McCain and Obama

[twich54]

Did you graduate magna cum laude or higher? You don't find that the least bit impressive? Especially for a mixed race kid that didn't come from money? The first person of color to become Editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. Not impressive? Then I guess you are not impressed by McCain's finishing almost dead last in his Naval Academy class. For a job like the Presidency, intelligence does matter. One look at the last eight years makes that abundantly clear.

Rich, if I had a nickel for every "Text Book savy lawyer" out there I'd have a pair of CLX's !!

Now back to the statement, debate all you want about which one will make the better president, but if you are comparing past "duties" of Obama being "school boy editor" to McCains service to our nation, your crazy !!!!

 

[jtwrace]

but if you are comparing past "duties" of Obama being "school boy editor" to McCains service to our nation, your crazy !!!!

I've tried to stay out of this thread and just laugh but this one is perfect. LOL...

 

[Rich]

Rich, if I had a nickel for every "Text Book savy lawyer" out there I'd have a pair of CLX's !!

Dave, let me enlighten you just a tad. I am a very smart person with very good memorization skills and a high gpa in undergrad. I was "book-smart." I went to an average law school and didn't even graduate in the top third of my class. It is incredibly difficult, and it takes a lot more than book smarts.

Legal students must not only be able to memorize and understand a lot of legal concepts, they must be able to apply those concepts correctly to complex fact scenarios in a limited amount of time. In other words, they have to exhibit sharp analytical skills, a quick ability to separate important points from inconsequential ones, and the ability to put it all together with top-notch writing skills and do it all in a short amount of time. They must do this with numerous diverse subjects, from property and criminal law, to constitutional law, bankruptcy law, and tax law and so on.

A very small percentage of applicants even get in to Harvard Law (ranked the second best law school in the nation by USAToday), much less graduate in the top third of their class. Obama graduated almost at the very top of his class. This doesn't just mean he is book smart. This means he has a keen, quick, analytical mind and incredible communication skills.

I promise you that you have no idea how hard it is to accomplish what he did there, and it is something to be impressed by. Five of the nine justices of the Supreme Court received their law degrees from Harvard Law School. Roberts and Scalia both graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude like Obama. That is the league that his mind is in. You may disagree with his politics, but don't underestimate how smart he is.

Becoming Editor-in-Chief of the law review is also very difficult. There is only one per class and it is voted on by all the other members of the law review. So you have to convince like sixty other students that you are the one who deserves it in an incredibly competitive election. That he was the first person of color to achieve this also stands out as remarkable given the time frame when he accomplished it.

The Naval Academy, on the other hand, just isn't that prestigious of a school (it doesn't even rank on USAToday's list of top schools) and McCain graduated right next to the bottom of his class. 'Nuff said.

Now back to the statement, debate all you want about which one will make the better president, but if you are comparing past "duties" of Obama being "school boy editor" to McCains service to our nation, your crazy !!!!

I was not. I was comparing their educational achievements which provide a sharp contrast. After school, they each took different paths but both chose public service. McCain chose to go into the military (not surprising given his family background); Obama worked toward more peaceful objectives. Obama worked for New York Public Interest Group and then for a community service organization in Chicago. Despite the republicans attempts to diss CSO's, they provide a valuable role helping the poor and disenfranchised in our urban centers. After that, he taught Constitutional law and practiced as a private attorney in a civil rights litigation firm. Then he went into the State Legislature. While this resume may not knock your socks off, it has diversity. Working for the public good, teaching and then working for your State and finally the Federal government.

McCain became a navy pilot. I am not demeaning his service to our country, but I don't see flying a fighter jet as any great experience to become president. He crashed three aircraft before he was shot down over Vietnam, so I don't see that he was so successful as a fighter pilot. Did he become an Admiral or some other great rank like his father and grandfather before him? No. Why? Because he simply wasn't that capable. The entire rest of McCain's life has been spent as a career politician, during which time he has achieved few real accomplishments for the american people.

There is no doubt that McCain has a lot more experience as a politician than Obama does. I am not so sure that is a good thing, given that he has no other diversity of experience to draw from. You can go for the good ole boy who is quick to anger and cusses like a sailor if you wish. I would rather someone in the executive office have some brains and diplomacy skills.

