Grand political roundup

[InfinityDragon]

Let us all sit back and be shocked and awed that a political candidate lets a rumor perpetuate that they are for something highly controversial when they are against it just to try and get some sucker votes.

The system is broken.

Actually, McCain has made it quite clear for the longest time that he doesn't support Roe v. Wade. He was against it when he first entered into Congress 25 years ago, and he's still against it now. Its one issue he hasn't really wavered on.

Of course, the fact that people even give a fuck about abortion as a primary issue in the first place is still proof that the system is broken; just not in the way you framed it!

[Laggy]

Of course, the fact that people even give a fuck about abortion as a primary issue in the first place is still proof that the system is broken; just not in the way you framed it!

QFT.

[Yakumo]

Of course, the fact that people even give a fuck about abortion as a primary issue in the first place is still proof that the system is broken; just not in the way you framed it!

QFT.

[Xeroma]

Of course, the fact that people even give a fuck about abortion as a primary issue in the first place is still proof that the system is broken; just not in the way you framed it!

QFT.

[NotMiki]

well, I WAS gonna vote for Obama, then I learned he WANTS TO TEACH KINDERGARTENS ABOUT SEX!!!!  I'm really glad the McCain campaign warned me about that before I voted for such a perv.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

the link includes a video of McCain's ad.

This seriously competes with Willie Horton or Jesse Helms' "white hands" as the most disgusting ad in the history of American politics.


The response:
"Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

[Idun]

Obama fails to comment clearly on the Chicago Public School System boycotting pretty much the first three days and having the majority of their students register at up-scale white public schools. I wonder what he thinks about that, since he claims to be so into the Chicago Southside.

[Ranmilia]

The response:
"Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

I read that interview in Time.  Positively creepy, and one of the most telling things I've seen about what's happening to McCain.  Seems like all the Straight Talk Express stuff that endeared him to journalists is gone, and combined with the Palin pick I'm seriously wondering who's calling the shots in that campaign these days.

[Dunefar]

People, please don't just empty quote someone else's reply. It's not contributing and turns the topic into an echo chamber. Thanks.

[Laggy]

Okay, if you so insist.

Abortion is a retarded issue to come up for the presidency. For starters, the president doesn't even have any direct control over it. The only indirect way he can address it is through picking nominees for the Supreme Court, which are fairly unpredictable and also subject to approval by the Senate. Yet abortion as being ramrodded into the elections, as it almost inevitably does, as a red-hot button issue that pretty much opens up the culture war that exists right now in America. (hint hint Palin pick, pure symbolism, etc. In fact I am virtually sure that she was picked to open up this new avenue of attack for McCain's campaign, aside from the totally transparent I'M A WOMAN dig for disgruntled Hillary supporters. Which, apparently, is working, if you look at white women suddenly switching sides as of late from Obama to McCain.)

So amidst all of this crap the battleground is rapidly shifting away from real issues like platforms and policies (which, even if you don't really buy them wholesale - and you never should, it's politics - at least addresses the larger, more real concerns that the president does have direct influence in) and into the same spin again. John Kerry was a freaking war hero while Bush pointedly went out of his way to avoid military service! '04 campaign? John Kerry IS UNPATRIOTIC. YES. Likewise, Obama is an out-of-touch elitist who went to Harvard Law School, obviously he is unfit to be a president. Lipstick references are sexist. What happened to, I don't know, the ECONOMY? Iraq? Foreign relations? God forbid we talk about those things other than to say how much they suck.

It goes without saying I am horribly biased against the GOP and the scummy character-issue arguments they wage all the time, to great success. It never fails. People fall for it, get hung on it, we waste taxpayer dollars on flag-burning amendments and MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS. Real concerns, real politics, people. And the presidency and its election is no different.

Yeah the system is broken.

[metroid composite]

I read that interview in Time.  Positively creepy, and one of the most telling things I've seen about what's happening to McCain.  Seems like all the Straight Talk Express stuff that endeared him to journalists is gone, and combined with the Palin pick I'm seriously wondering who's calling the shots in that campaign these days.

What I've read seems to suggest that Palin was McCain's choice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us/politics/31reconstruct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Mr. McCain was comfortable with two others on his short list, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. But neither was the transformative, attention-grabbing choice Mr. McCain felt he needed, top campaign advisers said, to help him pivot from his image as the custodian of the status quo to a change agent like his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.

