Classical Music & Opera Forums

Fradale, you ask for an example of something Obama has done that might point to executive ability. The most recent such example is the exemplary campaign he's run: no hysteria, no fallings-out, no break in organization, but a very consistent carrying out of a thoughtful and apparently effective strategy. That is no mean feat; and the opportunity to test executive skill via the candidate's management of a campaign is one of the justifications for having such a long (and wearisome) campaign season. The contrast with McCain's chaotic effort is a stark one, and merely adds to one's apprehensions of having the maverick become Maverick-in-Chief.

I would also consider the years Obama spent as a professor of constitutional law to be good preparation for the role of someone in charge of protecting the Constitution.

There are many aspects of Obama's policy positions that I do not endorse; but the prospect of McCain's impulsiveness at the head of the Executive, with the woeful Palin waiting in the wings, makes my choice quite easy.

calvert wrote: Someone once asked Bush Sr. what was the most imporant quality in a President, and he replied, "Excellence of aim." I think that says it pretty well.

Can McCain make a three-pointer? Obama can.

An aside:
If I hear one more "My Friends" from that guy, or worse, and entirely more childlike and embarrassing reference to Joe the Plumber, I will need that barf bag back from you.

Cal:
"Excellence of aim?" "Excellence of aim??" What the hell does that mean? And are you saying that father and son had "excellence of aim?" Egads! In that case, I think we are batting 100 with Obama.
I detest politics and rarely participate in it but this man has brought me back into the fray.
My biggest concern, (I know this is a terrible thought), is that some raging bigot will pop him off. At least I would be confident in the fact that a real pro with brains who is "intelligent" but not necessarily an "intellectual" (and by the way, a neat guy to boot), will be taking over the reins rather than a Soccer Mom.

I think that Bush Sr.'s remark about good aim is a very astute and clever observation. But what's more telling is how horrendous his son's aim has been. Bring on the Obama years.

Mogs:

Kashie understood my comment (or rather, Bush's) better than you did. "Excellence of aim" simply means a clear vision and the skills to implement it. You see your target and you know how to hit it. What is so controversial about that? It is a description of any effective leader or executive. And didn't I make very clear in my own post that I don't think Bush Jr's aim has been so excellent? Stop with the knee-jerking already!

Okay miluv! No more knee-jerking from this jerk.
Still luv me?

mogliettina wrote:Fradale wrote:

As I suspected, no one could name one accomplishment that Barack Obama can claim to deserve consideration for president.

But you never answered my question either. At least others answered for me.
I'm waiting....

George Bush is not on the ballot and while I am not supportive of everything he did, I agree with Calvert that he did appoint two good justices to the Supreme Court and his tax policy was correct and produced good results, overall, and I agree with his world view. Where I part ways with him was in his overly political approach to issues and his misplaced loyalty to Donald Rumsfeld, who I credit with gross mismanagement of the Iraq War.

Enough of Bush - McCain is a different man entirely, and though they are both Republicans, and despite Bush's tarnishing that brand considerably, I think McCain is vastly more prepared to lead this nation than Barack Obama.

Obama's economic proposals are terrible in general and especially so in the current economic downturn (he espouses text book socialism while beating the drum of class warfare and stigmatization of "the rich" - this from someone who claims to transcend partisanship), his foreign policy naive and he has displayed a disturbing tendency for obfuscation and even boycotting those who directly challenge him, or Biden, on their policies.

Obama has complained that the Warren Court, widely viewed as the most liberal court in memory, was not radical enough to suit his tastes and that those justices could not bring themselves to break free of the constitutional constraints created by the founding fathers, and in order for the kind of revolutionary redistributive change he envisions to occur, I suspect he would appoint judges who could break free from the constitutional footing and remove from the legislative process the most important issues to be decided by a elite group of unelected liberal judges. And he would have no resistance from Pelosi, Reid & Co.

Obama sees the Constitution as an obstacle to "lasting change" - an idea that I find quite frightening - whereas Conservatives see the Constitution as the document that enshrines the fundamental American idea of protecting individual freedom from the power of the State.

McCain is a flawed candidate as well, but his flaws I can live with - Obama's are the kind that could turn this country from a robust inventive and productive nation into another Western European mediocrity.

The Financial Times endorsed Obama, and today its sister publication, The Economist, has done the same. Ah, those raving socialists... The latter's endorsement presents, I think, one of the more balanced and logical assessments I've read (I take serious exception to only one statement in it). Read it here: [urlnw]http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12511171[/urlnw]

Yes, all the socialism accusations are beyond the pale. This is especially funny since the Bush gov't has endoresed buying shares of the banks, which is much closer to socialism than anything in Obama's economic plan.

kashania wrote:This is especially funny since the Bush gov't has endoresed buying shares of the banks, which is much closer to socialism than anything in Obama's economic plan.

Well, it is if it becomes a permanent feature as opposed to a temporary fix. If, like a lot of extreme measures taken in WWII, it is abandoned once the crisis is past, no problem. My concern is that once politicians get a taste of running a large segment of the economy, they won't want to give it up. Since when did politicians devolve power away from themselves, especially the liberal ones (who are going to be running things for the next four years)?

The admittedly extreme measures taken over the past few weeks are risky for these reasons, and that is why I don't like them. Unfortunately, they are necessary (at least IMO) to stave off a major financial collapse which would bring even more draconian fixes. When people get really scared, they will happily trade freedom for security, which is why I find the prospect of another domestic terrorist attack so alarming - not so much the attack itself as the reaction to it.

The Financial Times endorsed Obama, and today its sister publication, The Economist, has done the same. Ah, those raving socialists...

