McCain is way too stubborn and irascible to let this happen. And his campaign managers are too invested in this to let it fall apart.

Why are people so concerned with Katie Couric's feelings? Why did Couric demand that no one on the team address her as "Governor"? That's not politics, it's denial.

I often admire Brooks, but he works for the New York Times, and he's got parties to attend. It's not that his conservatism isn't real, it's that his first allegiance may be to socialite wordsmiths, while Palin's allegiances definitely are not. (Parker, we're told, is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group.)

I think Sarah Palin, whatever her shortcomings in interviews on foreign policy, represents a profound advancement of feminism and feminist politics. She owes precisely zero of her success to the business connections of her husband. That's not just a slam to Hillary, but I'll take the points if it works... It's an important thing to note on the day when Pelosi's political incompetence may well prove to trigger another great depression. Palin's lack of sophistication sufficient to please an East Coast media writer speaks to an important and oft-neglected Cincinnatus archetype in public affairs.

The smartguy politicians have had a very long term at it. Anyone happy with the results?

Your mileage may vary.

One more point... How would you feel about thi headline if you were a writer from the New York Times? Aren't those the kind of people who imagine their glow to be brightened by the gleaming animal hardons of the Wall Street traders with whom they sometimes share cabs?

One more point, I mean it... If McCain cut her lose, Republican wives would lynch him.

Sarah Palin is a loose cannon. As the ship (of state) is tossed by the waves, she rolls about on the deck in an unpredictable way, pointing her muzzle at everyone and everything in turn, and occasionally crashing into people and property. There's no way of knowing when she might go off, or what she might be aiming at.

The thought that she might be a loose nuclear-powered cannon is something to bear in mind when you come to vote.

Norman - I don't see your point at all, but even if you are right in your assessment, how does that make her substantively worse than Obama? Obama has variously indicated that he would invade Pakistan to "get Bin Laden", and that HE (not his staff) would meet with Ahmadinejad. Loose cannon?

I suspect that the problems that some people are having with Palin is that she doesn't have a penis, but she's got bigger balls than most conservatives on the American political scene.

Keep in mind that a good number of the NROniks (of which Parker is one) had a huge crush on Mitt. You want to talk about a disaster, Romney would have tanked the McCain ticket and given Obama a 20 point win in November.

Amy - would you please post a column that a MSM columnist wrote about Obama's lack of experience, grades at Columbia, associations with Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, the fact that he's rec'd more money than any senator from Fannie Mae, that big players in his campaign, Raines and Johnson, are directly tied to Lehman and Fannie, etc. ad nauseum?

I'd really like to read that column. Good luck finding it.

If Obama wins I'll be disappointed. If the MSM survives this election with even one penny of profit I'll be furious.

I wonder how close the polling would be if McCain was only running against Obama and not the MSM, too.......

And yet, are you prepared to vote for the socialist?

Lamont

Wow. Kathleen Parker and David ny times Brooks.

Please. McCain aint gonna drop her, get over it.

She is running for VP people, where were all these heart beat away issues for the past 30 years when VP's were picked just for their home state?

I mean do you really think Joe Biden is more qualified to be President? Really? Based on what, years in the senate?

Gore when Clinton picked him was ready?

Quail?

Hypocrites.

I'd hardly call Bush "anti-establishment".

Palin's lack of experience doesn't bother me. Her lack of being able to improv convincing answers on the fly DOES bother me. As does the fact that she is a Christian extremist.

None of these issues particularly "bother" me. What does bother me is all the latent exercise everyone's getting by jumping to conclusions. I'm sitting here, eating a nice bowl of venison stew, reading all these posts and thinking to myself "WHY is everyone in such a hurry to discredit this woman out of hand? She can't be any worse than Biden, and, in fact, I think she's a lot more credible at this point." I'll fear for our country less if the McCain/Palin ticket wins. If Obama/Biden get in the House, that's when I'll start to worry. Socialism is NOT what we, the people, need right now. We need responsible, sensible government. Which I think we stand a better chance of getting with McCain. Of course, YMMV. o_O

Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

The Senator with 14 months in office is best prepared to be our President? Oh, puhleeeeze.

"If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman."

OK. I'd say we're in need of that just about now.

She's my gal.

I usually like Parker, but she's totally wrong this time. Without Palin, McCain's chances of winning are less than a snowball in Hell. And if McCain loses, then America gets our first hard-line Marxist president. Obama will make FDR and LBJ look like small-government Libertarians by comparison. And you can darn well forget about "clinging to your guns," once he gets done packing the Supreme Court with his ultra-leftwing cronies.

Ans as far as Palin's alleged lack of experience: It was the founder of National Review who famously stated that he would rather be governed by 100 people randomly selected from the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University. Kathleen Parker ought to ponder on that for a while.

Crid wrote:
> The smartguy politicians have had a very long term at it. Anyone happy with the results?

So after 8 years of Bush wrecking the country, you want to vote in someone even dumber?

Palin would make a fine Press Secretary -- she seems to enjoy lying even more than does McCain. But as Veep, and potentially CiC? Please.

