Cynical Nation

In theory, yes. In practice, I'm still shocked this morning. I guess I thought there were too many people like my brother-in-law, who was a working class democrat who said things like "I don't think the country is ready for a black President" which I took as his feelings.

I thought there were enough people like him to stop a 50/50 country from choosing Obama.

But I wasn't going to let that deter myself from voting for Obama as I thought he was the better choice to be President, both in the primaries and in the general.

After the past election when Democrats chose as their nominee a candidate they thought had the best chance to win, I decided this time that I would choose the individual I felt would make the best President.

I trusted my instinct and then put my faith in the country's instinct. I am pleasantly shocked this morning.

Also, while this election largely turned on the economy, I also feel that this is a great opportunity to bring to the White House a different perspective on how to fight the War against terrorism.

For more than seven years now, I have heard from conservatives how liberals like myself have forgotten about 9/11, how we don't care about the fight against global terrorism, specifically global jihad by Islamic extremists.

That always has been a lie. I do care. I just believe that there are more effective strategies that will leave this country stronger than have many of the policies carried out by the current President.

Now we shall see how President Obama conducts himself in the War Against Terrorism. I happen to believe that he will do well as I think he is more of a pragmatic than an idealist such as Carter on one side or Bush 43 on the other. I believe he will govern more like Bush 41, an administration that I believe provided effective foreign policy leadership in a time of change.

No. I don't think you were being naive. I didn't doubt it.

I do think that whoever I heard last night say that what this election really proved is that the country has finally grown up, and that race is not an issue. And that's a sentiment I hope we can all get behind.

The election proved that the country no longer wants "conservatism". The only reason republicans were winning elections was the taxes issue. Obama took it away from them.

Unless the republicans get rid of the religious/conservative part of the party (not an easy thing to do), they will not win elections for years to come. McCain would have done better with a serious VP candidate, but the ultra-right component of the base forced him to pick someone like Palin. That is exactly why he lost that big.

"I believe he will govern more like Bush 41, an administration that I believe provided effective foreign policy leadership in a time of change." (PE)


Bush 41?

Bush 41, alienated a critical ally, although not with the disastrous consequences of Jimmy Carter.

Carter's abandoning the Shah of Iran, gave the radical Islamists a nation of their own - not just a base of support, but a leigitimizing of an ideology that was, up to then, marginalized in the Arab world.

Bush 41 did pretty much the same thing with Saddam Hussein.

Hussein's Iraq had been a Westernized, pro-American, steadfast ally of the U.S. and a proxy in the USSR-backed Iran vs the U.S.-backed Iraq war.

Early in Bush Sr.'s term, Hussein asked that administration to intervenet over Kuwait's slant drilling across its border, in effect, stealing oil from Iraq.

The Bush 41 administration's response was, "We don't involve ourselves in such petty border disputes," which Iraq took as a greenlight to dealing with the problem as they saw fit.

BUT, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Bush 41 administration went apoplectic ("The rape of Kuwait") and invaded and emasculated Iraq.

Bush 41, in effect, radicalized Iraq and alienated a former ally.

Since 1991 Iraq has been an enemy of the U.S.

It cooperated with the al Qaida led Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq against a common enemy - the Iraqi Kurds.

Ironically enough, it could be argued that Bush 41 fought global jihadism the way Bush 43 did - militarily.

Reagan retreated from the military means of fighting state sponsored terrorism in the wake of the Marine Corps barracks bombing in 1983, to begin a criminal justice led war on terror. Bill Clinton continued that policy of trying to deal with international terrorism from a criminal justice stanpoint, and it failed.

James Fox, then director of the FBI's New York Office said, in the wake of the 1993 WTC bombing, "The American criminal justice system is inadequate to the task of dealing with state sponsored, international terrorism."

I've quoted Fox numerous times, because I believe he is right.

Rightly or wrongly, an Obama administration will be judged on the same bottomline that Bush 43 was - NO ATTACKS on U.S. soil = success....just a single attack over one's tenure = failure in that regard.

While I don't think that's the best, certainly not the most nuanced viewpoint, there's little doubt that that IS the accepted standard going forward.

On the economy, while 2/3s of the people polled claimed to support less government intervention and lower taxes (I think those people will be greatly disappointed), the real irony is that a credit crisis born of over-regulation (the turbo-charged CRA that forced banks into making tons of high-risk, subprime loans was OVER-regulation and toxic regulation) and the blocking of sensible regulation (again, ironically enough Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to get masssive reforms and oversight supported by the Bush 43 administration and McCain blocked) was blamed on de-regulation.

People (economists, not so much) have argued over Keynesianism vs Supply Side policies.

Now we'll see if the Keynesian policies that imploded the economy during the Carter years can yield different results.

They haven't in France, or Germany or Sweden, which all have significantly higher Misery Indexes, even now, years into "reforms," than we do at this time...although theirs are decreasing, as ours has inched upward over the past two years, under Pelosi-Reid.

