Why should I vote for McCain? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

remy1492 · 10-26-2008, 12:25 PM

For me its one subject. Gun Control. The democrat platform is basically to ban ALL guns eventually. Obama has made it clear that is his wish. ALL guns. While he will let us have single shot guns for a while. The democrat utopia is a gun free country like the UK. So my vote is ALWAYS republican.

Yet I am not ultra conservative and am liberal in many ways. Its the 2nd amendment that prevails in my decisions.

And Obama now wants my 401K and to tax the hell out of me. In my tax bracket if I work more (get promoted) I actually LOSE money at the end of the year. I must be promoted in the military so I don't have a choice but to be pushed into a higher bracket. This sucks telling my European liberal wife, that we will actually make LESS money next year with Obama's plan eventhough I am being promoted.

I realize its to help out the "poor" and those who don't want to work. But let the millionare liberals donate to them out of their own pockets, the Kerry, Clinton and Soros families can take care of that on their snack budget.

So thats MY reason. I am dismayed at ALL politicians and am not a die hard supporter, but its the lesser of two evils, by a LONG SHOT!

aceventura3 · 10-26-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intecel

All I hear is that I should vote for McCain because Obama is Muslim, because Obama is tied to terrorist groups, because Obama will tax the rich more.

I have seen Obama's plan. It seems like there is more help in his plan that what i have (not) heard from McCain's plan.

So, what will McCain do for me? I haven't heard a single thing.

I am a 28 year old male, make $60k a year, homeowner.

Any thoughts?

The differences between Republicans and Democrats has been getting smaller over the years. I am 48. I was raised in a Democratic party (my dad was a Union man) household and primarily believed that the Democratic Party was the party that cared about the "little guy". I generally voted Democratic through my 20's. In my 30's has I started saving, investing, raising a family, planning for my future - I became Republican, primarily because I believed Republicans would do things to allow me to succeed on my own merits. When I started my own business I went to the Libetarian Party, I concluded Republicans supported big business or corporate welfare and Democrats supported welfare for everyone else - all to be paid for by small/medium size business. I also became disappointed with the political games being played in Washington. After spending time with Libertarians, I realized it was a waste of time and I did not support their view of the Iraq war - I am now a Republican, primarily for national defense and my desire to have our tax code changed (I think the best way to get it done is with Republicans). I think many of the Democratic Party platform issues intended to help people actually hurt them. I support McCain.

I think your choice will depend on where you want to go in life. If you are satisfied with an average job, average salary, live in an average home, drive average cars (no horse power to meet EPA standards, and gov. help to keep GM alive and producing average cars), etc, then you will be very comfortable being a Democrat and voting for Obama. I am not passing judgment on that being better or worse. I know exceptionally good people across the spectrum.

Bottom line: If you desire to be above average, Obama will make it more difficult, McCain will make it easier.

Jozrael · 10-26-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

I acknowledge that McCain wasn't my first choice for a Republican candidate. Nonetheless, almost any Conservative is preferable to almost any Liberal. Being a Conservative is reason enough for me to choose to vote for McCain. It's a clear choice between ideologies.

Yes, "like" and "respect" are different. China cares about neither. Nor should we. "Fear" would be good enough for me.

The quote "Politics is not football...it's not just rooting for 'your team'. Had I been old enough, I would have voted for Bush over Gore (foolishly, in hindsight). I was evenly split between Kerry and Bush because I lived in a very conservative household that painted Kerry pretty badly. I might've voted Bush there. Here I will certainly vote Obama.

I admire people willing to hop the fence of their chosen ideology when the evidence is fairly clear that the other ticket will serve their country better for the next four years. I'm not saying this is the case here or that you are not one of these people...just your post smacks to me of 'Liberalism is a brain disorder', which I find abhorrent (just as I find 'Conservatism is a brain disorder'). I think you need to respect the opposing party as a valid viewpoint for politics to work in general.

As another note, in reference to your 'Does China care about the rest of the world?'

