August 30, 2012

No, I won't apologize for voting for Obama, but Meade regrets voting for McCain.

My refusal to apologize hinges on my 3 reasons for voting for Obama: 1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines, 2. The central issue of the day was economics, and McCain had professed and demonstrated that he was unprepared to handle it, and 3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.

In 2012, from my point of view: 1. Mission accomplished, 2. McCain isn't the alternative to Obama, and 3. Potential miserably squandered as a flailing Democratic party and its media facilitators use race any old way they want in the short-sighted pursuit of partisan goals.

And what about Meade? Last night, as we watched the GOP convention — and he fully intends to vote for Romney — he told me he's sorry he voted for McCain. Paul Ryan was speaking. This and more could not have happened without Obama. (I'll let Meade explain more in the comments, and I encourage you to try to understand why he's thinking this now.)

266 comments:

1 – 200 of 266   Newer›   Newest»
Cedarford said...

It's early obviously to say this is true...depends on how things go.

But if Romney turns out to be an excellent President, Obama leaves in failure and an endless stream of bullshit speeches...

Not only will Republicans regret McCain running in 2008 or voting for the dimbulb war-monger...

But Democrats will look back and think if they only had chosen Hillary, she would have been elected, the country would have been in far better shape, and Hillary could have cruised to relection in 2012 with a Democrat House

tim in vermont said...

Somebody like Obama was as inevitable for our country as old age is for our body.

Tocqueville predicted that once the population realized that they could vote themselves the content of the treasury, democracy was doomed.

Of course many of us are still in the bubbly effervescence of spending borrowed money, so this is not obvious. Possibly the oil we are sitting on can dig us out of this mess as well, but civilizations decline and fall just like people grow old and die, through and inevitable logic.

wild chicken said...

I'm starting to think the Democrats should own the economy and WOT for the next 4 years, too. Then we won't have to hear from them for another 20.

The economy won't be easy to fix. The war on terror could be ended any time.

sydney said...

The left was in the wilderness for a very long time before managing to grab power. (From Reagan to Bush II) They only managed to win by running a candidate who lied about his intentions, at least when he spoke about specifics. (He was truthful when he said he wanted to transform our country.) Hopefully, the Obama years will put them in the wildnerness again for a very long time.

netmarcos said...

Personally? I blame the Republican primaries of 2008. Oh, and Mike Huckabee.

Daniel Richwine said...

I voted for Romney in the primary, for what its worth. Remember what Rush said after the election? He said he bet that was the last time we let the media choose our candidate.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

I didn't vote for Bama, even though I was furious with McCain for running back to D.C. to vote for the bailouts.

I tried to be philosophical about Bama's win, and like you, Althouse, I hoped that his victory would have the upside of ending the racial pandering and encourage blacks to take advantage of the opportunity to assimilate.

To some extent, I can see the signs of assimilation.

But the awful "all racism all the time" hysteria of the Dems has become a nightmare, and Bama doesn't seem to be statesman enough to call a halt to it.

rhhardin said...

Always vote against estrogen floods.

Freeman Hunt said...

Number one should be true. I don't know that it will hold when Obama's out of office though.

Pogo said...

Those things Althouse claims are true.

The choice was between more inching towards socialism by the installment plan under McCain, or taking the full confident plunge in the deep end under Obama.

Both were horrible choices.

Under McCain, I do not think we would be shackled by Obamacare, nor do I think we would have grabbed GM and started the road down crony capitalism. I don't think we'd be as badly off today economically as under Obama.

But McCain would have capitulated to the socialists over and over again in smaller ways, and things would only be somewhat less bad in total.

I worry that health care has been irreparably damaged for decades to come, even if ACA is repealed, because the shifting to accommodate it has already begun.

I have been very angry at Obama voters, but there were far too many of them to continue to blame them. I see their vote as the inevitable outcome of the long march through the institutions, which was its intent.

The left has achieved nearly every goal, but as yet unable to achieve the full Cloward-Piven Strategy, though they have come so very close.

What they didn't get were the expected outcomes from all their work.

RJ said...

But the awful "all racism all the time" hysteria of the Dems has become a nightmare, and Bama doesn't seem to be statesman enough to call a halt to it.

Call a halt to it? He reinforces it!

michaele said...

I will be interested in Meade's elaboration. Romney was my choice in the 2008 primaries and I was a reluctant McCain voter. Because of some of the blogs I read, I was well aware that Obama had concerning leftist tendencies and I didn't trust him. However, I'm glad McCain lost. He would have pained me these past 4 years. I'm not confident the reform minded Tea Party would have become the political force it is today.
I hope with eyes wide open, enough American voters will reject 4 more years of Obama and give problem solvers like Romney and Ryan a chance to do serious work.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

I have said for several years and still say, Barack Obama is the greatest thing for the conservative movement since William F. Buckley Jr. I didn't vote for him and but I saw this six monthes into his term.

Affirmative Action, Keynesian Economics, Identity Politics...He is a walking, talking (boy does he talk) demonstration of the failure of liberal policy.

dreams said...

The only reason I voted for McCain is he was my only choice. I voted for McCain after vowing via an e-mail to the Instapundit that I would never vote for him.

This election we have a clear choice and this election we conservatives don't have to hold our noses while voting.

MikeR said...

Be glad to hear what Meade has to say, but here's my take:
It is the most exciting political movement in my life, and it could not have happened without Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

On the other hand, they are wrecking the place awfully fast. I thought that control of the House of Representatives would stop them, as the House handles spending. Turns out not to be true: If nothing is done, the spending just continues automatically. And "everyone knows" that shutting down the government to stop it carries disastrous political consequences for Republicans.

So I don't know if the movement is enough. There are a lot of Eaters out there, both poor and extremely rich. California is the proof that Americans can keep doing dumb stuff till they are off the cliff already.

FleetUSA said...

Although I was for McCain I didn't think B0 would be as terrible as he turned out to be. I guess I didn't fully factor in how bad the cocktail of B0, Pelosi, + Reid would be for the nation.

dreams said...

Romney was my choice in 2008 too.

FleetUSA said...

p.s. I voted for McCain partially because of the enthusiasm SPalin brought to the ticket. Otherwise I might have sat at home.

AllenS said...

Seems to me that you didn't have 3 reasons for voting for Obama back when you had a choice. Your only reason back then was how McCain lost me

Matthew Sablan said...

From my own side, I am politically rather moderate. I'm actually willing to go with what works, as opposed to what I see on the left which is the claim of going with what works, but ignoring things like the Laffer curve or John Lott's books on guns and violence. I've realized how completely ingrained lies are in the media, and the over arching system of political cronyism that I just never was able to see as clearly as when we had a president who is just bad at optics AND politics around. I don't think Obama is a bad man; I think like any large organization, that much of this corruption has always existed. We've just never been in such a dire economic strait that things like the party in Vegas on the tax payer's dimes pierced our willful blindness.

This is why I've been trying to check the worst lies; I think Ryan's plans could be better. I don't lie about what it does though. I notice that I rarely ever get to make forward arguments about policy; it is always spent dispelling lies and myths.

Which is something I never would have realized I was doing without an Obama presidency and Obama supporters being so willful and unwilling to communicate with me as an equal. I disagree with conservatives on social issues; they don't defriend me on social networking sites or call me a racist. It's things like that that have moved me to being much more vocal than I ever would have been without this presidency.

Tank said...

1. So what. You made the Dem's stfu about security. How did this help anything? You felt good?

2. Neither of these guys showed in any way that they were aware of the sh**storm coming down the line or what to do about it.

3. Race? You hoped that they guy who came out of 20 years in God Damn America Church was going to "advance us on racial matters?"

The guy who threw his typical white person grandmother under the bus, along with his Chicago mentor, at the first sign of trouble? Get real.

Nope. Looking at the old dolt and the con man, the best path was too stay home. Although Meade is right, we would not have had the tea party or Ryan without Zero.

Phil 3:14 said...

Let's move on, shall we.

michaele said...

I will be interested in Meade's elaboration. Romney was my choice in the 2008 primaries and I was a reluctant McCain voter. Because of some of the blogs I read, I was well aware that Obama had concerning leftist tendencies and I didn't trust him. However, I'm glad McCain lost. He would have pained me these past 4 years. I'm not confident the reform minded Tea Party would have become the political force it is today.
I hope with eyes wide open, enough American voters will reject 4 more years of Obama and give problem solvers like Romney and Ryan a chance to do serious work.

Laurie said...

I'm looking forward to reading Meade's comments on this. I, too, voted McCain (with little excitement), but felt he was the lesser of the 2 evils. I also thought that whomever won was going to have a tough time forestalling the inevitable (the economy). I will most likely vote for Romney based on this same issue, but also because I'm so disgusted by the way the Dems play the race card - pandering to votes instead of showing a true spirit of moving the country forward on this issue. Well that, & I don't agree in principle that govt is the answer to all our problems. However, I will say that the Rep party's overuse of the "We DID build that" is already getting on my nerves - I agree with what Althouse already said about Obama's use of that phrase. Also, find the Bush snubs sad (if they are snubs - I don't fully understand what the deal is with the lack of involvement). Really political parties/candidates frustrate the hell out of me. I think that's why Christie's speech resonated the most with me - just be brave enough to speak the truth- or at least the truth as you see it - & let voters decide! But of course, that will never happen in today's "marketing" society. My deepest fear is what tim in vermont said - I try not to think about that.

Pete said...

1.) There's no reason to believe the Democrats would have continued sniping from the sidelines if McCain had been elected. So what if the Democrats sniped? It's not your responsibility to hold their collective feet to the fire by voting for the lesser of two candidates.

2.) There was no evidence that Obama could handle the economic crisis any better than McCain. None. Obama was a community organizer. A law lecturer. A short-time, often absent Senator. What about that convinced you Obama could have handled the economic crisis better than McCain?

3.) I think the advancement in racial matters was really your chief reason for voting for Obama but, again, I say, what evidence was there that told you things would be any different than they are today? Then, as now, any critics of candidate Obama were labeled racist. It's magical thinking to believe that would have changed with the election of Obama.

