Esquire's Endorsement of Obama

lavender

Cautiously Optimistic
Joined
Apr 6, 2001
Posts
25,108
I don't normally post text of articles and rather summarize or provide my own sentiment. But, something about this article really hit home with me. Esquire, to my knowledge, normally doesn't endorse candidates. This is not what I would say as to why I'm voting for Barack Obama, but it does echo to some extent the healing that I feel America needs after the last 8 years of Bush and why Obama is the one to provide it.

http://www.esquire.com/features/esq...8/esquire-endorses-barack-obama?click=main_sr

"Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President
Buzz up!We thought this election would be a serious fight over the future of this country, but only one candidate showed up.

........

In truth, though, Senator Obama is the only one of the two candidates who seems to believe in the idea of a political commonwealth, that there are those things -- be they the guarantees in the Bill of Rights or mountains in Alaska -- that we own together. Barack Obama stands, however inchoately and however diffidently, for the notion that a common purpose is necessary for common problems, that "government," as it is designed in our founding documents, is our collective responsibility. It is this collective responsibility that built America into a great power without peer in the history of the world. And it is this collective responsibility that has succumbed to nearly thirty years of phony rightist populism, corporate brigandage, and the wildly cheered abandonment of a common American civic purpose. It is shocking that in America an argument for salvaging the common good is regarded as a radical notion by anyone, but that is where we are. And that is what Barack Obama seems to stand for. After all, as a young man with his potential, he could have headed straight to midtown Manhattan and made a fortune. Instead, he took a church job working for poor people in Chicago, and for his troubles, he and those poor people have been viciously jeered by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin. Such is their regard for the common good. And such is Obama's promise. And in that, however inchoately and however diffidently, Obama stands not only against Bushism, but against Reaganism, which gave it birth. And that is more than enough.

This year it's more than enough because we are not all in that enterprise together anymore, and we have not been for some time. For seven years, for the purposes of deceitful war-making and constitutional vandalism, the president chose to preside over "the base," and the devil take the common good. For several years, before the war soured, and New Orleans drowned, and he meddled grotesquely with how a woman's family in Florida chose to allow her to die, and mocked the very institutions he was to protect, this was praised as the height of political acumen. The incompetent president and his wolfish advisors were encouraged and enabled in their various schemes and praised for their cleverness into the bargain. Anyone who questioned what was going on -- any member of what was once memorably described to writer Ron Suskind as the "reality-based community" -- was of no consequence, their voices ignored, their concerns as foreign as those of a tribesman in New Guinea.

.......

Obscured by Obama's dithering is the fact that his Republican counterpart is one of the first presidential candidates in history to run as a parody of himself. John McCain has decided on a cheap and dishonorable campaign. He has embraced the tactics with which he was slandered in 2000, and he has hired the people responsible for them. In so doing, he has become something of a mockery of everything he once purported to be. He has stated that he wouldn't now vote for his own immigration bill. He has operated in violation of the very campaign-finance law that bears his name. And even though his own body bears the scars of torture, he has silenced himself on the issue of the torture sanctioned and designed by the government he seeks to lead, so as not to alienate "the base." The most underutilized trope of the campaign is the notion that John McCain is running against John McCain.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the senator was leading a movement that had been exiled for decades and was now storming back to Washington to save the country from its oppressors. Of course, the truth is that it is the excesses of McCain's own party from which the country needs to be saved. That McCain is now attempting to seize the mantle of "change" for himself is profoundly absurd. And that he expects the American people to swallow it is profoundly insulting. History demands that this election be a referendum on the Bush years, and John McCain has tried desperately to change the subject.

There was a moment, in 2000, when he might have gone a different way. He gave a brave speech in Virginia, and he seemed genuinely interested in prying his party from the clutches of corporate avarice and theocratic lunacy. If he had held to the substance of that speech, instead of merely to its form, he might have been as transformational a figure on his side of the aisle as Obama has been on his. However, McCain has spent the past few years dancing like a monkey on a string, making brave noises in public that he later abandoned in private. And now he genuflects to Pastor Warren and a hundred other preachers who are a hundred times worse, people whom he called "agents of intolerance" eight years ago, when John McCain still had the soul he's sold off piecemeal to pay the salaries of the men he's hired out of Karl Rove's shop.

