Osler's Razor

I think the problem for the Republicans is that they can't draw any good policy comparisons with the Democrats. They spent lots of money, made a huge deficit, and built up entitlement programs, so they don't have that. Then they have the war, but I don't think that is real good for them now.
 

Political discussion this early in the morning...it is going to be a beautiful day!!

"[W]hile Republicans should be talking about the many strengths of their candidate, they seem obsessed with other things, such as Obama's middle name." Really?? Any proof for that?? I mean sure, the right-wing-crazy-nuts bloggers are focused on that, just like the left-wing-crazy-bloggers are focused on convincing us that John McCain was the head of the conspiracy to blow up buildings on 9/11. But I think the mainstream of the party is focused on McCain's stance on the war (leader of the surge, critical of Bush policy) and his budgetary restraint (critical of Bush tax cuts because they would increase size of deficit). Some Republicans may be obsessed with his name, but some Republicans also marry their sister and have mullets, so focusing on a few bad apples probably isn't fair.

A couple of other thoughts:

1. Energy Policy - we don't actually need to negotiate with Arab nations to solve our energy problem. We could do that all on our own....http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will060508.php3

2. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to do anything about Africa in any serious manner. Though, it is interesting that you bring it up since Bush, you know the bad guy, has done so much in Africa but received so little credit, which is why it usually doesn't do anyone any good to do anything in Africa because Americans don't care. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

Here is the money quote:

"It is some story. And I have always wondered why it was never told properly to the American people, who were paying for it. It was, for example, Bush who initiated the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with cross-party support led by Senators John Kerry and Bill Frist. In 2003, only 50,000 Africans were on HIV antiretroviral drugs — and they had to pay for their own medicine. Today, 1.3 million are receiving medicines free of charge. The U.S. also contributes one-third of the money for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — which treats another 1.5 million. It contributes 50% of all food aid (though some critics find the mechanism of contribution controversial). On a seven-day trip through Africa, Bush announced a fantastic new $350 million fund for other neglected tropical diseases that can be easily eradicated; a program to distribute 5.2 million mosquito nets to Tanzanian kids; and contracts worth around $1.2 billion in Tanzania and Ghana from the Millennium Challenge Account, another initiative of the Bush Administration."

Oh, and I like this, "They spend lots of money, made a huge deficit, and built up entitlement programs." And that is a reason to vote for Democrats?? If some is bad more must be good? Did Democrats stop supporting entitlements? This sentence is the exact reason that someday we will look back and say that the Bush presidency provided just more proof of the failings of large government and the progressive project.
 

RRL--

You right about Bush in Africa. Although he didn't do as much as he said he would, he did more than people expected. And I do admire him for that. I'll change that part of the post...

As for the building up of government, what conservatives have to offer, and are totally right about, is that small government is better government. If the Republicans don't hew to that principle (and they haven't), what a sensible moderate sees is that the conservatives and liberals both have some good ideas. Smaller government is one of those good ideas, I think. The conservatives (or, at least, the Republicans) don't implement that good idea, though. So, I'll take a chance that the other side will implement their good ideas, and concede that neither party has the fortitude to shrink government. The Republicans blew a huge chance to create a legacy, a Reagan legacy, from 2000-2006.

Finally, I have heard the Hussein thing in the following places:

1) Fox News and by conservative commentators on other channels.
2) In way too many private conversations with friends and others.
3) Yeah, in the blogs and chat rooms, which do matter.

Finally, what's wrong with a mullet?
 

Saying "Republicans" is using a pretty broad brush. That's like saying all Red Wings fans are rowdy drunks.

"Democrats" do plenty of trash talking too. They've taken McCain's comments on many topics out of context, cited votes on procedural votes and claimed they were votes on substance and tried to tie him to George W. Bush repeatedly, despite the fact that McCain has opposed Bush on many important issues.

Its repugnant on both sides, but its been going on since the founding of the Republic. Jefferson and his toady Madison trashed Alexander Hamilton both openly and through innuendo and rumor on a regular basis.

Every campaign does it and every candidate knows its going on. Some, like Nixon and Clinton, participate in the process themselves.

To McCain's credit, he repudiated the N.C. GOP for their nasty attack on Obama. There are a LOT of "Republicans" out there who are furious with McCain for not being more agressive in his attacks.
 

OH, and I have it on good authority that Thurston Howell III was a limousine liberal supporter of JFK and LBJ.
 

Actually LBJ was Thurston Howell III. Can't you kind of see it?

One reason I like McCain so much is because of the honesty and restraint he has shown in campaigning. I just disagree with him on policy in some key areas, and worry that he seems not to care much about criminal law.

