I'm not a Democrat, so I can only speak personally, PHP, but I think it goes more to the fact that "experience" was a keystone of McCain's sales pitch - which went out the door the moment he rushed to judgment in picking Palin, both because it raises the question of his judgment, generally - "Maverick" is the twin to "wantonly impulsive," at least when taking an honest look at McCain's history - and the question, if experience is such an important part of his campaign, why he chose someone with such paltry experience. The second question is important, perhaps moreso than with Obama, as McCain is the oldest guy to ever run for the office, with a history of serious health problems.
Lets be honest here though, to say that your going to pick an unexperienced person over an experienced person because he has someone who is unexperienced that MIGHT need to step in is crazy to say the least. It makes no sense. "I'm going to pick an unexperienced person because the experienced person has an unexperienced person that might need to step in for him." This is what is being said.
Well, if you're asking me, I've said this many times - I am concerned less with experience, and more with ability. It's why I've supported Obama in the past, and it's why I still believe he trumps all of them, by a considerable margin. My issue is legion, actually, with McCain's pick of Sarah Palin. With respect to this thread, it's the cynicism as to the intelligence of the American voter that condemns his opponent for his experience, while picking a cipher from Alaska as his running mate. And, believing, as I do, that she is woefully ill-prepared for the job, on things that matter to me, yes, her ability to step in should McCain fall is not off the table.
Out of curiousity, based on the above comments, do you dock Obama any for his lack of experience? Obviously, I agree with you on the ability part of your comment. I've never once said that I would not vote for Obama because of his lack of experience. I'm just not sure where the logic comes into play that you'll vote for Obama over McCain based on an experience issue.
Koch is like Jerry Farwell. He will write a blog for Jewish press and maybe one trip. people seek his opinion. I think he is more important than Lieberman . Once Obama wins the Jewish vote in South Florid, and Florida as a result Mcsame can not possibly win. all those emails are wothless now. The Florida retirees are going to feel safe with him and will vote their interest. I think it was actually Ed Koch who turned some of the Jewish vote to the republican party. I think before him every one voted Democrat. How ironic. He is the one that is going to bring them home. This could be a titanic shift of alliance. ===================================================================== why he did this is probably very complicated. but one thing is for sure and that he does not think Obama is going to be an anti Israeli president. If it is good enough for Koch it is good enough for a lot of other people. If you want to take a guess he is scared of failin so am i he is not happy with the direction of the country neither am i he is not happy with the foreign policy neither am i
That's my point, PHP. I've never said experience is my top criterion, and, following from that, never said In fact, quite the opposite: Succinctly, I am less concerned with experience than I am with ability - I weight the latter more. Why I'd be for Obama over anyone else in the campaign; I am concerned that this has been a talking point for McCain, when he chooses a cipher like Palin to be his running mate. It speaks to his lack of judgment (given what appears to me to be a rushed, frenetic grab for the one that could appease the extreme religious right wing of his party, threatening an RNC schism), and to his cynical view of the American voter. Both conclusions square with each other. One favors Obama, the other disfavors McCain, for specific reasons.
I second NPT's perspective for some similar but slightly different reasons. McCain wishes to continue the fundamental aspects of Bush's term in office. Continue fighting terrorism on many fronts AND maintain large scale tax cuts. Its a set of twin decisions that have never before been suggested or practised by an American leader. No leader before combined wars with tax cuts. The result has been the following: Two wars being fought on the cheap, with our inability to put closure on either one.....along with exploding budget deficits that harm the financial/business/economic security of the US. Meanwhile we have a military groundforce that is stretched to the max, pressured, understaffed, and doesn't have the size or capability to end a war in either nation. Today's news includes comments from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regarding the fact that we need more troops in Afghanistan for a deteriorating situation. We have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001. The situation is deteriorating. Al Queda is free, though currently undergoing increased attacks by US forces. It seems that the Bush administration is acting on a basis that reflects Obama's comments -> focus on Al Queda and what is going on in Pakistan. Al Queda is and remains a consistant dangerous enemy, amongst others. McCain wants to continue endless expenditures and a war footing in Iraq and wants to increase efforts in Afghanistan. Where is he going to get the troops. Is he going to dream them up? He wants to continue the Bush process of deep tax cuts while waging war. That has led to unbelievable budget deficits and a weakened American economy. There is no effort to tie the two together. I could go into other issues but simply desiring to tie two fundamental policies that cause enormous pressure on the American system is a huge mistake IMHO.
Excellent post, Earl. Relatedly, Homebiz created a thread on "who spends more," and the evidence is there, precisely on your point. Much the same with Reagan, when he was president. He cut taxes, and spent a good deal. Spent it on different things, but spent nonetheless. You can't do that and claim to be a fiscal spendthrift.
it seems that Koch was clear on why he endorsed obama. the real question is what will happen in AIPAC. http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020303.html or it could be as a result of a change in the alliance between the lobby and bush dministration either resulting from the current news in the ME, or the current result in the ME can be result of this change in alliance. this could also be an attempt for the lobby to position itself in case of a win by Obama. This is not so simple and can have a huge impact the most interesting question is if AIPAC switches to Obama then what would the christians do. that would be my most challenging thought.
I have some questions about that source NPT. I'm not saying its incorrect, I'm just pointing something out that I'm not sure how they figured out the numbers. Take a look at the energy plans. Specifically, the cap-and-trade system. Both Obama and McCain says that they will have a cap-and-trade system. Obama recieved a +$100 billion whereas McCain only received +$5 billion. Any idea what the reasons were? The paragraphs discussing those topics look to be quite the same to me.
I'm a old school business oriented person. I liked the way, pre Reagon Republicans put fiscal responsability first. I can't comment off the top of my head on spending during the Reagon years. I do know the current debt explosion started there, though. I can comment upon govt spending during the current Bush administration and compare it to democratic spending or proposed spending. The difference in the current or recent environment when it comes to spending or spending plans is the following: The dems announce big programs that require a lot of spending. Example: Obama and Clinton health plan proposals. Everyone can see them, critique them, reference costs, support them or denounce them. At least they are out in the open. Under this Pres Bush, the Reps simply spend and don't label or announce programs. Then they label dems as big spenders. When the drug program came up...the govt financial guy who was responsable for estimating and accounting for costs was threatened with firing if he revealed his numbers. They were way way higher than what was being debated in Congress. The administration never announced his estimates till after legislation was passed. Costs are rediculously higher than the numbers being debated when legislative debate occurred. On the war...Bush simply doesn't deal with it. Every budget bill on the Iraq war for years has gone to something called supplementals. That was never done before. Even in past war periods full budget estimates were presented to Congress and the Public during the wars. The concept of supplementals was established for the first year or two of a war as there were so many unknowns. It was not something to be continued for 5 or 7 years. Bush doesn't want to deal with it. On the one hand this administration has simply spent at a rate that has increased at roughly double the rate of increases that occurred during Clinton's administration. Beyond that it simply buries everything into a rapidly growing deficit. If you choose to use a big word to describe the process you might call it obfuscation. I prefer to call it "lying". Its lying on a most fundamental basis.
You can go to the methodology, which talks about the general methods used in coming up with their numbers, and you can also go to the end, where each sub-section is discussed in greater detail (actually, looks like you've done this - if so, this is for others' convenience). Here's the reasoning for McCain's number: If you go to the referenced material (footnotes 39, 40), it appears they are using the targets established by McCain, on his website, to at least try to parse some numbers: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm For Obama, the reasoning is different: (A similar approach of parsing numbers seems to be by their referencing the candidate website - footnotes 100, 101). Based on the above, the difference is that McCain is proposing that some companies would be required to buy permits, while the rest is left up to the market; with Obama, all companies would be required to buy the permit. I can't speak to the specific numbers, but I understand their logic - the odds of selling these permits on the free market are far less than if these permits are simply required. I'm also not saying here this is optimal, or bad; simply, this study seems to want to look at raw numbers, if both candidates' wish list became reality, in toto.
Thanks, Earl - very apt observation again, and I hadn't thought quite in those terms before. Regarding the Reagan years, I don't have it handy, but wasn't it a trebling in the deficit due to his policies? Much the same notion obtains here.
It seems that it had started even before Koch endorsement. say bye bye Florida. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221142454240&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
I don't know if Koch represents the Florida vote but Koch may shore up the homosexual vote in a small area.
so you think the Jewish retirees in Florida are gay? they need a lot more than a few republican votes to become gay.
I think the argument is that his endorsement will have little affect on anyone except for a small group of the homosexuals.