 

[Len44]

Eight years ago the question was how to deal with our budget surpluses! Now we are dealing with record budget deficits. Eight years ago we were not engaged in a costly war, not dealing with the aftermath of a major terrorist attack on our own soil, and not saber-rattling with Iran and Russia. Eight years ago, oil was under $40 a barrel and gas was 1.20 a gallon! Eight years ago, the unemployment rate was hovering at 4%. Today, it is rising and rapidly approaching 6%. Eight years ago, housing prices were rising, not falling. Eight years ago, we were debating the president's inability to keep his pants zipped, not his inability to speak a coherent sentence. Eight years ago, there was a whole lot more ice on the polar ice caps. Eight years ago, the city of New Orleans was alive and well. Now it is mostly a ghost town. I could go on . . . and on . . . and on.

While you may wish to vote republican again this time around because you think McCain will be different . . . I subscribe to the notion that stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

In my opinion, one of the first steps we need to take is to eliminate the career politicians. Anyone who seeks to stay in office for an indefinite period of time has no one's interests in mind but their own. I put McCain in this category, as I do Biden. Both men have some great qualities. But both have long since sold their souls to the corporate coffers. We need a limit of say, four terms as a congressman and two terms as a senator. Just like we limit the presidency. That would go a long way to fixing our problems, I think. The line-item veto is another.

Rich, you are one fine, knowledgeable gentleman! I appreciate reading your accurate, insightful posts!

Although I am a long-time registered Republican (and Proud Goldwater Conservative -- I know, I know, that officially makes me an Old Phart), in all reality lean mostly Independent.

That said, I think Bush has screwed things up so badly it is difficult to imagine another Republican president. He had some help (Cheney, Rove, Mitch McConnell, and a bunch of a$$hat Republican Congressional perverts / bribe-takers (many managed by Jack Abrahamhoff, a Long-Time extreme right-wing operator), some of whom are now in jail).

How in the $#@^& ANYONE could have voted for Bush in 2004 just totally escapes me

Yeah, there are some that may be "better off now than they were four years ago." But many, many more are not.

 

[IWalker]

Did you graduate magna cum laude or higher? You don't find that the least bit impressive? Especially for a mixed race kid that didn't come from money? The first person of color to become Editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. Not impressive? Then I guess you are not impressed by McCain's finishing almost dead last in his Naval Academy class. For a job like the Presidency, intelligence does matter. One look at the last eight years makes that abundantly clear.

Yes, he's a smart dude. No doubt. Though I'd say that the "of color" aspects of your statement shouldn't matter at all. However, I learned in college that there's a huge difference between being book smart, and having common sense...and being a leader. The "smartest" people I knew were not the ones with 4.0 gpas. All that shows is the ability to remember and regurgitate information...not the ability to think and reason for yourself. What his go od grades at a law school suggest are that he'd make a good lawyer...buthis policy suggestions to date show a complete lack of economic understanding. I see a lot of polish, but a lack of basic understanding of important core ideas...and that's dangerous.

Being related to high-ranking politicians, and having enough money and clout in the family to buy an election, does not in and of itself make you an above-average person. Judging by his intelligence, his performance in office, and his character, I would have to rate Bush as a below-average person.

Well with that kind of definition I guess you can label anyone average based on your own biases. To your point, though...I'd say that on intelligence, performance in office, and character...Sarah Palin and mccain are both above average...and so comparing average to average using your standard still doesn't apply from Bush to McCain/Palin. In terms of political history...Obama/Biden is very average (very traditional political stories) vs a very non-average background for McCain/Palin.

What I was basing my comment on was Diamonds' "WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE AVERAGE PEOPLE IN THE WHITEHOUSE" which I assumed applied to the persona bush tried to present in the election of being the "common man." We obviously read that differently.

I said it earlier and I will say it again. The very definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If you are happy with the way this country has gone for the last eight years, then there is nothing Obama or I or anyone else can say to change your mind. You should just vote for McCain.

I don't know...I think it's pretty stupid to take someone who has been a thorn in his party's side, time and time again...and say that he's going to be a continuation of the same. He has a history of doing what he thinks is right, whether popular or not...even if it means going against the party. Palin has the same history...albeit shorter. But she took on her OWN party in Alaska. I'll say it again...change for the sake of change is asinine. Thinking "hmm, the economy is in the dumps...lets do something different....like raise taxes...that pretty much all reasonable economists will agree will slow the economy" No, that's a terrible idea. You want to do things that will make POSITIVE change. The changes Obama suggests will very likely have a strong NEGATIVE effect on the output of the economy...and will likely RAISE prices...and drive jobs overseas. It's really basic economics.

