Drags on the ticket

Nick Kaplan

McCain will not be haunted by accusations of being too much like Bush and the idea that he might fails to understand how Americans vote. Few Americans are tied to either party, many split-ticket vote, and the President is considered an individual leader largely outside party politics. McCain will be judges on his stance on core issues and in many respects he is independently minded and on most issues very different to Bush. The current unpopularity of the Republican party is unlikely to have much influence on McCain’s support. Obama on the other hand has much bigger problems as the criticism of him are actually of him rather than his party or other members of it, and thus will detract from his support. Many of the Americans I know consider themselves more Democrat inclined (many supported Hillary’s campaign) but say they will not vote Obama because he stands for nothing but the empty notion of ‘change’/ ‘hope’ and because of his recent troubles. The election is going to be very close, and Obama will struggle far more than most believe.

Water

It would be easy to underestimate the weight of voter ennui at this point. Republicans are not that excited about McBush, and they are not nearly as impelled in opposition to Obama as they are Hillary. As for Obama not standing for anything try this website link below it has a few good points I think you’ll find that he does stand for a few things… and didn’t make it this far by just screaming change.

link

Water

Here is another very comprehensive link

Verity

Obama's big, greedy, look-at-me-everyone! smile is an emetic all by itself. Never mind that it took him 20 years to throw Rev Wright under a bus. (I hope he threw him under the front of the bus ...)

I find it perturbing that none of the three front-runners has any executive experience whatsoever. Americans usually like to vote for someone who has been the chief executive of a state.

TGF UKIP

The negativity attached to the Bush connection may be being considerably overstated. As I've posted before regard for Bush is deeply unfashionable and counter conventional - rather like being a Conservative and admirer of Margaret Thatcher was in the eighties over here. If Bush was actually running for re-election he would actually poll far above his approval ratings. McCain is a tough guy, Bush is a tough guy and the connection may not be the hindrance it first appears -especially not with male voters.

Nick Kaplan

Thanks for the link, it made interesting reading. The problem is that whilst he has clearly outlined many policy positions none of his ideas are new, in fact most seem to harp back to failed and discredited leftist ideas of the 1960’s and 1970’s such as protectionism and farming subsides, both of which are major problems globally and for America, yet he wants to extend them both. This is just the rhetoric heavy old politics of appealing to particular interest groups (which he claims to be against) such as farmers, or workers in uncompetitive industries, at the expense of the wider public and economic interest. So much for ‘change’ then.

Kevyn Bodman

Executive experience in a President is not essential.
'Leo McGarry' will run the White House.
Any President can motivate staff simply by being the President.
Monitoring job performance of staff is not a function that needs to cross the President's desk.
Setting objectives is important, and a President needs to be able to do that.
But the most important quality is judgement, and that's difficult to assess.

A President also needs to understand that he can't know everything, his opinions on some matters are less valuable than those of some of his experts. I'm especially thinking of military matters, a good leader needs to know when to take advice, and responsibilty.
Obama slagging off his staff recently is a major flaw.

The most we could hope for is a clear statement of political philosophy and biases, and a few policy statements related to the present and to the near future.From that we have to make the best choice we can.

One of the problems with democracy is that the qualities needed to get elected do not always coincide with the qualities needed to do the job.

I could do a very good job as PM, but there is no chance of me getting elected.
As I've said on other Spectator pages, Melanie could do a pretty good job too.

But anyone who wants to BE in power rather than DO the job deserves our suspicion and scorn.

Water

"Obama's big, greedy, look-at-me-everyone!" I wouldn't say he's greedy, the man is an educated fellow coupled with the fact that he is a good man therefore he has every right to be proud. This said when it comes to gaining the publics interest (in the form of votes) there is no time for acts of electorate altruism. We are quickly getting to a win or loose situation. Also the resentment from Bush (from what I gather from certain associates in America) is by no means overstated.

