Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Election. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

The New Prez

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new President of the United States. In what was not a very surprising result, Barack Hussein Obama was elected to be the 44th President. Some states remain too close to call still. But the electoral college result was clear enough to all the folks in Grant Park, Chicago last night.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


First the Good. I haven't read any numbers yet, but many states were predicting 80-90% voter turnout. That is an incredible accomplishment, and I give a lot of that credit to the Obama campaign. Again, this alone is a great thing for our country and sends a message to the rest of the world, which is still largely undemocratic.

Also good is the symbolism involved with electing the first black American to become President. The race card still looms large in the minds of many, many people in this country. Many older whites are probably shocked by this day, as are many older blacks. Did you see the tears in Jesse Jackson's face? And for many in our parents' generation and ours, the majority of race consciousness is not about bigotry but more about white-guilt. I truly hope our nation is purged of both types of this foolishness.

Having watched some video feeds from Harlem, I can say I have never seen so many truly joyous black faces in our country ever. The tremendous impact of even a fraction of formerly disenfranchised blacks stepping up, plugging in and making a difference could be enough alone to carry this country for another 100 years. This too sends a message to the rest of the world, which is largely still made up of racially homogenous countries (and therefore don't have to deal with things like racial issues) or regions that are still embattled by racial or religious divides. Hopefully, the angry remnants of the once proud civil rights movement in our country has been left for dead.

The Bad part of this election is that the Democrats have gained sweeping control over the entire federal government. Although they were not able to acquire a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the gains made by the Dems in back-to-back elections are near historic. Not since the Great Depression have they picked up more than 25 seats in the house in consecutive elections.

What does this mean? Is this a mandate for Obama and the Democrats to do whatever they want? Or is this just a fearful, angry reaction via rejection of the many gross failures of the GOP? (NB: By the way, many conservatives are secretly over-joyed at this result. The stranglehold the neocons have had over the GOP has been plied loose and a chance for a more commons sense form of conservatism to reassert itself has now emerged. Also, many in the media got it wrong. Sarah Pallin did not cost the GOP the election, it was the failed policies of the Neocons and John McCain himself that cost the GOP the election, if it was ever even his to lose.)

Is the country trending more liberal anyway? The election results might make people think so, but if one takes a slightly closer look at some of the more specific issues on various state-wide ballots, the trend is not as clear. Or maybe it is that things are not as clearly red or blue as the two main parties would have us believe. Voters in California (of all places), Florida, Arkansas and Arizona all amended their state constitutions to ban gay marriage. Similar amendments already were on the books due to recent efforts in 27 other states. In what may have been an anticipation of an Obama presidency, gun purchases are up 10% this year nation-wide.

In other flashpoint issues, Colorado and South Dakota rejected measures that would have severly if not entirely eliminated abortion on demand. Michigan and Massachusetts also passed laws decriminalizing certain aspects of pot. Getting caught with an ounce or less of weed in MA is now a $100 fine/misdemeanor with no court involvement. MI will allow severely sick people to grow or buy weed for personal use. It's hard to say if these measures indidicate a strangle-hold, new wave of "liberalism" or just are prudent rejections of otherwise radically forceful laws/proposals.

So we will see how liberal the results are of this new Democratic leadership. Although the big dogs in the party are on the far left, the majority of Dems are still either Southern Blue Dogs or leftover Neocons like Hillary, who generally favor shreds of common sense.

The Ugly.
Who is Barack Obama? I mean, really. This giant baby wants to know. The mainstream press, with the exception of Fox News and Conservative talk radio, did their absolute best to help the Obama campaign. But nothing was as shocking to me as the hyperfocus on the "lack of experience" of Sarah Pallin to become Vice-President. The main duties of the Vice-President include breaking rare ties in the Senate and attending funerals of foreign leaders. I'm pretty sure she could handle that. Believe me, she deserved her share of scrutiny, but people need to be honest and just come out and say it: You don't agree with her, and you think she's stupid.

If it were really about experience, then the press should have also turned on Barack Obama, whose only real experience was one year in the Senate. The importance of this is not to demonize the press -- which just cannot help itself -- nor to defend the overall quality of Sarah Pallin, which would be tough to do. But, it is to acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama is a fresh face and a clean slate. He got elected based on his charisma and on the fact you could see anything in him you wanted to. After out-flanking to the left his comparatively conservative opponent in Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama's campaign became extremely simple: Vote for Change, and I'll give a couple hundred bucks back to you in the middle class in exchange. There wasn't much else to it, except some rousing speeches. Is that liberal? Is that mainstream? Who knows what he really wants to do? His past (e.g., his brief voting record, early speeches, stances on abortion and guns, his 2 books, his long-term associations) indicates he's a raging liberal. His recent present indicates not that he is mainstream so much as he is able and willing to change any aspect of himself to suit his circumstances. Will he continue down his very liberal, partisan path, or will he be forced to reach out to those around the country still "bitterly clinging to guns and religion"?

His first test may come soon, as even he, Joe Biden and Colin Powell have warned. I think his hands are largely tied over the economy and the middle east. We have already signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to remove troops by 2011, and I don't see any advantage to speeding that up. The economy is in for a long slow chill.

