Obama and Palin -- head to head

« Examining the unbornWork now; blog later »

Obama and Palin — head to head

Bookworm on Aug 31 2008 at 5:06 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin

If you haven’t yet read this, at Just Say No Deal, you must. (Hat tip: Lots of people and blog sites, which is why you may already have read it.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin

Email This Post To A Friend

64 Responses to “Obama and Palin — head to head”

on 31 Aug 2008 at 8:25 pm 1Ymarsakar

http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html#2678742149775628852

You have got to watch this hideously hilarious Red State youtube thingie, BOok.
on 31 Aug 2008 at 8:55 pm 2Danny Lemieux

Hmmm, now here’s an interesting comparison between Obama’s and Palin’s credentials (hat tip/Ace of Spades): http://minx.cc/?post=271871
on 31 Aug 2008 at 9:59 pm 3Wolf Howling

I did a post that I will be submitting for the Watcher’s Council this week. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/08/palin-in-comparison.html

I wrote the thing on Saturday and literally am posting here only to say up front that the work I did was my own and I had not seen the above post you linked until this eve. I write this comment because there are a lot of similarities and I do not want to be accused of having pulled a Biden.
on 01 Sep 2008 at 9:46 am 4Ellie2

Gerald Baker also does a nice side-by-side:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sarah_palin_vs_barack_obama.html
on 01 Sep 2008 at 2:17 pm 5suek

The table doesn’t give Obama enough credit for his executive experience.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/annenberg-records-reveal-obama-and.html

Of course, it was a bit on the negative side…
on 01 Sep 2008 at 8:48 pm 6Ymarsakar

Or an Obama, Wolf.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 8:34 am 7dg

The real question to ask is why a major, accredited university can employ a terrorist and no one is complaining. Either conservatives have no problems with terrorists teaching at our nation’s major insitutions of higher learning or you are only interested in the political effect of linking Ayers to Obama. This is pretty laughable. Which of Ayers critics has actually called his congressman to pressure the firing of a terrorist from his post?

Also, besides the cute slide shows (love the bike vs. Harley comp), is someone actually going to show a real, evidence-based comparison of light weight Palin to light weight Obama? I mean, as Bill Maher hilariously noted on his show, Palin went from being mayor of a town of 7,000 to governor of a state with fewer people than San Bernadino… Sadly, I believe Obama’s state congressional district has more people in it. You can like her because she is conservative, but she is still a lightweight, just like Obama. End of story.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 8:46 am 8Ozzie

but she is still a lightweight, just like Obama. End of story- dg.

I dont think we’re going to hear the end to this story for quite some time.

It doesn’t seem that she was fully vetted, and so far, the most bizzare thing to emerge is Palin’s past membership in the Alaskan Independence Party..

A quote from its founder:

“I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/curiouser-and-c.html
on 02 Sep 2008 at 8:56 am 9dg

McCain took a big risk on her because he knows the polls have him closer than he really is. He could lose this in a landslide, so you throw up the hail mary pass now. Palin’s nomination did accelerate fundraising from evangelicals and other conservative Republicans, so maybe it will prove the right decision. But his choosing someone so lightweight means it’s tough to attack Obama on the issue–yes, she’s a VP candidate and Obama is Presidential one, but McCain is 72 and said he would find someone ready to ascend today. Also, she doesn’t bring in a swing state, since AK was going GOP anyway.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 9:06 am 10Ozzie

McCain took a big risk on her because he knows the polls have him closer than he really is- dg

From what I’ve read, McCain wanted Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, but caved to pressure from the Religious Right.

As today’s New York Times put it, “As word leaked out that McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed delegates would reject Ridge or Lieberman.”

And man-oh-man, it’s obvious she wasn’t fully vetted.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5978378.html
on 02 Sep 2008 at 9:20 am 11Danny Lemieux

Oh, I don’t know if you want to go there…really.

Delaware Population: 853,476 (2006 Census)
Land Area: 1,953 sq. miles.
Manufacturers Shipments: $3,916,136,712

Alaska Population: 670,053 (2006 Census)
Land Area: 571,951 sq. miles
Manufacturers Shipments: $3,832,024

But then, Biden never ran much of anything, did he?
on 02 Sep 2008 at 9:43 am 12BrianE

It doesn’t seem that she was fully vetted, and so far, the most bizzare thing to emerge is Palin’s past membership in the Alaskan Independence Party..

It is my understanding that the AIP plays a role in Alaska politics, but is not particularly taken seriously.

But I can see why some independent sentiment would resonate in Alaska. The Federal Government owns over 60% of all the land in Alaska– 222 million acres. In fact, over 1/3 of all the land owned by the Federal Government in all the states is in Alaska.

It’s not a stretch to see why a party like the AIP might have a local following.

As an aside, 85% of all the land in Nevada is owned by the Federal Gov.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/
on 02 Sep 2008 at 9:58 am 13Ozzie

It is my understanding that the AIP plays a role in Alaska politics, but is not particularly taken seriously- Brian

So you dont think it matter that she was a member of the party that wants to secede from the union?