Then, of course, he picked an agent of intolerance to join him on his ticket. But it is not Governor Palin's religious beliefs that are of concern to us. More to the point, there is no serious debate to be had over Sarah Palin's preparedness to be president of the United States. Because in fact, she is stunningly unqualified, having never taken a position of consequence on an issue of consequence before she was selected in the last days of August. But she has now been put in a serious position to assume the presidency, and her selection is the clearest indication yet of the contempt that Senator McCain -- transformed into nominee McCain -- now feels for the process of governance.

More important still, however, is that nothing John McCain has done or said in this campaign would lead you to believe that anything the incumbent administration has done is simply wrong -- just badly executed -- and he's saying that now only because public opinion has turned so radically against Bushism and all its works. And the ultimate price of his capitulation is to continue Bushism, in all of its manifestations. Not even the presidency should be worth that.

Not even the presidency is worth what it's made John McCain do to himself.

....

More than any other recent election, we are voting this year not merely for a president but to overthrow two governments. The one we can see is the one in which constitutional order has been defaced, the national spirit degraded, and the country unrecognizable because so much of the best of itself has been sold off or frittered away. The other one is the far more insidious one, a doppelgänger nation of black prisons, shredded memos, and secret justifications for even more secret crimes. Moreover, the current administration has worked hard not only to immunize itself from the political and legal consequences of the government we can see, but it has also worked within the one we cannot see in order to perpetuate itself.

For the past several months, it has worked to make extricating ourselves from the catastrophe it has wrought in Iraq as hard as possible. It has sought to make permanent the culture of corporate brigandage and predatory incompetence that it has made a hallmark of its stewardship of the country and its government. Salted throughout the vast bureaucracy are dozens of little homeschooled land mines, the products of a dozen cheapjack diploma mills selling patent-medicine history to the spiritually gullible. The fantastical hiring practices that only recently have come to light in the Department of Justice are only the most visible example of this, but the poisonous philosophy that has guided this administration is in all the institutions of the government Barack Obama hopes to lead. It is not dormant. It is there, replicating itself like a virus does in the cells of the body, waiting until it can erupt and debilitate him and his administration.

And nowhere is it more clearly visible than in the federal courts. It is in the courts where the depredations of the past seven years can become permanent. It is in the courts where the un-American legacy of George W. Bush can live forever -- or, at least, as long as most of the rest of us do. The Supreme Court already is dangerously close to an extremist conservative majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito were both born after John Paul Stevens already had passed the bar, and it was Stevens who, as recently as last June's Boumediene decision, helped create a thin 5 -- 4 majority in favor of reestablishing the right of habeas corpus for those people being detained by the administration in places like Guantánamo Bay. The decision threw out a key provision of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, a bipartisan piece of legislative cowardice that sank the Great Writ into a deep mire of euphemism and deceit. One vote, to uphold the right that En-glish nobles wrung out of King John in 1215. One vote, on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. One vote, from an eighty-eight-year-old man who'd already founded his own law firm when the chief justice under whom he serves, and who predictably voted in agreement with the president who'd appointed him, was born. One vote, on one of 107 federal courts.

There is no evidence at all that anything will change under a President John McCain, who has already identified Roberts and Alito as his beau ideals of Supreme Court justices. He has made brave noises about torture and the extraconstitutional prerogatives of the executive, but President Bush and his men went on and did what they wanted anyway, and McCain walked away, begging for votes from fundamentalists who hate him, meeping his displeasure in ways that were barely audible. The virus will gestate and spread on his watch, all throughout the federal government. Bushism must be ripped out, root and branch, everywhere it has been established, or else the presidential election of 2008 is a worthless exercise in futility. Barack Obama may not be the man to do it, but John McCain, for all his laudable qualities, clearly is neither willing nor able to do so.

