Users have requested that we bring some organization to the large number of posts being made about the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election in the non-aviation forum. For this reason, we’re creating ‘official’ threads to provide some structure to the overall subject, and make it easier for readers to contribute and follow the various discussions.

Six threads are being created, including this one. If you want to add a post, please make sure you’re adding it to the most appropriate of the choices shown below:

Official U.S. Election – McCain/Palin Campaign
Official U.S. Election – Obama/Biden Campaign
Official U.S. Election – McCain/Palin Plans & Policies
Official U.S. Election – Obama/Biden Plans & Policies (this thread)
Official U.S. Election – Polls & Projections
Official U.S. Election – Humor, Commentary, Etc.

Examples of content appropriate for this thread:

How Obama/Biden would govern, if elected. How they would change things, or do more of the same. Who might they appoint as cabinet members? Etc.

Input "Obama + policy" in Google, and the 1st page has plenty of material concerning Obama and foreign policy. Looks like that might be the biggest challenge he'll have to address in the coming weeks, although, I'm sure most people would agree that having Biden alongside helps him a lot.

Since I posted the 10 worst ideas of McCain in the other thread, only fair to post the 10 worst ideas of Obama (according to Foreign Policy magazine) over here:

1. Renegotiating NAFTA
2. Opposing the US-Colombia FTA
3. Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan
4. Negotiations with Ahmedinejad
5. The Patriot Employer Act
6. Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels
7. Elliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making $50,000 or Less
8. Boosting Ethanol Subsidies
9. Taxing Oil Companies More
10. Tapping the Strategic Oil Reserve

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4461&page=0

#5 isn't that big of an issue, and he's backed off of some of the other ones on the list. But I'm still not a fan of #s 8 or 10, and I'm iffy on 1, 2, 3 and 4.

-Mir

Since the neocons can't stay on topic in their own threads, and since Obama's position on Israel was questioned...

Quote: Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on March 2, 2007, Obama called Israel "our strongest ally in the region," and stated: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." On the Palestinian Authority's new unity government, Obama said: "We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month." In March 2007, Obama told Democratic activists in Iowa, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people. ...if we could get some movement among Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people." Obama has also discussed in more general terms his views about the Palestinians vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On June 4, 2007, he stated that: "...resolution [to the conflict] and a better life for all people... is something that can be achieved, but it's going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel's right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, "Let's move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security." Obama denounced former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas. Obama said "Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization." In June 2008, Obama became the first presidential candidate ever to publicly back the traditional Israeli position that Jerusalem remain forever undivided under Israel rule. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared on June 4, 2008. Days later, he said, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." On a July, 2008 world tour focused on trouble spots for U.S. national security interests, Obama met with Israeli president Shimon Peres, prime minister Ehud Olmert, oppostion party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and prime minister Salam Fayyad. Obama reiterated that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, but that territorial disputes regarding that city and elsewhere needed to be resolved without direct U.S. involvement. "That’s an issue that has to be dealt with by the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis, and it is not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history." On the same trip, Obama said, "The state of Israel faces determined enemies who seek its destruction, but it also has a friend and ally in the United States that will always stand by the people of Israel." Obama also issued a warning to Iran at the same time, saying, "A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." Obama said no options were "off the table" in dealing with a nuclear threat from Iran but that the country should be offered diplomatic incentives in the form of "big carrots" as well as punitive measures or threats in the form of "big sticks." Obama said, "I think there are opportunities for us to mobilize a much more serious regime of sanctions on Iran, but also to offer them the possibility of improved relations in the international community if they stand down on these nuclear weapons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...arack_Obama#Arab-Israeli_conflicts

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 3):

You quoted Wikipedia? At least go to the source material the editors use.   

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4): You quoted Wikipedia? At least go to the source material the editors use.

I know you neocons have a hard time using the wonders of internets but allow me to quote, directly from the Obama campaign for you.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#onisrael

[Edited 2008-09-12 22:31:44]

Quoting Mir (Reply 2): 1. Renegotiating NAFTA 2. Opposing the US-Colombia FTA 3. Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan 4. Negotiations with Ahmedinejad 5. The Patriot Employer Act 6. Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels 7. Elliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making $50,000 or Less 8. Boosting Ethanol Subsidies 9. Taxing Oil Companies More 10. Tapping the Strategic Oil Reserve

On negotiations with Iran his website has:
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them.