From the link I provided:

“Among its positions are the reclamation of all federal land through homesteading, the abolition of all property taxes, the prohibition of all bureaucratic regulations not expressly passed by the legislature, “the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts,” and a host of other things. But their main goal is the vote on independence mentioned above, which should be “a true plebecite according to international law, only legal Alaskan citizens, it is in the language of the people, federal military and their dependants are not legal citizens and will not be allowed to vote in this plebescite.”

That’s a small blip on the information that’s emerging, (i.e that she was director of Senator Stevens’ PAC; that she was FOR the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it; that the McCain campaign is trying to stall the investigation into Troopergate), but if the GOP didnt have to cater to the Relgious Right, McCain would not be in this embarassing position.

I keep hearing how she appeals to Average Americans. I saw this quote and figured out why:

Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

A: PALIN: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 10:08 am 14BrianE

I live in Eastern Washington and we often would like to secede from Western Washington (Seattle– the Kremlin of the West).
The talk usually comes up after Seattle has passed some stupid law that restricts our property rights.
I find it an endearing quality in Palin– an independent attitude like that might do good in Washington (DC).
This is not a winning issue for the left with most Americans.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 12:06 pm 15dagon

brian

you do realize that you are posting this on a site that routinely (tries) to associate obama as being anti-american or pro-terrorist for his (at best) tangential association with william ayres?

that gov. palin may have been a member of a secessionist group ABSOLUTELY does not beef up her bonafides as a proud american; one that the toby keith crowd is likely to come out and endorse in droves. do i really have to spell that out to you.

or is the hypocrisy and need to win simply too much here for posters to come to reasonable conclusions? and the only reasonable conclusion with this pick is that she was not fully vetted by the mccaine time and now they are trying to spin her every peccadillo as if is a sign that she is some kind of all-american maverick.

hell, i just read on red state that the fact that her 17 year old, pregnant unwed daugher now means that she is a terrific mom with world-class parenting skills. now, i’m not saying that she isn’t, accidents happen. but come on!! this is hardly a positive, especially since she has proudly stated that she supports abstinence only education and would not support the very programs that may have led her daughter to use protection.

how about a little intellectual honesty here people?

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 12:28 pm 16Ozzie

that gov. palin may have been a member of a secessionist group ABSOLUTELY does not beef up her bonafides as a proud american – dagon

It’s such a negative, in fact, that McCain camp is denying her membership, though AIP has writen a eltter saying she was a member in the 1990s.

“Yes, Governor Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. She joined the Party and attended the AIP Statewide Convention held in Wasilla in 1994, along with her husband, Todd. In 1996 she changed herregistration to Republican and Todd re-registered as undeclared, a registration he holds today,” AIP reported.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 1:33 pm 17Danny Lemieux

Uh oh. Do you mean that Palin was associating with a party that was shooting and blowing up buildings and people, like the Weathermen? Oh my!

I’ve lived in several states where the Federal Government is the majority landowner and people get miffed when it interferes with their lives. So, they all have their own “independence party” as a means of blowing-off steam (that’s different from blowing off people and buildings, mind you).

Get a grip, folks.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 2:00 pm 18dagon

danny, this is getting old

obama was infant when the weathermen were doing their stuff and has stated that he neither agrees with or condones their actions. and he has had NO interaction with ayres other than sitting on a couple of boards in the area alongside other PROMINENT republicans. i live in the area, ayres is a very prominent educator now. should all of the students who attend his lectures at UIC be painted as terrorist sympathizers? pathetic!

palin, last time i checked was an adult during her alledged affiliation with the aip.

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 2:24 pm 19BrianE

dagon,
According to you, I really stepped in it this time!

But a party with the slogan “Canada my ass, it’s Alaska’s Gas!”, can’t be all bad.

OK, no more jokes.

This from a Alaskan native:

Hilzoy, your read on the Alaska Independence Party lacks the necessary local perspective. Alaska does not behave like a two-party state. There is almost always a fracture in the Republican primary. Sometimes the centrist Republican wins by peeling off Democratic votes; sometimes the conservative Republican wins by marginalizing the centrist; sometimes the Democrat wins because the Republican vote is split; and the Libertarians are a perpetual wild card.

If the Republican who loses the primary doesn’t want to give up, he or she runs again in the general under a different label. Sometimes that label is the AIP. In 1990 Wally Hickel was elected as the AIP’s nominee, and nobody thinks for a minute that he favored secession. It’s a label of convenience, like when a merchant ship flies a Liberian flag. No one really thinks it’s a Liberian ship.

I grew up in Alaska. Everyone who follows state politics knows that Vogler is a nutbag. But he’s a player who is willing to deal. Vogler knows that Hickel was just using the AIP, and Hickel knows that Vogler was just using him. Palin was politically aligned with Hickel. I don’t know exactly what she had in mind when she was flirting with the AIP, but there’s nothing shocking about it, and there’s no reason to believe it says anything about her own views on secession.

This is a response to this article written by Hilzoy:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/curiouser-and-c.html

Now, politics makes strange bedfellows and just like the comment at the beginning, I don’t know why Palin associated with the AIP, or if she even did, since it sounds mostly like local politics.

But Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.

This, it should be noted, does not square with official records.

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, “Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.”

