Tomorrow We Scrimp, But Tonight We Spend!

Here's some text from a speech likely president Barack Obama gave a week ago in Toledo, Ohio:

I won't pretend this [Obama's economic "rescue plan"] will be easy or come without cost. We'll have to set priorities as never before, and stick to them. That means pursuing investments in areas such as energy, education and health care that bear directly on our economic future, while deferring other things we can afford to do without....

It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means—from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway.

We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save....

Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt.

Whole text, which includes details on a whole lot of new and increased spending and not many specifics related to "scouring the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need and making the ones we do work more efficiently and cost less" here.

Given Obama's virtual complete lack of interest in detailing any area of the economy that the government should not be involved in (in the speech, he lauds the bailouts of the Big 2.5 automakers and the financial industry and suggests that more might be necessary; bashes free trade; talks up giveaways to "small businesses," yadda yadda yadda), I humbly submit that the idea of spending today and scrimping tomorrow is magical thinking at best.

One of the oddest surprises of the past 30 years or so was that Bill Clinton's first two budgets, passed by a Democratic majority, were leaner that what came later, with a budget-slashing (har har har) Repbublican Congress. Clinton benefited mightily from what used to be called the peace dividend, the post-Cold War drawdown in military spending (GOP "revolutionaries" such as Newt Gingrich are always slow to acknowledge that the defense budget is the real moving piece of discretionary spending; Nixon, H.W. Bush, and Clinton all took a chisel to defense).

Clinton was a free trader and interested in policy innovation. By contrast, Obama never misses a chance to mention China in a disparaging way and all of his plans seem to revolve around throwing money at any perceived problems. Does anyone think he bring fiscal restraint to the federal budget? Does anyone think he'll approach entitlement reform with any weapon other than increased payroll taxes?

Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America and that alone may well be worth a crap economy and videos of kids spreading happiness from now until Doomsday. But let's not pretend that this sort of proposal and a dozen others like it, also from the Toledo stumper, represents change anyone can take seriously:

We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund that will provide money to states and local communities so that they can move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools. A lot of these projects and these jobs are at risk right now because of budget shortfalls, but this fund will make sure they continue.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Again, will somebody please point to something, anything, that compels the conclusion that Obama is brilliant and a man of great intellectual depth.

  • ||

    He's going to take my money isn't he?

    We're fucked.

  • ||

    Graduating from Harvard Law is not proof that one is a great thinker.

  • ||

    Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America...

    Oh I doubt that. Odious racial discourse has always been the backing vocals to American politics. An Obama presidency might change the tune, but the screaming will continue.

  • ||

    1st!!! Ahh... the satisfaction - better than sex...Well, no.
    Anyway, although politicians love to talk about "sacrifice" (I still remember Nixon going on and on about doing the "unpopular thing" even though it was the POPULAR thing to do) NONE of them are ever specific. All it does is turn a potential voter against you (mention getting rid of the helium reserve and how many helium reserve worker votes do you think you'll get???)

  • Dello||

    "We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund that will provide money to states and local communities so that they can move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools. A lot of these projects and these jobs are at risk right now because of budget shortfalls, but this fund will make sure they continue."

    Every man a state employee...

    Oh, and a chicken in every pot.

  • BDB||

    Well, libertymike, it would help if you would give an example of something you would take at proof so we avoid a goose chase.

  • ||

    shuda just said 1st!!!!

  • Dello||

    dan,

    Hate to break it to you, but you were sloppy fifths...

  • ||

    Dello,

    Shh. She always told him he was first. Don't spoil it with reality, dude.

  • ||

    Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America and that alone may well be worth a crap economy and videos of kids spreading happiness from now until Doomsday.

    No, it won't and no, it isn't and I'm surprised to read something so trite and stupid from Gillespie. Weigel I could see, but not Nick.


    Graduating from Harvard Law is not proof that one is a great thinker.

    Of course isn't. Nor is the editorship of Law Review. The only people who think participation in Law Review is an indicator of intellectual ability are people who've never worked with lawyers.

  • ||

    BDB | October 20, 2008, 1:23pm | #

    Well, libertymike, it would help if you would give an example of something you would take at proof so we avoid a goose chase.


    Heck, I'd be impressed if he could give an example of anyone calling him "brilliant," or having "great intellectual depth."

    He's always struck me as a pretty smart guy, but no one's calling him Aristotle.

  • ||

    in the speech, he lauds the bailouts of the Big 2.5 automakers and the financial industry and suggests that more might be necessary

    What will he say when GM uses their guaranteed loans to buy Chrysler and toss a couple hundred thousand (UNION!!!) workers into the street?

  • Bob A.||

    It is better to spend money like there's no tomorrow, than to spend tonight like there's no money.

  • ||

    Baked scrimp, boiled scrimp, fried scrimp, scrimp scampy...

  • ||

    Does anyone think he'll approach entitlement reform with any weapon other than increased payroll taxes?

    Since you are talking payroll taxes I assume you mean Social Security and Medicare. It may or may not happen during the Obama administration, but in addition to increasing taxes I expect entitlement reform to involve decreasing the benefits, increasing the age at which one is eligible to collect the benefit, and means testing. Did I leave anything out?

  • TallDave||

    Politicians spent money they didn't have

    As opposed to money they seized by force from the citizenry, which is of course completely well and good. We just need to seize more of it so those overly enthusiastic politicians won't overspend.

    Again, will somebody please point to something, anything, that compels the conclusion that Obama is brilliant and a man of great intellectual depth.

    Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America

    One of a few things to look forward to, in addition to his better WoD stance. Of course, given his Chicago Machine connections, he may also be the first President to be removed from office, which would probably just make the whole race thing worse than before his election.

    Didn't you read his memoirs? He sought out Marxist professors. That clearly shows his acumen.

  • ||

    See, you see a lot of statements like that - "Being president of Harvard Law Review isn't tells us nothing - nothing! - about someone's intellect! Nothing!" and plenty of people have stooped to refute that particular low hanging fruit, but that's hardly the same thing as calling someone "brilliant," or posessing "great intellectual depth."

  • LGF Fan, 2004||

    The Permanent Republican Majority is coming!!

  • Barack Obama||

    We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund

    This will be accomplished through our new Department of Breaking Windows, which will hire teams of highly skilled window breakers. They will then report the breakage to the Department of Window Repair, which will send out repair teams. Soon we will have millions of new jobs and the largest glazier industry in the world.

    I'm Barack Obama, and I'll be stopping by your house with a brick later.

  • Mosby||

    My God is this depressing.