But the majority of this country doesn't feel that way, and they are definitely ready for a change in the way this country is run and the way Washington works. Obama appears to be the best chance we have of achieving some real change and I, for one, am willing to give him a chance to accomplish it.

No doubt...but I don't think people want to replace the president with the do-nothing congress that has even lower approval ratings than the president, do they? Again...both candidates are promising change...I just think McCain has the experience to be much more credible in what he's saying...and I think his promises are far healthier to the economy and security of the country.

This is a good point. Much of the damage that was done in the past eight years was because for almost seven of those years, we had a republican president and congress. Sometimes stalemate is good. But when you do need to inject some changes into the system, it is necessary to have a congress and president that can work together.

Changes, changes, changes. That's the mantra. Putting sugar in your gas tank because gas is expensive is a change....a far more expensive one than putting more gas in the tank. GOOD change is good. The ideas Obama is suggesting are NOT good changes.

This is a complete red herring. Why do conservatives always throw up this bogeyman to try to scare people, instead of looking at the actual facts? Tell me, what have the tax breaks and corporate incentives of the last eight years gotten us in the way of gas prices? Let me answer that for you: a quadruple rise in price! Oil companies are having record profits every quarter, while enjoying favorable corporate tax rates. Are we seeing that reflected in lower prices? NO! Does your logic hold water? NO!

Um. Really? You think corporate profit has anything to do with this? The price of oil is not set by the oil companies. It is set on the open market by supply and demand...most of which is also not controlled by the oil companies. So, you add a 5c per gallon tax on oil companies...you take the market value of gas...and raise it 5c. It WILL get passed through. It is not a red herring...it's pretty much the simplest concept there is. You want to lower prices? Simple. Lower demand (which is global) or raise supply. Ta da! If you think this is a red herring...then I really don't know what to say. I don't believe this idea because some politician told me...I believe it because it's common sense and because my degree in economics basically drilled it home over 4 years of econ classes. Your argument is akin to saying that you painted your house red...and it burned down, so red paint must cause fires. You're mistaking coincidence with correlation.

The reason oil prices (and consequently, gas prices) are so high is solely because of Bush's disastrous foreign policy and because of his determination to devalue the dollar. These two things have caused oil prices to quadruple in the last four years while supply and demand have remained relatively steady. Look at the raw data on oil supply, demand and pricing, and read some articles from someone other than FOX News and learn about the real fundamentals affecting the oil markets.

No and Yes. A weak dollar has certainly affected prices a great deal. A stronger dollar would lower prices. Concepts of peak oil and massive increases in demand from the far east (china and india) have led to much of the price increases. I don't think Bush has done a bang up job with foreign policy...so I won't argue that...but you grossly overestimate the effect on the supply and demand on the world market.

Oil prices will drop like a rock when the democrats get into office, simply because they will engage in more positive, proactive diplomacy, end the war in the middle east and ease the needless tensions with Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, and work toward raising the value of the dollar. They will also threaten to use the Strategic Reserve to ease prices (something Bush has refused to do from day 1) and this will have a strong psychological effect on the oil speculators.

Haha, ok. if you say so. There is no reasonable basis in fact for this...and if it happens...and you're right...I'll be surprised...but I'll also be more than happy to admit it. This is like saying "when Obama is elected, the earth will heal, and everyone in the world will love each other." It's stupid in my opinion...but you can't be sure it's not true until it's proven to be so...so I guess I'll have to see.

Then how can you support John McCain? He certainly had nothing of the sort at the Naval Academy and he has shown through his statements that he has no friggin' clue about economic matters. He has made no proposals for how to deal with the huge deficit caused by the war and Bush's tax breaks. He just says things will magically get better by extending those tax breaks and staying in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Staying in Iraq a hundred years. Yes...as a strategic partner...like with Japan and Germany. That was very clear in his quote. His point was that as long as troops are no longer dying...it's not a bad thing to have them stationed overseas. I agree. Way to take things out of context. His understanding of economic concepts is far greater than Obama's. He's said he'll cut foreign aid, cut spending (smaller gov't...gasp!)...including earmarks...etc.as opposed to Obama's promises to spend hundreds of billions on new programs....even though his tax increases (if they cause the likely reduction in investment) will likely not come close to covering his projected expenditures.