Country first, people. Vote for the smart guy for a change. It worked out pretty well last time, back in '92.

Why are you bashing just Bush? It's Congress that has the power, and it's a Democratic Congress that has provoked all this chaos. Yes, country first. Tell that to your Congressmen. Bush didn't do this all by himself. He had help, you know.

By the way, just because someone isn't book-smart, doesn't mean s/he doesn't have common sense. Just sayin'. o_O

Vote for the smart guy? That would be McCain.

In the fullness of time, the true idiocy of Barack Obama will be revealed. This man oughtn't to have gotten into community college, never mind Harvard Law.

Vote for the smart guy for a change. It worked out pretty well last time, back in '92.

Yeah, that dot-com bubble was wonderful. Venture capitalists investing in companies with no business plan or products. Secretaries making 100K. Aeron chairs for everyone. Pool tables, beer, and big screens in the employee lounge. Inexperienced wonderkids founding companies with no long-term plans or even products, hoping to flip them before the buyers got wise. Yeah, that bubble was wonderful. The crash when the bubble burst sucked, however. Everyone forgets that part.

Kinda like when everyone was making beaucoup bucks on mortgage-backed securities or flipping houses, or cashing out on the equity like their houses were ATMs.

Crashes hurt, people.

Plus, don't forget, THAT smart guy at least had some experience (as a governor of a small state, no less). THIS (so-called) smart guy has none.

And, THAT smart guy had Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. THIS (so-called) smart guy will have Nancy Pelosi.

Besides, what proof do we have that Obama IS a smart guy? Has anyone seen his grades?

What proof do we have that he can run the economy or an organization as large and chaotic as the US government? Let's look at the companies he founded or programs or states he has run Oh yeah. There are none; 'cause he's never been in charge of anything!

The smartguy politicians have had a very long term at it. Anyone happy with the results?

Crid, you're asking people to give up their precious, precious delusion that George Bush (of whom I am no big fan, BTW) is stupid, stupid, stupid! He was, after all, only an average student at Yale. Just like John McCain finished 5th from the bottom of his class at Annapolis.

If a candidate's solution to the current economic situation is redistribution of wealth and/or more government intervention into the private sector, I'm voting for the other guy, average or not.

"What proof do we have that he can run the economy ...". That's the precisely the point. Too many people think they can run the economy ... with all the unintended consequences. Greenspan thought he could run the economy, so did those fools who supported Fannie and Freddie. When will we learn that we shouldn't try and run the economy?

So is Palin less qualified than Obama or Bidden? Probably not. I'm not sure she's any more qualified either. I'm still a bit worried about her propensity to spend millions of dollars on sports complexes, but maybe that's just me. I'm growing tired of these conservatives that are really liberals in drag.

Brian - I think Palin would be terrific company for the weekend, because of her enthusiasm and energy. But the religious backing makes her dangerous. Look up the etymology of "enthusiasm." Suppose she says she tries to do god's will on earth, as informed by holy scripture or by divine revelation. Or by pictures in her toast - who knows? Trouble is, that gives us not the slightest idea what she will do in practice. It could be literally anything, and whatever it is, she'll be convinced she has god on her side.

On the other hand we have Obama promising nothing much more specific than "change." But if he's grounded in the same physical reality as I am, I would expect at least to be able to reason with him.

Would it be possible to get McCain and Obama onto the same ticket?

I'm not interested in being governed by a professional class of politicians and/or government time-servers. I don't trust people who want "good jobs with the government."

Palin's propensity to spend money on her town isn't a negative--how do you think municipalities grow?

And being a legacy at an Ivy is meaningless. Frankly, I don't care what anyone's SAT, GPA or perfect attendence record is or was. Common sense is at a premium and all the high-priced education in the world can't implant it, if you don't have it. LBJ was an extraordinarily effective old-time pol, and he had some degree from a teacher's college.
In these days of grade inflation and affirmative action, where you got your undergrad degree means jack.

Obama looks like he'd make a heckuva press secretary.

I saw above someone said vote for the smart guy and that it worked out well last time. You people do realize that Clinton passed the Act that forced lenders to meet certain red lines in loans to the disadvantaged.

Secondly you can not have missed the top recepients of Fannie and Freddie money, all of the top 10 are democrats with Barak Obama #2.

Are you seriously saying that Chris Dodd, Barney frank, and Obama should be trusted to run our ecinomy when it was their feel good policies that crashed it in the first place?

But by all means lets tear down a sitting governor because she is a Christian, that is more scary of course.

Flynne -

Why are you bashing just Bush? It's Congress that has the power, and it's a Democratic Congress that has provoked all this chaos. Yes, country first. Tell that to your Congressmen. Bush didn't do this all by himself. He had help, you know.

Ummm, I hate to tell you, but this chaos has been brewing for a decade now and was very bi-partisan in it's creation. I don't hold bush responsible for it, because it started before he was a glimmer on the national political radar. Clinton and the republican legislature started the mess. The worse that anyone can say of all our current politicos, is that they did nothing to stop it.