We have yet to try them seems a strong point. Who knows how Ahmad would perform in a situation where he was not declared a pariah before he opened his mouth. Maybe he would perform as previously, but who knows until they try. The fascinating thing is that what would be the cost of failed negotiations - a couple of airfares? Oh pride. Pride in what for god's sake?

CTL might have to be done but I would like to see how he sees it fitting in with an overall energy plan and "Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined." could be a more important factor.

Ethanol seems a bad idea unles the US wants to move to Brazil!!

Strategic oil reserve, leave it where it is. However bad it is, it could get a lot worse.

Bombing Pakistan - that does make me wonder it there are McCain genes in the guy. If you really want to fight the third most populous Muslim nation as well as a couple of others, why go ahead. But it is difficult to see a cost benefit analysis coming out anything other than highly negative. There is a problem in Pakistan, but Pakistanis have to solve it. You could suggest that attacking Pakistan would be one of the best ways to invite the nuclear bomb in a boat to NY threat that the hardliners go on about.

Others PASS!!

Well there is no mistaking the fascination that a.net members have with policy - NOT!

There is much criticism of various aspects of elections, not only in the US but elsewhere too, however the stunning silence on policy aspects is positive reinforcement - it is not just a fascination for the bizarre, but an unwillingness to discuss the more important - as in the things that actually will affect our lives in the next four years.

Not even complaints that there is no grand vision as to how to avoid additional credit disasters that seem to be screwing up the world almost beyond belief.

Even thinking a war with Russia might be OK does not seem to have stirred much passion (yet) on either side, I guess apart from those who deny that is what was said.

Is Wall St now supporting Obama?

At least Barack has not publicly opined that he does not care much (or words to that effect) for matters economic.

It might be time for FDR Mark II to run up the curtain.

2.5 days and only four posts from the US!! Wow. Clearly the US is riveted on one possible solution for the major problem of the year - I am meaning Obama in case that is not clear.

So based on this article, it appears Obama tried to delay troop withdrawal in Iraq...what else would one expect? http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...all_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

At least the Wall St disaster has got policy matters to the front of the news bulletins in relation to the campaign.

I cannot discern a detailed plan by either, although the line of McCann has had quite a few years (and a few previous crises as well) to come up with his plans seems fairly reasonable. Obama needs to put out some detail of what he would regulate and to what effect. There seem to be plenty on the sidelines ready to complain about the possibility of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. Not much mention that if the dirty bathwater does not get flung out rather sharpish the baby may well have drowned.

Well suffice to say that they have no policy. Sen Obama is a classic politician , and really that is about it. He has a solution to all your problems , that is how I know he is a fake and will say anything .

Frankly I will give some credit to McCain for being honest. His background is not fiscal policy and the President does not really need to have it . The President is effectively the CEO; and what we need is a President who's judgement you can trust to put the right managers in place. Thats it ,

All of that said , the current crisis is not the fault of our federal government anyway. Sure their may be some loop holes in the SEC oversight rules that need tightened up. But we are a free market (Or we were), and the rush on the subprime's and the bad loans are decisions made by corporations... not the Federal government. John McCain sees it that way , and will most likely not demand more Fed regulation in the end.

The last thing we need is more Federal restrictions ... what is happening now is simply the effects of bad business decisions by CEO's. Now it is time to hit the bottom and rebuild , that is the American Spirit my friend and that is what liberals have such a problem with. They want the precious government to make up for their stupid mistakes and bad decisions ... that is what you will get with Sen Obama..

Sen Obama policy is outlined perfectly in this statement. "Bill is is neighbourly for the top 5% to help out the waitress" Neighbourly ? Please

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 11): Sen Obama policy is outlined perfectly in this statement. "Bill is is neighbourly for the top 5% to help out the waitress" Neighbourly ? Please

And the quote means?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 11): The last thing we need is more Federal restrictions ... what is happening now is simply the effects of bad business decisions by CEO's. Now it is time to hit the bottom and rebuild , that is the American Spirit my friend and that is what liberals have such a problem with. They want the precious government to make up for their stupid mistakes and bad decisions ... that is what you will get with Sen Obama..

Wanna bet that now is the time to "hit the bottom"?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 12): And the quote means?

Its class warfare and wealth redistribution. Thats all. It does not matter because we are going there anyway. We rich white people should feel sorry for the waitress and just be ok with going from 43% to 53% tax rate. Then we can put our red scarves on and go march in the state volunteer parade . He is openly Marxist , and that is how it is.

