The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Norton

Or a huge tax increase which neither candidate is prepared to propose.

sabang

David Brooks, in a NY Times editorial-

"All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics."

Op-Ed Columnist - The Two Obamas - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

I agree with him.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

Jet Gorgon

^ Good article, MM. As I receive the Obama e-letters, I often wondered who "another sponsor" is that would match every one of my donations. Obviously, some heavyweights. Sho nuff, it's probably one of these guys, as quoted from the NY Times article:

"He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer."

Yep, he's a fast Eddiie alright.

Milkman

I read the article by David Brooks yesterday. I found the term "fast Eddie" very silly and foolish. Just another biased op-ed article. Almost everyone has a bias. Brooks is not very insightful on anything, IMO.

sabang

He's not anti-Obama really, he's just pointing out that these 'Obama is naive' accusations are plain wrong- he's a smart politician, through and through.

Jet Gorgon

^ That's why I don't trust him.

sabang

^ Thats why I don't trust any of them. As his recent flim flam on campaign finance shows, Obama is first and foremost a Politician- expedience and self interest (ie Winning) will win over high falutin but impractical moral issues.

I just plain like his policy platforms and diplomatic persona more than Mccains, and after 8 years of the Bush crowd, boy do we need to cast the GOP into the wilderness for a while so they can sort themselves out, and the US can go about sorting itself out. They blew it.

Norton

Ron Paul is the only guy who can be trusted to speak his mind, stay true to his word and consistently practice what he preaches. It is clear from his lack of political success where this approach will get a candidate in today's political circus.

Jet Gorgon

^ I think Paul lost out on his lack of social skills and ability to connect with everyman.

sabang

He'd have been better running as an independent imo- the republican party machine was resolutely opposed to him from the start.

Norton

Yes and this is where Bama excels. Policies aside, a fundamental "leadership" trait. The ability to inspire!

attaboy

^ If he had any sort of track record in the big leagues you could be right. At the moment he is a demagogue. Platitudes he's good with. Church rallies are his thing.

Norton

Think he would rather keep church rally's out of the equation.

Jet Gorgon

^ & ^^ Yep, Wal-Mart inspires, too. The more Obama goes forth, the more I question his motives and sincerity, never mind his ability. Sure, give him a couple of years (do you think he'd make four?). And what if a real catastophe hit the country. I reckon each candidate should be put through a simulation test to see how they would respond to a terrorist attack like 9-11, nuclear war, a Chinese invasion. All tests would have to be secret so no pre-prep.

Norton

In a sense they are via Congressional cabinet approval hearings. The makeup of the cabinet for any President is to a great degree the key to his/her success or failure.

Milkman

No.

Ron Paul lost because of his views. Criticizing the M3 money going to the MIC. Taking the US out of Iraq.

Ron Paul was lucky he was even allowed onto the debates. There were several attempts to block him from participating in the debates. If you don't cater to the powerful interests that truly run the US, you are not heard. Oh, you can talk and write. But your message will only be recieved by a few.

Also, even though Paul was running on the GOP ticket, he ran as a Libertarian candidate in the past. Big government doesn't like this.

Third parties are basically not allowed in the USA. The legal structure, and mechanics exclude any 3rd party.

The Dems and Repubs are a single monopoly - one party - in collusion.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

Jet Gorgon

^ But Colbert was running as an independent and he even got on "Meet the Press".

sabang

Finally, an article about the disgruntled Conservative voters, that would normally vote Republican. According to this, it is about 20% of them. Now if you take away from Obama the blue collar Democrat and swinging voters that will not vote for him on the basis he is half black (surely not that many), I think that it looks pretty promising for Obama:-
Obama's strange appeal to high priests of US conservatism

WASHINGTON (AFP) — They're called the Obamacons -- the conservative thinkers who are disgusted with the Republicans and are rallying to Democrat Barack Obama as the nation's economic and diplomatic savior.

They are joining younger evangelical leaders who see more to their religious mission than slavish devotion to Republican social mores, and fiscal conservatives who reject the war-fueled spending of President George W. Bush.

"The Bush coalition is dissolving," pollster John Zogby told AFP.

"We have polling showing one-fifth of conservatives supporting Obama," he said.

It seems an unlikely alliance, as some of the star intellectual names who have long given philosophical sustenance to Republican rule clamber aboard Obama's bid for the White House.

But thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama, Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Bacevich -- all vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq -- dislike Republican candidate John McCain and see something alluring in his Democratic rival.

Fukuyama, the conservative author of the post-Cold War treatise "The End of History and the Last Man," said on a visit to Sydney last month that the Republicans were a spent force intellectually.

He told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that many on the right of US politics believe "Obama probably has the greatest promise of delivering a different kind of politics" that breaks with decades of Republican orthodoxy.

Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, believes that after eight years under Bush, the Republicans need to lose November's election to reinvent their thinking and policy platform.

"For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one," he wrote in The American Conservative magazine.

Among conservative critics, there is often a strong streak of libertarianism that is offended by Bush's war in Iraq, his curbing of constitutional freedoms in the "war on terror" and his swollen budget deficits.

Through publications such as National Review, the house organ of Republican seers, conservatives claim to have had the ascendancy of ideas for decades -- a point Obama has acknowledged through his praise of president Ronald Reagan.

But if that tide of ideas is ebbing, that suggests trouble for McCain at a time when the Arizonan is already battling to shore up backing from Republicans mistrustful of his maverick Senate record.

Full article:- AFP: Obama's strange appeal to high priests of US conservatism

Quoting from the above- "The Republicans need to lose Novembers election to reinvent their thinking and policy platform". These are my thoughts in a nutshell.

There are a few Bush apologists, predictably staunch Republican voters. The majority of the US (and the world) however knows that the Bush administration was a failure, it's neo-conservative philosophies lie discredited, the amount of scandals that dogged the administration are unparalleled in recent history, and it has left the USA with several problems on the domestic and international front.

In business I did not reward failure, neither do I in politics. I am a pregmatist. Let the GOP lick their wounds for a while, and hopefully reinvent themselves as an actual Conservative party again- who knows, I might even support them at the next elections if they can achieve this.

GooMaiRoo

I think Ron Paul lost out because his ideas were outside of the acceptable bounds of corporate America. He was ridiculed and ignored by the major news networks, even after he placed 2nd or 3rd in 29 primaries/caususes and won the majority of polls taken after his TV debates. Several large corporations monopolize the flow of America's news information and candidates who offend their world view don't stand a chance.

gdk

and some good sleeping pls those shows