Yes, the average citizen very much does care. They're also fed blatant lies by their government. There was a poll done of the Chinese people (by an American...and numerous questions were censored by the government, thus he wasn't allowed to ask them.) and more than 95% of the Chinese people rated the global opinion of their country as the highest option. China and the US both aren't popular globally right now, but at least the majority of the US KNOWS this (even if many don't care). The Chinese honestly think that most of the world idolizes them. So I don't think your question is a fair one. The Chinese government certainly doesn't give two shits about what we think about them.

filtherton · 10-26-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bottom line: If you desire to be above average, Obama will make it more difficult, McCain will make it easier.

No, he might make it easier to be below average, though. If you accept the statistical definition of average as it applies to populations with broadly distributed characteristics, a very large portion of the population is necessarily below average. Joe the Plumber is below average.

dc_dux · 10-26-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

No, he might make it easier to be below average, though. If you accept the statistical definition of average as it applies to populations with broadly distributed characteristics, a very large portion of the population is necessarily below average. Joe the Plumber is below average.

But of course, ace is not "passing judgement" as he says:

Quote:

I think your choice will depend on where you want to go in life. If you are satisfied with an average job, average salary, live in an average home, drive average cars (no horse power to meet EPA standards, and gov. help to keep GM alive and producing average cars), etc, then you will be very comfortable being a Democrat and voting for Obama. I am not passing judgment on that being better or worse. I know exceptionally good people across the spectrum

It just reads like he is passing judgement... that if you are satisfied with being average (ie lazy and unambitious)....vote for Obama and if you aspire to better yourself...vote for McCain

ratbastid · 10-26-2008, 02:00 PM

44 posts in, and I still haven't heard one reason to vote for John McCain that isn't in reference to Barack Obama. I'm now all but convinced that there's NOBODY voting McCain this year that isn't REALLY voting AGAINST Obama. Which is fine, I just think it's interesting.

Would it have been different if it was Romney or Giuliani? Or if McCain had gone with Liberman as VP?

roachboy · 10-26-2008, 02:32 PM

ace--what is seems to me that you are arguing in no.42 is that one should vote based on brand. just as miller lite would have you drink their products because chicks will dig you, so you should vote republican if as an expression of your fantasies of social mobility--which are simply inverted and then projected onto the imaginary democrats. by extension, you vote for the republican brand if you want to excel--but if that was really what the republicans were about, you'd think their campaigns would be less shabby and their arguments less superficial and they really wouldn't have spent the past 30 years trying to convince people that politics is a type of consumerism and that you should vote for brand rather than for policies, and on the basis of imaginary projections rather than based on assessments of the overall socio-economic situation, an assessment of concrete policy options, an awareness of what you values and some thinking about how to connect those values to policy options to a modification of the socio-economic situation that would make it accord more closely with them.
you'd think that political thinking would matter.

making political choices based on brand identification is lazy: odd that you find that to be so central for an ideology that claims to value work.

mcgeedo · 10-26-2008, 02:56 PM

rat, much of what has been said about Obama is indeed a reason to vote for McCain. For example, Obama will move us towards socialism. Since McCain won't, you should vote for McCain. But of course, you'll disagree.

Derwood · 10-26-2008, 03:05 PM

Obama son't move towards anything remotely close to socialism.

Even if it gets closer, you don't have to worry about the poor getting YOUR money unless you're a millionaire. The great Republican myth (right now) is that Obama is going to take money from the middle class to prop up the poor. This is completely untrue, but a lot of people are buying it.

roachboy · 10-26-2008, 03:06 PM

"socialism" means nothing coming from the right at this point. nothing at all.
you could lay out your objections to obama in a coherent manner and maybe even make a case for them--but there's no hope of that if you're just going to rely on a conservo-meme.

flstf · 10-26-2008, 03:39 PM

(from my perspective) Vote McCain if you:

- value a leader with vast experience over an inspirational one.

- think that it's good for the economy for the middle class to continue paying a higher percentage of their income to support our government than the wealthy.

- want less gun control

- want current abortion rights overturned.

- are in favor of Palin taking over as president in the next 4 years

- are in favor of school vouchers

- are in favor of taxing employer provided healthcare benefits and giving up to a 2500/5000 credit to individuals who buy their own.

- are in favor of less state control over healthcare insurance companies.