I don't know why I come back to these discussions...not like either one of us will convince the other. We obviously disagree on even the most fundamental of concepts. You think I'm misguided in believing what I do...and I believe you're misguided. All that really matters is who has more people who think the same thing... That's the joy of democracy. Good luck to your candidate in November! If I have the willpower I'll stay away from this thread till then.

 

[Rich]

Len, Thanks for the kind words. I myself lean conservative in some respects and liberal in others. But I cannot stomach what the republican party has become in my lifetime. I don't agree with the dems on everything, but they just seem to care more for average americans than the repubs do. And they don't seem to lie, cheat and steal near as much.

IWalker:

All that shows is the ability to remember and regurgitate information...not the ability to think and reason for yourself.

Please see my post above to Dave, which explains exactly why a law school education requires a mind that can think and reason for itself and not just be "book-smart."

I think it's pretty stupid to take someone who has been a thorn in his party's side, time and time again...and say that he's going to be a continuation of the same.

How many times has he voted with Bush? 90% of his votes! Yes, he has really been a thorn in Bush's side, hasn't he?

Thinking "hmm, the economy is in the dumps...lets do something different....like raise taxes...that pretty much all reasonable economists will agree will slow the economy"

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

According to this and other studies, neither candidates plans will significatantly help or hurt economic growth.

The price of oil is not set by the oil companies. It is set on the open market by supply and demand...most of which is also not controlled by the oil companies.

Read my posts again. I made clear that the significant increase in the price of oil over the last four years is a direct result of Bush's policies, and not normal supply/demand economics. If you want some real insight into this, look at this study and compare the underlying data:

Oil Supply and Demand vs. Prices

I noticed you completely ignored my question about why gas prices have risen so much in Bush's supposedly favorable corporate tax environment. Again, your logic is simply incorrect and is reliant on simple economics while ignoring all the other socio-political factors that influence oil prices, corporate growth, and budget dynamics.

Please don't stay away from this thread. Only by discussing these topics in a civil manner can we learn from each other and at least air our points and counter-points for others to read and think about. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Len44]

Yes, he's a smart dude. No doubt. Though I'd say that the "of color" aspects of your statement shouldn't matter at all. However, I learned in college that there's a huge difference between being book smart, and having common sense...and being a leader. The "smartest" people I knew were not the ones with 4.0 gpas. All that shows is the ability to remember and regurgitate information...not the ability to think and reason for yourself. What his go od grades at a law school suggest are that he'd make a good lawyer...buthis policy suggestions to date show a complete lack of economic understanding. I see a lot of polish, but a lack of basic understanding of important core ideas...and that's dangerous.

Actually, as any lawyer (or law school student, for that matter) can tell you, it involves a whole lot more than simple regurgitation of information. Reasoning and Logic skills are paramount...

Sarah Palin and mccain are both above average...and so comparing average to average using your standard still doesn't apply from Bush to McCain/Palin. In terms of political history...Obama/Biden is very average (very traditional political stories) vs a very non-average background for McCain/Palin.

I don't know...I think it's pretty stupid to take someone who has been a thorn in his party's side, time and time again...and say that he's going to be a continuation of the same. He has a history of doing what he thinks is right, whether popular or not...even if it means going against the party. Palin has the same history...albeit shorter. But she took on her OWN party in Alaska. I'll say it again...change for the sake of change is asinine. Thinking "hmm, the economy is in the dumps...lets do something different....like raise taxes...that pretty much all reasonable economists will agree will slow the economy" No, that's a terrible idea. You want to do things that will make POSITIVE change. The changes Obama suggests will very likely have a strong NEGATIVE effect on the output of the economy...and will likely RAISE prices...and drive jobs overseas. It's really basic economics.

Really? Then how come Obama wants to take away the current incentives the BUSH administration (you know -- the ANYTHING for Big Business, Big Oil, Rich Friends guys) put in place that actually Encourages businesses to pull jobs from Americans and put them overseas. It's really basic economics...

Further -- McCain can't pander to the extremists right-wingers in his party by saying (on tape, no less) that he's supported Bush over 90% of the time, then run a political convention and campaign like he hardly knew the guy (Bush). Some might say that is akin to "talking out of both sides of one's mouth."

And where this "Obama is gonna raise our taxes" stuff??? The truth -- as McCain and Palin well know -- is quite the opposite. They want to LOWER taxes -- uh, unless you make over $250,000, that is.