Hickel by the way is former Governor Walter Hickel, a Republican who was elected governor on the AIP ticket in 1990 with 38% of the vote.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 2:33 pm 20dagon

brian,

still missing the point. alaska is indeed a very different place and i fully understand a lot of the geographical and local circumstances that produce the kind of mindset that some have up there.

gov. palin has been nothing if not a staunch advocate for alaska and more specifically, her home region. that may be part of her problem. she’s not running for governor of alaska again. she’s running for vice president of the united states and has thus far displayed very little knowledge or concern for the remaining states and their issues, not to mention the welfare of those abroad. she herself has stated that she doesn’t think about foreign policy.

that is why any association with the aip would be problematic and not a boon as you seem to think. i actually don’t think you really believe that either, but as of today, the gop is in full scramble mode with this pick and they have to hang their hat on something.

i mean, it’s gotten so bad that cindy mccaine, when asked about palin’s foreign policy merits could only come up with, “well, she’s close to russia” it’s THAT bad.

btw, alaska is only 500 miles closer to russia than delaware, biden’s state.

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 2:40 pm 21Ozzie

I don’t know why Palin associated with the AIP, or if she even did, since it sounds mostly like local politics.- Brian

Another perspective:

Turns out that the Alaskan Independence Party is also the Alaskan affiliate of the American Constitution Party, which is basically a third party that demands the institution of a Christian theocracy (Goal: “to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.”) This sort of makes sense, as Palin’s political views suggest much more affinity for the far religious right than for secession movements. But this is all getting fringier and fringier.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=more_palin_extremism

Not suprisingly, Palin was vetted by the Council for National Policy
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/352178/secretive_right_wing_group_vetted_palin

which also vetted George W. Bush, back in 1999

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170
on 02 Sep 2008 at 3:14 pm 22BrianE

Dagon said:

gov. palin has been nothing if not a staunch advocate for alaska and more specifically, her home region. that may be part of her problem. she’s not running for governor of alaska again. she’s running for vice president of the united states and has thus far displayed very little knowledge or concern for the remaining states and their issues, not to mention the welfare of those abroad. she herself has stated that she doesn’t think about foreign policy.

I’m glad we agree that as governor of a state, one of her main duties was to be a staunch advocate for her state.
Here is an area where she can be a staunch advocate for the United States, from day one.

From the Houston Chronicle:

In an election where energy has moved to the top of the agenda, Republican vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin arguably brings more credibility on the topic than anyone else on the two major tickets.

She’s the governor of Alaska, where close to 85 percent of the budget comes from oil revenue. It’s second only to Texas among the states in oil production.

She’s the previous head of the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and is married to a North Slope oil production engineer.

Since taking office in 2006 she has thrown out the previous administration’s plans for a North Slope natural gas pipeline, which had been criticized as too generous to oil producers, and has bolstered state coffers through an overhaul of the state’s oil and gas tax structure.

“Between Biden, Obama and McCain, Palin is the only one who can spell ‘energy.’ The rest of these guys are completely clueless,” said David Pursell, an analyst with Houston-based Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., an energy investment and research firm.
[snip]
But Mike Doogan, a Democrat in Alaska’s House of Representatives, said he’s not so sure about Palin’s chumminess with the industry.

“They don’t have big color pictures of Sarah Palin in the board rooms of BP, ConocoPhillips or Exxon,” Doogan said. “If she’s in the pocket of big oil, she’s kept it a pretty good secret.”
[snip]
Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy fellow at Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, said Palin represents a departure from past Alaskan politicians in how she has motivated the oil industry.

“She’s taken much more of a ‘knocking-heads’ approach,” Jaffe said. “She has stood up to the big players when she didn’t like the process, and I don’t think it’s played well with the industry.”

But there’s no doubt Palin is clearly pro-oil production, said Robin West, chairman of energy strategy firm PFC Energy.

But her record, however, also suggests that being pro-production doesn’t necessarily mean she’s reliably pro-industry, West said.

“The agenda of Alaska and the agenda of Exxon are not always the same,” West said. “They may both want more production but it may not be under the same terms.”

I can see her as energy czar, pushing a coherent energy plan for this country, which includes, shocking as it may seem, oil. As T. Boone Pickens advocates, drill, drill, drill now and prepare for the transition by using natural gas, until the more unproved sources (wind, thermal, solar) are developed.

This alone would make here a valuable asset as vice president.

August 1 MSN story:

TransCanada) today received the support of the Alaska Legislature to award the company a license for the Alaska Pipeline Project under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA).

“The Legislature’s decision represents a significant milestone in advancing this major natural gas pipeline project to connect stranded U.S. natural gas reserves to Alaskan and Lower 48 consumers.

Today’s positive vote was the conclusion of a special session of the Legislature which reviewed the recommendation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Commissioners of Natural Resources and Revenue to issue TransCanada the license. Governor Palin, her Administration and a team of expert advisors conducted a comprehensive analysis of TransCanada’s application prior to their recommendation to the Legislature. TransCanada’s application met all the AGIA requirements, which include protecting Alaska’s interests with reasonable commercial terms; the ability to provide in-state gas deliveries; Alaska labour opportunities; and procedural elements that facilitate an expedited path toward state and federal approval and a timely open season to solicit capacity on the line.