Derwood · 10-26-2008, 04:18 PM

- want less regulation on the banking industry

- want military presence in Iraq for next 100 years

- believe in a trickle-down economy

mcgeedo · 10-26-2008, 04:26 PM

vast experience. Yep, I'll take that.
less gun control. Yep, that too.
abortion rights overturned. Works for me.
school vouchers. Hey, great idea!
less government control anywhere, anytime. Love that too.
The other two I think are "talking points," but what the heck.

Look, I'm not going to change your opinion, and you're not going to change mine. If McCain wins, then there's a little balance in Washington. If Obama wins, then he and the Legislature and the Supremes (when he loads that up too) ... well, then it's the People's Republic of Share the Wealth, and you get what you've wished for. Those of you in the Liberal community that actually work for a living will get an interesting lesson.

I do intend to follow through with my thread on Obama's promises. It's going to be a lot of fun.

rBGH · 10-26-2008, 04:51 PM

Obama supporter here.
I find very little in the Republican platform that I can support.
I'm trying to be careful not to project my own agenda onto any candidate but I find more of my issues addressed by the Dems

dc_dux · 10-26-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Look, I'm not going to change your opinion, and you're not going to change mine. If McCain wins, then there's a little balance in Washington. If Obama wins, then he and the Legislature and the Supremes (when he loads that up too) ... well, then it's the People's Republic of Share the Wealth, and you get what you've wished for. Those of you in the Liberal community that actually work for a living will get an interesting lesson.

I do intend to follow through with my thread on Obama's promises. It's going to be a lot of fun.

Obama wont be "loading up" the Supreme Court. The next president will likely be replacing two of the more liberal justices most likely to retire- Stevens and Ginsburg - which wont change the current balance...The four most conservative will stay in place - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito..as will the two centrists - Suter and Kennedy and the other liberal - Breyer.

So if you are really so concerned about balance, in fact, Obama would be the one more likely to maintain balance on the Court and McCain would be the one to drastically alter that balance.

As to following up with your thread on Obama's promises, I would suggest you will be taken more seriously if you stop with the People's Republic nonsense that says, at least to me, that you really are not open to an honest discussion.

ratbastid · 10-26-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Those of you in the Liberal community that actually work for a living will get an interesting lesson.

It's sad to me that so-called "conservatives" don't get what on offensive sentiment this is. $250,000. Do you make that much, mcgeedo? I don't, not even close. I'm interviewing for a job this week that will make me just over a quarter of that, and I'll be damn glad to land it.

Who do you think you have to be to make $250,000? I'm not talking about businesses (although I could, because the numbers hold there too). I'm talking about these alleged "hard workers" who are going to be so put-upon under Obama's plan. Are they the folks working three jobs to make ends meet? Or are they corporate higher-ups? Who REALLY "works harder", ya think?

McCain and whatever diminishing slice of so-called conservatism he still represents only have emotional appeals, scare tactics like red-baiting. When you pull out the actual numbers, none of it makes sense.

mcgeedo · 10-26-2008, 06:23 PM

dc, you are correct of course that the two justices likely to be replaced are already Left-leaning. But their replacements can be as radically Liberal as Obama and Pelosi might want, and certainly won't have any compunctions about legislating from the bench. The net shift will be to the left, and there won't be any stopping it in the confirmation process, will there?

As for an "honest discussion," no one on this forum is ever going to be converted. Every one comes here to argue and debate. Information is exchanged, ideas are traded, and I often learn something new. But no one is going to change their stripes because of a particularly witty post, by you, me or anyone else. As for the "People's Republic" crack: so, you can't crack wise unless you're of the same persuasion as the forum majority?

dc_dux · 10-26-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

dc, you are correct of course that the two justices likely to be replaced are already Left-leaning. But their replacements can be as radically Liberal as Obama and Pelosi might want, and certainly won't have any compunctions about legislating from the bench. The net shift will be to the left, and there won't be any stopping it in the confirmation process, will there?

How can the next shift be more to the left of Ginsburg, who the conservatives shout is an "ultra liberal"? or even Stevens.

No, by most objective standards, Obama appointments would keep the same general balance as the current Court...described by most observers as four conservatives, two centrists and three liberals...if labels are to be applied.

And Pelosi has no role in the process. The Senate, not the House, advises and consents. Its just another cheap shot to play he "pelosi" card.