But Russia announced today, probably not by coincidence a day after the election, that she plans to put missiles near her border with Poland. This is direct retalliation to the neocon Bush's plan to put missiles in Poland by their border with Russia. Barack Obama talked a very big game early on about how he was against the Iraq war in principle and favored a more relaxed foreign policy. However, to move to the middle so as not to appear "weak", he came out against Russia in the recent situation in Georgia. We shall see what he really thinks, as this situation is not going away. Let us find out what the new guy sees when he looks deep into Putin's eyes.
May God bless America and our new President-elect.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

McCain, How Do You Sleep At Night?

"On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies."

So that quote is really from McBain, not McCain, but it would be pretty funny if the Senator shared those sleeping habits.

Oh yeah, this post is about a recent exchange McCain had at one of his town meetings regarding the presence of troops in Iraq. My better half pointed me to this NY Times blog article that defended McCain, or at the very least attempted to provide a more fair account of the aforementioned exchange than the D.N.C. (as described in the article).

McCain takes a pretty hawkish stance on this issue, essentially arguing that American troops and bases are needed around the world to ensure national security. I'd be interested to hear his reaction to the other side of this chicken-or-the-egg argument (the one Ron Paul espouses), that the reason our national security is threatened is because we have bases all over the world.


I find it encouraging that both McCain and Paul have consistent and honest messages, but I think the answer is somewhere in between. I agree with Paul, that our presence in their land is a significant cause of the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Removing or at least dramatically decreasing our presence there is a perhaps the ideal solution.

I can't believe that it is the most practical solution, however. I believe our nation is stuck in a situation where it is extremely dependent on stability in the Middle East. I can't believe I just wrote "stability in the Middle East" and was not attempting humor. Maybe it's better (and easier) to say, we can't have Iraq become Afghanistan.

I continue to contend that although we need to see progressive turnover of responsibility to Iraqis, it would be a mistake for a candidate to promise and plan a complete pull-out when they take office. In the long term, I agree with Paul and disagree with McCain that we need bases in places like Japan, Germany and Korea. But the practicality of removing our presence in the Middle East is strongly tied to our nation's ability to remove its dependence on the petrol flowing from the region.

I invite comments from everyone, be it on McCain, Paul, any other candidate or the subject of our military presence overseas. I know I will learn more by discussing with you.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Political Lunch

Some of you may be wondering how you can get a shot of news regarding the 2008 Presidential Election. Others may be wondering who turned the channel from cartoons to CNN. Well, we have good news for both of you!

Political Lunch is a website featuring a daily dose of election news from two nerdy-in-a-cool-way dudes. They have a quick rhythm, and concisely wrap up everything you need to know about he-said / she-wept in the last 24 hours, with photos and charts and interviews etc., all delivered in HD.

You can download their podcast from iTunes, or just check out their website to view their show. The site and show are both done very professionally, but there's just a touch of flimsiness to everything (sometimes you can see the desk wobble) that you have to figure the whole thing is being run by these two guys out of their apartment. How cool is that?

For those more interested in anything besides this darned election, Coovo should be reappearing soon, regaling us with tales of hazing, all-nighters, the cute chick he walked home from Biology, and getting busted sneaking beers into his dorm room. We can't wait, Coovo!

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Scaredy Fox! Scaredy Fox!

Fox News decided that Ron Paul was not worthy of entry into the Republican debate in New Hamphire, even though Paul's results in the Iowa caucus (10%) were triple that of Giuliani (3.5%), and he was close to 3rd in New Hampshire polls. What is this, Nader all over again?

Hats off to Jay Leno, who recognized the undeserved snub and had Paul as his headlining guest on Monday night. I doubt that the Leno appearance helped Paul in NH, but I wonder if nationally this might have worked out better for him than attending the debate.

Here is Leno's interview of Paul:

Part 1:



Part 2:

Saturday, January 5, 2008

People in Glass Booths Should Throw Votes

OK, that didn't make much sense. But after you finish this post, it will (i.e. might).

If you're like me, and at least half of you are, you're having a tough time deciding who you like in the '08 election. Friend of TLATL, Ryan, tipped me off to a cool website that gives you an easy way to find with which candidates you may be aligned in your opinions.

Check out www.glassbooth.org and you'll find this simple exercise:
  1. Add points to any of about 12 different issues to weight their importance to you.
  2. Answer a number of "strongly oppose - strongly support" questions based on the issues you weighted.
  3. Submit your answers and wait a few seconds while mumbling to yourself "Please don't be Hillary. My God, what will I do if it's Hillary? Can I take this thing again? What if I do and it's Hillary again? This whole site was created by the Clinton War Machine to make everyone think they're aligned with Hillary! I know it!!"
  4. View a list of the candidates with which your opinions are most aligned, as well as the reasons why.
Well since people are probably wondering, I was equally aligned with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, both at 76%. McCain came in 3rd at 71%. I've yet to read fully why I am aligned with each of them and not aligned with others, so I'm not sure how accurate it is. I'm quite sure that reading that and taking the quiz again and again could actually alter my thoughts on each candidate, but that's the whole point.

Thanks, Ryan, for the tip. I've since read about it elsewhere, so the site's popularity seems to be growing.