By the way the negotiations were with TransCanada, a Canadian Company. She also brought the Canadian government on board.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 3:40 pm 23suek

>>he has had NO interaction with ayres other than sitting on a couple of boards in the area alongside other PROMINENT republicans. i live in the area, ayres is a very prominent educator now. should all of the students who attend his lectures at UIC be painted as terrorist sympathizers? pathetic!>>

You keep saying that. Nevermind that it isn’t true. Why is it so important to deny it?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/annenberg-records-reveal-obama-and.html

When you finish that one, go here:

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html

And if you’re really motivated, search the globallabor site for more Obama/Ayers stuff. Lots there.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 3:44 pm 24dagon

I can see her as energy czar, pushing a coherent energy plan for this country, which includes, shocking as it may seem, oil.

wow. that’s setting the bar REALLY low brian. this is the vice president of the freaking united states. she may have had some experience in dealing with the oil industry, but energy czar? seriously, at a time where are resources are being taxed to the degree that they are and the future landscape where it is, don’t you think that we can do just a little bit better? say someone with maybe a lifetimes work on energy issues? someone with a grasp on current dependencies and a pulse on where the industry is headed in the future; biodeisel, wind, etc in conjunction with oil? someone with advanced studies? maybe?

some of you really do think that this is a game don’t you? or that anyone can be vice president. hariett miers would be more qualified to be energy than gov. palin. after all, she presided of bush’s books back in texas, right?

here are gov. palin’s academic credentials: a 2 year degree in journalism.

i’ll ask again, with all of the energy challenges threatening us in the 21st century, you think the best we could do would be sarah palin for energy czar? we can’t afford to have anyone less than the best so i sincerely hope your answer is no.

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 3:47 pm 25suek

Yeah…I guess Cheney would really be a better choice for energy czar.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 3:51 pm 26suek

>>he has had NO interaction with ayres other than sitting on a couple of boards in the area alongside other PROMINENT republicans. i live in the area, ayres is a very prominent educator now. >>

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/authoritarian-radicals-barack-obama.html

>>should all of the students who attend his lectures at UIC be painted as terrorist sympathizers? pathetic!>>

Not yet. After all, they’re still students.
on 02 Sep 2008 at 4:06 pm 27dagon

sorry suek,

hate to break it to you but i live in that community and know all about the annenberg stuff. nothing there amigo. i love the ayres/obama syntax. nice touch. how many others were on the committee? what were they’re roles in relation to obama’s? don’t know do you?

the rest is just wishful inuendo. the local press has been over and over and over this story as was the case with tony rezko. obama has been completely and fully vetted. moving on, since none of you seem to be able to live up to your goal as “serious” people.

that cheney crack sums it up. you do think this is a game.

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 4:27 pm 28BrianE

“setting the bar really low brian.”
In this world there are two kinds of people– the doers and all the rest.
I think we can put Sarah Palin in the doer camp.
So far, she has managed to do pretty well.

“at a time where are resources are being taxed to the degree that they are and the future landscape where it is”
Solution– drill, drill, drill. Build a NG pipeline. Convert cars to NG.

“someone with maybe a lifetimes work on energy issues?”
Not needed. You’re implying that an executive in one industry can’t apply the same principles in another, which is just not true.

“someone with a grasp on current dependencies and a pulse on where the industry is headed in the future”
That’s when you hire experts (they often have an engineering degree, unless you’re a democrat, in which case they’ll have a law degree) or use your imagination

“biodeisel, wind, etc in conjunction with oil?”
I think you make be making these energy sources more complex than they are, unless you expect an energy czar to invent the next generation of storage device–which is the breakthrough needed to make wind and solar viable.

“someone with advanced studies?”
I’ll take a doer with experience every time
on 02 Sep 2008 at 4:36 pm 29dagon

Not needed. You’re implying that an executive in one industry can’t apply the same principles in another, which is just not true.

who said anything about an executive. i’m talking about an expert. you wouldn’t hire bush to run the fed would you? same deal.

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 6:44 pm 30BrianE

Dagon,
Just curious, but have you ever run anything? A business, a committee, a council, etc?
on 02 Sep 2008 at 6:58 pm 31dagon

brian,

yes, yes and yes

peace
on 02 Sep 2008 at 8:41 pm 32BrianE

Good. Would you consider somone running a medium size business with a $5 billion budget more qualified than someone who has never run a business?
Would someone who ran a million dollar business be more qualified than a person who had never run a business?
In general would the same business principles be applied to both businesses?
Would someone who had run a pharmeceutical company be qualified to run a computer company.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 8:39 am 33dg

Danny, Biden is not the Governor of Delaware. He is one of only 50 senators representing 300M people. I don’t get the analogy. But if you now want to contend that Palin is somehow more experienced than one of the most senior Senators in the land, go right ahead. I’ve got some great beachfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Suek, you and Danny really need to call the police, your congressman, the national guard, whatever… to get that “terrorist” Ayers out of a publicly funded educational institution. When you have taken those reasonable and credible steps to establish that you really think the guy is a terrorist, then we will call for Obama to step down for having agreed to work with him to help educate children in school. As I said before, if you want to criticize Obama for failing to raise education standards, having poured millions down a rat-hole, that would be fine. But, pretending that Ayers is a terrorist in the last decade when he was on a board with Obama is just incredible, unless you take the other steps to demonstrate that you truly think this guy is a threat, and, thus by extension, Obama is as well…
on 03 Sep 2008 at 2:47 pm 34suek

>>i live in that community and know all about the annenberg stuff>>

>>obama has been completely and fully vetted.>>

Ok. Now we _know_ you’re a plant.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 2:50 pm 35dagon

suek

Ok. Now we _know_ you’re a plant.

nope, i’m just very good at what i do. lol.

peace
on 03 Sep 2008 at 2:51 pm 36suek

>>you and Danny really need to call the police, your congressman, the national guard, whatever… to get that “terrorist” Ayers out of a publicly funded educational institution.>>

Would that we could.

