The Better Angels of Our Nature

posted by John Nichols on 11/04/2008 @ 12:20pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (154)

Subscribe Now

At the close of his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke to those who would divide the United States.

"We are not enemies, but friends," said the 16th president. "We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Almost 150 years after Lincoln uttered those words, America is again divided.

The question that will be answered by voters on this first Tuesday in November is whether the land must remain divided.

Eight years of George Bush's tragically flawed attempt at a presidency have strained the very fabric of the American experiment. Our debates about war and peace, taxes and spending, civil rights and civil liberties have developed bitter edges that suggest we are enemies: Democrat versus Republican, Red State versus Blue State, liberal versus conservative.

The banner-carrier of Lincoln's Republican party in this fall's election, John McCain, has torn open holes in that fabric, exploiting the oldest and ugliest of our differences.

And yet, most Americans are still touched by the better angels of our nature.

We still believe that this great nation can and should be what Lincoln imagined: "the last best hope of Earth."

That, more than any of the vagaries of campaign finance, battleground-state calculations or simplistic candidate comparisons, explains why Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency has been so successful -- and why its success has become an imperative no less consequential than those of other historic candidacies: Jefferson in 1800, Lincoln in 1860, Roosevelt in 1932.

It may be mere coincidence that Obama is, like Lincoln, an Illinoisan with a relatively short resume of electoral service.

But as Obama submits himself to what his home-state predecessor called "this great tribunal of the American people," we are reminded of the essential message of Lincoln's distant campaigning: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew and then we shall save our country."

The more cautious among us still suggest that to support Obama requires too great a leap of faith, just as it has always been suggested of young men who bid for the presidency before the established order judges it to be their time. But the American people have a history of understanding, as they did with Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, that sound judgment and an ability to inspire should count for more than a long resume and the burden of knowing too much of what is not supposed to be achievable and too little of the infinite possibility of this unfinished American project.

Had he run a better campaign, John McCain would be a worthy adversary to Obama. He was a maverick once – not a progressive maverick, not a radical reformer. But after the most dangerous elements in his party took charge in the mid-1990s, McCain refused for a time to go along with those who sought to destroy the last vestiges of the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

McCain's record was once commendable, if imperfect. It is now tarnished beyond repair.

Obama's resume is shorter than McCain's, and imperfect in places. But it is precisely right for the American moment. As a community organizer in Chicago. Obama worked to save industrial jobs and the neighborhoods they sustain. As an Illinois state senator he was an ardent advocate of that state's historic death penalty moratorium. As a likely contender for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2003, he marched with anti-war protesters. As a freshman senator he worked with Wisconsin's Russ Feingold to promote sweeping ethics reforms. And as a presidential candidate he has mounted a campaign distinguished by its optimism, its vigor, its appeal to the young and the previously disengaged, and its success in upending the calculations of those who thought they controlled our politics.

Everything about the Republican nominee's current campaign suggests that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush era. Everything about Obama's campaign suggests that he favors a bolder break with the failed politics and policies of the Bush interregnum.

McCain has attempted to define Obama as a radical in the last days of this very long campaign. And, in a sense, the senior senator is right. In fact, the Democrat proposes a change that would be far more radical than McCain and angriest supporters dare imagine: a transformation. Obama's is the politics of faith in the prospect of democratic renewal; of the worthy dream that a divided people might unite around common purposes and lower partisan barriers to make possible dramatic shifts in the way the United States relates to the world and to itself.

It is for that reason that many of the nation's most prominent Republicans – former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Susan Eisenhower, former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach, and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, among them – have endorsed Obama.

McCain derides Obama as a "big talker" holding out false hope to worried Americans.

Obama responds that, "This whole notion of false hopes bothers me. There is no such thing as false hopes."

Some truths are self-evident – among them, that Lincoln would have preferred Obama's hope to McCain's desperate denial of it. And so, it seems, will the voters of these United States. Just as when they supported another radical from Illinois 148 years ago, the American people continue to prefer the audacity of hope to the compromise of complacency.

As Election Day finally arrives, it is right to speak of hope – a hope that America's Democrats, independents and Republicans will again embrace the better angels of our nature and support the candidacy of another young Illinoisan so overwhelmingly that he can secure his claim on the presidency of a nation that is so ready to begin anew.

Comments (154)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that there will not be unity after the election.

What fun would that be anyway?

The press will always need "bad guys".

Posted by bleedingheart at 11/03/2008 @ 05:40am
As a non American (a citizen of the world), I have one and only one concern and wish on the eve of this election. I simply hope that Obama, as President, will categorically and emphatically vow to respect International Law. I would like to hear from him a pledge of allegiance to the Charter of the United Nations, which includes very specific provisions on how and when military force can be applied lawfully. I am concerned because, so far, Obama has used the same kind of language that all of the other guys have been using since at least the days of Ronald Reagan ("all options are on the table"; "use of military force cannot be ruled out", "I'm only opposed to dumb wars" etc.). If this is all he's got to offer to the world, then to me it is completely irrelevant who is elected tomorrow. Sorry

Posted by Onca at 11/03/2008 @ 08:30am
It' true that there is no such thing as false hopes. But there is such a thing as false expectations. These arise from an impoverished view of reality, which draws more from self-congratulatory myth than from science.

To some degree, I can agree with your claim that the press needs bad guys, "BleedingHeart," and for exactly the reason you give: because it's fun. If our media see their primary responsibility as entertainment -- and profit-obsessed commercial media generally do -- then they will give us "fun" narratives of mythical Good and Evil rather than the information that we need to build realistic expectations.

There is nothing wrong with hope, but there is something wrong with expecting something for nothing, which is what three decades of cornucopian, colonialist, trickle-down, pro-investor, anti-worker ideology has trained us to do. Here is what I believe we can truly expect: that we will improve our quality of life, reduce both fraud and waste, and repair our torn social fabric, but that this will require us to distribute wealth from where it is in excess to where it is needed. This change will not be free (in the sense that it will cost us nothing), and our market will never again be quite as free (that is, unregulated) as now. But we, the people, will at last be freer.

Posted by JakobFabian at 11/03/2008 @ 08:30am
I don't see unity between the parties as the issue. I see unity between the people and parties to be the issue. If you look at polls, you find that most people want things like an end to the Iraq war, single-payer health-care, and campaign finance reform. When I look critically at their platforms, I find that neither party is in agreement with the people on these core issues. They are more unified with their corporate sponsors.

Posted by rich_carlson at 11/03/2008 @ 08:33am
"Clinton's record was once commendable, if imperfect. It is now tarnished beyond repair."

Freudian slip, John?

Posted by mikecope at 11/03/2008 @ 09:10am
We'll get it right? You mean we won't end up electing a corporate controlled figure head? Are you saying Nader will win?

Posted by cjines at 11/03/2008 @ 09:45am
"Clinton's record was once commendable, if imperfect. It is now tarnished beyond repair."

pineapples are grown in the tropics.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 09:54am
I couldn't agree with you more, "Rich_Carlson." The "bipartisanship" that our corporate media praise is no virtue, but a vice, for several obvious reasons:

(1) "Bipartisanship," as the word is commonly used, refers to Democrats' acceptance of Republican policies, but seldom to the reverse.

(2) Bipartisanship always excludes and marginalizes third parties, such as Greens and Libertarians.

(3) According to popular myth, "bipartisan" is synonymous with "universal." This myth re-inforces a Manichaean view of reality, in which there are only two sides to every question, rather than many sides. All too often, the Manichaean choice, in the minds of non-thinking voters, becomes a choice between mythical Good and Evil rather than a choice of the best option among many.

I'm sure the corporations would allow us only one party, if only the tradition of having "two main parties" were not so strong. (This is why our media did not sound any alarm when Karl Rove proposed to make his party a "permanent majority.") The fewer parties there are, the fewer committee chairs you have to bribe.

This is why electoral reform (instant-runoff voting) is unlikely to be taken seriously by the corporate media any time soon. When they do discover that electoral reform is spreading (having arrived in San Francisco, in Minneapolis, and elsewhere), they will attack it as a threat, I'm sure.

Posted by JakobFabian at 11/03/2008 @ 10:00am
I can see the new con repubs that loved the idea of corporate dic'tatorship perpetual rule finally being marginalized to the extremist cliff by a highly deflated GOP now sanguinated a few trillion stake they thought they could keep.

The moderates of both parties will help create a major coalition.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 10:02am
The first thing I am going to do is buy several guns and lots of ammunition. Then I am going to go underground, because this Hitler is going to have spies and backstabbers everywhere with his "Civilian National Defense" Gestapo KGB operation. Obama is the biggest threat to American freedom that exists today, and he must amd will be stopped.

Posted by doctorfixit at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am

Little paranoid there ole son. Very insightful comments, which gain you membership into THE HEAD UP YOUR ASS CLUB and on ignore. So, join the rest of the shit.

Posted by Truthman at 11/03/2008 @ 10:07am
"All too often, the Manichaean choice, in the minds of non-thinking voters, becomes a choice between mythical Good and Evil rather than a choice of the best option among many."

If you're looking for a great example of a Manichaean dolt, you need look no farther than "DoctorFixIt's" repugnant posts on this thread -- provided that you have not already chosen to ignore this odious white supremacist, as I believe I soon shall.

The irony, of course, is that Obama is multiracial -- the perfect "gray" candidate, for people who would prefer to split the difference between black and white.

But of course, in order to recognize and appreciate grayness, you have to be able to see it, and I don't believe "DoctorFixIt" can.

Posted by JakobFabian at 11/03/2008 @ 10:12am
The moderates of both parties will help create a major coalition. Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 10:02am

The Repocrats. But seriously may your prediction come to pass. It's likely the only hope. And the electorate must keep vigilant.

Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/03/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by doctorfixit at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am

Get some help before it's too late.

Posted by skeletonman at 11/03/2008 @ 10:19am
Posted by doctorfixit at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am Posted like a true White supremacist-we all know that your hate and threats are a reflection of your personal inadequacy as a human being, lack of education and feelings of inferiority-but making veiled threats against the life of the cadidate and soon to be president needs some looking into. You were probably violently abused as a child, but that's no excuse. The sad part is that Obama would gladly include you, but you could never reciprocate.

Posted by oldintel at 11/03/2008 @ 10:31am
I think that the bad doktor is someone the Secret Service will need to keep track of.