If by legislating from the bench, you mean judicial activism in overturning laws enacted by Congress....its the conservatives on the court who do it more frequently. This is from the Rhenquist court:

Quote:

Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That's because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy. In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act "of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear." Until 1991, the court struck down an average of about one Congressional statute every two years. Between 1791 and 1858, only two such invalidations occurred.

Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

So Who Are the Activists? - New York Times

Liberal justices as the judicial activists who legislate from bench is another one of those myths that conservatives perpetuate.

flstf · 10-26-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Look, I'm not going to change your opinion, and you're not going to change mine.

I made my post of what I honestly thought were reasons why one would vote for McCain not in an effort to change anyone's opinion. I agree with him on less gun control and more school voucher programs. I prefer Obama's positions on most other issues but that is not the subject of this thread.

ottopilot · 10-27-2008, 06:33 AM

My decision to support John McCain is now basic. I absolutely, without question, believe Barack Obama to be a Marxist. Not the evil dictator type, but the one that honestly believes in the academic fundamentals of Marxism as a social governing ideology.

McCain reminds me of a post war (WWII) Democrat who is socially conscious, embraces the constitution, and believes in free enterprise. I see my choice as between an American constitutionalist vs. an American Marxist. It's that simple.

Derwood · 10-27-2008, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

My decision to support John McCain is now basic. I absolutely, without question, believe Barack Obama to be a Marxist. Not the evil dictator type, but the one that honestly believes in the academic fundamentals of Marxism as a social governing ideology.

and what is this belief predicated on?

ottopilot · 10-27-2008, 06:41 AM

Predicated on the language used and policies championed by each candidate.

abaya · 10-27-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Those of you in the Liberal community that actually work for a living will get an interesting lesson.

Why would I need a lesson when I live in Iceland, pay 40% of our taxes (we actually pay DOUBLE taxation, to Iceland AND the US!), 25% sales tax, and am still quite happy with the health care and education system that I see around me, as a result? I don't need a "lesson," thanks. I (along with millions of others on this side of the ocean) am living the very scenario what you are afraid of, and look!!! I'm not bleeding out of all orifices here, am I? Quite the opposite--my vote goes gladly to Obama, particularly based on my experience living outside the US and seeing how much better we could be as a nation if we took a few lessons from other countries on how to take care of one's people.

/waits for the accusation that I am not a "real" American, lol.

roachboy · 10-27-2008, 06:47 AM

otto---for what it's worth, i know way more about marxism and marxists than any human being should as a function of my academic background (trust me on this one).
i can tell you, in my capacity as an expert on this area (pm me and i'll run out my credentials if you want), that obama is not a marxist.

the categorization is simply and entirely false.

in a more accurately calibrated scale, he is somewhere center to center-left of the american democratic party.
his policies are a mix of weak social-democratic (by weak i mean only not systematic) and more-or-less traditionally centrist democratic party elements.
the situation made by the previous 30 years of neoliberal domination will require actions that run outside the ideological frame around obama's campaign platform, i think, but that's inevitable.

but there is no way, by any informed, rational standard, that obama is a marxist.

Derwood · 10-27-2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Predicated on the language used and policies championed by each candidate.

specifically?

Baraka_Guru · 10-27-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i can tell you, in my capacity as an expert on this area, that obama is not a marxist.

I was just about to say that I think Marxism would get in the way of Obama's quasi-socialist leanings. I'm relieved you came in here to say what you said first. But, yeah, even I--with no such credentials regarding Marxism--knew this to be quite false.

I'm thinking of starting a thread that explains the differences between Marxism, Communism, and socialism. There is much misunderstanding out there. But maybe it would be best for you to do this.

Do people know that socialism co-exists within capitalism?

roachboy · 10-27-2008, 07:03 AM

if you see obama as a social democrat---which i think is only partially accurate---in 2008, you are not saying much of anything about any linkage to marx. if you had said the same thing in the 1930s, it'd have been different. but not now.

i only mentioned my academic self here because i am so fucking tired of conservative red-baiting.
and it is nothing other than that.

ottopilot · 10-27-2008, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

specifically?

What's your point? I made a statement of my belief based on my observation of each man as a big picture. I do not say Obama is evil, I believe he is operating openly and says what he means.

