Sorry I just couldn't post in a thread so dramatically titled "hopemonger vs. warmonger." But I do want to have a substantive debate about McCain vs. Obama as that seems to be how things are going to play out.

One thing I've noticed is that with these two the issue that is the main strength for one is the main weakness for another. Obama has the most sophisticated domestic program I've seen pretty much ever. He is proposing a 21st century version of the New Deal that will link domestic jobs with the remaking of the American energy system, from fossil fuels to alternative energy. Obama is quite right that an excellent way to create well paying vocational jobs is to create new industries around domestic energy productoin. Those are jobs that can not be outsourced. He also has a tax plan meant to raise taxes on corporations that outsource and dramatically lower them for companies that employ Americans. Pretty bloody brilliant.

On the other hand, McCain seems to have no domestic plans. His healthcare section on his webpage is a bunch of platitudes, it's woefully inadequate.


On the reverse, it seems Obama has the least foreign policy experience (though very similar levels to Bill Clinton when he became President). And McCain has quite a bit. The issue for McCain though seems to be that his close ties to the Iraq War put him at a disadvantage. What do people think?

Also, can people try not to be major assholes when they respond on this topic. No cutting and pasting huge articles and then expecting people to respond to them and not YOU. Try not to make up entirely false things about either candidate, i.e. that Obama is a Muslim or McCain likes fucking lobbyists. Lets keep it civil.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

For me I can't really settle just yet. If Obama does get the nomination (which seems likely) then I will wait and see who they choose as running mates and how things go during the campaign and in the debates in particular. I wonder how their general election strategies will be different from the primaries also. I definitely think McCain is more qualified and do like his focus on cutting spending and being a supporter of free trade but I agree with Obama more on almost everything else when it comes to their differences. I definitely see pros and cons to both of them.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Wow! A real honest debate with no labels, no false information, no name calling or petty LDUCs.

I like it!

I agree with Partofme so far ( damn, that sounds weird in a schizo sort of way);-) I will probably read a lot of what they say, and what Position papers they have before I make a dedcision. But I hope we have a brilliant discussion right here!

If a candidate's positions on the issues mattered that much, we would be seeing would replace President Gore now.

I think on every major issue, you will find that Obama's position polls higher than McCain's. Still it's a question of whether this will be a mommy or a daddy election. The Democrats are the mommy party, nurturing the country and putting the house in order, the GOP are the daddy party, not very good at domestic stuff, but a comfort when people feel threatened.

I think the only way that McCain comes close, is if the voters are scared shitless about some threat to the country, like the mythical "Terror" we are at war with, and I expect McCain's backers will try whatever they can to drum up fear. Obama on the other hand has to calm people down, so they focus on health care and jobs and the economy, the day to day aspects of life.
So Obama will have the hopeful message that the future is there for the taking and it can be a great future, and McCain will be all darkside, talking about the threats this country faces, and how terrified we should all be.

Right now the mood of the country is so pro-Obama that McCain looks to lose in a landslide, but I expect a lot of fear inducing messages to come from the government about terror threats (expect a lot of elevated terror threat announcements) and anything that can get terror in the news, the Guantanamo trials seemed perfectly timed for this.

The wild card in this election is McCain's status in the Federal election financing system, if the FEC is right, and the DNC is going to court to get the FEC position enforced, McCain will have to effectively stop campaigning soon.
If campaigning works, Obama would have a huge lead going into the conventions.
This can be seen as a great injustice, or just proof that McCain is too old to run something as complicated as a campaign, let alone a country.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

“create well paying vocational jobs is to create new industries around domestic energy production”

who has had an iron grip on education the last 30 years?...and why is it the vocational educations that were available then, are now basically all gone? Because those that ran the show didn't want the system to generate blue collar workers types… they wanted everyone, I mean everyone to attend college....there is a vast shortage of skilled vocational workers in his country now..and as a sppter. Of the system that has got us here, he now wants to go back and re-mend the fence? great....but frankly..please don't bother, the less he or any dem has a hand in the system regards education the better for the country...

“He also has a tax plan meant to raise taxes on corporations that outsource and dramatically lower them for companies that employ Americans. Pretty bloody brilliant”.

I think he and the public are vastly uneducated when it comes to outsourcing, why it happens, who it helps, hurts and how to fix it……question- does a worker in a Toyota plant in Georgetown Kentucky count as an outsourced job? Lets start there…

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

By definition, no that is not outsourcing.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

why not?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

well heck we have mentioned this before so you really don't need a comment from me...I know you requested no links, but this is short and sums up the position way better than I can..



Obama's 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass From Senate Republicans
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:30 PM PT



Why are Republicans in Congress trying to help Barack Obama?

They allowed a bill that carries his name, among nine others, to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by voice vote last week — without any hearings. That means there was no roll-call vote so no member can be held accountable. The same bill passed the House by voice vote last year.

The Obama bill passed out of committee with the cooperation of the co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. A Rhodes scholar like former President Bill Clinton, Lugar has never seen a United Nations enhancement he didn't like.

Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away overseas.

Shady Wording

The bipartisan bill would require the president "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

The bill's other co-sponsors include Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Charles Hagel, R-Neb., and Robert Mendez, D-N.J.

We should be on guard any time politicians use the word "comprehensive," an umbrella word that always shades a lot of mischief.

The notion that American taxpayers should or could cut in half the number of people worldwide who live in poverty by 2015 is ridiculous.