Posted by The Goods at 11/03/2008 @ 10:37am
"Every real American must do whatever the can to bring him and his evil regime to justice."

Posted by doctorfixit at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am

What are you, 12 years old and pretending you're a superhero?

"This is a job for Superman!"

Posted by Benchrest at 11/03/2008 @ 10:40am
To the wonderful "Doctor".

Your URL has now been registered with the FBI, CIA and Secret Service. No kidding!

They'll be in touch soon to help you with your problem.

Have a nice life. Coward.

Posted by doctorfixitisabuttboy at 11/03/2008 @ 10:51am
I would like to hear from him a pledge of allegiance to the Charter of the United Nations, which includes very specific provisions on how and when military force can be applied lawfully. I am concerned because, so far, Obama has used the same kind of language that all of the other guys have been using since at least the days of Ronald Reagan ("all options are on the table"; "use of military force cannot be ruled out", "I'm only opposed to dumb wars" etc.). If this is all he's got to offer to the world, then to me it is completely irrelevant who is elected tomorrow. Sorry

Posted by Onca at 11/03/2008 @ 08:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

We will see if our constitutional law professor delivers. His track record thus far is not promising.

'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'

From Article 6 - US Constitution

Posted by OneVote at 11/03/2008 @ 10:51am
Obama is the biggest threat to American freedom that exists today, and he must amd will be stopped.

Posted by doctorfixit at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

Hey doc go stand in front of a mirror and tell us what you see.

Posted by OneVote at 11/03/2008 @ 11:00am
The only way that America can be saved from this skinny Hitler is to remain very divided. I will have no dealings whatsoever with anyone I know of that voted for this marxist baby butcher. Posted by doctorfixit at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am

Hitler and Marx in the same sentence? That's rich.

Is this satire? And what does dualism have to do with Obama?

I'm not into ad hominem attacks, but this guy is seriously nuts.

Posted by jackwells at 11/03/2008 @ 11:02am
Have a nice life. Coward.

Posted by doctorfixitisabuttboy at 11/03/2008 @ 10:51am

How dare you call Batman a coward!

And the agencies will never find the batcave.

Posted by Benchrest at 11/03/2008 @ 11:02am
Have a nice life. Coward.

Posted by doctorfixitisabuttboy at 11/03/2008 @ 10:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

The moron you reference hasn't figured out that NSA is keeping tabs. Tells you alot about his/her/its "intelligence," or lack thereof.

Posted by OneVote at 11/03/2008 @ 11:03am
to the bad dr.

seriously?

Posted by knowthyself at 11/03/2008 @ 11:42am
On MSNBC this morning Mike Barnicle said "The nuts on the left will be more disappointed with Obama than the nuts on the right because he'll govern from the center."

Posted by bleedingheart at 11/03/2008 @ 11:42am
Well, its time for me to come clean. I am a registered republican, who really believes its time for real change. No longer can I ignore what's going on around me by pretending everything is great, knowing the country has fallen so far off course. It's hard to face this reality, but President Bush has made so many crucial errors in judgment. Not only will it take years for us to recover from all the bad decisions here at home, but abroad as well. So, this being said, why not try something new for a change. I'm voting for Obama, not because I agree with all his ideas, because I do not, but because the country really needs a change for my children sake.

Posted by wiseman05 at 11/03/2008 @ 11:43am
You referenced Clinton, above. Did you mean McCain? ("Clinton's record was once commendable, if imperfect. It is now tarnished beyond repair") Great article, but that comment brought me up short.

Posted by marfsmom70 at 11/03/2008 @ 11:48am
Your ignorance is one of many forces driving this country in the ground. You must have a very lofty opinion of yourself to impose a hidden threat to a presidential candidate and think that you are not going to be bird-dogged on this one. You sound like you have a patchwork education, where you create your own views based on personal opinion, not fact or relevance. Your inability to see past your own problems and issues has left you in a place of distorted reality--far from patriotism, if that was your goal. America, no matter how much you hate this, is a country destined to rise out of bigotry and hatred. Have you thought about what you could do to help support your presidential candidate constitutionally? Passion is good, but hatred is evil.

Posted by knowthyself at 11/03/2008 @ 11:59am
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/03/2008 @ 11:42am

bleeding is supposed to be a Naderite...

yet he refers to himself as a "nut"!?!?!?????

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 12:01pm
It's delicious when the constraints of the base, rudiments of human nature are kept in check by higher order thought.

I never thought I'd see the full 24/7 MSM fear fodder fail to win the day. Please o' please!

We need LV's and Limbaughs and trolls under the bridge. They're part of our messy evolution to be transcended AND included. Damn if we're not making it an inch further this time!

Posted by winyahn at 11/03/2008 @ 12:04pm
at one point in this election i was leaning toward mccain, but when he hired the same man that dragged him through the mud to run his campaign i closed the door on him. i really thought that mccain would try to drive the republican party in a new direction, instead of taking the scenic route around the problems, while focusing his energy to mudslinging and fear mongering. i still think that mccain is a good man with good intentions, but if he is willing to associate with karl rove and his cronies then i'm out. he dug his political hole with that move.

Posted by knowthyself at 11/03/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by knowthyself at 11/03/2008 @ 12:07pm

The OLD "Maverick McCain-2000"...could have given Obama a run for his money.

He wouldn't have sucked up to the Religious Right (what he once called the "agents of intolerance") and would have been the sane McCain who knew what the Bush tax cuts would lead us to.

And he would have picked somebody qualified to be Veep.

He probably wouldn't have gotten the GOP nomination though.

But he's "dead".

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 12:16pm
ACOOK, have you ever heard of Cal Thomas?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/31/2008 @ 10:19pm

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 12:16pm

I had to work this weekeand, so I couldn't answer your right away, but to answer your question, no I have never heard of Cal Thomas either.

Posted by ACook at 11/03/2008 @ 12:26pm
Mr. Nichols says

"Some truths are self-evident – among them, that Lincoln would have preferred Obama's hope to McCain's desperate denial of it. "

I do not understand why people do this. We have no idea who Linclon would have voted for or campaigned for, were he somehow able to 1 - resurrect himself and 2 - travel in time to today.

Even you on the left have to admit it is not self-evident who somebody in the past would have supported.

Yet here is Mr. Nichols saying it IS self evident. What Mr. Nichols is doing is superimposing his beliefs onto someone else who obviously can not participate in the current discourse.

Some religious liberals do the same thing with Jesus - invoke his name to say that Conservatives go against Jesus' teachings, even though we have no idea if Jesus would be Democrat, Republican or Independent. Yet they superimpose their beliefs onto the "theory" that Jesus would be a liberal.

And liberals do the same thing with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - they superimpose their belief system onto him to decalare that Dr. King would be for socialist economics. They superimpose that because Dr. King fought for people who were denied opportunity to have opportunity, that somehow he would advocate the economic policies liberals advocate.

It seems to me that Mr. Nichols and others ought to stick to declaring what they believe, rather than using historical figures as props to attempt to support their arguments.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 12:28pm
Concerning the comment from bleedingheart: while liberals were alienated by Reagan's conservatism (union busting) and economic policies (de-regulated supply-side ideology), the red/blue divide was initiated by the burgeoning far right wing of the Republican party who presumed that 1) Reagan was the rightful beginning of right-wing ideological superiority and control, and 2) Clinton was a blight on their march to executive dominance (and blamed it on Poppy Bush, whose realistic tax policy provided the basis for Clinton's economic revival in the '90s). They orchestrated the '94 'Republican Revolution' and then hi-jacked the Republican Party wholesale w/ Bush/Cheney. By '05 and Katrina, it became clear just how bankrupt and hypocritical their ideological basis really was. This country by its sheer size can only be effectively ruled from the center, and should Obama win this election, he is smart enough to lead accordingly. This is why moderate Republicans who no longer recognize their party are supporting him. McCain's campaign showed no ability to rectify the deeper and problematic schism in the Republican party right now, which raises significant doubts as to how he will handle the pressures from the far right should he be elected.

Posted by SAThurber at 11/03/2008 @ 12:31pm
sjchermak-Conservatives,also,claim things about Jesus, Lincoln,etc. It's a common practice.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/03/2008 @ 12:40pm
Miscelleanous comments about the Nichols article.

Nichols: The question that will be answered by voters on this first Tuesday in November is whether the land must remain divided.

My Comment: Obviously, liberals lay the gauntlet down loud and clear - vote lib to "unify" the country. If the will of the people is otherwise, then the country will be divided. In other words, libs are not interested in "unification" - they want liberalism and want the country to "unify" behind liberalism. If it does not, libs will insure the country remains "divided" because they will not support someone who is not thier choice. And they will blame those who do not agree with the liberalism for the "division". This concept has been blantantly obvious and in full display since the 2000 election. There is a word that discribes this - hypocrisy - that Mr. Nichols exhibits as he talks about "unification".

Nichols: "Obama worked to save industrial jobs and the neighborhoods they sustain. "

My Comment: But the neighborhoods "sustained" by Obama had apartment complexes where the landlords did not supply the heat they were supposed to - and the great Obama, while not directly responsible, seems to have been too closely tied to this for someone who is promoted far and wide on the left as our salvation

Obama's Real-Estate Bust He did for Illinois taxpayers what shady mortgage lenders have done for the economy.

By David Freddoso http://article.nationalreview.com/ ?q=M2MwMGFmMmI1NjkxNTg5Yj lhM2I5ZGJkNzJmZGJmNGI=

Nichols: "Everything about the Republican nominee's current campaign suggests that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush era. "

My Comment: Absolute, case-closed slam dunk reason to vote for John McCain. I voted early, and already have.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 12:51pm
sjchermak-You think that Bush did a good job by destroying the economy,not being able to win an easy to win war in Iraq because he was so ignorant as to believe that you can win wars by fighting them on the cheap,destroyed our national reputation,etc?Try loving our country rather than wish for it's destruction.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/03/2008 @ 12:55pm
I had to work this weekeand, so I couldn't answer your right away, but to answer your question, no I have never heard of Cal Thomas either.

Posted by ACook at 11/03/2008 @ 12:26pm

You really haven't missed much.

Posted by skeletonman at 11/03/2008 @ 1:10pm
i'm nobody,

George W. Bush did not destroy the ecomomy. The economy has been going well until this recent situation. The fact that the economy was going well was something the media did not feel inclined to report on.