I volunteered this weekends , working on heavy equipment being loaded to go to Galveston. I sure as hell did not need anybody to encourage me to volunteer.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 12): Wanna bet that now is the time to "hit the bottom"?

Well I do have some cash since I sold out of Merrill when it was @ 92.00 thank god for pre marks. Whadaya got ?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 11): His background is not fiscal policy and the President does not really need to have it . The President is effectively the CEO; and what we need is a President who's judgement you can trust to put the right managers in place. Thats it ,

How many airlines have been run into ruin by executives who were hired because they were "good managers" but had no idea what went on the in the airline business? A president needs to know something about what they're doing - enough to be accountable on the decisions that are made. Passing off responsibility isn't going to work - the current Administration is testament to that.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 14): Passing off responsibility isn't going to work - the current Administration is testament to that.

A CEO needs to set goals for his management team . These goals usually approved by the BOD shareholders body or corporate partnership. When his management team does not achieve these goals they are fired or reorganized . Or the BOD sacks the CEO and hires a new one. The CEO does not have to be a expert at every facet of the corporation he does need to manage his recourse's .

Quoting Mir (Reply 14): How many airlines have been run into ruin by executives who were hired because they were "good managers" but had no idea what went on the in the airline business? A president needs to know something about what they're doing - enough to be accountable on the decisions that are made. Passing off responsibility isn't going to work - the current Administration is testament to that.

It's not that simple and you know it. A typical CEO has a single corporation to run, whereas a President has the equivalent of numerous corporations in different industries to run. No one can be an expert at everything. We wouldn't have a Cabinet filled with subject matter experts if that was the case.

Even to take your Corporate analogy, if a CEO knew everything how come firms like McKinsey, Bain, and companies like mine exist? We assist CEOs of every Auto OEM in the US, even the successful Asian ones. They don't have all the answers.

Most CEOs of even THOSE successful companies rely heavily on their executives to present the facts. No CEO has the time to micromanage, they can only steer the ship based on what their people give them.

McCain's core competency is defense and foreign policy. What's Obama's? Having a law degree and giving fancy speeches doesn't qualify you for anything. Biden is supposed to be a foreign policy guy.

So what's Obama's qualifications to run the economy again? Community Organizer? State Senator? Senator who's been running for President most of the time?

Last time I checked, they don't teach Economics 101 at Harvard Law...

Quoting Baroque (Reply 6): We have yet to try them seems a strong point. Who knows how Ahmad would perform in a situation where he was not declared a pariah before he opened his mouth. Maybe he would perform as previously, but who knows until they try. The fascinating thing is that what would be the cost of failed negotiations - a couple of airfares? Oh pride. Pride in what for god's sake?

   Agree 100%. If the USA don't stop their cowboy diplomacy style, everything will become even worse. What exactly does McCain want to achieve by not talking to Iran? The status quo will remain and the sable-rattling will go on. What a great plan.  

Quoting A342 (Reply 17): checkmark Agree 100%. If the USA don't stop their cowboy diplomacy style, everything will become even worse. What exactly does McCain want to achieve by not talking to Iran? The status quo will remain and the sable-rattling will go on. What a great plan.

Versus what? Do you think the Iranians will pull a Qaddafi and re-enter the world? We've seen this drama played out with North Korea and nothing changed. They fooled everyone and created nukes. Nice job Jimmy Carter.

What will "talks" accomplish? The EU has been trying non-stop to do it themselves offering Iran every kind of carrot and incentive you can imagine.

As long as we need their oil, Iran isn't going anywhere. And as long as Iran needs our money in the form of oil revenues nothing will change. Neither party has an incentive to.

Don't quite know where Jimmy C got into N Korea or how seminally connected N Korea is with Iran.

But really forward thinking - nice work. Bash away with a policy that has been failing in spades for a best part of a decade. And then plan to keep bashing.

You have not the least idea what Iran would do if it was not being declared to be evil and threatened with being turned into a parking lot every week.

Of course the EU will not be successful with the US sounding like the school bully in the background. Every checked how happy the EU diplomats are with the US? Obviously not.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): You have not the least idea what Iran would do if it was not being declared to be evil and threatened with being turned into a parking lot every week.

