I think I'm going to stop paying attention to trade in this election. Fast track is dead, and I see no hope of its revival. Doha is in Cheyne-Stokes. Congress is intent on killing bilateral trade deals, and gearing up for FarmFEST 2009: Rumble in the Cornfield. Most trade is, thankfully free; that which isn't, just isn't going to get much freer in the foreseeable future. All the current trade deals we are considering we're concluding were sealed under fast track authority (which forces Congress to vote up or down on agreements without amendment; practicaly, without it trade deals are impossible.) It doesn't really matter what the president thinks, because Congress isn't having any.
Support for free trade is, I think, a character issue--and for this, I give John McCain kudoes. But I see no reason to vote as if trade liberalization were a live concern. It's more in the category of motherhood, apple pie, and that can-do American spirit.
Maybe Ms. McArdle will explain the policy issues on which the lying hack is preferable to the man of character.
I think she already explained her preference for Obama's pheremones. You just can't argue with those, especially not when the entire race has been reduced to the level of "Which Senator do you prefer, Citizen?"
At that point, you might as well go with pheremones, because leadership experience isn't on the table.
Isn't it a character issue that specifically seems to signal one's position on economic liberalization in general? That seems kind of relevant, right?
This President thinks? You,ve got to be kidding!
Have you ever read a 1,000 page trade deal? Has he?
Under Clinton and Bush these are protectionist deals mostly involving campaign fund-raising, sorta like the Tax Code.
Of course, Congress wants in on the action! If that is how the Executive Branch is going to do things, why should they not?
I have recently heard James K. GALBRAITH (in Texas) and Austan GOOLSBY (from Texas) on the matter of trade. You know, Democrats here in Texas have had a pretty good record on that for over a hundred years. And, I think that you will find Presdent OBAMA -- from Chicago -- has a very good grasp on the matter in both political and economic terms.
Still, the thing to watch for in about February of next year, are giant barter deals involving "sales" of arms and aircraft that are "offset" by purchases of ... stuff overseas with the "excess savings" that are now in the hands of "sovereign wealth funds". These are all "national security", dontcha know, so they are faster than fast track, just the ticket for post-election campaign debt-reduction.
With the grotesque improvidence of US military, political, economic, and financial authorities recently, I expect trade and public finance will be dominated by rather crude barter.
Actually, I do not think you will notice, but the political intermediaries and campaign finance boys are up on these deals, maybe even Uncle Duke.
I can only wish that OBAMA could resist some of this, but I am sure Hillary CLINTON cannot.
::JRBehrman
I can think of at least three reasons why free traders shouldn’t treat it as a dead issue.
First, the fact that we don’t have fast-track doesn’t mean that we won’t negotiate future trade deals, it just means that when these deals are being negotiated, the administration will be including more protectionist measures in the deal. Whether the next President is a trade restricionist or a trade liberalizer is going to have a significant impact on the mixture of liberalization and protectionism that ends up in those deals. As someone who endorsed Obama because you liked one of his economic advisors (who has since been thrown under the bus), I would think that the policy preferences of next President ought to carry at least as much weight as those of who you think will be his or policy advisors.
Second, there’s more at stake then just whether we negotiate trade deals but also whether we backtrack on previous ones (e.g. NAFTA) or pass further protectionist legislation such as more generous farm subsidies. Our next president will likely be either a supporter of such measures (Obama) or someone willing to veto them (McCain). As someone who opposes farm subsidies and the tendency of Congress to pile them during times of economic hardship, I would think that would still be a concern.
Finally, some forms of trade protectionism such as the Byrd Amendment “anti-dumping” legislation grant discretionary power to the executive branch to decide whether to implement tariffs and how high and how long such tariffs will be. Electing a president who is a free trader over one who is more of a restrictionist means that we are less likely to use those powers. As someone who railed against the Bush administration’s steel tariffs (while noting that Kerry wanted even higher ones), I would think you would want to make sure that the next President is the one who is least likely to support using such powers.