  • ||

    in the speech, he lauds the bailouts of the Big 2.5 automakers and the financial industry and suggests that more might be necessary

    I don't understand this position in a progressive framework. Yeah, cars are important, but I thought we were supposed to be building trains? "..rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges...?" Aren't these the things that facilitated global warming?

  • ||

    "Did I leave anything out?"

    Carousel

  • SIV||

    Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America

    Better not say that after the election or you will get called a racist.They might find a little problem with your taxes.Good luck getting your "journalist license" too.

  • Jay||

    No further proof is needed that liberals are, by and large, economic morons than the fact that they can talk about spending money on energy, education and health care and call it an "investment".

    No- it's spending...

  • ||

    So basically an Obama administration is going to be the usual liberal looting as opposed to conservative looting? If a Democratic Congress passes a big tax increase, they might as well just have any Dem from a purple or red leaning district resign and save the voters the trouble. If you can't raise taxes and you can only borrow so much, what is Obama going to do? Clinton had delusions of grandeur to until the bond markets got a hold of him.

    America loves big government but they hate the pay for it. We get around this fact by borrowing and running a deficit. There is a limit to how much we can do that however. In that sense, the Republican Congress and Democratic Congress for the last two years, looting the country for the last 8 years may have done the country a big favor by depriving the next administration of any ability to fund grandiose programs. The only thing that worries me is socializing healthcare. The rest is just the usual theft.

  • ||

    Jay, if I spend my money on epi's hookers and blow, that's the same as putting it into a small business venture? or a 401k?

  • Not to speak of phat people||

    Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America

    Just as Taft's election ended prejudice against fat people.

  • ||

    John, I think you have really underestimated the Committee to Fund Grandiose Spending.

  • gorgonzola\'s foil||

    Hey, tangental aside: do any credible analysts have any projections what tax loss harvesting (or just no capital gains realized for 2008) might mean for tax receipts for 2008 and the federal budget next year? I mean, I just sold a mutual fund to move to a peer vehicle from a different company, and wiped out all cap gains for the year plus 3000 regular income for this year, with carryforward to the next. I'm not the only one to do this. Is anyone on the ball in the federal government for what the stock market drop will mean around april 15, and more to the point, what this means for the long term ability to pay for the bailout and regular government?

  • ||

    It's always particularly odious when GOP apologists of the libertarian stripe (like those who infest reason.com) claim Clinton just got lucky with the so-called 'peace dividend'. As if the decision to start an unnecessary war this time around was also just bad luck. Clinton could just as easily have chosen to invade Iraq.

  • sage||

    No further proof is needed that liberals are, by and large, economic morons than the fact that they can talk about spending money on energy, education and health care and call it an "investment".

    Well first of all, it ain't just liberals. And second, it's only an investment if the taxpayers (the investors) get something out of it. But any returns that by some miracle come along will be funneled (sp?) to the wealthy, the well connected, the usual pigs, etc. It's not like Obama saying he'll push to spend those profits on paying down the debt, or even the interest on the debt.

  • ||

    Every man a king.

  • ||

    And, of course, get ready for the inevitable complaints that Clinton Did It Too (as if the Balkans are remotely comparable in the amount of lost lives, treasure, or prestige). But, of course, shoplifting and murder are the same thing, right?

  • ||

    Maybe he's just pandering, like Ron Paul?

    On the real, though:
    Yes, Dems are gonna spend spend spend. Alright?
    Reps are gonna spend spend spend spend. Alright?

    Dems are (probably) going to focus mostly on social welfare and well-intentioned but misguided policies.

    Reps are gonna spend on bombing people and expanding government bureaucracy to discriminate against individuals in other ways.

    Alright.

    George Bush and the Republicans ( no, not really their fault, but we all need scapegoats, alright?) have kept my income so low that I would welcome even being eligible to pay income tax. Keeping 60% of $250,000 would be a lot sweeter than keeping 120% of $15,000. Hell, in an Obama administration, plumbers who buy 2 man un-licensed underground plumbing operations will be able to make so much money they will have the privilege of paying income taxes on $280,000 of net business profits! They arent making that much under Bush/McCain!

  • ||

    Don't forget Obama's people told Canada and Mexico that he was lying when he said that NAFTA should be re-negotiated. He talks a good game on trade, but how much of that is just BS? If he wins one of two things will happen, he really will be a leftist, in which case the Democrats may never get another President for a long time, or he will be another Clinton in which case the Democratic left is going to be really disapointed. If that happens, the Left will turn on him as long as the Republicans don't go bizerk and start eating the furniture.

  • sage||

    Drink!

  • ||

    Better not say that after the election or you will get called a racist.They might find a little problem with your taxes.Good luck getting your "journalist license" too

    Obama's election will give the GOP control of congress in 2010 for sure. If he tries anything so awful as what you suggest, that majority just might be permanent*.

    *Permanence now means three election cycles.

  • Nigel Watt||

    The best part about Obama winning is that Joe Biden will no longer be a senator.

  • BDB||

    "If that happens, the Left will turn on him as long as the Republicans don't go bizerk and start eating the furniture."

    John, the Republicans are already losing their sanity over the mere thought of losing the election. Don't hold your breath. They'll act just like they did in the 1990s, except they won't have a Congressional majority and can't go on fishing expeditions with taxpayer money.

  • Rick Cutler, Licensed Diversit||

    Don't forget Obama's people told Canada and Mexico that he was lying when he said that NAFTA should be re-negotiated. He talks a good game on trade, but how much of that is just BS?

    What do you mean, "Obama's people"?

  • ||

    "John, the Republicans are already losing their sanity over the mere thought of losing the election. Don't hold your breath. They'll act just like they did in the 1990s, except they won't have a Congressional majority and can't go on fishing expeditions with taxpayer money."


    Since the media is in the tank for Obama, who exactly is going to be watching over the exectutive branch? That is not exactly a recipe for accountability.

  • BDB||

    The media will turn on him by May 2009. The media used to have a hard-on for Bush, too, at least from 9/11 to 2005, and especially in the first two years of the Iraq War.

  • BDB||

    Maybe the Republicans can get their shit together by 2010, but they're not going to do it by pronouncing any place with a population density of more than a few people per square mile "not real" and "anti-American".

  • Go figure||

    You'd figure that Obama would not agree with brown people who work in places like Miami, San Pedro & Laredo in international trade being laid off so that Phosphorescent mill workers in Kentucky could get their jobs back.

    But that's what he seems to be saying.

  • ||

    Jesus! Are folks really worried that if Obama wins, he is gonna take our guns and our money and close the borders to all trade and shut down Foxnews and have Limbaugh and Hannity shot and put spinners on air force 1 and make doctors work for minimum wage so that everyone can have insurance and Jesus hisself will be outlawed and Allah will be on the hundred dollar bill and


    My god what a buncha smegma brained paranoids without a clue how the country works. Do us all a favor and listen to something besides Elisabeth Hasslebeck and Ann coulter.