To continue to govern ourselves this way is unthinkable. It is unsustainable as a democracy to continue to mock so egregiously in secret what we continue to profess in public. That is the task for the next president. That is the main reason to vote for Barack Obama of Illinois. We strongly encourage you to do so."
 
Last edited:
What a sweet sentiment. How will having a Jimmy Carter-like ruined economy where there are no jobs for young people help at all? Obama doesn't represent "Change" for the better, rather it's a change to disaster. His economic policies will be ruinous to our economy for the next few years and it will take us another decade after that to recover from it, but I'm sure there will be quite a few unemployed but happy people that they got a government handout of $500 for their trouble because it "came from the evil rich".

To "Change" to Obama is unthinkable.
 
What a sweet sentiment. How will having a Jimmy Carter-like ruined economy where there are no jobs for young people help at all? Obama doesn't represent "Change" for the better, rather it's a change to disaster. His economic policies will be ruinous to our economy for the next few years and it will take us another decade after that to recover from it, but I'm sure there will be quite a few unemployed but happy people that they got a government handout of $500 for their trouble because it "came from the evil rich".

explain the current economy and bailouts, please.
 
explain the current economy and bailouts, please.

While you're doing that RightField - why don't you explain to us why Bush Sr. called trickle down economics "voodoo economics." Then, tell us why in the two administrations where we had such "trickle down economics" by the end we saw massive contraction in the economy as well as massive government debt.

Then, tell us where all the wealth trickled down and how many jobs the Bush tax cuts created.

We're waiting with baited breath.
 
While you're doing that RightField - why don't you explain to us why Bush Sr. called trickle down economics "voodoo economics." Then, tell us why in the two administrations where we had such "trickle down economics" by the end we saw massive contraction in the economy as well as massive government debt.

Then, tell us where all the wealth trickled down and how many jobs the Bush tax cuts created.

We're waiting with baited breath.

i'm trying to remember how much my "stimulus checks" have added up to. i know it's more than five hundred bucks.

i think those came from the evil middle-class, though. joe plumber and his brethren.
 
i'm trying to remember how much my "stimulus checks" have added up to. i know it's more than five hundred bucks.

i think those came from the evil middle-class, though. joe plumber and his brethren.

Speaking of stimulus, RightField, why don't you tell us the impact of cutting government spending and putting a freeze on government spending during a recession.

If you need resource material, I would suggest that you look at John Maynard Keynes as well as analysis of Hoover's plans circa 1929.
 
Lavy,

The market also contracted in 2000 - before Bush II took his oath. You didn't mention that earlier.

Why is that? I guess it was fear of change? It can't be that the Clinton Economy was a mythical beast supported by internet companies whose capital just dried up and floated away? No?
 
A clear pattern has emerged here. Rather than address the substance of the OP, defenders of the Right default to broad and unproven assumptions and catastrophic predictions. I suppose, when one's position is indefensible, that's all one can do.

Of all the things I appreciate about Obama, one of the most poignant to me is his credential as a professor of Constitutional Law. After an eight year ass rape of the principles that protect the very fundamentals of this democracy, we now have a choice between a candidate with the intellectual understanding of those principles and laws, and a commitment to uphold them for the common good, vs a candidate who would continue to distort and victimize those principles, and do an end run around the law in order to satisfy an extremist minority.

The Esquire endorsement is a rational one, and the rationale is clear. If you truly love this country, and believe in what it is supposed to represent to its citizens and to the world, there really is no choice in this election. Obama is the only viable option to restore what has been lost to us.
 
What a sweet sentiment. How will having a Jimmy Carter-like ruined economy where there are no jobs for young people help at all? Obama doesn't represent "Change" for the better, rather it's a change to disaster. His economic policies will be ruinous to our economy for the next few years and it will take us another decade after that to recover from it, but I'm sure there will be quite a few unemployed but happy people that they got a government handout of $500 for their trouble because it "came from the evil rich".