No doubt...but I don't think people want to replace the president with the do-nothing congress that has even lower approval ratings than the president, do they?

Yep, Congress is a HUGE disappointment. Been pretty much that way since 1994 (OK, before '94 -- but you get the point). BIG part of the recent problem is those $#@^*& Obstructionist Republicans -- won't even let majority rule... Now need that "Super-Majority" BS, so pretty much nothing can get passed. Dems need a BIGGER majority, THEN things will get rockin' again...

He's said he'll cut foreign aid, cut spending (smaller gov't...gasp!)...including earmarks...etc.

So...McCain picks the Queen of Earmarks (I was FOR the Bridge to Nowhere before I was against it...) for his Veep???

Actually, I like McCain -- McCain 2000, that is. Then he sold out to Bush in 2004, I surmise in exchange for Shrub not opposing him in 2008. A deal with the devil to be sure...

What a shame that Bushy released his attack dogs (Rove, etc.) and told lie after lie about McCain in 2000 primary campaign in South Carolina... Country would be in a whole lot better shape right now.

But, will I vote for someone who seems proud to have supported Bush "over 90% of the time?"

Not in this lifetime.

 

[Len44]

Please don't stay away from this thread. Only by discussing these topics in a civil manner can we learn from each other and at least air our points and counter-points for others to read and think about. Thanks for the discussion.

Absolutely on the mark! We all have things to learn, and I think most of us are open to that...

 

[kwr]

Um. Really? You think corporate profit has anything to do with this? The price of oil is not set by the oil companies. It is set on the open market by supply and demand...most of which is also not controlled by the oil companies....
...... then I really don't know what to say. I don't believe this idea because some politician told me...I believe it because it's common sense and because my degree in economics basically drilled it home....

Excellent - somone with a theoretical knowledge. Can you point me to a single credible economic prediction of the acceleration in oil prices in the last year particularly one that was able to predict the dissociation of price, supply and demand. Demand has been steady, supply has been steady price has gone up hugely.

I have watched economists commentate for years. The fundamental thing that is constantly overlooked is that people do not think rationally and the conditions in which economic models work are seldom met. Perhaps that is where a clever politician of whatever ilk may have the edge.

Kevin

 

[eknuds01]

Dave, let me enlighten you just a tad. I am a very smart person with very good memorization skills and a high gpa in undergrad. I was "book-smart." I went to an average law school and didn't even graduate in the top third of my class. It is incredibly difficult, and it takes a lot more than book smarts.

Legal students must not only be able to memorize and understand a lot of legal concepts, they must be able to apply those concepts correctly to complex fact scenarios in a limited amount of time. In other words, they have to exhibit sharp analytical skills, a quick ability to separate important points from inconsequential ones, and the ability to put it all together with top-notch writing skills and do it all in a short amount of time. They must do this with numerous diverse subjects, from property and criminal law, to constitutional law, bankruptcy law, and tax law and so on.

A very small percentage of applicants even get in to Harvard Law (ranked the second best law school in the nation by USAToday), much less graduate in the top third of their class. Obama graduated almost at the very top of his class. This doesn't just mean he is book smart. This means he has a keen, quick, analytical mind and incredible communication skills.

I promise you that you have no idea how hard it is to accomplish what he did there, and it is something to be impressed by. Five of the nine justices of the Supreme Court received their law degrees from Harvard Law School. Roberts and Scalia both graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude like Obama. That is the league that his mind is in. You may disagree with his politics, but don't underestimate how smart he is.

Becoming Editor-in-Chief of the law review is also very difficult. There is only one per class and it is voted on by all the other members of the law review. So you have to convince like sixty other students that you are the one who deserves it in an incredibly competitive election. That he was the first person of color to achieve this also stands out as remarkable given the time frame when he accomplished it.

The Naval Academy, on the other hand, just isn't that prestigious of a school (it doesn't even rank on USAToday's list of top schools) and McCain graduated right next to the bottom of his class. 'Nuff said.