Austin Barry

Obama with his rather smug, supercilious demeanor and slightly sinister antecedents is unlikely to appeal to Joe Paycheck from Palookaville. In these dangerous times the US is going to opt for the granite-jawed, all-American, Central-Casting-perfect McCain. Unlike the effete Obama, McCain looks as though he would be quite prepared to "kick-ass" if required, and for the suds-downing guys in the sports bars of fly-over America this will be the determining factor.

Water

The price of ‘Gas’ as it’s called over in America is bound to cause some incontinent hampering for Mc Cain as high prices will, without a doubt, act to the detriment of Republicans. Those paying in excess of eighty to ninety dollars to refill their sport utility vehicles are annoyed to say the least, the result mass Republican casualties in suburban areas of that nature. Also do not underestimate the fact that Bush is loathed as gas is expensive and the economy is hot on many Americans minds. This is one nail in the Republican machine with out a fraction of a doubt. Due to this logic certain states with affinities for the Democrats will not turn Republican under any circumstances. Also such facts (which have been downplayed to a degree by Obama and can be concentrated upon in coming months) will be likely to cause states such as North Dakota to modify their stance from Republican to Democrat.

Also Mc Bush has been getting a grilling from former Senator Phil Gramm who has been driving stakes into the heart of the Republican machine. The former senator has been spearheading the revolt against the Republicans which led to the housing scandal. Not to mention the controversy with Dark Markets and the Enron Loophole and its said relation to the world oil market.

This said demographic intricacies give Obama a head start in places like Nth Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia to mention but a few. Though states such as Florida, Alabama and maybe Georgia will be more of a fight, this said they are by no means beyond the stretch of the imagination though will be hard to gain. None the less the electoral calculus for the no holes barred show down between McBush & Obama will be interesting. For states such as Utah/Idaho are going to vote Republican no matter what (though of course the media will hype this beyond all feasible realisation). This said the two aforementioned states are by no means the end of matters for Mc Bush for as regards other states Obama has a few things working to his aid namely, Latino populace aren’t going to support the Republicans to a substantial degree, consequentially making states such as Nevada and Colorado real show stoppers not to mention the fact that this will add aid Obama in Florida come New Mexico. Also it should be kept in mind that ninety one percent of Afro-Caribbean’s voted for Kerry in ‘04. Do the sums and what do you find? Well… the vast bulk of votes that went Kerrys way in the southern states came from Afro-Caribbean’s (who are largely going to side with Obama). Also the Caucasians who voted for Kerry are not going to desert Obama for McCain as they have liberal inclinations. Not to mention the fact that we haven’t seen Obama's huge campaign savings on display (to its maximum potential) for this will finance the foundational voter registration and negatively affect the Republican efforts in contested states come ballot bashing time.

Water

Also Obama wants to do the job I don't think he has some juvenile infatuation with power by any means (contrary to what people may think).

Ian C

The essence of Obama however, is a college law lecturer, a (voluntary) social worker and a local politician with dealings with the murky goings on in Chicago.

Is this a good background for President of the USA?

Water

The delays go on.

Water

Hopefully the other post will appear, this said change does not mean change to that which is new. This said I support the protectionist sentiments (though this can be taken both way irrefuatbly) it has always been a Democratic tool come time for states such as Ohio and I don't see it changing. Thus it does not seem like empty rhetoric.

Nick Kaplan

Water, protectionism has never worked and cannot; it is an economic impossibility to better a national economy through protectionism (there are virtually no economists of either a left or right persuasion who support it). All it does is decrease trade and help an individual sector at the expense of the national economy, those companies that export, consumers, and all those in foreign countries with which you would otherwise trade. Furthermore, it’s expensive and just delays the inevitable decline of an unsustainable industry. The only reasons a Politician could support it is if they don’t understand its implications or if they are being disingenuous, appealing to a more vocal part of the electorate at the expense of the wider majority who are less vocal (and don’t understand the implications of protectionism) to win support. Either way its rhetoric heavy nonsense designed to stimulate the emotions of those in a particular sector, it’s dangerous and should bar him from serious consideration as a candidate.

