(01-24-2009 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2009 01:41 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I'm going to take this guy's positions with a grain of salt, as he was part of defense representation for a couple of cases, but here is one side of the equation. I don't think this guy is coming at it in a politically correct way; rather, just focused on the constitutional aspects. And the Wall Street Journal did choose to print it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html
Still looking for other viewpoints that are more factual than screed-like (on either side). It's actually somewhat tough to do.

The guy pretty much nails it early in the article. Gitmo was based on the expectation that the constitution did not apply because it was not US soil. Once the Supreme Court held to the contrary, the current mess became inevitable--particularly when coupled with the unilateral decision to extend to these guys the status and rights which the Geneva Conventions provide for uniformed enemy combatants, status and rights to which they were not entitled under the Conventions (on either of two grounds) or international law.

Personally, I'd have seen to it that each of them got precisely what he (or she, if there were any she's) was entitled under several centuries of international common law--a proper burial in the same country where we found him (or her).

I'll have to do a Westlaw check to be sure, but I seem to recall that the reason the Coast Guard took the intercepted Haitians to Gitmo was that for Immigration Law purposes Gitmo was not considered to be the "United States" thus the Asylum procedures did not apply.

I think that held up on appeal as well. So the decision to hold them at Gitmo had some logic behind it.

You can detain an Illegal alien there and he doesn't have US Constitutional Rights, but an Illegal alien Terrorist does?

(01-24-2009 06:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I'll have to do a Westlaw check to be sure, but I seem to recall that the reason the Coast Guard took the intercepted Haitians to Gitmo was that for Immigration Law purposes Gitmo was not considered to be the "United States" thus the Asylum procedures did not apply.
I think that held up on appeal as well. So the decision to hold them at Gitmo had some logic behind it.
You can detain an Illegal alien there and he doesn't have US Constitutional Rights, but an Illegal alien Terrorist does?

I think the SCt's decision regarding the terrorists was more political than precedent-based. Then again, you could say that about most SCt decisions. But bringing them from the eastern hemisphere to Gitmo certainly invited the possibility.

(01-24-2009 06:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I'll have to do a Westlaw check to be sure, but I seem to recall that the reason the Coast Guard took the intercepted Haitians to Gitmo was that for Immigration Law purposes Gitmo was not considered to be the "United States" thus the Asylum procedures did not apply.

I think that held up on appeal as well. So the decision to hold them at Gitmo had some logic behind it.

You can detain an Illegal alien there and he doesn't have US Constitutional Rights, but an Illegal alien Terrorist does?

Just to play devil's advocate here, but the Haitians were civililians voluntarily attempting to immigrate illegally. The Terrorists are ostensibly NOT civilians (although we could have long arguments about that, with me taking the side of whomever waved enough cash at me) and are not "illegal aliens" because they did not try to immigrate illegally but were rather brought to Gitmo legally and with no intention to immigrate. Thus, the illegal immigrant Haitians brought the asylum issues into play while they wouldn't apply to the "enemy combatants" unless they later asked to immigrate and claimed asylum. It seems to me that the US Constitutional Rights are, by S.Ct. precedent, expressly applicable to civilians only once they touch US soil, while it is the code of military justice that applies to enemy combatants until they reach US soil. The bigger problem with the analysis is that, as a US Military installation, Gitmo IS US soil for purposes of the analysis but is NOT for purposes of civilian internment on our buddy's foreign soil.

(01-24-2009 01:41 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I'm going to take this guy's positions with a grain of salt, as he was part of defense representation for a couple of cases, but here is one side of the equation. I don't think this guy is coming at it in a politically correct way; rather, just focused on the constitutional aspects. And the Wall Street Journal did choose to print it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html

Still looking for other viewpoints that are more factual than screed-like (on either side). It's actually somewhat tough to do.

The last sentence is the most telling. We shall see. If it was as easy as the writer says, I think more would have been done already.

I still am not sure of what should be done with captured terrorists, in order to satisfy the dual needs of the Constitution and the safety of America.

(01-23-2009 03:16 PM)texd Wrote:  Since you asked, amendments 5 & 6 give the right to indictment and trial by jury to all persons who stand accused, not merely to citizens. The only exception made is to those persons in service to the United States in time of war or danger (who are then afforded military courts martial.) Don't like it? Amend it. But know that I and millions of other patriotic Americans will fight your effort to do so.

I'm right there with ya tex...

I appreciate that for the most part these political posts are intelligently argued on both sides. I usually abhor political discussions because most arguments (on any side) seem to deteriorate into stereotypes, emotional arguments, ad-hominem attacks, and really bad rhetoric (straw-men abound!). So, thanks.

But I just wanted to point out (from a young, semi-impoverished person) why someone would vote for Obama (there are obviously as many reasons as there are people who did so), since one of the early posts claimed it was because he "out-promised" McCain. I can't speak for everyone, but this simply is not the case for me.

