Campaign Trail

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 10:30pm on 27 Oct 2008, bluejay60 wrote:

  The irony of this fear is that big government is with us in America, since Hamilton over 200 years ago, and really has not changed much in extent over most American lifetimes. For example Reagan traded military spending for domestic and did not to decrease the overall size of government. Big government is not a new thing nor will it grow drastically under ANY candidate.
  
  If there is any candidate who seems committed to resisting the temptation to abuse a single-party Congress and Executive, that is Barack Obama. He seems cast from a far more pragmatic and consensus-seeking mold than both the outgoing administration and the Palin-energized Republican core.
  
  To some extent it's simply self-serving for the party facing the imminent prospect of losing seats to argue against the evil of any party having too many seats or controlling more than one branch of government.
  
  Finally, big government can mean different things to different people.
  
  INFRASTUCTURE & DEFENSE
  
  One way is through the dreaded 'redistribution of wealth' as state or federal taxes are collected and in turn pay the people who build public works - our roads, waterways, hospitals, schools, airports, navigation aids (even GPS), ports, police and fire departments, military bases and equipment, etc.
  
  Even though that may sound like the so-called "tax and spend democrat" cliche, in this context of our all government services and infrastructure, the two candidate's tax plans are less than a half-pint in the bucket away each other. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway program falls under this category and was as much a big-government public-works program as any number of temporary FDR programs. The McCain campaign throws the the old "tax and spend label" back out even though Obama has been clear on his tax plan (most Americans will not see any higher tax) and the need to control spending.
  
  RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
  
  The other kind of big government is the one that intrudes upon civil liberties. Our civil liberties are at the root of the "Liberal" ideals. This kind of big government is where the current administration pushed hard for more far-reaching powers with Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc.
  
  Some would feel that giving an inch here to curtail liberty is just as insiduous as giving an inch towards any hint of a tax increase.

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 10:31pm on 27 Oct 2008, LNewson wrote:

  I have been living here for a couple of years having previously lived in the UK. I agree very much with the your suggestion that Americans seem to see "big government" as something everyone should be against in the same way that people should be against domestic abuse or polluted rivers. In practical terms, I guess, big government is actually seen as worse than domestic abuse or polluted rivers.
  And yet, my "liberal" friends want all the things a bigger government might be able to bring (if efficiently run). It is a strange disconnect. It is as if they can't believe government can be efficient so why take the chance of letting it do something.
  Perhaps they have a point. Even so, I am looking forward to moving back to the UK.

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 11:17pm on 27 Oct 2008, Pat-Fox wrote:

  Various blogs are a twitter about this interview, and it seems somewhat on the topic of big government:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
  
  Mis-interpreted legal jargon? Or the real deal? Either way, from the way it's gone viral so fast, I'd be quite surprised if it didn't push a few on the right who don't especially like McCain to vote for him anyway.

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 00:15am on 28 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:

  Perhaps the real irony is that now America has finally swallowed it's pride and is on the verge of electing a "big government" man, he's not going to have any choice but to reduce it.
  
  The national debt is so high and the economy failing so fast that he may have to throw away his scalpel and borrow John McCain's axe. Spending will have to be cut back on everything but the bare necessities, and even his tax plans might have to be tweaked - instead of redistributing he may have to just plain ol' raise them all.
  
  That is not to say that John McCain is therefore a more logical choice, because he was going to do all those things anyway. The difference with Obama is, he will make the tough choices and explain them in a way Americans will understand and accept. And Obama will also cut the biggest expense of them all - the pointless war in Iraq.

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 00:54am on 28 Oct 2008, steve081974 wrote:

  Wow, that Whittle chap is a little gem isn't he...
  
  "The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent."
  
  Of course, even these pale into insignificance when compared with the quite phenomenal arrogance and appalling ignorance of a section of the American public... but I guess those achievements slipped his mind. Or at least slipped the void where his mind would be were he a fully evolved human being.
  
  I read things like that and I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 02:19am on 28 Oct 2008, onithor wrote:

  I am sorry but what is the big deal about that video on youtube. I guess if you happen to be a braindead idiot without the necessary comprehension skill, then you can be easily led to believe that the main topic of that interview is how best to turn America into a Leninist country. If any of the idiots saying that this is proof positive that Obama is a socialist then I am absolutely dumbfounded. He was address the shortcomings of the Civil Rights movement which was split among effecting social change through litigation or through grassroots efforts. I am sorry but Nov 4th can come fast enough. Obama came across as quite conservative in that interview. Hell, were he a republican It could easily be seen as a mild invective against activist courts and Judges. Powell is right, the conservative movement is dedicating itself to power with ever diminishing comprehensive capacities. No wonder they are a bunch of reactionary mob.

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 02:20am on 28 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:

  "Led" the world economically, I think he means. I'm moving to China.

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 02:51am on 28 Oct 2008, Via-Media wrote:

  Rationally thinking, anyone who believes that the Democrats are some sort of unthinking, monolithic block doesn't pay much attention to the real news. Until this election cycle, the Dems have, historically, been regularly and consistently undermined by infighting, bickering, egos, and even ideological differences. It probably cost them the last two elections, and kept them from any organized challenge to Reagan.
  
  In our two party system, it's probably inevitable. Everyone like it or not who wants a say in the way things are run has to fit under one of the two big umbrellas, regardless of how much they have to just grin and bear it.
  
  The current, unified Democratic front is no different- witness the "blue Dog" Democrats, or PA's Bob Casey Jr's stance opposing abortion... the question is whether their newfound unity is temporary, only lasting til the election is over, or more permanent, holding it together til the Republicans come apart at the seams.
  
  I don't think anyone in the party can imagine a Rovian dream of a generation of Democratic dominance, let alone a Democratic "New American Order."