>>unless you take the other steps to demonstrate that you truly think this guy is a threat, and, thus by extension, Obama is as well…>>

I think he’s a threat. I think he’s more dangerous to the American way of life now than he ever was when he was a bomber.

The only way you don’t agree is if you’re a socialist as well, or if you really are ignorant. You don’t seem ignorant.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 2:58 pm 37suek

>>that cheney crack sums it up. you do think this is a game.>>

No…you object to Palin because she doesn’t “have an education” in energy. Cheney is an expert, having worked in the field. Now if you protest that we can’t have _him_ because he’s worked in the field and is obviously biased, then you’re saying you want someone who has never worked in the field. If you get someone who has never worked in the field, you may get someone with a lot of book learning – but no practical experience, which means they know diddily squat.

It’s a bind.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 2:59 pm 38dg

So, suek, please tell me your grand plans to help inner-city children get a good education that do not involve some sort of wealth transfer? I suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also seeks to boost test scores in math and science in inner city schools is socialist and a greater threat to your way of life than the Unabomber…

Bill Gates at the last Davos conference was confronted by one of these anti-socialist, laissez-faire capitalist enthusiasts, who pointed out that foreign aid to starving populations did not boost their GDPs at all. To which Bill Gates responded by saying that he didn’t care. They were human lives worth saving. I wonder, Suek, where your anti-socialism side ends and your humanity begins.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:01 pm 39dagon

suek

i hate to break it to you but there are numerous people with expertise in energy issues who have never used that expertise for financial profit. i know most of them probably have advanced degrees and stuff and that scares the hell out of you….but i’m just sayin’

peace
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:02 pm 40dg

How is Cheney an energy expert? He is an oil services expert, having parlayed his large rolodex of government contacts from the Ford Administration into a posch executive job at Halliburton, which relies on political connections to get a lot of its contracts. He may know very little about other areas of the energy complex and next to nothing about alternative fuels.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:26 pm 41Zhombre

The Gates Foundation is an example of private philanthropy, as was Andrew Carnegie donating money to build public libraries a century ago, and not an example of government confiscation and redistribution of wealth for social goals. Private philanthropy is the antithesis of socialism. As for “foreign aid to starving populations” yes, lives are worth saving and such relief is justifiably humane. But unless underdeveloped countries achieve some level of prosperity so they can feed themselves, those lives are going to require saving over and over again. It is not humane to leave people in a state of permanent dependency in a dysfunctional state. Socialism in developing countries does not have a record of achieving either that independence or functionality.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:36 pm 42BrianE

dg said:

So, suek, please tell me your grand plans to help inner-city children get a good education that do not involve some sort of wealth transfer?

Closing the inner city schools, stripping the power of the teacher lobbies, and allowing choice– parochial, charter, corporate funded… all of the above.
In case you think spending more money is the answer:
US spends 5.3% of a $13 trillion dollar economy on education; German spends 4.6% of a $2.8 trillion dollar economy; Japan spens 3.5% of a $4.3 trillion dollar economy; China spends a miserly 1.9% of a $7 trillion dollar economy.
I don’t think we’re getting our moneys worth.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:37 pm 43suek

>>please tell me your grand plans to help inner-city children get a good education>>

Oh please. You have to change the inner city culture before you can get _most_ of the inner city children to _care_ about _any_ education.

That begins with encouraging two parent families. That begins with taking actions that discourage illegitimate babies. That begins with qualified teachers and the ability to _fire_…yes _fire_ …inadequate teachers. Many teachers have a problem with “soft prejudice”. We had a problem with it in our schools…”those poor Mexicans…it’s too hard for them”. Well, no it isn’t, but they have to work. They’re _not_ stupid – but children are children…they won’t work any harder than they have to. If you don’t require it, they won’t do it. If a high schooler doesn’t want to go to school, let him stay home. He’ll disrupt the class for the others. Enforce street curfews during school hours – if he won’t go to work, he either finds a job or goes to a juvey school where there are physical demands. In other words, if you want to change in inner city, either they have to do it or government has to do it. Once again…going to the past…50 years ago, US cities didn’t have these problems – what’s changed?

>>where your anti-socialism side ends and your humanity begins>>

There’s a place for charity – and a need. There are places where people are starving, and places where the water they drink is so polluted that most children only live a year. But for the most part, unless the parents are ne’er do wells, that place is not in our inner cities. There are times and places where people _must_ be helped with charity, but there are also places where they need to do something for themselves. You demean and diminish them when you treat them all like children who will never grow up.

We all have the authoritarian side of us. Personally, I’d like to take every child from parents who are unable to care for them and put them in a caring capable educated family. I’d like to require that if a woman went on ADC, she had to have an implant and attend school until her child was in first grade, so that she would be able to work and support herself and her child before she had another. Have a baby while you’re on ADC, and no more ADC Plus we take the one you have and the one you’re pregnant with. Take drugs? Zap – take the kids. But that really isn’t the answer – people have to pull themselves up. You cannot make them. Let them fail – and that’s where I’d like to take the kids out – and if they’re miserable, so be it.