This is not a very accurate statement. The USNA is every bit as prestigious as Harvard. The acceptance rate at all of the Military Academies is in the single digits. It's very difficult to get into the USNA. I happen to work with a number of USNA grads and my company works with US Navy officers (many of them are USNA grads) all of the time. I also conduct research with several USNA profs, and their engineering facilities, students, and technicians are all first rate, and I say that having come from a top flight engineering program at UF and I worked at NASA and some professors at Cornell a few years back. I can assure that they are all very hard working and extremely bright individuals. I wouldn't read into the USA Today rankings (or US News) all that much. The reason why none of the Academies aren't ranked with the other national schools is because they don't have large graduate programs. Instead they focus on undergraduate education and teaching. Just because McCain finished near the bottom of his class doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. I finished near the middle of the pack at Villanova, but I decided to go on to graduate school for my masters even thought I didn't have stellar grades.

One thing led to another and I finished my PhD in engineering back in 2006. I worked my ass of at UF and landed a NASA fellowship for the doctorate. Grades aren't the end-all-be-all; it's the heard work, the grit, and the willingness to stick it out that counts.

I have not, or will not, second guess Obama's intelligence. But just because he went to Harvard doesn't mean he's eminently qualified to lead a nation. Could he step up and deliver? Sure. Absolutely. Only time will tell.



I was not. I was comparing their educational achievements which provide a sharp contrast. After school, they each took different paths but both chose public service. McCain chose to go into the military (not surprising given his family background); Obama worked toward more peaceful objectives. Obama worked for New York Public Interest Group and then for a community service organization in Chicago. Despite the republicans attempts to diss CSO's, they provide a valuable role helping the poor and disenfranchised in our urban centers. After that, he taught Constitutional law and practiced as a private attorney in a civil rights litigation firm. Then he went into the State Legislature. While this resume may not knock your socks off, it has diversity. Working for the public good, teaching and then working for your State and finally the Federal government.

McCain became a navy pilot. I am not demeaning his service to our country, but I don't see flying a fighter jet as any great experience to become president. He crashed three aircraft before he was shot down over Vietnam, so I don't see that he was so successful as a fighter pilot. Did he become an Admiral or some other great rank like his father and grandfather before him? No. Why? Because he simply wasn't that capable. The entire rest of McCain's life has been spent as a career politician, during which time he has achieved few real accomplishments for the american people.

There is no doubt that McCain has a lot more experience as a politician than Obama does. I am not so sure that is a good thing, given that he has no other diversity of experience to draw from. You can go for the good ole boy who is quick to anger and cusses like a sailor if you wish. I would rather someone in the executive office have some brains and diplomacy skills.

Regarding the post about the oil prices being entirely Bush's fault:

I don't believe this is entirely true. As IWalker pointed out, the price of oil is set on the market. In recent years we've seen many asset classes such as precious metals, real estate (until recently), energy stocks, etc all out perform the 'traditional' asset classes such as large cap stocks and the like. In short, investors the world over were fleeing the market and dumping money into the commodities markets/sectors. Even large institutions (pension funds and the like) were placing huge bets on the energy stocks. I don't argue that foreign tension and diplomacy (as well as weak a dollar) contribute to the high gas prices, but this isn't ALL Bush's fault. I don't have it on me, but I have a presentation (very technical) that shows that world demand has indeed increased. The US isn't the only game in town anymore. Other countries' economies are growing and they are now buying more and more gas too. I don't think the blog post you listed is very accurate. It only shows the data for light sweet crude oil and the production of total liquids. I am by no means an expert in this area, but I don't think this is an accurate comparison here.

The energy issue is an extremely complicated one. I think it is rather simplistic to state that it entirely Bush's fault that we are paying more for gas now than ever before. It's quite possible that we are in the era of Expensive Energy at least until other alternatives become more practical. Sometimes the market, even commodities markets move in very irrational swings. When you look at the volume of money money and the volume of traded shares for the various hot sectors over the last few years it all looks like a huge speculative bubble to me. Much like the dot com crash that was just 8 years ago, we could see the oil prices drop below $3/gal in the coming months. While that isn't cheap, it's certainly better than paying 4 or 5 dollars a gallon.

I, too, like IWalker will walk away from this thread. I don't see the sense of going back and forth on these topics all day long. It seems as though everyone has made up their minds. No amount of debate will change anything.

Erik

 

[Beakman]

Stay Put! No Need To Go Away or Get Personal.

Rather than go at it hammer and tongs with each other, relax and use some time to expand your horizons. Try looking at things from a different perspective, like this fellow:

When did the idea of freedom become a political orphan?

Steve Chapman September 7, 2008

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was "Serving a Cause Greater than Self." Tuesday was "Service," Wednesday was "Reform" and Thursday was "Peace."