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 03:17am on 28 Oct 2008, OldSouth wrote:

  I gave that interview a listen: Young Mr. Obama is very well-spoken, thoughtful and measured in tone. The problem comes when we listen to the actual CONTENT of what he speaks of--a concrete redistribution of wealth, and a top-down reorganization of the culture.
  
  The first goal can't be accomplished without the occurrence of the second.
  
  Mr. Obama makes Mr. McCain's closing argument for him, in his own ominous, measured words.
  
  There have been well over a million listens to this interview on this YouTube post. The word is getting out.
  
  And, I'm not at all surprised that the Obama campaign never referred to it.

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 03:31am on 28 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

• 11. At 03:55am on 28 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Dear Mattew,
  It was nice talking to you today and thank you for posting the video , as well as my letter to all Americans ,Naturalized or Native or Born in America ,Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!
  May God lead the way to Prosperity and Peace -Terror free America ,Terror free England and Terror FREE WORLD !!!!!!!!!!!!
  JovanaTona

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 03:55am on 28 Oct 2008, Cambodiacalling wrote:

  Isn't it ironic that as McCain goes around spouting off about "big liberal government" should Obama control the house and the executive etc. the US govt. is now seriously considering bailing out the big auto makers. McCain voted for the bank bail-out package (although one would hardly know that now that socialism has become his word of the week) just as Obama did (although McCain chose to do it with all the grandstanding of suspending his campaign - for what we ask?) The hypocrisy of McCain is mind-boggling! Maybe in the remaining few days he will suspend his imploding campaign again and don overalls and join the production line at GM to show solidarity with the workers (oooh...smacks of socialism!)

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 05:08am on 28 Oct 2008, philipmach wrote:

  To use this old radio interview as evidence that Obama is a "socialist" is quite a stretch. Obama was talking about legal theory rather than politics, and the specific example of "redistribution", correcting the racial imbalance in district schools spending, would not even be an issue in country that didn't fund schools at such a parochial level. The YouTube version has dramatic pauses and text overlays to make it seem as if he is saying more than he actually is.
  
  All that this episode tells us is that some Americans are grossly ignorant about the world they live in.
  
  I wonder why the people who are so exercised about Obama being a closet "socialist" are nto REALLY excited about the way George W Bush has come so close to destroying the capitalist system, including causing a worldwide wave of bank nationalizations on an unprecedented scale. If Obama is a "socialist" because he said "redistribution" twice in 10 years, GW Bush is a hard-core communist based on what he actually achieved.

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 08:15am on 28 Oct 2008, koziki wrote:

  All this talk of taking wealth from the "successful and hard-working"... By whatever "spectacular margins" some in the US may think they lead the world, all economic studies, carried out by Americans and others, show that social mobility - the chance to be richer than your parents were - is lower in the US than almost any other developed country: the American Dream has been just that, a dream, for many decades now, and a rigid class system ensures that wealth is concentrated among a few families while a growing underclass sinks ever deeper into poverty. In 1900 US citizens were on average an inch taller than Europeans. Now they are on average an inch shorter. If you don't see the connection you should quit blogging and run away and play.

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 08:21am on 28 Oct 2008, U5656350 wrote:

  George W. Bush has enlarged government the way no other president has. It's even worse when you consider the corporations like Halliburton and the oil companies who are benefiting from government contracts or direct support.
  
  Obama, by comparison, is a genial conservative, whose idea is to shore up the middle and labor classes as the decisive powers in the USA. The corporations and banks have been so focused on profit, they have forgotten who serves whom.
  
  The word "socialism" has been bandied about without anyone really defining it. The McCain/Palin folk are just trying to create a sort of race-based association between a black man = poor man=welfare family=government support=socialism. No one has remarked on this. it's race-baiting at its most disgusting, because many, many people simply lack the information to see through it. It's purely emotional, and it's pure fertilizer as well.

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 08:33am on 28 Oct 2008, U5656350 wrote:

  Let me add: People who were branded as socialists
  ... fought against child labor in this country
  ... fought for peace
  ... fought against fascism in Spain
  ... brought about social security
  ... fought for the 40-hour work week
  ... fought for the right to strike
  ... fought against the exploitation of the company town
  ... fought for a clean environment
  ... fought for women's right to vote
  ... fought for more safety at the workplace
  ... fought for healt insurance
  fought for myriad labor laws that have never hindered companies from growing, in spite of their drastic forecasts....
  
  For the moment, the right wingers seem to be battling against all that, of course, but they are for
  
  ... making the rich richer
  ... any scheme no matter how scatterbrained, that says "drowns government in a bathtub" on it.
  
  PS:
  
  Is it not odd to find more divorce and more abortion and even more welfare in vermillion red states than deep blue states, like "Taxachussetts"?
  
  Here's that famous letter from 2005...
  
  http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/80714812.html
  

  Complain about this comment

• 17. At 09:39am on 28 Oct 2008, Sbeeblebrox wrote:

  I actually don't think that having a democrat in the white house and a majoraty in congress is a big deal at this point in time. In other parts of history yes, but right now it might be what we need. We don't have time for a lot of disagreement on some issues facing the nation right now, things need to get done fast. If decisions can be made and not veto'ed then something happens. I'm actually voting for Nader. I live in Arizona so theres no need for me to vote for Obama, McCain will for sure win here. I think more Arizonans should do the same for that reason. Well everyone should really. If Nader gets enough of the popular vote he will be a contender in 2012 as a 3rd party.
  
  So if you're sick of the republicrats visit the websight www.votenader.org and see what he has to say. He disagreed with that $700 billion bail out that didn't work out how everyone thought it would. Obama and mccain had to agree with it to "play it safe" so to speak because if one of them was wrong they were sure to lose the election. In all fairness Nader was right, they were wrong. Anyway, this is becoming a little long-winded, even if you're a right-winger, go to the websight, he has some interesting points of view.