For many of us, the economy actually doesn't matter that much. Yes, I realize it's my civic duty to choose someone to lead the country well whether I have money at stake or not. But the truth is, the fiscal policy side of things simply ranks much lower in priority than social policy and integrity of our actions (i.e., following the constitution, geneva conventions) as a nation. Perhaps it's simply a case of having very little to lose, and therefore not being too worried about losing it. But there are far worse things than making a little (or even a lot) less money next year. Like being thrown in jail on false evidence and being denied due process. Or living in a small town where the only pharmacist takes exception to your need for birth control. Or finding out that the manufacturing plant you worked for for 20 years has paid you 2/3 of your male counterparts and being unable to do anything about it because of a limit on when you can file suit. These things, I would argue, attack more than your level of comfort and lifestyle, they attack your "human-ness" for lack of a better description.

For a while in grad school I had neither a car nor a bike. I simply walked about 2.5 miles to get to school every day. It wasn't a big deal to me; it actually proved to be a great way to think through my problems of the day and enjoy some peace and quiet. When I told other people, they thought it absolutely insane that I would do this, as if humans had not been walking many more miles a day for thousands of years without harm. I think people would be surprised to find that much of what they "need" is not actually essential.

Everyone knows the quote about not giving up essentially liberty for temporary safety. I would argue that Ben meant more than safety from foreign enemies. I would add fear of losing money to that list of bogeymen as well.

While I dislike politics, it is a necessary evil and it is unfortunate that the only thing a man or woman proves by being elected is that they can get elected. I would say this leads to the wrong people in office about 99% of the time, and it's more than possible that Obama is more of the same. But being a rational person, I was offered a choice of 2 persons, and the democratic party is simply more likely to stop the civil rights offenses and stop attacking those of us who want to marry our life partners, or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not). You can claim these are promises that Obama might not fulfill, but about the only thing a party affiliation offers is some consistancy of action and thus expectation.

Having a little less money doesn't stop me from running, or painting, or playing the piano, or really anything that constitutes a good life. I try to take the long view on anything I can. If the economy tanks, then it's because too many people were doing things not beneficial to others, and the downturn is the natural way of shaking off that dead weight or inefficiency. Maybe the econ people here will disagree with that, but the market will turn around, it always does. But giving up the right to protest, or to warrants before searches, is NOT worth whatever McCain might have offered economically.

(01-31-2009 11:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not).

I am curious about the extent to which this should be carried. Obama swore his oath of office on a Bible - should this be eliminated to avoid offending all the American who do not believe in the Bible or who believe their fellowcitizens shouldn't be forced to see that? How about oaths in trials. Iknow the witness doesn't have to use the Bible, but if he so chooses, should the judge and jury be forced to watch? How about Federal holdays for Christmas and Easter? Should we get mail on those days, and should banks and government offices stay open? Should we take In God We Trust off our coinage?

State-endorsed religious displays are just the tip of the iceberg. I am not neccesarily opposed to your viewpoint or advocating another, I just want a broader view that is cohesive. An atheist might be offended by a Christmas display, but they will nearly always take the day off when offered and take the $$$ to build the set.

(01-31-2009 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-31-2009 11:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not).

I am curious about the extent to which this should be carried. Obama swore his oath of office on a Bible - should this be eliminated to avoid offending all the American who do not believe in the Bible or who believe their fellowcitizens shouldn't be forced to see that? How about oaths in trials. Iknow the witness doesn't have to use the Bible, but if he so chooses, should the judge and jury be forced to watch? How about Federal holdays for Christmas and Easter? Should we get mail on those days, and should banks and government offices stay open? Should we take In God We Trust off our coinage?

State-endorsed religious displays are just the tip of the iceberg. I am not neccesarily opposed to your viewpoint or advocating another, I just want a broader view that is cohesive. An atheist might be offended by a Christmas display, but they will nearly always take the day off when offered and take the $$$ to build the set.

It's not so much about giving offense (people can deal with SEEING religious things, i.e., churches, or prayer group announcements just fine). It's things like having the 10 commandments up for display in a government-owned building. Is it going to cause society to crumble? Of course not. But are we making a statement? Is that statement true to the tolerance of religious choice we are supposed to uphold? I would argue it is not. It is simply not necessary to have those kind of items (religious statues also, for example) on "public" property. Public property is supposed to be for everyone.

As to the other things... yes we should take "in god we trust" off the coinage. I don't remember the exact history but I believe it was added as a sort of divisive move anyway. The oath-swearing is interesting, but not really a problem as a) it simply means that Obama himself is identifying as a christian, which is perfectly fine so long as it's just a personal fact. Professing a religion is a protected right, after all! and b) you're allowed to sign in on anything you want as I recall (Koran ala Keith Ellison).

Vacations, I think, are a tough one because the time needs to be allocated, and if 90% of the people are one religion than it seems reasonable to center those vacations around those times. But I don't really feel like "getting off from work" is one of those things that most religions require for observing a holy day, so really it's not like others are being prevented from worship. Athiests can think a religiously-based holiday schedule is silly, but it's not really something I can see anyone going to court over.