I see no reason to vote as if trade liberalization were a live concern.
It is certainly not going to get any better if the US has anything to say about it*. But it can get a lot, lot worse.
*There may be something to be said for Communist China ruling the world, after all.
This post is pretty weak. As Thorley argues above, Megan's contention that we are doomed to protectionism anyway is just not correct. The President has the power to veto any legislation that he considers protectionist, and a Presidential veto is hard to overrride. The President also has a powerful "bully pulpit" that often enables him to shape the debate. So the President has tremendous influence over trade policy even without fast track authority (which might come back some day).
So what does Megan's argument amount to really, but a thinly veiled rationalization for sacrificing her own free market principles to support the chic candidate? Here is Megan's thinking as I understand it:
So, one might say that Megan is the Anthony Kennedy of the blogoshpere. Of course, she is free to correct me if I have misunderstood her.
Cause: "Update Noooooooooooooooooooo . . . he's launched ino the protectionist spiel." (4/22)
Effect: "But I see no reason to vote as if trade liberalization were a live concern."
Just a couple of follow-up points to my first post:
There’s also the issue of continuity when it comes to trade agreements. Right now the Bush administration is probably negotiating several different trade deals with several different countries and without TPA (Trade Promotion Authority or “fast track”) those deals probably won’t be concluded before he leaves office which means it will be up to the next administration to decide whether to continue those negotiations, withdraw from them, or load them down with more protectionist provisions. I know a lot of critics of the Bush administration for withdrawing for Kyoto are upset that we “lost” eight years that we could have spent dealing with AGCC. It seems to me that whether we elect a president who favors more liberalization of trade or greater restrictions will determine whether we gain or lose ground on trade for the next four to eight years.
RWE hit on something I had forgotten and that is that the President has tremendous power through the bully pulpit. Members of Congress tend to react to what they think the folks back home want and if they think that people are afraid that free trade means they’ll lose their jobs, they’ll lean towards more protectionism. Electing a president who campaigns on farm subsidies and greater protectionism will validate those fears and their tendencies towards protectionism. Electing a President who is so outspokenly supportive of free trade that he’ll tell Iowa farmers he’s against ethanol subsidies, out of work Ohioans that free trade means more not fewer jobs, and Pennsylvanian steel workers that he’s against tariffs and the solution is to open up more foreign markets sends the message that voters aren’t in fact as anti-free trade as lobbying efforts from the restrictionists may have lead them to believe. It might be enough to get support for trade liberalization measures including bringing back TPA which was declared “dead” under Clinton before but was resurrected under Bush 43. At the very least it could provide the necessary political cover for not overriding a free trade President’s veto of protectionist legislation.
Bottom line: if you think that liberalizing trade* is a good thing, it’s even more important to support it when you think that the odds are against it than just when the political climate is more favorable because this is the time when supporters are needed most and when they can do the most good for their cause.
* Or any issue be it health care reform, entitlement reform, etc.
A sad capitulation indeed. You are much smarter than this post makes you appear, as you know very well that Obama has endorsed the renegotiation of existing trade agreements. Thus, the question is not the status quo v. further liberalization but reinstitution of barriers by Congress encouraged by the President. Rationalize away but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending it is something it is not.
So Obama's reward for pandering to the fools who think trade is bad for us is your endorsement? I'm missing a step somewhere.
Guys, not everything I say is some sort of deep coded attempt to fool people into voting my way. Sometimes, I am just make a sad observation, such as the true observation that there will be no progress on trade liberalization under the next administration.
As for my alleged crush on Obama, I have a longstanding antipathy to John McCain that would prevent me from voting for him no matter who the Democrat was, and a similar feeling about Hilary Clinton. My feelings about Obama are a tepid "I don't quite hate him yet", not a starry-eyed belief that the world will magically improve if he sits in the oval office. I may well not vote for Obama, but if I don't, I will still not vote for McCain. Moreover, at this point, the important race is still the primary, where I have a strong preference for Obama over Clinton.