The economic problem we are in now was driven to a large extent by the promotion of risky mortgages, by Democrats. The promotion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/releases/ 2008/09/20080919-15.html

Iraq is obviously not an easy to win war. President Bush did what was necessary - we stopped Saddam - Saddam eventually would have been back to making WMD, the WMD would have gotten into the hands of terrorists, and perhaps millions could have been killed. Saddam was a growing force for instability in the Middle East. And now President Bush has persevered against the insurgents (instead of giving up as Obama, Gore, Kerry, et. al. would have) and now we are turning the corner and Iraqis have a future in a free and stable democratic society.

When our "national reputation" is brought up, and how libs say many people in the world have a low opinion of us now, with the implication that it is our fault, libs overlook 1- There are plenty of world leaders who are not anti-U.S., and who support us regardless of or because of Iraq 2- As far as those who disagree with the U.S. - why do you automatically assume they are right and we are wrong?

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 1:15pm
The US is voting for a semblance of democracy vs fascism, it is that simple. OBAMA 08,

Posted by dragan at 11/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
Thank you Mr. Nichol for this article. Yes, we've seen the Sixties and Watergate, the Reagan years and the missed opportunities of the Clinton years, and the unspeakably awful last eight, but sometimes it is time to stop polishing up our cynicism and put it away and this is one of those times. I've been telling people I don't care how naive it sounds, I am going to look at this election as one of hope and the possibility of truly transformational change for our country. I have voted for Obama four times now, twice for Senator, and twice for the Presidency and no, his is not a savior. He isn't nearly as liberal or socialist as I wish he was. He is basically a pragmatist but maybe that is what we need now. But what he also brings to the office is a truly sharp intellect, combined with an ability to listen and absorb information and opinions, even from those he doesn't agree with - and then work to implement solutions. Add in his ability to inspire and we should be hopeful about his election. And finally, I grew up in a segregated town and I can tell you this is one older white male who will be emotional on election night, seeing America at last taking one huge, historical step toward making the dream come true.

Posted by Steve1us at 11/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
I'd say that one could add another 7% to Obama/Biden state polls and get a better indication as to the turn out that may pop up on the final tally.

And of course I'm an optimist.

Otherwise I would not have already voted.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 1:31pm
sjchermak-It took awhile for Bush policies of borrow and spend to destroy the economy.It doesn't happen overnight.Saddam made the middle east more stable by keeping Iran in check and keeping Iraq and Iran worried about the other.Iraqis have no future with a stable and free democracy,but will be ruled by oppressive sharia law and the Iraqi government is showing itself to be pro Iran and anti Israel.The world leaders that love us the most are in Iran,North Korea,and China.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/03/2008 @ 1:31pm
There are alot of mad republican's posting here. Are you upset because Obama is ahead in the polls? NO ONE wants 4 more years of Dubya's policeys. Obama is going to win and the banking system that Dubya deregulated causing this financial crisis will be restored.

Posted by Evisionary at 11/03/2008 @ 1:35pm
Why is it that the sheep of the world are always ready to trust their "hopes" to the decrepit gears of government? All you need is a charismatic speaker to charm them; and suddenly, they believe that government can become an agent of change in the individual lives people.

This hopelessly naive view is a state of denial suffered by many liberals and more than a few neocons. It denies the reality that each new Administration arrives at Washington with busloads of power-hungry people, waiting at the chance to pull the strings so that they can improve their political and financial standing in the world and maybe even sleep with a few interns. Then you have the lower echelons of the party faithful, desirous of patronage for job security and pensions, or maybe a few federal contracts to grow their small business.

No one party is to blame for this behavior. It will never stop however, until people learn to accept that government's ability to do real good will never be realized until God starts making incorruptible people. Until then, we are all better off with less government, whether it has a liberal or conservative bent, and much lower taxes.

Posted by H-Boy at 11/03/2008 @ 1:41pm
i'm nobody,

You say the "Bush policies" of borrow and spend did not "destroy" the economy overnight - then how come libs for 7 and 3/4 years have been saying President Bush destroyed the economy?

Also- it would be fascinating for you to come up with actual "proof" that what you say is true. The "spend" part happens no matter whether the president is Democrat or Republican - but at least Republicans do not promote "investment" (i.e., rasing taxes, then the government wasting the money) at the beginning as Democrats do.

Don't forget- the tax cuts increased the revenue available to the government, because the tax cuts spurred economic growth, and there were wealthy people who paid more in actual tax because their businesses were more successful. These wealthy people, by the way, pay most of the tax in this country. (look up the numbers at www.irs.gov and crunch them for yourself).

Saddam was busy running his own people through shredding machines and getting more and more involved with terror groups and more and more intent on stirring up trouble in the Middle East, and preparing for the day when he would be making WMD again.

At that point Middle East stability would not have been the only concern, how about the millions dead from an attack of anthrax, or botulisim, or plague, or whatever. How come that doesn't count?

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 1:44pm
Ok, lets settle a few things. There were no wmd's, all the major intelligence agencies in the united states including the CIA headed by george tenet handed reports to W. telling him this in the weeks leading up to him going to congress to ask them for support in sending the troops to iraq. 2nd. Those same reports all told bush that iraq would only pose a threat to the united states if we attacked them first. 3rd. Saddam was an isolationist, there are reports of him executing foreign terrorists attempting to infilitrate or set up base in iraq. Al quadeia viewed him as an enemy and attempted to arrainge an assasination of him on more then one occasion. 4th. We have almost 200,000 troops in iraq, we have less then 25000 troops in afghanistan. Al quadia has its bases of operations in and around afghanistan, and we know bin laden is in pakistan the neighbor of afghanistan. So how is it our dear president who swore to catch bin laden has made no real effort to do so. None, even at tora bora when bin laden was trapped for months he refused to send more troops from iraq to afghanistan to assist the marines in capturing bin laden. Citing i quote " the mission priority is iraq, not afghanistan or the activities there" . Guess what, thats a real quote, from a real memo he sent to the general in charge of the tora bora offensive which because of a lack of support bin laden escaped. So i have set some of the record straight. There is more to it but you cant fit it all in these comment boxes.

Posted by cainkinison at 11/03/2008 @ 1:59pm
Another fool writes here. How many dumb things?

1. "Eight years of George Bush's tragically flawed attempt at a presidency have strained the very fabric of the American experiment." What has actually "strained the fabric" is an almost McCarthyan attempt by the left to demonize GWB.

2. "...John McCain, has torn open holes in that fabric, exploiting the oldest and ugliest of our differences." What? By suggesting the Dear Leader might have flaws, he is automatically a racist (as I suppose are all his supporters)?

3. "...sound judgment and an ability to inspire should count for more than a long resume...." This might be true if we knew exactly to what Obama would inspire us. Unfortunately, he has spent the entire campaign trying to avoid doing so for obvious (to all but fools like the author) reasons.

4. "Obama's is the politics of... the worthy dream that a divided people might unite around common purposes and lower partisan barriers...." Can anyone really believe this? How often has Obama voted with the GOP senate caucus? Who injected race into the campaign ("I can no more disown him [Wright] than my own grandmother..." and "Did I mention he's black?")? Obama is just a slicker race-baiter than Jackson and Sharpton, but he is one nonetheless.

Final comment - it is not so much the failure of Americans' "better angels" I fear so much as the desire of America's enemies to exploit those "better angels". Senator Obama is a fool and a dreamer who has fooled most of the people, and that is his greatest achievement to date. Shame on us for falling for his snake oil pitch, but I pray that he delivers. However, I don't think he will. We knew Lincoln was an honest man. Obama... well I don't know.

Posted by boyydz at 11/03/2008 @ 1:59pm
sjchermak-"Libs" have not been saying that the economy is bad for seven and a half years.What many libs, and non libs, were saying is that the Bush borrow and spend policies would lead to a bad economy and they were correct.You can't just keep borrowing money from China in order to fight a pointless war.None of you cared about what Saddam was doing to his people nor was he involved in terrorism.Iran and Iraq hated each other and focused on each other and that was good,but now that balance is gone and Iraq is becoming pro Iran.That is not good.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/03/2008 @ 1:59pm
Nichols: "Everything about the Republican nominee's current campaign suggests that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush era. "

My Comment: Absolute, case-closed slam dunk reason to vote for John McCain. I voted early, and already have.----Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 12:51pm

So you're banking on...

28% of the country "winning it" for John McCain?!?!?!??

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 2:23pm
"The economy has been going well until this recent situation." Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 1:15pm

Really?? For you maybe but not for me. I've been getting my ass kicked for the last four years. Taxes have been kicking my ass for the last three years like never before. So while you have been seeing an economic boon(You're rich, sjchermak. Congratulations.), others haven't. Do you really expect people to have this positive outlook on the economy while they've been getting their economic asses handed to them?

Posted by k330k at 11/03/2008 @ 2:28pm
k33ok,

I am not rich, far from it. You say "taxes have been kicking your ass" - it would seem like the last thing you would want to do would be to vote for a Democrat. Eventually, in some way or another, they call for "investment", at which time you need to hold onto your wallet.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 2:50pm
I have to admit that financially, I've been doing ok/surviving and earn no where near a 1/4 mil.

Yet members of my family and friends are in dire need of financial assistance for varying reasons-- of which I'm limited due to kids in college and their medical costs have almost tripled.

I have two, what some would call-- full-time jobs. It sure would be great to be normal time-off wise. Have a real life, some sleep, vacation,...

I think finally the 'real' hard working patriotic 'non-rich' citizenry are taking a good look at the new con repub poli-dic', and saying-- NO F-ing WAY.

Punish the new con repub failure. Don't reward it. That 'would' be continuing the bizarro world hsuB doctrine.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 2:52pm
Wow! The freepers and trolls are out in force today!! I had to put at least 3 of them on my ignore list. DrFixit is a real moran (spelling intentional).

Oh, well, when you need a whole team of proctologists to find your head, you live in the dark.

Those who think the economy was good until this recent disaster fit into the above category. Of course the economy was good for rich people and corporations, but it was not good for the many who were either laid off or had to take jobs at reduced pay. It was not good for the large percentage who have no health coverage. It was not good for those who went bankrupt due to medical bills, lots of whom had insurance. It was not good for Walmart workers or auto-workers or the chronically ill. Nor was it especially favorable for education, national infrastructure, or manufacturing.