  • BDB||

    Brotherben--

    They're exhibit one why Republicans are already "beginning to eat the furniture" and giving Obama enough room to be centrist without pissing off his base. His base will defend him for the same reason they defended Clinton--because of the sheer insanity of the Republicans.

  • ||

    "Maybe the Republicans can get their shit together by 2010, but they're not going to do it by pronouncing any place with a population density of more than a few people per square mile "not real" and "anti-American"."


    Most of what can be called "small government" is in small towns. Nearly every big city is run by a corrupt socialist machine. If you believe in small government, you better beleive in small towns because that is the only place where such a thing exists.

  • ||

    The Democrats will expand their majority in 2010, and control 60 or more seats in the Senate. They won't get there this year, but in the midterms.

  • BEDB||

    Well John, cities and suburbs have many more voters than small towns. So good luck with the "rural/exurb" strategy exemplified by Sarah Palin. it should be good for a permanent Republican minority.

  • ||

    "They're exhibit one why Republicans are already "beginning to eat the furniture" and giving Obama enough room to be centrist without pissing off his base."

    Isn't that a good thing? I personally don't want to see a leftist government. I would rather see Obama turn into a sane centrist than him be a nutso leftist who destroys the country.

  • BDB||

    John--

    In terms of politics its a good thing for Obama, and a bad strategy for Republicans. It's like they learned nothing from having Bill Clinton as President.

  • ||

    His base will defend him for the same reason they defended Clinton--because of the sheer insanity of the Republicans.

    Tru dat. Liberals like me never liked Clinton. We just stuck up for him when the Gingrich Repblicans went into the gutter.

    Given the notes that even the McCain campaign has begun sounding as the election draws to a close, I don't hold out hope that the Republicans will be tempered and responsible in their criticism of Mullah Obamallah and his commie-terrorist party. I think it's going to be worse than Clinton got - and we're going to see whole new levels of Teflon as a result.

  • BDB||

    I think liberals went nuts at Reagan, too, and thats why not much stuck to him.

  • ||

    Joe,

    You won't get to 60 unless you are willing to go way toward the center and piss of the base. The problem is, and the Republicans ran into the same problem, that once your majority gets large you have more and more people from competetive districts and you can't be as ideologically pure. You either have to govern from the center and lose party dicipline or you have to maintain you ideology and set the people in the competetive districts up for failure.

    Is it possible to get 60 in 2010? Sure. But to do that, the Democrats would have to completely disapoint their base.

  • ||

    Huh. I never thought of that, BDB.

    I think there are a lot of areas of comparison between Reagan and Obama.

  • BDB||

    I think Obama's strategy on trade depends on where he gets his electoral votes from.

    If he can move into Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida (as well as the Southwest) he won't need the protectionist rhetoric anymore and can tell the rust belt to suck it. Especially after the next census with OH, PA, and MI bleed electoral votes that will be picked up by the sunbelt.

    If his victory is based on the rustbelt, well, that will suck for people who like free trade and the country as a whole.

  • ||

    "I think liberals went nuts at Reagan, too, and thats why not much stuck to him."


    It wasn't the liberals going nuts it was the fact that he came accross as a really nice guy. People liked him and tended to blame any failures of his administration on the people below him. That is why Iran Contra never stuck to him.

    Obama is a different cat. A lot of people hate his guts and won't think he is such a nice guy. It depends on what he wants to do. If he wants to govern from the center and is willing to stand up to Pelosi and Reid and come accross as a fair arbitar between the sides, he could be very teflon. If he wants to rubber stand the Congress, he could be Jimmy Carter.

  • ||

    joe,

    You said:
    Heck, I'd be impressed if he could give an example of anyone calling him "brilliant," or having "great intellectual depth."

    And then I see this....

    We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.

    This is a quote from Biden last week.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html for the full quote.

  • ||

    Joe,

    You won't get to 60 unless you are willing to go way toward the center and piss of the base.


    No, the map is even more friendly to Senate Democrats in 2010 than it is today. In any scenario but an utter collapse by Obama and the Democratic Congress, they pick up Senate seats in 2010, just from oddball Republicans holding seats in blue states.

    2012 is the GOP's big chance. They could plausibly win back the Senate even without significant movement towards the right that year.

  • ||

    Obama is a different cat. A lot of people hate his guts and won't think he is such a nice guy.

    Barack Obama's favorability now - in the midst of an election, when his opponent is slinging mud at him - is well up into the 50s, higher than Reagan's when he was closing in 1980.

    Obama is dramatically more popular than Clinton when he took office.

  • BDB||

    Up until two weeks ago, both Obama and McCain had amazingly high (mid-50s) favorability ratings. Unheard of for the two major candidates in the October of an election year.

    Then McCain started throwing mud, but all it did was tank his own ratings.

  • ||

    How much of the success or failure of Obama or McCain will depend on what the economy does in the next 2-4 years?

  • concerned observer||

    That's right investments in education healthcare and alternative energy are exactly the same as funding the corporate war machine. As if we needed any more proof that the wingnuts have taken over the national discourse.

  • ||

    "Well John, cities and suburbs have many more voters than small towns. So good luck with the "rural/exurb" strategy exemplified by Sarah Palin. it should be good for a permanent Republican minority."

    It is not about cities versus small towns. It is about our elites versus everyone else. Our elites in the govenrment, the media, and academia tend to be leftist and have completely fucked up nearly everything they have touched in the last 20 years. The only institution that people still have respect for is the Military which is decidedly non-elite.

    The message is small government, self reliance and the little guy versus everyone else and especially our elites who tell the productive members of society how to live and how they have to pay for everything.

  • ||

    I think that the nation's psyche, like evrything else, goes in cycles. Right now, I think we are very comparable to the early to mid 70's. The common folk are ready for some peace love and happiness. The want a feel good leader that they perceive they can trust.

    Now if only the music was as incredible as back then.

  • BDB||

    John--

    I think you summed up nicely why the experience argument hasn't hurt Obama (or even Palin, what hurt her was her incompetence in the interviews and her handlers).

  • BDB||

    BTW John I'm just curious, were you a Perot voter in 1992?

  • ||

    "The common folk are ready for some peace love and happiness. The want a feel good leader that they perceive they can trust."