Water

Nick,Protectionism with a country of America could work, though I agree there aren't many economists in support of it, but I'm still inclined to go with Obama (as it could work in America) hence why it’s anything but empty rhetoric. Take for example:

“Obama's central economic theme is that inequality has surged in the last eight years, beyond its increase in the previous 30. Through tax breaks for low-income voters, additional taxes on the rich and protections against job outsourcing, he intends to reverse this trend and alleviate its effects. He believes that past trade deals were tailored to the needs of big companies, enabling them to reduce costs at the expense of the lower-skilled US workforce.”

As such he should by no means be barred.

Austin Barry

"..the no holes barred show down between McBush & Obama will be interesting". Well, yes, but it also seems entirely inappropriate and rather nauseating to me, and likely to the God-fearing, puritanical US electorate.

Water

And it seems inappropriate to me too Barry but as you say "well, yes" and that echoes my sentiments exactly. Like it or lump it the gloves will soon come off, in the words of Robin Williams "in an all...trash weekend".

Ludo

Water, I think you missed the point of Austin's joke. Check your spelling in the quote.

Water

No I have missed nothing but there was a multifacted level of irony there Ludo. As the union between Bush and Mc Cain has resulted in the NY times calling Mc Cain Mc Bush. Though at the same time there is the irrefutable idocy that surrond the slinging match that's about to begin. Thus I have missed nothing.

Nick Kaplan

Water; Protectionism will not work in America either and it will come at the expense of the truly poor in the rest of the world. Obama’s further rhetoric about income inequality increasing is just further leftist nonsense and more empty but emotive rhetoric. Remember inequality can increase whilst everyone becomes better off in real terms. Throughout the history of the US people at all levels have got far better off due to Capitalism. At the same time inequality has increased because the rich have got richer faster than the poor have got richer. Obama’s nonsense is based on the leftist assumption that the rich don’t create wealth and thus can only get rich at the expense of the poor, this is a lie. Income inequality is not a problem, absolute poverty is, and poverty will not be resolved by higher taxes on the rich. Such criticisms of income inequality are never criticisms of poverty (or a growth thereof) but criticisms of ‘excessive wealth’ (a ludicrous and envy motivated idea). The Ayn Rand Institute are very good at highlighting the moral bankruptcy of such policies: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14321

Ian C

Water, I am puzzled by your enthusiasm for the farthest left voting member of the Senate and your enthusiams for Gordon Brown's demise. Seems like an inconsistent choice of political leanings.

Water

Also Obama wants to do the job I don't think he has some juvenile infatuation with power by any means (contrary to what people may think).

Water

Also Obama wants to do the job I don't think he has some juvenile infatuation with power by any means (contrary to what people may think).

Water

Hey Ludo the post doesn't seem to have gone through or there has been a delay. But just to clarify I did not miss the point, there was just a dual layer of irony I was facilitating for.

Water

Why has my post repeated from 9:21am the system is broken?! Hey Ian you are well justified in being puzzled, though it’s just a case of what is right (not connotations attached). Over here we need Gordon out and a rightist approach is what is necessary over here. But were I an American out of the choices on offer I would have to go with the thoughts I have stated. Though I am very much right wing, sometimes an element of fluidity is necessary and a constantly dogmatic approach can make for an ossified approach.

Also Nick “Protectionism will not work in America either and it will come at the expense of the truly poor in the rest of the world” I think it will help American and were I an American I would solely endorse Obama, though with regards to the poor in the rest of the world it may not this is a given. But were I an American I would hold strong protectionist views about America, hence why I’ve stated what I have (but I am not an American I’m English) I’m just thinking in terms of what would be best for them. Hence why I think Obamas points of view are anything but empty rhetoric.

Personally it does not echo of moral bankruptcay or jealousy on my part for I’m not an American! It’s just that that would be the best approach for them from my point of view as an outsider.

And of course inequality can increase whilst everyone becomes better off in real terms though a major qualm with regards to the Republican Party at the moment is that everyone is not better of in real terms. Thus it is emotive as I is true and not just empty rhetoric.

Water

"Personally it does not echo of moral bankruptcy or jealousy on my part for I’m not an American!" Also before tries to label me as being subject to anti-Americanism please remember the context in which everything was said for I think Americans are great. Also once again things have come up differently to the way I entered them in the last point.

Ted Tedford

Water: I'm sure lots of people want to do the job, Hillary included. That seems an odd criterion on which to base your choice.

As Ian C has pointed out, Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (and not in a good way). His supposedly 'post-racial' credentials are coming apart, and it's hard to dismiss that as intrinsic racism in the US body politic. He lets his wife stump for him, and, when her bizarre choice of words is attacked, perfectly legitimately, he reacts petulantly and accuses the critics of being ungallant. He's trying to place most of his views beyond discussion. That's not an appealing quality.

It's also becoming clear that he'll say anything to anyone, depending on the time and place. Well, you might say, so do all politicians. Which might be true, but it is problematic for someone who wants to portray himself as an ingenue, not from the usual mould.

As an aside, the number of extremely silly comments he has made in the past few weeks -e.g. I've visited 57 (American) states, Iran does/doesn't pose a threat, I was born because of the Selma march etc - would never have been given a free pass by the media if made by Bush or McCain, or even Hillary.

Six months ago, I'd have been a reluctant Obama supporter, reasoning that change would be good. No longer.

Ted Tedford

Water: Also, Obama has apparently not once talked with GEN Petraeus. For someone aspiring to be Commander in Chief, that's a pretty stunning omission. Taken with his astonishingly inept foreign policy mis-steps, it might suggest that he wants *some* of the job, but not the tricky bits.

Nick Kaplan

Water; I don’t want to be rude, but I think you could do with learning some economics. Protectionism will not benefit America, it will benefit a small group of American’s who have vested interests in those industries that will be protected. This is mean higher prices for consumers and both decreased exports (bad for the US economy and its people) and decreased Imports (bad for the rest of the world). Appealing to the narrow but vocal group who will benefit from this, and the ordinary public who won’t understand it, may be clever politics but that doesn’t stop it being immoral rhetoric. I cannot see in what sense the advocating of a policy that cannot work, and will protect the interests of a few at the expense of the unaware many, could be anything but immoral rhetoric. After all, what is rhetoric but vague emotive language that will excite the passions of the ignorant to disguise the emptiness or bankruptcy of the proposal.

Water

Ted Tedford thanks for being reasonable. Now the only reason why I stated what I did with regards to him wanting the job is because someone else gave an ad hominem condescending remark against him and I issued a rebuttal. Also for some reason the post (which was made at 9:21am) was repeated thus you may not have seen the initial context in which it was used for I did not post it at 2:17 and 2:31, these were system faults.

As for the comment that "He's trying to place most of his views beyond discussion. That's not an appealing quality" but as you quite rightly said I think this is true of most politicians. This said though he’s not prone to as much empty rhetoric as people like to say he is (because the substance is there). Though he is still prone to it, this I don’t deny. And to be quite honest I have never thought of him as that unique. This said it’s the content of his thoughts (nudge) that compels me towards him, unlike most Obama supporters (and this is unfortunate I wholly admit) I don’t like him for his gimmick, that’s not what I’m sold by.

Also said he has made some rather erroneous comments but none of them have been that blasphemous, Bush and Hillary have made some unforgivable remarks in the past. Also with regards to your last comment I think he wants ‘all’ the job including the tricky bits (haha!).

Water

By no means do I lack an understanding in Economics but thank you for your advice. I’ve already stated my reasons, for defending Obama so I’m not going to go around in circles and neither is the opinion morally devoid. This said (for the reasons I stated earlier) Protectionism will not just benefit a few but many. But its clear to see that we will not agree on this point.

Water

Oh yes the aynrand.org was interesting thank you.

Nick Kaplan

Glad you enjoyed it. There are plenty of interesting articles on there, really worth a good read sometime. Just type a topic into the search bar and see what comes up.

Water

No problem, also looking at your posts from Mels section its good to have people like you around. What a way to spend a Friday!