To "Change" to Obama is unthinkable.

I was a young person during the Carter years, and I had a job. I made $125 per week, was married and putting my wife through school, drove a rusted out 1963 VW, had no credit cards and no debts, and money left over at the end of the week for 6-pack and an ounce of good pot.

I am also old enough to remember that the 'ruined economy' you seem to want to blame on Carter got that way during Nixon's administration. The aftershocks of that living, breathing, Republican clusterfuck that was Richard Milhous Nixon took down two really decent men, Ford and Carter.

Then, of course, the nightmare began all over again with Ronnie Rayguns.... That's when I began to realize how poor I was.
 
I don't normally post text of articles and rather summarize or provide my own sentiment. But, something about this article really hit home with me. Esquire, to my knowledge, normally doesn't endorse candidates. This is not what I would say as to why I'm voting for Barack Obama, but it does echo to some extent the healing that I feel America needs after the last 8 years of Bush and why Obama is the one to provide it.

http://www.esquire.com/features/esq...8/esquire-endorses-barack-obama?click=main_sr

"Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President
Buzz up!We thought this election would be a serious fight over the future of this country, but only one candidate showed up.

It was a day in February and the sun was little more than a gaudy accessory. The man stood on a bridge along Eleventh Street in Milwaukee. He was holding a sign. His breath rose in clouds. There was ice on his eyebrows. Beneath him, along Interstate 43, the traffic ran north and south in a great rattle. The cold made everything seem fragile, as though the cars would shatter if they collided. It was ten o'clock in the morning and it was 8 degrees, and the man held his sign while the ice formed on the edges of his face, trying to get the cars below him to honk their horns in support of Barack Obama.

He had been a classmate, long ago, before he'd gone into the Navy the way his family had wanted him to, a fellow student at a high school in Hawaii, where they had no mornings like this one. He had traveled the world and he had come to this bridge with the ice on his face because he was looking for something and he thought he'd found it. Hardly anyone looked up. Hardly anyone saw his sign. Hardly anyone honked their horn. But he stood there, holding his sign and waving at the drivers below as the sun rose vainly higher in the sky and nobody looked up toward it to see the sign and honk their horns.

"I'm working for him," the man said, "because a lot of what I believed, I don't believe anymore, and I want to again. Not in him, necessarily, but in those things."

Barack Obama had a moment, as fragile as thin ice, in which he could have defined "change," which he never truly has defined except as all those things encompassed by the phrase "Elect me." He could have defined change as a rejection of preemptive war, of torture, of black prisons, of warrantless surveillance, as a renewed embrace of our founding documents. He could have defined change as a condemnation of crony government, of incompetent government, of drowned cities, of conscious, greed-driven neglect that has turned the idea of "the general welfare" into a spiritless punch line. He could have defined change with the laws already on the books. He could have defined change simply as "change back," to an America in which so much of what the current administration has done was not merely un-American, it was unimaginable. He could have celebrated the people who never changed at all -- the heroic military lawyers of the JAG Corps, to name one conspicuous example -- and welcomed us all back to the better country they'd never left.

But no.

In August, for whatever reason, he went to the Reverend Rick Warren's Saddleback Church for a "forum" in front of people who have no more intention of voting for him than they do of erecting a statue to Baal. It is instructive to remember that forty years ago, when George Romney ran for president, hardly anyone mentioned the fact that he was a Mormon. This year, his son, the former governor of Massachusetts, ran for president and couldn't go ten minutes without being asked about the "issue" of his religion. The very notion that an affluent celebrity God-botherer like Warren should be allowed to vet presidential candidates is in itself a measure of how badly things have turned. At one point, Warren asked Obama: "At what point does a baby get human rights?"