I don't care as strongly about things that are historical in nature, so much as new things that people try to do which are potentially alienating and frequently just pointless. For instance, they're trying again in Oklahoma to put up a commandments monument:
http://www.edmondsun.com/statenews/local...32030.html

as the democratic senator says, how does a monument help oklahoma move forward economically? It just has so little to do with governance that it really shouldn't even come up, and his bit about "reminding us of the founding fathers" is just silly. Why not have statues of the founding fathers then?? I try to take people at their word, but it just seems to me that these things are more to try to tell other people they don't belong than to serve any purpose that you could come up with.

(01-31-2009 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How about Federal holdays for Christmas and Easter?

FTR, Christmas is the only religious federal holiday... unless you count Thanksgiving.

http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Sche...l/2009.asp

I know there's some additional latitude given at various levels of federal government, but I'm not aware of how much or to whom the latitude is given.

http://www.edmondsun.com/statenews/local...32030.html

as the democratic senator says, how does a monument help oklahoma move forward economically? [/quote]

I would assume it helps the Oklahoma economy in much the same way as much of the Obama stimulus package - someone has to be paid to do the work. I didn't see it as being put forth as an economic stimulus. I think that was in the response.

edit: From Barney Frank, this morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, defending the alleged pork barrel provisions of the Democratic Stimulus package: "...money to fight STD's - those are jobs. By the way, very few people volunteer to fight STDs. They get paid to do it." So, IMO, money to pass out STD literature or money to create plaques, same thing. WWW://ABC.com

In any case, I have no interest in seeing the 10 C's in any building, public or private. I don't really care if a nativity scene is put up, i can do without it but it doesn't bug me. Money spends regardless of the slogans printed thereupon. A godless, religionless government is fine by me.

Thanks for your well-considered responses. i apppreciate them.

(01-31-2009 03:58 PM)texd Wrote:  

(01-31-2009 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How about Federal holdays for Christmas and Easter?

FTR, Christmas is the only religious federal holiday... unless you count Thanksgiving.

http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Sche...l/2009.asp

I know there's some additional latitude given at various levels of federal government, but I'm not aware of how much or to whom the latitude is given.

I stand corrected. I amend my question to read:

"How about a Federal holiday for Christmas?"

Much better.

(01-22-2009 09:11 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Hambone -- Wait, now you say Obama promised to be a bigger tax cutter than McCain? What? Rs now think that is bad?

(01-22-2009 09:26 PM)ausowl Wrote:  I'd need to see a survey or some sort of metric that the difference in the election turned on the O-Man out dueling McCain on a field of broken promises as opposed to the weariness of Bush, generational change, the economy tanking, disciplined campaign, etc . . . before I buy that the election turned on "out promising."

One thing that strikes me about your post is that it seems to imply that folks voted for Obama out of a delusion or ignorance or falling for a film flam man.

I'm sorry you read that into my comments. If I ever said it was the ONLY reason, I was mistaken. Nothing could be further from the truth. FTR, and intended to be slightly funny... Deluded people voted for both candidates, and they are ALL flim/flam men. Plenty of people can make the right decision for the wrong reasons. That doesn't in any way diminish those who made the right decision for the right reasons... I simply can't believe that anyone would argue that while McCain promised to do an awful lot for an awful lot of voters... that Obama promised to do more for more... I'm pretty sure that was a campaign poster... 98% of Americans will pay less under my plan... and that EITHER of them did so without seeking votes. Bush fatigue isn't a reason people voted for Obama over Hillary... and it existed LONG before Obama made his first speech.

I'm not disagreeing with your reasons for picking Obama... There are PLNTY of reasons to like him... I am simply saying that Obama chastised McCain for supporting Bush's "tax cuts for the rich"... Obama campaigned on giving bigger tax breaks than McCain for more Americans... Obama campaigned on increasing funding for MANY MANY things... more than McCain... so to argue that people didn't vote for him for this reason, just because YOU and millions of other thinkers may not have really doesn't make any sense.

As I said... It's not about Obama... It's about ANY politician who promises anything other than more for less?? They do it to get votes, and it works. Rarely in our history have politicians ever campaigned on "I'm going to tax you more and give you less" and won... though there have been times when that was the right strategy to employ, and many politicians have done that. Obama himself campaigned on doing more than he ow thinks he can. Certainly understandable... but would the margin of victory have been less if he'd campaigned on what he now thinks is do-able just 3 months later?? I don't think he would have GAINED any votes.

(01-23-2009 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The establishment of Gitmo made it inevitable that we would have a situation like this some day. The Bushies either (a) didn't foresee it, in which case you question their judgement, or (b) did foresee it and decided to do it anyway, in which case you question their judgement.

The Bushies also made the decision to extend unilaterally to captured terrorists the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions to uniformed enemy combatants. Otherwise they would arguably have been entitled to no protections under the Geneva Conventions, on at least two grounds:
1. The Geneva Conventions recognize two classes, uniformed enemy combatants and non-uniformed (presumably innocent) civilians. Under international common law, non-uniformed combatants were spies, and could be killed at any time.
2. Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions provides that in a conflict between a signatory (the US) and a non-singnatory (terrorist organizations), the signatory is bound up until such time as the non-signatory acts not in accordance with the Convnetions. That the terrorists were acting in violation of the Conventions was apparent early on.