  Complain about this comment

• 18. At 09:40am on 28 Oct 2008, soulgrind wrote:

  To call Obama a Liberal AND a Socialist seems rather odd. Aren't they at opposite ends of the polictical spectrum?
  
  The problem is that the Cold War and McCarthyism has completely obscured most US citizen's views of what socialism is.
  
  Its become some kind of evil word, whereas in the rest of the world its a perfectly valid political viewpoint. (whether you happen to agree with it or not).
  
  It seems to me that extremist capitalism is as dangerous as extremist communism, and that a balanced approach (as in all things) is the best option.
  
  Since, in most countries, Obama would be considered well to the RIGHT of the center, I'd imagine he's more likely to bring a balanced approach than McCain.
  
  Tax breaks for the little guy, and paying back to society once you make it, seems both capitalist and Christian to me.
  
  Do all the evangelical Christians in the McCain camp consider tithing to be a socialist redistribution of wealth? Or a charitable way to help society?

  Complain about this comment

• 19. At 09:56am on 28 Oct 2008, U5656350 wrote:

  Soulgrind just a quick note...
  McCarthy only hopped on a boat... the "anti-Commie" stuff dates back to the 1870s, that is how long the brainwashing has gone on. It is carried from generation to generation.
  
  Before the Commies there were the Papists and the Freemasons, among others.
  
  I can't find any real reason for rthe "anti socialism" bit. It is usually a sign of phenomenal ignorance, that is true. I concluded after a long study on the rhetoric of anti-communism, that it has become the one thing that really did trickle down in the long run: it was originally the bailiwick of the economic interests that ran the country. It still is, but by now enough people under the boot of corporate interests believe it too.

  Complain about this comment

• 20. At 09:59am on 28 Oct 2008, Dayvine wrote:

  Americans are scared easily, and here McCain is trying to make them scared of their own Democratic system.
  
  He is attempting to convince them of the age old fallacy, usually sold abroad by the US, that Democracy only works if you vote the right way.
  
  At this last post McCain is ramming home an intensely conservative, anti-change message at the core of the Republican Party, namely "America only works because we haven't changed the magic set out by the founding fathers", which in some way admits "We don't think we are smart enough to do it again, so lets hope we don't run out of tape".
  
  The fear of intellectuals and circumspect thought in general echo's this.
  
  I can see why some Americans would be intimidated by words echoing Isaiah Berlin, though I seriously doubt that that the people writing at the national review would understand negative or positive liberty if they fell over it.
  
  I do, however, find it hard to see why they are so scared of Rawls who is at least home grown and not a dangerous pinko intellectual from Oxford.
  
  Although, in seriousness, I doubt they actually know who either of these people are.

  Complain about this comment

• 21. At 10:30am on 28 Oct 2008, Martijn wrote:

  This seems to be very frightening to Americans:
  "a concrete redistribution of wealth, and a top-down reorganization of the culture."
  I wonder why. It appears that the "trickle-down" economics, where people get rich from the top down, doesn't really work, does it? So why not try the opposite for once? Even if Americans would be individually slightly less well off than they are today, their society as a whole might profit enormously in other ways. Of course as long ast he pursuit of happiness is defined solely as the acquisition of material goods there won't be much hope of that...

  Complain about this comment

• 22. At 11:27am on 28 Oct 2008, bertzpoet wrote:

  The greatest redistribution of wealth took place with the Bush tax cuts that enriched the already wealthy, leaving the poor and middle class behind.
  
  The greatest 'Big Government' has been the Bush-Cheney administration and its concept of the 'imperial executive' that can wage war whenever and wherever it cares to.

  Complain about this comment

• 23. At 12:39pm on 28 Oct 2008, passmeby wrote:

  Scandinavian countries have high tax and a contended and yet still affluent population because governments there take actions which are redistributive. Its not handouts for the lazy poor at the expense of the rich hard working. Along with rights (such as to education, health care, housing, and basic sustenance) there are responsibilites (to train for and obtain work, and to pay taxes). A hardworking middleclass person in Scandinavia knows that they could easily find themselves destitute and impoverished through no fault of their own (e.g. an accident) if there was no community help in the form of the welfare state.
  
  Americans should lose their hangups about big government. Big government in Europe means that Europeans pay in taxes for nearly all their health care ... which is of better quality than the US system and covers everything which costs DOUBLE and still leaves 47 (!!!) million people without health care insurance

  Complain about this comment

• 24. At 1:20pm on 28 Oct 2008, giovannidimaggio wrote:

  e pluribus unum
  
  A couple years ago there was an incident on who wants to be a millionaire where the million pound question asked "what is the motto of the United States of America." The contestant answered "In God we trust". A reasonable attempt bearing in mind the presence of that slogan on every US dollar. It was in fact the wrong answer as the founding mission statements of the founding fathers of the USA was E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.
  
  The current conflict between Barak Obama and John McCain can be reduced to the conflict between these two principles. The enlightenment ideal that formed the US constitution was very much ahead of its time culturally. It was a vision that has ever since sat uneasily within the confines of modern capitalism. American capitalism is the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest and worship of the winners. Denigration of the losers (and yes they were usually black) was reinforced by relying on charitable foundations rather than social security to alleviate the poverty caused by social division. Enabling the clear boundary line to be maintained between the haves and have-nots in the USA. The American dream, the Las Vegas mentality, that everybody could become a winner was promoted perpetuated through the powerful right-wing media machine and supported by the Puritan work ethic as a divine justification for social inequality.
  
  There are two Gods colliding here.
  