I think it's like this:
1. Elect Obama
2. ???
3. World loves us!!!!! BFFAEAEAEAEAEAE!!!!!
Sounds like anti-immigration politics, ca. 2000. George W. Bush was pro-immigration, Democrats kept their mouths shut, and Pat Buchanan was a non-entity in the election.
Megan's has been an almost entirely uncritical cheerleader for Obama for months. Her attmpts to persuade us otherwise, to convince us that her support has merely been "tepid," aren't likely to succeed.
Let us recall her reaction to Obama's rather anfractuous, contorted defense of his long-standing reltionship with his "mentor" Reverend Wright, a man who accused the American government of creating AIDS to commit genocide against blacks and other non-European races:
Contrast Megan's effusive (and nauseatingly saccharine) response to the more astute analysis of Charles Krauthammer:
Krauthammer's penetrating critique serves as a salutary antidote for anyone sickened by Megan's gushing praise. Thank God not everyone is, like Meagan, so taken with Obama's style as to fail to see the man's lack of substance.
I also want to underscore how poorly Megan explains her opposition to McCain:
I have a longstanding antipathy to John McCain that would prevent me from voting for him no matter who the Democrat was.
The first thing to note is that, as she herself confesses, he opposition to McCain stems not from a reasoned analysis of the man and his views but raher from "a longstanding antipathy." That is, her reaction to McCain is an emotional and not a rational one.
The second is the absurdity of the statement--it means that even if Valdimir Lenin were the Democratic nominee, Megan would vote for Lenin or else abastain. McCain must be quite a monster in her eyes to merit such fierce, unbending antipathy.
Honestly, I can't understand her reaction to the man, and I suspect that she doesn't understand it herself. She certainly cannot explain it in any coherent way. This is, after all, a man who risked his life and willingly endured torture for his country. Whatever objections one might have to his policy views, surely his service to the country deserves respect, not antipathy.
But Megan won't explain herself, because she can't. This swooning for Obama and disdain from McCain is purely a limbic phenomenon and has nothing to do with logical thought.
I think one thing worth considering is that any trade agreement sent to congress by a President McCain is dead on arrival.
Obama, on the the other hand, could be much better at persuading Democrats to vote yes, especially if he's able to include "environmental and labor standards" which that moderate Democrats can use to justify their yes votes. That's basically how the Jordan agreement passed if I recall correctly.
I agree RWE, I can see how someone would be against McCain and for Obama.
I just can't see how anyone who has the views that Megan says she has could be against McCain and for Obama.
The main thing that Megan seems to be mad at McCain about is McCain-Feingold (and I agree), but Obama holds the same position as McCain.
I have recently heard James K. GALBRAITH (in Texas) and Austan GOOLSBY (from Texas) on the matter of trade. You know, Democrats here in Texas have had a pretty good record on that for over a hundred years.
Oh, certainly for over a hundred years the Democrats were the free trade party and the Republicans (and before that the Whigs) the protectionists. It's just not really true now.
It has almost as little relevance as remarking that Republicans were had a much better record than the Democrats on racism and rights for African-Americans for over a hundred years.
There are regional differences, to be sure, but the Senate provides a natural laboratory with two members for each constituency. Republicans from the same state are more free trade than Democrats in every case I've looked at. Furthermore, moderate Democrats tend to be more free trade than liberal Democrats, and conservative Republicans more free trade than moderate Republicans. There's no particular reason why this has to be so, but it is.
Doubtful, McCain has one of the most successful records at getting support from his fellow Senators – including those in the other party – on various issues. It’s unlikely that many of them will suddenly decide that after years of friendship and a generally positive working relationship that now that he’s President to just obstruct anything he sends to Congress. Particularly if it gives President McCain an opening to help Republicans retake the Senate as happened in 2002.