    I recently read David Halberstam's book about the Korean War. It is really good. In it one of the points he makes is how the Democrats after the World War II, the Depression and the start of the Cold War were just a tired and spent force. I think that is what is going on with the Republicans right now. It has been a long 8 years and a lot of moderate Republicans are just tired of the ickyness of the partisianship and want it to go away. They think that elected Obama will at least bring some peace and quiet for a few years. Now of course, if he does win, he will face the same problems Bush does and will be forced to disapoint huge numbers of his supporters and his side will get tired just as well. But that is why there is never an end to politics.

  • ||

    I did not vote for Perot in 1992. I didn't like his stand on trade and always thought he was a loon.

  • BDB||

    OK, I was just curious because you seem to really hate "elites" in government and people like that tended to vote for Perot. But it makes sense you didn't if you're a free trader.

    Trade is one area Obama could be defeated next time if he fucks up badly. It would hurt the country, too, which is why we better hope he gets elected by the Atlantic South and the Southwest instead of the rustbelt. The two former areas are pro-free trade.

  • Fluffy||

    Obama may not be brilliant, but I have the feeling if I was talking to him and said, "...X was really a Pyrrhic victory," or "You know, I was reading the Economist the other day and..." or "Dick Cheney was the Iago of the Bush administration," he'd have some idea what I was talking about.

    Palin would giggle like a schoolgirl and wink at me.

  • ||

    BDB,

    Palin's handlers totally let Palin down. Further, her performances weren't great but they were not bad. She gave a great speech at the convention. One of the things that frustrates me is that Joe Biden and Al Gore said incredibly dumb things, dumber than anything Palin ever said, and were given a pass. But, I think that Palin will remain on the national scene. She gives great speeches and will get better in interviews. Further, all of the elite hatred directed at her has made her the official non-elite candidate. That is not a bad thing to be. I say the same thing about Palin that I did about Hillary Clinton, which is that a lot of people like her and no amount of derision in the press is going to change that.

  • Fluffy||

    John,

    No area of the federal government has as much immediate impact on my life as my local government.

    Local governments are the worst nanny-staters. Local governments are the worst at restricting the use and enjoyment of property. Local governments are the worst eminent domain abusers.

    Local government isn't "small" in the sense of not having a profound reach. It's only small in the sense of being petty.

  • ||

    "Local government isn't "small" in the sense of not having a profound reach. It's only small in the sense of being petty."


    Depends on where you live and what the local government is. Some certainly are exactly as you describe it. My local government in Montgomery County Maryland is certainly like htat. But my local government in Texas wasn't like that at all.

  • TallDave||

    Clinton was a free trader and interested in policy innovation. By contrast, Obama never misses a chance to mention China in a disparaging way and all of his plans seem to revolve around throwing money at any perceived problems. Does anyone think he bring fiscal restraint to the federal budget?

    Unfortunately, he seems to think protectionism will benefit the economy, thus increasing tax revenues for throwing at problems. He may give us the first trillion-dollar deficit.

    Joe Biden and Al Gore said incredibly dumb things, dumber than anything Palin ever said, and were given a pass.

    No kidding. Biden didn't know when the VP is part of the Senate (!) or which article defines the executive (!!), and claimed we had thrown Hizbollah out of Lebanon (!) and brought in NATO (!!). Weirdly, afaict none of this was mentioned in the MSM coverage.

  • BDB||

    Maryland is one of the most corrupt states politically in the country (along with Arkansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Louisiana, and Alaska). Of course your local government sucks. It's the home of Spiro Agnew.

  • BDB||

    Notice both rural and urban states are in that corruption list.

  • BDB||

    Al Gore got killed for the "took the initiative in creating the internet" quote.

  • ||

    BDB,

    Monkey country employees got a 25% raise this year. 25%. Of course all of that is going to increase their pensions. There is no way to fund the salaries much less the pensions. The sollution is of course just steal more from the tax payers.

    Maryland is so corrupt that when that billionaire welfare queen Art Modell couldn't steal any more from Clevland he just got the government of Maryland to put him on the dole and moved the Browns to Baltimore.

  • ||

    BDB,

    That is "southern states" not rural states. Places like Kansas and Montana are plenty rural and they do ok. The South just has a long history of corruption.

  • Don the libertarian Democrat||

    "I humbly submit that the idea of spending today and scrimping tomorrow is magical thinking at best."

    1)You didn't do it humbly.
    2)Thank you for upgrading my thinking to "magical". I was grading myself much more harshly.

  • BDB||

    That's true. It's the legacy of Dixiecrat mis-rule. We still have weird ass laws in Virginia leftover from Harry Byrd (off year elections, no registration by party, one term Governors, election of judges by the Legislature).

  • ||

    Is it possible to get 60 in 2010? Sure. But to do that, the Democrats would have to completely disapoint their base

    The way the Reps are running their elections, the Dems might even walk away with 60 in 2008. And, unless something really bad happens, the base is going to be so enamored of the novelty of not having to hate Bush that the Democrats will be able to walk to an increase of at least 1 or 2 Senators. To say nothing of the fact that the Democrats have gotten really good at making Congress back into 300 small elections rather than 1 national one. Which the Reps will have to mimic if they want to catch up. If they get their shit together, 2012 might, *might* be the year that the reversal starts, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 2014 sounds a lot more likely.

  • ||

    Gimmie,

    Linkee no work.

    Trade is one area Obama could be defeated next time if he fucks up badly. Maybe, but he'd have to do a lot more than pass on a couple of new trade deals or insist on labor protections from our partners to hit that bar. He'd have to actually curtail trade to a a meaningful degree below current levels, so that people who aren't hurting now see new harms. I just don't think that's in the cards either way.

  • ||

    "And, unless something really bad happens, the base is going to be so enamored of the novelty of not having to hate Bush that the Democrats will be able to walk to an increase of at least 1 or 2 Senators."

    That just means they have the freedom to govern sanely and ignore the lunatics on their right. You may be right about that. But if you are, that just means that an Obama Administration is nothing but handing out some goodies and political appointments to the usual liberal interest groups. If he does anything really big and earth shattering, then the 2010 election really will be a national election. If he doesn't do anything, then what the hell was the point of winning the election?

  • ||

    make that lunatics on the Left.

  • ||

    Further, her performances weren't great but they were not bad...Joe Biden and Al Gore said incredibly dumb things, dumber than anything Palin ever said

    'kay, John.

    That must be why Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and half the conservative pundits in America are calling an embarassment - because she's hasn't said dumb things.

  • ||

    evidence of peoples' willingness to perceive brilliance in anything Obama says or does is truly an example of low hanging fruit.