  The God in whom John McCain's tribe are trusting is the God of the old Testament, the God of ethnic cleansing of the Native American population, the God of judgement and wrath, of slavery and marginalisation, the black-and-white God who draws lines in the sand and damns anyone who dares to step over the line. This God fits in well with the self-righteous elite, armed to the teeth against any opposition that inevitably leads to war, enslavement and Guantanamo Bay. The Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms in Russia were all carried out with this God on their side. As Jimmy Carter pointed out in his recent book, all fundamentalists are the same and believe in the absolute rightness of their truth.
  
  Set against this background and in direct opposition, is the God of the Obama Clan, the God of the new Testament, the God of Jesus culture, founded on co-operation and altruism, where a new nation arises from many diverse peoples and individuals to be one body, each supporting the other, not in competition or conflict but in desiring a better world for the other and for the generations to come. This was the true vision of the founding fathers of the US Constitution, a vision which persisted even through the darkness of prohibition, McCarthy witch hunts and Reaganomics. It persisted because it appeals to natural justice, and an understanding of society and community that the advocates of competition and individualism have attempted to dismantle. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that there is no such thing as society, only a collection of individuals. An infatuation with the idea of individual self-determination, the pinnacle of which would be total individual freedom of choice, inevitably leads to narcissism, greed and self-centric view of the world which is ultimately doomed to destroy itself. It is this inherent self-destructive element in the neoconservative regime of truth, together with a fundamentalist belief in the divine power of a competitive market to bring about its own utopia, that has led to the current crisis in Western culture.
  
  Barak Obama in embracing the original vision, e pluribus unum, is embodying an aspiration that has lain dormant since the 1960s when the same spirit swept the country and was crushed by the National Guard. Those chastened and reprogrammed into believing in the right-wing Darwinistic and viciously competitive capitalist culture supported by the so-called Christian right are now waking up to the possibility that an inclusive society can be created where the rich are a little poorer and the poor are part of the nation once again. That is why Barak Obama is on the crest of a wave.
  
  The only worry I have for the post-election America is that if the entrenched spirit of republicanism swings further to the right as a result of Obama’s policies, the neofascist and white supremacist factions may gain significant support for undemocratic action. Obama needs to hammer home the message, E pluribus Unum, to somehow include the whole range of the cultural spectrum.
  
  Giovanni Dimaggio
  

  Complain about this comment

• 25. At 1:36pm on 28 Oct 2008, TwoOld wrote:

  WAKE UP!! The Republicans already have your money! They've doubled the national debt in 8 years and mortgaged my children's future. They've given billions to banks and oil companies -- nothing for social security, health care or veterans. Their policies ruined your college fund/retirement IRA and your job's at risk. We CANNOT afford another "I told you so" election. We don't have four more years to fix this. "Throw the bums out" -- this may be your last chance.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 26. At 1:39pm on 28 Oct 2008, TwoOld wrote:

  WAKE UP!!
  The Republicans already have your money! They've doubled the national debt in 8 years and mortgaged my children's future. They've given billions to banks and oil companies -- nothing for social security, health care or veterans. Their policies ruined your college fund/retirement IRA and your job's at risk.
  We CANNOT afford another "I told you so" election. We don't have four more years to fix this.
  "Throw the bums out" -- this may be your last chance.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 27. At 2:14pm on 28 Oct 2008, schranzo wrote:

  Two things.
  
  First, it would be useful to remember that the French political system has been specifially changed to precisely try to eliminate the possibility of having a conservative president and a socialist government or vice-versa.
  
  Secondly, I wonder where Mc Cain was when Bush was composing a whole supreme court of the biggest neo-Cons in the country.
  
  Don't worry Republicans you still have the court on your side for a while. maybe you can try and win the election there... as usual.

  Complain about this comment

• 28. At 2:22pm on 28 Oct 2008, tioram wrote:

  It frightens me that there seems to be enormous sections of the American electorate who give more weight to superficial labels and celebrity image than political substance. People are labeled "socialist", "liberal" or God forbid "un-American", and met with trepidation without anyone considering what those labels mean.
  
  A victory for John McCain would be nothing but a frightening defeat for common sense and the politics of substance over the politics of the superficial and the celebrity.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 29. At 2:35pm on 28 Oct 2008, RaymondLutz wrote:

  I am a strange mix.
  
  I am a capitalist, socialist communist..... I have distinct views with regards to most things and believe that although everyone is an individual they are equal members of the same entity that should work towards the same goal.
  
  That goal should be the betterment of the people ergo the state.
  
  I find it puzzling that most americans believe in the idea that its ok to leave people behind simply because they do not have the money to pay for things..... such as education, healthcare, social care, etc.....
  
  At the same time I find it puzzling that most europeans scoff at american policy thinking that their own nation takes care of them.... Whilst it does a better job than the US it still falls far short.
  
  What do I mean by this?
  
  Well, its easy to summise. Essentially what we have in the UK is a socialist capitalist economy. We are encouraged to make our own money and prosper from that. Surely capitalist..... well not really. We are taxed at 40% and then the money we do get in our pockets that we put into a bank is again taxed (Double taxation). Then we go to a store to spend our savings and pay tax (triple taxation).
  
  Its not that I am against taxation.... by any means. Taxation raises valuable revenue for public services such as health care, education etc. What I am against is a government that doesnt know what it is doing with the money. A government that hires 10,000 managers and 500 workers.
  
  Waste in government is ridiculous. Very much like our social care system. I find it absurd that our social care system is paid for by those that work to benefit those that do not work or choose not to work, Fair enough, a social catch has to be in place but should those that chose not to work be able to claim from the state? I say no. Put them to work for the government for the money that they receive (this is the part that is communist). If they cant receive work through the private sector im sure the government could cut costs by removing some managers and hiring the "dorement" workforce that is currently lying in its bed unemployed.
  