As for Meade regretting his vote for McCain, he only had two choices: McCain or Obama. Obama was clearly the lesser choice. It'll be interesting to hear why he thinks he should have voted for Obama, especially in light of how things have turned out.

Meade said...

Sorry, no time to explain right now - I have work to get to. I'll be back later. Meanwhile, I think you can figure it out.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

I, too, have often thought we dodged a bullet with McCain. But while wiping one's sweat from one's brow in relief of that fact, we were decimated by an IED called Obama.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

Ultimately Althouse's reasons could turn out to be correct in the long run assuming we can get Romney elected, get Obamacare repealed and Romney-Ryan prove themselves to be up to the challenge, I hope.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Although I was for McCain I didn't think B0 would be as terrible as he turned out to be."

-- I actually said something like that at one point before that election. I thought, "No matter who wins, we'll at least have someone in office who can help bridge the gap in our politics." Sadly, I realized no matter how much politicians want us to get all nicey-nice, it just won't happen.

Meade said...

"...decimated..." ???

Do tell.

mun said...

Obama was and is an empty suit and McCain was and is a warmongering rhino. Ordinarily I cast my vote for a divided government but this time I am hoping for a clean sweep so that we can get Obama-care off our backs and get rid of some cabinet departments. The primaries were good for Romney and Ryan is an excellent pick that shows Romneys seriousness about fixing our economic problems

mun said...

Obama was and is an empty suit and McCain was and is a warmongering rhino. Ordinarily I cast my vote for a divided government but this time I am hoping for a clean sweep so that we can get Obama-care off our backs and get rid of some cabinet departments. The primaries were good for Romney and Ryan is an excellent pick that shows Romneys seriousness about fixing our economic problems

Ruth Anne Adams said...

40+ months of over 8% unemployment

Sluggish housing market for 4 years

Pent-up capital not being invested [capitalism shrugging]

Polarization of America into pure partisanship

...decimated

Clyde said...

That's like saying, well, you couldn't have gotten that great penicillin shot if you hadn't gotten a social disease first.

And yes, I'm saying (again) that Obama For America is about like Measles For Children or Syphilis For Lovers: Something not only undesirable but to be actively avoided!

The Drill SGT said...

In 2012, from my point of view: 1. Mission accomplished Surely you are joking. The Dems both continue to blame the GOP for every ill the country faces, at home and abroad, and they will be back on the streets in January calling for an end to the war... McCain was demonstrably the better choice then and now.

Cedarford said...

"As for Meade regretting his vote for McCain, he only had two choices: McCain or Obama. Obama was clearly the lesser choice. It'll be interesting to hear why he thinks he should have voted for Obama, especially in light of how things have turned out."
====================
McCain would have been a dismal President, working out deals in a "bipartisan fashion with his Dear Friends Nancy and Harry.
He wanted at least 3 new wars, and likely would have bartered his Neocon dreams of Empire for Pelosi's healthcare scheme. He was on record as saying that the way to stabilize the economy was to just give money (500 billion, McCain thought was needed) to people that borrowed more money than they could afford for McMansions, 3rd vacation homes, or the 5th speculative property an illegal bought with no money down. (While people that lived within their means and stayed out of heavy debt got NOTHING).

Obama was a toss of the dice. There was a 15% chance he would be a lot better than McCain, 40% chance about as bad, and 45% chance of being worse than the dimbulb war monger.

But even if he was worse, then all the Democrats would OWN the national security, economic issues they had (along with a complicit media) been sabotaging the running of government and dividing the public on.



Curious George said...

"AllenS said...
Seems to me that you didn't have 3 reasons for voting for Obama back when you had a choice. Your only reason back then was how McCain lost me"

It's called backfilling. Without it the foundation ultimately fails and collapses.

The Drill SGT said...

ps: a few people voted for McCain because they were racist, but almost everybody that voted for Obama did so because they were (are) racist.

Shouting Thomas said...

I read Steve Sailer's "American's Half-Blood Prince" back before the 2008 election, so I had no illustions about Bama.

I always thought that his embrace of black racists was purely for the sake of ambition, and that Bama would be more pragmatic about the racial shit once he was in office. I am surprised, and appalled, that Bama decided that black racism and liberal racism hysteria were his only hope.

Sailer is about the only sensible voice out there on race, and gay marriage. His bit today on gay marriage, "Gay marriage: 0 for 32 at the polls" is one of his best.

Larry J said...

I didn't like McCain in 2008 but saw him as vastly better than Obama. For anyone willing to look, it was easy to see that Obama was a fraud and an empty suit. He turned out to be even worse than that.

It's up to Obama to state the case why he deserves another 4 years in office. I don't think he can make the case. Yes, he came into a bad economic situation. The things he did made it worse. He has shown no ability to learn from previous failures because he can't admit to ever being wrong. That isn't the mark of an intelligent person. As for his likeability, he's a narcissistic asshole.

AllenS said...

Tags: making shit up

Curious George said...

"AllenS said...
Seems to me that you didn't have 3 reasons for voting for Obama back when you had a choice. Your only reason back then was how McCain lost me"

It's called backfilling. Without it the foundation ultimately fails and collapses.

PJ said...

I think #1 was a defensible reason to vote O, both in prospect and in retrospect (and in 2004 I thought it was the only defensible reason to vote Kerry, though I didn't do that, either). I share Freeman's suspicion that no lasting good will come of it, though. I think expecting O to lead us in a good direction on #3 was always naive in light of his biography and record, but on the other hand I think some progress has been made in spite of his lack of leadership that would not have been made if O had lost (e.g., accusations of racism are no longer quite as readily accepted at face value by anyone other than journalists because O and his supporters have debased that currency, among others). On #2, I don't disagree with your assessment of McCain, but I don't recall your ever having offered any positive reason to prefer O, so I'm assuming that your only point is that #2 did nothing to offset your preference under #1.

I will allow that IF the ACA is repealed soon, there will be a good argument for the proposition that the nation would have been worse served by a McCain presidency.

Rusty said...

My refusal to apologize hinges on my 3 reasons for voting for Obama: 1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines, 2. The central issue of the day was economics, and McCain had professed and demonstrated that he was unprepared to handle it, and 3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.


Oh, sure. You say that now.
1.) How could you have known that Obama would continue Bushes policies in Iraq and Afghanistan when he publicly stated that he would end both involvements as soon as he was elected.

2.) Ok I'll give you this one. As far as economics goes McCain believed money comes from Washington.

3.)You didn't know enough about his background to draw that conclusion. All you knew was he was nearly black. Illinois state senator should have been your first clue.

But you are right. Without the 4Q of Bush 2 and the four years of Obama there never would have been a Rick Santelli and the great American political awakening called the Tea Tarty.

AllenS said...

Talking about what if concerning McCain being elected is a waste of time. 50% of this, 20% of that. Bull.

Cedarford said...

The Drill SGT said...
In 2012, from my point of view: 1. Mission accomplished Surely you are joking. The Dems both continue to blame the GOP for every ill the country faces, at home and abroad, and they will be back on the streets in January calling for an end to the war... McCain was demonstrably the better choice then and now.

==============
Sorry Drill, but McCain was such a sorry ass Senator for Life and Pres Candidate there was absolutely no support for him in 2010, when he was sniffing about the fundraisers to guage interest in yet another run in 2012.

If you mean a better choice than Obama...probably..but lots of people would be hoping he would have croaked in office. And he would have been marginally better than Gingrich and Santorum, who also were talking about great new wars we could get bogged down in..he lacked Gingrich;s mental instability and ethics problems..he had no interest in establishing a new Inquisition in America for Loving Life! - as the odious Santorum might have...

But the other candidates , even those that didn't run? I would chose Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Portman, Palin, Christie, Jeb Bush, Ryan, Walker, even half brain dead Perry over The Hero Who Suffered 40 years ago..

CWJ said...

I'm sympathetic to the impulse to say if you're so smart, then you do it. But giving the left complete control is a dangerous proposition.

My metaphorical impression is that the right is a pendulum, but the left is a ratchet. Policies from the right seem capable of being reversed. Whereas each expansion of federal power appears quite permanent. I'm open to counter examples if anyone can cite them, but watching Europe and here where austerity and cuts are defined as slowing the growth of government rather than reversing it, I am not optimistic.

Hagar said...

It wasn't - and isn't - about Obama vs. McCain.
It is about the Democrats led by the University Crowd against the rest of us.

Ipso Fatso said...

McCain was the lesser of two evils and was who I voted for in'08. While I didn’t like McCain, given the performance of Obama, unlike Meade, in no way do I regret my vote. I just regret the outcome. We would never have had Obamacare, the lawless GM bailout, and we would have had at least marginally better SC picks than the 2 leftwing dupes were are stuck with now.

I never viewed Obama as some racial savior for a number of reasons, most importantly, his inability to reconcile his white mother, which underscores Obama’s mendacity. This is something that rarely gets mentioned. The racial angle was a pure fantasy of media types and academics—the educated fools who run this country. And just for the record, I too, had a white mother and a very dark complected father (Mexican & Tarahumara Indian) so his racial makeup is on par with mine. No doubt a reason that the racial issue sticks with me.

Obama was elected under a perfect storm: 8 years of a lifeless Bush/Chaney presidency, 6 years under a corrupt and spendthrift congress controlled by R’s, a Media that was in love with his life’s story and was committed to seeing that he was elected, no matter what, and 2 wars started by Bush that the people were tired of and the R’s choosing a very weak candidate in McCain. I just hope that enough people have woken up to make BO a one term president. I also find it interesting that Althouse has told us who Meade will be voting for but has not said who she will vote for. My bet is on Obama as I don’t think she will vote against her class. Time will tell.

chickelit said...

Paul Ryan was speaking. This and more could not have happened without Obama. (I'll let Meade explain more in the comments, and I encourage you to try to understand why he's thinking this now.)