I have a longstanding antipathy to McCain's behavior as a politician that started with McCain-Feingold and extends to current problems like his position on pharma regulation. He evinces, in my opinion, a profound lack of respect for market outcomes and spontaneous order.
If Vladimir Lenin is running on the Democratic ticket, obviously I will vote for McCain, or Hillary, or nearly anyone else. But the universe of actual possible Democratic candidates does not include Vladimir Lenin, or anyone vaguely like him. I would not vote for McCain against anyone in that universe--precisely because he frequently sides with the Democratic party where I most disagree with it, which not only reveals something about his core beliefs, but gives him extraordinary political power to act on them.
Most people who support McCain seem to support him on three core issues: military strength, tax cuts, and supreme court judges. I'd probably be happier with judges nominated by McCain, but the other two aren't my issues. I care about regulation, and on this, I actually think McCain is more dangerous than Obama. On things like trade, I clearly prefer McCain's position, but this makes me prefer him only insofar as I think it reveals a deeper attitude towards markets, since I don't see any actual progress on lberalisation in the next eight years, and find it very hard to believe that we'll ratify the deals we're still working on. The problem is, McCain's positions on regulation of various industries seem to me to be deeply internally inconsistent, which makes me hesitant to believe that his trade stance reveals something more fundamental that I can rely on. I understand how Obama's world view hangs together, even when I disagree with it. I don't feel that way about McCain.
I think his service to his country was most admirable, and he withstood horror with extreme valor. But the president does not have to lead a cavalry charge, or withstand torture. The things that make you a good hero don't necessarily make you a good president. Ulysses S. Grant was a terrible president, which takes nothing away from Grant, the man, or Grant, the general.
If Krauthammer came out against immigration (and so fit in with those who share most of his other views), wouldn't honesty compel him to head, post haste, back to Canada? Such a handicap, running with the nativists while not actually being a native oneself.
To paraphrase the artist formerly known as Prince, it's time to worry like it's 1929.
Circa 1930: Economic downturn + rampant protectionism (Smoot Hawley) + tight Fed money policy + expanded government regulation of business = Great Depression
Circa 2009, assuming Obama or Clinton wins: Economic downturn + rampant protectionism + expanded government regulation of business = Pray Ben Bernanke knows what he’s doing
Yes, the motivation for this post is pretty obvious. Here's how I'm envisioning the next few days...
Obama, April 26: crop subsidies are a great idea.
Megan, April 27: you know, never mind all that stuff I used to think about crop subsidies, they're not stupid after all.
Obama, April 28: we should make sure that nobody dances at the Jefferson Memorial.
Megan, April 29: come to think of it, Brooke really was doing something bad and I'm glad the cops arrested her for it.
Obama, April 30: meat is good for you.
Megan, April 31: mmmmmm, hamburger!
The above isn't to say that I think Megan should vote for McCain; I'm not, basically due to McCain-Feingold. To each his or her own. But to say that trade is not a "live concern" and therefore irrelevant to the election is silly. If we had a candidate that campaigned on a platform of nationalizing the entire American economy, would Megan say "hey, it would never pass Congress anyway, so who cares?" Of course not. So what other reason could there be for the abandonment of one's principles in such a manner?
"I have a longstanding antipathy to McCain's behavior as a politician that started with McCain-Feingold and extends to current problems like his position on pharma regulation. He evinces, in my opinion, a profound lack of respect for market outcomes and spontaneous order."-MM
So Megan's contention now is that of the two likely contenders, Obama and McCain, the former is the more Hayekian. That's really quite preposterous.
Megan's very bright. And her response above is a bit of skillful obfuscation. But does anyone really believe that Barak Obama has more respect for market outcomes and spontaneous order than McCain?
McCain is not exactly Adam Smith reborn, it's true. And some libertarians cannot forgive him his occasional heresies. But does anyone seriously think that Obama is closer to Smith, Hayek and Freidman than McCain is?