  To be honest, the policies that obama is bringing to the table may seem radical to most americans....... perish the thought of free at the point of need healthcare for people that cant afford insurance.
  
  But at the same time..... its just going to be more smoke and mirrors.... disguising same old policies with a new slogan "change"....... its just a shame that change is the last thing americans and most of us will receive.
  
  
  Big government no. Government services yes. Taxation yes. Wasteful spending no. Capitalist economy yes. Socialist welfare state yes. Communist "Get your ass out of bed and go to work for the state for those of you that cant find jobs" yes
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 30. At 3:42pm on 28 Oct 2008, Electric Dragon wrote:

  Strange how the Republicans are against "one-party rule" (ie. executive and legislature) now - since they seemed to be so much in favour of it between 2000 and 2006 when it was them who were the one party.

  Complain about this comment

• 31. At 7:08pm on 28 Oct 2008, gtggtg wrote:

  Pat-Fox: "Various blogs are a twitter about this interview, and it seems somewhat on the topic of big government:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
  
  Mis-interpreted legal jargon? Or the real deal? Either way, from the way it's gone viral so fast, I'd be quite surprised if it didn't push a few on the right who don't especially like McCain to vote for him anyway. "
  
  I suggest everyone look at that video; it displays Obama's 1) thoughtfulness and 2) seemingly innate conservatism: His main point is that the courts are *not* an appropriate locus for major social changes surrounding issues of class struggle (and *there's* a phrase that can't be used). To Obama, it is not appropriate for courts to take such an activist role--which is a basic tenet of Republicans. This "minimalist" view of the courts (the term comes from Obama's legal adviser, Cass Sunstein) sums up Prof. Obama's position as well. It's too damn conservative IMO but to read some kind of socialist plot into his explication of his view of the constitutional separation of powers is just nuts.
  
  The video also displays the paranoid anti-rationalism that dominates the right wing in the United States, but is also part and parcel of "acceptable" political discourse in the United States. Just listen to Obama's words, ignore the portentous music, and I dare you to find anything but a rather cautious and conservative politician and constitutional scholar.
  
  The right wing in the US has successfully framed economic issues so that an elected popular government has *no legitimate role* in addressing the needs of the working class. (When the needs of capitalists are addressed, as always happens, it is to help "everybody.") The Democrats must accept much of the blame for this; they bought into this rhetoric. But the net result is to make the issues that have dominated every constitutional democracy since the Enlghtenment, including the US, somehow illegitimate. It literally can make rational political discussion impossible here.

  Complain about this comment

• 32. At 10:33pm on 28 Oct 2008, Jackturk wrote:

  For election comment see this:-
  www.theyoungturks.com

  Complain about this comment

• 33. At 10:42pm on 28 Oct 2008, moderate_observer wrote:

  i dont understand the big deal about this'spread the wealth' argument against obama. What exactly is wrong if an entire society is prosperous, or have equal opportunities to be prosperoous.
  
  if one man lives in a town with ten people, he is very rich and his neighbors are dirt poor, how comfortable is this man going to be? i suppose he intends to spend all his money on security and high fences?
  
  i suppose mcCain is appealing to the dream of many americans to live like paris hilton in gated communities away from the averaged people.
  
  take my word being the one rich man in the midst of poverty is not a comfortable feeling.

  Complain about this comment

• 34. At 00:20am on 29 Oct 2008, StephenDerry wrote:

  I suspect most Americans are becoming bored with the reactionary far-right labelling of anything they don't like as "socialist" or "liberal" or "UnAmerican." The words are starting to lose their power.
  
  For many years it was a truism that "liberal" was a dirty word in America. Now I see liberals happy to describe themselves thus, with the word liberal liberally peppering the election reporting with positive rather than negative connotations. No-one argues when Obama is described as the most liberal Senator (even though Harry Reid is then described as "even further to the left"), it is a consensus that Obama is a liberal, and America is going to elect him regardless.
  
  Socialism too, is losing a lot of it's sting. Sadly not because the word is used ignorantly by people who have no idea what socialism actually is, but because it has been used to describe the bank bailout package, backed by Bush and McCain, that saved your nation's economy. It may not be socialism, but because everyone calls it that, that is how it is perceived. And because the bailout was sold as a desirable restraint on greedy free marketeers, people now view socialism (at least some sorts of socialism!) as positive.
  
  The same crazy phenomenon is happening with Obama's tax plan. McCain is banging on about it being socialist. American voters earning less than $250,000 (ie most of them) are thinking, "wow this socialist tax plan actually means my taxes will go down. Yay socialism." Again, I have to emphasise it ISN'T socialism, but it's not doing socialism's reputation any harm!
  
  Basically, the label "socialism" is now associated with things which grow the economy and cut taxes. In my day, that kind of thing was called capitalism, but capitalism has been relabelled "capitalism-gone-bad."
  
  UnAmerican is a bit more complex, no-one likes being called UnAmerican because even the most far-left extremist liberal leftie has been indoctrinated since birth to believe unequivocally that America is and always will be the greatest nation on Earth. Again, not strictly true... (my money is on Sweden) but the way Americans perceive the world.
  
  However the term UnAmerican and similar vocabulary (Real Americans, Patriots) has been thrown about so much lately that I think it has simply lost its power to offend. It is the same group of people with the same things in common who make the accusations again and again and again, and I think the growing liberal consensus has decided that their time is over, they are increasingly irrelevant, and what they think of the rest of America no longer matters.

