The New Yorker explains why Obama is a better choice than McCain.
1. The policies of Republicans generally and George W. Bush specifically are spent and the results are grim. The country is in a hole and McCain’s deck chair rearranging isn’t going to pull us out. Spending more, taxing less, and little to no regulation on Wall Street isn’t sound fiscal policy.
2. Obama actually has ideas about energy policy beyond “drill, baby drill.” McCain once seemed like he did, but he sold his soul to get the Republican nomination.
3. McCain picking Supreme Court nominees means it would end up packed with conservatives opposed to, among other things, Roe v. Wade.
4. In foreign affairs, McCain seems show more faith in force than interest in its strategic consequences. Obama seems capable of dealing with nuance.
5. Character: Obama has displayed more of it.
Echoing Obama, McCain has made “change†one of his campaign mantras. But the change he has actually provided has been in himself, and it is not just a matter of altering his positions. A willingness to pander and even lie has come to define his Presidential campaign and its televised advertisements. A contemptuous duplicity, a meanness, has entered his talk on the stump—so much so that it seems obvious that, in the drive for victory, he is willing to replicate some of the same underhanded methods that defeated him eight years ago in South Carolina.
The choice of Sarah Palin revealed McCain’s cynicism as much as anything else. Obama seems to be the embodiment of a pragmatic calm.
For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness.
responding point-by-point:
1. Anti-McCain reminds me of all the anti-Obama arguments; some of that’s fine, but often it substitutes for enthusiasm for one’s “own” candidate.
2. Yes, but they’re bad ideas. Why does he think the government will be good at picking winners in energy innovation? And neither of them talks about the devalued dollar and its impact on gas (and food) prices. We have a dollar crisis far more than an energy crisis.
3. True (relative to Obama), although perhaps exaggerated: who knows what type of judge “the maverick” will pick?
4. True, although Obama is (sadly) showing increasing faith (nuance?) in military might in the McCainian sense– to go along with his faith in military might in the Bill-Clintonian sense. And of course, McCain and especially Obama have considerable “faith in force” on economic issues.
5. Bias.
It’s fun not to have a dog in this fight! ;-)
“who knows what type of judge “the maverick†will pick?”
We have seen McCain make picks – the most recent example is Sarah Palin. Lord help us all if he is elected gets to pick members of the court.
Ah, but Eric, you do have a dog in the fight. We’re all on this ship together, and if it goes down, we’re all in a heap of trouble. I appreciate that you have different ideas on how to right the ship, however.
Call me a cynic, but I only see Obama as a less awful choice. Spending more while taxing more may do a better job of balancing the books, and there is great value in not expanding the debt too much more (although a Democratic dominated government will almost certainly expand the debt some, particularly if they remain committed to these horrible bailouts), the commitment to spending, and therefore to taxes, is still going to be a great drain on an economy that needs draining like a hole in the head.
I’m with you Doug, that even though a partisan Libertarian, I do have a dog in the fight. Sadly, my best political hope is for gridlock, for greater deliberation of bills before the Congress and the tension between the executive and legislative branches. It also means hoping for the most awful candidate to win. I’m voting for Barr, but know he isn’t going to win. These can be depressing times.
It’s a game of woulda, coulda, shoulda, but I can’t help but thinking we’d be in pretty good shape just about now had we left the Clinton tax structure in place and not decided to spend a pile of money occupying Iraq.
Did I hear correctly that the Stockmarket has a sum total zero growth rate over the last 8 Bush years? Where did all the wealth go?
Lou…”Where did all the wealth go?”
It was all on paper, the DOW is back up to 9,000 this morning….it’s called the market…
It will all be back again (on paper) it just takes more than a week or two.
Of course, the Dow was at about 11,000 when Bush took office almost 8 years ago. Since that time, it’s climbed as high as 14,000 (+27%) and dropped as low as 7,500 (-32%). At 9,000, it’s currently -18% or so. Generally speaking, the Bush years have not proven to be strongly correlated with good economic times.
I blame
global warmingclimate change.Of course, I now blame EVERYTHING on that – including my
mispellingstypos…“We have seen McCain make picks – the most recent example is Sarah Palin. Lord help us all if he is elected gets to pick members of the court.” – Lori
I agree with you 100% Lori, but here’s the catch – any Supreme Court pick has to be approved by people other than McCain. That’s my thread of hope, anyway. Nominees have been scuttled for reasons both good and bad, but at least in this McCain’s word won’t be the last one.