I can't believe I'm saying this, but in the primaries, you should be voting personality, not policy--at least, not economic policy, which is what I'm qualified to comment on. There are fairly big differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, but not between the candidates on each side. The Democrats want a federal health plan, higher taxes on rich people, and heavier regulation of the economy. The Republicans stand behind the Bush tax cuts and lower spending. Everyone claims they are going to lower health care costs and improve education, which is only slightly more believable than claiming that they are going to use their X-Ray vision to fight crime.
So pick the person whom you trust to go after these goals in a better fashion, or the one whose fingers you are least terrified of imagining drumming on the case of the nuclear football. Substantively, they just aren't that far apart on the big issues.
Perhaps. McCain is the only presidential candidate who wants to eliminate farm subsidies and sugar import quotas AND has enough courage to say so... in Iowa.
Could there be any bigger sign of political courage?
Sure, he could have the balls to let people criticize him in TV ads within 60 days of the election.
McCain's great for a lot of reasons, but the 1st and 2nd Amendments are both pretty important to me.
Substantively, they just aren't that far apart on the big issues.
Except the only one that matters: terrorism, and how to fight it and win.
All economic and domestic issues are trifling by comparison, and not worth even thinking about. Sorry to say that to an economist, but it's the truth.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but don't the Democrats - at least Hillary - want to keep the Bush tax cuts?
I don’t think that’s true, McCain while he’s great on spending usually comes down on the side of more not less economic regulation. Also I’m curious why since so much of your Obama endorsement seems to focus on who his economic advisor is (even though he doesn’t seem to have any influence on Obama’s actual economic policy), you ignore the actual work experience of the candidates. Usually when I interview a candidate for a job we consider what previous work experience they have. IMO the fact that one candidate is a former governor and before that a successful entrepreneur and executive whereas the work history of each of the other three candidates consists of serving in the legislature (two of whom have served a single term apiece and one of whom has been doing it for 30 years) you discount that experience.
"Substantively, they just aren't that far apart on the big issues.
Except the only one that matters: terrorism, and how to fight it and win.
All economic and domestic issues are trifling by comparison, and not worth even thinking about. Sorry to say that to an economist, but it's the truth."
What about... The Boogie Man? Have you forgotten about the importance of defending America against... The Boogie Man? Way more important than the prosperity of the nation, let me tell you.
When the Boogie Man starts flying planes into buildings, he'll be on my shit list too.
Sorry Megan, I can't hear you over the constant state of war a McCain presidency would mean.
If that isn't an issue with economic repercussions I don't know what is.
I won't say terrorism isn't a "threat," but if you added up all the Americans who have been killed in the last centuries by terrorists you wouldn't get even close to the number of people who die in America in a single year of plain old homicide. And if you compare it to, say, vehicular deaths or cancer or heart disease-not even close. Terrorism is only a threat because you've allowed yourself to be terrorized.
"the only one that matters: terrorism, and how to fight it and win."
Bee stings have killed more people that terrorists.
Obviously, there is some rather small chance of some huge amount of damage being done by terrorists. But that hardly means it's the only issue. Will the marginal value of having one candidate control our defense against terrorists outweigh the effect of everything else he does? Maybe, maybe not, but a marginally higher chance of stopping a catastrophic terrorist attack does not outweigh all other conceivable differences.
More simply, there's a lot more to being an American than shitting your pants in fear.
gerontion wrote: I won't say terrorism isn't a "threat," but if you added up all the Americans who have been killed in the last centuries by terrorists you wouldn't get even close to the number of people who die in America in a single year of plain old homicide. And if you compare it to, say, vehicular deaths or cancer or heart disease-not even close. Terrorism is only a threat because you've allowed yourself to be terrorized.
This logic is riddled with a Series of Unfortunate Flaws, the most eggregious of them being, it is a fallacious appeal to luck.
First: People will die in the types of events described regardless of whether or not a large number of people die in mass terrorism incidents. Moreover, many of the things listed above are either distributed randomly, and/or disproportionately affect people who are either elderly or engaged in illegal activity, and/or also allow for reasonable actions to limit exposure. As such, in the era of modern law enforcement and medicine, it usually takes a mallicious human actor to target a very large victim group and age span in one event.
Second: The 1992 WTC bombing was a warning shot that coincided with the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency. The follow-up investigation revealed that the conspirators were intending to topple both towers by dropping one into the other with a potential sum death toll of 250,000 (but didn't know enough about the tower foundations to place the bomb appropriately) and had considered releasing poisonous gas in the same event. The Clinton administration followed the traditional mantra of treating the problem as one of law enforcement and generally made no effort to go to the source.