THIS is what i mean by Bush saying one thing and doing another in another thread... he said he was going to be bound by the Geneva Convention to pacify a group, and then tried to stand behind it when the realities set in. The accord was written as it was (article 2) because it was quite clear it is unreasonable to expect one side to obey a treaty that the other side will not... We will be reasonable, but they are not entitled to the protection... so WHY didn't he just say that??

(01-31-2009 11:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(01-23-2009 03:16 PM)texd Wrote:  Since you asked, amendments 5 & 6 give the right to indictment and trial by jury to all persons who stand accused, not merely to citizens. The only exception made is to those persons in service to the United States in time of war or danger (who are then afforded military courts martial.) Don't like it? Amend it. But know that I and millions of other patriotic Americans will fight your effort to do so.

I'm right there with ya tex...

I appreciate that for the most part these political posts are intelligently argued on both sides. I usually abhor political discussions because most arguments (on any side) seem to deteriorate into stereotypes, emotional arguments, ad-hominem attacks, and really bad rhetoric (straw-men abound!). So, thanks.

But I just wanted to point out (from a young, semi-impoverished person) why someone would vote for Obama (there are obviously as many reasons as there are people who did so), since one of the early posts claimed it was because he "out-promised" McCain. I can't speak for everyone, but this simply is not the case for me.

For many of us, the economy actually doesn't matter that much. Yes, I realize it's my civic duty to choose someone to lead the country well whether I have money at stake or not. But the truth is, the fiscal policy side of things simply ranks much lower in priority than social policy and integrity of our actions (i.e., following the constitution, geneva conventions) as a nation. Perhaps it's simply a case of having very little to lose, and therefore not being too worried about losing it. But there are far worse things than making a little (or even a lot) less money next year. Like being thrown in jail on false evidence and being denied due process. Or living in a small town where the only pharmacist takes exception to your need for birth control. Or finding out that the manufacturing plant you worked for for 20 years has paid you 2/3 of your male counterparts and being unable to do anything about it because of a limit on when you can file suit. These things, I would argue, attack more than your level of comfort and lifestyle, they attack your "human-ness" for lack of a better description.

For a while in grad school I had neither a car nor a bike. I simply walked about 2.5 miles to get to school every day. It wasn't a big deal to me; it actually proved to be a great way to think through my problems of the day and enjoy some peace and quiet. When I told other people, they thought it absolutely insane that I would do this, as if humans had not been walking many more miles a day for thousands of years without harm. I think people would be surprised to find that much of what they "need" is not actually essential.

Everyone knows the quote about not giving up essentially liberty for temporary safety. I would argue that Ben meant more than safety from foreign enemies. I would add fear of losing money to that list of bogeymen as well.

While I dislike politics, it is a necessary evil and it is unfortunate that the only thing a man or woman proves by being elected is that they can get elected. I would say this leads to the wrong people in office about 99% of the time, and it's more than possible that Obama is more of the same. But being a rational person, I was offered a choice of 2 persons, and the democratic party is simply more likely to stop the civil rights offenses and stop attacking those of us who want to marry our life partners, or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not). You can claim these are promises that Obama might not fulfill, but about the only thing a party affiliation offers is some consistancy of action and thus expectation.

Having a little less money doesn't stop me from running, or painting, or playing the piano, or really anything that constitutes a good life. I try to take the long view on anything I can. If the economy tanks, then it's because too many people were doing things not beneficial to others, and the downturn is the natural way of shaking off that dead weight or inefficiency. Maybe the econ people here will disagree with that, but the market will turn around, it always does. But giving up the right to protest, or to warrants before searches, is NOT worth whatever McCain might have offered economically.

Once again, I apologize if you mis-read or I mis-wrote. By the same token, I believe that saying that McCain, who hurts to this day defending our rights, would have taken away our right to protest or warrants before searches is FAR more damning and unsupported by the facts than whatever I am believed to have said. McCain certainly didn't campaign on those items.

You are completely misunderstanding my complaint by ignoring my first comment... This isn't about whether Obama is a good guy or will be an effective President. I guess I should have added... or that there are plenty of good Democrats, or plenty of good people who don't like Bush etc. etc. etc. This is about whether over-promising is harmful to your election prospects... and I believe the answer is no... It MAY hurt your re-election prospects - a-la 41, "no new taxes" - but plenty of politicians, including 43 have been re-elected despite breaking promises. Had the economy been better, people might have forgiven 41... but it sure didn't hurt him the first time around.

I only point it out now because I can't recall a more obvious example than Obama's chastising of McCain's taxcuts for the rich, that are so soon after the election reversed. This isn't about whether or not it is the right thing to do now... it is simply about whether or not ANYONE voted for him or against McCain because of a position they now obviously agree on... and had he agreed with McCain at the time, if it would have mattered. Obviously not to you... but I'm betting it would have mattered. Too much air-time was devoted to associating McCain to the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, and Obama's giving tax cuts to the bottom 98% for it to have been meaningless.