Another example of from where I believe Obama's core ideology really "lurks" just came out in today's news...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barack Obama in a 2001 radio interview

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously disposessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society, and to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical... it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution at least as it's been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties... says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf... and that hasn't shifted and one of I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

While these sentiments do not use specific language of Marx, the spirit of the ideology is (IMO) there. I've posted on these "leanings" in Obama's ideology months back. We see reaffirmation of this rhetoric laced in his words throughout his career.

I don't hope to convert anyone here. The OP asks the question, I answered it.

There's clips of this 2001 WBEZ (Chicago) interview available on YouTube. Make of this what you will.

aceventura3 · 10-27-2008, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But of course, ace is not "passing judgement" as he says:

It just reads like he is passing judgement... that if you are satisfied with being average (ie lazy and unambitious)....vote for Obama and if you aspire to better yourself...vote for McCain

Your response partly repeats what I wrote, adding no value. I am clearly passing judgment on my preference for McCain. I have no problem with people who make economic choices different than the choices I make. Policies that make it difficult to get "rich" affect those who want to achieve that. I define "rich" as being above average. Those in the middle class, I think in Obama's words benefit under his economic plan. I define middle class, as average. I don't pass judgment on middle class people, there is nothing wrong with having priorities in life that involve things other than accumulating wealth.

ottopilot · 10-27-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you see obama as a social democrat---which i think is only partially accurate---in 2008, you are not saying much of anything about any linkage to marx. if you had said the same thing in the 1930s, it'd have been different. but not now.

i only mentioned my academic self here because i am so fucking tired of conservative red-baiting.
and it is nothing other than that.

I'm not red baiting, it's just a preference of ideologies. Obama is a closet Marxist IMO. He operates openly, but under the radar. The tanks won't come rolling in and we won't all be sent to re-education camps, but the conditioning of the population with terminology like "negative liberties" of the constitution is a glimpse into the mindset of the man's core ideology.

No-one can successfully operate openly in American politics as a "Marxist". Instead we accept pleasing terminology like "change" (what kind?), "progressive", "negative-liberties", and "redistribution of wealth". All Twinkies for the "useful idiots".

aceventura3 · 10-27-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Would it have been different if it was Romney or Giuliani?

I would have actively supported Huckabee from the slate of primary candidates. I would have actively supported Condolezza Rice and perhaps a few Governors if they had run. From the business world I would have actively supported Steve Forbes.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 11 : 24 : 07-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--what is seems to me that you are arguing in no.42 is that one should vote based on brand. just as miller lite would have you drink their products because chicks will dig you, so you should vote republican if as an expression of your fantasies of social mobility--which are simply inverted and then projected onto the imaginary democrats. by extension, you vote for the republican brand if you want to excel--but if that was really what the republicans were about, you'd think their campaigns would be less shabby and their arguments less superficial and they really wouldn't have spent the past 30 years trying to convince people that politics is a type of consumerism and that you should vote for brand rather than for policies, and on the basis of imaginary projections rather than based on assessments of the overall socio-economic situation, an assessment of concrete policy options, an awareness of what you values and some thinking about how to connect those values to policy options to a modification of the socio-economic situation that would make it accord more closely with them.
you'd think that political thinking would matter.

making political choices based on brand identification is lazy: odd that you find that to be so central for an ideology that claims to value work.

Don't know where to start with this. But, you are correct "brand" is important to me as a starting point. I know generally what I want and it gets more specific from there, not as simplistic as you may think it is.

Derwood · 10-27-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

What's your point?

my point was to hear specific policy ideas that you consider Marxist, rather than a blanket statement (which I can only consider opinion without any facts to back it up). I have no problem if that is your opinion (we all have them).

ottopilot · 10-27-2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

my point was to hear specific policy ideas that you consider Marxist, rather than a blanket statement (which I can only consider opinion without any facts to back it up). I have no problem if that is your opinion (we all have them).

That's your opinion.

roachboy · 10-27-2008, 07:40 AM

otto---i'm not questioning your distaste at all: what you agree with or do not agree with is up to you.
i might not agree with your evaluations, and might argue against them, but in the end i entirely respect your right to make up your own mind and would not have it another way.