This reflects the common misapprehension that simply because a publication is concerned with matters of business that it's orientation is conservative. That is not the case. I don't regularly read the Financial Times so I can't speak as to that publication. The Economist, however, while tending conservative in its reporting and articles, editorially is fairly liberal. The Economist's editorial/opinion approach to public economic policy is historically interventionist, not at all opposed to tax increases, and by no means conservative, at least not like the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

An example of The Economist's liberal (editorial) orientation is the demonstrably inaccurate statement about Bush's "unaffordable" tax cuts: tax revenues soared after the cuts (which they always do, because tax cuts invariably stimulate economic activity, and that is where the real tax money lies, not in higher rates). The deficit balloned not because of the tax cuts but because spending has been out of control for eight years -- another reason why I think Bush has been a mitigated disaster and why I think the Republicans in Congress, like the Nation Israel, deserve a prolonged sojourn in the wilderness to regain their bearings and teach them not to become what they profess to abhor. (May the loathesome Ted Stevens rot and die in jail.) An economically conservative publication would never have made that assertion about the Bush tax cuts.

Similarly, the Wall Street Journal is widely regarded by liberals (most of whom don't read it) as a "right-wing" publication. But while its editorial page is unquestionably one of the most conservative in the country, the reportage/analysis is on par with the very liberal New York Times. This is because the people who run the news pages at the Journal are a completely separate crowd from the ones who run the Op-Ed page. For example, the WSJ Op-Ed page has been very down on Obama (surprise, surprise), while the news coverage of him has been very favorable, much more so than its reportage on McCain.

So, the fact that The Economist's editorial gurus endorsed Obama is neither surprising nor particularly significant (in terms of being an allegedly "conservative" endorsement of the candidate). Its main value is propagandist, as Obama supporters can hold it aloft and say, "See? See? He's NOT a socialist!" (Which I don't believe he is, BTW. Words still mean things, at least to me, and he doesn't fit the definition of a "socialist." His redistributive economic views, however, can fairly be characterized as "socialist," because that is what income redistribution is.)

Jamie:

If, like a lot of extreme measures taken in WWII, it is abandoned once the crisis is past, no problem. My concern is that once politicians get a taste of running a large segment of the economy, they won't want to give it up. Since when did politicians devolve power away from themselves, especially the liberal ones (who are going to be running things for the next four years)?

I think you answered your own rhetorical question: after WWII...

And to continue:

The Economist, however, while tending conservative in its reporting and articles, editorially is fairly liberal. The Economist's editorial/opinion approach to public economic policy is historically interventionist, not at all opposed to tax increases, and by no means conservative, at least not like the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

As you point out, the WSJ editorial page is rather far out on the conservative wing, in contrast to its reportage (which, IMHO, matches The Economist's in clarity and objectivity). I prefer to think of The Economist's editorial position as thinkgingly conservative on economic matters (their support of global free trade is a prime example, and they are stern with Obama -- righly so -- on this matter). They are also anti-dirigiste; just read what they consitently have to say about French government intervention in the economy. However, they are pragmatic more than ideological, so in the present situation they agree that government intervention is needed, as long as it's sensible and temporary. When it comes to social and cultural matters, The Economist is more liberal, in the classic (libertarian) sense (or in the classic American conservative sense): they want government to avoid meddling in social matters.

An example of The Economist's liberal (editorial) orientation is the demonstrably inaccurate statement about Bush's "unaffordable" tax cuts: tax revenues soared after the cuts (which they always do, because tax cuts invariably stimulate economic activity, and that is where the real tax money lies, not in higher rates). The deficit ballooned not because of the tax cuts but because spending has been out of control for eight years...

Revenues don't "invariably" rise when taxes are cut: the trivial case of zero taxation proves that point. The Laffer Curve is simply a statement of the mean value theorem, which says that a revenue maximum exists somewhere between 0% and 100% taxation. Which side of the maximum we're on at any time is a matter of debate and open to experiment. Revenues during the Bush years increased after the tax cut, but we now see that much of the growth that generated the revenue increase was bubbly in nature, not sustainable. We agree on the out-of-control spending and governmental gigantism that the supposedly conservative Bush administration encouraged (and while we may disagree on the Iraq war decision and/or execution, we can agree on its price tag as being part of the spending growth).

Finally, the broad consensus of economist opinion indicates that Obama's tax-spend plan would yield a smaller increase in the deficit than McCain's tax-spend plan. I'll take that with a grain of salt, myself, since as far as I'm concerned, economic models need constant experimental re-validation, especially when global macro circumstances change as violently as they just have. However, that consensus is what it is, and I don't mind using it if it's useful to my point.

One more post, and then I'll shut up (for the moment)...

An example where government intervention could be temporary is the present case of the $700B bailout. The first $250B has been committed, and we see the banks saving the funds to buy other banks out, rather than using them as intended to make loans. At the same time, credit is easing: the TED Spread is about half its insane high of a week or so ago; the LIBOR rates are heading back into normal territory; and the commercial paper market is growing again. This would argue that more government purchase of bank equity may not be needed to revive the credit markets, so Congress should act thoughtfully and not hastily before releasing the next $350B tranche (if they should release it at all). And, indeed, they should call some of the bank executives on the carpet in hearings to learn just what the banks claimed not to understand about the purpose of the investments. (Yes, the shares we taxpayers bought did not give us voting rights, but Congress could still apply plenty of political pressure to encourage the funds to be used as intended.)

Another neocon backs Obama: Francis Fukuyama

An excerpt from his recent article in American Conservative:

I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all. ....

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/nov/03/00020/

Apparently history hasn't ended, after all...

Only a few more days and it will be over until January at which point it will be starting time for 2012. I just cain't wait!

NOT!

Link

ACD