It's all George W. Bush's fault! **politics thread**

[tigerdave]

So what makes you think that the Maverick is going to change any of this? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he a big supporter of Bush. He was a Republican in a position of power and he never spoke up about this or the potential problems that could arise from it. The only reason McCain will do anything to change the way these banks and investment firms work is because he has to. McCain has been in the Senete since 1987 so there is no excuse for him not seeing this coming.

I'm not exactly enthralled with McCain, but he's the best of what's on offer. It's called clothespin voting.


Except that he did not launch his political career at Ayres house.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

It has been well documented that the connection between Ayres and Obama has been exaggerated for the pure purpose of political smear.

Yeah, because the Times is a bastion of journalistic truth.

It's been well documented by a media that wants it to appear as a political smear for its own agenda. Trust me, I work in the media, I know how the media rolls.

And as for Raila Odinga, are you suggesting that the Prime Minister of Kenya hates America? I really wouldn't trust a book written by Jerome Corsi about Barrack Obama, especially since he appeared on The Political Cesspool which just happens to be a white supremacist radio talk show. Now call me cynical but don't you think that someone who writes a negative book about Obama and then appears on a white supremacist radio show might care about something else apart from his politics.

I'm not saying there is or isn't a tie between Obama and Odinga (other than Odinga has apparently said they're cousins). It's just curious that someone going to investigate what he believes to be legitimate ties between Obama and someone who signed on to advance Islamic law if elected to the "presidency" was kicked out of the country for no apparent reason. If there's nothing for them to hide, why kick off a perceived cover-up of whatever it is they're ostensibly covering up, even if it has nothing to do with Obama?

You hate a form of government that can provide free universal health care, social security, public schools, public highways, public transport and public parks? You really are a sad person if you hate all of them.

Universal healthcare is a crock. I have Canadian friends who would kill to get here because they hate their oh-so-great universal healthcare. The rest is already handled by our current government, which isn't a socialist government. The only reason to convert to a socialist government is to give said government the authority to put its hand in all the pies. That's not the purpose of government. Government exists to govern, not to run every aspect of society. Again, like the principles, but it's not government's place. And it's unconstitutional, and as I said before, I'm a big fan of the Constitution.

My philosophy on politics is very simple: We all want to get to the same pub, everyone just wants to take a different route (some of which are rather poorly thought-out and/or selfish routes). I happen to believe that the best and most direct route to the pub is through personal responsibility and pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps rather than waiting for someone else (read: the government) to do it for us.

If colour doesn't bother you, why mention it?

It's a response to the people that say Obama should be elected because people are ready for a black president. But just go ahead and (erroneously) call me a racist. You know you want to. :)

[Russell1892]

Have you lot picked a new gaffer yet?

I'm confused by your strange customs of the electoral college and such like.

That and the flag-waving, and the cheering at speeches (here polite applause is more the custom - if they're really good you stand up while you clap). All in all your electing of a new leader makes a British General Election looks like something thats been knocked together over a few pints in a club.

[City Dave]

It's interesting you should say that because that's mostly how our process was developed.

If you believe the stories.

[JaredSS07]

That and the flag-waving, and the cheering at speeches (here polite applause is more the custom - if they're really good you stand up while you clap). All in all your electing of a new leader makes a British General Election looks like something thats been knocked together over a few pints in a club.

Our campaigns are loud and obnoxious, but our governing is polite and quiet. Your campaigns might be polite and quiet, but Parliament is loud and obnoxious.

[Russell1892]

Our campaigns are loud and obnoxious, but our governing is polite and quiet. Your campaigns might be polite and quiet, but Parliament is loud and obnoxious.

Haha aye its mint isn't it? I'm not out for point-scoring... cultural differences fascinate me. I actually think your governing is too polite comparatively but I imagine a lot of that is down to the President being the head of state.

[tigerdave]

For two years, we're ********ed. Can't wait until 2010 when the Dems get theirs for their part in ********ing all this up.

[Toon³]

For two years, we're ********ed. Can't wait until 2010 when the Dems get theirs for their part in ********ing all this up.