I'm willing to go better than Barry and WF....I expect 2009 to have a double digit Misery Index, so I won't judge an Obama administration on that alone. The KEY will be 2010...do things get better or worse.

If things improve in 2010 that's a win for Keynesian policies...if the Misery Index gets worse, that's a loss.

I am confident that there are not many Americans who'll accept a "smaller, but more equitably divided economic pie," as Gary Barandt seems to think there are. In fact, I'm virtually certain that there aren't many such people at all.

Am I naive or does it seem that the only people in this country who didn't believe a black man (or woman) could be elected are Democrats and liberals?

You know, as soon as I read something hear and think, "Wow, that's really retarded!" I know I'm reading a JMK post.

It is useless to repeat your Limbaugh lies now. Corporate greed brought this country down. Deregulation caused the financial crises. America got it right.

The reason you "feel" that is because you're stultifyingly misinformed Barely.

There is a way to argue that (1) Saddam Hussein never cooperated with the Ansar al Islam camps, (2) Keynesian Europe does not have higher Misery Indexes than Supply Side (1981 - 2007) America and (3) that the criminal justice approach to international terrorism hasn't been given a fair chance....BUT all those arguments are demonstrably wrong and are easilly proven false.

The 9/11 Report documented the cooperation between Ansa al-Islam camps and Saddam's Iraq, so has virtually all of the world's Intelligence Community.

That can be easily looked up.

In 2007 Sweden's Misery Index was 8.3, France's was 9.4, while America's was 7.5!

A global comparison shows the same trend, with the most Supply Side (lowest taxed and least regulated) economy in the world, Hong Kong's, with a 6.0 Misery Index, compared to a 27.2 Misery Index for Venezuela, arguably the most Keynesian (highly regulated, government-run economy) outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

Here in the U.S. we're in the midst of sixteen straight single-digit Misery Index years, though this year is going to be close.

But the best U.S. comparison to compare the two most recent Supply Side and Keynesian periods. From 1970 to 1981 we were in the midst of a Keynesian era, with Keynesian Congresses and Presidents....even Republican, richard Nixon noted, in 1972, We are all Keynesians now."

The Misery Index over that 11 year period averaged an astounding 14.2!

Compare that to the most recent Supply Side era 1995 (the first year of the Gingrich Congress) - through 2006 (the last full year before Pelosi-Reid took Congress) with its Misery Index of just 7.6 over those 12 years!

Just to be clear, 14.2 is much higher (almost DOUBLE) 7.6!

James Fox did indeed say those words in the wake of the first WTC bombing back in 1993. Unfortunately, they weren't heeded UNTIL after 9/11/01. In those intervening years, the jihadists relentlessly waged war on America and American interests - the USS Cole bombing, the Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia and the two U.S. Embassies destroyed in Africa...all proving that a "criminal justice approach" to stste-sponsored terrorism doesn't work.

I know, now you're going to say that, "Facts suck....facts are overrated," right Barely?

Especially, I guess, when they're never on your side.

Without feathers...

Oh, please. If you listened to my brother-in-law, you would've known that he wasn't saying that he himself was not ready for a black President.

I also recently spoke to my landlord who said, while he has to interview blacks who want to live in his building, he never could actually rent to a black.

Racism exists. Still.

It is all well and fine to believe that a Black Man could become President, it's quite another for it to happen.

And I don't know if you've noticed but Barack Obama is the 44st President. The first 43 were white males. While it is certainly possible to have a President who is black or who is a woman, up to now it's only been white males.

So you and Barry can give yourselves each standing ovations because you both believed that it would happen.. the fact of the matter is that our country hasn't elected a Black or Bi-racial President until yesterday.

I should say that my brother-in-law was in effect saying that he was not ready.

I did speculate that a Lieberman VP pick might well help ensure a McCain victory, but that strictly a pragmatic calculation, not based on any particular affinity for Mr. Lieberman. :)

"I guess I thought there were too many people like my brother-in-law, who was a working class democrat who said things like "I don't think the country is ready for a black President" which I took as his feelings." (PE)


Sounds like WF was right.

Your B-i-L said he didn't think "the country was ready." Your speculation is just that.

Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984 Democratic Primaries....I am confident that no one thinks "he lost because he was black," as it's clear that he lost because he ran a pathetic campaign rooted in racial grievance.

Alan Keyes lost in the 1996 and 2000 Republican Primaries largely because he didn't run an effective campaign either.

neither of those two "lost because they were black," any more than Barack Obama "won because he was black."

Racial bigotry is far less prevalent than it was even twenty years ago and it was far prevalent then, than it was twenty years earlier than that.

The fact that "America hasn't elected a woman President," doesn't make gender-bigotry the reason.

Missing word: "Racial bigotry is far less prevalent than it was even twenty years ago and it was far LESS prevalent then, than it was twenty years earlier than that."

Obama isn't black; he's bi-racial. Why is everyone getting this wrong?