Greg Mankiw, for one, sure disagrees. He notes:
But maybe Megan has learned to stop worrying and love the farm subsidies.
I hate farm subsidies with a passion seldom found in one so young. This has not, as yet, had any impact on the farm subsidies.
I give Bush full props on trade--I think he's pushed liberalisation as far as anyone could reasonably have hoped. But in the past three years, it's become clear that we've run out of reasonable hopes.
Well, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for McCain. I'll admit, though, that there's a case for going the other way and hoping that (1) the Republicans lose big and figure out that nominating big spenders/heavy-handed regulators is not in their long-term interest (or the country's) and (2) if the economy tanks, the left will get the blame and this may be of some educational value. Unlike Megan, I agree with McCain about the war, which makes it easier--but by no means easy--to vote for him.
Okay, then Megan, you don't like farm subsidies. Who is better on farm subsidies, Obama or McCain? I think you know the answer is McCain.
And, given that, which of the two has more "respect for market outcomes" and "spontaneous order?" Again, the clear answer is McCain.
So I think your argument at 5:20 above has collapsed. It was an interesting effort, but it hasn't held up to close logical scrutiny. It just isn't rational to oppose McCain as too illiberal (in the classical sense) and then support someone who is far less friendly than McCain to free trade and free enterprise.
Thank God you'll stop paying attention, Megan. I'd hate to think of you overstraining that brain cell.
Interesting, I don’t agree with Senator McCain on drug reimportation* either. Of course I don’t necessarily agree with him on immigration, anthropogenic climate change, or water boarding. However as both of the two likely Democrat nominees have virtually the same position on these issues as he does, I consider it a “wash” and vote on other issues rather than utterly refuse to support one candidate over the other because of an issue where their positions are virtually identical.
I’m not sure what you mean by “deeply internally inconsistent,” while I don’t necessarily agree with him, he’s actually pretty consistent in that he generally takes a “hands-off” approach the economy and when he rarely has supported intervention, it’s been to combat a specific practice like fraud or lack of transparency and never to direct outcomes. Obama, on the other hand, seems entirely outcome driven in his support for not only greater regulation but more expansive subsidies as well.
Example: on health care, McCain has come out in favor of requiring providers and drug companies to provide price information to their patients/customers. Obama has come out in favor of a new national exchange that would control what those prices are. McCain has come out in favor of letting consumers buy insurance across State lines and buy a policy that carries the benefits that they want (rather than what their State legislature tells them they should have). Obama wants to use his new national exchange to impose a new set of mandates across the entire country (not just the ones set up by individual States) and further restrict consumer choice.
Honestly I don’t see how anyone can look at McCain versus Obama and conclude that Obama has more respect for the “spontaneous order.” If anything if you look at their entire economic policies – not just regulations but subsidies like corporate welfare – it’s pretty obvious that Obama thinks it’s the role of government to ensure a particular outcome while McCain thinks it’s there just to make sure the process is fair (e.g. transparency, no fraud) and otherwise let the chips fall where they may.
* From what I can tell, that seems to be what Megan’s objecting to as everything else I could find about McCain’s criticism of the pharmaceutical industry has focused around issues like a lack of price transparency and fraud – two issues where Megan has generally been more inclined to concede that there may be a role for regulation although regulation might not be the optimal policy because of the specifics.
Just a quick follow-up. If McCain appears “inconsistent” in his support of regulation it’s largely because for him regulation is the exception rather than the rule (which is why on the rate occasions he has supported a new regulation it was newsworthy) and it’s directed at trying to stop a specific practices (e.g. an HMO that interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by forbidding the doctor from discussing certain treatments, an accounting firm that sells investment services to a company it is supposed to be auditing, etc.) rather than promote a general philosophy of “this is what I think the outcome should be.”