BUT

i am telling you--i am not suggesting--i'm *telling* you that your classification of obama as a marxist is simply wrong. if you persist in using it, knowing that the term does not refer to anything about obama, then it's red-baiting. no better and no different from the equally foul little claim concerning obama's middle name.

Derwood · 10-27-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

That's your opinion.

it's my opinion that you have an opinion?

ottopilot · 10-27-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

it's my opinion that you have an opinion?

If you say so. Do you have any documentation?

asaris · 10-27-2008, 09:09 AM

There was a post on one of my legal blogs talking about that interview. I'll quote it here, but I want to also point out that the interview is from almost 10 years ago. It's entirely plausible to think that Obama has moved to the center since then.

I've snipped the post a bit. It's written by David Bernstein, who is emphatically not an Obama supporter. In fact, he's one of the further right people on a generally right-leaning libertarian blog. The full post can be found here.

Quote:

Before getting to the controversy, the whole interview is worth listening to for another reason: Obama gives a very impressive performance as a constitutional scholar. Even though he was holding down other jobs while teaching at Chicago, he clearly had thought a lot about constitutional history, and how social change is or is not brought about through the courts. Among other things, I was impressed that rather than accept the rather cartoonish view that often prevails about the practical significance of Brown v. Board of Education, he knew that very few black students in the South were attending integrated schools as late as the early 1960s (almost a decade after Brown), and that it was only the threat of a cutoff of federal funds that really got desegregation moving. Being realistic about the practical effect of Brown is heresy in some circles, but Obama is correct. Relatedly, Obama was clearly influenced by Rosenberg/Klarman thesis that the Supreme Court rarely diverges much from social consensus, and can't be expected to.

[...]

What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more "fairly" distributed than it is currently?

It's true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it's emphatically not the government's job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a "right to health care," or "equalizing educational opportunities," or "making the rich pay a fair share of taxes," or "ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college," and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don't actually use phrases such as "redistribution" or "spreading the wealth," in which case he suddenly becomes "socialist"? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

In general, I feel that the only reason people complain about Obama's socialism is that they have no idea what real socialism looks like. On the socialism/laissez-faire scale, Obama's probably in the middle. And it might be correct to think that the ideal economic policy is somewhat further to the right of Obama, though I would disagree. It's certainly not correct to say that Obama's anything resembling socialist, unless you thinks he's some sort of secret socialist. In which case, why not believe he's a secret muslim or baby-eater? There's about the same amount of evidence for those claims.

Derwood · 10-27-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

If you say so. Do you have any documentation?

wow. you take dodging a question to all new heights

mcgeedo · 10-27-2008, 11:12 AM

Obama may have changed his thoughts about economic principles from 10 years ago. Ayers may have changed his mind on domestic terrorism as well.

And Obama may not ne a Socialist or Marxist. But his ideas are close enough to make most productive people very nervous about what he'll do to the contry, with the help of the Legislature who are also a majority of those that appear to be close to Socialism. Very narrow definitions of socialism, as stated here by the academics of the community, don't change his stated intention to tax from the rich and hand out to the lazy.

asaris · 10-27-2008, 11:31 AM

What is it with conservatives wanting to redefine words? First ace and now you, mcgeedo. Socialism means something, it means a redistribution of wealth such that everyone has the same amount. And I'm not a word nazi; if one of the candidates was proposing a radical redistribution of wealth, unprecedented in this country, that was short of true socialism, I wouldn't be complaining about their word usage. But when a candidate's proposals are more or less in line with American precedent, it stretches the bounds of language to suggest that that's socialism.

And if you haven't missed it, "tax the rich and hand out to the [less fortunate]" is exactly what we're doing right now. That was Bernstein's point at the end of the post I quoted here -- mild redistribution of wealth isn't socialism.