(02-02-2009 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I only point it out now because I can't recall a more obvious example than Obama's chastising of McCain's taxcuts for the rich, that are so soon after the election reversed. This isn't about whether or not it is the right thing to do now... it is simply about whether or not ANYONE voted for him or against McCain because of a position they now obviously agree on... and had he agreed with McCain at the time, if it would have mattered. Obviously not to you... but I'm betting it would have mattered. Too much air-time was devoted to associating McCain to the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, and Obama's giving tax cuts to the bottom 98% for it to have been meaningless.

I'd be really surprised if the election would have turned based on the 2% tax cuts thing. I feel like intelligent (or perhaps I should say thoughtful) people don't vote based on one issue, but on how their whole matrix of for/against on issues lines up with a candidate - with perhaps a fudge factor for how honest we think that politician is being about their position. I don't expect 100% agreement before-and-after election, I don't think that's ever happened. The real metric is how often I am completely disgusted by a position that my president takes on an issue (under Bush: frequently, under McCain I expected similar if not exactly the same case).

For me, someone who REALLY liked McCain in 2000, the biggest problem was the real departure into right-field that he took, coupled with the swinging of the rep party to the 'religious right', both of which skewed that matrix for me as I not only felt McCain was taking positions he did not necessarily really support (or certainly hadn't so strongly in the past - immigration being one) but that he was going to do nothing but cater to the very side of the republicans I so despise (the nanny-state, "let's protect the children", push our "christian" values on others, you-have-nothing-to-hide-if-you've-done-nothing-wrong side, in case that wasn't clear).

I wasn't necessarily responding to you in particular, mine was more of a general response to what I felt was a largely conservative-sided fiscally-oriented discussion. :) But I appreciate your reading and responding to it. My question to you: Why are you so particularly upset about this one "reversal" by Obama? Is it because you (unlike me, as I said) expect all presidents to hold to their exact promises regardless of situation (I ask this seriously)? Or just the timing? Do you think McCain would not have had similar promises he did not exactly fulfill?

(02-02-2009 04:41 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  I'd be really surprised if the election would have turned based on the 2% tax cuts thing. I feel like intelligent (or perhaps I should say thoughtful) people don't vote based on one issue, but on how their whole matrix of for/against on issues lines up with a candidate - with perhaps a fudge factor for how honest we think that politician is being about their position.

Emmie, I'm afraid you are way way overestimating the intelligence of the average american voter.

(02-02-2009 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2009 04:41 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  I'd be really surprised if the election would have turned based on the 2% tax cuts thing. I feel like intelligent (or perhaps I should say thoughtful) people don't vote based on one issue, but on how their whole matrix of for/against on issues lines up with a candidate - with perhaps a fudge factor for how honest we think that politician is being about their position.

Emmie, I'm afraid you are way way overestimating the intelligence of the average american voter.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with 69/70/75. I am one of the few I know who looked at the positions and then determined that one of the candidates was less in line with my overall views than the other and then cast my vote against that candidate. In this case, both were substantially to the left of where I would be!

Having said that, I think that more people that we care to admit really do go through this process, but that many voters may give certain topics far more weight than others so that they effectively become one or two issue voters. I certainly can understand and respect those who make an affirmative choice to be a one or two issue voter, but I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy.

(02-02-2009 04:41 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(02-02-2009 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I only point it out now because I can't recall a more obvious example than Obama's chastising of McCain's taxcuts for the rich, that are so soon after the election reversed. This isn't about whether or not it is the right thing to do now... it is simply about whether or not ANYONE voted for him or against McCain because of a position they now obviously agree on... and had he agreed with McCain at the time, if it would have mattered. Obviously not to you... but I'm betting it would have mattered. Too much air-time was devoted to associating McCain to the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, and Obama's giving tax cuts to the bottom 98% for it to have been meaningless.

I'd be really surprised if the election would have turned based on the 2% tax cuts thing. I feel like intelligent (or perhaps I should say thoughtful) people don't vote based on one issue, but on how their whole matrix of for/against on issues lines up with a candidate - with perhaps a fudge factor for how honest we think that politician is being about their position. I don't expect 100% agreement before-and-after election, I don't think that's ever happened. The real metric is how often I am completely disgusted by a position that my president takes on an issue (under Bush: frequently, under McCain I expected similar if not exactly the same case).

For me, someone who REALLY liked McCain in 2000, the biggest problem was the real departure into right-field that he took, coupled with the swinging of the rep party to the 'religious right', both of which skewed that matrix for me as I not only felt McCain was taking positions he did not necessarily really support (or certainly hadn't so strongly in the past - immigration being one) but that he was going to do nothing but cater to the very side of the republicans I so despise (the nanny-state, "let's protect the children", push our "christian" values on others, you-have-nothing-to-hide-if-you've-done-nothing-wrong side, in case that wasn't clear).

I wasn't necessarily responding to you in particular, mine was more of a general response to what I felt was a largely conservative-sided fiscally-oriented discussion. :) But I appreciate your reading and responding to it. My question to you: Why are you so particularly upset about this one "reversal" by Obama? Is it because you (unlike me, as I said) expect all presidents to hold to their exact promises regardless of situation (I ask this seriously)? Or just the timing? Do you think McCain would not have had similar promises he did not exactly fulfill?

