In order for any politician to be effective, he has to have his own party behind him, and he also has to be able to attract support from the other party. If Lieberman was McCain's running mate, it would fracture the Republican Party, so that, when McCain/Lieberman approached the Democrats to try to negotiate something like social security reform, or REAL health care solutions, they wouldn't be able to muster support from McCain's own party, let alone the support of Democrats, who are not all that enamored of Joe Lieberman, having run him out of his own party on a rail. Therefore, Windy, your dream of uniting both parties by running McCain and an excommunicated Democrat, is not grounded in reality. At least McCain/Romney could negotiate with the Democrats with the benefit of a united Republican Party behind them, along with whatever mandate goes along with the fact that they were elected President and Vice President by the voters. That would obviously give them more bargaining chips than McCain/Lieberman would have, and the American voters aren't going to allow the Democrats to drag their feet and do nothing in Congress much longer. If you really want Congress to accomplish something, you should be complaining vociferously to your local Democrat in Congress about his, or her, extended holidays and vacations and recesses, and their failure to act on these crucial issues.
Obvious points such as, 1) Congress actually does the business of congress (not the President), 2) That it's a pipe dream that Lieberman would get picked by McCain, etc ... well, the best I can say about that is that I had hopes I could be given the benefit of the doubt so that I wouldn't have to post 5 pages but instead could just post the one paragraph, but I should have known this was Sailnet and that wasn't going to happen.
But on the substance of what was said, that the Republicans wouldn't get behind McCain Lieberman, I actually disagree with that a little bit. McCain Lieberman could be trust brokers as President/VP, because I really think they could get past differences and agree on some key things that really could get support from everyone. Again I said it's a mistake to think I like this combination because they are "moderate", that's untrue, I don't see it as a compromise position between two dualistic extremes, that is only how Democrats and Republicans see it because they always look at each other as "the enemy". I, instead, see McCain Lieberman as a solid platform that can put forth some actual solid plans that could be put into action.
Think of it from the opposite point of view - say Obama wins, for example. WTF is Obama/Biden going to propose that enough moderate Republicans and Democrat's are both going to support to do anybody any good ? I mean, seriously. Obama could tell Republicans that he wants to eat at Wendy's and Republicans would fight and say no they want to go to Subway. Can Obama Biden actually propose ANYTHING that Republicans are going to support ? Hell no. And you Democrats out there, are you going to support ANYTHING that Romney supports ? McCain Lieberman could put together real plans that could leave all the special interests sitting outside shivering in the cold.
__________________
What are you pretending not to know ?
Last edited by wind_magic : 08-25-2008 at 04:31 PM.
Reason: spelling
If you want a liberal White House, a liberal Congress, and new liberal judges, then go with McCain/Lieberman, because then Obama wins big time. It could be the greatest governing combo in the world, but they aren't going to get elected. Period.
And not only will it be a McCain loss, it will keep so many Republicans at home, the congressional races will be a disaster as well. And special interests? They ain't going anywhere.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Also, Congress acts in the interest of Congress. They vote, for what they think will get them re-elected, first and foremost. Second, they vote for what will retain, or increase their power within Congress. You and me and a dog named Boo, are way down their list of priorities.
To think, that they are somehow going to be motived to act responsibly is a stretch by anyone's imagination. If you need a reminder, go back and look at the promises from '06 and see how many they kept. Particularly, on earmarks.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
As I've been reading through some of the other threads tonight, as well as this one, I'm struck anew by one little item ..... government does not solve problems. At best, it mitigates or lessens them. At worst, it exacerbates or worsens them. What it does not do though, is solve them.
Solutions have to come from the bottom up. They aren't going to come from the top down. Until people realize they have to start in their own neighborhoods, and then, communities, and then act on it, nothing will change much, except by degrees.
Politics has become, not the process of governance, but an occupation. And it attracts people not for their ability to get things done, except tangentially, but their ability to get elected. What was the mantra for both parties during the primaries? It was who has the best chance to win the election. In neither party did any of the so-called serious candidate offer a coherent and consistent philosophy of governing, but rather, one of what will win the nomination. Politics, not of what they believe, but of what they think others believe. Politics of the pander.
So, in the end, we rarely get what we think we're voting for. And that's why I feel it has to start at the local level, if, and really, that is an iffy if, we want things to be different.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
The normally reliable Windy has lost it on this one; perhaps the wafting opiate of Obamaism is effecting even normally sensible minds.
There are absolutely only two criteria in picking a Veep. The first is in picking one that will help get you elected. The second is to provide an acceptable replacement should the president expire. Lieberman fails on both accounts. He's not going to help J-Mac get elected because his presence, regardless of what Bill Kristol says, is going to just muddy the waters in terms of what a Republican presidency means. Republicans already dubious about J-Mac's credentials will have the final stick in the eye that compels them to stay home. (And let's remember that, absent the challenge of Mike Huckabee, the primary season might have looked very much different as might have the nominee.) The only Democrats who are Joe Lieberman fans are those living in Connecticut. Let's not forget that the Democratic party has already said, in no uncertain terms, that it can do without the services of it's former vice-presidential candidate. Dems aren't crossing the line to vote for McCain based upon "Joe-mentum".