    One of my recent favorites is from Paul Reiser on Huffpo last month:

    I keep trying to figure out why Obama -- who I so admire, seems to underwhelm in these debates. All I can come up with is that while everyone else aims up for these events -- they aim to score, to excite, to appeal -- Obama, who is so brilliant, has such understanding of the issues at play, such insight in how to re-shape where we are and how to proceed where we need to go... it seems like all his energy is spent pushing down: containing his thoughts.

    See, BO's ineffable brilliance is such that he must constantly struggle to contain it, rein it in, lest it break free and trample the mortals in his immediate area.

  • ||

    I daresay I've done a tad more first-hand reading of "the lunatics on the left" than you have John.

    Regardless of what National Review is telling you, the LoLs know perfectly well that Barack Obama is not one of them. They bitched about it all through the primary.

    It makes conservatives feel good to tell each other that the far-left is entranced by Barack Obama, and think he is going to fufill their fondest dreams, but it ain't actually true.

  • ||

    stubby, now that was priceless.

  • ||

    "That must be why Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and half the conservative pundits in America are calling an embarassment - because she's hasn't said dumb things."

    They are saying those things because they are insider assholes who have spent their careers kissing ass with liberals. The Palin phenomenon is completely about a small group of people on both the left and right who were shocked that someone who wasn't from their midst had the nerve to try to run for national office. My God, she wasn't vetted and approved by the national media. How dare she.

    Further Joe, if Palin is an embarrassment what is Joe Biden? If Palin had ever said that we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon she really would have had to leave the ticket. The difference is Joe Biden is one of them and has palled around with them long enough that it doesn't matter that he is an idiot of dangerous proportions

  • ||

    John,

    A 25% percent raise? WTF? And I was missed when the local paper found out that the garbage men around here only work fours a day, but get paid for eight!

  • ||

    Spreading the money around will zap our incentive to produe and America's wealth will decline. I don't see race relations improving after a black man delivers a failed welfare state.

  • gmatts||

    At least Obama is being somewhat honest about his plans to spend, spend, spend. McCain fashions himself as a budget cutter but than states that he will (ellipses added):

    "Impose an across the board spending freeze...for one year...except on defense...and veterans affairs...and some other vital programs."

    I guess it's me, but how is that meaningful in any way?

  • ||

    "Regardless of what National Review is telling you, the LoLs know perfectly well that Barack Obama is not one of them. They bitched about it all through the primary."

    I don't necessarily think obama is one of the lunatics on the left. He certainly has associated himself with a lot of loathsome and horrible people, Wright and Ayers most notably. But it maybe that he used those people and has no interest in their politics. It may also be that he is at heart a leftist but understands that to be one in office is to commit political suicide and will do the right things for the wrong reasons. Time will tell. Because he is black, he has a lot of freedom to govern from the center. I can't imagine the left going after the first black President for anything.

  • DannyK||

    I'd love to see evidence that somebody at Reason has heard of John Maynard Keynes.

    The deficit will not get cut in the middle of a nasty recession, no matter who gets elected President. More government spending is already baked into the cake, it's just a question of from whom and to whom.

    In fact, I don't really believe any more that the deficit will ever be cut... things will keep going as they have been until they can't any more, and then we'll repudiate debts or inflate our way out of the problem.

  • BDB||

    "Because he is black, he has a lot of freedom to govern from the center. I can't imagine the left going after the first black President for anything."

    This is correct. Ask Doug Wilder. Most boring, centrist Governor ever.

  • ||

    "In fact, I don't really believe any more that the deficit will ever be cut... things will keep going as they have been until they can't any more, and then we'll repudiate debts or inflate our way out of the problem."


    I think something in the middle. We will keep the deficit just a shade under the growth rate so that the deficit and the debt stay stable as a percentage of GDP. Absent an unexpected boom and a divided government like we had in the 90s, they will never control spending.

  • ||

    The Democrats will expand their majority in 2010, and control 60 or more seats in the Senate. They won't get there this year, but in the midterms.

    Just like they did in 1994?

    You do realize that historically, the party that controls the Presidency loses seats during the midterms, as the voters exercise common sense for once and try to get back to divided government?

    Oh, right, this time it will be different.

  • ||

    John, I don't care how you try to mischaracterize some misstatement by Joe Biden.

    The woman doesn't know what "Achilles heel" means. She was prompted and still didn't know that George Bush put forward a doctrine about pre-emption. She was asked what newspapers or magazines she reads, and couldn't name any. These aren't verbal slips, like "put food on your family." And they keep happening, so much so that they won't let her talk to reporters or the public without a script.

    Look at the woman's approval ratings, John, and stop projecting your own feelings onto everyone else. The small group at odds with mainstream opinion in her fans.

  • ||

    prolefeed,

    I think the relevant year of comparison in 2002, not 1994. The Republicans picked up seats in 2002.

    In 1992, Clinton won with something like 40% of the vote, and a low-single-digits marging of victory. This year, Obama is going to win with a much larger margin, and well over 50% of the vote.

    Iin 1994, the country was still in the midst of a rolling realignment towards the Republicans, the Reagan revolution. In 2010, the country will still be realigning towards the Democrats, and the Democrats still enjoying their massive registration advantage.

  • ||

    And they keep happening, so much so that they won't let her talk to reporters or the public without a script.

    Unlike Obama, who hasn't taken questions from the press since September. Or Biden, who hasn't done a press conference in weeks.

    While Palin, gosh, she is more and more available to the press as the campaign goes on.

    Oh, joe - this is how you do support factual assertions made on the intertubez - with a link.

  • ||

    Joe,

    I couldn't name a newspaper or magazine I read. The WSJ occasionally but that is about it. If she doesn't read newspaper or magazines that is a feature not a bug. Again though, Biden thinks jobs is a three letter word. The bottomline is that she is a Republican and an outsider so she must be stupid right? As much as I like to pick on Biden because he is such an obvious moron, the fact is that it really is unfair in some ways. all politicians have gaffes and say dumb things. You can't avoid it when everything you say is recorded. The only reason Palin's gaffess matter and Biden's don't is that Biden is an insider and she is not.

  • ||

    Speaking of gaffes Joe, how about "bitter and clinging to guns and religion" or "spread the wealth" both of those statements are about as dumb and insulting as you can get. Far worse than anything Palin has said. But again, she is an outsider and a Republican so she must be stupid. She just has to be. There can be no other answer.

  • ||

    Unlike Obama, who hasn't taken questions from the press since September. Or Biden, who hasn't done a press conference in weeks.

    So you're agreeing with me - both of those candidates have done dozens, if not hundreds, of press availabilities over the course of the campaign - as has McCain, btw - while Palin has been kept under wraps since the Katie Couric thing.

    OK.

    While Palin, gosh, she is more and more available to the press as the campaign goes on.