Bookmarked for future reference :)

[BayernWake]

Can't wait for the rest of the conservative doomsayers to come out, just like the liberal doomsayers moaned and groaned in 2004.

DRAMA!

[City Dave]

I'm not going to say doom. I hated all those sore losers 4 and 8 years ago, just a bunch of pointless whining. Those same people this time around are talking about how Obama united the US and all that BS, he's only gotten 53% of the popular vote, the nation is still divided. They're only saying that stuff because their guy won, that's hardly a majority.

I won't say doom; however, I will say this: in four years I'd much rather say "I was wrong" than "I told you so." But we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.

[Russell1892]

From a British perspective it'll be nice to see a US president that can string a sentence together. I think either of them would have been better than Dubya.

I know a lot of you won't care but the feeling abroad is that a lot of people are looking forward to a fresh start in international relations with America. A more sensible foreign policy too. America looks better in the international community now, because Dubya has kind of dragged your name through the mud in a lot of people's eyes.

I don't get the whole doom thing, he's taking over a broken economy, two ill-conceived expensive wars, and a massive debt stacked up to pay for it. How much worse can things get?

[JaredSS07]

Colin, did you enjoy your deployment in Virginia? Were you working phone banks or door to door?

[Crazy Man Michael]

I don't get the whole doom thing, he's taking over a broken economy, two ill-conceived expensive wars, and a massive debt stacked up to pay for it. How much worse can things get?

First of all, although I supported McCain I hope Obama can do an excellent job and prove me very wrong. Beyond that, how much worse things can get is a matter of prespective. A bad conservative (in the American sense) President will screw with the economy, maybe start a war or two and can make things bad in the short run. A bad liberal (again, using the American definition) President can do all of those things too, but will also create new governmental social programs which will increase the size of government, demand new taxes to pay for and never, ever, go away. Plus, once they are designed and implemented, they continue to grow and grow. Social security started as an income supplement, now it is what many people rely on for their retirement. When Obama talks about medical coverage, education, etc. he is talking about creating government programs to do these things, programs which will still be there, for good or ill, for the rest of my life. That, in my opinion, is how things can get worse, a bloated government providing shoddy services which come out of my taxes. The majority of Americans obviously disagrees with me on that, so we'll have to see what happens, but if Obama gets to do that things he says he wants to do he effect will be much more long-reaching than any President since FDR.

[tigerdave]

First of all, although I supported McCain I hope Obama can do an excellent job and prove me very wrong. Beyond that, how much worse things can get is a matter of prespective. A bad conservative (in the American sense) President will screw with the economy, maybe start a war or two and can make things bad in the short run. A bad liberal (again, using the American definition) President can do all of those things too, but will also create new governmental social programs which will increase the size of government, demand new taxes to pay for and never, ever, go away. Plus, once they are designed and implemented, they continue to grow and grow. Social security started as an income supplement, now it is what many people rely on for their retirement. When Obama talks about medical coverage, education, etc. he is talking about creating government programs to do these things, programs which will still be there, for good or ill, for the rest of my life. That, in my opinion, is how things can get worse, a bloated government providing shoddy services which come out of my taxes. The majority of Americans obviously disagrees with me on that, so we'll have to see what happens, but if Obama gets to do that things he says he wants to do he effect will be much more long-reaching than any President since FDR.

As much as I'm inclined to throw up as I say this, I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt until he does something in office. I'm not holding my breath for him governing from the center, however, not with the temptation of a big majority for those wingnuts Pelosi and Reid. Remember the last president to have this kind of majority behind him was Carter, and that was one of the most disastrous administrations in US history.

[City Dave]

Ummm... didn't Bush have the same kind of majority in 2001 and beyond?

Actually, I just checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_Congress
And also the 108th and 109th. So, the last President to have this kind of majority behind him was the current one and he didn't do very well with it. Granted, the 110th hasn't done anything to correct things, although everybody wants to place blame on Bush even though the Democrats have controlled Congress for the past two years.

Just did some more research, Clinton also had the same kind of majority his first two years in office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress

Hey, I voted for McCain, too, but let's be sure and get our facts straight.

[tigerdave]

Ummm... didn't Bush have the same kind of majority in 2001 and beyond?

Actually, I just checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_Congress
And also the 108th and 109th. So, the last President to have this kind of majority behind him was the current one and he didn't do very well with it. Granted, the 110th hasn't done anything to correct things, although everybody wants to place blame on Bush even though the Democrats have controlled Congress for the past two years.

Just did some more research, Clinton also had the same kind of majority his first two years in office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress

Hey, I voted for McCain, too, but let's be sure and get our facts straight.

That's what I get for repeating what I see on TV! :D

[BayernWake]

I know a lot of you won't care but the feeling abroad is that a lot of people are looking forward to a fresh start in international relations with America. A more sensible foreign policy too. America looks better in the international community now, because Dubya has kind of dragged your name through the mud in a lot of people's eyes.

That is actually the main thing I care about.

[JaredSS07]

We will see if Obama gets treated like Clinton did, but I doubt he will. I don't think you will see a large amount of rancor from the average Republican, because most of them weren’t heavily invested in McCain. For the most part, Republicans don’t hate Democrats just for winning; however we will start attacking Obama over some policies that he will push.

Thankfully our country can’t be destroyed by a single president and harmed in ways that can’t be fixed by the next (I am speaking about both Bush and Obama) . Americans like parity in their government and you will see that in 2010 when the Dems lose seats in the House and Senate. The majority of mid-term elections go against the current President and unless Republicans ******** everything up in the next two years, we will finally see gains in Congress.

On a side note, I am actually happy I don’t have to defend Bush anymore or have to try defending McCain (who I have hated since 2002).

[JaredSS07]

How do you think Obama’s victory/term(s) will be seen by history?

Is it:
The last gasp of baby boomer hippies to get the “hope” and “change” candidate or the end of baby boomer control and losing control to a new generation?

The beginning of new racial tension or the final breaking of racial barriers?

Continuation of partisan politics or a revival of the “Post-WWII Consensus?”

[Russell1892]

That is actually the main thing I care about.

Just out of interest is this because of your time in Austria? How were you perceived as an American? I know a lot of Americans travelling through Europe and the World pretended to be Canadian to avoid flak.



Thankfully our country can’t be destroyed by a single president and harmed in ways that can’t be fixed by the next (I am speaking about both Bush and Obama) . Americans like parity in their government and you will see that in 2010 when the Dems lose seats in the House and Senate.

I don't think thats just in America, the same thing happens in Britain, like when Tony Blair's government was elected in 1997 with a massive majority, it was later 'corrected' over the next few elections. Much like Obama, Blair took over a country disillusioned with the incumbent Tory government. As a related side-note the Republicans would always struggle to win this... the longer one party is in power the more resentment builds, and change becomes more likely. Which is why Labour will probably not win the next British election.

How do you think Obama’s victory/term(s) will be seen by history?

Its obviously a massive moment, in terms of race relations (although I imagine at some point, some historian will seek to "downgrade" him to the first "mixed-race" president... why that matters I don't know). Culturally it could well be the breaking of the perceived glass ceiling. It will be looked on as a step along a journey that began in the 60s. From segregation to a black President within a little over 40 years will be seen as an amazing change. You Yanks will be better placed to comment than I, but did anyone expect this to happen within their lifetime?


I think we in the West forget how quickly things have changed in a historically short period of time. The closest comparison I can make is Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister over here in '79. We've only allowed women to vote in this country for 80 years... and it wasn't until the 70s that they were given the vote at 18. It may be off tangent but its odd that we rush around the world promoting our democracy pretending "'twas ever thus".

As for the rest of it we shall wait and see, much like the 60s generation were politicised by the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement, I can't help but feel that Iraq and Obama has passed the baton on again. History always repeats itself to a degree as I'm sure you know.

In short, we don't know what the verdict shall be, that's a wait and see game, the cultural effects we can speculate on.

How the Bush Presidency will be judged is something we can comment on...

Any thoughts?

[BayernWake]

Just out of interest is this because of your time in Austria?

Mainly because of the seven years I spent in Germany, the year I spent in Austria, and the fact that I study and teach German.