Education starts in the home. In homes where the education level is pretty much zilch, it’s going to take generations before you can raise the level enough to have an influence.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:40 pm 44suek

>>I don’t think we’re getting our moneys worth.>>

Washington DC spends more on education than any other school system in the country, and its students achieve less.

Charter schools have made a difference. Parents _want_ their children to do well – they _should_ have a choice and a chance.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:41 pm 45suek

>>He may know very little about other areas of the energy complex and next to nothing about alternative fuels.>>

And you know this … how???
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:44 pm 46dg

Zhombre, the Annenberg Foundation is also a private foundation. But the fact that they gave money to Ayer or Obama means that it is socialist, according to Suek. The only logical conclusion I can draw is that she opposes giving money to inner city kids.

As for socialism, we practice it in the US all of the time. There is corporate socialism (look at that Bear Stearns bailout). There is military socialism (look at how all the red states have military bases and collect more than $1.00 from Washington for every dollar sent there). There is religious socialism (look at the tax breaks given to religious organizations that secular humanists would die for). Bottom line: there is no pure capitalist system nor pure socialist system (which I thought was communism) in the Western world. Can we please talk in terms of relative amounts of each and define our terms more carefully?
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:44 pm 47suek

>>i hate to break it to you but there are numerous people with expertise in energy issues who have never used that expertise for financial profit. i know most of them probably have advanced degrees and stuff and that scares the hell out of you….but i’m just sayin’>>

a) examples please.
b) not “using that expertise for financial profit”… then who evaluates their expertise?
c) ahh. teachers and educationally advanced people.

Well…you know what they say…those who can, do. Those who can’t…teach.

Do you have a problem with “financial profit”?
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:45 pm 48suek

So…where did Annenberg get the money for the foundation???
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:46 pm 49suek

>>But the fact that they gave money to Ayer or Obama means that it is socialist>>

That’s an idiotic statement. Didn’t read the links to globallabor, did you!!
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:49 pm 50dg

So, suek, your solution is to assume away the underlying problems and declare, “let them eat cake.” By the way, there were far more people living under the poverty line 50 years ago, something the crowd that pines for Donna Reed and Leave It To Beaver have forgotten, and things like the GI Bill are widely believed to have helped by improving education and opening up new economic opportunity. That Obama and Gates have pushed for the same improvements, while folks like you criticize them as socialists, speaks volumes about everybody. Don’t you think?
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:51 pm 51dg

Suek, to answer your question on where that ne’er do well, socialist Annenberg got the money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg. Judging from the picture, Ronald Reagan must have had bad foreign policy judgment as well, associating with a terrorist’s benefactor like that. Absolutely shameful.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 3:58 pm 52suek

The GI Bill gives benefits that are _earned_. Hardly a socialistic benefit. It doesn’t “improve education”, it allows those who serve to improve _their_ education. It _does_ open new economic opportunity for them, and in addition is probably responsible for improving the opportunities for their children. Additionally, it’s available only for those who have served in the military, which, I suspect is another factor that influences improved opportunities – though I’ve never seen a study on it. I wish there _were_ one.

>>That Obama and Gates have pushed for the same improvements, while folks like you criticize them as socialists>>

No…Obama was a socialist who made use of a charitable grant from the Annenberg Foundation and with Ayers used those funds to support organizations that were socialistic in educational purpose. Gates is a wealthy man with more money than he can spend in his lifetime, who is generous and wants to use his wealth for the benefit for others. His option. _Not_ socialistic. When the government does it, and takes the money from others, _then_ it’s socialistic.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 4:03 pm 53suek

Nice write up on Annenberg. Looks like he was another of those greedy capitalistic businessmen. Started with very little and built a fortune. Of course, that was in the old days…before we had our present level of regulation and taxes. Before Social Security even!!!
on 03 Sep 2008 at 4:04 pm 54suek

>>Ronald Reagan must have had bad foreign policy judgment as well, associating with a terrorist’s benefactor like that>>

Spin spin spin.

>>Absolutely shameful.>>

Yes, you are.
on 03 Sep 2008 at 4:22 pm 55Zhombre

“Zhombre, the Annenberg Foundation is also a private foundation. But the fact that they gave money to Ayer or Obama means that it is socialist, according to Suek.”

Ayers is a man of the left and I assume he advances the agenda of the left and will use the money of the foundation to that end.

“As for socialism, we practice it in the US all of the time. There is corporate socialism (look at that Bear Stearns bailout). ”

If you broadly interpret socialism, yes that is true. But there is socialism, in which the government assumes ownership and runs the enterprise according to its political goals, and there is the time-honored traditions of Dipping into the Public Funds for Necessary (or Dubious) Purposes. Not quite the same thing. The Bear Stearns bailout, like the Chrysler bailout, like the FDIC, does not entail government ownership nor attempt anything like central planning.

“There is military socialism (look at how all the red states have military bases and collect more than $1.00 from Washington for every dollar sent there).”