    Uh, gosh, and also, what the hell are you talking about? She was more available when she was giving interviews to Charles Gibson and Katie Couric like every other candidate, but they stopped that.

  • Just Plain Brian||

    If she doesn't read newspaper or magazines that is a feature not a bug.



    Did you even watch the interview? She didn't say she doesn't read them, she said she reads all of them.

  • BDB||

    Has Palin ever done a real press conference since she was chosen? Ever?

  • ||

    By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain-who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability-hasn't done one since Sept. 23.

    See, this is how ordinary candidates operate - they have a lot of press availabilities throughout the campaign, but in the home stretch, they concentrate on either big events, or door-to-door campaigning. Biden, Obama, McCain - you can go back to 2004, 2000, 1996, or 1992 and find this same pattern.

    The charges about Palin's blowing off the press must have really hit home, if they're actually increasing her face time with the media two weeks before the election.

  • Boston||

    How bout an IQ test?

    any one want to wager that Palin outscores Obama on this one? Anyone? I'd be open to other testing aswell, 8th grade history for example.

  • ||

    Good for you, John. I wouldn't vote for you, either.

    But, of course, you're lying. You read Reason every day. And at least you could come up with the Wall Street Journal.

    The bottomline is that she is a Republican and an outsider so she must be stupid right?

    No, the bottom line is that she, as an individual, doesn't have a whole lot going on above the neck.

    Why do you think your impression about her relative intelligence compared with Joe Biden is so drastically at odds with the rest of the country?

  • LGF Fan||

    "Why do you think your impression about her relative intelligence compared with Joe Biden is so drastically at odds with the rest of the country?"

    Because The Media is in the tank for Obama/Biden and has brainwashed the country, that's why!

  • ||

    Speaking of gaffes Joe, how about "bitter and clinging to guns and religion" or "spread the wealth" both of those statements are about as dumb and insulting as you can get.

    No, John, they're not dumb. You might no like what they mean because of your own political beliefs and identity politics, but they indicate nothing about the intelligence per se of the speaker.

    I think you just tipped your hand, sorry. While the rest of us have been discussing intelligence and knowledge as themselves, you've been treating them merely as proxies for an ideological battle. If you don't like what someone says, it's stupid. If you agree, it's intelligent.

    And then, as usual, you project your own shortcomings onto others.

    Take Palin's gaffe about the "pro-American parts of America." You haven't seen me deriding her intelligence for this remark - just her judgment and patriotism and acceptance of her fellow Americans. She shows many of her flaws as a human being and as a politician and a as a leader in that statement, but it really has nothing to do with her intelligence or knowledge.

    Which is what this discussion was about, until you decided to strat throwing in whatever partisan cheap shots you could come up with.

  • ||

    "Why do you think your impression about her relative intelligence compared with Joe Biden is so drastically at odds with the rest of the country?"

    Joe I don't know anyone who thinks Joe Biden is smart. No one Democrat or Republican. The guy is a national joke. I gaurentee Palin would score higher on an IQ test than Biden but that doesn't say much since I doubt Biden could get much above tripple digits.

  • ||

    "No, John, they're not dumb. You might no like what they mean because of your own political beliefs and identity politics, but they indicate nothing about the intelligence per se of the speaker."

    Joe it says everything about his intelligence and judgement as a politician. It is safe to say someone who is running for national office who insults 1/4th of the country said something stupid. It is stupid not because I agree or disagree with it but instead because it is a really bad idea to insult large segments of the population when you are running for national office.

  • ||

    Remember all of those stories about Dick Cheney's lack of intelligence? No?

    Well, Ross Perot's. No?

    Well, then, Pete Du...no, not him, either. Fred Thompson? Ron Paul? Mike Huckabee?

    Why, no. No, I don't recall seeing anything about any of them being a bit slow, either.

  • ||

    Joe I don't know anyone who thinks Joe Biden is smart.

    Well, you also think Sarah Palin is popular, and Barack Obama isn't very good at speaking. Get out of the bubble.

    It is safe to say someone who is running for national office who insults 1/4th of the country said something stupid. See? What did I just tell you - you're not talking about intelligence, your talking about politics.

    Was it a bad idea to say either of those things? Maybe. Do they in and of themselves indicate a lack of intelligence? No, not even remotely.

    It was a really bad idea for Phil Gramm to call America "a nation of whiners," but nobody is questioning his intelligence, because neither holding that opinion, nor saying it out loud, indicate very much about Gramm's intellectual capacity, just his ideas and opinions.

  • MSM Ranking System||

    But again, she is an outsider and a Republican so she must be stupid. She just has to be. There can be no other answer.

    Ford, Reagan, Quayle, Bush: dumb

    Cheney, Gingrich: evil

    JFK, Carter, Obama, Clinton: brilliant

  • Some Guy||

    As soon as I'm done with this gallon jug of everclear, I'm totally gonna quit drinking...

  • MSM Ranking System||

    Also:

    Gore: superintelligent

  • LGF Fan||

    I told you it was all the MSM's fault!

  • Boston||

    This is what elections do to people. sock puppet fighting.

  • ||

    joe . . . every comment that you have made after 3:38 is proof of what I have long suspected about you . . . that you are nothing more than a simple partisan hack. For you to refer to Biden's numerous crazy canards and creative gems as misstatements is all the proof that anyone needs - you're no better than a talking head from the DNC. Get a life Mr. Talking Points.

  • ||

    So, let me get this straight: you are so upset by the recitation of partisan talking points that you only criticize Democrats, and nothing written by RC Dean, John, or prolefeed is worth commeting on.

    Um, yeah, I'll go spend long hours pondering my bias now. I'll get right on that.

  • ||

    Again, will somebody please point to something, anything, that compels the conclusion that Obama is brilliant and a man of great intellectual depth.

    He beat Hillary in a Democrat presidential primary.

  • ||

    So, let me get this straight: you are so upset by the recitation of partisan talking points that you only criticize Democrats, and nothing written by RC Dean, John, or prolefeed is worth commeting on.

    RC Dean, John and Prolefeed might actually vote for Barr.

    We all know you are voting for Obama.

  • ||

    joshua coming
    I think joe's comment went way, way over your head. Do you see that now?

  • ||

    You see, joe wasn't suggesting that RC Dean etc., are independents and he is too, he was saying to someone who bitched about his partisanship, how come my Obama partisanship is a problem but you seem to never call out GOP partisans?

    When a person faces a lot of partisan statements from GOP supporters, and some from a handful of Dem supporters, and then makes an impassioned denouncement of only the latter, it suggests something stinky.

  • ||

    I extend the same criticism to hacks of all colors and political stripe - however, I am addressing the obvious hackishness of joe's agrguments on this thread.