10-26-2008, 02:32 PM	#47 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace--what is seems to me that you are arguing in no.42 is that one should vote based on brand. just as miller lite would have you drink their products because chicks will dig you, so you should vote republican if as an expression of your fantasies of social mobility--which are simply inverted and then projected onto the imaginary democrats. by extension, you vote for the republican brand if you want to excel--but if that was really what the republicans were about, you'd think their campaigns would be less shabby and their arguments less superficial and they really wouldn't have spent the past 30 years trying to convince people that politics is a type of consumerism and that you should vote for brand rather than for policies, and on the basis of imaginary projections rather than based on assessments of the overall socio-economic situation, an assessment of concrete policy options, an awareness of what you values and some thinking about how to connect those values to policy options to a modification of the socio-economic situation that would make it accord more closely with them. you'd think that political thinking would matter. making political choices based on brand identification is lazy: odd that you find that to be so central for an ideology that claims to value work. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-26-2008, 03:06 PM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	"socialism" means nothing coming from the right at this point. nothing at all. you could lay out your objections to obama in a coherent manner and maybe even make a case for them--but there's no hope of that if you're just going to rely on a conservo-meme. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-27-2008, 06:33 AM	#60 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	My decision to support John McCain is now basic. I absolutely, without question, believe Barack Obama to be a Marxist. Not the evil dictator type, but the one that honestly believes in the academic fundamentals of Marxism as a social governing ideology. McCain reminds me of a post war (WWII) Democrat who is socially conscious, embraces the constitution, and believes in free enterprise. I see my choice as between an American constitutionalist vs. an American Marxist. It's that simple. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

10-27-2008, 06:41 AM	#62 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	Predicated on the language used and policies championed by each candidate. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

10-27-2008, 06:47 AM	#64 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	otto---for what it's worth, i know way more about marxism and marxists than any human being should as a function of my academic background (trust me on this one). i can tell you, in my capacity as an expert on this area (pm me and i'll run out my credentials if you want), that obama is not a marxist. the categorization is simply and entirely false. in a more accurately calibrated scale, he is somewhere center to center-left of the american democratic party. his policies are a mix of weak social-democratic (by weak i mean only not systematic) and more-or-less traditionally centrist democratic party elements. the situation made by the previous 30 years of neoliberal domination will require actions that run outside the ideological frame around obama's campaign platform, i think, but that's inevitable. but there is no way, by any informed, rational standard, that obama is a marxist. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-26-2008, 12:25 PM	#41 (permalink)
remy1492 Crazy Location: CA TX LU	For me its one subject. Gun Control. The democrat platform is basically to ban ALL guns eventually. Obama has made it clear that is his wish. ALL guns. While he will let us have single shot guns for a while. The democrat utopia is a gun free country like the UK. So my vote is ALWAYS republican. Yet I am not ultra conservative and am liberal in many ways. Its the 2nd amendment that prevails in my decisions. And Obama now wants my 401K and to tax the hell out of me. In my tax bracket if I work more (get promoted) I actually LOSE money at the end of the year. I must be promoted in the military so I don't have a choice but to be pushed into a higher bracket. This sucks telling my European liberal wife, that we will actually make LESS money next year with Obama's plan eventhough I am being promoted. I realize its to help out the "poor" and those who don't want to work. But let the millionare liberals donate to them out of their own pockets, the Kerry, Clinton and Soros families can take care of that on their snack budget. So thats MY reason. I am dismayed at ALL politicians and am not a die hard supporter, but its the lesser of two evils, by a LONG SHOT!

10-26-2008, 02:00 PM	#46 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	44 posts in, and I still haven't heard one reason to vote for John McCain that isn't in reference to Barack Obama. I'm now all but convinced that there's NOBODY voting McCain this year that isn't REALLY voting AGAINST Obama. Which is fine, I just think it's interesting. Would it have been different if it was Romney or Giuliani? Or if McCain had gone with Liberman as VP?

10-26-2008, 02:56 PM	#48 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	rat, much of what has been said about Obama is indeed a reason to vote for McCain. For example, Obama will move us towards socialism. Since McCain won't, you should vote for McCain. But of course, you'll disagree.

10-26-2008, 03:05 PM	#49 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Obama son't move towards anything remotely close to socialism. Even if it gets closer, you don't have to worry about the poor getting YOUR money unless you're a millionaire. The great Republican myth (right now) is that Obama is going to take money from the middle class to prop up the poor. This is completely untrue, but a lot of people are buying it.