I don't think it is unfair to blame or praise "Republicans" for what happened when the Republican party controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.
 

Oh, and Red Wings fans ARE all rowdy drunks, at one time or another.
 

With regards to point 2, I think its unsure how a President Obama will play out in the Middle East for several reasons;
1. Islamic Fundamentalists treat Obama as a Muslim. Since Obama's father was a Muslim (despite becoming an atheist later in life) Obama is considered a Muslim by Radical Muslims. They also do not look kindly upon converts, which is punishable by death.
I only bring this issue up because of the recent elections which saw boosts in presence of radicals in many ME governments. (Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt) It will be very interesting how they spin this and/or treat Obama.
Also, Hamas's leadership already believes that an Obama presidency will benefit them (as noted in recent interviews), which leads to my second point-
2. In an effort to distance himself from his supposed "pro-Arab" policies, it is likely that Obama will attempt to appease pro-Israeli concerns by coming down hard on Middle Eastern Governments or making it very clear that he is not their friend. He has already been labeled as an appeaser, which is fine during a democratic primary, but I'm sure that stance will move more to the center the closer we get to Nov.
 

America is going to rediscover actual diplomacy in the wake of this unproductive war. All you describe (ie, Islamic extremists think he is Muslim), is a positive in diplomacy.
 

As far as the Islamic faith issue is concerned, I do have a bit of a problem with Obama being a Muslim and being President. Some may come from a misunderstanding on my part, and if so, someone please correct me--I am by no means an expert in Islam. To my understanding, a tenet of the Islamic faith is for all Muslims to try to convert everyone to Islam, even if that means at the point of a sword. Therefore, my problem is that I don't want a President that associates with a religion that is commanded to kill Christians, of which I am included, who refuse to convert to Islam.
 

Anon. 10:44--

I hope you are faking that. Obama isn't a Muslim. He's Christian. And the Islamic faith doesn't command Muslims to kill anyone, except in the interpretation given the Koran by some extremists.
 

Obama is not a Muslim nor should anyone post or state that as fact.

The issue which makes it thorny is that in Islam there is no concept of renouncing your faith. Muslims are not allowed to renounce their faith, according to a strict interpretation of Islam and those who do are subject to imprisonment or death in some Muslim countries. If you are born to a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. As such, this concept is distorted by Muslim & Christian fundamentalists to state that Obama is a Muslim.
 

The "swift-boaters," who McCain hasn't distanced himself from, continue with the tired Republican lie that Obama is a Muslim. This is typical ... but no less reprehensible.
 

See, isn't this so much fun!!! I've got discovery due but I just can't turn away.....

Look, I agree that Republicans blew a chance to implement a truly conservative agenda between 2000 and 2006 by electing a truly liberal Republican as their president. W is not a small-government conservative and never was, and most conservatives admit that mistake.

However, I have trouble understanding how you can agree that "small government is better government" and then say you agree with Obama about anything. He wants to create and entire new federal system to manage health care. He wants to raise taxes. He wants to increase the size of the education department and increase spending in that area. The list goes on and on, this guy is a McGovern liberal. He is Walter Mondale on skates on domestic issues.

So, if it is just the war then I get it. War bad, vote Obama. But, if the fundamental tenet of small government is something you believe in then how can electing a man that self-identifies with the progressive movement of the early 1900s (socialism, social darwinism, huge expansive entitlements) be an expression of that belief?
 

Who are these "swift-boaters"? Do they live in the military industrial complex and fly black helicopters? Were they the ones behind the Kennedy assissination? Do they control the Bermuda Triangle? Do they know where Elvis is?

I love that liberals have decided to act as though dirty campaigns were invented 4 years ago by Karl Rove and that the swift-boat ads were the greatest crime ever perpetrated in modern American politics. Remember kids, it was LBJ that ran an ad where a little girl was blown to smithereens by a nuclear explosion, his claim being that Barry Goldwater was likely to lead the US into nuclear war.

This is politics, if you can't handle it then don't run.
 

RRL--

I don't think Republicans will ever give us small government. Even Reagan didn't. Fool me three times...

Yes, it is what I would do if I could. But I don't think either party ever will shrink government, and I no longer believe those who say they will. Obama does share some of my other beliefs (which I think he will act on), so that is something, at least.
 

Aren't little battles important though?? I mean, you fight a little battle against big federal government every day with your fight against federal sentencing guidelines. Regan couldn't decimate government, but in many areas (from taxes to some entitlements) he was able to shrink the government a little bit. The conservative congress of the 1990s was able to implement welfare reform and free trade agreements lessening goverment oversight. Hell, the very fact that the vast majority of the programs implemented under FDR and Wilson in the early 1900s no longer exist indicates that government can be shrunk down, step by step, piece by piece, slowly but surely.