U.N. Tax

The scariest phrase in the bill is "Millennium Development Goal." That refers to the declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 (blessed by President Bill Clinton) that called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the U.S. to the rest of the world, of course).

The Millennium project is monitored by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist. In 2005 he presented then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with a 3,000-page report based on the research of 265 so-called poverty specialists.

Sachs' document criticized the U.S. for giving only $16.3 billion a year in global anti-poverty aid. He argued that we should spend an additional $30 billion a year in order to reach the 0.7% target that the U.N. set for the U.S. in 2000.

Sachs says that the only way to force the U.S. to commit that much money is by a global tax, such as a tax on fossil fuels.

Empowering the United Nations to impose a direct international tax on Americans has been a U.N. goal ever since the 1995 Copenhagen Summit embraced the so-called Tobin Tax.

By adopting the Millennium goals in 2000, the U.N. escalated its demands to impose international taxes. Specifically, the Millennium called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection — oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

It doesn't bother U.N. sycophants that most U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the U.N., and that only 30% of our foreign aid ever reaches the poor. U.N. bureaucrats accuse the U.S. of being "stingy" in its handouts to underdeveloped countries.

There is much more to the Millennium goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance.

Losing Sovereignty

These goals include a "standing peace force" (i.e. a U.N. standing army), a "U.N. Arms register" of all small arms and light weapons, "peace education" covering "all levels from preschool through university," and "political control of the global economy." The goals call for implementing all U.N. treaties that the United States has never ratified, all of which set up U.N. monitoring committees to compromise American sovereignty.

To achieve this level of control over U.S. domestic law, the plan calls for "strengthening the United Nations for the 21st century" by "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council. The goal is to reduce U.S. influence to one out of 192 nations, so we would have merely the same vote as Cuba.

The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the Millennium goal of global governance and international taxes on Americans. Tell your senators to kill this un-American bill.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama's 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass From Senate Republicans

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

The number one priority for me is rolling back the executive abuses we've seen the last seven years. That includes the trampling of constitutional protections and the gutting of open government provisions. I don't really believe any politician will work actively to reduce his own power or make his admin more transparent once he's in office. But if Obama is elected we stand a better chance of redressing those abuses simply because it will be politically expedient for the dem congress to pursue that goal and Obama is more likely to cooperate with a congress of his own party.

There are other good reasons to vote for Obama specifically but that is why I will vote for whichever democrat gets nominated.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

It's a funny coincidence that we're discussing outsourcing right now in my global management class. Outsourcing is the use of resources outside the company to perform work for the company. So, if GM contracts with an outside firm in Toledo to make rotors for disc brakes, that's outsourcing. If Microsoft has an office in Mumbai and uses its employees there to do coding work, it's not.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It would appear that you just didn't like Bush's positions and therefore you think they didn't matter. Your choice but it's only valid in your mind. It's kind of like Hillary saying she is the candidate for change and that's why we all should vote for her. Well, I agree we need change but change for changes sake is dangerous.

The problem is we are in the primaries. Every candidate appeals to the base that votes in the primary and changes (moves) their positions on issues when they have to start explaining them to the masses. When we see these two square off in the general election, we should have a much better understanding of their real positions.

You can pretend it isn't there Goob but there is a terror threat to this nation and the world. The terrorists have stated their positions that we must all follow their God or die. Just ask Indonesia, France, the UK, Spain...the list goes on for the last 40 years. I will concede that it appears to be slight right now but that's the problem. It only seems slight up to the moment they strike. We cannot let our guard down or they wil strike. Now should any candidate be telling people it's going to happen? No. Should they tell them we need to be vigilant? Yes.

There's that conspiracy theorist we've come to love.

I don't know if I would stretch it that much. I think McCain probably knows he may win this one since the SC has already said political campaign contributions and spending are paramount to free speech. By not allowing him to spend any money on his campaign would be squelching that free speech.

__________________
American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Pretty fucking stupid. The U.S. has already has the second highest corporate income tax in the world, which is part of the reason why we are losing jobs to other countries. The last thing that needs to happen is raise it higher. It needs to be dramatically lowered.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

goober:
I agree with your Mommy/Daddy party point. The Democrats do seem to focus more on the internal "nurturing" for the "oppressed/needy/indigent" etc. Whereas the Republicans believe in business matters and security. It's amusing when the polticians bloviate about a strong family needs a mother and a father but don't see the same for the country even when they'll probably agree on your assertion about the Mommy/Daddy party.

Mythical Terror? Nah. Terror isn't mythical, the war in Iraq was a strategic mistake. We had them on the run in Afghanistan and pulled up short and lost sight of our objective. One of these guys need to refocus and get back on track and kill Bin Laden then wrap up the slugs that follow him. Americans aren't afraid of anything when you have clear objectives and goals. And if you try the terror card to be elected, I think this time you'll lose.

Add to that the question corporations would have to ask themselves:

Do we ?

1. Explain to our shareholders that they can expect smaller profits, as the corp must bear the increased taxation


2. Pass it all on to the consumer.

Gee, I wonder what they would choose?

__________________

I am, by no means, an expert on patriotism. However, I can't really think of anything less patriotic than ditching your country because it makes your wallet a little lighter.

The logic behind your argument seems to suggest that the government should lower corporate taxes as an incentive to get corporations to continue to employ Americans. This, to me, seems to give corporations tremendous leverage. There will always be countries that will place a much smaller tax burden on corporations, enticing them to relocate.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will