The only proper answer to this question for anyone running for president is "How the hell do I know? If that's what you want from a president, vote for Thomas Aquinas." Instead, Obama summoned up some pale, faith-based flummery that convinced nobody and made him look like they had to tie him to the floor to keep him from floating to the ceiling. Warren responded by giving an interview after the forum in which he compared an evangelical voting for a pro-choice candidate to a Jewish voter supporting a Holocaust denier. And on we go.

"Change" is now whatever Barack Obama needs it to be at the moment. He is the change. We are the change. And there it ends. He thought it meant an end to "partisanship" without appreciating that democracies are supposed to be partisan, never more so than when a "bipartisan" consensus fits American military justice with a kangaroo suit. He thought it meant an end to "divisiveness" without appreciating the fact that there is much about this country now that ought to divide us, that it is time for a loud, impolite fight about what it means to be an American.

In truth, though, Senator Obama is the only one of the two candidates who seems to believe in the idea of a political commonwealth, that there are those things -- be they the guarantees in the Bill of Rights or mountains in Alaska -- that we own together. Barack Obama stands, however inchoately and however diffidently, for the notion that a common purpose is necessary for common problems, that "government," as it is designed in our founding documents, is our collective responsibility. It is this collective responsibility that built America into a great power without peer in the history of the world. And it is this collective responsibility that has succumbed to nearly thirty years of phony rightist populism, corporate brigandage, and the wildly cheered abandonment of a common American civic purpose. It is shocking that in America an argument for salvaging the common good is regarded as a radical notion by anyone, but that is where we are. And that is what Barack Obama seems to stand for. After all, as a young man with his potential, he could have headed straight to midtown Manhattan and made a fortune. Instead, he took a church job working for poor people in Chicago, and for his troubles, he and those poor people have been viciously jeered by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin. Such is their regard for the common good. And such is Obama's promise. And in that, however inchoately and however diffidently, Obama stands not only against Bushism, but against Reaganism, which gave it birth. And that is more than enough.

This year it's more than enough because we are not all in that enterprise together anymore, and we have not been for some time. For seven years, for the purposes of deceitful war-making and constitutional vandalism, the president chose to preside over "the base," and the devil take the common good. For several years, before the war soured, and New Orleans drowned, and he meddled grotesquely with how a woman's family in Florida chose to allow her to die, and mocked the very institutions he was to protect, this was praised as the height of political acumen. The incompetent president and his wolfish advisors were encouraged and enabled in their various schemes and praised for their cleverness into the bargain. Anyone who questioned what was going on -- any member of what was once memorably described to writer Ron Suskind as the "reality-based community" -- was of no consequence, their voices ignored, their concerns as foreign as those of a tribesman in New Guinea.

And now, with it all in ruins, it's time to move ahead, without recriminations or even without maintaining the simple clarity of the historical record? That is not change we can believe in. And that is precisely where Barack Obama is frozen. But make no mistake, in our view the senator from Illinois is the only possible choice to lead the country.

Obscured by Obama's dithering is the fact that his Republican counterpart is one of the first presidential candidates in history to run as a parody of himself. John McCain has decided on a cheap and dishonorable campaign. He has embraced the tactics with which he was slandered in 2000, and he has hired the people responsible for them. In so doing, he has become something of a mockery of everything he once purported to be. He has stated that he wouldn't now vote for his own immigration bill. He has operated in violation of the very campaign-finance law that bears his name. And even though his own body bears the scars of torture, he has silenced himself on the issue of the torture sanctioned and designed by the government he seeks to lead, so as not to alienate "the base." The most underutilized trope of the campaign is the notion that John McCain is running against John McCain.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the senator was leading a movement that had been exiled for decades and was now storming back to Washington to save the country from its oppressors. Of course, the truth is that it is the excesses of McCain's own party from which the country needs to be saved. That McCain is now attempting to seize the mantle of "change" for himself is profoundly absurd. And that he expects the American people to swallow it is profoundly insulting. History demands that this election be a referendum on the Bush years, and John McCain has tried desperately to change the subject.