    For anyone, of any persuasion or ideology to defend Biden's plethora of ludicrousness is simply too much for me to take at this moment.

    And notice that joe, like all good and well-trained partisan attack dogs, never directly addressed the crux of my argument - he simply sloughed off the charge onto his ideological enemies.

  • ||

    joe, what do you have to say about Clinton's many prevarications?
    joe: Just look at Reagan during Iran-Contra . . . what a liar!

    joe, what do you think about Obama's connections to ACORN?
    joe: The Republicans acceptance of funds from extreme right-wingers is shameful in the extreme!

  • ||

    how come my Obama partisanship is a problem but you seem to never call out GOP partisans?

    RC Dean would have to be a strict partisan on par to joe's partisanship in order to be called out.

    Again i can see RC Dean voting for Barr but I would never see joe voting for anyone but the DNC's choice.

    I think joe's comment went way, way over your head. Do you see that now?

    Oh and go fuck yourself. Joe has always been a hack for the dems on this page and has never stepped out of official dem policy lines.

    Your aspirating attempt to complicate joe's obvious misstep in "calling out" partisans is far more "stinky" then anything punk7 wrote.

  • ||

    Uh, gosh, and also, what the hell are you talking about?

    That little bold thing at the end of my post? Its a link. You click on it, and it takes you to the factual support for my claims.

    RC Dean, John and Prolefeed might actually vote for Barr.

    I, for one, have stated that I will do just that.

    You see, joe wasn't suggesting that RC Dean etc., are independents and he is too, he was saying to someone who bitched about his partisanship, how come my Obama partisanship is a problem but you seem to never call out GOP partisans?

    As I have stated I don't know how many times, I have long had a visceral dislike of John McCain, and you have little use for the GOP.

    I tend to focus my ire on the Dems because (1) the free-floating anti-Rep/prom-Dem bias these days makes them the natural target of contrarians such as myself, and (2) the Dems will, at the end of the day, do more to impoverish me and restrict the freedoms that I want to exercise.

    I really don't think that makes me a GOP partisan. My preferred targets are Dems, but I've kicked the GOP when they particularly deserve it, too. The big-L Libertarians, too.

  • ||

    Why do Team Red and Team Blue spend so much time around here?

    Either candidate is going to face crushing budget realities that Hoover and FDR did not. The only way all of this magical government bullshit that both of them want could be funded would be through massive universal tax increases, or by convincing the ChiComs to buy more U.S. bonds, which they are increasingly wary of doing.

    If and when the ChiComs and other foreign investors decide to stop playing ball, it's over. That's when any talk of changing the nature of our federal government will become relevant.

  • ||

    Why do Team Red and Team Blue spend so much time around here?

    Simply because I hate the Reds does not mean I am with the blues.

  • ||

    Someone cogently observed "people LIKE Palin". Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Far from her lack of DC-plastic-gloss being an issue, it's an ADVANTAGE.

    I find it amusing that she was (allegedly) chosen to bring in/back the 'religious fringe'; because that tiny aspect of her has so little to do with her real popularity.

    Also entertaining are the attacks against her friendly association with AIP and the Alaskan Libertarian Party. The vast majority of conservative -voters- don't have any problems whatever with those associations. Despite the hyped meme that conservatives are somehow 'stupid' despite being the exact same genetic stock as urban huddlers, the majority of conservative voters are indeed aware that the roots of the US essentially -were- libertarian; and they're increasingly recognizing today's raft of ills as due directly to the divergence between GOP and the founders' lib. values.

    As far as the 'hearbeat away' thing goes...I don't see it. Compared to life-of-ideology rather than practicality -Obama-? Compared to loopy -Biden-?? Please...lol

    Palin's a hard-driving get-it-done person. I like that; and I'm confident she'll rise to the occasion. Many otherwise 'ordinary' people have risen to the occasion when thrust into a situation of great responsibility. Seems to me that many of us -here- would survive and even do OK as president, if pressed into service suddenly. Keep a level head, select good advisers and listen to them; and project a positive attitude.

    And if Sarkozy sniffs at her as a 'hick' ?

    Then fuck Sarkozy. That chattering-class -already- thinks -all- americans are.

    I'm neither rep. or dem or religious, but I think Palin would do just fine as either VP or P.

    Let's look at it in an even more telling way...

    We've had decades of allegedly highly-educated and certainly slick-talking types...and everything went well? ...LOL!

    No, the past 30-40 years has been a freaking -disaster- for this country.

    So the argument that we simply 'must' elect someone of that same stripe, and that a plain-spoken and practical mother of five is going to instantly ruin us is pretty damn ludicrous.

    I'm an engineer, so my inherent outlook is to approve what -works-; and toss what -fails-. The past 40 yrs have patently NOT worked; and they consisted almost -entirely- of slick-talking poliwhores-for-hire just like Obama and Biden. (and mccain for that matter)

    More of the same you say? No thanks, I'll pass...give something different a try....Palin's ok with me. :)

  • ||

    You don't have a crux to your argument, punk, beyond "Joe yoo are teh partisan," and I addressed that just fine.

  • ||

    I extend the same criticism to hacks of all colors and political stripe You do? Where?

    - however, I am addressing the obvious hackishness of joe's agrguments on this thread.

    That you see my "agrguments," and nobody else's, as hackishness worthy of addressing is the problem here. It indicates an astounding lack of perspective on your part.

  • ||

    That little bold thing at the end of my post? Its a link. You click on it, and it takes you to the factual support for my claims.

    You mean the one I addressed already? You know, the comment that includes a quote from the story you linked to?

    Here, let me post it for you again:

    joe | October 20, 2008, 4:04pm | #

    By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain-who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability-hasn't done one since Sept. 23.

    See, this is how ordinary candidates operate - they have a lot of press availabilities throughout the campaign, but in the home stretch, they concentrate on either big events, or door-to-door campaigning. Biden, Obama, McCain - you can go back to 2004, 2000, 1996, or 1992 and find this same pattern.

    The charges about Palin's blowing off the press must have really hit home, if they're actually increasing her face time with the media two weeks before the election.


    Better?

  • ||

    Someone cogently observed "people LIKE Palin". Yup, that's it in a nutshell.

    Sarah Palin has the worst favorable/unfavorable ratings of any of the four major party candidates on the ticket, and they're still falling.

  • ||

    I've said it before. I'll say it again. I don't always agree with joe's position on things. Sometimes his delivery has a bit too much smug in it for my taste. We all know that joe is a democrat politically. He doesn't hide it. He doesn't try to disguise it as something else. What he does generally do is give good discourse on a variety of topics from a point of view unpopular here. He usually gives links, or referances his points. He only falls into vulgarity when others attack him in like manner.
    You may not agree with joe's politics, but I really don't see him as a Helen Keller type partisan. Those types do, however, tend to make joe a wee bit cranky.