Maybe the key isn't to give up on the movement, maybe the key is to actually pick leaders for the conservative party that believe in conservative governance. They're out there Razor, they're out there man....
 

Reagan did not give us smaller government, Sadly.

The fact is, however, that he never had the votes in Congress to do it. He could have proposed killing DOE, Education, etc., but that legislation would have failed. And proposing it would have simply distracted from his agenda.

Yes, he spent too much as well.

What he DID do was to cut the rate of growth of government. And he reformed the tax system twice. It still needs much more, but he removed disincentives. Did he know all the details? No, but he provided leadership.

More importantly he advanced and successfully pushed the notion that held sway for a good 25 years that government can't cure everyone's woes, setting the stage for welfare reform and more.

RRL is right about LBJ and his henchman Bill Moyers (now sainted for reasons I cannot fathom). JFK's criminal father's antics are well known too. I already mentioned Jefferson and Madison and their dirty tricks. The campaigns of the late 1800's are legion with examples of sneaky tactics. The list of agressive campaign moves goes on and on.

Kerry's failure to respond forcefully and demonstratively to the attack ads against him made it abundantly clear that he was not qualified to be President.

Trust me, McCain has a response team ready for the inevitable swift boating when the Dems try it against him. He and his team learned from what happened in South Carolina in 2000. And if Obama doesn't, he's not ready to be President.

Having said that, as someone who has participated in scores of campaigns, I can also assure you that the typical candidate does NOT know what all of the operatives in the field are doing and DEFINITELY cannot control the activities of the typical campaign worker, who is usually a hyper-competitive, too clever by half, arrogant to the nth degree, caffeine addicted (if not nicotine and alcohol too) male in his late 20's or early 30's who does not own a home or have a wife and has not really experienced much in the way of personal responsibility or accountability. A lot of crazy ideas get tossed around during campaigns and there are plenty of thrill seeking operatives who will push the limits just to see what will happen.

And believe this too. The campaigns do NOT control the activities of the so-called 527 groups. The candidates, the campaigns and their many lawyers know that getting too close to these groups risks fines if not prison.

The candidates may cheer these attack dogs on, but there is no coordination or communication.

As Mr. Dooley said over 100 years ago, "Politics Ain't Beanbag."
 

What does "small government" even mean in our current society? The political philosophy of the 1930s just isn't applicable to our world. The idea of a small federal government could mean two things -- either small in power (which has its own set of problems) or small in size.

If the former, then we are bucking the trend we've been on for 120 years -- state's rights are good ideas in theory, but given the disparity in state political views, the current environment is ripe for abuse, and not just on social issues (looking at you, California). Federalism does have its benefits, and a strong centralized government can be beneficial in that it can regulate relations between the states.

The liberal (and by liberal, I mean liberal in the political philosophy sense, not the modern American sense; this includes just about everyone in the mainstream US political spectrum) idea that government is at odds with the citizenry has to be abandoned. As long as we define the terms of government in terms of master/slave (and adopt the idea that we are all "bad men" looking only at what the government forbids) we're looking at things wrongside up. If we are truly a democratic nation, then the government is merely an extension of the collective will; it is our servant, and we its master. If we control our political destiny, then government ought to be made to serve the needs of the people.

But because our political system is inherited from the feudal system of England, we tend to see government as the master.

And this is what leads to our call for smaller-in-size government. We see bureaucracy and wasteful and inefficient, because we look at bureaucracy as that which governs us, instead of merely as the administrative arm of our servant.

The reason why this philosophy doesn't quite jive with the cut of our current jib is that political control in our system doesn't rest with the actual government (whose power is fairly minimal off of paper) or with the people (who are alienated by several degrees of representation from actual power). In our current system, power rests with the monied interests that influence our representatives. Most of our day-to-day interactions aren't with the government but private organizations -- private organizations that make up our economy, banking, housing, necessities, energy, etc.

Think about it -- what would affect you more: a new CFR rule that mandates a certain energy efficiency standard for your HVAC unit, or a $.10 per watt increase in your electricity because your power company's got to keep up a certain profit margin?

What we need is less government regulation of things that ultimately it shouldn't regulate (such as people's private lives) and more government regulation and planning of things that are essential (such as resource management to prevent waste, or providing a minimal standard of living to all taxpaying citizens). We need better education opportunities and spend more domestically, rather than in costly foreign wars of dubious benefit. We need to focus more on understanding why there are people in the world that hate the US, rather than attempting to invade, seize, imprison and torture those we believe wish us ill.