The result was that most of the organization and planning for 9/11 took place during Clinton's terms. And this time around, they got more destruction than they were hoping for (Bin Laden reportedly hoped to topple the towers above the strike point but didn't anticipate full vertical collapse), and it was only a matter of uncertain timing and the peculiar structural characteristics of the towers that prevented a minimum death toll of 50,000.
Thus: Whether or not one agrees with this administration's methods and tactics in confronting terrorism, it does not require "allowing one's self to be terrorized" (or, as a babbling nitwit in this thread put it, "boogey man") for a person to state that they want a candidate to have a serious answer to the problem of terrorism. It simply requires a person whose brain hasn't been eaten away by the termite trifecta of ignorance, arrogance, and memory loss.
Ding ding ding! We have a new indoor record for the stupidest thing anyone ever said, open division.
So by your “logic” (such as it is), we should have given Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy a pass. None of them even came close to budging the needle of the criterion you set.
I’m not terrorized, you nitwit. I recognize that we have a problem that needs to be dealt with.
By the way, to honor your perspicacity, we’ve set aside the first Wednesday in November as the special day for you to vote.
I don’t normally resort to vituperation, but in your case I’ll make an exception. You, sir, are a fool.
I’ve now read Psychohistorian’s comment, and gerontion you, as Howard Cosell used to say, have c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n.
This is turning into the dumb-off version of Ali/Frazier. Did a short bus pull up outside an Internet café or something?
Is there just possibly a subtle but noticeable difference between people dying because of bees and terrorists? Come on, think hard. Yes, they begin with different letters. Good. Any other differences? Any at all?
Psychohistorian is pretty much in a dead heat for stupidity with gerontion. Maybe we could have a dumb-off overtime round to decide the winner, but in any case we now have two Wednesday voters.
I’m not shitting in my pants in fear, nitwit #2. I just recognize that a number of people in exotic lands need to die. Simple, really.
Finally, some honesty from Mr. Beard:
"I’m not shitting in my pants in fear, nitwit #2. I just recognize that a number of people in exotic lands need to die. Simple, really."
Mr. Mouse, It's not like I think we should all just roll over and pretend there is no such thing as terrorism. But anyone who thinks that terrorism really is the most important issue facing our leaders today is sorely lacking in perspective. More hangs in the balance of our health services policies by several orders of magnitude than hangs in the balance of our policies regarding terrorism. It's simple enough to figure out the priorities-just count the bodies. If problem X causes 20,000 deaths a year, and problem Y causes 1,000 deaths a year, and both problem X and problem Y can be mitigated legislatively, then problem X is just more important than problem Y.
More hangs in the balance of our health services policies by several orders of magnitude than hangs in the balance of our policies regarding terrorism.
Let's see, when it comes to my health, I try to eat well, exercise almost everyday, maintain employment with adequate health coverage or, on occasion, buy it in the private market, and see a doctor when I'm seriously sick.
When it comes to keeping my office building from being knocked down, I should: ?
In my own life, health care is more important than terrorism. But when it comes to the president's responsibilities, he can pretty much ignore my health (my problem, not his) and focus on national security.
In addition to terrorism, per se, we have a serious problem in Iran. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the world and a direct threat to us. Our future President needs to be able to deal firmly with Iran as well is its terrorist allies.
Gerontion, I’ve never made any bones about what needs to be done. Folks in earnest search of their 72 virgins need a hand in this respect, and the sooner they get it, the better. I’m a big dog lover, but I’d shoot a rabid one without hesitation, and for the same reason. Call it the “Old Yeller” solution.
I don’t know if anyone reacts this way, but I find your recourse to actuarial calculus..morally repugnant, I guess would be the best description. It treats people as …well, soulless factors of production, sheep to be shorn, choose your own metaphor.
To decide what to do, we need only count up the number of productive units put at risk by each course of action and choose accordingly. Think through the implications of that approach. One baby in a burning building, two firemen go in to save it – bad decision, by your lights?
Using it, we would decide to ignore homicide in favor of focusing on cancer and heart disease. (“Of course homicide is bad, and we shouldn’t just roll over and pretend there is no such thing, but …”)
And by the same token, we should pull funding from research on AIDS (not a big problem for the population at large, by any standard), and again, put it into cancer and heart disease. (More particularly, we should shift funding from breast cancer (grossly overfunded in proportion to its incidence and prevalence) to prostate cancer (grossly underfunded by the same criterion). Float that balloon among the liberalensia and see what happens.