They are hardly innocent, give me a break. Ask the British sailors they kidnapped what they think of that comment.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): But really forward thinking - nice work. Bash away with a policy that has been failing in spades for a best part of a decade. And then plan to keep bashing.

Versus what exactly? Hugging each other and saying bygones will be bygones? Iran has bigger problems than the US, look at the state of their internal economy. They are going to have to chose eventually, what's more important: Supporting Hezbollah and attacking Israel or their economy.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): Of course the EU will not be successful with the US sounding like the school bully in the background. Every checked how happy the EU diplomats are with the US? Obviously not.

Why wouldn't the EU be successful? Even the Russians have tried to sort this mess out to no avail.

Quoting A342 (Reply 17): What exactly does McCain want to achieve by not talking to Iran?

And what would Iran lose by opening up to "talk to the US " ? Iran is betting the US will lose the struggle going on in the west. They , with Venezuela , Russia , NK , and others are staking it on our decline and do not feel obligated to talk or negotiate. With the decline of the US , Iran and Russia are poised to become powerful influences in their regions. Why should they talk to us ? And why should we talk to them? Besides , it is known that the US has been negotiating with them in secret in Geneva.

We can not negotiate with Iran , they are not reliable and have no accountability to uphold their side of the negotiation. They want nuclear weapons , and unless the deal includes them getting nuclear weapons .. no deal will be achieved.

Hopefully Sen Obama plans on continuing his personal success. Sen Obama has become very wealthy during the Bush administration's term. According to some estimates making a couple of million bucks. Nice work , now that is a real American story.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 22): Hopefully Sen Obama plans on continuing his personal success. Sen Obama has become very wealthy during the Bush administration's term. According to some estimates making a couple of million bucks. Nice work , now that is a real American story.

Maybe he'll write another Autobiography!!!

Funny how this thread is empty...Obama's plans are a rehash of the Carter Administration economically. Remember how that turned out?

Good old Obama is inciting panic by making comparisons to the Great Depression..Yeah real smart. Irrational investor panic can do far worse damage than an idiot CEO. How many people are going to sell low because their Messiah just made that comparison to the Great Depression?

And the guy is completely off base. It's not even close to the "Great Depression" I don't call a 3.3% GDP rate and 6.1% unemployment a "Depression" About 6% of mortgages are deliquent not the 50% that we had in the 1930's...We have record exports and lower oil prices and a recovering dollar...Yup Great Depression..Keep it up Barry.

Even FDR tried to reassure the country when things were going to hell. Nice Job Barry.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): But really forward thinking - nice work. Bash away with a policy that has been failing in spades for a best part of a decade. And then plan to keep bashing.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): Of course the EU will not be successful with the US sounding like the school bully in the background.

  

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 18): What will "talks" accomplish?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 21): Why should they talk to us ? And why should we talk to them?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 21): We can not negotiate with Iran , they are not reliable and have no accountability to uphold their side of the negotiation.

Flame me all you want, but I'd say the outcome of the talks is secondary. The willingness to talk to Iran is the most important issue. Only by offering negotiations can the USA indicate that it wants to solve the problems in a constructive way. Let's assume Obama wins the election. The best thing he could do is to say: "Listen Ahmadinedjad, I'll fly to Tehran and then we talk, face to face." If Ahmadinedjad declines the offer or really messes up the talks, if they take place, then the international community will blame nobody but him, and he knows it. He has two choices: to cooperate or face more isolation.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 21): Besides , it is known that the US has been negotiating with them in secret in Geneva.

And why should Ahmadinedjad care? Secret negotiations cannot question his reliability.

Quoting A342 (Reply 24): If Ahmadinedjad declines the offer or really messes up the talks, if they take place, then the international community will blame nobody but him, and he knows it. He has two choices: to cooperate or face more isolation.

I will recount , I have argued on here that the Bush administration is not handling the Iranian situation correctly. I have stated in the past the idea that if Iran wants Nukes ,, we should be over their building them (As a general idea). I will admit that after we started to see Iranian weapons and militias killing our guys in Iraq , my position changed. There was a point in our recent history , (Reagan administration) that the US should have reached out to them. President Carter fu**** it up and President Reagan should have fixed it. The Bush administration should have done more to bring Iran in , that we agree on. But now it must be handled very carefully , Iran will use any chance they get to discredit us. Negotiating with a hostile government must be done with strength , not appeasement.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 23): Funny how this thread is empty...Obama's plans are a rehash of the Carter Administration economically. Remember how that turned out?

Funny how I DO remember the Carter Admin and you clearly do not - unless that is not your age. You have read, and what have you read? Did you read about Carter's energy policy for example? USW.

Quoting A342 (Reply 24): The willingness to talk to Iran is the most important issue. Only by offering negotiations can the USA indicate that it wants to solve the problems in a constructive way. Let's assume Obama wins the election. The best thing he could do is to say: "Listen Ahmadinedjad, I'll fly to Tehran and then we talk, face to face." If Ahmadinedjad declines the offer or really messes up the talks, if they take place, then the international community will blame nobody but him, and he knows it. He has two choices: to cooperate or face more isolation.

   Exactly. If you never ever try, you will never never know. Who knows what the Ayatollahs want, we have never asked.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 26): Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 23): Funny how this thread is empty...Obama's plans are a rehash of the Carter Administration economically. Remember how that turned out? Funny how I DO remember the Carter Admin and you clearly do not - unless that is not your age. You have read, and what have you read? Did you read about Carter's energy policy for example? USW.

I'm referring more to his fiscal policy than anything. The failed Oil Windfall taxes and the economic turmoil at the time.

Even Mr. Obama has said he might have to delay rolling back Bush's tax cuts. Conventional economists believe that raising taxes in a recession only makes things worse. Still wonder how that's going to make his spending programs any more affordable.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 27): I'm referring more to his fiscal policy than anything. The failed Oil Windfall taxes and the economic turmoil at the time.

So you are saying that the financial turmoil under Jimmy the well known peanut nuclear expert was worse than that under Bush the well known Texas rancher turned oil company executive cum sports team owner?         

Unless McCain does a complete U turn from Bush, he is just going to be worse, although this week WORSE is rather difficult to imagine.

Quoting Mir (Reply 14): How many airlines have been run into ruin by executives who were hired because they were "good managers" but had no idea what went on the in the airline business?

Are you kidding history is repleat with them

Frank Lorenzo
Neil Berght
Dick Reeve
Charles Willis
Raymond Marshell
God know how many have passed through the UA mill.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 23): Funny how this thread is empty...Obama's plans are a rehash of the Carter Administration economically. Remember how that turned out?

It's a perfect storm

Carters Economic
Mondales' Space Program
Clintons Military
Schumers firearms rules

None of it is good.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 23): And the guy is completely off base. It's not even close to the "Great Depression" I don't call a 3.3% GDP rate and 6.1% unemployment a "Depression" About 6% of mortgages are deliquent not the 50% that we had in the 1930's...We have record exports and lower oil prices and a recovering dollar...Yup Great Depression..Keep it up Barry.

Hell it even close to what it was during Carter's reign of incompetence.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 28): So you are saying that the financial turmoil under Jimmy the well known peanut nuclear expert was worse than that under Bush the well known Texas rancher turned oil company executive cum sports team owner?

It was, When was the last time you saw 20% interest?

But I do give Carter some slack. From Johnson on none of his predecessors believed in the austrian school of economics, which was half the problem

Quoting Baroque (Reply 26): Did you read about Carter's energy policy for example? USW.

You mean wearing turtleneck sweaters and turning the thermostat down?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29): Quoting Baroque (Reply 26): Did you read about Carter's energy policy for example? USW. You mean wearing turtleneck sweaters and turning the thermostat down?

Not exactly but might that not be better than the present administration has actually achieved so far. Not to mention so many of Jimmy's measures having been reversed first by RR and some later ones too.

Anyway, keep trying and you might (eventually) get as far as MM J Carter got so many years ago.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 25): But now it must be handled very carefully , Iran will use any chance they get to discredit us. Negotiating with a hostile government must be done with strength , not appeasement.

I agree. But you have to give them some incentives (not appeasement).

I can't find the official Obama/Biden Campaign thread. So though this would fit better there I'll post it here.

Jack Cafferty claims racism explains why Obama and McCain are running so close.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/obama-race-a-factor/

I strongly disagree. More and more elections globally have been very close the last decade or so as people become more polarized. Just look at our last two US presidential races. Race has nothing to do with why I will not be voting for Obama. I wouldn't be voting for the Democratic ticket regardless of the candidate. But put a qualified person of any race on the Republican ticket and I would vote for them in a heartbeat.

Republicans who are disatisfied with President Bush (mainly because we found him way too liberal) are not going to vote for an even more liberal democratic candidate. So, this article is far more telling about the Democrats than it is about the general population as it stipulates that those who would other wise vote Dem. are not going to vote Obama because of his race.

The liberal media arrogantly can't allow themselves to believe that close to 50% of the country are polling for the other candidate because they just don't like where Obama stands on policy. It has to be race because no one could possibly disagree with where the media stands on the issues. They would have to be insane not to see the wisdom inherent in the liberal viewpoint right? Therefore the only explanation is that McCain supporters are a bunch of evil racists. Bull!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 29): Are you kidding history is repleat with them

My point exactly. When you have executives that have no experience with the field in which they work, bad things are likely to go down.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 16): It's not that simple and you know it. A typical CEO has a single corporation to run, whereas a President has the equivalent of numerous corporations in different industries to run. No one can be an expert at everything. We wouldn't have a Cabinet filled with subject matter experts if that was the case.

I'm not expecting anyone to be an expert at everything. I don't care much about how much McCain or Obama know about transportation, or labor, or agriculture. But I do expect the president to be solid on most stuff, and particularly on economics and foreign policy. That way, when the experts do talk to the president, the president can understand what they are basing their analysis on. If the president can't do that, then he's likely to just pass the responsibility for the decision down the line, and that's not acceptable when he is the one that should be accountable.

And not all presidential appointees are experts. Michael Brown comes to mind. Or Paul Wolfowitz, the man who was deemed qualified to run the World Bank because he had been the #2 guy at the Defense Department, a "similar size" organization.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 33): I don't care much about how much McCain or Obama know about transportation, or labor, or agriculture. But I do expect the president to be solid on most stuff, and particularly on economics and foreign policy. That way, when the experts do talk to the president, the president can understand what they are basing their analysis on.

I see your point, but neither Presidential Candidate has a modicum of Economics background in their lifetime. Neither did Bill Clinton but he stocked his Cabinet with the best minds he could find.

The only world leader I can think of with hard core Economic experience is the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh. He's got a Ph.D in Econ from Oxford and is the man behind India's economic growth.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 28): So you are saying that the financial turmoil under Jimmy the well known peanut nuclear expert was worse than that under Bush the well known Texas rancher turned oil company executive cum sports team owner?

The economy under Bush is nowhere near as bad as it was under Carter... And I am old enough to remember...

Quoting Mir (Reply 33): I'm not expecting anyone to be an expert at everything. I don't care much about how much McCain or Obama know about transportation, or labor, or agriculture. But I do expect the president to be solid on most stuff, and particularly on economics and foreign policy

Foreign policy, yes... But why should they be expert on economics when Congress is the only branch of government with the power to do anything about it???

I thought this desrved its own thread, but the Mods though otherwise. So, reposted here...

Obama Attempt To Delay Iraq Agreement Confirmed

This popped up a few days ago, but died quickly as the only source was the New York Post, which is not very reliable.

The story is that Obama asked the Iraqi government to delay any agreement on troop pullouts until after the elections and the arrival of the new (supposedly Obama's) administration. Clearly in order to be able to take credit for getting our troops out, as he promised the far left.

If true, this would be a possible violation of the Logan Act, and is definately an attempt at interfering with US foreign policy at the highest levels.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...all_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

But now Agence France Presse (well respected) has confirmed it, and in denying it, so has Obama himself.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

The rest of his denials are contradictory.

To top it off, it is completely idiotic to say that the Congress should be involved in the negotiations. Can you imagine 550 grandstanding congressmen trying to get their moment in the spotlight in negotiations? According to the Constitution, the President negotiates treaties, and Congress says either 'Yay' or 'Nay'. And Obama calls himself a constitutional expert...

What do you think? Is this going to be the October Surprise? And finally, what do you think of the general media's silence?
]

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 42): The economy under Bush is nowhere near as bad as it was under Carter... And I am old enough to remember...

THANK YOU!!!

Every "O-Bot" keeps going on about the evil Bush, but keep silent about Jimmy Carter.

Everytime Obama speaks, I keep hearing Carter's beliefs and views.

Bush is mediocre at best, but there have been worst Presidents in U.S. history and
Jimmy Carter is one of them: much higher unemployment than today, high inflation,
double-digit interest rates, closing the door on nuclear energy development after the
3 Mile Island accident (Yeah, how'd that work out for us in terms of foreign energy
dependence?). Then there's the mishandling of the Iranian Hostage situation, the gas
shortage (not just high prices, but lack of it), the Olympic boycot, the creation of the
"Rust Belt", and so on, and so on, and so on...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43): What do you think? Is this going to be the October Surprise? And finally, what do you think of the general media's silence?

Hard to say.

As for the media's silence, I think it's right on par with the silence regarding the GOP sending out misleading absentee ballots to Democratic registered voters.

I'd love to hear more quality information on both stories.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 49): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43): What do you think? Is this going to be the October Surprise? And finally, what do you think of the general media's silence?

I thought an October Surprise is something out of the control of both parties that changes the equation substantially.

In this case, the economy tanking as it has, or perhaps some Israeli airstrike would constitute a real surprise.

Hard to say. I just want these guys to focus on the issues. I really don't care what Obama did 20 yrs ago or what Palin does outside of business hours.

What I want to know is their plan and I want to hear subject matter experts evaluate whether they are full of it or not.

For too long we've heard politicians promise a ton and do very little on BOTH sides. Whether it's McCain or Obama on Election Day I have serious doubts either one of them has a viable economic plan. Most economists don't like either of their plans.

On one side we have a young rising star with a very thin resume. On the other we have a veteran foreign policy/defense expert. Both of these guys are really Cabinet material not so much Presidential material.

If Bill Clinton were running for President again, I'd see Obama as a Secretary of State and McCain as Secretary of Defense..That's the problem...We're really looking for a FDR type but we've got two fundamentally flawed candidates to pick from.

That's the problem. Clinton for all his faults was a leader. Like him or not he wasn't bound by ideology. He used his mind and decided on the most pragmatic solution possible. He wasn't blinded by what the DNC or GOP told him.

DNC Platform Committee Member Comes Out For McCain

AP
WASHINGTON - A top Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser threw her support behind Republican John McCain on Wednesday, saying he will lead the country in a centrist fashion and accusing the Democrats of becoming too extreme.

"I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party — and they will continue to — too far to the left," Lynn Forester de Rothschild said. "I’m not comfortable there."

Rothschild is also a member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee. She said she would be stepping down from her position on the committee but will not switch political parties.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/200...undraiser_backs_McCain_over_Obama/

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 42): Foreign policy, yes... But why should they be expert on economics when Congress is the only branch of government with the power to do anything about it???

Because the American economy and American foreign policy are intrinsically linked. Without a strong economy, our foreign policy is worth crap.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36): But now Agence France Presse (well respected) has confirmed it

As I posted in the other thread, no they haven't. All they confirmed in that article is that there was an article in the Post, and that McCain and Obama were trading shots over THAT article. The problem that the Post is not very trustworthy (as you mentioned), still exists.

-Mir

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 35): Quoting Baroque (Reply 28): So you are saying that the financial turmoil under Jimmy the well known peanut nuclear expert was worse than that under Bush the well known Texas rancher turned oil company executive cum sports team owner? The economy under Bush is nowhere near as bad as it was under Carter... And I am old enough to remember...

With all due respect Maidens you must be going on measures such as unemployment, inflation and GDP change TO DATE. By the time the fall out from the current mess collects by end December 2008 or March 2009, I think you will find that line very hard to maintain.

Check out some other measures, such as mortgage foreclosure rates and corporate failure rates and you will find this IS A MAJOR DISASTER of a like that Carter never ever produced. What Carter did manage to do was to set in motion a trajectory of reducing energy intensity per unit of GDP, something not evident before him. Alas his successors did not follow.

Just remember if you had oil imports at the rate Carter got to in his last year, you would have an extra half a billion a day in cash so you could bail out another company a month!

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 5): I know you neocons have a hard time using the wonders of internets but allow me to quote, directly from the Obama campaign for you.

Why get so angry and personal so quick??

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 11): Well suffice to say that they have no policy. Sen Obama is a classic politician , and really that is about it. He has a solution to all your problems , that is how I know he is a fake and will say anything . Frankly I will give some credit to McCain for being honest. His background is not fiscal policy and the President does not really need to have it . The President is effectively the CEO; and what we need is a President who's judgement you can trust to put the right managers in place. Thats it ,

  

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 23): Maybe he'll write another Autobiography!!! Funny how this thread is empty...Obama's plans are a rehash of the Carter Administration economically. Remember how that turned out? Good old Obama is inciting panic by making comparisons to the Great Depression..Yeah real smart. Irrational investor panic can do far worse damage than an idiot CEO. How many people are going to sell low because their Messiah just made that comparison to the Great Depression?

   I though it was great when Palin mentioned 'Obama has had time to write 2 memoirs, but no one piece of legislation'....The guy is a clown. He's a smooth talking politician that is being pushed by the well funded liberal machine. The fact is if Obama weren't black, he'd not be at the top of the ticket. If you put anyone else in his shoes, with his lack of experience, particularly any kind of CEO experience, foreign policy experience, legislative experience, all the experience one looks for in a leader, he's got none. He came at the right time, and the Democrats knew after his keynote speech at the 2004 DNC that they could propel Obama to stardom....and here we are.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 40): AP WASHINGTON - A top Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser threw her support behind Republican John McCain on Wednesday, saying he will lead the country in a centrist fashion and accusing the Democrats of becoming too extreme. "I believe that Barack Obama, with MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, has taken the Democratic Party — and they will continue to — too far to the left," Lynn Forester de Rothschild said. "I’m not comfortable there."

God Bless Lynn Forester de Rothschild. She has some very valid points. Donald Trump also came out for McCain after previously endorsing Hillary, and he's for McCain because he says Obama will drive us into a depression, and coming from a guy that knows economics, and who's been so successful in the business world, he's right.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13558.html

For all the people who think Obama is qualified to be the CEO of the U.S., this is for you:


Candidate Comparisons ..



Thought you might appreciate comparison!!


SIMPLE MATH:



2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS
ISSUE




CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN


0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA


28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN


15% (no change)

OBAMA


39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN

(no changes)


Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)


Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN


- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA


Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED NEW: Thomsonfly (United Kingdom)">BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

You can verify the above at the following web sites:


http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/p...er_different_visions_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/
It's simple economics (no pun intended), we can't afford Obama to be the president!

[Edited 2008-09-22 15:04:29]

[Edited 2008-09-22 15:05:03]

Quoting Baroque (Reply 42): Just remember if you had oil imports at the rate Carter got to in his last year, you would have an extra half a billion a day in cash so you could bail out another company a month!

Oops, belay that suggestion. Now you need a couple of years oil import moneys to do the bailing.

This must be getting serious!

So Senator Biden had a foreign policy speech today in which he basically called for unilateral action against Pakistan if we have "actionable" intelligence that points to where Bin Laden is hiding in that country. So much for coalitions, so much for allies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/biden_7

"And unlike John McCain --- who opposed Barack Obama's call to take out the high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan and called it 'bombing our ally' --- we will not tolerate a terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan."

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...view.bg?articleid=1121264&srvc=rss

He called for strengthening relationships with U.S. allies and killing high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan if that country refused to act.

So it was not OK for the Bush Administration to act unilaterally against Saddam Hussien when he refused to open up his country to inspection, which he had agreed to do, but it will be OK for an Obama administration to randomly bomb or send special ops teams in to assassinate people in a country that is supposedly an ally. One that has nuclear weapons and growing problem with radical Islamists factions. Now that makes sense.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 43): Candidate Comparisons .. Thought you might appreciate comparison!! SIMPLE MATH:

I believe you posted this in a different thread and at least some of it has been shown to be false. Not "shades of interpretation false" but just flat out wrong. For the record.

Why is it when Dan Qualye misspelled "Potato" the press did not let it go for not only the rest of the election but the next 4 years as well. Yet Joe Biden can say "When FDR was on television in '29"" nary a mention is made and most of the press just dismisses it as Joe being Joe?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47): Why is it when Dan Qualye misspelled "Potato" the press did not let it go for not only the rest of the election but the next 4 years as well. Yet Joe Biden can say "When FDR was on television in '29"" nary a mention is made and most of the press just dismisses it as Joe being Joe?

And McCain? http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39179-...be-problem-just-became-a-nightmare

Plenty of material in his history too but I don't see any more mention of that than Biden's gaffes.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 48): Plenty of material in his history

But nowhere near the volume of Biden. "Stand up Chuck" "If he tries to take away my barreta he's going to have a problem" "No coal plants in the U.S." and this is just in the past week or so.