And where does this silly idea come from that somehow the President and the Vice-President work as a team? OK, Bush and Cheney are unusually tight-exceptionally so. Find another example. By the end of the Clinton era, he and Gore were barely speaking and Clinton did little to help get Gore elected. Reagan relied on GHW Bush for virtually nothing. If Dan Quayle had had any influence at all in the GHW Bush presidency there probably would not have been a tax hike and a second term would have been more likely.
You don't run for the presidency based upon the strength of your running mates ideas. Believe one thing; these guys who run for president have a real good idea that they know the issues and that their position is the sole correct position. These are not men and women racked with self doubt.
John Nance Garner said, "the vice presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss". There are valid reasons for viewing things otherwise but rest assured that none of the candidates view things otherwise.
The other glaring deficiency in Windy's latest thoughts is that heretofore we've lacked the ability at consensus and, if we just had John and Joe on the same team we could get real change and leadership. I'm sorry but that's just sophomoric hogwash on the level of Mr. Smith goes to Washington. These people fully understand their opposing party's positions and refuse to compromise if there is the slightest chance that their position will prevail. Compromise itself is largely an acknowledgment of the inability to reach a truly good policy or decision on an issue, and usually results in the sort of half-baked goofiness of policy and law as referred to above by the Bzeer. How do you expect the Dem's for instance to compromise on social security when most of them were elected on the basis of keeping it just like it is? There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
This populist thinking is the same type of thinking that decries the two party system. It ignores the reality that there is little room for more than two opinions on each subject and is oblivious to the fact that the way real change gets accomplished in DC is by electing a president with an over-whelming mandate based upon his stump issues. Believe it or not but the last eight years is exactly what you get when you have compromise and bipartisanship, and you probably never even knew it was going on, did you? Well believe me once again, federal spending didn't get to where it is now by these guys in Congress fighting over every penny-there's been plenty enough back scratching going on to saitiate the most neglected political dog.
You've got two lousy choices in this election. One is assured to raise taxes and expand the role of government. The other is assured to continue the ineffectual meanderings of government, since circa 1988, but hopefully also at least assuring that blowing your ass up by an Islamist wack-job isn't on the agenda. Neither of those come even close to the grand vision Windy sees possible.
I'll refrain from responding extensively on the also normally sensible Chuck's expositions on the glories of the moderates positions. Chuck himself doesn't hold a single moderate position. He is only moderate in terms of the fact that the sum total of his positions does not tally with the platform of either party. But that is hardly the same as saying he has a moderate position on abortion, or taxation, or foreign policy. The moderate position on Osama bin Laden is one of taking him or leaving him as he is. That's not a position you're going to find that "moderates" will flock around. You can be either for pursuit of bin Laden or ignoring bin Laden-either one will attract voters. But you cannot be so moderate as to say that uncaptured is as good as captured, and expect to receive votes.
That's why populism always fails in the long run in America, yet we must keep fighting it back decade after decade. People vote for the candidate who has positions the majority of which they approve of. To the extent that a voter is able to subsume his other interests to those he shares with the candidate of his first choice, he is a moderate voter. The non-moderate voters are those who reflexively agree with one party or another on everything. The candidate trying to divine the "moderate" position is doomed to failure and most likely defeat. (Think Bill Clinton and GHW Bush here. Name one single thing they did that history will regard them exceedingly well for.) Populism sucks and it's basically a dishonest shell game to achieve only one goal; election. It is certainly not about adult forms of governance.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Barry Obama's brother lives in Nairobi on about a dollar a month. Will this be an issue in the election? I consider the implications of the below article rather devastating but that's maybe just me.
Barry Obama's brother lives in Nairobi on about a dollar a month. Will this be an issue in the election? I consider the implications of the below article rather devastating but that's maybe just me.
But reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."
The reports left him angry.
"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.
"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," George Obama said
Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.
At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.
"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.
advertisement
But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother. He acknowledges that he is biased but said he knows that his half-brother will be the next president.
"Because he wants to be [president]," he said. "I think in life, what you want is what you are supposed to get."
__________________
Quote:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
Sway nailed it in one, somewhat. I'm moderate in that I do not believe there are only two sides to any given issue. I like to think that there are more than one answer to solve a problem; and that the best answer is often a compromise. Not because the compromise is actually the most efficient, or even the actual best answer but because that is the 'answer' that can get support.
I agree congress doesn't fix anything, at best they mitigate the damage done.
Why? because of the hard line no compromise crap the two parties do. If they could get away from the win-lose crap long enough to do the business of the nation we as a nation could do so much better. Pipe dreams because that is asking a politician to stop being a politician.
It's only a pipedream, in so much as the voters allow them to keep doing it. The voters accept words over deeds and so that is what they get.
Take Social Security and Medicare. They are like a hole in the hull of the Treasury. You either plug it, or let it sink the boat. Compromise only burns up a bunch of bilge pumps, trying to keep the thing afloat. And the longer you keep compromising on it, the bigger, and harder to plug, the hole gets.
Much of what Congress is supposed to do, does lend itself to specific answers. And until the voters make clear that they not only expect, but will not settle for anything less, we will continue to get less. And as long as we keep electing people who serve themselves ahead of their constituients, we will keep getting politicians instead of statesmen.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