Particularly interesting is this quote:

At the very least, the process reflects Mr. McCain’s history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions. “I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

Which...can be a positive and can be a negative--I've always felt one of the big flaws of democracy is that it's slow to respond.  The advantage of taking time to respond, though, is that more people review it which reduces the chance for error--it's a give and take.

If anything, what worries me more here is doing something different just for the sake of being different.  That's a really bad reason to make a decision.  Being a Maverick is good if you're doing it to stand up to corruption or a flawed system, but at the same time if it ain't broke don't fix it.  Making a decision to fix something just to take a different stance?  Decent odds you'll just waste money.

[Grefter]

Not just waste money, but "Live with the consequences without complaint" often comes out as "Not do a fucking thing about it and let the horrid disgusting waste of money be pushed further and further back away as it wastes more money" for governments.

I am really sad to see it degenerate to mud slinging bullshit again.  They were going so well this time as well.  I guess the radio in Bloodlines gets to be accurate once again.

Quoting it to add some humor I guess.

Last year democratic candidate Michael Robbins bought a sports-utility vehicle. Three months later, there was two separate incidents of hits-and-run in his area by unidentified SUV. Is democratic candidate Michael Robbins to blame? Can you afford to take that chance? Can your children? Vote republican senator Robert Thorn, the candidate who has never committed vehicular homicide!

Democratic candidate Michael Robbins has never publicly stated his position on child pornography. Is it because he's hiding something? Would you want a child pornographer voting on this nation's laws? Would you trust your children's future to someone like that? Vote republican senator Robert Thorn, the candidate that has committed to locking up child pornographers!

Democratic candidate Michael Robbins recently sued senator Robert Thorn for accusing Robbins of being a murderous child pornographer. But Robbins had previously said he was against clogging courts with frivolous lawsuits. Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite? Would you want a hypocrite as your next congressman? Would you want your children to become hypocrites? Vote republican senator Robert Thorn, the candidate NOT accused of being a murderous child pornographer!

[NotMiki]

The abortion thing IS an issue, precisely because of supreme court picks.  Jurors can be unpredictable, yes, but more often than not, they're rock solid in one direction or the other (that would be the conservative and moderate directions, incidentally; there aren't any hard-core liberals on the court, since 7 of the current justices were republican appointees).  There is nothing unpredictable about a Clarence Thomas, for example.  In fact, it made news when, after years, he finally voted against Scalia.  Because republicans have in recent decades taken to loading the supreme court with young members, it's not an exaggeration to say that a republican president will probably lead to a conservative majority on the court that will last 30 years.  No one watching congress for the past two years should think that a democratic congress would have the spine to stand up to a new Clarence Thomas, even if he were white.

[Laggy]

The "unpredictability" thing comes in more from being unable to accurately predict when a justice is going to get off the bench. Yes, I know we have plenty of fossils up there, but people have guessed they'd be gone long before now and they still haven't.

The democratic congress not having a spine (in both this regard and many others) is an issue that aggravates me beyond words, but a separate issue unto itself.

[superaielman]

Still undecided. I think I would honestly take Hillary over both at this point.  To say I'm not happy with McCain is a gross understatement, and to say I'm even less happy with certain Conserative magazines and writers who are now singing his praises after trashing him for years fills me with even less joy.

Being a Maverick is good if you're doing it to stand up to corruption or a flawed system, but at the same time if it ain't broke don't fix it.

His maverick reputation is such bullshit. He differs from his party on a few issues but by and large McCain's an establishment politican and has always used those few issues to put himself out as a centrist or to push his name.  Hot button issues are what they are. They've always framed elections. And while I'm pro choice (And think Roe v Wade is horseshit, but haha states rights nowadays) I can see why people push the issue.

I may end up voting natural law this year, as the libs put up Bob fucking Barr (why. WHY?!) as their nominee.

What I would like to see addressed and in what way:

1. Energy. Go nuclear and drill more. Solar/Hydrogen/wind power? Great, but we aren't there yet. This should have been done a generation ago, but ah well. Limited coastal drilling with federal funding heavily towards non fossil fuel sources is the way to go. The fact that this has been so politicalized is stupid.
2. Spending. It has to be reigned in. I'd love to see taxes reduced in general but that won't happen with the legacy of the Iraq war hanging over our heads. Cut farm subsides and stop propping up the airilnes for starters.  Iraq ties into this.
3. Drug war/Prison reform. No, not just the 'enhanced interrogation' horseshit that we've seen in recent years, though I consider that to be hideously shameful and an incredibly poor reflection on who's been running the country. The drug war is lost and it's not even our place to be fighting that in the first place. Legalize weed (fucking yuck) or at least legalize possession of it. Lower the drinking age to 18. Decriminalize possession of most drugs to some extent and focus on treatment instead. This will lessen the burden on our prisons. This isn't an altrustic impulse, it'll save money and lives. Besides which if you *can* focus on treatment and get people to kick the habit instead of sticking them in prisons for 20 years, you'll have people paying taxes and spending money instead of just sitting in prison.
4. Immigration. Shut up, Cal Thomas.  I pretty strongly agree with Bush on this, it's a shame nothing much ever came of his immigration stuff. 
5. Energy. No seriously, let's not just slide on this one.  