Money was tight partly due to the occupation of Iraq and the "war on terror," which didn't do a whole lot to increase national security anyhow, and also partly due to tax cuts for the wealthy. Oh - and the fact that most corporations pay NO taxes at all. As in ZERO.

When the wealth of a nation gets sucked up to the richest 1% and the distribution resembles a banana republic, when people have a hard time choosing between food and medication, and when both parents have to work at jobs that keep them just above the poverty level, the economy is not good. When the national debt is so huge that almost no one can grasp the numbers, the economy is not good.

The only people who could possibly still believe that the economy has been great until recently are the obscenely wealthy and the extremely ignorant. The term to describe a Bush or McCain supporter who is not rich is "sucker." Or, possibly "bigoted fool."

Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/03/2008 @ 3:08pm
sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 2:50pm I posted this last June. I never received a response from any conservative. Once again I issue the challenge. Refute this if you can. The link will still works. If you can not refute this, then just be quiet.

To all conservatives advocating tax cuts:

Where is the evidence supporting your claims. By evidence I mean data comparing economic growth with tax rates. The US economy managed to have high growth during the post war years while at the same time having high marginal tax rates. Historically, there is little evidence to support the assertion that lower taxes lead to increased economic growth. More details can be found at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm. What the tables in this article show is that the US economy has grown under both high and low marginal tax rates. According to this article, tax rates have very little impact on the economy. So unless you can demonstrate that the data presented in this article is incorrect or its interpretation is wrong, stop promoting tax cuts as a panacea for our economic woes. All you are doing confirming that you are nothing more than right wing idealogues.

Posted by timdor at 11/03/2008 @ 3:20pm
What unity???

For the past 20 months Obama has done nothing but bash Bush, McCain and anything Republican he laid his eyes on. We are about to elect the most liberal, pro-Marxist President in our history.

Unity? Sure, for the swarms of liberal in the main stream media, there is now great unity on the left. However, this is still a very strong center right country with self-identified conservatives outnumbering liberals 59% to 36% (2008 Battleground Poll). Come Nov. 5 when the true Obama reappears as a progressive Marxist, believe me, there will be no unity.

Posted by Peruna at 11/03/2008 @ 3:41pm
Why we vote….

Okay ladies and gentlemen. Let me explain a couple of very important facts about presidential elections. In spite of what you hear in the MSM, this is not a popularity contest. We're not voting for Prom Queen or Head Cheerleader or Dog Catcher.

We're voting for the next Justices of the Supreme Court, we are voting for the individual that will sign into law Bills that will either favor the large MultiNational Corporations or favor "We the People". We are voting for the individual that will become the next Commander In Chief of our military and will have complete control over how our military is deployed and what their missions will be. We are voting for whether we want to continue to lose young American lives to protect oil fields for favored BIG OIL companies for the next 100 years, or bring our troops home to recuperate and be ready for the DEFENSE of our country.

We are voting for the individual who will be the custodian of our Liberties and our Freedom. We are voting for the individual who will be the leader of the free world and exemplify what America stands for for the rest of the world to see.

We can elect an individual that stands with the American people or one that stands with the favored, we can vote for one that believes we become stronger from the bottom up, or we can vote for one who is on the top and wants to continue to support those on top.

It's up to us. To vote for a party or candidate that doesn't support your interest because you don't like the cut of their opponent's hair or the sound of their opponent's laugh or the color of their opponent's skin is to cut off your nose to spite you face. Many of you did that in 2000 and 2004 and we're not better off for it. Please think about your vote. It's not a popularity

Posted by COProgressive at 11/03/2008 @ 3:43pm
SJ.... "President Bush did what was necessary - we stopped Saddam - Saddam eventually would have been back to making WMD"

Do you actually listen to yourself when you spew this garp out? Would have? When? Are we supposed to try and kick the ass of everyone that doesn't like us? Are we relegated to the world's schoolyard bully?

You guys are incredible - its no wonder the public is fed up

Posted by leftofcenter at 11/03/2008 @ 3:44pm
Darin-Jesus has probably figured out that when it comes to abortion the vast majority of republicans are all talk and no action because it isn't an issue that most actually care about.There has never even been one good protest.

Posted by i'm nobody at 11/03/2008 @ 3:45pm
John Nichols's article contains so much clap-trap that I did not have to do more than peruse it.

America, the world's last great hope? That is the sort of exceptionalism that produced our preventice war in Iraq. Dwight Eisenhower, a great president? Great for what? Deposing the elected governments of Guatemala and Iran?

What can be expected of Obama? Just look at who gave him $300 million in campaign funds; just look at his advisers; just consider his pledeges and his vote on FISA, on oil drilling; consider his pledge on campaign funding.

The only good thing that I can see immediately about Obama, if elected, is that finally we shall have allowed a Black to reach the highest office. Is he the right Black? I doubt it!

Posted by goedel at 11/03/2008 @ 3:49pm
timdor,

Articles for you:

Did New York's Tax Cuts Work? Edwin Rubenstein, Lawrence B. Lindsey http://www.city-journal.org/ article02.php?aid=1635

Don't listen to Labour - tax cuts do work By John Redwood Last Updated: 12:01am BST 28/08/2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk /opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/ opinion /2007/08/28/do2803.xml

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com /2005/07/13/business /13deficit.html ?_r=1&oref=slogin

Tax Cut Facts and Fantasies by Richard W. Rahn http://www.cato.org/ pub_display.php?pub_id=3059

January 29, 2007 Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts by Brian M. Riedl http://www.heritage.org/ research/taxes/ bg2001.cfm

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/03/2008 @ 3:12pm

Darin, you DO realize SJCHER is being a total hypocrite on "superimposing beliefs onto the "theory" that Jesus would be" of a certain political persuasion, don't you?

"It is not a good idea to try and guess whether Jesus was Republican or Democrat, but I doubt Jesus would favor liberal ideas that hurt the poor, rather than help."----Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:48pm

So apparently, SJ hates liberals turning Jesus into a liberal...but has no problem "hinting" that Jesus would support conservatism!

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 4:23pm
Wow:

"WHAT'S IN A NAME? John McCain: John in Hebrew means "Beloved", Mc or Mac in Celtic means "Son Of" and CAIN was the first murderer in the Bible of his brother Able, whose named meant "Spear Maker" or more accurately "Maker of Weapons."

So his name means "Beloved Son Of the Weapons Maker(s)", or literally Arms Dealers. "Were All Raisin' McCain" was the unnerving country western Republican theme song. Guess they couldn't get the rights to use anything else."

Somehow not so freaky that he's what the new con repub corporate dic'tatorship looked to for continuing their profiteering ways...

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 4:25pm
we have indeed come a long way from the civil rights of the sixties. I remember those days as the Quebecers say. "Je me souviens". I live in a neon white community yet the majority of my neighbors are voting for Obama. We aren't quite color blind, but we are working at it. and like Mrs. William Cohen said "We need to discuss it". For God's sake,let's talk about "it".

Posted by lachatte at 11/03/2008 @ 4:37pm
This election appears to be showdown of two conflicting ideologies that neither of the candidates truly embodies.True progessives see Obama for what he is: a left-of-center corporate backed candidate who voted for the FISA bill and the Patriot Act, continues to support our illegal activities in Iraq and sucks up to the Pro-Israel lobby. These are not "deal breakers" for me because of what the opposition represents: Authoritarian Capitalist Theocracy. McCain has sold his soul to the wack-job religious right and the vile Rovian smear machine that crushed his chances in 2000. He was never "one of them" but he sees this plan of attack as his last desperate chance to finally outrank his father and grandfather before him. McCain is also deeply entrenched within the sinister PNAC neo-con "Pax Americana" cabal, which would mean more money for the Military-Industrial-Crime-Syndicate. So, while Obama isn't perfect by any means, he represents a chance, just a chance, to move beyond, not just the politics of division and hate, but the right-wing policies of the last twenty-five plus years that have destroyed the middle class in favor of a ruling elite, while using fear as its primary motivating force. So while "Hope" for Obama can be a little unrealistic it's still waaaaaaayyy better than the alternative. Peace.

Posted by quinntile at 11/03/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/03/2008 @ 4:39pm

Darin, you JUST said it was a "good point" to SJ saying nobody should impose their political beliefs on Jesus...

now you do it?!?!?!??????

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 4:51pm
So apparently, SJ hates liberals turning Jesus into a liberal...but has no problem "hinting" that Jesus would support conservatism!

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 4:23pm

This is the same character up thread that decries the invocation of Lincoln and what he might/might not think about this election?

Tells you everything that you need to know about that one.

Posted by skeletonman at 11/03/2008 @ 4:54pm
..."Obama's is the politics of faith in the prospect of democratic renewal; of the worthy dream that a divided people might unite around common purposes and lower partisan barriers to make possible dramatic shifts in the way the United States relates to the world and to itself"... My oh my. Where'd ya get such drivel. He is not the messiah you know and this soaring load of rubbish does nothing to help people keep their feet on the ground. I really do not care about Obama's race. However, he and his socialist policies are just way too PINK for me. He is a socialist and will use his first term to get as many socialist programs in place as possible regardless of the economy and regardless of the debt. So could we please drop the flowery rhetoric and speak of the realities we are facing? If Obama wins, the US will lurch further to the left than ever before. THAT is unamerican.

Posted by Kateliz at 11/03/2008 @ 5:16pm
Ha.

I still believe like Al Gore that Obama/Biden admin will once again re-invent a more efficient gov just like we had under Al's charge when he not only shrunk it, but made it more reliable.

WOW just imagine that-- competence in government again!

Our gov actually working for us un-filthy rich types!

Cool.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 6:14pm
And Al didn't have even to do that anti-US Constitutional stuff either to get it accomplished!

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2008 @ 6:17pm
To sjchermak

The information I linked to is nothing more than a series of tables comparing economic growth and tax rate. The conclusion is inescapable, there is no clear link between tax rates and economic growth. Conservative claims otherwise are contrary to the historical record. All you have to do is check out the facts. The article I linked to provides a nice summary and explanation of those facts. Here is your challenge; provide data, not opinion that supports the assertion that lower taxes lead to increased economic growth. There is none provided from government sources. Where is your data that proves your assertions?

Posted by timdor at 11/03/2008 @ 6:27pm
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the five people I will not hire next year after Mr. Obama is elected.

