Part of me pities poor McCain. Here is his life long quest to become President, and in the finally weeks of the campaign he's forced to defend his opponent.

I don't I can recall anything of this sort. Perhaps back in 1940 when Wendall Wilkie was running against Roosevelt and he basically supported most of Roosevelt's policies, foreign and domestic. I think he eventually defended Roosevelt before congress, but only after the election.

I only have one fear for Obama now, and that is the Bradley effect. Okay two fears, the other is Bush starting another war or Bin Laden bombing the country, again.

The Bradley effect is a very real possibility - we are talking about the Presidency, the senior most prestigious position in the land. The other possibilities: Bush starting a war - not likely the stock market's already being held together by chewing gum and spit, though the nation is vulnerable to an attack of some sort right now from any one and every one who might so be inclined.

Posted at October 11, 2008 9:35 AM in response to McCain To Supporter: No Ma'am, Obama Is Not An Arab

The guy is projecting. As do all Republicans.

Conservatives are ideologues. Democrats are pragmatist: do whatever works best for the public interest.

This is not an accident. Pragmatism is the ideology of our ancient legal system, the common law - see Oliver Wendall Holmes. We have liberty only to the extent that it doesn't compromise justice. We have justice because you can't have a society based upon might makes right, it is simply not practical.

On the other hand, conservatives need ideology to sell their dangerous policies (see 1929, 1987, 2008 - they all had 'black' stock market days).

The thing about ideology is that it has never succeeded in taking over an English Common Law country - because, as Holmes implies, ideological decisions take place mostly in the judiciary, who choose on a case by case scenario, from the market place of ideas, the best idea for a particular case.

Ideology only has succeeded in Civil (napoleonic) Code countries: Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China. Why? Because civil code prohibited judge made law. That forced ideological decisions to the legislature.

In order to try to allow their ideology to thrive in the United States, Republicans have always pursued 'Strict Constructionists' and have always booed, 'judicial activism'. In short their are trying to turn our Common Law system into, or at least behaving like, a Civil Code country.

Try as they have, it's difficult to undo 1000 year old tradition. Especially as, following WWII, most Civil Code nations have adopted some form of "judicial review" or some kind of constitutional court system.

These people are bloody bastards obsessed with pursuing failed ideas until the bitter end. True nihilist.

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:07 AM in response to McCain Supporter Rants About "Hooligan" Obama And "Socialist" Takeover -- And McCain Agrees

Do you really expect a President Obama to let Fox run on at the mouth during his entire presidency? Especially if there are 60 Dems in the senate? I don't think so.

There seems to be a case to have an anti-hate speech legislation ushered in. Free speech is not without it's limits. You can't yell fire in a theatre. You can't ensite a mob to kill someone. And probably you shouldn't be allowed to provoke negative emotions (fear, hate and resentment) in the context of political speech in a public forum -- that's what got the Germans the Nazi party -- especially it is used to advance a personal, political or commercial interest.

Posted at October 10, 2008 1:51 AM in response to McCain Supporter Rants About "Hooligan" Obama And "Socialist" Takeover -- And McCain Agrees

Do you really expect a President Obama to let Fox run on at the mouth during his entire presidency? Especially if there are 60 Dems in the senate? I don't think so.

There seems to be a case to have an anti-hate speech legislation ushered in. Free speech is not without it's limits. You can't yell fire in a theatre. You can't ensite a mob to kill someone. And probably you shouldn't be allowed to provoke negative emotions (fear, hate and resentment) in the context of political speech in a public forum -- that's what got the Germans the Nazi party -- especially it is used to advance a personal, political or commercial interest.

Posted at October 10, 2008 1:45 AM in response to McCain Supporter Rants About "Hooligan" Obama And "Socialist" Takeover -- And McCain Agrees

Here I thought that Obama was hatched from one of godzilla's eggs, having been fathered by Bin Laden, and schooled in a madrassa in the Hindu Kush Mountains where he was tought the Koran and explossives. He later moved to the south side to join Rev. Wrights Christian church (the Rev. Wright being secretely an Islamic moolah). Prior to this he moved to Chicago at the age of 8 to join Ayer's terrorist group. Oh, yeah, and also, Obama is a liberal too.

Ouch.

Posted at October 9, 2008 10:26 AM in response to Obama Stepping Up Mentions Of His Mother?

I think this will look like 1932 all over again, once perspective is injected. There will be important differences though. Herbert Hoover went solo as the albatross, but McCain will be grafted to Bush and Cheney in that role. Perhaps with time McCain will be seen more as a victim and Bush as the solo villian, Cheney as the diabolical side kick (or vice versa).

The hole we are in is not as great (yet) as 1932. And maybe we can still avert the rise of reactionary regimes around the world (Russia?). But the refutation of Republican economic duopoly of supply-side+laissez-faire is even more dead now than it was in 1932.

While our aristocracy will surely want to bring it back, the outside world will not let them come back. I mean this quite sincerely. The horrors that the Republican policies brought the world after 1928: the depression, Hitler, Japan, WWII, the Holocaust should have been a permanent bar from this duopoly ever coming back again, but it did when Reagan emerged.

We may avoid the melt down of the 1930s this time (hopefully) but the world isn't going to let us repeat this a third time. If the American people won't step in and stop it, I am quite certain the world is going to organize itself to prevent a three-pete. And that might even mean an anti-republican military alliance that stretches from the Atlantic to the the Pacific in Eurasia.

That's the shape I think this election will take on as we pull away from Novemember 2008. This melt down wasn't necessary. It was predictable. The rest of the world wants to get on with economic growth and the ideologically free persuit of what makes them happy (ie. Pragmatism).

It's sunset for the Reagan revolution.

Posted at October 8, 2008 12:49 AM in response to Obama Scores Clear Win In Low-Key Debate

Actually, it's not October in an election year until I hear some wing nut say, that if the Democrats get elected, they are going to outlaw the reading of the bible.

BTW: who is McCain?

A guy who will cut Medicair by over $1 trillion dollars, a guy who backs Bush 90% of the time, a guy who proposes 100 years of war in Iraq and Iran. A guy who wants to give the billionares more tax breaks a guy that hates regulation of financial institutions.

A man who cloaks his recklessness under the term maverick.

Posted at October 6, 2008 11:17 PM in response to McCain: "Who Is The Real Barack Obama?" McCain Supporter: "Terrorist!"

Hey, it's fair game now.

Why let the other side define the norms: "its only fair game if they do it first."

If its constructive to our cause to do it now, just do it.

Personally, I think its more instructive to get out in front. That way, instead of launching another ad attacking Barach, they have to launch another ad defending themselves.

I say this as an observer, not a pro. I assume that they know what's best. Of course I thought the same of Kerry.

Posted at October 6, 2008 9:45 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

Might it be possible to work into this discussion the video of Palin's pastor laying hands on her while expressing his concern about witchcraft, and the extensive witch hunts he's engaged in while in Africa?

Americans need to know more about just who Palin is.

Posted at October 6, 2008 4:34 AM in response to Palin's Attack On Obama's Patriotism Legitimizes Questions About The Palins' Association With Group Founded By America-Hating Secessionist

Our political dynamics reflect the "splitting the baby in two" episode in the bible that demonstrated the wisdom of King Solomon.

Everyone knows the story. Two women want the baby. Solomon says fine, slice the baby in two and give half to each. One says yes, the other says no. Solomon knows that the real mother wouldn't allow the baby to die, and awards it her.

(Seinfeld also spoofed this in one episode where Neuman plays judge between Elaine and Kramer, both who claim ownership to a bycicle).

This underscores another truth in human relations: the party that cares the least controls the relationship. This is why Democrats have had trouble standing up to Republicans. The financial crisis illustrates this dynamic.

The Republicans created this economic disaster, really 30 years ago when they embraced 'supply side' economics, which has never worked, except in very rare, very brief, tactical situations. In fact, most every epic disaster in history, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the onset of the Great Depression (triggering the rise of Hitler, WWII and the Holocaust) was caused by some version of 'supply side' economic policies.

Supply-side always fails. Why? Because 2/3rds of the economy is based upon consumption, i.e. demand. When resources are shifted over to the supply-side of the ledger, demand contracts and with it the economy. But before that happens, the people who are now without money, borrow from those who now have too much money as a bridge to maintain their life styles for their family until better times come. When the bridge falls short of reaching the other shore, the economic collapse kicks in, only much faster and takes the financial system with it.

Despite this history of persistent folly, the Republicans subject the country to these policies. Why? Because, like the mother who wants to split the baby, they really don't care what happens to "Joe Sixpack" or main street. Their constituency walked off with all the loot, and will do just fine, thank you very much, come what may.

Now you have the Democrats, rescuing Republican economic policy from going into the abyss. Why? It's not because they liked those policies. It's because Democrats do care about what happens to every day, Joe Sixpack, Americans when those policies go into the abyss.

The Republicans in the house voted AGAINST salvaging the worst effects from THEIR economic policy. Why? Because they don't care about what happens to the country and the people in it. Yeah, they were willing to spend a trillion dollars on Iraq because their constituents were making hay there, but they're not willing to rescue America.

He or she that cares the least, controls the relationship. That's true in love and romance, and it's true in politics.

The history of the Democrats caving into Republicans, even when they are a majority are subject to this capitol fact.

Time and time again, Bush and/or the Republicans have held the nation or its soldiers hostage in order to get the policies they want passed through congress.

Solomon would be rolling his eyes at this.

Posted at October 3, 2008 11:19 PM in response to Breaking: House Passes Bailout Package. Now What?