This is pathetic reasoning and logic...as stated it's akin to saying something good happened because something bad happened before it, therefore I should have supported the bad. I can think of all kinds of extreme examples to refute it.

ndspinelli said...

I'm laughing as I visualize the Deep Thoughts bits on Saturday Night Live..."Deep Thoughts by Meade Laurence" But, we'll have to wait while he mows the lawn.

Big Mike said...

My concern was whether you had learned anything from your mistake. It seems to me that your answer is negative.

There are hundreds of thousands of Americans whose dream of a comfortable retirement have been postponed or replaced by early retirement and living hand to mouth, just so you can feel good.

Well done.

Unlike you, Professor, I did some research into the kind of man Obama was (still is). The evidence that your #3 was never more than a foolish pipe dream was there for anybody who pretends to scholarship to find, and without much difficulty.

Kansas City said...

Fascinating explanation of the Obama vote and, to me, pretty persuasive in a vacuum. However, it ignores the overriding left wing mentality of Obama. We were not just electing a guy to conduct the war on terror and to fix the economy. We were electing a guy to impose his left wing ideology on all issues big and small. So Ann is persuasive on a small ball basis, but ignores the larger, more important issue. At the same time, if the country is fortunate enough to fire Obama, then positive consequences will result and Ann's rationale gets the benefit of the subsequent event (Romney's election) that could not have been part of Ann's reason for voting for Obama. It is like dodging a bullet or rolling the dice and getting luck, i.e., Romney rides to the rescue.

On the other hand, it is very unlikely that McCain would have been a successful president. As suggested by Ann, he would have been slayed by the media and, to some extents, by events.

Finally, one of the biggest disappointments of Obama is his abject failure to help on race issues and to use them only for his electoral benefit. It is reasonable to conclude that Obama has very little interest in the challenges facing African Americans and the state of race relations in our country.

Illuninati said...

If Romney wins, and gets a Congress and Senate which will work with him, our economy can recover quickly. The permanent damage is in international affairs. We recovered long ago from Carter's economy, but we still suffer from Carter's foreign policy mistakes resulting in radical Iran. Perhaps in the near future, Iran will have a nuclear bomb, and can fulfill their threats to wipe out the Jews. Now, with the Muslim Brotherhood as their allies, thousands or millions will probably die as the result of Carter’s and Obama's policies in the Middle East.

From the beginning, Obama has promoted the Muslim Brotherhood. In his speech in Egypt, he defied Mubarak, and insisted that the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood should be present for his speech. Mubarak knew Obama would not support him so he felt he had no alternative but to resign. Now, the Muslim brother hood is prepared to assert dictatorial powers with Sharia law. They are busy suppressing more secular Egyptians and purging Egypt of the Christian Copts, who were the original Egyptians, before the Muslim Arabs invaded their country.

Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood thanks all the Obama voters. Perhaps, they will chop off some hands, or hold a crucifixion in your honor. The women of Egypt should be especially grateful for their new freedom to live under the veil.

Marshal said...

"2. McCain isn't the alternative to Obama"

This seems like a dodge to me. We paid for this with a trillion dollar giveaway and Obamacare, which will drag the economy and depress healthcare quality forever if not repealed. Saying McCain isn't the answer avoids recognizing the unbelievable cost we're paying.

I also think you're overstating the accomplishment of item one. As soon as Obama is out of office the Democrats will revert to their prior philosophy of pretending terrorism wouldn't exist if only America was sufficiently leftist. Many leftists are still doing it, and the second it doesn't hurt Democrats the media will decide those Democrats are the ones worthy of the spotlight.

In short we've paid a tremendous price and the only benefit you can point to is ephemeral.

Lyssa said...

I would be interested to see a separate post regarding just number 3, specifically discussing a) why people believed that and whether it was a rational belief at the time, and b) why it crashed and burned so badly.

My 2 cents - we all wanted to believe that most people had good intentions when it came to cries of racism. Yeah, that there were some nuts, but we hope that most people just want to move on. We learned that that wasn't true in the least.

prairie wind said...

a few people voted for McCain because they were racist, but almost everybody that voted for Obama did so because they were (are) racist.

Exactly.

As for the Tea Party, they weren't working for the Republicans, they were--and still are--working for less government spending. No matter who is in office, the TP will be a thorn in their side. Both parties need the Tea Party to keep them focused.

dreams said...

There were a lot of well meaning people who voted for Obama hoping that his election would help move us beyond our racial past and we know now that didn't happen. Because any criticism of Obama was portrayed as racist when obviously all presidents and leaders regardless of their color are criticized as all us are in life for we all have our critics.

After being elected, Obama and his liberal media sycophants immediately played the race card in an attempt to shut-off any debate or any criticism.

Christopher in MA said...

My refusal to apologize hinges on my 3 reasons for voting for Obama: 1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines, 2. The central issue of the day was economics, and McCain had professed and demonstrated that he was unprepared to handle it, and 3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.

So don't apologize. But you ought to admit, even to yourself in the dark of night, that your reasons were specious.

What on earth made you think that Democrats - who spent Bush's presidency libeling the military, offering aid and comfort to the enemy and incessantly screeching that the war was lost - would suddenly turn into sober statesmen if they were in charge? That would be like giving your five-year old son the keys to the car. When he crashes it, he's not going to say "sorry," he's going to say, "why did you let me do that? You know I can't drive!"

As far as economics - you thought that the man who had no idea what comprehensive insurance was and who believed that inflating your tires was a good way to increase gas mileage could manage to add 2 and 2 together and come up with 4?

Reason 3 is the most specious of all. No one who took the time to investigate Obama's background could have deluded themselves into thinking he would be some great racial healer. No. One.

You did just what people have done with the Chocolate Jesus all his life - you projected your wishes and hopes on to him and saw yourself reflected in the reflugence of his god-like glow.

I don't care whether you apologize or not. Whether you understand that your lack of interest in who and what Obama is is part and parcel of the reason we find ourselves in such dire straits today remains to be seen.

And as far as Meade's decision not to vote McCain. . .well, if his reason is Sarah Palin, I'll be very disappointed.

Kansas City said...

Ipso Fatso is pretty persuasive too. Some much of political history/success depends on or is ordained by timing. Obama obviously benefited greatly from timing in 2008. Now, if Romney manages to win, he and the country will be the beneficiaries of good timing, e.g., sluggish economy, rising gas prices, etc. So, as Ipso Fatso argues, there is a price to pay for four years of Obama, but one cannot expect smooth sailing and, with good timing, Romney can be elected to undo some damage, avoid more damage, and hopefully produce some good results.

Conversely, if McCain had somehow won, then he would be headed for defeat and who - Obama, Hillary? - would be poised to take power and do their damage over the next four to eight years. Think how close Obama was (and perhaps still is) to re-election. If there had been anything like a normal economic recovery, he would be poised for re-election and be in a position to wreck further damage over the next four years.

Curious George said...

"Rusty said...
But you are right. Without the 4Q of Bush 2 and the four years of Obama there never would have been a Rick Santelli and the great American political awakening called the Tea Party."

I'm not so sure. Never? I think it would just have come later. We have a debt issue in America. McCain would not have dialed things up to 11 like Barry...

chickelit said...

When Althouse voted against McCain, she voted for Obama. The ballot box counted her just the same as Obama's most enthusiastic supporter. That's the moral hazard of negative voting: walking back unintended consequences which you tacitly "supported."

Jay said...

My refusal to apologize hinges on my 3 reasons for voting for Obama: 1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines

Um, ok.

But if Obama loses, they'll still be on the sidelines sniping again.

You are pretending these people aren't silly hypocrites.

Krumhorn said...

I imagine that it's Meade's observation that only the disaster, that has been the consequence of the election of Dear Leade, could have brought us to the point where we are today where, maybe for the first time since the Civil War, we are finally making a choice about who we are.

This really is an open and uncoded debate about some reasonably large and defying ideas.

If that's Meade's point, ok, I'll concede it. But we have paid a terrible price. It will take far more than a single election to undo the damage that has been cemented into the system. It wasn't just the election of The One. It was also the 60 vote super-majority that came with it in the senate.

Obamacare. Dodd Frank, the EPA. The NLRB, that new Elizabeth warren regulatory agency that requires no congressional funding (it gets whatever it needs, without restraint, from the income of the Fed) ....just to hit the worst of it. Without a similar super-majority, Romney will be using a toothbrush to scrub away the footings of this monstrous edifice when the only tool that will get the job done is a jackhammer.

So today we have an election of ideas. Tomorrow, the rubes fall back to sleep, lulled, as it were, by the soothing media narrative that we didn't build it. Libruls built it, and we should just leave it to those smart oh-so well-meaning elite fellas to map out our lives for us.

Ryan said it brilliantly, "the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners".

Oooof! That had to leave a mark.

Curious George said...

"3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters."

And River City thought a marching band would save their youth.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...

Big Mike touches on a sore point for me. I don't doubt that either candidate would face a hard economy, but its hard for me to believe that a McCain presidency would have prolonged the misery like this one. We should have hit bottom and bounced back years ago. Instead, business growth is stifled. Inflation is back in food and energy which hits the least of us hardest. Interest income is nonexistent. I really feel for those who had planned to live off the assets they accumulated over a lifetime, suddenly finding that they have to sell them to live.

Roger J. said...

When I screw up, my usual explanation is that it seemed like a good idea at the time.

The only thing I will give Mr Obama credit for is his anti-terrorism efforts, even if they involve extra-judicial murder. They seem to working quite well.

With respect to A-Stan, it would do well to remind ourselves that Mr Obama chose to make this his good war. He owns this one. Fortuately code pink is now reduced to dressing as vaginas, and Cindy Sheehan is a forgotten memory. The media no longer cite our casualties in the press. Even the forgotten war in Korea pales in comparison to A-Stan.

The economic data speak for themselves.

mrs whatsit said...

Lyssa, I agree -- but we've also learned that those who don't have good intentions and who remain unwilling to move on as to racial issues come, almost entirely, from the left.