  Complain about this comment

• 35. At 00:47am on 29 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Let me tell you about the :spredaing the wealth " which is catually "spreading your sweat ",
  In America you can be whatevr you choose to regardless of color, religion and etc..and prove is in the pudding that if you work hard you wll achieve whatever your goal is .
  Now as a doctor one day I will make more then 250 .000 or as a busniss owner of your choosing let say you will make more than 250 .000 and people will say """woh ,they are making all f that monay :,BUT let me tell you success dosen't come overnigth,but years and years of hard work and all kinds of sacrificies .I am NOT here to disrespect any job bc here in US. yiu decide to chnage your carrier -you can do so,NOT like in my former Coministoc Country where it will be apsurd to do so..
  Now you tell me are you willing if you make > 250 000 to be "manage " and half taxed and "taken away " by the governement or you want to be in charg eof "your wealth " of "your sweat " ..
  I would like one day to contrubue and give away for foreihn medical doctors to succed here in US,but I will be very much reluctunt for the governement to tak eit from me, tell me to who I nee dto give it !!!
  Well let me tell you my mother at age 58 is still supporting my brothers and sister overethere,so they can be "couch potatos " and wear 100 euros boots and drive a nice car bc my mother things that this is ok, instaid of teaching them hw to fish , he is giving them the fish on the table..
  Imagine who will want to work when ypou know that you can get the same amount of monay working in McDonalds and siting at home and developing just Coronary Vascular disease that is the number one leading cause of that in Americans...
  While teaching here,it was really funny and sad to see that the students called them self "poor "" and you tell me -all of them ,they have a car, a cell phone , place to sleep and can get loans and then one day paid them off, so I don't think you can see this things in the Former Coministoc country even to this day bc as I said earlier "one is working and others are barking ".......
  You need to get ONLY that much that you deserve and God give us intelegance and knol=wledge and brains to use it and CHOICES to MAKE, so please w ecan blame people that are making 250 000 and above bc they earned bc in US you have to earn your degree with hard work,NOT with who you know and how you know them...
  You have to be transperant here bc sooner or later the truth will come out and it will bite you in a long run!!!!!!!!!!!
  When any of the candididates will give their own monay and "spread " them with their own will but to the people in need such as people with disabilties, people with mental inesses and terminal diseases or for education,BUT to"spread the wealth " to bunch of young man and woman who are reluctant to work and want the "easy way out " is actually receipe fir disaster !!!!!!!!!!!!
  I hope we can continue with healthy debates, but yet challenging !!!
  JovanaTona

  Complain about this comment

• 36. At 02:53am on 29 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Again and Again,
  The wealthy man in a poor village can be in the Comunism and here in America you can have a wealthy man and people around Him who can be wealthy as well if they choose to bc no one become a millioner overnigth unless you win a lotary or by "mariage " and then if you don't have the work etic and wisdom of just from $1 to make it $3 ,then you will loose it anyhow or you will JUST "spread it " and "give it away " aka democrats bc you didn't earn it.
  Instaid of asking how that man feels among those people from the same village ,why we don't ask how those people are feeling meaning "aren't ashamed of just barking how he is rish ,instaid of getting back to work.....
  
  I am NOT going to feel sorry for someone who is mentally capable, youbg and healthy to tell me "no job available "..
  My parents with no english made some monay and even safe some with no english or poor english or no education here..
  This is the comunistic approach where people play "Victoms " how no one is acring for them, how governement abondon them and the governement JUST create it them and now governement is going to "rescue them "..
  Create a disorder ad parasites and then spend the monay to treat them ,what a paradox !!!!!!!!!!!!
  being there ,done that where my hair dresser back in the Cominism was making more monay then my fellow doctors !!!!!!
  Regarding the Evangelist ,CHristian or any group when you want to gove by CHOICE YOUR OWN MONAY -CHARITY and when the GOVERNEMENT IS IN CHARGE OF YOUR MONAY, YOUR SWEAT, YOUR TAXES that is BY DEFINITION SOCIALISTIC SOCIETY with COMMUNISTIC DOGMA -if you have it is MINE (governement ),BUT If I have is ONLY MINE !!!!!!!!!!!!
  I hope you get this point...What is mine is ONLY mine ,BUT what is yours is ONLY MINE =SOCIALISM ubder the umbrella of Coministic Dogma that everone SHOULD BE COMPENSATE IT EQUALLY !!!!!!!!!!!(EXUSE ME ))))))))
  So what is the purpose of work ??
  Yes and when we talk about WEALTH is it ONLY MONAY or a Life Style or How many hours or quality time you spend with your love ones ??
  Imagine success -15 years of hard work where you sacrifice everything an danything and then you nee dto sacrifice even more while others are drinking beer, having fun and sex in the city or whatever..
  Please Amerika WAKE UP !!!!!!!
  JovanaTona

  Complain about this comment

• 37. At 10:42am on 29 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

  JovanaTona, nobody is planning to turn America into a communist state (or a socialist state), so I really don't see what your point is.

  Complain about this comment

• 38. At 11:57am on 29 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Sankari,
  Thanks for your post ,BUT I hope NOT ,but each one of us is entitle to opinions rigth or wrong,BUT let's discuss your points since you are havng trouble with mine.
  I am sure you didn't live in US nor you work here , nor that you lived in a comunistic country before.
  Thank you,
  JovanaTona

  Complain about this comment

• 39. At 09:23am on 30 Oct 2008, Sankari wrote:

  Post #38; JovanaTona wrote: "Sankari,
  Thanks for your post ,BUT I hope NOT ,but each one of us is entitle to opinions rigth or wrong,BUT let's discuss your points since you are havng trouble with mine.
  I am sure you didn't live in US nor you work here , nor that you lived in a comunistic country before.
  Thank you,
  JovanaTona"
  
  No, I have never lived in the US (thank God!) and I don't work there either. I have never lived in a communist country before, and I have not worked in one.
  
  I am Australian; I was born and raised in Australia. I have now lived in the UK for almost 5 years.
  
  I know what it is like to live under a generous, peaceful, prosperous, liberal democracy. I want to see Americans enjoying a generous, peaceful, prosperous, liberal republic.
  
  I do not want to see America turned into a communist or socialist state. But nobody in this election is trying to turn America into a communist or socialist state, so why talk about it?

  Complain about this comment

• 40. At 03:24am on 31 Oct 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Sankari,
  I do respect your opinion,however I have to disagree with you,sorry ....don't take it personal please bc what do you know about America since you never lived or work here ..
  Maybe you are knowledgable about geography or perhaps history ,but still you didn't experiance it !!
  I was in London last year and I don't like it to live there ..I was in Sydney ,Australia 10 years ago and I don't like it neither bc you do have some "socialism " there ,so why did you leave your Australia ???
  We can talked about things and our fears as Americans or English or whatever bc this is US Election time , especially when you live in a country for almost 15 years and when you accept that country as your own..
  So I do bealive that I should be concern about U.S.Election bc one of the privilage to be an American is to VOTE and we have the freedom to make CHOICES , aswell the second amendmet the freedom of speech!!
  If you feel that is topic is somewhat boring to you, as well you feel that you don't want to talk about it -then don't ,BUT you can ask people to stop talk about their fear of big governement.
  I hope you get my point this time and I hope you will protect England as your own country !
  Thank you for your time and I wish you all the best !
  Sincerelly,
  JovanaTona

  Complain about this comment

• 41. At 5:02pm on 31 Oct 2008, timohio wrote:

  I think a lot of this expressed fear of socialism or redistribution of wealth is really a front for a distrust (even a fear) of collectivism or communalism. Please note that I am saying communalism, not communism.
  
  American culture in general and conservatives in particular have glorified rugged individualism. The idea that you stand on your own merits. They really don't like the idea of the individual as part of a larger group, and they don't like the idea that their well-being and prosperity is dependent on others. But really, in even the most individualistic society, it always is. Everyone benefits from family, teachers, investors, a good boss, community--you name it. No one ever really makes it totally on their own, unless they're living alone in a cabin in the wilderness.
  
  But this myth of individualism and exaggerated fear of communalism causes a knee-jerk reaction from conservatives on a number of issues. Take gun control. It isn't really about guns; it's about wanting to maintain the myth of self-reliant defense. It would be much more effective in a crime-ridden area to participate in a block-watch group than to pack a .38, but that goes against the myth.
  
  Even this redistribution of wealth argument is a smoke screen for the myth. Joe the Plumber is never going to make more than $250,000 a year after expenses. Ever. But to buy into the idea that tax money could be used to create construction jobs that might guarantee that he could put food on the table and pay his back taxes means that he has to give up the myth that he could make it big on his own. He would prefer the myth to the steady job.
  
  Why anyone on God's green earth would prefer to live one medical emergency away from bankruptcy rather than have some modest collective health care system is beyond me. But there appears to be substantial numbers of my country-men and -women who would rather keep the myth that they don't need anyone's help.
  
  I can understand that extremely wealthy individuals who stand to lose from a more sharply graduated income tax might be nervous about Obama's tax plan, but why would anyone in the middle class object to it? As Tom Harkin, a senator from Iowa who once ran for president used to say, "How long do you have to be hit over the head before you realize what it is that's been hitting you over the head?"

  Complain about this comment

• 42. At 06:58am on 03 Nov 2008, shusker wrote:

  I just dont think some of you understand. Conservatives and proponents arent against giving out free heath care, and helping out stuggling families, in fact they are probably more inclined to give. What they are against is people who manipulate the system.
  
  Its all good to say we are giving money to the poor and helping out families, but in reality all that is happeneing is people are getting money and they go out and they buy a new pair of Jordans or drugs.
  
  People who dont get jobs because they can just live off there welfare checks. The reality is that you have to help yourself. You can get all the taxation ibenefits n the world, but if you dont do something with that money you are never going to better your life.
  
  Everyone has disadvantages, and I dont understand the notion that being rich equals being evil.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 43. At 07:14am on 03 Nov 2008, oldefarte wrote:

  re comment 6, I can see no harm in USA turning Leninist.

  Complain about this comment

• 44. At 8:35pm on 03 Nov 2008, deddancer wrote:

  Well if we really want to talk about "redistribution of wealth" by tax rates lets look at the following (these are the upper tax rates during various presidents):
  
  Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
  Nixon (1969-1974): 70-77%
  Ford: (1974-1977): 70%
  Carter (1977-1981): 70%
  Reagan (1981-1989): 28%-69.13%
  Bush I: (1989-1993): 28%-39.6% (39.6% after Clinton took power)
  
  OK, exactly who of those were Democrats, yeah, Carter and he left it at Ford's levels. Sorry I can't find my figures for Kennedy/LBJ.
  
  Obama is talking about raising the upper tax rate to Bush I levels for those familes earring over $250,000 and that is much lower than Reagan. Remember that here in the states we have progressive tax rates and the rates since 2003 are as follows:
  
  Filing Status: Single
  If your taxable income is between... your tax bracket is:
  0 and 8,025 10%
  8,026 and 32,550 15%
  32,551 and 78,850 25%
  78,851 and 164,550 28%
  164,551 and 357,700 33%
  357,701 and Above 35%
  
  To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:
  
  ($ 7,000 - 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
  (28,400 - 7,000 ) x .15 : 3,210
  (57,325 - 28,400 ) x .25 : 7,231
  (87,350 - 57,325 ) x .28 : 8,407
  (100,000 - 87,350 ) x .33 : 4,175
  Total: $ 23,723
  
  This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%
  
  What Obamas model would do is to break from the 33% tax bracket those earning after exemptions (and there is a deduction/exemption for each dependent) at @$200,000 for singles, $250,000 for families to back to the Bush I and Clinton years 39.6% rate.
  