I have owned six companies and always paid well and cared for my staff in ways I think above and beyond most other companies. I have never paid any where near a minimum wage in my career.

Indeed, I am not alone as a big bad evil businessman in believing that Mr. Obama may take my money and spread it around, but he won't tell me how to spend my resources or how much makes me wealthy. I've never made $250,000 in personal income as I have always re-invested and expanded, but probably not anymore.

Corporations made the U.S. the spectacular success that it is, and as they say the envy of the world and the destination for many.

We are now in a business cycle downturn fueled by inept Democrat/Republican politicians, greed, and the belief that everyone whether able or not should have the "RIGHT" to own their own log cabin.

Good fortune to Mr. Obama, I won't vote for him, I wish him no ill will, but he is not the messiah everyone believes him to be. If he should implement even half of his anti-business platform I suspect the Great Depression won't look so Great any more. Hello Hoover, here we come.

Sorry guys, you could have been a contender, but not with me and the truly sad point is that I am the best boss you would have ever had. And there are plenty more just like me.

Lars the small business guy.

Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 6:40pm
hsuBfools,

You said "I still believe like Al Gore that Obama/Biden admin will once again re-invent a more efficient gov just like we had under Al's charge when he not only shrunk it, but made it more reliable.

WOW just imagine that-- competence in government again! "

hsuBfools - What planet do you live on? I hope you are not serious with your comment. You use the words efficient, reliable, and competence in the same sentence with the word government.

No way!! Absolutely NO WAY!!!

You must not have had much personal interaction with government over the years, either in having to work with or deal with government, or even working FOR government. Or working for government at one point in time and then at other points in time working in the real world (everything but government).

If you did you would never,ever use words like efficient, reliable and competence in the same sentence with the word government.

You think unnecessary paper shuffling, documentation, empire building, co-ordination, bureauacracy, approval requirements, guaranteed lifetime jobs for government workers whether they work or not, guaranteed raises every year regardless of performance or even if they work or not, total due process rights that a government worker can use to keep a job when in the real world they would not be able to because they do not deserve to, mind-numbing number of hoops that anyone in government has to go through to get anything done, government workers that just shuffle along and accept this as the status quo without doing anything about it, forms in triplicate or even 10 copies with all kinds of unnecessary info required to do a basic task (and if every t is not crossed and i not dotted, a bureaucrat rejects it - is EFFICIENT??

Unbelieveable!

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 6:42pm
H-Boy

You make some good points.Patronage can be negative. Thanks for sharing your views & your liquor. Your decanter is now half-full. The downside? You drink some nasty stuff. Putrid.

Posted by Sorelish at 11/03/2008 @ 6:54pm
Not much new will come out of these elections, I am afraid. Obama will need to break with the failed policies of the Bush administration, but he will also need to do the same with the failed policies of the Democrats. Unity is far from happening, unless Obama has the guts to tell this nation, how many painful changes we will need, and the urgency of those needs. No politician in this country has ever had such guts.

Posted by pachonegro at 11/03/2008 @ 7:01pm
timdor,

I looked at your data. You do not include tables regarding economic activity, other than the period 1930-1939. All your data is tax rates or receipts or comparisons with other countries.

The economy grew when JFK and LBJ cut taxes. Your article says "The top tax rate remained between 88 and 91 percent until 1964; afterwards, the rate was reduced to 70 percent"..... but you showed no statistics of economic growth during that period.

Or the period of the 80's during Ronald Reagan. Or the period during the presidency of George W. Bush.

You included no economic data regarding the state of Georgia, after Gov. Zell Miller cut taxes and spurred economic growth.

Your data leaves out economic performance, job creation or unemployment statistics, new business starts, etc. There is a lot of data that should be included in such an analysis (the effect of tax policy on the economy), but it is absent from your source.

But, as seems always to be the case on this website, it is declared the absolute be all end all and last word on the subject.

Nice try, it didn't work.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:04pm
Thanks, libs!

I just read an interesting article. It is going to be a contentious mess even if John McCain pulls off a miracle tomorrow. This country is going to be at odds with itself for sometime to come.

You, the enlightened libs, have helped bring this about.

If the country rejects the great and mighty Obama, libs will rip it apart.

If the country votes in the great and mighty Obama, a lot of people will be upset, and rightfully so, as they see America turn more socialist than it should be, all because an empty myth has been promoted into the White House, by an adoring media and Democrats laying down the law that any examination of the myth and illusion that is Obama is off limits.

And, the author of the article doesn't even mention Obama talking to the president of Iran and other activities that will insure another terrorist attack someday.

November 03, 2008 Say Goodbye to America By Noel Sheppard

http://www.americanthinker.com/ printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com /2008/11/ say_goodbye_to_america.html

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:26pm
Good luck to all tomorrow.

I myself will be voting for someone who is on the left side of the right.

To those of you who will be voting for one of the left-most of the left tomorrow, please do so knowing...

Whether you label it socialism or not, Obama has surrounded himself with and gained prominence through characters who espouse political/economic theories that sound very similar to Marx.

Whether you think he is a radical or not, Obama has surrounded himself with people who are inspired by Saul Alinsky.

You can thank our media for not promulgating a sense of astonishment and outrage over these two facts alone.

It utterly astounds me how coddled he has been and how lemming like our populace has been.

But, with that said, I wish all you fellow Americans the best. What will be, will be.

Let's hope fair democratic elections (not Acorn or media glitz) bring in our next president.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 7:43pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:26pm

You are actually trusting an article that says that for sure talking to Iran will lead to another terrorist attack? You need to learn to think for yourself.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/03/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:26pm

Is your source able to see the future because only an idiot would make such an obviously misguided and completely baseless statement.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/03/2008 @ 7:50pm
Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 6:40pm

Are you the CEO of "Ward JOOA Corp" in New Braunfels, Texas??!?!???

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 7:56pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:26pm

Also Obama could be the beginning of a revolution in America that leads this country to once again be the last best hope for Earth and everything that this grand experiment SHOULD be. We will see where it goes. For anyone to speak with certainty is to speak partisanly which is to render your opinion irrelevant because it is not based in fact but in groundless speculation.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/03/2008 @ 7:57pm
The economy grew when JFK and LBJ cut taxes. Your article says "The top tax rate remained between 88 and 91 percent until 1964; afterwards, the rate was reduced to 70 percent"..... but you showed no statistics of economic growth during that period.----Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:04pm

So, SJCHER, you're telling us you gave have economic growth...

with a top marginal rate of 70%?!??!?!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 7:58pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 11/03/2008 @ 7:58pm

SJ doesn't know a thing about what he is talking about. From what I can tell he is just using talking points delivered by his party. He is still giving the hogwash about redistribution of wealth after his party paved the way for the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history upward that was signed through by John McCain as well as many other Republicans. John McCain plans to redistribute the wealth it's just going to the top tax bracket instead of to the people who actually need it. If you don't believe it then just go back to the vote to give Wall Street 700 billion of our tax dollars with no guarantee of ever seeing it again.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/03/2008 @ 8:15pm
"Clinton's record was once commendable, if imperfect. It is now tarnished beyond repair."

You could have not included this statement. It does not add nor detract anything from the article. It is superfluous.

Or was the statement included because you thought it was the cute and clever thing to do?

It is neither cute nor clever and it's inclusion does nothing to enhance your credentials as a writer.

Posted by 4dogknight at 11/03/2008 @ 8:28pm
I forgot to say that three of the five jobs would have paid in the 50 to 60K range and the other two would have paid around 30K. So anyhow, do you know what a'K' means in business. I do.

Thank You and Good Fortune to you and yours, Lars

Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 8:35pm
Cccomfo1 at 11/03/2008 @ 7:57pm

"For anyone to speak with certainty is to speak partisanly which is to render your opinion irrelevant because it is not based in fact but in groundless speculation."

And... "Is your source able to see the future because only an idiot would make such an obviously misguided and completely baseless statement."

While you look down your nose at anyone who "speaks with certainty", you might note that you wording (in both cases) conveys your own attempt to sound authoritative or "certain". Mighty judgmental of you.

As Thomas Sowell put it, "Each of us has some point - - some probability level - - beyond which we will say that we "know" something."

People form knowledge (and opinions) out of what they have witnessed. Absolute knowledge doesn't happen.

I, for instance, have seen much more than enough to lead me to the conclusion (to lead me to KNOW), that the background, words, and voting record of BO smells like BO.

And while I'm at it, I have done enough research and listening to KNOW (not think, not feel) he smells enough like a slick-dirty-Chicago-politics, racist-black-liberation-theology, socialist to warrant great concern.

Obama is experienced. It's what he is experienced at that should cause alarm.

I KNOW he is a Socialist - - or darn close.

Feel free to KNOW what you KNOW.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 8:37pm
Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 6:40pm

Hey, Lars the small business guy...

"Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation."

Have you even read Obama's tax plan?

Posted by FLaim at 11/03/2008 @ 8:38pm
Cccomfo1,

You said "You are actually trusting an article that says that for sure talking to Iran will lead to another terrorist attack? You need to learn to think for yourself."

CCcomfo1, the article did NOT say that. It didn't even mention that.

I added that in MYSELF. I thought it was pertinent, while mentioning the pitfalls of electing Obama that the author addressed, to mention the big pitfall separate from the economic/socialist pitfalls. I did think for myself. I added on to what the author had said, mentioning something the author DID NOT.

Here was my comment:

"And, the author of the article doesn't even mention Obama talking to the president of Iran and other activities that will insure another terrorist attack someday."

Here is how it will go, and the country has been through this before, resulting in September 11, 2001 (except for item #4, new to this next go-around):

1. Obama will show terrorists we are willing to have dialog and discussion and negotiate. Terrorists will like that, someone willing to make unilateral concessions.

2. I am sure Obama will cut military spending. The last two Democrat presidents have, why should I expect Obama to be any different.

3. Terrorists will see us as weak again.

4. Terrorists will conclude that if they wait for the next Republican president, then attack, that the Republican may self-limit his or her ability to fight back or prevent future terror, mindful of the crucification that George W. Bush received when he fought to prevent future terror.

5. Terrorists will conclude they can attack and get away with it, and so they will attack.

This is my own thinking. If you do not agree, fine, if you think I am an idiot, fine, but it is NOT talking points from someone else.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 8:39pm
sjchermak and lars

I appreciate your comments and thoughts even if the the bulk of the libs here are doing their best mentally block out or belittle your salient points.