Roger J. said...

When I screw up, my usual explanation is that it seemed like at the time.

The only thing I will give Mr Obama credit for is his anti-terrorism efforts, even if they involve extra-judicial murder. They seem to working quite well.

With respect to A-Stan, it would do well to remind ourselves that Mr Obama chose to make this his good war. He owns this one. Fortuately code pink is now reduced to dressing as vaginas, and Cindy Sheehan is a just a memory. The media no longer cite our casualties in the press. Even the forgotten war in Korea pales in comparison to A-Stan.

The economic data speaks for themselves.

And with respect to racial healing, in fact, Mr Obama has now divided the population along not only racial lines, but class and gender lines--in short further polarization in a tawdry effort to gain political support.

Roger J. said...

oops--"seem like a good idea at the time."

retail lawyer said...

I always thought Obama would be a disaster for racial harmony. I knew he would cause a decrease in the fortunes of the "of colors", constantly engage in race grievance huckstering, and most importantly, starkly divide the populace for the upcoming election. The upcoming election might as well be decided on the basis of tribal loyalties

MayBee said...

Let's wait to see if "this" happens.

If Obama wins again, it will be proof that he is leading this country in the direction Americans want. The Romney/Ryan coalition will be considered failures. Obama will feel no need to work with COngressman Ryan's budget.
And then McCain in 2008 would have been the better history.

bagoh20 said...

Hindsight is 20/20. Ann was wrong about Obama and Meade was right. Neither understood the consequences of that.

Like Meade, I too am happy with what's showing right now, but the Obama mistake may be too much to recover from. The GOP may be talking reform, but the level required is so drastic now (double what it was) that it may require people who could never get elected. The problem is spending, no matter who is President.

Voting for Obama to get fiscal sanity back is like attempting suicide to get attention. It might work, but you better not screw up on the "attempted" part. Right now the nation is in the ICU. We'll see.

MayBee said...

1) Democrats and the media will go back to sniping about the way terrorism is handled if Romney takes office. You think a Republican is going to get away with what Obama did in Libya, or with declaring anyone killed by a drone to have been a combatant?

If Romney wins, let's take bets on how long it takes to hear about the importance of closing Guantanamo.

kimsch said...

I'm in Illinois and I saw first hand what Obama did to get that US Senator position. First he got Bret Hull to drop out of the race by getting divorce records made public. Primary opponent down. Then he did the same with Jack Ryan (no relation to Paul or George, our recent (R) gov in jail). Another opponent down. Then our stupid Illinois Combine decided to bring in Alan Keyes to replace Ryan.

Obama became a state senator by getting the incumbent's petitions disqualified.

Remember though, that a vote against Obama is also a vote to remove Geitner, Napolitano, Holder, Clinton, the czars, etc. and to change the makeup of the NLRB, EPA, and more as well.

ricpic said...

Actually, Obama and his sidekick Holder are waging a war on whites, an Althouse racial blindspot. Probably willfully so.

Scott M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

I don't think Obama has had his presidency marred by even one "grim milestone" headline.

If we want that lack of sniping to continue, we'll need to re-elect Obama.
Is it worth it?

Scott M said...

Oh, and Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee = last gasp of aging left-wing, self-deluded "conservative" social agenda wonks.

Obama = last gasp of aging left-wing, college-educated boomers who would rather feel good about decisions than think them through.

I'm with Meade. McCain would have damaged the brand and given us a milquetoast conservative. Things happen for a reason.

ricpic said...

The left has achieved nearly every goal...

Indeed. And yet the more they achieve the angrier they get. Why is that, garage and hatboy? Enlighten us dumkopfs.

Cedarford said...

Illuninati - "We recovered long ago from Carter's economy, but we still suffer from Carter's foreign policy mistakes resulting in radical Iran."

For many years following WWII, America had a conceit that it could control who sat in the seats of power in 150, 160 other nations and when we couldn't..we had had to cast blame in America..somebody had FAILED.

Somebody in America let China go Red.
Somebody in America failed to communicate that 50 or so nations could not deny us control of their resources through majority US-owned companies,
We lost Cuba and OWED liberation of Cuba to the locals.
We lost Vietnam.
We lost Iran...

Truth was there were post WWII trends happening we really had no control over. China was not "lost" by a faction of politicians in DC. It was lost by the Communists doing a better job than the Nationalists.
Waves of socialism, communism, nationalization of raw resources, post colonialism, tribalism overcoming artificial borders, a resurgence in Islam.

To wit, Jimmy Carter didn't lose Iran. The people wanting an Islamic Iran outnumbered the secular opposition 10-1. The crowds demanding the Shah's fall and an Islamic Republic were 25 times larger than the Freedom Lovers movement conservatives love to say was ready to make Iran our American playground again.

Same sort of deal in Egypt. The majority of the people wanted change - and change was the Egyptian Brotherhood. What we wanted, and our Israeli "best friends" didn't matter.

Roger J. said...

I dont believe Meade has stated his position yet. Perhaps we should wait until he does before slicing and dicing it?

Rusty said...

Curious George said...
"Rusty said...
But you are right. Without the 4Q of Bush 2 and the four years of Obama there never would have been a Rick Santelli and the great American political awakening called the Tea Party."

I'm not so sure. Never? I think it would just have come later. We have a debt issue in America. McCain would not have dialed things up to 11 like Barry...

I think there was pretty widespread complacency until that day. When people actually saw the kind of hope and change came at the expense of the taxpayer, and rewarded his political friends, outrage ensued.People are stupid about a lot of things except they know when they're being robbed. The middle class instinct is to clean up the mess and get back to first principles and THEN start changing things.

Nathan Alexander said...

One rather unexpected benefit of the Obama Presidency is the ethical bankruptcy of the MSM is now crystal clear.

They spent their remaining credibility on his Presidency. They are no longer gatekeepers and cannot control the Overton window any longer.

I Callahan said...

You know, I'm completely glad you brought this discussion back up, Professor.

Your number 2 has 100 holes in it. The idea that the economy wouldn't be better NOW under McCain (despite the fact that it would have been bad), is pure 100% delusion on your part.

Those 3 reasons may have been valid 3-1/2 years ago, but we've had that time to see what Obama's done, and your reasons have absolutely nothing to do with reality at this juncture.

Christopher in MA said...

If Romney wins, let's take bets on how long it takes to hear about the importance of closing Guantanamo.

Or about "grim milestones." Or how our troops are like Nazis.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: history will damn George Bush more for not hanging the entire Democrat leadership for treason than for anything else.

furious_a said...

Obama For America is about like Measles For Children

This one's a keeper.

buster said...

I voted for McCain because it was perfectly clear that Obama was utterly unqualified to be president because of his lack of rrelevant experience and his mediocre intelligence. No matter what McCain's faults, they didn't outweigh Obama's. Since he assumed office, I learned two more things about Obama. First, his views about how the country should be "transformed" are profoundly mistaken and rejected by the vast majority of Americans (those silly polls to the contrary notwithstanding). Second, he has a mean and vicious character which should disqualify him from holding any important public office.

I suppose it's possible to view him as well-intentioned but incompetent (though I personally can't agree he is well-intentioned). In that case, the best that can be said of him is that he thinks that his job is to manage America's inevitable decline. The problem with leaders like that is that they force the country into decline. That is not what America needs.

edutcher said...

Mission Accomplished?

You must be joking. The mess in A-stan is Zero's doing and Al Qaeda is reconstituting itself under his malign neglect.

Hate to disappoint those who call me a syncophant, but you are wronger than wrong on this one, Madame.

shiloh said...

So Althouse was only teasing about Meade's soliloquy. Quite the disappointment.

But (8) years of cheney/bush definitely begat Obama :) whatever song and dance Meade might provide.

Oh yea, thanx George/Dick!

creeley23 said...

Ann: By your reasoning you could have just as well voted for Bill Ayers.

Nowhere in your logic do you show any concern for the downside of putting a callow youth with delusions of grandeur and no accomplishments, whose worldview was formed by the worst elements of the New Left, into position as the most powerful man in the world.

When I first heard of Obama I thought he was just some earnest black Democrat who had managed to punch through to national prominence.

When I learned that he launched his career from the home of the two most notorious leaders of the Weather Underground, that he had spent twenty years in racist black power church, and hailed from arguably the most corrupt city in America, I had an excellent idea of who Obama was and he has fulfilled my expectations except, thank God, he was not as clever as I feared.

I had no illusions about McCain but there is a difference between putting an old mediocrity into the driver's seat and giving the keys to a crazy kid who thinks he knows everything and wants to drive on the wrong side of the road.

The Drill SGT said...

Ipso Fatso said...
we would have had at least marginally better SC picks than the 2 leftwing dupes were are stuck with now.


On that point alone, a McCain vote is defensible

Krumhorn said...
Obamacare. Dodd Frank, the EPA. The NLRB, that new Elizabeth warren regulatory agency that requires no congressional funding (it gets whatever it needs, without restraint, from the income of the Fed) ....just to hit the worst of it.


those are just laws. they can be undone. What all Americans should regret is the damage done by the concept that a President can waiver whole sections of law he doesn't like and rewrite them against the intent of Congress, e.g.

- bankruptcy order waiver
- Obmacare waivers
- NCLB waivers
- Work for Welfare Waivers
- Immigration waivers
- Pissing away as a slush fund, the returning TARP funds instead of back to the Treasury as mandated

Congress has let itself be castrated by a POTUS. It will bitethem and us in the future


General P. Malaise said...

there is never an adequate excuse for voting for obama. he was/is a marxist narcissist and pure evil person.

I can understand not voting for mccain who is a delusional idiot and a big government statist.

by voting for obama you prove that you can not distinguish truth from untruth. PERIOD .

edutcher said...

Oh yea, thanx George/Dick!

Let the record show even shiloh thinks the current Administration is a disaster.

(why else would he trot out the /sarc tag?)

MayBee said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: history will damn George Bush more for not hanging the entire Democrat leadership for treason than for anything else.