  • ||

    See, punk, this is where your partisanship gets the better of you:

    For anyone, of any persuasion or ideology to defend Biden's plethora of ludicrousness is simply too much for me to take at this moment.

    Were you actually to make an effort to be impartial or objective, or were you not wedded to one side of partisan fight, the mere fact that someone wrote something favorable or unfavorable to a particular figure wouldn't drive you to such distraction. You'd actually be able to look at the statement on its merits and judge it against objective reality, and make up your mind based on that.

    As it is, you note that a statement has an implication that is less unfavorable to a Democrat than you'd like, and that's all you need to know.

    That is hackishness. You should try to get over that. It's juvenile.

  • MJ||

    "That means pursuing investments in areas such as energy, education and health care that bear directly on our economic future,..."

    What the Dems call "investments" today will be called "corporate welfare" tomorrow.

  • ||

    I wouldn't care if I agreed with every single one of his economic ideas (whatever they might be), every one of his foreign policy ideas (whatever they might be), every one of his ideas for education and drug reform (whatever etc.), I would not ever cast my vote for a candidate whose visage adorns a goddamned votive candle. A secular fucking saint.

    Holy fucking cheese and crackers, people. I'm Catholic; I don't believe in a literal reading of the book of Revelation, but I do believe a terrifyingly large number of people in this country have lost their fucking minds and we might just be looking at the end times. I knew it was a cult, I just didn't realize it was, you know - a fucking cult.

    I'm sure large numbers of atheists who hold all forms of religion in equal contempt will find a reason not to find the Obama prayer candle particularly disturbing. They'll find it amusing that I'm so appalled.

    If he doesn't win (I know, I know - it's impossible, it's inconceivable, it's contrary to the will of God and besides that, Nancy Pelosi says it's 100 percent inevitable), will we see mass suicides?

    And would that be a bad thing? Or just Darwinian?

  • ||

    "Sarah Palin has the worst favorable/unfavorable ratings of any of the four major party candidates on the ticket, and they're still falling."

    In the first place, that completely misses the original point about the MSM giving Biden a free ride on virtually every gaffe and stupidity.

    In the 2nd place, your assertion is simply incorrect...

    From Rasmussen and LA Times...

    "Rasmussen finds that 35% of voters have a very favorable view of Palin, compared to 33% with a very unfavorable view. For Biden, those numbers are 25% and 21%, respectively. LA Times/Bloomberg finds that Republicans overwhelmingly like her, Democrats overwhelmingly don't, and Independents are split evenly, 41-41."

    So, she has a higher 'very favorable' than Biden by far, among their respective 'likely to vote that way'; and her approval by Independents is identical.

    The above is from about a week ago; and every indication is that she's gained (substantially) rather than lost over the past 4-5 days.

    As a side-note, I'll also mention that between '80 and '98 when I lived in a large city (2.5m pop) I was polled perhaps a dozen times; but since moving to a rural area, I've not been polled even a single time in the past 10 yrs. Make of it what you will...

  • ||

    "MSM Ranking System |

    Ford, Reagan, Quayle, Bush: dumb

    Cheney, Gingrich: evil

    JFK, Carter, Obama, Clinton: brilliant

    Also:

    Gore: superintelligent"
    -----------

    LOL...

    One might also note the media's pillorying of Ford as 'clumsy', for a single misstep; when in fact he was an All-Pro ballplayer, if I recall correctly.

    I'm 50 yrs old; and if there's one thing I've found in the 25 yrs since I 'woke up' politically (i.e. to sane reality-based libertarianism) it's this, what I call my First Law:

    The MORE the MSM or Gov hypes something, the LESS true it is. If they SWEAR to it, it's a bald-faced LIE.

    For the past 25 yrs, this law has had an -amazing- correlation with eventually-revealed facts. I'm dead-serious here...the correlation has been better than 90%.

    As I've mentioned previously, I'm voting for the piss-poor Mccain solely for the SCOTUS appointment; but even if that weren't an issue for me, the BLATANT over-the-top hype on Obama would have my First-Law warning lights flashing bright red. What an incredible used-car salesjob we're watching in realtime here...lol...

  • zoltan||

    Ah, the Palin-lovers rear their ugly heads.

    the majority of conservative voters are indeed aware that the roots of the US essentially -were- libertarian; and they're increasingly recognizing today's raft of ills as due directly to the divergence between GOP and the founders' lib. values.

    Yeah, I'm sure those "conservative" voters really question Iraq, the war on drugs, Gitmo, crony capitalism, etc. As long as government spending is diverted to what they approve, then it's okay and it's still "libertarian". Right. Like Sarah Palin (and of course, the majority of ideologues on the left) these supposedly "conservative" voters don't know jackshit about what they vote for or what they stand for. Instead they bray for more of the government teat.

    Government protect us from witches.

  • ||

    Nice cherry picking, "reality." Is there some reason why you decided to quote only the "very favorable" and "very unfavorable" numbers, to the exclusion of the overall favorable/unfavorable numbers?

    Why, yes there is: because that same article proves my point.

    As does, btw, the very cherry-picked data you do provide. Even on the "very" favorable/unfavorable scores, Palen nets out at a +2, Biden a +4.

    So, you cherry pick the most favorable poll you can find, then you cherry-pick the most favorable numbers from that poll, and you still score an own goal.

    Awesome.

  • ||

    The socialist Left hates Obama.
    They wanted Clinton.

    Obama is a "soft paternalist."

    Kind of like my mom. She'd give me money as a kid for getting As. 50 cents for an A, 25 cents for a B. Companies give kids arcade tokens for turned in an honor roll report card?

    What if the government did that for high school kids? but maybe it a few dollars? Or at least local governments?

    And of course, cut welfare down a lot, which he will do as the half-black Bill Clinton.

    And say goodbye to the affirmative action bogeyman. It will be defeated.

    Obama is the liberaltarian movement of people under 30 who only recognize Clinton and Bush as the parties.

    Obama is 100% centrist. The left wants him to impeach Bush. He will ignore them.

    The Republicans will be a

  • ||

    A minority party for a long time if they don't purge themselves of the racists.

    Perhaps the Greens, former Reforms, and Lolbertarians can get together. They all are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Reforms and Greens are both racist enviromentalists.

  • ||

    I was a registered Libertarian for a year and I am a "small L big D"
    I support sane libertarians that sometimes slip past the party purity in the house seats.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement