Grand political roundup

[metroid composite]

Some guy from Brazil watches Fox News for the whole election day and blogs about it; funny stuff:

http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2008/11/04/fox-news-channel-election-day-live-blog/

[Ultradude]

Planned on voting in the morning before my midday classes yesterday.

Overslept T_T Missed voting, was only barely on time for my (thankfully short!) chemistry lab.

Was gonna vote McCain, but not at all upset over Obama winning. Probably one of the few people seeing this election as being at least somewhat win-win, and Obama's got plenty of views that I agree with more than McCain's on some issues.

Still wondering what effect Palin had on the vote, though Bush is the one who really lost McCain the election.

[InfinityDragon]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584345511799173.html

Good article that lays out the dangers if an over-exuberant victorious Democrat-led Congress tries to tackle the economic problem blindly or on impulse.

As for the election, I don't really like it that Obama won, but the Republicans had shot themselves in the foot and McCain did some strange things in his campaign, so it's understandable why he won. Hopefully Obama and Congress stick to things that are relatively bi-partisan for the first few years, such as energy, and avoid the controversial shit. The creation of a byzantine, impossible to eradicate social welfare or health care program (such as how the supposed "temporary" Social Security in the 30s is still around today) is what I'm most concerned about.

[Idun]

Yeah, supposedly or it's rumored, that Palin may be going for the Alaska Senate Seat if whatyamabober retires. She won't be able to see Russia anymore :<

[NotMiki]

Don't worry, ID, Obama will stick to the center politically.

Of course, his way of doing so has been to redefine the center as 'where Obama is standing.'

Been reading a lot of right-wing editorials and op-eds counseling Obama to be sure to stick to center-right ideas and nominate center-right people if he wants to be successful.  Haven't read a single one that explains why they sat on their hands for eight years of terrible, non-conservative governance just because the guy in the oval office had an R- prefix.

As for the wisdom of the WSJ op-ed page, I leave you with this pearl of wisdom on our exiting president.  I must admit I didn't get all that much out of it because when I was reading it, I just couldn't get the phrase "Leave Britney alone!" out of my head.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

EDIT: In all seriousness, don't worry about congress acting 'blindly' or 'on impulse.'  If the election has taught us anything about Obama, it is that he is careful and deliberative.  Obama is the center of the political universe, and Democrat congressmen won't be defying him any time soon. 

[InfinityDragon]

As for the wisdom of the WSJ op-ed page, I leave you with this pearl of wisdom on our exiting president.  I must admit I didn't get all that much out of it because when I was reading it, I just couldn't get the phrase "Leave Britney alone!" out of my head.

That op-ed isn't terrible by any means. Bush is obviously not the greatest president ever; he made serious mistakes, such as letting Rumsfeld run the show in Iraq for far too long. By the same token, he's nowhere the bottom rung level of presidents such as Harding and Buchanan. You cannot really deny the point of the article being that Bush has been maligned for things far beyond his control or that the mudslinging against him was pretty ridiculous and highly over-reactive.

Also, more to the point. Just because one article isn't exceptionally well written or knowledgeable doesn't mean other WSJ op-eds are not. The article I posted was written by a former CEO of a credit card company; he has much more knowledge about economics and how the credit market works than most members of Congress. Your article, while by no means terrible, wasn't written at the same level of expertise (although it is worth pointing out that it was written by a former supporter of John Kerry, and thus presumably an unbiased perspective).

[Shale]

You're right that the anger Bush inspires is out of proportion to what he's actually done (not to say he hasn't done a really shitty job, just that the level of anger that exists would be out of proportion to anyone short of the Pol Pot level). Just the same, though, anybody who makes a serious claim that the Bush administration tried to be above the partisan hellhole that is Washington politics, but those nasty congresspeople just wouldn't let them deserves all the laughter I can produce and then some.

[metroid composite]

I see Bush as a bad President for a fairly simple reason: to me the goal of a right wing president is financial responsibility.  Bush would do things like not veto any spending bills that cross his desk, or simultaneously go to war and lower taxes.

Comparatively, the goal of a left-wing president is social responsibility, though as ID points out, a financial crisis is not the time for social spending.  Most people are speculating that Obama wants socialized health care, and since every single socialized health care system in the world costs less taxpayer dollars than America's mess of a system, eventually this will be good economically.  In the short-term, you don't pull the knife out of a stab-victim when their vitals are low and unstable.  Yes, eventually that knife needs to come out, but only when the patient is stable.

[VySaika]

A bit of perspective on Prop 8, written by a gay man I know who recently got married.

http://toob.livejournal.com/496741.html

Warning: there is a small bit of Obama gushing in there, but that's not really the meat of the message.

[Grefter]

From my understanding of the usual pattern in Presidency, completely overhauling the health care system is something far more likely to be done in his second term isn't it when he doesn't have to worry about getting voted back in?  I expect this first four years to be fairly low key in the more out right socialist policies.

Would likely expect there to be a bit more focus on (cheap) environmentalist policies to be his larger changes out of the gate.

[NotMiki]

More to the point. Just because one article isn't exceptionally well written or knowledgeable doesn't mean other WSJ op-eds are not.

True.  But I'm gonna stick to my guns about how laughable the Bush piece is. 

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Just like how Krauthammer's defense of John McCain never brought up Sarah Palin, this article about what people blame Bush for never, not once, brings up Katrina.  The only concession it makes on Iraq is that Rumsfeld did a bad job of it.  There never were WMDs, and the president knew or should have known that, so that's not good enough.  It doesn't even fucking mention the economy.  People don't blame Bush for 9/11 happening.  They don't blame him for Katrina hitting New Orleans.  They blame him for how he responded to those things, and his response was completely inadequate, to say the least.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

We, the American people, elect a president.  He works for us.  If he wants loyalty, he needs to fucking earn it.  Our disapproval of him has led directly to a change in behavior on his part, especially concerning foreign policy.  That's how a democracy should work.

[metroid composite]

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

We, the American people, elect a president.  He works for us.  If he wants loyalty, he needs to fucking earn it.  Our disapproval of him has led directly to a change in behavior on his part, especially concerning foreign policy.  That's how a democracy should work.

Yeah, that line in particular always sounds ridiculous to me.  "Stand behind your (elected leader) when things are going bad"?  No other first-world democracy uses that kind of rhetoric these days.  In fact, usually things going bad corresponds to a drop in approval rating for the (elected leader).

And, as shocking as this may be, places like Canada and England have yet to spontaneously melt from terrorist strikes.  Sure, you might argue "it's not always correct to turn on your leader when things go bad."  This is true, but it's much, much better than turning on your leader when things go right and approving of them when things go wrong.  (That gives them incentive to screw things up).

[Taishyr]

I was going to comment on that piece but NotMiki/MC have saved me the time. Lemme just put my two cents in and say that the endless string of excuses to justify the Iraq War earned my enmity for the man and his support, kinda bluntly. Seems that 1/2 the people don't even remember that, though, so. Ksh.

[AAA]

So, basically, millions of people voted for state-supported discrimination, removing the ability of same-sex couples to get over a thousand different rights that come with marriage, due to the fact that they simply didn't approve of what they were doing.

USA! USA! USA!

On a completely different note, conservatives, any thoughts on what the Repubs can do to rebound in time for 2012?

edit: Forgot the link for that 'thousand rights' thing

http://web.archive.org/web/20061109182904/http://www.nclrights.org/publications/pubs/2004GAO.pdf

[metroid composite]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/1

There's a bunch of reporters who were closer to each camp, but had all their information embargoed until after the polls had closed.  Some really fascinating stuff here.  (Granted, the entire first page was "They had their computers hacked! Palin spent even more on clothes than we thought!!!1!1", but the second page has some rather interesting details on the Hillary/Obama/McCain triangle).



EDIT: more reveals (this one all Palin; also: warning, video contains Bill O'Riley)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3dkiWncf2k

Summary for those who want to avoid O'Riley: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent, and couldn't name the three countries in NAFTA (or even the countries in North America).

[NotMiki]

What I find particularly interesting is that the McCain camp had not yet decided whether or not to use William Ayers as an issue when Palin brought it up.  After that they were all in, but if she hadn't done so, McCain may well have avoided being branded as negative and focused on unimportant issues in October.

[Shale]

I blame Jim for making me read through the annals of Wall Street Journal political idiocy.

2004: Bush's 3-point win over Kerry represents an all-empowering mandate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109953513161964526.html?mod=opinion

2008: Obama's 7-point win in no way constitutes a mandate for the economic policies that he publicly espoused during the campaign. The evidence for this: A Club For Growth poll. I'm sure that wasn't biased at all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593328956303419.html

BONUS STUPID: Daniel Henninger wonders, totally without irony, why Obama was talking about "the dreams of the founders" like there was some kind of long-standing social problem in the US that this election had something to do with, and why he made those strange references to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. It must be because he hates America!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593290205503525.html

[DjinnAndTonic]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/1

From the link in MC's post:

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'." 

Quoted for its amusement value.

-Djinn

[Grefter]

Yeah a good chunk of that solidifies a lot of what I had thought, both candidates again were miles ahead of what there was to choose from last election for you guys.  Hopefully this continues next time as well.

[superaielman]

An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

I am looking forward to watching some much needed purging of the republican party during the next few years.

That story makes me respect McCain (And Obama) a hell of a lot more on a personal level, and lowered my respect for Palin even more. Though the story about her prancing around in a towel was funny- and makes perfect sense considering her backround in beauty pageants.

[NotMiki]

BONUS STUPID: Daniel Henninger wonders, totally without irony, why Obama was talking about "the dreams of the founders" like there was some kind of long-standing social problem in the US that this election had something to do with, and why he made those strange references to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. It must be because he hates America!

On a related note, Bill Kristol was just last week praising America for not letting 9/11 cause any anti-muslim backlash.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/williamkristol/index.html

"Indeed, as Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia, so the market crash has resulted in remarkably little popular hysteria or scapegoating."

He was referring in his column to how smart the people are and how politicians like Bush and Palin are true politicians of the people, not the stuffy elites.  Well, the people are smart, that's why they favor the following:

Pulling out of Iraq with no preconditions
Comprehensive Health Care reform
Obama's college credit
Larger restrictions on government spying on Americans

a.k.a

Surrender
Socialized medicine
Spreading the wealth around
failing to protect us from terrorists

I'm sure, given that the American people are so smart, that folks like Bill Kristol, who understands them so well, and understands their desires and failings (oops, they don't have any) listens to them and adopts their ideas, right?

EDIT:  From 2004, some good advice for a new president:

"We trust that the President will not now let those same opponents interpret his mandate for him. The effort is already under way to diminish the victory by insisting that Mr. Bush "move to the center," which is code for giving up the agenda that voters just endorsed. The country remains "deeply divided," we are told, so Mr. Bush is obliged to make concessions..."

Compare that with the multiple editorials advising Obama to not overreach on a liberal agenda and be sure to make concessions to the right, and you get a hypocrisy as naked as you're likely to see in a major newspaper.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I have heard tons of people bitch about Obama being a Muslim and refusing to vote for him because of that, so I don't even want to hear about "no anti-Muslim backlash". Maybe not in DC or wherever he lives, but certainly in rural Oklahoma. <_<

[Grefter]

He doesn't live in Washington.  Apparently he lives on Venus and transmits stories from there.  It is a quaint little town of Denialsville in the state of Make Bullshit Up which is one of the more democratic parts of the great country of Being a Complete Shit.

[Shale]

Though the story about her prancing around in a towel was funny- and makes perfect sense considering her backround in beauty pageants.

I don't get the humor in that one. They interrupted her in the shower! Anybody pansy enough to be scandalized by that wouldn't have lasted five seconds in the LBJ administration.

[Taishyr]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/

"There was clearly no mandate to shift the country to the left on social issues," Perkins said. "What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view."

Okay, I really should've just voted Cthulhu, in the hopes he'd eat the politicians first.