10-26-2008, 03:39 PM	#51 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	(from my perspective) Vote McCain if you: - value a leader with vast experience over an inspirational one. - think that it's good for the economy for the middle class to continue paying a higher percentage of their income to support our government than the wealthy. - want less gun control - want current abortion rights overturned. - are in favor of Palin taking over as president in the next 4 years - are in favor of school vouchers - are in favor of taxing employer provided healthcare benefits and giving up to a 2500/5000 credit to individuals who buy their own. - are in favor of less state control over healthcare insurance companies.

10-26-2008, 04:18 PM	#52 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	- want less regulation on the banking industry - want military presence in Iraq for next 100 years - believe in a trickle-down economy

10-26-2008, 04:26 PM	#53 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	vast experience. Yep, I'll take that. less gun control. Yep, that too. abortion rights overturned. Works for me. school vouchers. Hey, great idea! less government control anywhere, anytime. Love that too. The other two I think are "talking points," but what the heck. Look, I'm not going to change your opinion, and you're not going to change mine. If McCain wins, then there's a little balance in Washington. If Obama wins, then he and the Legislature and the Supremes (when he loads that up too) ... well, then it's the People's Republic of Share the Wealth, and you get what you've wished for. Those of you in the Liberal community that actually work for a living will get an interesting lesson. I do intend to follow through with my thread on Obama's promises. It's going to be a lot of fun.

10-26-2008, 04:51 PM	#54 (permalink)
rBGH Upright	Obama supporter here. I find very little in the Republican platform that I can support. I'm trying to be careful not to project my own agenda onto any candidate but I find more of my issues addressed by the Dems

10-26-2008, 06:23 PM	#57 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	dc, you are correct of course that the two justices likely to be replaced are already Left-leaning. But their replacements can be as radically Liberal as Obama and Pelosi might want, and certainly won't have any compunctions about legislating from the bench. The net shift will be to the left, and there won't be any stopping it in the confirmation process, will there? As for an "honest discussion," no one on this forum is ever going to be converted. Every one comes here to argue and debate. Information is exchanged, ideas are traded, and I often learn something new. But no one is going to change their stripes because of a particularly witty post, by you, me or anyone else. As for the "People's Republic" crack: so, you can't crack wise unless you're of the same persuasion as the forum majority?

10-27-2008, 07:03 AM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if you see obama as a social democrat---which i think is only partially accurate---in 2008, you are not saying much of anything about any linkage to marx. if you had said the same thing in the 1930s, it'd have been different. but not now. i only mentioned my academic self here because i am so fucking tired of conservative red-baiting. and it is nothing other than that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-27-2008, 07:40 AM	#74 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	otto---i'm not questioning your distaste at all: what you agree with or do not agree with is up to you. i might not agree with your evaluations, and might argue against them, but in the end i entirely respect your right to make up your own mind and would not have it another way. BUT i am telling you--i am not suggesting--i'm telling you that your classification of obama as a marxist is simply wrong. if you persist in using it, knowing that the term does not refer to anything about obama, then it's red-baiting. no better and no different from the equally foul little claim concerning obama's middle name. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-27-2008, 11:12 AM	#79 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	Obama may have changed his thoughts about economic principles from 10 years ago. Ayers may have changed his mind on domestic terrorism as well. And Obama may not ne a Socialist or Marxist. But his ideas are close enough to make most productive people very nervous about what he'll do to the contry, with the help of the Legislature who are also a majority of those that appear to be close to Socialism. Very narrow definitions of socialism, as stated here by the academics of the community, don't change his stated intention to tax from the rich and hand out to the lazy.

10-27-2008, 11:31 AM	#80 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	What is it with conservatives wanting to redefine words? First ace and now you, mcgeedo. Socialism means something, it means a redistribution of wealth such that everyone has the same amount. And I'm not a word nazi; if one of the candidates was proposing a radical redistribution of wealth, unprecedented in this country, that was short of true socialism, I wouldn't be complaining about their word usage. But when a candidate's proposals are more or less in line with American precedent, it stretches the bounds of language to suggest that that's socialism. And if you haven't missed it, "tax the rich and hand out to the [less fortunate]" is exactly what we're doing right now. That was Bernstein's point at the end of the post I quoted here -- mild redistribution of wealth isn't socialism. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche