Barrack Obama = Jimmy Carter?

[Chalchalero]

^ To take that further, the real problem is Europe's dependence on the US and NATO. I have no idea how serious they take the UN, but after what the US has done, they shouldn't. The EU needs to start absorbing former bloc countries, especially Ukraine, and work toward a united defense force, a multinational military for counterterrorism and general EU defense, and request the US to back off, outside of fulfilling NATO obligations.

There is a small but growing movement among European leaders to do just that. I, personally would be all for it, but the complications of getting such an apparatus up and going would be phenomenal, and the Europeans are not exactly fast movers on big issues. They will want to set up hundreds of committees over several years to determine whether or not to set up hundreds more committees over more years to discuss the matter further.

 

[Chalchalero]

Do you think these recent events with Russia are not enough to convince EU leaders to step it up?

*sigh* Sadly, this discussion is in this thread, as I fear some European JUBers will not get to give their opinion because they don't care for the OP topic.

Russia is is apolplectic presently because Georgia and the Ukraine want to join NATO. The last thing the Europeans (many of whom depend on Russia for their natural gas) will want is to be seen to be provoking the Russians further. As much as I hate George Bush, I have to give him and his cronies credit for one thing and one thing alone. If they believe that something is in the interests of US national security, they are going to do it, no matter what, and they could not care less who they offend. The Europeans are a bit more circumspect and tend to prefer to avoid such conflicts where possible.

The fact that Sarkozy and Merkel are such admirers of America would probably make them more likely to pursue such a course, however, if the next President (whomever he may be) were to encourage it.

I doubt that would happen either, however, as while Americans love to complain about how much they have to protect Europe and how annoying that is, the White House usually loves the fact that this gives them a bit of leverage with the European and allows them to influence certain aspects of European policy that they might not be able to if the circumstances were to change.

But the debate has already begun, especially in Germany and France, regarding involving their military more comprehensively in their own defence both at home and abroad. There at least can be no turning back from that.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I've seen enough of Dick Morris, and I have read of Dick Morris, commenting on the Clintons to the point that he is fixated on them.

His problem.

I've known for sometime how I'm going to vote in Election 2008. I've known that voting Republican is unacceptable—and, earlier this year, I knew I'd vote Democratic in November.

What Dick Morris has to say about Obama is a waste.

 

[AsianDream]

I've seen enough of Dick Morris, and I have read of Dick Morris, commenting on the Clintons to the point that he is fixated on them.

His problem.

I've known for sometime how I'm going to vote in Election 2008. I've known that voting Republican is unacceptable—and, earlier this year, I knew I'd vote Democratic in November.

What Dick Morris has to say about Obama is a waste.

I think Hillary Clinton does have class – also I think she does really want Obama to win – the concerns she feels about another 4 years of a republican presidency are real. I actually think she is someone who wants power for what it will allow her to achieve – rather than for it’s own sake.

There is also the tactical political reality – that if McCain does win – he will be a one term President – both due to age and the mistakes he will inevitably make. So if McCain Wins – Hillary will be back in 2012. If Obama wins he will be a 2 term president – then 4+ years of Republicans – so Hillary will be too old next time the democrats could win.

I have a hunch that McCain might win this time – though I think it’s a bad thing. But by fielding an obviously less experienced candidate – the democrats are asking for trouble. The big issue being that US elections are decided not by those that vote – but by those that don’t feel strongly enough on the day to turn out to vote in a few key states.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think Hillary Clinton does have class – also I think she does really want Obama to win – the concerns she feels about another 4 years of a republican presidency are real. I actually think she is someone who wants power for what it will allow her to achieve – rather than for it’s own sake.

There is also the tactical political reality – that if McCain does win – he will be a one term President – both due to age and the mistakes he will inevitably make. So if McCain Wins – Hillary will be back in 2012. If Obama wins he will be a 2 term president – then 4+ years of Republicans – so Hillary will be too old next time the democrats could win.

I have a hunch that McCain might win this time – though I think it’s a bad thing. But by fielding an obviously less experienced candidate – the democrats are asking for trouble. The big issue being that US elections are decided not by those that vote – but by those that don’t feel strongly enough on the day to turn out to vote in a few key states.

Of course if Obama is another Jimmy Carter, he'll flop and be a one-term show.

Re: McCain -- if he wins, I can only hope he'll actually appoint judges who read the Constitution as it was written... and not as the religious right thinks it was written.

 

[RandomAccess]

Re: McCain -- if he wins, I can only hope he'll actually appoint judges who read the Constitution as it was written... and not as the religious right thinks it was written.

Then you'd better hope he doesn't win. The best we can hope for is "balance" on the court. If it were possible to have strictly correct interpretations of the Constitution then there'd be no need for a Supreme Court. There're far too many on the court now who lean too far "that way."

About a year ago somebody started a thread in here where they plagiarized a blog entry wherein the guy decried the court "emanating into the penumbra." But penumbra emanating (shedding light into gray areas) is exactly the purpose of the Supreme Court!

 

[Kulindahr]

Then you'd better hope he doesn't win. The best we can hope for is "balance" on the court. If it were possible to have strictly correct interpretations of the Constitution then there'd be no need for a Supreme Court. There're far too many on the court now who lean too far "that way."

About a year ago somebody started a thread in here where they plagiarized a blog entry wherein the guy decried the court "emanating into the penumbra." But penumbra emanating (shedding light into gray areas) is exactly the purpose of the Supreme Court!

I'd like some libertarian "balance".
The trouble with the Court is that the Democrats put on people who believe in certain freedoms and not others, and so try to change the meaning in one direction, while the Republicans put on people who believe in other certain freedoms and not others, and so try to change the meaning in other directions. I'll grant that the Republicans are butchering more freedoms these days than the Democrats, but the one the Democrats in general want to butcher is the ultimate bastion against a police state -- the Second Amendment. It will be tragically ironic if the Democrats manage to gut that foundational right, only to have the Republicans take advantage of it to install a police state from which we'll have no escape.

The foolishness of the movement to neuter the Second Amendment is shown by some numbers: back in the time of Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson, when Democrats favored the common-sense reading that the vast majority of Americans still correctly believe, NRA members were split between the parties -- but now, when nearly every leading Democrat wants to disarm the citizenry, it's hard to find an NRA member who doesn't vote Republican.

This year, many NRA members are going to be holding their noses and voting for McCain, who won't be appointing judges who want us all defenseless before government power. But if Obama stood where Humphrey did, advocating not only a right to individual ownership of firearms but emphasizing a near-duty to do so, six million NRA voters and another ten or twelve million who vote with them would suddenly be faced with a real choice -- and if even a third of them went for Obama, McCain would be doomed.

 

[RandomAccess]

I'd like some libertarian "balance".
The trouble with the Court is that the Democrats put on people who believe in certain freedoms and not others, and so try to change the meaning in one direction, while the Republicans put on people who believe in other certain freedoms and not others, and so try to change the meaning in other directions. I'll grant that the Republicans are butchering more freedoms these days than the Democrats, but the one the Democrats in general want to butcher is the ultimate bastion against a police state -- the Second Amendment. It will be tragically ironic if the Democrats manage to gut that foundational right, only to have the Republicans take advantage of it to install a police state from which we'll have no escape.

The foolishness of the movement to neuter the Second Amendment is shown by some numbers: back in the time of Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson, when Democrats favored the common-sense reading that the vast majority of Americans still correctly believe, NRA members were split between the parties -- but now, when nearly every leading Democrat wants to disarm the citizenry, it's hard to find an NRA member who doesn't vote Republican.

This year, many NRA members are going to be holding their noses and voting for McCain, who won't be appointing judges who want us all defenseless before government power. But if Obama stood where Humphrey did, advocating not only a right to individual ownership of firearms but emphasizing a near-duty to do so, six million NRA voters and another ten or twelve million who vote with them would suddenly be faced with a real choice -- and if even a third of them went for Obama, McCain would be doomed.

I don't know for sure, but seems I've heard Obama's a supporter of 2. <shrug> Seems like a good choice for a gay libertarian, to me!

 

[Kulindahr]

Hm, could you put that split support by the NRA in the past into perspective, Kulindahr?

I'm not sure what you mean. But...
Surveys indicate that some eighteen million Americans take their cue from the NRA on national candidates. I haven't seen any figures, but in my experience probably a third of those would vote Democrat for president if the Democrat actually supported the Second Amendment as what it describes: an inherent individual human right.

I don't know for sure, but seems I've heard Obama's a supporter of 2. <shrug> Seems like a good choice for a gay libertarian, to me!

Well, he got a lot of flack for approving of the Heller decision -- OTOH, he hasn't supported the movement in Congress to pass legislation to actually make D.C. abide by what the Court said, and in the past he has supported banning the sale and manufacture of handguns, and favored laws banning certain weapons on the basis of cosmetic features.

But if he could convince people he really was going to support the Second, and not appoint judges who will eviscerate it with fanciful "corporate right" fables, he might just pull half the NRA and followers -- because McCain has a low grade from the NRA and the GOA.

 

[Kulindahr]

Senatorial or Representative experience is usually looked at when the qualifications of experience are discussed. Supposedly, Obama has only had 10 actual months of experience in this arena. (The other months were spent campaigning.)

And gubernatorial experience is considered to be even better, since it's also executive, whereas Congressional experience isn't.

Personally, I think McCain has far too much "experience", and is likely to be uncreative and very set in his ways.

 

[Kulindahr]

I said in the past, but it's not your fault since I was rather vague. I took a page from opinterph there. I meant, could you offer an explanation as to the willingness for the NRA to support a Democratic candidate in the past, as you mentioned, and place it into perspective, which requires more than just stating it.

Well, the NRA supports a number of Democrats in Congress right now: Ken Salazaar of Colorado in the Senate, and Bud Cramer of Alabama in the House, for example.

The official magazine of the NRA reminds everyone at election time that support is dependent not on party, but on faithfulness to the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[Spensed]

George W.'s credentials were based on his "experience" as the Governor of Texas and look where that got us.

Obama was an Illinois Senator for seven years and is no spring chicken.

What Obama lacks in terms of formal experience, he more than makes up for in intelligence and judgment. IMHO.

 

[Kulindahr]

George W.'s credentials were based on his "experience" as the Governor of Texas and look where that got us.

Obama was an Illinois Senator for seven years and is no spring chicken.

What Obama lacks in terms of formal experience, he more than makes up for in intelligence and judgment. IMHO.

He's definitely smarter than Bush: Bush's IQ is estimated at 125-127, on par with JFK, while Obama's is estimated at 130-148.

 

[Kulindahr]

In a situation where he really should be a shoo-in for the Presidency (an unpopular war, an economy in the shambles, a rabidly unpopular incumbent), he is only neck-to-neck with McCain; why do YOU think he's showing disappointing poll results? It can't be just racism. Will you face reality?

One reason is that he's so opposed to the Second Amendment. Polls show that along with millions of NRA members, even more millions vote by NRA guidelines. While McCain gets a failing grade from the NRA and the GOA, as a Republican he's seen as more likely to uphold the Second than a Democrat with such a lousy record as Obama's.

 

[Kulindahr]

I sure do hope you're right, ICO. Nothing would please me more than to see Obama elected, and kick serious ass at the job; in my most optimistic dreams, he'll be another FDR.

"Another FDR"?

God, no! FDR played fast and loose with the Constitution and oversaw arguably the biggest expansion ever of government into all sorts of areas of Americans' lives.

 

[AsianDream]

Of course if Obama is another Jimmy Carter, he'll flop and be a one-term show.

Re: McCain -- if he wins, I can only hope he'll actually appoint judges who read the Constitution as it was written... and not as the religious right thinks it was written.

I still think Obama is more like JFK than Jimmy Carter.

My view is that neither JFK nor Jimmy Carter were very good US presidents - though they had very different failings.

In theory it shouldn't matter who appoints US Supreme Court Justices - their job is to impartially and judicially interpret the Constitution.

The tendency of the Supreme Court to vote on partisan lines is a clear example of corruption - this is not what these people are being paid to do.

The moral decline of the US Supreme Court is I guess just one more example of the fact that almost anyone can be corrupted - even if these are supposed to be the greatest and most impartial judicial thinkers in the country.

 

[Jannus]

I still think Obama is more like JFK than Jimmy Carter.

Agreed. I have no idea why people would compare Obama to Carter, except that they're both Democrats.

My view is that neither JFK nor Jimmy Carter were very good US presidents - though they had very different failings.

I have heard this view a lot in recent years, and it always surprises me. Most of us old enough to remember Kennedy cannot but regard him as one of the greatest presidents of all time, and that's NOT because of his assassination. The man with the photographic memory, the self-deprecating wit, the humility, the remarkable oratory, the genius IQ, the incredible understanding of human motivations, the phenomenal empathy for the needs of the common man, and the most brilliant and effective cabinet ever assembled in history. Men like Kennedy are rare beyond belief. I don't expect to live to see another president that great in my lifetime. Obama shows flashes of JFK, and he has potential, and some oratory. But, I doubt he is up to JFK's standards. I would not count him out, though.

And Carter was brilliant, albeit ineffective against the Republican Congress of the times. Carter's greatest fault was that he kept believing Republicans would do what is right because they knew it was right, not because someone invited them to the White House for dinner or cocktails. He never understood cynicism in people. Carter may be the most moral man ever to occupy the White House. What he lacked was JFK's incredible ability to understand and read the people around him. That would have helped Carter a great deal.

 

[AsianDream]

"Another FDR"?

God, no! FDR played fast and loose with the Constitution and oversaw arguably the biggest expansion ever of government into all sorts of areas of Americans' lives.

At least Roosevelt had the excuse that the USA was involved in a genuine “War of survival” for expanding government control.

It is interesting that one (Republican) US President - Dwight D. Eisenhower – warned the American people (in 1961) of the dangers of increasing government power and control by the military-industrial complex.

Sadly the military-industrial complex then went on to dominate US politics for much of the next 50 years – to such an extent that today a powerful vice president is essentially a government representative for a leading “defence contractor”

Does Obama have any desire to fight this malign influence? I somehow doubt it

 

[AsianDream]

Agreed. I have no idea why people would compare Obama to Carter, except that they're both Democrats.

I have heard this view a lot in recent years, and it always surprises me. Most of us old enough to remember Kennedy cannot but regard him as one of the greatest presidents of all time, and that's NOT because of his assassination. The man with the photographic memory, the self-deprecating wit, the humility, the remarkable oratory, the genius IQ, the incredible understanding of human motivations, the phenomenal empathy for the needs of the common man, and the most brilliant and effective cabinet ever assembled in history. Men like Kennedy are rare beyond belief. I don't expect to live to see another president that great in my lifetime. Obama shows flashes of JFK, and he has potential, and some oratory. But, I doubt he is up to JFK's standards. I would not count him out, though.

And Carter was brilliant, albeit ineffective against the Republican Congress of the times. Carter's greatest fault was that he kept believing Republicans would do what is right because they knew it was right, not because someone invited them to the White House for dinner or cocktails. He never understood cynicism in people. Carter may be the most moral man ever to occupy the White House. What he lacked was JFK's incredible ability to understand and read the people around him. That would have helped Carter a great deal.

Except that the “Bay of Pigs” disaster was JFK's idea – also JFK was the person that got the USA into the Vietnam war – his hapless successor (LBJ) could never figure a way out if it (and took most of the blame) – while it took a crooked Republican (Nixon) to sell the eventual military defeat to the US public (“Peace with Honour” was the brand image).

Being a good orator has historically seemed to be inversely proportional to how good you will be at actually governing a country.

Even for the great speech makers like Churchill that seemed to do OK – this was far more by luck than judgement – while the really brilliant public speakers (like Hitler) have always fucked up big time.

 

[Jannus]

Except that the “Bay of Pigs” disaster was JFK's idea

No, it wasn't. It was planned in the Eisenhower administration and Kennedy agreed (half-heartedly) to go ahead with it. He was told of it immediately upon assuming office. It is possible that the Bay of Pigs might have succeeded had Kennedy not been so lukewarm in his support of it, but it's not likely.

But Kennedy learned a great deal from the Bay of Pigs. Forever after he abhorred the use of the military as a primary instrument of negotiation. Kennedy was not free of mistakes, but he was intelligent enough to learn from them when he made them.

– also JFK was the person that got the USA into the Vietnam war – his hapless successor (LBJ) could never figure a way out if it (and took most of the blame) – while it took a crooked Republican (Nixon) to sell the eventual military defeat to the US public (“Peace with Honour” was the brand image).

And no, JFK did not start the Vietnam War. While he tentatively sent in a contingent of training personnel, it was Johnson who sent in the first fighting troops. It is often pointed out that virtually everyone in JFK's family and his entire cabinet were the very first people to oppose the war, and emphatically so. JFK was much more comfortable with diplomacy than military movements, especially after the Cuban missile crisis. Most experts believe that, had JFK lived, the Vietnam War would never have happened.

Being a good orator has historically seemed to be inversely proportional to how good you will be at actually governing a country.

You mean like Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, and Churchill?

Even for the great speech makers like Churchill that seemed to do OK – this was far more by luck than judgement – while the really brilliant public speakers (like Hitler) have always fucked up big time.

Hitler was a demagogue, not an orator. He roused people to excitement more with passion and emotion than with words - much as does a religious evangelist. Hitler was not a wordsmith. He did not have much education, and did not have a great vocabulary.

Mussolini, on the other hand, was rather a good speaker on both levels. But excellence in oratory does not guarantee you will be a capable leader for the right side. I have often wondered what might have become of Mussolini, had there been no Hitler. I think he would have gone down as did Francesco Franco in Spain. Eventually, Italy would have returned to stable (and honest) democracy without war.