Some farm wisdom seems appropriate here, just not sure which one. Should I go with "Horse to water" or "Wrestling with pigs"?

Would either be understood by the urban elite?

I know at least Maskdelta will get it. He often pays attention and has a sense of humor in spite of being a child of the left.

Anyway, I'll go look up some of those articles.

So don't feel like your efforts are wasted.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 8:53pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 1:15pm

Yep the economy was going GREAT! I'm sure you can elucidate just how great it was going until the evil democrats took office and ruined all the GOP plans for greatness, blah blah blah.

Nevermind the consistently increasing unemployment numbers, the consistently increasing gap between the upper echelon and the "real Americans" that Ms. Palin loves to talk about, the $55,000,000,000,000 deficit or the fact our economy is in it's worst state in years, and seems to show no signs whatsoever of improving. You can just ignore all that.

Or at least pass the blame to somebody else.

Please feel free to enlighten us as to HOW the economy was doing great. I'm waiting on the edge of my seat.

Or perhaps, we're just supposed to believe you?

BTW

The terrorist scare tactic idiocy is old hat, and if you haven't noticed, it no longer works on anybody. It may have won it for the GOP in '04, but it is a concept that (thank god) no longer passes muster with the American people.

Here's a thought: George W. Bush was Commander in Chief during the most devastating attack to ever happen on US soil. Jeez! Talk about a scare tactic!

Al-Qaeda WANTS John McCain to be president! SCARY!!

On top of it, our GOP controlled government managed to fulfill the wishes of the animals that killed 3,000 people on our turf by embroiling us in an unwinnable travesty of a war that has done nothing good and has only managed to suck up resources, lives, and money.

You can at least have the cajones to admit to yourself that you were wrong. We all understand if you want to save face here in the "land of the damned", but at least have the intellectual and moral integrity to be honest with YOURSELF.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:14pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 8:53pm

The urban elite?!

Right.

Because OBVIOUSLY, everybody who isn't willing to let their lives be controlled by terrorists is a member of the urban elite.

So does that mean all the people who will be voting non-republican that live in small rural towns, are rural elites? Or are they just plain old UnAmerican?

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you want the terrorists to win?

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:19pm
It is with a grim face indeed that I will cast my Western PA ballot for that muslim/marxist/socialist (or whatever other lies there are to tell about him) tomorrow morning before I head off to my working class, blue collar, UnAmerican job.

This man is certainly not my first choice to be president, and I find the fervor generated by his followers to be oh-so-similar to the same fervor generated by the religious fanatic values voters of '04 to be one in the same.

In a word, sickening.

When examining the alternative however, I feel the bile rising into my throat every single time Sarah Palin opens her mouth to reveal she has no idea what the Vice-President actually does with his/her day.

Gee, I also own and operate my own small business. I guess I'm just a member of the anti-American "urban elite"!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:25pm
Wowtexas! Howisthatkoolaid?IstheMankeepingyoudown?Letitout.Ventalittle. YoushouldbehappysinceImsureyouthinkthemessiahiscoming. Chilax!

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 9:26pm
I'll keep my fingers crossed, Mr. Obama. Chances are you're just feeding a line of bullshit, but there's always the slim possibility you'll make good on all of the rhetoric.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:29pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 9:26pm

Yes that's right! You hit it right on the head!

The messiah!

Once again, everybody who isn't willing to let their lives be controlled by a cave-dweller in the middle of the desert is obviously in love with Barack Obama.

It doesn't matter that until the MooseHunter was nominated, I wasn't going to be voting Democrat.

I'm so UnAmerican!

Feel free to cast your vote for the AlQaeda-endorsed John McCain.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:31pm
How bout this:

John McCain is FORCING me to vote for Barack Obama.

How does that make you feel?

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:32pm
Personally it makes me feel sort of queasy having to vote AGAINST somebody as opposed to FOR somebody.

But I suppose you gotta do what you gotta do, eh?

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:33pm
Wowtexas! Howisthatkoolaid?IstheMankeepingyoudown?Letitout.Ventalittle. YoushouldbehappysinceImsureyouthinkthemessiahiscoming. Chilax!

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 9:26pm

Although I should thank you for illustrating EXACTLY why the GOP will be losing this election.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:36pm
29 matches for sjchermak.

oh well, electrons aren't expensive.

𝄐♭♯ ♬ ⚈ ♹ ✱ ✻ ✹ ❅ ⌛ ⚆ ⚉ ☏ ♨ ⚁ ⚅ ☠ ☠ ☢ ☣

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 9:37pm
Go on.

Without venting, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that McCain is a terrorist.

Please keep it somewhat brief and simple - after all - I'm an admitted conservative.

I somehow missed your explanation.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 9:39pm
Have fun with the rapture fellas, I have to hit the sack so I can be up early to work the polls.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 7:04pm

Thanks for responding. You make a few good points but still miss the big picture. Regarding Georgia, that is a state economy; I am focusing on federal tax policy. Yes the top tax rate was lowered from 91% to 70% in 1964, and the economy's growth did subsequently increase, but if lowering the top tax rate leads to increased economic growth, why didn't the economy's growth become even larger in the 80's with the Reagan tax cuts? By your logic,the economy should have increased at a far greater rate in the 1980's than in the 1960's. It didn't. Furthermore when the top tax rate was increased in 1993, the economy should have slowed down. It didn't.

As far as the Bush tax cuts are concerned and their effect on the economy, please see http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-07tax.htm. Here you will find a comparison between economic growth in GDP, non-residential investment, wages and salaries, and employment under the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts and average previous post WWII expansions. The expansion under Bush has been weaker than in most previous economic expansionts.

Finally, the Bush tax cuts did nothing to prevent our current recession. You have yet to provide any objective proof that federal tax cuts for the rich promote economic growth.

Posted by timdor at 11/03/2008 @ 9:40pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 9:39pm

Please show me exactly where I called John McCain a terrorist...

????

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:41pm
Personally I'm a bit flummoxed, I can't even begin to comprehend how anything I said would be misconstrued as calling John McCain a terrorist...

This should be funny, if not compelling.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:44pm
OH!

Maybe you're talking about the fact that Al-Qaeda is looking forward to a McCain presidency...

That's pretty well documented, let me know if you need help puzzling out your google browser.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:48pm
Sorry if I'm not so willing to toss out ridiculous labels like "terrorist", "socialist", or "fascist".

I'll leave that bit of work up to John McCain and Sarah Palin. After all, it's been working so splendidly for them.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:51pm
i bet the kids of hanoi thought john mccain was a terrorist....

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 9:52pm
i bet the kids of hanoi thought john mccain was a terrorist....

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 9:52pm

I think that's a rather low blow. He was in the US military, and was doing his job, as that's part of being in the military.

It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

Say what you will, but it's not like there's evidence that he was out napalming villages and raping women.

Poor CrtclThnkr was simply putting words into my keyboard if you will. I can forgive him for that.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 9:59pm
i wouldn't bomb cities.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 10:05pm
by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 8:39pm...

"5. Terrorists will conclude they can attack and get away with it, and so they will attack."

May I remind you that Osama is still at large... and that GWB's 'priorities' have not seriously included his capture...

Obama will not exclusively rely on the US military for effective countermeasures to Terrorism... chiefly because a world-wide coalition of integrated police action and intelligence gathering will be far more effective.

Why continue to pretend that this is not obvious?

Posted by ttr at 11/03/2008 @ 10:11pm
Timdor,

"Here is your challenge; provide data, not opinion that supports the assertion that lower taxes lead to increased economic growth."

I'd love to claim this quote, but it was a group of three teenage Jewish girls who said to me (classy self-deprecation), "Put three Jews in a room to discuss an issue for an hour and what you'll get is eight emphatically opinionated positions on the topic."

Same is true with economists. They never agree because they never arrive at full and uncomplicated proof.

I rely on human nature to lead me in economics. More of an Art than a Science.

You can always find data supporting one side or the other.

During the Cold War, we had plenty of time to look at the differing economic (tax) policies of the Eastern and Western Blocks.

But following your lead, can you "provide data, not opinion that supports the assertion that (HIGHER) taxes (and INCREASED government spending) leads to increased economic growth."?

You may be able to find something. However, to me it would seem counterintuitive and suspect.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 10:20pm
but you're right, TF, it was a "low blow".

mr. mccain, as i've said on many occasions, seems an affable fellow that circumstance has taken for a rather odd ride.

he was a young man, as you said, "doing his job".

i guess it just saddens me so that such "jobs" exist.

isn't it time to evolve?

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 10:24pm
Apparently he was murder on his airplanes at any rate

Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/03/2008 @ 10:38pm
TexasFlood

Perhaps I did some improper interpreting of your comments or missed your intent.

The sharp tone (bile, as you put it) tends to prompt me to speed read instead of thoughtfully consider the meaning.

It's passages like this that seem puzzling. "Because OBVIOUSLY, everybody who isn't willing to let their lives be controlled by terrorists is a member of the urban elite." ?? Does not compute.

The term "Socialist" is not a "ridiculous label". It is a word and it is accurate. Wealth redistribution is certainly not capitalist. Many of his words lead to government manipulation over income, increased government control over sectors of our society, and redistribution in general. Class envy. Certain people are "too rich". Obama even states in his book that he sought out ties with various elements of the left which included Marxists. These things are not an accident. Each of these things constitute yet another puzzle piece that just happens to fit.

Now, regarding "Al-Qaeda is looking forward to a McCain presidency"

It may surprise you to know that I believe this to be true.

But Why? Not because McCain will be weaker, but because he will be stronger.

Transcripts have also confirm this though process. More attention from the "evil Americans" means more prominence for Al-Qaeda.

Twisted I know - but he is twisted.

Much like Clinton reveled in the media limelight whether news was good or bad (scandals).

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 10:52pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2008 @ 10:24pm

I certainly don't disagree.

Like I said, it's a reason, not an excuse.

CrtclThnkr, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I said John McCain is a terrorist...

Or are you going to admit you were WRONG, and making it up?

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 10:53pm
Nichols says,

<<< "Obama's resume is shorter than McCain's, and imperfect in places. But it is precisely right for the American moment." >>>

Is that so?. His resume is rooted in the most radical marshes of the bomb throwing Left. It is linked to the convicted Chicago real estate crook, Antoin Rezko and to the rabid racist and conspiracy theorist, Jeremiah Wright, not to mention that screeching lunatic, Father Pfleger. Never has a a presidential candidate had more friends who loathe America.