  I would not say that is extremly radical, especially with our currrent national debt. I actually can not see taxes going up under either canidate with the current economic situation, paying for two wars, and doing something for the crumbleing infrastructure.
  
  And looking at the historical chart it seem that we would have to call the Rebublican Party the "redistributors of wealth" party since they had some of the highest tax rates.
  
  In defence of Eisenhower, he did inherit the debt of World War II and we did have the Korean Conflict to pay for. (Sorry Mom I didn't mean to demonize one of your favorite Rebublican Presidents.)
  
  Then there's Adam Smith, the man that free marketeers love to quote. The man whose major work, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations indicates that Smith had no problem with the idea of progressive taxation (though he preferred that the taxes be levied on something other than income). Try on this thought about the first fundamental precept of taxation:
  
  The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
  
  That's from the section of the work addressing "the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth," in particular, the "Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society." Smith explains the basis for this rule of taxation as follows:
  
  The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.
  
  Oh my God, even our early founders were "socialist" by the current definition used by those that are calling Obama a socialist.
  
  Maybe they need to move to a country with no taxes like Saudi Arabia. They may not like all the laws of that country but at least they wouldn't have to pay taxes.
  
  
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 45. At 00:51am on 04 Nov 2008, Forcuera wrote:

  why on earth are Americans so afraid of the term 'socialist state?' . Take a look at the history textbooks, almost all the major wars and all the debt that America has undergone up till now has occurred under the term of a republican president. It seems to me that every republican president seems to be stuck in the world war two mindset that a war would boost the economy. Right...I rather have a slightly socialist economy then see countless of young men die every time a republican takes the white house.

  Complain about this comment

• 46. At 01:08am on 04 Nov 2008, Forcuera wrote:

  you know what...'socialist' isn't a dirty word and 'liberal' doesn't mean that you can let someone die because they are unable to work due to their age or an illnesses of sorts. America needs to take responsibility for its actions and its people. by choosing to help those in need is not 'socialist'. you want to know why the American economy is crumbling ?look at the infrastructure of your country. By claiming to be liberal, the country has only paid attention to those who are well off and has ignored those who are in need. If the government checks are given to those who do not use it to save pull themselves back up, then the government will simply have to look into the loopholes present in the system. Being paranoid of things you don't understand doesn't make you smarter and being unable to take a risk of adopting something new doesn't make you wiser... If America wants to get out of their economic woes then buck up, stop being so complacent , stop being so paranoid over other governing system when yours has so obviously failed.

  Complain about this comment

• 47. At 01:12am on 04 Nov 2008, deddancer wrote:

  Correction to #44 ... I meant to say:
  
  I actually can not see taxes NOT going up under either canidate with the current economic situation, paying for two wars, and doing something for the crumbleing infrastructure.
  
  Need to remember to preview before posting.

  Complain about this comment

• 48. At 05:04am on 04 Nov 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  Now Forcuera,
  I would like to know what your country has done for those in need and poor and what you have done as a person to help them ??
  Tell me how many volunteers your country has for examples in the hospital or during the election time ??
  How much aid your country contribute to foreign country for AIDS, Medecine, Tsunami Funds and etc..just tell me and we will go form there ......
  Americans Paranoid ???
  If you are from England do you have any idea how many times and how many people were killed by Islamic Fundamentalist ???
  Do you have any idea how many people lost their lifes in Bosnia ???
  Do you know how many bombs/attacks were in the street of every Indian City??
  Do you know how many people died in US from9/11 ..
  Tell me how many people died in Iraq or Afganistan and seems like we can "justify " the islamic fundamentalist .BUT we can't justify why Bush administration went to Iraq ????
  Are those victims in Iraq much more important then the one in London or NY or Colkota or Kashmir ???
  Just let me know the numbers nd then I will tell you what America has done for so many foreign country ,so please let's debate ..
  Cio
  JovanaTona

  Complain about this comment

• 49. At 05:08am on 04 Nov 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  "Ask your self why nations go to war ?Is it due to our relationship with people of different belief and cultures or, is it due the changing dynamics of the modern multilateral world? I believe it has more to do with the inherent resentment of people towards change itself that plays a major role to instigate a conflict. We know that any change generates stress – transition from old to new create the spark which if not properly channeled always has the potential to defeat the very purpose of the change"

  Complain about this comment

• 50. At 05:21am on 04 Nov 2008, JovanaTona wrote:

  deddancer,
  As you know nothing is FREE in this Life ,especially FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!
  England,USA,India ,Germany we have something incommon and that is that we figth the biggest evil in this earth and that is TERRORISM !!
  So instaid of focus on what divide us,why we don't focus on what UNIT US and yes it is sad that so many young man need to died ,but is for a reason and all of has can just look litlle closer who is your neigboor , what they are doing ?
  So just 'simple know how " try to identify some possible "terrorist prospect " will be mor eprofitable then just sit around like a couch potato ,waithing for the governement check to pay your bills and feel sorry for those young man who are figthing for our freedom.
  Patriotism is NOT just saying 'well I love my country " bc everyone can be patriot when economy is good, life is rosy and you can smell the roses every day,BUT when the things are going down the hill and when those Jihads are slowelly ,but surelly invading your space ,your peace ,then I will ask you how we are going to BOUNCE BACK and say "ENOUPH is ENOUPH "
  But you know what God create us to be like a PALM TREE and we can bounce if we JUST RESIST to be attack by those Jihads who they refuse to undrstund or deal with diplomacy,so we have to go and get them before they will get us...
  Maybe you don't want to figth socialism or comunism, BUT I WILL REBEL UNTIL EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE EVIL ARE GON WITH THE WIND,so the world can rest in peace !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS