with erratic behaviour. About half of his comments sound reasonable; he usually makes them after he's called out on something vile or stupid. His primary motive is to sow "dissension" at mydd by pretending to be in the Clinton camp and making provocative statements about Obama (which came into full force after it was clear Obama would win, of course). He's deluded into thinking that irritating a user or two who is unfamiliar with him will influence the election.
He's not particularly good at it either. His jabs lack coherence and the vitriol for all Democrats shows through to easily. And his sig is retarded.
his instinct is to do just that. I don't think he will, however.
McCain, like Clinton, has become a captive of his advisors. How many of them care about his long-term repuation vs. the slight possibility of winning, or even the petty satisfaction of doing damage to those who bested you?
I see his campaign flailing nastily to the very end, with only a few bouts of reason and civility.
Ah well. I can feel for McCain to some degree: he was dealt a poor hand and had to play it best he could, although he made some poor decisions. I feel nothing but glee for the massive failure of Republican campaigning philosophy, however.
Too bad that these three are such hard targets. I would rank them as numbers 98 through 100 in senatorial quality.
It's a shame it's easier to defeat moderate / semi-decent repubs like Chafee than these douchebags. Well, let's hope they tire of being in the minority in a filibuster-proof Senate. Cornyn's whining about "Democrat" nasitiness can be ignored, Inhofe's Big Oil contributions will dry up and Roberts will have no one to be a slavering tool to.
Hoover was an accomplished statesman who did great humanitarian work after he was out of office. There are a lot of parallels between him and Jimmy Carter, actually.
Yes, Hoover was ineffective at forestalling and addressing the Depression. But that crisis was set in motion mostly by economic forces
that predated his term in office and over which he had little control. On top of that, there were few institutional safeguards against symptoms like bank runs, which only deepened the problem.
George W. Bush, by contrast, inherited all of the benefits of a mature, diversified economy. But he treated the vital functions of government with disdain and contempt, thinking only of enriching his political base and installing cronies where competent professionals were needed. On top of that, he is stubborn and very, very stupid. Other than a few things like deciding to go into Afganistan and the do-not-call list, a theoretical President W's place would have done a pretty good job by simply doing the opposite of what Bush did.
James Buchanan was ineffective at forestalling civil war, but that's not the same thing as actively working to discredit government institutions. Nixon, for all his paranoia and criminality, got some legislation passed that did the public a lot of good.
Bush's "43" hat should not only refer to the chronological order of his presidency, but also its ranking. And yes, I know about the Cleveland double counting; that only means the 43 ranking will be precise after Jan. 20th.
There's a reason the constitution uses the word "only" in defining treason.
"Aid and comfort to its enemies" is also kind of vague. In the widest interpretation, one could designate an undesirable individual or group as an "enemy" of the US, then claim someone's behavior is providing "aid and comfort" to said enemy.
Try googling "John Kerry" "Paris accords" and "treason" and see how many frivolous hits you get. I believe we should use treason accusations sparingly.
which I am in NO WAY advocating, involved turning the vote suppression tactic against the Republicans:
Think of how long, on average, it takes to find an undecided/unregistered person and convince them to add a vote to the D column. Now think of how many R votes would be lost if someone drove out to a wealthy Columbus exurb with a big Megachurch in the pre-dawn hours on election day and slashed every SUV tire they found. It would be possible to do several hundred an hour. Sure you'd catch some Democrats, and many Republicans would still manage to vote, but it would still be a much more efficient way to improve the margins. Other than the property damage, it is no more morally reprehensible than jamming phone lines or intentionally misappropriating voting machines.
If Obama were to win by a nose and then it were revealed that some computer malfunction underreported a bunch of votes in heavily Republican SW Ohio, that would also be awesome.
I'm doing fine; the country is not. So far I've organized a fundraiser, phone-banked, donated 3 times, talked to every local media outlet, debated in two radio segments and bought my ticket to Ohio for the last 72-hour GOTV. Oh yeah and I'm doing it from Canada, so I'll be somewhat insulated from the potential effects of a McCain win anyway. How about you?
When you're done psychonanalyzing me over a blog, you can try to understand my larger point. Yes, I'm still bitter about how too many Americans choose their president. But my larger point was that we will not always have a candidate as exciting as Barack Obama (to his credit). I believe a large swath if not the majority of voters will vote for President for the wrong reasons. Which is just as important tor remember this cycle as it was in '04.
once and for all that voters were more excited about John Kerry's candidacy than they are Barack Obama's, Thursday-Friday comparison or no.
Heh. Seriously though, the current financial unravelling suggests that severe irreversable damage to the country has already been done. When I hear all these people gush about how enthused they are about Obama's candidacy, I can't help but think we would have needed them more four years ago. How any of the 62 million people who watched the first Bush-Kerry debate not conclude "hmm, I think I'd better vote for Kerry after all" is beyond me. Too Wooden? Aloof? Nuanced? What the hell? You're picking the goddamn leader of the free world, you nincompoops.
Winston Churchill famously said that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other options. The remaining question is whether we left it too late.
How could this be happening in Ohio? We have a Democratic (read: non-criminal) secretary of state now. I don't see Jennifer Brunner actively trying to purge forclosed homeowners. Unless is is a separate state agency that is doing this thing, or her underlings are and she's not on the ball.
1. I believe the best argument in favor of universal single-payer healthcare is not some egalitarian ideal, but efficiency. Paul Krugman's columns do a great job of popularizing the number-crunching on this. Among the highlights are:
a. Medicare overhead costs represent 2% of premiums paid by the government; for private plans the figures quoted were something like 37%. There's too much paperwork and beaurocracy involved in getting someone else to pay the hefty treatment bills. Also, while US doctors are overpaid, they have to spend way to much of their time fighting with insurers.
b. The Canadian government (Federal and Provincial), despite guaranteeing "free" basic healthcare to ALL its citizens (including things like heart transplants but not completely covering prescriptions), spends less per capita on healthcare than the US government, who leaves many uninsured and relies on private insurance for the non-poor non-elderly. The difference was something like 2,200$-2,100$ per citizen, not huge but not insignificant either.
2. As for universal healthcare being affordable, my response to #1 partly answers this. The evidence provided by every other industrialized country would suggest it's affordable too, although all their systems have significant drawbacks. I would agree that healthcare, if not managed carefully and dispassionately, is a voracious money pit. But a competent government can set and enforce a set of uniform standards in accordance with its budget. But other countries have free-market ideologues too; ever wonder why no significant political factions in their Governments want to emulate the US healthcare model?
A few crude examples to illustrate market success in some areas vs. market failure in others:
- The private sector is the right place to handle something like like making iPods. Huge profit motive, faster adaptability to market demands and healthy competition. Above all, nobody really needs an iPod, and any company who overprices or makes a crappy product simply fails.
- Things like national defense, water supply, healthcare (and to a lesser extent, electrical power) don't work that way. Reliability of service is much more important than adaptability and innovation. There are often huge capital or crisis-management costs that no private company would want or be able to absorb (hence all the healthcare beaurocracy). People cant't simply stop using tapwater or healthcare simply because it gets too expensive. And of course, as a society we refuse to let people die because they can't afford medical care.
Free-market libertarianism in its purest form leads to us all going back to subsistence farming. I'm convinced that it's important for us to realize the contribution of public institutions to our quality of life, and to recognize when some responsibilities are better handled by our sometimes inefficient and choice-curtailing governments. Even when we have to wait on line at the DMV, read about pork-barrel waste in government and plow through needlessly complicated tax returns.
So, when I hear about Republicans railing against "big Government" in all its forms, I see not only hypocrisy (because of their porky ways), but intellectual dishonesty. They refuse to acknowledge market failure, and their solution is always to make government smaller rather than better.