"We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom. "

—Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination






So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were "One Nation," "Renewing America's Promise" and "Securing America's Future." The party proclaimed "an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights." Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.

You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but Barack Obama has a different idea.

The "essence of America's promise," he declared in Denver, is "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility"—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The "promise of America," he said, is "the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights.

"All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself," wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. "The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals."

That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities."

Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?

Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like—the right to a "homosexual lifestyle," the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.

Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.

While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.

But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value—money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude—rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.

The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman and his e-mail address is [email protected]

 

[Rich]

Can you point me to a single credible economic prediction of the acceleration in oil prices in the last year particularly one that was able to predict the dissociation of price, supply and demand. Demand has been steady, supply has been steady price has gone up hugely.

Thanks, Kevin. This is exactly what I was referring to. The quadrupling of oil prices over the last few years occurred during a time when supply/demand remained steady. There is simply no correlation between the price rise and the supply/demand data. So what caused it? The war in Iraq, the saber-rattling with Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, the intentional devaluation of the dollar, the intentional stockpiling of the federal oil reserve while refusing to use it as a bargaining chip to inhibit speculation in the markets, and a host of other decisions made by this administration in a calculated manner to influence the oil markets.

Does anyone really think it is just a coincidence that the Bush family has a network of close associates, business partners, political supporters and advisers from the oil industry that goes back fifty years? That Dick Cheney was CEO of the oil services firm Halliburton (a company that also profited handsomely from the Iraq war contracts)? That Condi Rice worked for Chevron Corp. before she was hired by the Bush administration and actually has an oil tanker named after her? That oil companies just happen to be having record-breaking quarter after record-breaking quarter during this administration's watch? That McCain is ignoring the lack of correlation between our current oil prices and the supply/demand curve and just keeps repeating the oil company's mantra of "more drilling will solve all our problems?" That McCain chose a running mate who is even more pro-drilling and pro-big oil than he is?

Come on, people. Wake up. Bush instituted the biggest tax this country has ever seen, and he did it at the gas pumps while no one noticed. But the money from that tax doesn't go to the government; it goes straight to the oil company's bottom line. This tax affects everyone, including business, and it is stifling our economy. And McCain has signaled his intention to continue this charade, playing dumb about the real causes of the oil price spike and parroting the oil company's propaganda that all our problems will be solved if we just drill for more oil.

 

[Rich]

Beakman,

Great post. I enjoyed reading that. And I think most of us, conservative or liberal, can agree with the thesis of that commentary.

 

[Len44]

Well, I would certainly hope that a President McCain would refrain from inviting the Big Oil execs in to DC to write energy policy for HIS administration, as Bush / Cheney did...

We've "experimented" with an "Oil" President (let's see, I think he was also our self-proclaimed "War" President (as if that's something of which to be proud), and we can all see how THAT worked out...

 

[Rich]

The changes Obama suggests will very likely have a strong NEGATIVE effect on the output of the economy...and will likely RAISE prices...and drive jobs overseas. It's really basic economics.

For an interesting perspective on this idea, written by a professor of economics at Princeton who was also a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, check out this article:

Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?

 

[VanDaRo]

Shifting gears on this thread... It would appear that even the McCain campaign knows that Sarah Palin is a lightweight as they are ignoring the dozens of requests for interviews with her. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13208.html

On top of that Johnie Mac is complaining about the media coverage, then tries to make a statement by ditching on Larry King -- an act of revenge for a tough interview (a CNN reporter rightfully took one of his campaign advisers to task: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxMCp1vydEI ), and now he's shielding her from the press.

Whatever...

If he needs to cover up the fact that his VP pick was an impulsive, hail-Mary act of desperation, then do you really want this chump running the country?? Sarah Palin's speech the other night was long on dim-witted rhetoric and short on real substance. And she will be held accountable for that, and not given soft Oprah-esque interviews just because she has a pretty smile or five children. McCain knows this. She will be cheese-gratered for her abstinence-only view of family planning and lunatic position on abortion -- her own family serving as the finest example of why this simply does not work. McCain knows this. She is super light on national economic issues, foreign policy and social problems in this country and abroad. McCain knows this. So one could say the he's doing the only reasonable thing by denying access to her and probably has his boys giving her a crash course on the above subject matter so that she doesn't suffer too badly when he runs out of excuses.

This just keeps getting better and better.

~VDR

 

[Beakman]

What are you saying, McCain actually knows things?