Frankly I would think that a less-regulation, free-market libertarian would prefer a candidate who takes a more narrow view of when the State should interfere in the market (as infrequently and as narrow an intervention as possible) over one who thinks whether the market should be allowed to work. More pragmatic libertarians might even come to accept that given the political realities of the world we live in, it’s better to occasionally have some more questionable practices prohibited and the rest of the market left alone than it would be for one of those questionable practices to lead to a high-profile scandal that hurts a whole bunch of people and results in politicians clamoring to “do something” which leads to a re-regulation of the entire industry rather than just stopping the one bad practice that created the problem.
Just something to think about.
That should be:
“over one who thinks whether the market should be allowed to work is based on whether they agree with the outcome.”
I used to be a Democrat, too. But then I grew up. They haven't. There is absolutely no reason not to vote for John McCain in this election--he's the only remotely moderate candidate in it. Obama would be a train wreck if elected--you're starting to perceive it, and I think the only thing preventing you from endorsing McCain is the fear of losing your Greek chorus here.
Oh and not being invited to geeky parties by your fellow-bloggers.
Megan wrote at 5:20 p.m.:
Really? I mean, vote as you wish, but it is my understanding of Obama's world view that makes it impossible for me to vote for him. I figure him to be a true proponent of liberal "can-do" government: A guy who figures bureaucrats with academic degrees are better at making decisions for individuals by virtue of higher academic degrees -- that these should be unrestrained in their powers.
As for J-Mac: I feel I can also understand his story quite coherently. His unpleasant political experience with Keating made him quite distrustful of run-of-the-mill lobbyists, which in turn led him to propose campaign finance reform (CFR), and which ultimately led him to oppose a very aggressive lobby such as that of the highly regulated pharmaceutical companies.
Now, for all of the free speech flaws endemic to CFR, these will still work themselves out in the courts. Also, it's hard to deny that the rent-seeking behavior of highly regulated industries such as energy and pharmaceuticals would not logically lead to lobby overstretch. And lobbying has surely become something of a problem in politics -- what with last-minute earmarks passed in the wee hours of debate after voting has taken place. What indication is there that the new Democrat majority has significantly taken on this problem?
It's not that I deny the usefulness of lobbying, but rent-seeking behavior has to be fought at every opportunity. And for my needs, J-Mac does that. Lobbying is fine and legitimate, but at what point do we fairly ignore the "public choice" implications?
What's more, the whole CFR, problematic as it is on free speech grounds, actually affects probably less than 90 percent of the electorate -- who's got the spare cash to max out on a presidential election? And what's wrong with such folks then moving on to donate to candidates for other offices? Sorry, Megan, but as a free speech issue, this does not seem to me to be any obviously grave infringement on most people's choices.
What a joke. What's your next policy preference you will throw under the bus to justify your vote for Obama?
And if the problem is the peer pressure from all of your friends, my suggestion is just not to vote.
So, despite your professed expertise in economics, you've decided to ditch what you know is the right policy choice for a bunch of happy talk by Mr. Dream Candidate. You are really a cheap date.
In all seriousness, this post has really changed my impression of you, and not for the better.
Support for free trade is, I think, a character issue--and for this, I give John McCain kudoes.
No. Support for free trade could arguably be a "character issue" for Democrats. Support for free trade is the opposite of a "character issue" for Republicans; it's demanded by their major donors and power-wielding influence constituency in the finance industry and big business, and there has been no substantial protectionist Republican constituency since the days of Pat Buchanan.
Of course support for "free trade" never means ending farm price supports, in the American context. If a Republican candidate came out fully against ADM, that might show some character. But McCain isn't saying anything coherent about ending agri subsidies either.
Ummmm . . . that's not right. There's considerable opposition to trade deals among key Republican constituencies, though it's not as organized as the unions. Both George Bushes spent considerable political capital in their own party to get trade deals passed.
"I have a longstanding antipathy to McCain's behavior as a politician that started with McCain-Feingold and extends to current problems like his position on pharma regulation. He evinces, in my opinion, a profound lack of respect for market outcomes and spontaneous order."