Amen.

I wish I could have been shocked when it turned out a)Nancy Pelosi had approved of water boarding and b) discovering that was a total non-event.

elkh1 said...

I never voted for McCain, I voted for Trigg's mom.

McCain lost the whole election when he suspended his damned campaign to go to Washington to "fix" the economy. Remember those days when the stocks went down 900 points in one day, and up 500 points the next?

Then the Campaign accused Palin for going rogue when she objected to the suspension.

A McCain presidency would be as disastrous as Obama's. He didn't know what the hell he was doing. Republicans would be blamed for his catastrophic failures.

bagoh20 said...

I hated voting for McCain, but I'm absolutely certain the economy would be better. I know what motivates and demotivates business people. Obama has been like that Twilight Zone kid that thinks you into the cornfield. Nobody wants to move, because they have no idea what he will do next, except that it will be bad.

The economy would take off immediately after Obama loses, except that the structural weight now is a real burden. With tax hikes due in January it's gonna be very iffy. I think we should all apologize for our votes - there were no good ones cast.

The reason we can't say McCain was a better choice even if it meant a better economy is that the clog in the pipe was still gonna be there, and we know damned well that the next President would be a Democrat at what may be an even worse time for it.

The only thing worse about McCain is that he would have assured a Dem win in 2012 no matter what. We simply had to let the Dems have their shot, no matter what it cost us. Unfortunately, that's how we roll.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

On the first point, I don't believe in a heckler's veto. McCain is a good old boy; the advantage of him was that he had some Brownian motion between Common Cause liberal and conservative; the disadvantage was his incoherence. Third point; you're right. We wouldn't be here. Obama has shown some innovation in foreign affairs; cf. Libya. He has removed the political necessity a la Kennedy to appear macho. The policy toward terror has its incoherent aspects. Now we will kill on our own conclusions rather than take prisoners and raise problematic issues of interrogation.

bagoh20 said...

The ideal scenario using just the current players would have been McCain in 2008, then still have the Tea Party ascendancy (we hate him too), then Romney/Ryan push out McCain. That's not reasonable to expect, but for the economy, it would be the best with these players.

Roger J. said...

Seems to me the more interesting and larger question is the process that resulted in the nominations of two losers. The advantage, again IMO, of conventions is that they required separate constituencies to come together face to face and work out their differences and select a nominee that might bridge the gaps. The current primary system is a disaster. Smoke filled rooms at conventions are looking better and better. Of course it isnt going to happen.

Hagar said...

McCain would have been a lousy president personally, but he would not have appointed the cabinet secretaries and hired the agency heads that have come in with Obama.

And the employees they hired will be with us until they die or retire.

Mick said...

Please, what a claptrap of denial and rationalization from a "law prof" who voted for a Usurper. The problem with McCain is that he never meant to win. Both sides wanted Obama to win because 1)the Rs wanted Obama to be mired in the economic disaster they knew was coming. 2)They wanted, and wall street wanted, a Usurper to win that would cancel out US Citizen sovereignty--- when there is no legal president then there is no law and no constitution--- so now they can do whatever they want, with impunity--- and Trillions are being given to said bankers.

Oh yeah that was great for the US "law prof". McCain likely was not eligible either (born in PCZ-- needed US Code 8 s. 1403 to be a US Citizen). The "children of armies of the state" inclusion as natural born Citizens by Vattel could have been explored by Declaratory Judgement to the SCOTUS, but that would have exposed Obama. So McCain, in the treasonous congress' desire to whitewash Obama's ineligibility went for a Senate Resolution--- which holds no force in law (anymore than the Congressional Research Service does). As a teacher of the law you should have alerted the public, and should be ashamed.

Roger J. said...

I do wonder how things have turned out for this lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

damikesc said...

He is a walking, talking (boy...

RACISM ABOUNDS AT ALTHOUSE. #MSNBCFanatics

Darcy said...

Debate redux number 777. With a new twist. Meade would have joined The Great Experiment.

Does it change the discussion much?

No.

Roger J. said...

What the beautiful Darcy said-we are here in the present--how we got here is immaterial--it is all about what we do now. The ball is in the electorate's court and we will know on November 7 in which direction the republic will go. Coulda, woulda, shoulda's are irrelevant. The choice is Obama or Romney.

Youngblood said...

We had to destroy the village in order to save it, right?

1.) The second that a Republican is back in office, the Democrats will go right back to sniping on defense. You were silly and naive to believe otherwise.

Meanwhile, President Obama has strengthened and emboldened Russia and soured our relationship with allies like Great Britain and Israel. The Middle East is a bigger mess than it was when President Bush left office.

2.) The economic damage Obama has wrought is so vast that people who are just being born today will still be paying for the mistake that Althouse and millions of others made when they reach adulthood.

3.) The election of President Obama has actually set race relations back decades, creating more mistrust between blacks and whites.

You're 0 for 3. Senator McCain would still have been a better choice across the board.

Pianoman said...

I'm a registered Democrat although I usually vote Republican. I voted for Obama in the primaries, and McCain in the general. My reasons were:

1) To get the Clintons out of the White House;

2) To take power away from race-hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson.

I'd say that #2 succeeded. There's still a lot of shrieking about racism, but it's at the level of a cartoon now. Most people no longer believe the nation is racist. What's scarier for the Dems is that most people no longer believe the GOP is racist either.

I don't believe that the President himself has done anything particularly important to mend race relations. He didn't have to. The fact that the People elected him is enough. We as a nation will always be able to say, "We elected a Black President".

As for #1 -- who would have believed President Obama would nominate Hillary as the Secretary Of State? I didn't see THAT one coming.

mccullough said...

I agree with Cedarford that the worry about McCain was commiting US troops to fight for freedom everywhere. There's a chance that he would have sent troops to Iran in 2009, and almost certainly to Syria in the last year.

That said, McCain voted against the W tax cuts and Medicare Part D, so he was not the deficit spender that a lot of Republicans were and are. I like Paul Ryan, but he is no deficit hawk and his vote for Medicare Part D is inexplicable based on his view of government.

McCain also would not have foisted Obamacare on us, which is reason enough not to regret voting for him. He also would have cracked down on Wall Street, something neither Obama or Romney want to do. And he rightly voted against Geithner for Treasury Secretary, saying as head of the New York Fed, he was up to his neck in the Wall Street problems. McCain was more conservative than W and is more conservative than Romney. He would not have been as bad a president as W or Obama. If conservatives really want to govern the US on conservative principles, they should hope Obama wins again. After 4 more years of Obama, the US will have no money to pay for anything but essential government functions, and with states like California and Illinois going under, someone like Calvin Cooldidge will be a moderate President.

Roger J. said...

Pianoman--from the Godfather: hold your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

More thoughts of Obama via Paul Ryan's speech from Paul Mirengoff of Powerline.

"And it worked at an additional level that I neglected to note — a portryal of Barack Obama as a fad. Ryan made this point most memorably in this line:

College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/yesterdays-wind-and-todays.php

creeley23 said...

The only upside to Obama's victory in 2008 is that we have been spared four years of utter, nonstop, demented viciousness towards McCain and Palin from the blue half the country and 95% of the mainstream media which would have crippled the country and left the Republican Party so drained and devastated it would have taken at least eight years to recover, instead of two.

Obama would have been elected by a major landslide in 2012 with enough momentum to drive us irrecoverably over the cliff.

edutcher said...

elkh1 said...

I never voted for McCain, I voted for Trigg's mom.

A great many people did.

david7134 said...

There was no reason to vote for Obama. If you justify that concept, then you have a screw lose. Obama is a clearly stated Marxist. It was obvious that he had an agenda and that agenda had nothing to do with the well being of the US. I suppose you would have voted for Hitler, or Stalin?

Quaestor said...

shoutingthomas wrote:
[The] awful "all racism all the time" hysteria of the Dems has become a nightmare, and Bama doesn't seem to be statesman enough to call a halt to it.

Call a halt to it?! He's orchestrating it!

I voted for McCain because I knew what Obama was under the skin by mid-October. Yes, he's a "transformational" figure, that is if one believes the transformation of the Republic into a neo-Stalinist collective is a good thing. I knew it when this came out -- outrageous propaganda the likes of which I thought we'd never see in America. Obama could have suppressed this blatant cultism, but instead he embraced it and encouraged more of it. Why? Because he was behind it from the beginning; it was part of The Plan from the day when Bill Ayers first met BHO.

You doubt me? Think I'm lying, do you? After the election we got even more of it: Like this, and this, and this. 1984 well past its due date.

Then we got Obama, the slacker in chief, accepting the Nobel Prize. The Norwegians were fools to award the prize to Obama, but it was another thing entirely for Obama to accept it. Any man who'd accept undeserved honors is a man beneath contempt, a charlatan and a mountebank even in the depths of his soul.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This and more could not have happened without Obama.

Right. as if....If I had never had my feet amputated, I wouldn't have learned to run on these nifty new leaf springs.

/facepalm

You sometimes just can't make lemonade out of lemons.

Bender said...

In 2012, from my point of view: 1. Mission accomplished, 2. McCain isn't the alternative to Obama, and 3. Potential miserably squandered as a flailing Democratic party and its media facilitators use race any old way they want in the short-sighted pursuit of partisan goals.