You're not the only one... I just wished we voted for one with experience and true political courage

"I believe he will govern more like Bush 41, an administration that I believe provided effective foreign policy leadership in a time of change." (PE)

Oh come on. We hated Bush 41. We were at blows with other over whether to go Iraq or not. W's dad got hate mail from soldiers' families, cursing him for putting their kids into a senseless war (sound familiar)? And remember "read my lips, no new taxes?" He was also seen as stupid and people were more than happy to vote him out and replace him with Clinton or Perot.

The only reason why people like Bush 41 is because he is out of office. And you can bet your sweet bippy that W will have the same legacy. It worked for Truman after Korea (33,000 American soldiers dead in 3 years)

I didn't hate Bush 41 and I supported the first gulf war throughout. I know that many liberals were opposed, but I wasn't.

>Obama isn't black; he's bi-racial. Why is everyone getting this wrong?

It is a good point. I used to belabor it myself, in fact, but then I finally just knuckled under and gave in.

I don't think that's that point, if we doubted or not. I think the point is the historical president that we have of electing white people to lead us. That's what makes this so historic. The liberal illuminati want us to herald him as a black hero for winning. i'm not going that far but it is a truly historic moment.

JMK, facts aren't on your side, just mindless repetition of lies, half-truths and distortions.

You conveniently switch between crediting presidents or congress for good works, depending on which is Republican. You are, in reality, just a loud, monologuing politic hack and idealogue who cuts and pastes lies from wingnut web sites.

That's really all you are. America has finally seen through the thin veneer of "supply side" and "conservatism" to the real corporate cronyism that is the heart of the Republican party.

"America has finally seen through the thin veneer of "supply side" and "conservatism" to the real corporate cronyism that is the heart of the Republican party." (Barely Hanging)


The fact (there's that word again) that you couldn't point out a single distortion, let alone lie, proves that you really don't know what you're talking about.

I was surprised that the most recent Keynesian period (1970 thru 1980) and the most recent Supply Side period (1995 thru 2006) had such a huge disparity in the Misery Index, but again, the facts are what they are and they're readily available; http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp

"You conveniently switch between crediting presidents or congress for good works..." (Barely Hanging)


That's only more proof that you don't read very well.

I've noted that very often, mostly trying to be helpful on my part. I noted it when you posted a chart showing H-1B Visas exploding from under 50,000 in 1992 to over 1 MILLION by 2001, claiming it proved G W Bush was responsible for the explosion of H-1Bs...and I noted it again, when you claimed that the RICO statutes "allowed government to confiscate property prior to conviction" and posted an article that said (gulp) the exact opposite of what you claimed in your posts.

I've NEVER posted anything that contradicts the TRUTH that Congress ALONE controls the government purse strings - the budget, tax policy, etc.

Just as surely as the Newt Gingrich Congress was responsible for the economy of the mid to late 1990s, FORCING massive federal spending cuts and a Cap Gains rate cut, by shutting down the federal government in 1995, created some of the lowest Misery Indexes in decades AND those budget surpluses of the late 1990s, the Pelosi-Reid Congress is responsible for the economy post 2007.

There's nothing "convenient" about those facts, they are what they are.

Again, I'm just trying to help you out by getting you to read more carefully and actually think independently.

"That's what makes this so historic. The liberal illuminati want us to herald him as a black hero for winning. i'm not going that far but it is a truly historic moment." (roadwarrior)


I don't think the MSM has been guilty of "making Barack Obama out to be merely a 'black hero' ", rather they've hearlded him as a transcendent figure, different from traditional "black candidates" like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I believe the great positive of the Obama campaign is that it refused to be marginalized as a mere ethnic candidacy. Once he secured the Democratic nomination, he became the lead voice of the Democratic Party.

His win was historic in the way JFK's was, or the first Jewish President will be, or the first female President will be.

Even though my wife didn't vote for him, she said she felt some sense of pride when he was declared the winner.

While I agree with Rachel ("You're not the only one... I just wished we voted for one with experience and true political courage") I'll let the Misery Index and our national security tell the PRIMARY tales on this administration.

If the Democratic policies keep the MI in single digits, I will applaud that, if their WoT policies keep the jihadists from successfully attacking U.S. soil on his watch, that too would be a successs.

Less than that on either front would be failures relative to even G W Bush - eight years of single digit Misery Indexes AND seven-plus years post-9/11 with not a single attack on U.S. soil.....those are the MINIMUM STANDARDS going forward.

Regardless of how he does, down the road, you have to appreciate the history of this event.

Why don't you post a few more novels, ya muttering moron?

Anyway, almost all American blacks are biracial, so Obama is a typical African American, except that his mother is white instead of having a bunch of white male slave owners as ancestors.

Obama is a typical African American (Barely Hanging)


That's completely untrue and ridiculously so.

Most American blacks were not raised in white neighborhoods, by white family members, with little contact with other Af-Ams until they reached College.

Most American blacks have no relatives directly from Africa.

So the above statement shows you to have about as much understanding of that issue as you do about H-1Bs, RICO statutes and basic civics (how and why Congress controls the federal purse strings), which is to say, NONE at all.

I’ve always said, you’re none too bright Barely, but at least you’re consistent.