There was a moment, in 2000, when he might have gone a different way. He gave a brave speech in Virginia, and he seemed genuinely interested in prying his party from the clutches of corporate avarice and theocratic lunacy. If he had held to the substance of that speech, instead of merely to its form, he might have been as transformational a figure on his side of the aisle as Obama has been on his. However, McCain has spent the past few years dancing like a monkey on a string, making brave noises in public that he later abandoned in private. And now he genuflects to Pastor Warren and a hundred other preachers who are a hundred times worse, people whom he called "agents of intolerance" eight years ago, when John McCain still had the soul he's sold off piecemeal to pay the salaries of the men he's hired out of Karl Rove's shop.

Then, of course, he picked an agent of intolerance to join him on his ticket. But it is not Governor Palin's religious beliefs that are of concern to us. More to the point, there is no serious debate to be had over Sarah Palin's preparedness to be president of the United States. Because in fact, she is stunningly unqualified, having never taken a position of consequence on an issue of consequence before she was selected in the last days of August. But she has now been put in a serious position to assume the presidency, and her selection is the clearest indication yet of the contempt that Senator McCain -- transformed into nominee McCain -- now feels for the process of governance.

More important still, however, is that nothing John McCain has done or said in this campaign would lead you to believe that anything the incumbent administration has done is simply wrong -- just badly executed -- and he's saying that now only because public opinion has turned so radically against Bushism and all its works. And the ultimate price of his capitulation is to continue Bushism, in all of its manifestations. Not even the presidency should be worth that.

Not even the presidency is worth what it's made John McCain do to himself.

John Paul Stevens was born on April 20, 1920, into a family of hotel magnates in the city of Chicago who, when Stevens was still young, lost everything in the Great Depression. In 1936, when John Paul Stevens was a student at the University of Chicago Laboratory School and preparing to enter the University of Chicago proper, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was born on the shores of Lake Victoria in Kenya. In 1941, when John Paul Stevens was graduating Phi Beta Kappa and preparing to go and break Japanese naval codes and help shoot down Admiral Yamamoto in the South Pacific, Ann Dunham was born in Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. In 1961, when John Paul Stevens was practicing law, Barack Obama and Ann Dunham married and had a son, whom they also named Barack Hussein Obama. In 1975, when President Gerald Ford named John Paul Stevens to replace William O. Douglas on the United States Supreme Court, the elder Obama was long gone and the younger Obama was a freshman at the Punahou School in Honolulu. In January of 2009, if and when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the forty-fourth president of the United States, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens will be closing in on his thirty-fourth year on the Court and his eighty-ninth year on earth. And there, really, you have it. The best argument for the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States is written quite clearly in the peaks and squiggles of John Paul Stevens's EKG.

More than any other recent election, we are voting this year not merely for a president but to overthrow two governments. The one we can see is the one in which constitutional order has been defaced, the national spirit degraded, and the country unrecognizable because so much of the best of itself has been sold off or frittered away. The other one is the far more insidious one, a doppelgänger nation of black prisons, shredded memos, and secret justifications for even more secret crimes. Moreover, the current administration has worked hard not only to immunize itself from the political and legal consequences of the government we can see, but it has also worked within the one we cannot see in order to perpetuate itself.

For the past several months, it has worked to make extricating ourselves from the catastrophe it has wrought in Iraq as hard as possible. It has sought to make permanent the culture of corporate brigandage and predatory incompetence that it has made a hallmark of its stewardship of the country and its government. Salted throughout the vast bureaucracy are dozens of little homeschooled land mines, the products of a dozen cheapjack diploma mills selling patent-medicine history to the spiritually gullible. The fantastical hiring practices that only recently have come to light in the Department of Justice are only the most visible example of this, but the poisonous philosophy that has guided this administration is in all the institutions of the government Barack Obama hopes to lead. It is not dormant. It is there, replicating itself like a virus does in the cells of the body, waiting until it can erupt and debilitate him and his administration.