But not to worry, compensation for that heavy baggage is in the astonishing lightness of Obama's achievements and experience. Michelle opined in 2004, he isn't ready for the presidency, "he hasn't done anything yet." Sixteen months later here husband embarked on a quest for the presidency.

What is it about this moment that makes Obama so right?

Is it that the time doesn't require a heavyweight, the country does not face serious challenges from abroad and at home, we are in a tranquil moment when it is safe to experiment with an unseasoned newcomer who has just stepped out of the fog and is still moist with ambiguity. This is the time to take such a chance on America?

Such is the quality of Nichols' patriotism and that of the whole Nation crew. That is how much they care for the safety and future of their country. About as much as in the 1930s and 40s when they followed Moscow's line in opposing Lend Lease and the Draft, until the day after the invasion of Russia when word came to back the war effort.

These galoots today are made of the same stuff. They are invested in ideology, not America. And to think, Navasky resents being called, an ideologue.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/03/2008 @ 10:56pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 10:52pm

*sigh*

Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

Nice excuses though, always entertaining!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 11:00pm
You were saying something about kool-aid???

So you completely misrepresent what I said, and then try to twist your way out of it, and in the long run, blame it on ME? LOL, like I said, thanks for illustrating why the GOP has taken such a spectacular nosedive.

Maybe instead of "speed reading" and then opening your fat, nonsensical trap, you should think about what you have to say before spouting hyperbolic nonsense.

Or at the very least, do us all the favor of actually reading what you're responding to.

Just remember, John McCain thinks western Pennsylvanians are racist.

I guess I'm going to have to prove him wrong.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 11:05pm
You got me though, I'll admit Barack Obama is a socialist if you admit that John McCain is a fascist.

Deal?

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 11:07pm
Nighty night Nation readers.

I don't care who you vote for tomorrow, so long as you actually VOTE!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/03/2008 @ 11:10pm
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008

I would hope you would demonstrate more capacity for critical thinking than what was displayed in your post. I argued that tax cuts do not necessarily lead to economic growth. That does not mean that I would argue that higher taxes necessarily lead to increased economic growth. What I have been arguing, and what the links I have included in my posts support, is that there is no clear evidence that tax cuts lead to economic growth. Not one conservative has been able to provide objective data to support this mythical tax cut economic growth connection. I will admit that there is evidence that economic growth can be negatively influenced by excessive higher marginal tax rates, but the effect has only been seen when the highest marginal tax rates exceed 90% as in the US in the 1960's. All that the tax cut conservatives have been able to do is cite anecdotal evidence or folksy bromides appealing to "common sense". Or I get a response such as yours in which you distort my statements into an argument that higher tax rates lead to higher economic growth.

Let me make my position clear. Economic growth is dependent on a strong societal infrastructure. That infrastructure includes everything from adequate transportation, to regulations that help maintain a stable marketplace, to an educated workforce -- the list goes on and on. These components are all part of what I would call the common good. Taxes provide the resources necessary for the maintenance and improvement of these components. When markets are collapsing due to lack of regulation and bridges collapsing due to lack of maintenance, it should be obvious the infrastructure necessary for economic growth is falling apart. More tax cuts will not solve these problems.

Posted by timdor at 11/03/2008 @ 11:11pm
2HAPPY barry25 bleedingheart boyydz CrtclThnkr Daddude fukUlibruls goedel HelenDAO Iraq_Vet larsky librulfreaks libzRfreaks libzsuck libzsuk lrjones4 mihnea pontificus RedRiver_. Rio Bravo SooHAPPY votenic

thanks for your sacrifice

Posted by winyahn at 11/03/2008 @ 11:19pm
I would like to hear from him a pledge of allegiance to the Charter of the United Nations,Posted by Onca at 11/03/2008 @ 08:30am

Onca, while I respect your comment I don't think you will hear from any "American" a "Pledge of allegiance to the Charter of the United Nations."

Obama will bring fresh new ideas and a diplomatic approach to foreign affairs that has been missing for the past 8 years.

Most importantly I believe he will provide the leadership the world will respect.

However, as we differ as Americans and as strongly as we support our candidates and/or our ideology's ..... We only "Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America"

Posted by Hoot at 11/03/2008 @ 11:25pm
Hey FLAIM,

I have a clever idea.

You have obviously never owned a small business. For openers cap gains are of no value until you sell the business. I won't comment on the rest as you are obiously not in touch with what works and what doesn't and have not owned a business.

Hey, how about you start a business, make it work, and then check back with me in a few years and tell me all about all you know.

That could work. Yeh, that could work.

Lars

Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 11:29pm
Timdor

No need to get testy.

I found your points, including the last, worthy of reading and considering.

I just don't know that the satisfying proof you challenged us all to find is achievable.

My counter-point or counter-question was not meant to stump anyone or deny your point.

It was just meant to ask whether either side of this coin is provable.

I would contend that ( anecdotal evidence or folksy bromides appealing to "common sense") is perfectly rational. This is not just a game of who can assemble the most data and find "experts" with charts. They are everywhere.

A blend of data and "common sense" may be the best we get.

Agreed - a strong infrastructure is key. I would add and emphasize - rule of law and fair, free competition as key elements.

Roads, Railways, Ports, good. Wasteful, unproductive social programs, pushing homeownership among those with no or poor credit - bad.

Me, I'm sort of skeptical of those who tried to shoe-in funding for Acorn in the bailout package.

There I go with that non-data-driven common sense again! Sorry.

But I do like your thoughts. Well articulated.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 11:39pm
Lars,

Stop that. Sounds like common sense to me. That is verboten here.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 11:41pm
winyahn

Thanks. A simple thing like that made my day.

TexasFlood

Agreed. Everybody go vote. That is what America is all about.

Remember, common, non-landowning people had no vote prior to the foundation of this country.

I'll take your lead. Hitting the (non-urban) hay here too.

Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 11:51pm
crtel thnkr

Thanks, grew up on a farm in Nebraska and spent a lot of time in Canada and Europe. I guess that makes me a nazi or something, don't know. Most of it seems to have worked out. I have serious doubts about the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. I hope they maintain some sanity.

If Mr. Obama decides to pick a fight with small business or business in general, he will lose. Not by me mind you, but by the result that he will create.

I'm all for it, show me the way, take my burden off, unshackle my chains, and so on, but I doubt that any of Mr, Obama's whistle's and bells and soft talk will work in the end.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong, but I doubt I ever will.

Go for what you believe works. Lars

Lars the small business guy.

Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 11:52pm
Obama has packaged Hope and Change and sold it to thirsty America like Jim Jones dispensed ice cold koolaid in the jungle. His successful grass roots campaign got him noticed by the agents of Lord Rothchild and selected to play in the big leagues. He has been given their blessing and the backing needed to climbed higher up the steep steps of the pyramid of power than anyone of color has ever gone in this country before.

Like FDR he is being anointed to stave off unrest, even insurrection during the coming Greater Depression, and according to well laid plans to reinstitute Selective Service to feed the maws of Mars and Moloch. Adoring black americans won't even have to be drafted as they were in Vietnam; they will enlist in droves to serve the man whom they believe has realized the American Dream for them. He is the Judas Goat needed by the elite to lead black, hispanic and white working class young men (and women?) into the killing fields of WWIII.

Nothing exists.

Posted by blackfeather7 at 11/04/2008 @ 12:10am
Senator Obama is a fool and a dreamer who has fooled most of the people, and that is his greatest achievement to date. Shame on us for falling for his snake oil pitch, but I pray that he delivers. However, I don't think he will.

Posted by boyydz

I know, who needs hope and dreams of something better when you have the fabulous reality of losing half your retirement savings and a large piece of home equity.

When will the right wingnuts realize that it wasn't Obama, Liberals, The Nation Magazine, Sara Palin, terrorists, Joe the Plumber, or even McCain himself that cost the GOP the Presidency. It was George W. Bush and his policies that put the U.S. economy in the toilet.

Posted by koroviev at 11/04/2008 @ 04:02am
CrtclThnkr, sjchermak, larsky, Darin_the_Troll, Hugo_Pirovano, doctorfixit et al

The thing we do know about McCain is he isn't as strong as his convictions. I think he would have had a shot if he hadn't sold out all his principles to pander to the extreme right of his party, either the economic or ideological, and choosing a person of very little stature to support him. This sure means we know more about McCain. His problem is psychological, like H Clinton's, he can't say one thing and do another and that is why he isn't convincing.

About Obama I have some reservations, whether he will be able to keep integrity intact with all the pressure of powerful DC interests baying at his feet.

I am a values voter, probably not in the way many understand this, that doesn't mean a prolife or creationist believer, and my values tell me that McCain is the last of a bad batch from the Republican party, rife with liars and egoists since the turn of the century!

I think Obama will do good for the USA, for the Democrats and even for the GOP, as he will bring fresh enthusiasm to them all.

Thank goodness for him, his leap of faith and his staunch integrity, for that he certainly has.

He hasn't flinched in the face of some pretty repugnant tactics, he is rolling with the punches, gathering strength, as he says, from the people he meets who need him. He is definitely the right choice.

Maybe personally I would prefer someone a tad more radical, but even a tad more radical and they wouldn't have a hope, so with Obama I stand.

There is no changing the mind of some, certainly "they" wont change mine. At least we shall all vote, no? Shame on you if you don't!

Posted by marilynm at 11/04/2008 @ 04:26am
"Better Angels of our nature"----Gosh Johnny---don't you worry about preaching religion in a public forum? What will your far left brothers and sisters think of you now? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for you to say "Better evolved socio/political facets of our learned behavior". Just looking out for you buddy. After all we don't want you to get into any bad habits like religion now do we!!

Posted by Len Mosse at 11/04/2008 @ 09:48am
Doctorfixit. I'd welcome the chance to meet you - fist to face.

Posted by piglizard420 at 11/04/2008 @ 11:20am
Posted by CrtclThnkr at 11/03/2008 @ 11:39pm

Thanks for your kind words. Sorry about the testiness. Comes from teaching 8th grade and having small children at home.

Posted by timdor at 11/04/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by blackfeather7 at 11/04/2008 @ 12:10am

I think PLUNGER got a new nick, given he predicted there would BE "no election...martial law declared by Bush back in March of 2007!!!!"