(02-02-2009 05:51 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(02-02-2009 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2009 04:41 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  I'd be really surprised if the election would have turned based on the 2% tax cuts thing. I feel like intelligent (or perhaps I should say thoughtful) people don't vote based on one issue, but on how their whole matrix of for/against on issues lines up with a candidate - with perhaps a fudge factor for how honest we think that politician is being about their position.

Emmie, I'm afraid you are way way overestimating the intelligence of the average american voter.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with 69/70/75. I am one of the few I know who looked at the positions and then determined that one of the candidates was less in line with my overall views than the other and then cast my vote against that candidate. In this case, both were substantially to the left of where I would be!

Having said that, I think that more people that we care to admit really do go through this process, but that many voters may give certain topics far more weight than others so that they effectively become one or two issue voters. I certainly can understand and respect those who make an affirmative choice to be a one or two issue voter, but I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy.

My point exactly. I believe that many voters... at least when it comes to being educated on the issues, or being able to see how step one begets step two etc... aren't very smart.... but I don't think I ever said the election "turned" on this stance. It's one of 500 promises being tracked by a group... in my opinion... its one that he pretty obviously differentiated himself from McCain's position... and has now joined it. It's obvious... I never said it was a turning point by itself.

As to why I am so upset... again,. you still seem to think it is about Obama... What can I say to convince you its not, when you prove my point in your reference to McCain. McCain in 2000 had no chance of getting the Republican Nomination... McCain in 2008 turned away from his core values... made more promises to everyone and got the nomination. You (and I) may have liked him more, but so what?? He wasn't on the final ballot. If he HAD been elected in 2008, I suspect he would have turned from some of his promises just as Obama has... and used the economy as an excuse... but he didn't win.

I'm complaining about the process because I believe Obama got elected by promising more than his opponent. No, that is not the only reason... and perhaps not even the biggest.... but it is one of a few a politician can really control. He can't control the economy, or the popularity of his predecessor... He DID have a fine organization, but given that he spent twice anyone else... that really shouldn't be surprising, should it?? If it makes you feel better for me to say that McCain got the nomination in 2008 by promising more than he did in 2000, then you only prove my point.

As to your last question... I think it just kicks open a door that other politicians have leaned on for decades. No, I expect Obama to react to the situation on the ground... just like anyone else... I just find it interesting that some of the broadest statements he made to differentiate himself from the McCain camp... including the timing of the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the Bush spending cuts... he's already changed to be much more like the McCain position he attacked. If the public doesn't at least hold him responsible for campaigning on platitudes while chastising his opponent as "old school", only to find himself being "old school" when faced with the realities on the ground, then we will only get more of it. I'm not throwing him out, or questioning his integrity or lofty goals... I'm questioning a portion of his campaign style that particularly appeals to the less educated. Whether he intended it or not doesn't matter, it is a lesson some will learn from this election.

(01-31-2009 11:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  ...But I just wanted to point out (from a young, semi-impoverished person) why someone would vote for Obama (there are obviously as many reasons as there are people who did so), since one of the early posts claimed it was because he "out-promised" McCain. I can't speak for everyone, but this simply is not the case for me.

For many of us, the economy actually doesn't matter that much. Yes, I realize it's my civic duty to choose someone to lead the country well whether I have money at stake or not. But the truth is, the fiscal policy side of things simply ranks much lower in priority than social policy and integrity of our actions (i.e., following the constitution, geneva conventions) as a nation. Perhaps it's simply a case of having very little to lose, and therefore not being too worried about losing it. But there are far worse things than making a little (or even a lot) less money next year. Like being thrown in jail on false evidence and being denied due process. Or living in a small town where the only pharmacist takes exception to your need for birth control. Or finding out that the manufacturing plant you worked for for 20 years has paid you 2/3 of your male counterparts and being unable to do anything about it because of a limit on when you can file suit. These things, I would argue, attack more than your level of comfort and lifestyle, they attack your "human-ness" for lack of a better description.

For a while in grad school I had neither a car nor a bike. I simply walked about 2.5 miles to get to school every day. It wasn't a big deal to me; it actually proved to be a great way to think through my problems of the day and enjoy some peace and quiet. When I told other people, they thought it absolutely insane that I would do this, as if humans had not been walking many more miles a day for thousands of years without harm. I think people would be surprised to find that much of what they "need" is not actually essential.

Everyone knows the quote about not giving up essentially liberty for temporary safety. I would argue that Ben meant more than safety from foreign enemies. I would add fear of losing money to that list of bogeymen as well.

While I dislike politics, it is a necessary evil and it is unfortunate that the only thing a man or woman proves by being elected is that they can get elected. I would say this leads to the wrong people in office about 99% of the time, and it's more than possible that Obama is more of the same. But being a rational person, I was offered a choice of 2 persons, and the democratic party is simply more likely to stop the civil rights offenses and stop attacking those of us who want to marry our life partners, or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not). You can claim these are promises that Obama might not fulfill, but about the only thing a party affiliation offers is some consistancy of action and thus expectation.

Having a little less money doesn't stop me from running, or painting, or playing the piano, or really anything that constitutes a good life. I try to take the long view on anything I can. If the economy tanks, then it's because too many people were doing things not beneficial to others, and the downturn is the natural way of shaking off that dead weight or inefficiency. Maybe the econ people here will disagree with that, but the market will turn around, it always does. But giving up the right to protest, or to warrants before searches, is NOT worth whatever McCain might have offered economically.

Very nice post!

(01-31-2009 11:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  ...But I just wanted to point out (from a young, semi-impoverished person) why someone would vote for Obama (there are obviously as many reasons as there are people who did so), since one of the early posts claimed it was because he "out-promised" McCain. I can't speak for everyone, but this simply is not the case for me.
For many of us, the economy actually doesn't matter that much. Yes, I realize it's my civic duty to choose someone to lead the country well whether I have money at stake or not. But the truth is, the fiscal policy side of things simply ranks much lower in priority than social policy and integrity of our actions (i.e., following the constitution, geneva conventions) as a nation. Perhaps it's simply a case of having very little to lose, and therefore not being too worried about losing it. But there are far worse things than making a little (or even a lot) less money next year. Like being thrown in jail on false evidence and being denied due process. Or living in a small town where the only pharmacist takes exception to your need for birth control. Or finding out that the manufacturing plant you worked for for 20 years has paid you 2/3 of your male counterparts and being unable to do anything about it because of a limit on when you can file suit. These things, I would argue, attack more than your level of comfort and lifestyle, they attack your "human-ness" for lack of a better description.
For a while in grad school I had neither a car nor a bike. I simply walked about 2.5 miles to get to school every day. It wasn't a big deal to me; it actually proved to be a great way to think through my problems of the day and enjoy some peace and quiet. When I told other people, they thought it absolutely insane that I would do this, as if humans had not been walking many more miles a day for thousands of years without harm. I think people would be surprised to find that much of what they "need" is not actually essential.
Everyone knows the quote about not giving up essentially liberty for temporary safety. I would argue that Ben meant more than safety from foreign enemies. I would add fear of losing money to that list of bogeymen as well.
While I dislike politics, it is a necessary evil and it is unfortunate that the only thing a man or woman proves by being elected is that they can get elected. I would say this leads to the wrong people in office about 99% of the time, and it's more than possible that Obama is more of the same. But being a rational person, I was offered a choice of 2 persons, and the democratic party is simply more likely to stop the civil rights offenses and stop attacking those of us who want to marry our life partners, or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not). You can claim these are promises that Obama might not fulfill, but about the only thing a party affiliation offers is some consistancy of action and thus expectation.
Having a little less money doesn't stop me from running, or painting, or playing the piano, or really anything that constitutes a good life. I try to take the long view on anything I can. If the economy tanks, then it's because too many people were doing things not beneficial to others, and the downturn is the natural way of shaking off that dead weight or inefficiency. Maybe the econ people here will disagree with that, but the market will turn around, it always does. But giving up the right to protest, or to warrants before searches, is NOT worth whatever McCain might have offered economically.

Thank you for sharing your thought process. I can understand how you reached your decision, although I would not have reached the same decision. Perhaps it's because I'm at a point in life where the economy does have more effect on me than the other factors you mention. Perhaps it is because I do not share your belief that the democrats are less likely to trample on individual rights than the republicans. Different rights, to be sure, but trampling is still trampling, and I expect plenty of it from the Obamacrats.

If my count is correct, I've now voted in 11 presidential elections. I've voted for 1 republican and 0 democrats in that time frame. I certainly saw very little attractive about either candidate in this last election. I would have voted for the John McCain of 2000 and wish mightily that he had prevailed over Shrub and then Gore, but that's not the John McCain who was running this time. I think Obama got himself elected by promising things that he knew were undeliverable; in plain talk, he lied knowingly and intentionally and repeatedly to win the election.

I hope that the voters hold him to account, and if he doesn't deliver what he promised they turn him out in 2012. As an economist, my expectation is that the economic "stimulus" plan will be a giant dud, ultimately doing far more harm than good; that the economy will get steadily worse during his term; and that he will be a one-term president. My most optimistic hope that he doesn't do irreparable damage between now and then.

I find it interesting that you believe it is the democrats who are "simply more likely to stop the civil rights offenses and stop attacking those of us who want to marry our life partners, or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not)," and the republicans who are more likely to require "giving up the right to protest, or to warrants before searches." I think that speaks to how far Shrub has wandered from traditional republican values. I still think Bill Clinton was not just a better president than Shrub; in terms of traditional republican values, he was a better republican. As a libertarian, I don't see either party as having much to offer in any of those areas.

(02-03-2009 12:50 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(01-31-2009 11:33 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  ...But I just wanted to point out (from a young, semi-impoverished person) why someone would vote for Obama (there are obviously as many reasons as there are people who did so), since one of the early posts claimed it was because he "out-promised" McCain. I can't speak for everyone, but this simply is not the case for me.