And nowhere is it more clearly visible than in the federal courts. It is in the courts where the depredations of the past seven years can become permanent. It is in the courts where the un-American legacy of George W. Bush can live forever -- or, at least, as long as most of the rest of us do. The Supreme Court already is dangerously close to an extremist conservative majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito were both born after John Paul Stevens already had passed the bar, and it was Stevens who, as recently as last June's Boumediene decision, helped create a thin 5 -- 4 majority in favor of reestablishing the right of habeas corpus for those people being detained by the administration in places like Guantánamo Bay. The decision threw out a key provision of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, a bipartisan piece of legislative cowardice that sank the Great Writ into a deep mire of euphemism and deceit. One vote, to uphold the right that En-glish nobles wrung out of King John in 1215. One vote, on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. One vote, from an eighty-eight-year-old man who'd already founded his own law firm when the chief justice under whom he serves, and who predictably voted in agreement with the president who'd appointed him, was born. One vote, on one of 107 federal courts.

There is no evidence at all that anything will change under a President John McCain, who has already identified Roberts and Alito as his beau ideals of Supreme Court justices. He has made brave noises about torture and the extraconstitutional prerogatives of the executive, but President Bush and his men went on and did what they wanted anyway, and McCain walked away, begging for votes from fundamentalists who hate him, meeping his displeasure in ways that were barely audible. The virus will gestate and spread on his watch, all throughout the federal government. Bushism must be ripped out, root and branch, everywhere it has been established, or else the presidential election of 2008 is a worthless exercise in futility. Barack Obama may not be the man to do it, but John McCain, for all his laudable qualities, clearly is neither willing nor able to do so.

To continue to govern ourselves this way is unthinkable. It is unsustainable as a democracy to continue to mock so egregiously in secret what we continue to profess in public. That is the task for the next president. That is the main reason to vote for Barack Obama of Illinois. We strongly encourage you to do so."

same drivel you've been spouting ad nauseam *yawn*
 
Lavy,

The market also contracted in 2000 - before Bush II took his oath. You didn't mention that earlier.

Why is that? I guess it was fear of change? It can't be that the Clinton Economy was a mythical beast supported by internet companies whose capital just dried up and floated away? No?

There is a difference between economic contraction and market contractions, for starters. I talked about economic contraction.

I went to look at the statistics for each year. From what I see there was approximately 3.7% growth (the measure of growth depends on if you are looking at current dollars or a past approximation of dollars) in 2000. From what I've read, we only had about .8 % growth in 2001 - which is not surprising since we had such an economic downturn after 9/11.

I have looked at growth during the Clinton years and then during the Bush years - economic growth was far greater in the Clinton years. But, I'll be the first to say most of that was due to the internet bubble and not because of Clinton's policies.

The market contracted in 2001 both because of 9/11 and because the internet companies were not truly expanding the economy - it was a bubble. The internet boom was not creating new products - except for tech products - it was mainly finding a new way to market products that already existed. This is problematic and makes it growth in paper rather than growth in actual products being sold in our economy.

The problem is that we propped up this bubble with another bubble instead of looking at sustainable growth. Instead of investing in the manufacturing and innovation that could fuel our economy for decades to come, much of the bubble that replaced the internet was a financial bubble coupled with the housing bubble. Wall Street became a casino and more and more private lending institutions were giving subprime loans. I emphasize private lending because if you look at the statistics, it was private lending that was not subject to any government regulation - not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other institutions bound by the CSR and other governmental programs, that accounted for the extreme growth in sub-prime lending.

One of the reasons that I like Barack Obama is that one major tenet of his economic and domestic plans is building a more sustainable economic growth in this country. I am a firm believer that we have to have a strong manufacturing and production sector in our economy to build sustainable economic growth.

Over the past decades we have lost this edge, steel plants, coal plans, automobile manufacturing, and other outsourcing. These jobs, in their past form, will not come back to the United States. When you have a service-based economy, rather than a manufacturing/production based structure, your economy is going to have problems. Primarily, you will have trade deficits, and more susceptible to downturns not only domestically but internationally.