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by larsky at 11/03/2008 @ 6:40pm

The term "cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. Clearly.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2008 @ 6:42pm

Er, wrote lots of words. Formed sentences.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 1:38pm
I actually had a dream about this article:

'No Currency Left to Buy the Big Lies'

http://tinyurl.com/65a7o9

In it new con repubs were vampires that were of course unable to stop gorging on the population after convincing everyone that new con repub vamp's would actually care for the human's as it was in their own best interest to care with the best upkeep for their food. NOT.

So after the new con repub vamp's self-destruction, ironically, evolution kicks in and humans evolve to walk the earth and rule again. Albeit a little less trusting of the now mythical new con repub vamp's...

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 1:58pm
marilynm at 04:26am says,

<<< The thing we do know about McCain is he isn't as strong as his convictions. >>>

The opposite is true. While most people repudiate their convictions when it does not pay them, McCain endured torture and years of solitary confinement, for them. But for his convictions he could have gone home and missed years of captivity.

Obama is the opposite case. He turns on a dime when it profits him. For for example he reversed himself on campaign financing. He was against NAFTA one moment, the next he told Canadian officials not to take that seriously. In one speech he could not abandon Wright anymore than he could his race, the next moment, he denounced and abandoned Wright. On one morning he was for a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and by the afternoon he was not. At first he was for sitting down with rogues without preconditions, and soon it was, after preliminary negotiations. For years Aiken was a close friend and associate, they sat together on the Woods Fund, Obama was chairman of Aiken's $160 million Annenberg project and wrote flattering blurbs for Aiken's book. But when questioned about their association on TV Aiken became "someone who lives in the neighborhood."

It is in fact Obama's capacity for double talk, to deny his convictions, and wrap himself in ambiguity, that has made him.

But you, you sickening creature, make McCain the waffler justly punished for his weaseling.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/04/2008 @ 2:33pm
HP,

Er, McCain't wasn't qualified to be president in March 14, 1973, so why keep bringing that up as though that made him qualified to be the next new con repub dic'tator?

What could've helped make McCain't a qualified candidate, was how he conducted his campaign and his VP he picked. And by VP-- I don't mean his 'viagra pill' dosage...

So McCain't did every kind of political error that would have sunk Obama if he had only done a fraction of them per the far right new con repub faux spews broken record excess.

"Olbermann: I ask you to imagine an alternative universe where the candidates are the same, but what each has said and done, has been reversed.

What would be happening tonight if Sen. Obama had stumbled, over everything from arcane details, to sweeping policies of the utmost importance, and not just once or twice, but endlessly?

What if Sen. Obama couldn't tell Iran from Iraq? Iraq from Afghanistan? Sunni from Shi'a? Somalia from Sudan?

What if Sen. Obama had gotten up before a crowd and started off by saying

OBAMA:You know, I think you may have noticed that Sen. McCain's supporters have been saying some pretty nasty things about Western Pennsylvania lately.

And who finished by saying,

OBAMA: I could not agree more. I could not disagree with him more. But I could not agree more with the explanation Sen. McCain offered a few weeks ago.

What would we be asking ourselves about his capabilities, if it had been Sen. Obama who had identified Gen. David Petraeus as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? And Vladimir Putin as the President of Germany? And Spain as a country in Latin America?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27522443/

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 3:24pm
"What if it had been Sen. Obama who not only used his POW experience at every turn, but wrote of giving to his captors, not the names of his fellow servicemen, but of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers football team, only to, when he spoke in Western Pennsylvania, change the story so that he gave to his captors, the names of the offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team?

What if it had been Sen. Obama who, out of nowhere, had blurted out an inexplicable, perhaps Freudian, slip, while intending to say "My Fellow Americans?"

OBAMA: To Chairman Dean and the Senior Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin, and to my fellow prisoners I accept your nomination for president of the United States.

And what would be happening tonight in the minds of tens of millions of voters if it had been Sen. Obama who had his people negotiate, behind the scenes and off the record, to force favorable coverage of his campaign at three television networks?

Or if it had been Sen. Obama repeatedly mocking a research study on the DNA of bear until he was suddenly reminded he had voted for it? Or if Sen. Obama had an advisor who claimed that Sen. Obama's work on a sub-committee had led to the invention of the blackberry?

Or if Sen. Obama had tried to get one of the presidential debates postponed or cancelled… and threatened to boycott another one, the Town Hall, because he didn't like the network the moderator worked for, all the while complaining that the other guy wouldn't debate him or agree to ten Town Halls."

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 3:31pm
"What would be happening tonight in the souls of a nation, if after all that, at the first debate, it had been Sen. Obama who would not as much as look at Sen. McCain, and then finally addressed him, at the second one, in a weird and cryptic manner?

OBAMA: If we could have intervened in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we have a moral obligation not to go in? That one.

What would a country heading into the most important vote in its modern history be thinking tonight, if it had been Sen. Obama who viewed a collapsing economy and insisted that if in office, he would fire the head of the SEC (even though a president cannot) and then the next day tried to correct himself by calling on the head of the FEC to resign?

What if it had been Sen. Obama who, on September 24th, had after having insisted that there was little wrong?

OBAMA: The truth is, the fundamentals of the economy are strong. We are just suffering from a mental recession, you nation of whiners.

Where would America's collective head be tonight, if it had been, in the middle of a campaign in part focused on elitism and celebrity and personal wealth, Sen. Obama who couldn't remember, or wouldn't admit, how many houses he owned?

QUESTION: How many houses do you have?

OBAMA: Uh, you know I think that's a good question to address to my staff...ah ah ah, I mean, you'd have to ask my staff."

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 3:36pm
"What if Sen. Obama had deflected all serious questions about the troubled finances of a worried nation, by virtually concocting a preposterous every-man, a fictional character, a plumber without a license, a small businessman who owned no business, an average Joe who had a lawyer, a book agent, a publicist, and maybe a recording contract?

OBAMA: I would love to see the next three weeks devoted to talking about Joe the Plumber who is an American hero.

MCCAIN: No, he's not.

OBAMA: Yes, he is.

What would the national psyche be like tonight if it had been Sen. Obama who had sung a mocking song about "bombing Iran?"

What would be happening if Sen. Obama had accepted the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, or Pastor Rod Parsley, or had a running mate who attributed their big break in politics to the laying on of hands by a minister who began his career in Kenya by slandering a woman as a "witch" and hounding her out of her home?

What would we be thinking if it had been Sen. Obama who, at a critical moment, exaggerated a public claim about the "suspension" of his campaign, and lied to a national television figure about it? And what if it had been Sen. Obama who had been somehow nominated by his party, months and months ago, even though it had been he who had not reproached the use of the rankest of sexist terms, in public, about Sen. Hillary Clinton?

OBAMA: Let's go to this lady here.

LADY: How do we beat the bitch?

That's why i have that stick!"

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 3:39pm
"We all know exactly what would be happening tonight if Sen. Obama had made all those mistakes, contradictions, gaffes, Freudian slips, and hypocritical pronouncements. He would have long since ceased to be taken seriously by any measurable part of the voting public, as a viable, responsible, self-aware, mentally vigorous, non-dangerous, non-risk.

We'd all be going home to our beds well before midnight tomorrow night. But while all that is hypothetical, this is not: This cascade of incompetence and irresponsibility I have enumerated tonight, all the sound bites, all the foot-in-mouth moments, all the no-brainers-gone-wrong - all these, John McCain has said.

No hyperbole and no hypotheses are required. This is who John McCain has showed us he is."

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 3:49pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/04/2008 @ 2:33pm

Hugo, what is John McCain's "principled, steadfast, unwavering" position on...

the 2002 Bush tax cuts?

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/04/2008 @ 6:57pm |

Your perverted version of a constitutional republic are dead. Thank the Gods.

Posted by chaoszen at 11/04/2008 @ 9:00pm
Maskdelta at 4:38pm asks:

>>> Hugo, what is John McCain's "principled, steadfast, unwavering" position on... the 2002 Bush tax cuts? >>>

You can pretend no to know that McCain is for fewer rather than more taxes, but you surely know where you can shove your quibbles.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/04/2008 @ 9:04pm
hsuBfools at 11/04/2008 @ 3:24pm writes:

< < < McCain wasn't qualified to be president in March 14, 1973, so why keep bringing that up > > >

I was responding to marilynm who claimed McCain hasn't the mettle to stick to his convictions. I pointed to evidence showing him fiercely loyal to his convictions, and also to evidence qualifying Obama as an unprincipled flip flopper.

Your cavil, that McCain lacked qualifications for public office in1973, is a non sequitur and ridiculous. But I appreciate you leading off with that.

It relieves me from reading further into your hot air, or considering the other posts I see you have knotted together, as in the tail of a kite.

Your handle is wrong. You are not a substitute for a fool but the genuine article.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/04/2008 @ 9:10pm
Surreal- FOX calls Ohio for Obama.

Posted by winyahn at 11/04/2008 @ 9:29pm
You can pretend no to know that McCain is for fewer rather than more taxes, but you surely know where you can shove your quibbles. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/04/2008 @ 9:04pm

You tightwad. You would feebly protest your tax bill when the folks you support are spending billions of dollars and red corpuscles to drive the nation into insolvency. And of course you are an absolutist. You are useless for the next few years at least, pal. Until the decent moderates have given up.

Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/04/2008 @ 9:34pm
The original title "The Better Angels of Our Nature" for this blog speaks to what has happened tonight.

OBAMA WILL BE A GREAT PRESIDENT!!!

SEE YA' IN 8 YEARS!!!

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 11/04/2008 @ 11:00pm
It relieves me from reading further into your hot air, ...

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/04/2008 @ 9:10pm

Er, you're obviously thinking with the wrong end again...

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/05/2008 @ 4:48pm
OBAMA WILL BE A GREAT PRESIDENT!!!

Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 11/04/2008 @ 11:00pm

And the kooks will hate every minute of it.

They'll frolic in frustration.

They'll party in paranoia.

They'll dance with disgust.

They'll conspire like fire -

Obama New World Order, A-rab / Darkie / Endtimes / Revelations / Bilderberg

Obamantichrist - gun stealing, socialism imposing, morality rotting, silver toothed pagan devil gnome white album evil!

Posted by winyahn at 11/06/2008 @ 4:58pm