In 2012, from a more objective and non-self-serving point of view:
(1) Unknown. To be sure, Obama has been a war-monger, with his death warrants and drone killings, which do not allow for the capture of terrorists. But because of that no-prisoners policy, our intelligence gathering has withered. Meanwhile, the Islamist Spring across north Africa and the middle east, together with an Iran that will be nuke-capable any day now, are all brought to you curtesy of the Obama/Hillary foreign policy, and they are all potentially September 11, Part Two and Ten Times Bigger, just waiting to grow and come to fruition.
(2) Rather than the common tactic of deflecting, let's actually consider the question -- Barack Obama's handling of the economy. Grade: F-. He has not only not fixed anything, Obama has made things much, much worse. Oh that we could go back to those horrible Bush days of $200 billion deficits and 5 percent unemployment and $2/gallon gasoline. (That is not to say that a President McCain would have been some economic whiz -- he wouldn't have been. But he would not have made things worse than under Bush, he would have not built nuclear time-bombs into the system. Most likely, he would have done some half-asssed thing, but the economic cycle would have been allowed to proceed naturally, and we would have naturally come out of the downturn, rather than ensure its continuance.)
(3) On the matter of race and racism, the problem is not the culture or the American people, who moved beyond racism long ago. The problem is the Plantation Party that seeks to perpetuate the issue of racism, which seeks to forever fan the flames of resentment and pick at wounds with a dirty stick. Of course electing "the first black president" would not have brought racial healing. Dems do not want racial healing.

bagoh20 said...

The sight of these people saying the things they are in the GOP speeches is exciting to people like me and Meade, but dude, that's only because of how bad Obama has been. It's by comparison only. Now a Romney/Ryan administration may do wonders, but it's a long shot and the deck is stacked against it. As people have said above, the opposition is not going away, they will still push mistaken policy and resist the reforms needed, and they will likely succeed in both to some degree.

The real question is in the long run. If Obama never happened, would we be better off or worse in 2020. I think a McCain win would have had a good chance of turning that future out better. Obama was inevitable. If not 2008, then 2012, 2016. It was gonna happen, but maybe by then he would know something of value to the job, and we would have averted the crazy spending we just locked in.

Bender said...

By the way, anyone who voted for McCain should regret it. I sure as hell didn't vote for McCain to be president. (I voted for the only one who knows what needs to be done for vice-president.)

MadisonMan said...

and Romney-Ryan prove themselves to be up to the challenge

Well, that's also up to Congress. Let's just say I'm not all that hopeful, but I am hoping I'll be surprised.

As for 2008 -- look forward. Navel gazing about past choices isn't very helpful. Those identical choices aren't going to be offered again. To which we should all add: Thank Goodness!

bagoh20 said...

Well done Bender. Right on all counts.

Ann Althouse said...

"How could you have known that Obama would continue Bushes policies in Iraq and Afghanistan when he publicly stated that he would end both involvements as soon as he was elected."

You can't know, but it was my assessment. There's an old Bloggingheads of me with Emily Bazelon, maybe around January 2008, and I say I don't think he'll close Guantanamo, and she insisted that he'd have to. We made a bet. I won.

When you actually have responsibility, the time for posturing is over.

Roger J. said...

What Madison Man said.

Roger J. said...

The good professor said: "When you actually have responsibility, the time for posturing is over."

And how has that worked out?

William said...

I voted for McCain. He looked old and his movements were impulsive and clumsy. I didn't expect a golden age of peace and prosperity if he had won, but, on balance, he looked to be the better choice. I still believe that.....I can see the romance of voting for a black president. Obama's inaugral was a fine, moving moment. Unfortunately his inaugral was the high point of his Presidency. The existential fact that a black man is President refutes the argument that a black man can never be President of the United States. You can say that he improved racial relations in that sense, but I can't recall him ever having anything other than a knee jerk liberal response to any racial issue.

bagoh20 said...

The whole damned world is in recession because of top down fiscal management based on leftist ideas - the whole damned world. Yet this election between an lifelong leftist and not a leftist is a close call? WTF?

Joe Schmoe said...

Dems 'owning' national security and the war and terror is simply a continuation what the Bush administration did. The only change is that the Dems now say the complete opposite (or nothing at all) of what they said up to 2008. It's incredibly disingenuous and opportunistic.

phx said...

The whole damned world is in recession because of top down fiscal management based on leftist ideas - the whole damned world. Yet this election between an lifelong leftist and not a leftist is a close call? WTF?

But that's what you say. Why expect everyone to think and feel about things the way that you do?

bagoh20 said...

"When you actually have responsibility, the time for posturing is over."

Which is exactly why McCain would have continued the Bush policies too.

ken in sc said...

I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. I knew he would not win, but I hoped that if he got enough votes, libertarian ideas would be taken more seriously. I am glad to see that some of them are being taken more seriously, but it's obviously not because of my vote.

bagoh20 said...

"Why expect everyone to think and feel about things the way that you do?"

I want them to stop feeling and start thinking. They don't have a right to their own facts.

Marshal said...

When you actually have responsibility, the time for posturing is over.

A. You wrote that you wanted Democrats rather than just Obama to take responsibility. Do you think they have and if so do you think it will outlast his presidency if Obama is not re-elected in November?

B. Do you accept the characterization of your argument as you voted for a president because otherwise his party would continue to harm America or American interests? If not how would you correct this characterization?

Quaestor said...

Althouse wrote:
Mission accomplished.

Unintended irony? Come next January the situation of the Democrats and the Press vis the War on Terror will return to its default settings. Neither Anderson Cooper, nor Brain Williams, nor Rachel Maddow will a twinge of conscience as they turn up the hypocrisy to 11. Afghanistan will again become a quagmire. Guantanamo Bay will become Auschwitz redux once more, grandmothers will eat dogfood for breakfast Reagan-style, and suddenly America's streets will be awash in desperate homelessness.

ndspinelli said...

Waiting For Guffman.

phx said...

They don't have a right to their own facts.

But the reasons for our economic problems are very much in dispute by very reputable economists on both sides. So I don't understand your affront that everybody, and apparently you really mean everybody, doesn't come to the same conclusion you do. I wonder what would you have everybody read that would persuade them you own the facts, and that others are wrong?

And you might not think "feelings" are appropriate when thinking about these issues but you couldn't be more wrong. They may not be appropriate for you, but when the conclusions we are trying to reach are inferential and in dispute, feelings are a good tool for some people.

JL said...

The problem with the logic of making the Dems "own" things, is that today's "liberal thinkers" never own up to anything. They still blame Bush and the "evil" GOP for everything. I was reading comments on a NYT piece about hurricane Isaac flooding parts of New Orleans, and many commenters were blaming Ronald Reagan because he didn't halt global warming, or some such nonsense. Such people live in a world of delusions, devoid of disagreeable facts.

I will grant that maybe some of the independents and moderates who voted for Obama have gotten a dose of reality; will it be enough to get rid of Obama?

And in the meantime we are stuck with a divisive man of demonstrably average intelligence, poor leadership skills and zero working knowledge of how to grow an economy. And we may be stuck with him for another four years. I stand by my (less than enthusiastic) vote for McCain. I don't believe the economy would be as bad as it is if he had won.

rhhardin said...

The speeches seem to be aimed at women.

vs. say Belmont Club, In DeLong’s analysis America — and by extension the West — has been destabilized by the ‘breakout’ of government. The original grand bargain underlying America was that government should never become so big that one faction could use it to impose its will upon the others.

It's like learning to fly on instruments. You feel like you're turning and you pay no attention. The instruments are right, not your feeling. And it works out. To pay attention to the feeling always leads to a death spiral.

The speeches are dealing with estrogen.

Belmont Club doesn't explain he was poor once or is a nice guy or anything.

Girls, up your game.

That ought to be the new feminism.

Shining Wit said...

As an aside from a long-time reader, I have enjoyed your blog more since you hitched wagons with Meade. It helps to have a close confidante to bounce ideas off of, although the teeming trollpits of a popular blog's comment section will do in a pinch.

Hagar said...

"When you actually have responsibility, the time for posturing is over."

I do not think these things have resulted from any decision-making on Obama's part, but rather from positions taken by the bureaucrats in charge at the various agencies and the extent to which they were able to carry their personal influence at the time

Quaestor said...

ken in sc wrote:
I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. I knew he would not win, but I hoped that if he got enough votes, libertarian ideas would be taken more seriously.

I wish that people who cast "protest" votes would read some history before going off half-cocked. Since when did a protest vote achieve what the protesters hoped it would achieve? Is the political philosophy of Ross Perot a force to be reckoned with? How many divisions does Ralph Nader command? ... Votes for Perot gave us President Bill Clinton, remember? Did the Perotistas intend that outcome? Votes for Wendell Wilkie gave us Pearl Harbor. Did the isolationists and America Firsters hope for war?

I'd venture to say that the only time a protest vote achieved its goal was in 1860 when John Bell soaked up enough votes to give Abraham Lincoln the White House.

If the libertarians want to gain power, aiming at the White House is not the way to achieve it. The road to power starts at your front door. The first step is to gain and keep a major city, with a libertarian mayor and a libertarian majority on the council. Find a moribund basket case somewhere, like Detroit, and using libertarian principles turn it around. Then go for the statehouse and the Congress. Libertarianism needs to show it can govern before it has a chance at the White House.

Michael Haz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

I voted for McCain reluctantly in 2008 as the "lesser of 2 evils", but I vote proudly for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan in 2012 as the affirmative choice!

Paulio said...

While she definitely seems to be trending towards Romney/Ryan, Althouse is carefully avoiding letting us know who she'll vote for (only Meade is committed). Did I miss another cruel neutrality post or has she honestly not made up her mind?

Patrick said...

Paulio, I'm guessing that the Professor's willingness to dance to "Stand with Scott Walker" withe Meade after Ryan's speech is a pretty good indication.

Roger J. said...

Given the Professor's abysmal choice in the last election--along with 53 percent of the electorate, and her constant rationalizations about that vote, for whom she casts her vote is immaterial to me, nor do I even want to know.

She runs a good blog, but she is not my lodestar when it comes to casting a ballot. Her opinion based on past performance is not reassuring.

JL said...

It's a tough call. Althouse has to vote for Obama again, based on her reasoning; since if Romney wins, the carping and sniping and scandal-seeking from the Dems and the liberal media towards the GOP will continue with renewed vigor; it never ended under Obama so why think it won't continue under Romney. Unless she has come to the realization that her reasoning was faulty.

jr565 said...

It sounds like Althouse is a mite bit defensive with her "Refusal to apologize". Just admit it, you voted for the wrong guy because you, at least partially, bought into his message.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If the libertarians want to gain power, aiming at the White House is not the way to achieve it. The road to power starts at your front door

This is the Tea Party strategy. Many of the Tea Party are also libertarian leaning. I know that is true of myself.

The goal is to start from the bottom up. Get those who are of like mind with you into city, county, state and federal positions.

However, since I'm in California and my vote for a Republican or anything else counts less than a bucket of warm spit, my protest vote is going to be for Zaphod Beeblebrox in the the hopes that someone somewhere will get the joke.

Cedarford said...

elkh1 said...
I never voted for McCain, I voted for Trigg's mom.
===================
Thats as idiotic as saying that you don't vote for the Governor, you base your decision on who the lieutenant governor candidates running are.


jr565 said...

JL wrote:
It's a tough call. Althouse has to vote for Obama again, based on her reasoning; since if Romney wins, the carping and sniping and scandal-seeking from the Dems and the liberal media towards the GOP will continue with renewed vigor; it never ended under Obama so why think it won't continue under Romney. Unless she has come to the realization that her reasoning was faulty.

Exactly. The only way that the dems wont be the party of sedition and endlessly carping is if they run the show. Hence, we'll need to vote democrat again to keep them honest.
Besides, I really question Althouse's conservativism. She may have some leanings to the right economically, but things like abortion and gay marriage and other lib causes will trump her common sense. And then she'll get into all the superficial reasons why she lost Romney/Ryan. i.e. they're not conservative enough, or are too conservative, or Ryan speaks with less polish than Biden (that's not actually the case, Im just thinking of reasons she will come up with to say why she shifted).
My prediction - she's going to vote for Obama again.

Rabel said...

As to reason 1, the relief is only temporary. The sniping will resume with a vengance as soon as a Republican assumes the presidency.

Balanced against the thousand or so American troops unnecessarily lost due to Obama's politically motivated and unsuccessful surge in Afghanistan and the growing empowerment of our domestic security apparatus, it hardly seems worth it.

For reason 2, what McCain would have done for the economy is unknowable. But it's fair to assume that he would have somewhat abated the growth in the debt if only due to pressure from conservatives (and liberals) and the media.

Reason 3, I shared your hopes. How naive of me.

Outside of your stated ratonale supporting your vote there are a few long term reasons for regret. Those are:
1. Sonia Sotomayor
2. Elena Kagan.

And by granting Obama an incumbancy and the power to buy enough votes for reelection through increased entitlement spending, we face the possibility of reasons
3. Ginsberg's replacement
and the big one
4. the replacement of Scalia or another conservative.

Obama has given us a burden we will carry for decades.

bagoh20 said...

"But the reasons for our economic problems are very much in dispute by very reputable economists on both sides."

Are they really, by honest people? Having credentials does not make a person honest or immune to seeing what they want to.

Are there really experts out there who think Europe's problems, which are very much like ours, are due to too little government spending, and too little regulation? Are China's problems too much freedom, Cuba, Venezuala, all of Africa, most of Latin America. Someone thinks the problems in these places is too much freedom, the power is spread out too thinly? Really? Someone believes that?

Certainly there are people who say it for various motivations, but they are not taken seriously. Do you buy that? You think the economic problems worldwide are caused by people being too free to make their own economic decision, and take responsibility for them?

Look at any nation in trouble and you will find a government that spent too much, promised too much, and consequently made it's people expect too much for free. Even nations with extremely high tax rates have the same problems, low wages or high, free or totalitarian, advanced or not. It is killing all of them.

jr565 said...

1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines,

And again, that would be true if Althouse didn't vote for him again.
2 The central issue of the day was economics, and McCain had professed and demonstrated that he was unprepared to handle it,


But Obama professed that he WAS prepared to handle it? Based on what? His speech about how he was going to necessarily bankrupt the coal industry, not to mention his voting record on economic matters were available BEFORE Althouse had a chance to cast her vote. As was his conversation with Joe the Plumber where he talked about spreading the wealth. Not to mention his history of living in the world of the left almost exclusively. There was abundant evidence that Obama would run the economy exactly as he has. Why did Althouse miss that?

3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.


So how did that work out? The race card has been played against those who disagree with Obama more than you can count even through the republican convention where MSNBC doesn't even broadcast any black speakers so as to carry on the meme that the conservatives hate blacks.The problem with this rationale is that the dems/libs would still be dems/libs and thus will always play the race card. Clearly, by saying she "believed" as opposed to "Believes" this is an indication that she was wrong at least on this front.
The only one she in fact is right on is number one. The other two were completely stupid assumptions on her part. So perhaps she owes 2/3 of an apology?

traditionalguy said...

The African-American features in Barry Obama were ideal for triggering the White Guilt vote among men and women of good will. The Dems used him and he won the Presidency for no other reason.

BUT, that let the atonement for White Guilt to do its work. Now we ignore the "racist" accusation.

Before Obama the racist accusations tied the white conservatives into knots of fear and helplessness to disprove it.

But the accusation is powerless now, thanks to Barry Obama who is caught in his own Catch 22. He seems to realize that the Mexican/Hispanic language group is the remaining guilt du jour replacing shades of skin color.

Bender said...

About those experts --

They look at the massive debt and future obligations that are crushing nations all over the world, the high unemployment, the increasing prices in cost of living, anemic growth, etc., and these experts say that the fact that it is happening all over the world simply proves that it is the normal state of things.

Economic depression is the new normal.

And a lot of regular people have bought into the new normal.

How many people out there are really all that enraged that gasoline prices are more than DOUBLE what they were when Obama took office?? People may be annoyed that it cost so much to fill up the tank, but they are far from torches-and-pitchforks mad about it. They have gotten used to it. Near $4/gallon gas is the new normal, 8+ percent unemployment is the new normal, trillion-dollar deficits are the new normal.

phx said...

@bagoh20 If you believe that every economist, every expert who disagrees with you about the root causes of our economic plight, all of them disagree because they are self-evidently dishonest, no wonder you make blanket statements of contempt for people who vote differently than you do. No wonder you have such disrespect for people. How could someone who thinks differently ever find respect from a totalist such as yourself?

Alex said...

phx - you obviously did not read Dale Carnegie.

Tim said...

Freeman Hunt said...

"Number one should be true. I don't know that it will hold when Obama's out of office though."

C'mon.

We all know it isn't true, and never will be true.

Once this failed Democrat is out of the White House, the anti-War wing of the Democrat Party will be unmuzzled, and we'll be exactly where we were in '07 on security issues.

phx said...

@Alex It didn't sound that harsh in my head while I was keying it in.

I personally do respect Bagoh20 and enjoy his comments. I just think he's being, well, too much of a totalist here.

I'm sorry I put it so offensively though.

Alex said...

phx - thanks, I think we need more civility on this blog and in real life. Just look at what's happening in the media and between the parties. It's total mud-slinging every moment.

phx said...

@Alex I've followed your posts as well. There's not point in holding you to that, is there?

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
"How could you have known that Obama would continue Bushes policies in Iraq and Afghanistan when he publicly stated that he would end both involvements as soon as he was elected."

You can't know, but it was my assessment. There's an old Bloggingheads of me with Emily Bazelon, maybe around January 2008, and I say I don't think he'll close Guantanamo, and she insisted that he'd have to. We made a bet. I won.

When you actually have responsibility, the time for posturing is over.

It's a hell of a thing to hang the future of 300 million people on a bet.
I'll give ya this, girl. At least ya voted.

chickelit said...

TradGuy wrote: BUT, that let the atonement for White Guilt to do its work. Now we ignore the "racist" accusation.

They are hard at work on instilling permanent guilt.

Meade said...

40+ months of over 91% employment

Sluggish but viable housing market for 4 years

Some capital being invested [the global economy contracting]

Polarization of America into pure partisanship? Okay, you've got me there, but has America never survived even worse partisanship and polarization? The W Bush years?

These things do not add up to decimation. Obama has been a disaster but try to convince me a McCain presidency would have been less of a disaster. Please, no hyperbole. And cool the polarizing partisanship, thank you.

Where would the Tea Party - Obama's greatest accomplishment - be if John McCain had been president for the last three and a half years?

Right now, the Republicans would be preparing to run a failed president McCain for reelection. Instead, it's the Democrats who have to do that. Meanwhile we have the opportunity to elect Mitt Romney. It's like the stormy night just before morning in America all over again.

Alex said...

phx - I promise to be good from now on. Besides responding to garage/Ritmo/shiloh is not good for my health. You sound like a reasonable liberal.

Smilin' Jack said...

1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines,

Because taking responsibility for security is so much more important than actually having it.

2. The central issue of the day was economics, and McCain had professed and demonstrated that he was unprepared to handle it,

And Obama's qualifications were obvious.

and 3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.

You mean, like, into the fourth dimension or something?

chickelit said...

Meade wrote: Obama has been a disaster but try to convince me a McCain presidency would have been less of a disaster.

A McCain presidency is only what you, Cedarford, and Ann fantasize it would be.

Might as well talk about what a second Bush I Presidency would have been like...or a Gore presidency.

I voted for Gore but I would never stoop to saying that by doing so I helped enable GWB. That's what you're saying, in a sense. It's much easier for me to just say I voted for Al Gore but in retrospect it was a mistake. Please note that my scenario is not specific to Gore either.

The logical fallacy you and Ann are pushing is called "denying the antecedent" link

Roger J. said...

Meade: you are actually arguing that employment of 91 percent is a good thing? The actual unemployment rate is greater than 8.3 percent when you factor in those in the work force that have stopped looking for work.I have to give you credit for seeing the glass as half full. You are of course entitled to your opinions.

Richard Dolan said...

Love means never having to say you're sorry, right? So don't sweat what happened in 2008, and go with the "Ann was right" idea. Then you'll never have to say you're sorry (for exposing her mistake, for which she refuses to acknowledge the grounds for saying she's sorry). Any married man will understand.

We can all agree that what's happened since 2008 is just 'sorry' all around. That's more than enough to get us through Nov 2012.

phx said...

I don't respond to the very immature or the mentally ill. I have a short list of people whose comments I don't even read for those reasons, and I probably wouldn't even bother telling them that. I always leave the door open to conservatives who are willing to treat me with respect, even if they think my ideas are shit.

phx said...

I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.

Did Obama even promise that? I remember him cajoling us to do better and expressing a belief in our greater potential, but "advancing us in some new way on racial matters"? Who expects our leaders to do that kind of stuff?

I suppose a lot of Obama supporters beleive in that kind of magical thinking, or believe a leader can change a culture. But as an Obama supporter in 2008 and 2012, I never had any such illusions, and I don't believe most Obama supporters do. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

The argument that this or that would have happened were McCain elected is conjecture. The only things we KNOW is that he wasnt and we have three plus years of Mr Obama's administration. And the results of his stewardship are the facts on the table. The coulda/woulda/shoulda analyses are,interesting but irrelevant.

bgates said...

You're a fool.

Alex said...

phx - please explain why you think we need more huge stimulus programs.

mccullough said...

Meade,

The Tea Party has given the Republicans Romney as a nominee. Romney is less conservative than McCain. I don't see this as a major accomplishment. Romney (and Ryan) promise deficits that only slightly worse than Obama's.

If you are serious about running the country on conservative principles, you have to be for another Obama term. Let him keep piling up the debt, expanding entitlements, watching California, Detroit, and Illinois go broke.

We'll only tax you a little less and spend a little less than the other guys is a comical platform.

chickelit said...

@Meade: As long as hypotheticals are allowed, here's one for you: I would have voted for Carter in '76 had I been old enough. Carter made the country much worse off. But in a sense I would have enabled the Reagan revolution so perhaps I would have been right to vote Carter rather than let Ford amble on. But I doubled down and voted for Carter my very first time ever voting in 1980. I don't apologize for that choice--but it was a mistake in retrospect. But then again, I wasn't trying to influence people and worried about credibility.

Original Mike said...

"...but Meade regrets voting for McCain"

I haven't read through the comments (I really hope to find the time), so maybe this has been discussed, but; how does one regret an action which had zero consequences? How is that possible?

deborah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
deborah said...

"It sounds like Althouse is a mite bit defensive with her "Refusal to apologize". Just admit it, you voted for the wrong guy because you, at least partially, bought into his message."

Like Hillary never apologizing for her war vote, Althouse is under no obligation to say she was wrong. I voted for McCain, and would do it again, because I didn't buy the message that he was crazy, and I didn't buy that Obama was the second coming. But many people feared McCain, for whatever reason. Get over it people, Althouse owes nobody anything in the way of apology or admission of wrong-doing.

Marshal said...

Get over it people, Althouse owes nobody anything in the way of apology or admission of wrong-doing.

I don't think she owes anyone an apology. But what is the point of a blog if questions and discussion is considered out of bounds? She brought up the subject, what's wrong with debating her reasoning?

chickelit said...

Deborah wrote: Get over it people, Althouse owes nobody anything in the way of apology or admission of wrong-doing.

I agree and hope I said as much upthread. I am not bothered that Althouse voted for Obama...it's a free country. In the same breath, like you, I'm not convinced of the Meadefordhouse McCain nightmare. :)

shiloh said...

"Right now, the Republicans would be preparing to run a failed president McCain for reelection."

And the 2010 con teabagger wave election wouldn't have happened ie

No Rep controlled House.

Speaker of the House Pelosi.

No Scott Brown
No Scott Walker
No Kasich
No Rick Scott
No Rick Snyder
No Tom Corbett
No Sen Rubio
No Sen Toomey
No Sen Ron Johnson
No Sen Kirk

No mittens, no Paul ((( the truth is a mystery to me ))) Ryan.

Again, the yin and yang of politics. It is kinda amazing the Reps didn't take control of the senate in 2010!

ok, ok, O'Donnell, Angle, Buck ...

never mind

woulda, coulda, shoulda

>

Repeating ~ LBJ's '64 landslide ~ "pundits" say how will the Reps ever recover? ~ Nixon elected in '68 w/43.4%

Nixon's '72 landslide ~ pundits say how will Dems ever recover? ~ Carter elected in '76.

As always, America seems to survive despite itself.

I yield back the balance of my time to Meade, who left out a few political calculations.

Quaestor said...

Meade wrote:
Right now, the Republicans would be preparing to run a failed president McCain for reelection. Instead, it's the Democrats who have to do that. Meanwhile we have the opportunity to elect Mitt Romney. It's like the stormy night just before morning in America all over again.

Possibly, but not definitely.
As I see it our troubles have germinated from several seeds:

1)Living Beyond Our Means. This has been brewing for decades. For a while the fact was disguised by discrete borrowing from the Social Security trust fund (the LBJ guns and butter solution) until the so-called “lockbox” is now full of script rather than money. McCain would not have had the Congressional support to do anything about SS even if he had the will. Obama has neither the will nor even the cognizance to address the problem so this is a wash.

2)Living Beyond Our Means, Part Deux. It’s nice to promise low income people that they can afford to purchase a home. Nice people do this all the time. Bush I and Clinton both made this promise. Congress obliged and mandated relaxed lending standards which set the stage for the meltdown, and vigorously defended the indefensible throughout the Bush II administration when sensible policies might have been enough to avert the disaster we’re living through. The damage was done by late 2008 so this also a wash.

3)The Return of Living Beyond Our Means. The national debt is a very slippery number. Most estimates are in the 16 petabuck rage, but if one includes the pension liabilities of the states the debt is in excess of $20,000,000,000,000. Obama has effectively put the state deficits on the national budget by using the bulk of the stimulus (the stimulus is not TARP, btw) to bail out overdrawn pension accounts. I don’t believe McCain would have done this, even if he agreed in principle with such bailouts, which is doubtful, because the states with the greatest overburden of public sector retirees and soon-to-be retirees are not political creditors of the GOP.

4)Son of Living Beyond Our Means. There were three things Obama could have done to ameliorate the Great Recession, if not cure it: 1) Refrain from instituting new entitlements (economic collapse, thy name is Entitlements). 2) Relax regulatory burdens on business. 3) Unleash the energy sector – drill, mine, frac – whatever it takes to buy back at least a portion of our economic lifeblood from overseas suppliers. Barack Hussein Obama did none of these; in fact he did the exact opposite of what common sense dictates. McCain is and always was unpredictable. He’s neither a pragmatist nor an idealist; McCain does what he does and says what he says based on Tarot readings as far as I can tell. Ergo, a wash.

Odds are Meade is correct in his thinking.

Baron Zemo said...

It is quite clear to most informed observers that Chance has many regrets.

The idea of Shirley MacLaine is much more enticing than the reality.

phx said...

phx - please explain why you think we need more huge stimulus programs.

For me economics truly is the dismal science. I have very little interest in the how or why of the workings of the economy.

I remember how frightening the economic situation was 2008-2009. Before McCain picked Palin I was considering voting for him - the firt Rep. I'd have voted for president.

I doubt I will never know what kept us from a complete collapse back then or whether it's even knowable. I don't know for sure whether things would have been better or worse with McCain, but I made my choice and I was relieved that we didn't collapse.

I still think we might. I believe, although I don't KNOW it I believe it, that Obama's policies have kept us afloat for now.

He has my proxy vote. If Obama thinks we need another stimulus, I'll give him my support. If he said no we DON'T need it, I would be fine with that, too. I'm not an idealogue.

Personally, I'm ready for the complete collapse of the world economy no matter what happens or who is in. I accept the responsibility for that, too. My goal is to survive as long as I can, and I'm not interested in blaming anyone, Republicans or Democrats.

Quaestor said...

Meade wrote:
Right now, the Republicans would be preparing to run a failed president McCain for reelection. Instead, it's the Democrats who have to do that. Meanwhile we have the opportunity to elect Mitt Romney. It's like the stormy night just before morning in America all over again.

Obama is either a failed president, or a success. I suspect everything Obama has done has been calculated for effect, the effect being to reduce the United States to a secondary power with endemic high unemployment and a worthless currency.

Quaestor said...

phx wrote:
Personally, I'm ready for the complete collapse of the world economy no matter what happens or who is in.

Bullshit.

Alex said...

phx - I can't abide your blind trust of Obama on such serious matters.

phx said...

It's a good day to die Quaestor.

phx said...

Alex I never asked or expected you or anyone else to abide what I believe. I'm responsible for myself, not for you.

Alex said...

phx - so you've abdicated all responsibility to your "betters". You assume they know everything and that's that.

Quaestor said...

phx wrote:
It's a good day to die...

Bullshit piled on bullshit is just more bullshit.

jvermeer51 said...

Ann, how could you possibly think Obama and liberal Democrats would do anything except exacerbate racial division? Liberals and conservatives have different philosophies, each of which appeal to some basic human tendencies. There always will be some 30 to 40 percent of people who are liberal and 30 to 40 percent who are conservative. This is true for any group, including blacks, the poor etc. However, for the Democratic party to win, they must have 90% of the black vote. To lose even 25% percent would consign Dems to permanent minority status. So the question is how to ramp up support to the 90% needed? Hate, fear, separation, dependency. There is no other way. So in every election, Republicans have to be at the door, lynching and burning.

phx said...

phx - so you've abdicated all responsibility to your "betters". You assume they know everything and that's that.

They aren't my "betters". They are more informed on economics (btw that's not the only issue I support Obama on - hands down he's my choice on foreign policy over Romney) than I am - a lot of people are. I'm sure most people on Althouse could explain the ins and outs of supply side vs. demand side much better than I could.

Bagoh20 is more informed on economics than I am. But that doesn't make him right. I can never really know who is right or not.

I'm not at all inclined to become an economics student in order to decide who's "right". Even if I did do that, I still wouldn't "know".

The fact is, I don't think you guys, who are much better informed than I am, know either.

phx said...

Quaestor - whatever. I'm not your cup of tea.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 266   Newer› Newest»