Now, if the jobs we used to have aren't coming back and the tech bubble was just a bubble, how does we create a sustainable economy. Well, I think the way is to really be at the forefront of innovation and research. I honestly believe that green technology and energy technology is the way we can rebuild our manufacturing and production sectors. This is not based on my belief in Obama. This is the reason I liked Edwards so much - because it's one of the main things he ran on - until we found out he was a total and complete douchebag and couldn't keep his willie in his pants.

Thomas Friedman's recent book also deals with this in great detail.

If we as a country are at the forefront of new sustainable technology, we can use this as a way to expand our own economy, but remain in a strong position in the global economy. China is going to desperately need new ideas considering the pollution that is occurring there. India will too. These are the two fastest and largest growing countries in the world. If we can be the nation to create the innovation to sustain green energy and green technology, this can not only do away with dependence on foreign oil and help with that portion of the trade deficit while creating jobs in our country - we can also use this technology to ship and sell overseas.

This isn't paper money and fake growth -it's real and sustainable economic growth. The kind that could truly rebuild our national economy and deal with our trade deficit while creating good jobs at home rather than shipping them abroad.

Now, this is simplistic - and I couldn't possibly tell you how to implement this. That's above my knowledge and paygrade. But, Thomas Friedman might be a good place to start if you are interested.

I don't think Republicans could or would do this. They are too tied to oil interests - they continue to say drill baby drill. For example, Palin speaking on energy this week was at a solar plant - or something having to do with solar energy. She said McCain/Palin were going to make a clean break from the Bush energy plan. I was like - ok - let's hear it. Then, Palin dove into the Bush energy plan and only included more drilling (that's simplifying the speech of course).

I'm not the only one who thinks this - look at T. Boone Pickens and others - while not exactly on the same page as Thomas Friedman - are echoing the same sentiment.
 
Of all the things I appreciate about Obama, one of the most poignant to me is his credential as a professor of Constitutional Law. After an eight year ass rape of the principles that protect the very fundamentals of this democracy, we now have a choice between a candidate with the intellectual understanding of those principles and laws, and a commitment to uphold them for the common good, vs a candidate who would continue to distort and victimize those principles, and do an end run around the law in order to satisfy an extremist minority.

Absolutely. I never thought being a professor of Constitutional Law would be such a positive attribute in a candidate. But, this year it's clear.

Remember - this Esquire article was written well before Sarah Palin spoke about how her First Amendment rights might be stifled if the press continually discussed the negativity she was spewing.

What confidence can you have that McCain/Palin would reverse the current trend in the Executive Branch? Absolutely none.
 
same drivel you've been spouting ad nauseam *yawn*

Actually, I quit posting about Bush's constitutional destruction quite a few years ago. I haven't been focused on it that much during my campaign posts on Lit. So, you obviously haven't: (1) read my posts; or (2) read this article - before you shot your mouth off.
 
Remember - this Esquire article was written well before Sarah Palin spoke about how her First Amendment rights might be stifled if the press continually discussed the negativity she was spewing.

That comment is right up there with McCain's "My fellow prisoners" remark as best knee-slapper of the entire presidential race. Of course, as Freud taught us, the reason both comments are so damned funny is that they're both so damned scary.
 
I don't know about MeeMiee...check out what I've said to BusyBody and UD about plagiarism before making stuff up.

You need an understanding of what plagiarism is before making accusations against anyone. Your charge against Lavy is a big fail...and very telling.
 
You need an understanding of what plagiarism is before making accusations against anyone. Your charge against Lavy is a big fail...and very telling.

*ahem*

Check the forum rules (link below) about not posting articles in their entirety.

You lose.
 
*ahem*

Check the forum rules (link below) about not posting articles in their entirety.

You lose.

she attributed the words to the article and did not claim them as hers, though. correct?
 
Back
Top