Megan - I have more respect for your opinions than a lot of your regular posters, but this really is irredeemably idiotic.
I myself have some "antipathy" to McCain over campaign finance and a few other issues. But before you use these issues as a basis for voting the other way (or not voting), it is absolutely staggering that you seem to have never really thought through what the alternative to McCain will look like.
Every Democrat has to tack left in the primary, but Hillary and Obama have gone so far down that road that there is absolutely no question that either one of them, once in the White House, will be forced to regulate, tax, and expand government to an extent that should be absolutely revolting to anyone of a libertarian persuasion.
Moreover, thanks to the weakness, incompetence, and corruption of Republican congressional candidates, a Democratic president will have the benefit of an even bigger pro-regulation, anti-trade, pro-tax majority egging them on to ever worse legislative outcomes. If anything, the Bush experience should be a cautionary tale about the evils that inevitably result from one party controlling both the legislative and the executive branches. Even if McCain were a far worse candidate I would vote for him on "gridlock is good" grounds alone.
Megan,
The only reasonable argument that a libertarian-leaning person, such as yourself, could make for voting Obama rather than McCain is that the Republican Party needs time in the wilderness to relearn a true devotion to limited government and more libertarian priciples (the argument Alan Gunn makes above). I could respect such an argument, even if I disagreed with it, which I do in this case. However, that is not the argument you have made. The argument you are making borders on nonsensical.
"it's demanded by their major donors and power-wielding influence constituency in the finance industry"
Which candidates are getting the most from the financial industry in this race?
BOTH Obama and Hillary have raised more money from Wall Street than McCain.
The only issue that I can think of that a libertarian might prefer Obama over McCain on is militarism. McCain is much more likely to prolong war in Iraq or take us to war with Iran than Obama.
If this is Megan's major issue then I can see being for Obama, but on every onther issue Obama is worse than or equally bad to McCain from a libertarian perspective.
Then again you can't totally discount personality and likability. Maybe Megan would just prefer to see Obama in the office simply because she likes him more as a person. Policy be damned.
I think the consensus is that Ms.McArdle’s preference for Obama over McCain is inexplicable on the basis of their respective policies. Further, most of us will not buy that she is simply smitten with his charisma. The logical conclusion is that there is hidden information that might explain her support for Obama. My own thought is that her former teacher, Dr. Goolsby, has offered her a post in the Obama administration.
"...I give John McCain kudoes."
Just because some folks spell "potatos" as "potatoes" does NOT mean you can spell "kudos" as "kudoes".
That's all I got.
Carry on.
McCain v. Obama, a choice between the bad and the awful. That's better than we had with Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Kerry, which were obvious choices between the awful and the dreadful. Hammer Bush as much as you like for all his incompetence, he has earned every scorn you can throw at him. But at least he wasn't Gore or Kerry -- ugh, I shudder to think of what they would have been like.
Both McCain and Obama will now waffle their way towards some kind of middling position on most issues in the general election, one coming from some murky, indeterminate post-Reagan right, the other from far out in left field. McCain will temper his anti-market authoritarian instincts, and Obama will become a little less loony on trade. But it'll be general election waffle, not really to be believed anyway.
What matters is that whichever wins will trot into town with a gaggle of committed advisors. That's what you have to watch for. Who will McCain put in as trade negotiator, v. Obama? Who will chair the FTC, the FDA, and other regulatory bodies? What sort of economic and tax policies will they promulgate once in power? What kind of people will they drag into town, the ones who will design and implement the Grand Schemes?
On that, I think you again have a choice between the awful and the dreadful. I really don't trust either of them. But I'll pick the awful over the dreadful any day. So McCain will get my vote while I hold my nose and exercise my democratic right to say NO to the worst excesses of the left.
Of course, the likelihood that my vote will make any real difference is absolute zero. I really don't know why should I bother at all, it's completely irrational. Gordon Tullock is right -- why vote?