" in favor of Obama. And I didn't say that he's not going to do what he says he's going to do. It was my way of opining that conservatives may not need to be as worried about his presidency as they are.

I believe Obama is more fiscally liberal than I am. And I'm with erice: a D majority short of 60 would be fine with me. But I want Obama to be president. Why? The first reason is simple: I'm more comfortable with the Democratic Party's core ideology than with the Republican (e.g., the role of government, a progressive income tax structure, etc.). And I am very uncomfortable with the religious conservatism and anti-rationalism that Bush et al. (and others before them) have attached to the Republican Party in order to broaden its base. (I know that's a negative, but it means a great deal to me.)

So why Obama? As Krauthammer writes, he has a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. He has run a strategically and tactically brilliant campaign, which says something about his wisdom, discipline, acceptance of counsel, and hiring acumen. He has the support of some smart, rich capitalists who know a lot more about business and the ecomony than I do. He has leadership qualities; he can inspire people in a positive way. And, yes, oratorical skills are a good thing for a president to have. His demeanor is calm and gives the impression that he will not act impulsively. I believe he will be particularly reluctant to get us into unnecessary military actions. He will immediately improve our international relations. I could write more, but I'm already boring you to tears.

Lest there be any doubt, these are all IMO. Many of you will find fault with my reasons, and my purpose is not to start yet another debate. Some of these points could end up being wrong-headed. My only point here is that you'll have to agree that my reasons do not come down to "he won't do what he says he will do."

I looked up Obama's background and I found a lot of it puzzling. He became a community organizer after getting a Columbia B.A. My opinion is that he could have found something better to do than be a professional complainer. He managed to get on the law review and won the election of the editors to be the head editor. His only real contribution to legal scholarship was a short casenote about abortion that was not published. He got a lectureship at U of Chicago law school based upon just being the first black head editor of the Harvarkd Law Review. They attracted him with the promise he could take time off at first to write his autobiography-which maybe he should have accomplished more before he wrote his autobiography. He did not publish any legal scholarship at all when he taught at Chicago Law School. One strange thing is he did not go for a clerkship with a federal judge as I would expect an editor of the Harvard Law Review would be able to get. He worked for a small Chicage firm that mostly does discrimation work, but I have never heard of much that was important that he did for them. He won an election to the Illinois Senate after doing some trickery to knock out his opponents. I have not heard of anything he really did important in the Illinois Senate. He also has not really done anything important in the US Senate, but he does not have enough seniority yet to be a major player.

I am not impressed by Obama's speeches. I thought Hillary gave a better speech at the Demo convention. If you want to hear good speeches, find something from the early 1960s. You can probably find a link around here somewhere to JFK's we are going to the moon speech at Rice Stadium. Other possiblities are other JFK and LBJ speeches, MLK's I have a Dream, and Goldwater's extemism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

I think of Obama as an empty facade-pretty to look at but nothing behind it.

S.A. Owl Wrote:anti-rationalism

Explain what you mean by this, please. While I consider the conservatives to generally be more rational than the liberals, I find neither side to be against the concept of being rational.

75Owl Wrote:I think of Obama as an empty facade-pretty to look at but nothing behind it.

I have two predictions:
1. Assuming he is elected, we will find out what's behind that empty facade.
2. We won't like what we find.

I know there are many of you who say, "IMO he'll be great." Well, IMO your O is wrong. Obama is a con artist, and you're getting conned. Problem is, you're going to drag the rest of along with you.

IMO he'll replace W (who has managed to replace Carter) as the worst president of my lifetime (which extends back to Truman, so yes it does include Nixon). Actually, I think the worst thing Nixon did was to stir up enough anger to make Carter possible. Along those lines, I think the worst thing Bush has done is to stir up enough anger to make us write the blank check that is Obama.

Although I could never buy into Carter's mantra, I remember being so angry at Nixon that I could find myself thinking, "I don't really buy what he's selling, but he seems a reasonable enough guy and we need change badly enough that maybe we should give him a chance." After four years of things getting steadily worse on virtualy all fronts, he'd had enough of a chance. I'm a whole lot angrier at Bush than I ever was at Nixon (Nixon did have moments of competence), but like the girl at the bar that you just can't drink pretty, I'm not angry enough to make Obama look good.

My liberal friends probably believe that the worst thing Carter did was to make Reagan possible. Perhaps Obama will have a similar effect. Unfortunately, I don't see any Reagan out there and I don't think we can stand four years of things getting worse on all fronts.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:anti-rationalism

Explain what you mean by this, please. While I consider the conservatives to generally be more rational than the liberals, I find neither side to be against the concept of being rational.

I'm not talking about issues in general (e.g., economic). And I'm not talking about conservatives in the sense that most here use the term. (I deliberately referred to the party, not the ideology. I've read enough conservative commentary of late to know that many of them are not happy with what the party has become under Bush that I don't equate the two.)

I'm talking about the anti-science and anti-intellectual persuasion that seems to have blossomed under Bush. I see very little to none of that on this forum.

S.A. Owl Wrote:I'm talking about the anti-science and anti-intellectual persuasion that seems to have blossomed under Bush. I see very little to none of that on this forum.

I agree completely. Seems to me the conservatives on this board are more George Will conservatives than George Bush conservatives. I love reading and listening to George Will (and I'm enjoying reading this board as well). I learn something new almost every time I hear something from Will. His conservatism is grounded on strong principles, and his understanding of history is deep. My basic problem with it, though, is that I don't believe that true equal opportunity is quite pervasive enough in the U.S. to enable those conservative principles of small government and unfettered markets to run free without further separating the haves from the have-nots (sorry for the cheesy phrase). There's nothing that says you can't lay the free market over a few things like progressive taxes and modest regulation and let it go from there. (I know, it's not truly "free" then, but it's about the same idea).

erice Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:I'm talking about the anti-science and anti-intellectual persuasion that seems to have blossomed under Bush. I see very little to none of that on this forum.

I agree completely. Seems to me the conservatives on this board are more George Will conservatives than George Bush conservatives. I love reading and listening to George Will (and I'm enjoying reading this board as well). I learn something new almost every time I hear something from Will. His conservatism is grounded on strong principles, and his understanding of history is deep. My basic problem with it, though, is that I don't believe that true equal opportunity is quite pervasive enough in the U.S. to enable those conservative principles of small government and unfettered markets to run free without further separating the haves from the have-nots (sorry for the cheesy phrase). There's nothing that says you can't lay the free market over a few things like progressive taxes and modest regulation and let it go from there. (I know, it's not truly "free" then, but it's about the same idea).

but it is the regulation of our economy (read: tax policy that takes tens of thousands of pages to attempt to be clear, and still gets challenged every day) that favors the rich over the trying to be rich.... and the poor over all (simply from a how much do you have to give, to get.)

I support things like consumption taxes because just like we tax flowers but not milk... we can give tax breaks to the poor... but it is harder for the wealthy to shelter their purchases. They will make more money, I suppose... but they will also pay higher prices for things they want. Interestingly, the wealthy don't really have a problem paying 120,000 for a S65 when the Audi A8L v12 is 110,000... but if you raise taxes from 36% to 39.6%, they'll spend 100,000 to save 110,000. If the S65 were suddenly 140,000 and the Audi 130,000... they'd still buy the one they wanted.

We talk as if it is tax breaks that make the rich richer... Its loopholes that do that. Look at the truly wealthy... and tell me that they pay 36% in taxes. Heck, they aren't even fully subject to the AMT which was specifically designed to stop them.

C'mon people... we're smarter than this. Some of those on this board have advanced degrees in taking advantage of regulation. Tell me how a family who spends 90% of what they earn... whether that is 25,000 or 250,000 is supposed to do that?

erice Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:I'm talking about the anti-science and anti-intellectual persuasion that seems to have blossomed under Bush. I see very little to none of that on this forum.

I agree completely. Seems to me the conservatives on this board are more George Will conservatives than George Bush conservatives. I love reading and listening to George Will (and I'm enjoying reading this board as well). I learn something new almost every time I hear something from Will. His conservatism is grounded on strong principles, and his understanding of history is deep. My basic problem with it, though, is that I don't believe that true equal opportunity is quite pervasive enough in the U.S. to enable those conservative principles of small government and unfettered markets to run free without further separating the haves from the have-nots (sorry for the cheesy phrase). There's nothing that says you can't lay the free market over a few things like progressive taxes and modest regulation and let it go from there. (I know, it's not truly "free" then, but it's about the same idea).

I think we're all more likely to be "George Will conservatives" than "George Bush conservatives," simply because "George Bush conservative" is an oxymoron. Conservatives are annoyed at Bush because he hasn't been conservative. It is frustrating that he has managed to turn public opinion against conservatives without himself being one. It is particularly frustrating that some of his worst failures have come when he most blatantly abandoned conservative principles.

Micromanaging the affairs of other nations is not conservative.
Running up record budget deficits is not conservative.
Fighting a "preemptive war" is not conservative.
Attacking individual liberties is not conservative.
Unprecedented growth in the size of the federal government is not conservative.
Federal micromanaging of education is not conservative.

As someone whose leanings are fiscal conservative, social liberal, I find myself 180 degrees out from George Bush on almost every issue from Terry Schaivo to the patRIOT act.

I also think you are very unlikely to see the brain-dead anti-science and anti-intellecutual conservatism on here because anyone who posts here presumably has some connection to Rice. Thank goodness for that.

I was happy with Gerald Ford. Nixon made me a Democrat for a short time, but I went to the local senatorial convention in 1974 and gave up on the Democrats. I have been a Republican ever since.

I agree that Obame is a con artist from Chicago politics.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

75Owl Wrote:I think of Obama as an empty facade-pretty to look at but nothing behind it.

I have two predictions:
1. Assuming he is elected, we will find out what's behind that empty facade.
2. We won't like what we find.

I know there are many of you who say, "IMO he'll be great." Well, IMO your O is wrong. Obama is a con artist, and you're getting conned. Problem is, you're going to drag the rest of along with you.

IMO he'll replace W (who has managed to replace Carter) as the worst president of my lifetime (which extends back to Truman, so yes it does include Nixon). Actually, I think the worst thing Nixon did was to stir up enough anger to make Carter possible. Along those lines, I think the worst thing Bush has done is to stir up enough anger to make us write the blank check that is Obama.

Although I could never buy into Carter's mantra, I remember being so angry at Nixon that I could find myself thinking, "I don't really buy what he's selling, but he seems a reasonable enough guy and we need change badly enough that maybe we should give him a chance." After four years of things getting steadily worse on virtualy all fronts, he'd had enough of a chance. I'm a whole lot angrier at Bush than I ever was at Nixon (Nixon did have moments of competence), but like the girl at the bar that you just can't drink pretty, I'm not angry enough to make Obama look good.

My liberal friends probably believe that the worst thing Carter did was to make Reagan possible. Perhaps Obama will have a similar effect. Unfortunately, I don't see any Reagan out there and I don't think we can stand four years of things getting worse on all fronts.