 

[Rich]

After eight years of the Bush administration playing the press and dodging every decent question in a press conference with thinly-veiled obfuscations and outright lies, this should come as no surprise. McCain has learned from the current administration that the best way to deal with the press is to ignore them or lie to them. Unfortunately for him, he isn't president yet. So he can't just ignore them with impunity.

Surely even for die-hard republicans this must look really bad. McCain throws a temper tantrum and cancels an appearance with Larry King because someone threw one of his aides a hardball question??? McCain refuses access of the media to his newly-picked, poorly-vetted, novice of a running mate? He wants us all to see their nicely scripted infomercials, but doesn't want to answer any difficult questions he doesn't know in advance? Is this really the type of politician we want running this country? Again?

Republicans keep talking about how wonderful Sarah Palin is and how she is more experienced than Obama. Yet, they are afraid to let her in front of the media. For that matter, McCain himself is on a pretty tight leash. Obama had the balls to go on O'Reilly's show but McCain is afraid of Larry King? Tell me that doesn't speak volumes right there. I think I would be embarrassed to vote for McCain just for that one fact.

 

[DrJRapp]

McCain became a navy pilot. I am not demeaning his service to our country, but I don't see flying a fighter jet as any great experience to become president. He crashed three aircraft before he was shot down over Vietnam, so I don't see that he was so successful as a fighter pilot. Did he become an Admiral or some other great rank like his father and grandfather before him? No. Why? Because he simply wasn't that capable.

Regardless of one's political stance, I find the above comments ludicrous.

McCain rose to the Rank of Navy Captain, ONLY one rank short of the Navy Flag ranks (Admirals).

Although Top Gun made it look easy, take it from another Naval Aviator, it is not. Less than 1% of the population have what it takes to fly a Navy jet. A combat pilot is called upon to mentally process vast amounts of information and make split second decisions that are frequently life and death. Ones flying ability cannot be judged by how many planes are lost because there are many reasons for loss of a plane and if as few as one of those losses had be due to pilot error he would have lost his flying status.

In order to rise to the rank of Captain (which is implied above as something of a low life failure...????) as a Naval Aviator one must not only be an outstanding pilot but also a truely exceptional leader. Promotions are based on ones ability to lead, not to fly. Unlike the Air Force, in the Navy, flying is a collateral duty, not our primary duty. McCain has been both a squadron and an airwing Commander.

Unlike the Army or Air Force that have many Generals pushing paper, the Navy makes very few Admirals during peace time due to severe lack of opportunity for a major sea command (which is a prerequisite). Typically one out of every 8,000 officers commissioned makes Captain and one out of every 1000 Captains get selected by Congress to Flag rank (Admiral) . It is a political process and not a merit process.

I believe that McCain may have been chosen to Flag if it were not for four things, first his time spent as a POW put him seven years behind his "running mates" in sheer magnitude of achievements. Secondly it was peace time which is a difficult time for a Naval Officer to distinguish himself. (I would not have risen as far as I did if not for DStorm). Third, he was not in the best of health after seven years of torture, abuse and disease. Forth he chose to retire in 1981 at 26 years to pursue a political career. Typically a Captain on a normal track will become eligable for selection to Flag rank around year 28-30, if at all.

I really don't think Obama would have cut it a a Naval Aviator...... take it from many years personal experience evaluating junior Aviators, I know.

J Rappaport
Rear Admiral USN, Retired

 

[VanDaRo]

Jerry, your skills as a pilot or knowledge of the inner working of the Navy are not in question. But John McCain's is. He graduated 4th from the bottom of his academy class, damn near flunked out of flight school, yet somehow managed to get selected for fighter-duty -- something the Navy reserves for the top performers. He may have met the physical requirements and been blessed with 20/15 vision, but ....

What....The....F**k !!??!!??

Well, I guess if your dad and grandfather were decorated sailors that made Admiral, things were a little easier. It should be noted that Johnie Mac himself admitted that he was a pretty lousy pilot -- gets points for honesty on this point. But if you or I wiped out 100 million-plus dollars (cost of 4 jets in the 60's) of Navy property when I was in, somebody would be loosing their commission and going to the brig. Pilot error or not, the "Nav" only has so much patience for such things.

Besides having been a world-class underachiever during his navy days, his use of lobbyists in his campaign is troubling. He is not the same man he was in 2000 and his move to the right is confusing at best, an act of outright dishonesty at worst.

~VDR