[Dunefar]

I'm going to vote McCain for some of the reasons touched on above. Mainly that he'll help continue the right wing's domination of the Supreme Court. I won't be heartbroken if Obama wins. I like him and think he's a breath of not so stale air, even if I dislike his policies.

[metroid composite]

Abortion is a retarded issue to come up for the presidency. For starters, the president doesn't even have any direct control over it. The only indirect way he can address it is through picking nominees for the Supreme Court, which are fairly unpredictable and also subject to approval by the Senate.

That's not why I'd call Abortion a terrible election issue, though.

Let's suppose the President could just flip a ruling on Abortion.  Even if she feels strongly that Abortion is very immoral, she STILL shouldn't act on it.

1. Doing so would create a massive and very dangerous black market.
2. Doing so would put a lot of well-intentioned talented Doctors behind bars.
3. Who takes care of unwanted children, including dealing with their statistically higher crime rates?  Oh that's right: taxpayers.
4. When, sooner or later, the other party gets in power and reverses the decision, a whole lot of cash gets wasted rebuilding facilities.  Turning programs on and off every four years is about as wasetful as you can get.

There's a reason why Sarah Palin said she was NOT making Abortion an election issue when she ran for Governor of Alaska.  No sane governor would want to clean up the unbelievable mess caused by such a ban.  (Okay, maybe "sane" isn't the expected description of Palin, but regardless she's not THAT crazy).

Point is, it seems exceptionally unlikely that a self-serving politician (i.e. every politician) would actually ban abortion.  Abortion bans get waved around as an issue in more countries than just the US, and as far as I know, no politician has ever acted on it even if they talk about it during elections.

[NotMiki]

The "unpredictability" thing comes in more from being unable to accurately predict when a justice is going to get off the bench.

Justices aren't fools.  Most of them will time their retirements to get a replacement that is acceptable to them.  They care passionately about the country and want very much for its laws to reflect their own views.  Check out Ginsburg's dissent on Ledbetter v. Goodyear and tell me she's gonna let a conservative have her seat.  Since Bush v. Gore there has been serious bad blood between conservative and liberal justices.  I'd bet good money there are 2-4 justices who would have retired by now if there had been a democratic president to replace them.  If Obama wins, I will be shocked if there are fewer than 2 retirements in his first year.  If McCain wins, I expect the 4 in the minority will serve until the end of his term or their untimely demise.

EDIT: on the abortion thing, some notes:

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, which would be the first step toward a countrywide bad on abortion, 15-17 states would have immediate bans in place based on existing state law.  You could expect abortion law questions to appear on the ballot for just about every state.

I don't think the 'black market' or 'doctors behind bars' things would happen to any great extent even with a countrywide ban, because there are so few abortion clinics in some states that it is already nearly impossible in practice to get one in certain parts of the country; whatever demand for a black market there is, it's probably already fulfilled to a great extent.

[Idun]

I think people need to pay attention to who our Supreme Court Justices are. Ever since Sandra Day O'Conner retired, the Supreme Court has been dominated by conservatives. Bush, Obama, and McCain mean currently nothing until they decide to nominate judges and wait to see how the Senate responds. I don't think abortion should be a major issue as a platform question for Presidents, but I don't think it's wrong for people to want to vote for someone they have similar interests with. That being said, embryonic stem cell research relies on aborted materials, therefore it's something a President will never be able to escape when it comes to questions of funding and being so far behind other countries in said research.

Anyway.

I am tired of the marketed Obama. Obama T-Shirts, artists and their Obama cultural movement, etc. It's just exasperating sometimes. I don't see McCain's face being whored out nearly as bad.

[Dark Holy Elf]

The fact that judges, people who in principle are supposed to interpret, not create, law, are capable of having political allegiance is probably the single most baffling thing about the American political system to me. If for some reason you must have partisan judges (and for the life of me I can't see what purpose they serve...), they should be elected, since they become legislative at that point. But really, partisan judges fly in the face of the interpretative branch of government. It's the legislative's job to enact "partisan" policies based on the will of the people; the judicial's job is to interpret and settle disputes using the laws the legislative has enacted to the best of their knowledge and ability, not to be a second legislative branch.

I know I've ranted about this before, but every time I am reminded of this fact it upsets me. The term "broken system" was bandied about earlier in the topic; this is something I actually feel it applies to. It is as far as I know a flaw unique to American democracy, and this topic alone provides evidence that it plays a role in the sharper-than-normal poltiical divide in American politics.

[NotMiki]

A judge who dutifully makes decisions strictly based on their interpretation of the constitution would still be seen in a partisan light, because different methods of interpretation are championed by different political philosophies.  Conservatives support originalism, the theory that the constitution's meaning is based entirely on what it meant when written, and liberals favor the living constitution, a theory that the constitution's meaning changes (for example, 'all men are created equal' didn't apply to women at the time, but given our current societal standard, it does now, even in the absence of any amendment to that effect).  There's nothing wrong or improper about having either philosophy of interpretation, or another one, as long as the judge is consistent.

Now, a number of current members of the supreme court claim to fall in one or the other category, but in practice they vote their political allegiance.  In Ledbetter v. Goodyear, where Goodyear was sued for giving discriminatory pay based on gender, the conservative majority ruled that the Civil Rights Act, which stated a statute of limitations of 180 days to file suit after a discriminatory act was committed, applied only to the initial discriminatory paycheck, not the ones that followed suit (it took Ledbetter years to know she was being paid barely half what her male coworkers were making, less even than workers doing the same job with years less experience).  Congress, in enacting the Civil Rights Act, clearly meant to enact broad, not narrow, protections, so the originalist majority willfully misinterpreted the intent of the writers of the law; those jurists are pro-business, it seems, more than they are anti-hypocracy.

All that said, and sorry for being so long-winded, the problem is with the individuals, not the institution.  All you need to get a good jurist is a president with a commitment to fairness, an honest and qualified judge, and a supportive congress!  No problem, right?

----

Side note: Idunie, do you think Obama oversaturation is a good reason to vote one way or the other, or are you just pointing it out?

[Cmdr_King]

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, at the local levels Judges are indeed elected, and as such have the same flaws in terms of politics as any other elected official.  And naturally, it's quite hard to get into the levels of the courts where you're appointed without prior experience, so these politicians-acting-as-judges are the available pool to get people from.  At least, that's my best understanding.

Frankly I'm in fully agreement on this, the judiciary being so goddamned proactive and blatantly siding with political parties is baffling and infuriating.  Defeats the entire point of having a bloody Supreme Court.

[Idun]

Side note: Idunie, do you think Obama oversaturation is a good reason to vote one way or the other, or are you just pointing it out?

I think oversaturation in general is efficient at turning people off at times. For instance, constant political commercial campaigns being covered by the media about attacking candidates dissuades people into not voting. Media thus perpetuates the neverending political cycle of fluff campaigning, where the real issues are rarely covered due to sensationalism. Even in special programs on the news, questions that are asked besides the paid advertisings are rarely answered because of speculation. There are some news anchors I truly adore though. I suppose if the news presented the "facts" unsensationalized unincluding paid advertising for campaigns, people would never watch it. I suppose it's a double-edged sword.

 It becomes untasteful to me when an election is blanketed primarily by commercializing merchandise (wait, wat?? ). Oversaturation easily covers up questions that need to be asked.

Personally, the Obama-saturation just makes me biasly infer information about his supporters: one, they don't access his site obviously to READ his policies and see what he's actually trying to do (For instance, his taxing policies for companies and internationally outsourcing taxing strategies are nothing but fluff or anti-middle class once evaluated). And never have I, old enough to even watch elections, seen a couple so marketed as the ideal couple, when Michelle could mean less shit to me. I need to see more than Obama's face angled to the left in Lichtenstein or Warhol colors. People are so fascinated with his ethnicity, heritage and "history" making than they are with his qualifications for presidency. [/Republican] But be that as it may, I don't find him satisfactory to my issues; the same goes for McCain's. But I believe having a Democratic president at this moment may be able to work out some kinks that have been tied. I hope I answered your question.

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, at the local levels Judges are indeed elected, and as such have the same flaws in terms of politics as any other elected official.  And naturally, it's quite hard to get into the levels of the courts where you're appointed without prior experience, so these politicians-acting-as-judges are the available pool to get people from.  At least, that's my best understanding.

I don't know. I think that's they way the local level wants you to think of it as, but there's no campaigning or specific voting by the people to elect judges. The Govenors normally appoint the judges, and after a specific tenure, people vote on keeping a particular judge. But when it comes to the Federal Courts, the president can appoint who they want with Senate agreement. Seniority and track records play a huge part and they can basically keep their job until death. Many resign/etc during a new administration, so the president has leeway in his partisanship. When it comes to the Supreme Court, you pretty much have to wait for retiring or death, and O'Connor retired which let Bush make his conservative Supreme Court he wanted. And the majority of these SCJ are nearing like, 55-65 in years. So we'll see what's going on with the Supreme Court when I'm 35.

[Dhyerwolf]

Personally, the Obama-saturation just makes me biasly infer information about his supporters: one, they don't access his site obviously to READ his policies and see what he's actually trying to do (For instance, his taxing policies for companies and internationally outsourcing taxing strategies are nothing but fluff or anti-middle class once evaluated).

In all fairness, you've just described the majority of people in general, not just supporters of one particular person. Generally people not bothering to get themselves more informed is a major issue.

[InfinityDragon]

The "unpredictability" thing comes in more from being unable to accurately predict when a justice is going to get off the bench. Yes, I know we have plenty of fossils up there, but people have guessed they'd be gone long before now and they still haven't.

The unpredictability comes primarily from the fact that the President that nominates a Justice does not know for certain how that Justice will vote on many issues. They just have a general knowledge of whether that Justice is "liberal" or "conservative." Case-in-point being Warren's nomination to the Court by Eisenhower. Predictability comes after some time on the bench and most issues have been passed a Justice's way.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, which would be the first step toward a countrywide bad on abortion, 15-17 states would have immediate bans in place based on existing state law.  You could expect abortion law questions to appear on the ballot for just about every state.

Uh, no. Those trigger laws would likely have zero effect--other than causing a few minor lawsuits. Roe v. Wade does not prevent a ban on abortions. Rather, it raises abortion to the level of a fundamental right, which can still be regulated and or banned given compelling enough interest by the state; i.e. it must pass the so-called strict scrutiny test: the law in question is the only means of achieving a compelling government interest.

Given the absolutely horrible reasoning behind Roe v. Wade--I can't emphasize this enough, nearly all Constitutional Law professors and scholars believe the legal reasoning given in Roe v. Wade was baseless and indefensible even if they agree with the outcome--it wouldn't be that far out of the question to see a court downgrading abortion from a fundamental right to an intermediate scrutiny test. An intermediate test would still require the burden of proof on the government to explain why an anti-abortion law is needed, thus the trigger laws would not be valid unless they meet the burden.

The fact that judges, people who in principle are supposed to interpret, not create, law, are capable of having political allegiance is probably the single most baffling thing about the American political system to me.

Newsflash! All three branches of government have their own authorized means of creating laws.

Judges making law is nothing new. Judges making law is also not something to get up and in arms about. These two statements are especially true in countries that were influenced by Great Britain's common law system.

Moreover, even when interpreting law, its impossible to avoid some biases. Period. As for Justices siding with political parties? That's almost always an unwarranted attack. Justices may consistently come out with decisions that support a particular party, but that's generally because they favor a reasoning or legal framework that is congruent with a particular party's--i.e. Rehnquist scaling back overly broad Federal legislation was not because he wanted to help out the Republican party, its because he believed the Constitution mandated a Federalist form of government.

[Shale]

Justices may consistently come out with decisions that support a particular party, but that's generally because they favor a reasoning or legal framework that is congruent with a particular party's--i.e. Rehnquist scaling back overly broad Federal legislation was not because he wanted to help out the Republican party, its because he believed the Constitution mandated a Federalist form of government.

Which holds up fine until you get to the exceptions that (dis)prove the rule, when traditionally liberal and conservative justices switch up their usual legal framework so they can each vote for their preferred policy outcome. Bush v. Gore, for instance (liberals for states' rights! Conservatives for federal intervention in state-regulated affairs!), or fourth-amendment cases, when Antonin Scalia briefly but predictably stops being a federalist. Hell, Roe. You just pointed out, even the scholars who agree with the practical result can't defend the reasoning. Either the judges who decided it, and the different judges who later upheld it, were all first-order morons, or they weren't being intellectually honest in their reasoning.