The solution isn't less government (or more government, for that matter) but smarter, more open, freer government.

Which candidate, Obama or McCain, will provide this? Well, probably neither of them, truth be told. The President's policy efficacy isn't as high as we would like to think. I read a story the other day, sadly, which I cannot find that talked about how most change happens at the local level, rather than at the national level. But what is important about these high-profile national races is that they can get people talking and thinking about these issues, and robust, healthy debate is the only way we'll ever formulate sensible policy, because no ideology has a monopoly on truth.
 

"What we need is less government regulation of things that ultimately it shouldn't regulate (such as people's private lives) and more government regulation and planning of things that are essential (such as resource management to prevent waste, or providing a minimal standard of living to all taxpaying citizens)."

What I love about this is that I'm sure if we got to the heart of what you mean it would be that government shouldn't interfere with our personal lives, unless it is to make us do "good" things, like hire more minorities, quit smoking, exercise more, use less fossil fuels. And where exactly is it that the constitution entitles you to a "minimal standard of living."

"We need better education opportunities and spend more domestically, rather than in costly foreign wars of dubious benefit."

As you point out, the bigger government model has been winning out for almost 80 years, which means we have been spending more and more domestically, creating new education/welfare/medical programs, and dumping huge sums of money into them. At the same time, the quality of an education in this country has gone down and reliance on government has gone up to the point where we have created wards of the nanny state. Your supposed solutions have already failed.

"We need to focus more on understanding why there are people in the world that hate the US, rather than attempting to invade, seize, imprison and torture those we believe wish us ill."

Yes, you hate us and we are sure it is our fault because we have done something wrong to you. Appeasment is a classicly failed and bad strategy. They hate us for a myriad or reasons, mostly irrational. We could spend forever trying to figure out why and it wont matter.

"The solution isn't less government (or more government, for that matter) but smarter, more open, freer government."

There is no such thing as "smart" government. The progressives promised smart government run by "experts" in the 1910s and the 1930s and 1940s. The results were astoundingly bad.

The answer is more FREEDOM. Not more free government. Not more government. But actual real freedom. Individualism. You know, those goofy ideas this country was founded upon.
 

But actual real freedom. Individualism. You know, those goofy ideas this country was founded upon.

How is that opposed to greater government regulation of things like the economy or energy market? Should you really have the individual choice to be exploited by a greedy corporation?

This is what I was talking about -- you don't give up individualism when you increase government regulation of the public sphere: individuality is concerned to the private sphere.

As for a Constitutional basis, there's not one, but the Constitution sets a minimum, not a cap, on individual liberty. It sets a cap, not a minimum, on the exercise of federal government power. But regulating interstate commerce, setting national defense policy, etc. are all things squarely within the ambit of the Federal government, and instead of not regulating in many of those areas, we just need smarter regulation.

The ultimate point of my post was to argue that we need an ideological shift from the us/them mentality (whether it's between citizen and government, or foreign and domestic, or any binary opposition) and more of an "all of us together" mentality. Viewing a government as a body set to control you is a problem: technically, in a democratic system (even a representative democracy), the citizenry is the government. Bad regulation by the government shouldn't be cured by a salt-the-earth approach, but rather by being proactive and arguing for better regulatory choices. The examples of things you list -- affirmative action, public health initiatives, etc., are all things that I think could be validly addressed at the governmental/societal level. After all, racism, exploitation and manipulation by the tobacco industry, pollution, etc. aren't individual problems. They're problems that affect us all. And I think we can all agree, whatever our ideological differences, that we should work to solve these problems.

For me, that means working together, and the vehicle that society uses to encourage cooperative work is a civil government that works according to democratic principles.
 

I will probably vote for O'bama,even though he is Irish, but McCain is great too. I hope that Obama does not put Hillary on the ticket.

I feel terrible about what is happening in Africa...they are always suffering from so much horribleness - disease, famine, the Darfur situation is horrifying. I saw something on PBS about all these women that get raped, so many atrocities. Its hard to even know where to start in Africa.The people there need education - about disease, their own bodies, birth control, farming for more food... but how do you do humanitarian work in places with such lawlessness?
 

I thought both O'bama and McCain were Irish.
 

I think they don't focus enough on his full name: Barack Hussein Napoleon Pol-Pot Obama.
 

I love lamp.
 

Lamp es muy bueno!!!
 

McCain is actually Scottish in origin
 

Does "IPLawGuy" actually pee the law? 'cuse that's kind of cool.
 

IPLAW DOES Pee the Law.

Its Magical.
 

Yes, I did work for McCain.
 

And I pee slaw.