For many of us, the economy actually doesn't matter that much. Yes, I realize it's my civic duty to choose someone to lead the country well whether I have money at stake or not. But the truth is, the fiscal policy side of things simply ranks much lower in priority than social policy and integrity of our actions (i.e., following the constitution, geneva conventions) as a nation. Perhaps it's simply a case of having very little to lose, and therefore not being too worried about losing it. But there are far worse things than making a little (or even a lot) less money next year. Like being thrown in jail on false evidence and being denied due process. Or living in a small town where the only pharmacist takes exception to your need for birth control. Or finding out that the manufacturing plant you worked for for 20 years has paid you 2/3 of your male counterparts and being unable to do anything about it because of a limit on when you can file suit. These things, I would argue, attack more than your level of comfort and lifestyle, they attack your "human-ness" for lack of a better description.

For a while in grad school I had neither a car nor a bike. I simply walked about 2.5 miles to get to school every day. It wasn't a big deal to me; it actually proved to be a great way to think through my problems of the day and enjoy some peace and quiet. When I told other people, they thought it absolutely insane that I would do this, as if humans had not been walking many more miles a day for thousands of years without harm. I think people would be surprised to find that much of what they "need" is not actually essential.

Everyone knows the quote about not giving up essentially liberty for temporary safety. I would argue that Ben meant more than safety from foreign enemies. I would add fear of losing money to that list of bogeymen as well.

While I dislike politics, it is a necessary evil and it is unfortunate that the only thing a man or woman proves by being elected is that they can get elected. I would say this leads to the wrong people in office about 99% of the time, and it's more than possible that Obama is more of the same. But being a rational person, I was offered a choice of 2 persons, and the democratic party is simply more likely to stop the civil rights offenses and stop attacking those of us who want to marry our life partners, or not see state-endorsed religious displays (whether it be our religion or not). You can claim these are promises that Obama might not fulfill, but about the only thing a party affiliation offers is some consistancy of action and thus expectation.

Having a little less money doesn't stop me from running, or painting, or playing the piano, or really anything that constitutes a good life. I try to take the long view on anything I can. If the economy tanks, then it's because too many people were doing things not beneficial to others, and the downturn is the natural way of shaking off that dead weight or inefficiency. Maybe the econ people here will disagree with that, but the market will turn around, it always does. But giving up the right to protest, or to warrants before searches, is NOT worth whatever McCain might have offered economically.

Very nice post!

I should have responded in kind as well. I greatly appreciate your post and perspective.

Perhaps I should be clear of my personal positions as well. Your opinion of the Republican party and some of those who support it is valid, but it doesn't represent me in any way.

I do not/did not/will not support McCain because of his economic policies... and CERTAINLY not because he is a Republican. I did not vote against Obama because he is a Democrat. I held it against Obama that he (in my mind) literally promised everything to everyone... without a shred of record to support him, nor a concrete plan as to how to accomplish those goals. While I was equally disappointed at McCain's job of selling out to try and get elected, I supported McCain because he had a well documented history of putting the needs of the country first... of charity... and of personal sacrifice. I believed that once elected, he would return to his roots. Not the perfect candidate, but more aligned with my views on things.

McCain was my father's suite-mate at Annapolis. I know him fairly well. It is easy to fault or second-guess his personal life choices, but it is hard to argue with many of them. People will put different spins on things, but I've done my homework to my satisfaction, and people can make their own decisions... but In MY mind, McCain put his fellow prisoners before himself when he didn't have to. He voted against, and then donated to charity every Congressional Pay raise for 20+ years... he wrote 2 books and donated the proceeds to charity... he adopted a disadvantaged child (more if you include adopting his first wife's children)... and has been a supporter of eliminating land mines and other atrocities of war from the planet. One can argue that he's rich, he can afford to do these things... but there are PLENTY of rich Senators like Kerry and Kennedy who didn't do anything remotely resembling this. Talk is cheap... he actually did it.

That REALLY doesn't have much to do with my post... though it gives you perspective on me....

This is important... I am a true Republican, meaning that I don't want the government as involved as they are... Issues like gay-marriage and abortion and in fact MANY of the civil liberties you allude to aren't political issues to me. While I know that there are things that ONLY the government can do... the idea of "supporting the general welfare" has gone way too far... and has the far right AND the far left trying to legislate their moralities upon the masses. I'm not saying YOU are doing this... but i am just as offended by the people who say I CAN'T talk about God in public schools as I am at those who try and INSIST that I do so. My personal choices may align me more or less with one side... but it is STILL, and most importantly... MY CHOICE. Others are free to make different choices, and until those choices impact me, I shouldn't have a say in them. I believe that if we ALL adopted this sort of an attitude, then many of the things we ask the government to do, like hand out condoms or "encourage" families to stay together would be unnecessary. Support groups that more closely resemble those people would have the money required to help them.

Of course, correcting the problem would require the government to give up power... and thus give up money... and thus politicians would have to make fewer promises...

hence I've come full circle.

(02-03-2009 04:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  hence I've come full circle.

Awesome post Hambone, thanks for sharing your insight and perspective. Really makes this site worth while.

Interesting how many posters have mentioned they wished they could have voted for the McCain of 2000.

I remember reading Faith of My Fathers in '98 or '99 and thinking (esp. after the Clinton escapades) that McCain would be a sure thing.

I wonder how the world would be different if McCain had been President on 9-11-01.