Now that’s silly. There are military bases in California, in Illinois, New York, and in Washington near Tacoma too (Fort Lewis), all bluest of blue states. Maintenance of military forces and national defense are a government responsibility. This is a legitimate Constitutional function, hardly socialism.

“There is religious socialism (look at the tax breaks given to religious organizations that secular humanists would die for)”

That’s a bit silly too. They need not die for those tax breaks, merely form a nonprofit organization under Section 503(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Secular humanists are eligible. Exploiting the tax code is much better than dying, though I can’t say I’ve tried the latter with any serious intent, a mild heart attack notwithstanding.

“Bottom line: there is no pure capitalist system nor pure socialist system (which I thought was communism) in the Western world.”

Well, we agree on that!

“Can we please talk in terms of relative amounts of each and define our terms more carefully?”

I’d be happy to but I suggest you sharpen some your terms and assertions.
on 04 Sep 2008 at 7:43 am 56dg

Zhombre, since you agree that there is no pure capitalist and socialist system, then stop caricaturing leftists as communists. We are arguing over shades of grey (e.g., how much public funds go to the safety net of corporations versus the safety net of average citizens) rather than Smith-Marx epic ideological battles. If the Annenberg Foundation wanted to channel money into public school education in the inner cities as the Gates Foundation does, let’s hear a more intelligent argument for why this is a bad thing than simply because “a man of the left” wants to do it, so it must be wrong.

I’ve heard a lot from the RNC about freedom from government and rugged individualism, but I don’t hear enough from Republicans decrying corporate bailouts. They hold stock, so they don’t care. They just don’t like the government helping out poor people or the working poor or even the lower middle class. Why don’t they decry the corporate tax breaks and loopholes, which cost more than any single social program this side of Medicare and Social Security?

You are wrong on the military welfare/red state stuff. Red states on average collect more from the federal government than they pay in, while Blue state collect less. This is statistically significant, by the way. And the reason in large part is due to the higher number of bases (per capita) in red states.

You are also wrong about the religion welfare. Last I checked, the Bush Administration had given all of its faith-based initiatives money to religious groups. None of it went to secular humanists. By the way, none of it went to Jewish or Muslim or other non-Christian groups either; and only a very small percentage (<5%) went to Catholics. If you think all of this money was passed onto charities, without any being syphoned off to support the religious groups themselves and their missions, you are very naive.
on 04 Sep 2008 at 7:51 am 57dg

Suek, the GI bill is a below-market loan with grant money attached, in amounts far in excess of what the market at the time would have paid those soldiers. You might feel it was “earned” in a colloqial sense. But no bank at the time nor the Department of Defense would have sustained such a loan or grant. That is why a government subsidy was put in place in the first place. Stop conflating facts with opinions. It hides the real lesson here: that government interventions in the economy have created value when done intelligently. Republicans miss this because their interventions are generally not done intelligently, because they are guided by an ideology that says that they don’t want a government any larger than the one they can drown in a bathroom (c.f. Grover Norqvist).

And I have no problem with Annenberg making lots of money in a capitalist system. I’m doing the same. It makes you look stupid when you characterize people with more left-wing views as communists, since Warren Buffet and George Soros are not only infinitely richer and smarter than you, but they are also more liberal than you. But it doesn’t mean that they are not also better laissez-faire capitalists…

I’ll take the “spin spin spin” quip to mean ya got nothin’. Obama is not Ayers and showed no bad judgment in his arms’ length “associations” with the man. Unless, of course you think Reagan’s judgment was off as well…
on 04 Sep 2008 at 8:12 am 58suek

>>the GI bill is a below-market loan with grant money attached>>

That’s odd. My son received GI bill money with no obligation to pay it back in the past, and so is my future son in law – at present. It’s not enough to pay their entire cost, but it helps.

>>You might feel it was “earned” in a colloqial sense.>>

Damn right.

>>Obama is not Ayers and showed no bad judgment in his arms’ length “associations” with the man.>>

There are two factors here. Bad judgment in one’s social associations and what the intent of the association was.
Personally, I’d find it problematic to associate with an unrepentant bomber, even if he completed served time (which Ayers didn’t), but to each his own. His business.
On the other hand, if the intent of the association is a collusion to change education in this country in order to change the basic nature of the country, I _do_ object. And I think that was their goal. I think they used the Annenberg money to promote socialist education ends. That may be fine with you, and apparently the Annenberg Foundation didn’t obect, so it certainly is not illegal. But _I_ object. I see socialism in Europe and don’t want it for this country. I do not want a man in the presidency who sees this as a good goal and therefore I find the association unacceptable.

That’s my opinion and my right.

Are you trying to say that Ayers and Obama did _not_ have that goal, or are you saying that is was a good goal?
on 04 Sep 2008 at 8:14 am 59suek

>>I’ll take the “spin spin spin” quip to mean ya got nothin’.>>

Take it any way you want. Sometimes it just means that I can see how you twist things and I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with it. Socially speaking, it just means I’d like to push you into the pool. At the deep end.

While I went to have a long tall cool drink.
on 04 Sep 2008 at 8:19 am 60suek

>>And the reason in large part is due to the higher number of bases (per capita) in red states.>>

Blue states have a higher number of cities. Cities are more likely to be Democrat because cities prevent individualism.

Red states have a lower number of cities, and the cities are smaller. Most of the population is rural and very individualistic. They don’t depend on others to sustain them because there just isn’t anyone else. They have more military bases because they have more open space.
on 04 Sep 2008 at 4:09 pm 61dg

suek, you refer to Annenberg money promoting socialist ideas in primary school, so what is your proof that they were trying to promote “socialist” ideas? Which socialist ideas, specifically? Also, I’m not sure how I “twist things” since I try to apply logical and empirical analysis fairly consistently, but please tell me how I’ve done so by pointing out that the GI Bill is a government subsidy and, therefore, technically “socialist.”

While I’d love to swim in your pool–it’s in the 90′s here–I’d rather learn how cities prevent individualism, and how government subsidies in the form of military bases and the economic benefits associated with them should not count as “socialism” directed at red states?
on 05 Sep 2008 at 9:40 am 62suek

>>I’d rather learn how cities prevent individualism,>>

Ok…I know this is a waste of time…

You live in a city. You live in a condo or an apartment. The neighbor boy trespasses on your property and drops trash every day. You have asked him not to do so and have spoken to his parents with no success. Do you: build a fence? sit on your porch with a shotgun? turn the dog loose? Call the cops?

I’d say no to all of those. You might choose to do any of them in a very rural setting (well, except call the cops. They’d laugh at you) You can’t build a fence – even if you own the condo, you have rules you have to follow. You probably can’t have a dog, and a shotgun??? out of the question! What you do is complain to the property manager. Call the cops and file a complaint. In other words, you rely on a government organization – which is established for good purpose…to keep order that would be chaos if you had every person in the city trying to perform the same function.

Or how about digging an independent septic tank? a new well? Forget it – water and sewage are supplied by the city. Again, for obvious reasons. It makes sense.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing – it’s a necessary thing when you develop areas with high population concentrations. It’s cooperative living, but it does mean that people tend to depend on the cooperative organizations for things that they would otherwise have to do for themselves. The result is a changed frame of mind – instead of saying “what can I do to solve this problem”, people say”who’s responsible to solve this problem for me”.

>>and how government subsidies in the form of military bases and the economic benefits associated with them should not count as “socialism” directed at red states?>>

Military bases etc. are not government subsidies and don’t count as socialism. While it’s true that congress critters pant for the opportunity of getting them established in _their_ districts because of the financial benefits, the fact is that the government _needs_ the bases and has to put them somewhere. The bennies to the local community is incidental. You could say the same thing about any of the governmental facilities that states and the feds alike build – prisons, hospitals, roads, highways….anything.
on 05 Sep 2008 at 9:57 am 63dg

Suek, so if you are not saying that a greater reliance on government–which you define as socialism–is a bad thing but a necessary thing, then why are you so harsh in your criticism of those that live in more urban areas and support those programs and expect the government to function well in delivering them? You or other conservatives attack Europe, but forget that the continent is far more urbanized than the US–as any telecommunications network planner can tell you–and thus should be expected to be more socialist in their expectations. This was my point earlier about respecting the different historical, geographical and cultural paths of the Europeans versus the Americans rather than just trotting out mindless Freedom Fries arguments to make us feel good about our patriotism.

On the military bases, I agree that they are like prisons, hospitals, roads and highways. And they are all government benefits that red states are receiving in higher amounts than blue states. So enough from red state Republicans about how radically socialist the blue states are. Those government subsidies are very real dollars and their transfer from blue to red states is as socialist as any other. A truly capitalist system would make the red states bid on them and pay ongoing fees to keep the benefits associated with them. This is not feasible, but pure capitalism never was.
on 05 Sep 2008 at 3:28 pm 64suek

I agree that a balance between the government services and population centers must be reached. The problem with _socialism_ is that it takes from all and serves the few. An example of this is property taxes and schools. In prior years (at least in my state), it used to be that those in a school district would pay taxes and the school they got was whatever they could pay for. Some districts were wealthier than others and had better schools. It was decided that a percentage of the district taxes would be paid to the state – after the county collected it – and the state would pay it out to the school districts evenly – same amount paid each school per student each day. Except some schools were already better off than others – so some districts were paid more, and some were paid less. And still are, to this day. So, you pay people to work in the state who pro-rate the dollars sent back, you pay a state committee to decide what shall be taught to whom, and even though you have school boards, they are severely limited in any decisions they can make. Are schools today better than they were 50 years ago? Not according to the SATs…
So, if you live in a city, you expect certain services. You pay city taxes that pay for those services. Now, if you start getting those same city services paid from the State coffers, then you’re getting services paid for by citizens who do _not_ benefit from the taxes they’re paying. That’s wrong.

Likewise, if the Federal government supplies services, they should be paid for by the people who benefit from them.

Granted there is some overlap and there are some inequities, but under socialism, the citizen doesn’t really get a vote in how much they pay in tax or who gets the benefits. In other words, under a capitalistic system, what I earn is _my_ money except for some percentage I pay to the various governments for services they provide. In socialism, what I earn belongs to the state, except for what they choose to allow me to keep.

>>A truly capitalist system would make the red states bid on them and pay ongoing fees to keep the benefits associated with them.>>

That’s an absurd statement. The feds decide what they need and where they need it, and get the best deal they can. If they don’t, then it’s a problem of corruption – but that’s a human problem from which we’ll never be totally free.