> He was, after all, only an
> average student at Yale.

Beth, I like you more every time you comment. But for the record (as we see below, some people can't understand a joke), Bush got better grades at Yale than Gore got at Harvard, where Bush himself would get his Masters degree.

If you follow Franko's link, you'll see that he's a guy who has weird ideas about the importance of intelligence in human life. Such people tend to think irony is a get-out-of-jail-free card for rhetorical misstep.

It isn't. If you're not principled, smirking over ironies is like a blind child playing with razor blades.

History may well record that Dubya is evil... But it won't call him stupid. His impact on the direction of our government --delivered with discipline and (unseen) principle-- is far too great to be the work of a fool.

Being wrong about this has cost Democrats elections.

> I'm voting for the other guy,
> average or not.

The other guy, with that gal, remember.

> the religious backing makes
> her dangerous.

Hey, Norman! Are you the guy I used to call "Dry-Goods Norman"? The one who believes that world peace will be achieved when we start dropping free merchandise from Best Buy onto the villages of impoverished countries?

Which country do you live in, again? I forget.

I wonder if anyone here in the United States would be able to name the vice president or second member of the executive branch in your country. Or name a candidate for that office. Or tell you whether or not her religious affiliations were worrisome.

Probably not.

We're terribly flattered by your attention, little fella!

"How do you think municipalities grow?" (Kate) Well ... how about lowering taxes to attract businesses and create employment? That's probably the best step. Then if demand warrants it you can have your sports complex. The build it and they will come approach, on the other hand, has its obvious shortfalls.

"But the religious backing makes her dangerous". (Norman) Does this mean all religious people are "dangerous". What if someone believes that they are being guided by God? It's certainly not the same as someone saying that God is telling them what to do. Last time I checked, what to do with mortgaged-backed securities is not found in the Old or New Testament.

Charles -

Does this mean all religious people are "dangerous". What if someone believes that they are being guided by God?

No, it doesn't mean that all religious people are dangerous. Nor does it mean that all religious people in political office are dangerous. But when a politico running for a rather important office, says their actions are guided by their god or their faith, then yes, I consider them a danger.

Not being a believer in god as a guiding force, I would much prefer that politicians who are going to have or might well end up in a position as important as the presidency, rely on their judgment (whether they believe their god gave it to them, or they just ended up with it) to guide their actions.

Politicians don't write detailed tax policy. I certainly hope they don't write up an Excel spreadsheet and say "Do that" to their cabinet.

The crux is basic policy. Do they believe they can improve the society more by directing resources through Government programs (raise taxes), or will society improve more by allowing those resources to be directed by the people who are creating them (low taxes, private investment)? Is Government the savior (give it more money) or a limited necessity (spend only the minimum)?

It doesn't matter if Obama or McCain is better with a spreadsheet. It matters who has the better feel for what will work, and does this agree with a voter's view?

Palin, as a very popular, tax-cutting Governor in a small state, probably has a better feel for who pays and what gets done than any of Obama, McCain, or Biden.

Certainly Obama is a big government, tax the rich guy. He has said that he would raise tax rates on the rich even if total tax collections went down, as a matter of "fairness".

There are two myths that make people eager to raise taxes, if it doesn't affect them personally.
(1) Taxes are a nice transfer. $1 from him means $1 for me or my friends.
(2) Government spending stimulates jobs. Good for me anyway.

See: http: //ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v81y1999i4p674-680.html
Tax Avoidance And The Deadweight Loss Of The Income Tax
2000 by Martin S. Feldstein, the George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University and former President of the US National Bureau of Economic Research.

[edited] "Traditional analyses of the income tax greatly underestimate deadweight losses by ignoring its effect on compensation and consumption [jobs]. The full deadweight loss is easily calculated. Estimates imply a deadweight loss of as much as 30% of revenue. The deadweight loss caused by increasing tax rates may exceed $2 per $1 of revenue increase."

This is a severe loss, because there is no "stimulus" that goes beyond that "extra" $1 in government spending, which would have been invested or spent anyway. There is only moving goods around from some people to other people, at great expense. To transfer $1 to a needy voter, the government will take $1 from a rich person AND eliminate $2 in production of goods and services, also called jobs.

I suggest at "The Myth of the Economic Multiplier", why the common belief in an economic stimulus from spending feels right, but is wrong anyway. Government spending is a banquet, not a stimulus.

See http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/08/econ-201-myth-of-economic-multiplier.html

As the ship (of state) is tossed by the waves, she rolls about on the deck in an unpredictable way, pointing her muzzle at everyone and everything in turn, and occasionally crashing into people and property. There's no way of knowing when she might go off, or what she might be aiming at.

Norman, Norman. Wow. Where to begin....

I sure hope you're referring to a cannon with this one: ...she rolls about on the deck in an unpredictable way, pointing her muzzle at everyone and everything in turn....

Anyone else getting a pirate-themed romance novel cover with Palin and Fabio out of this?

Thanks, Norman.

Conan -

I missed a response you made to me on the Paulson thread - responded to it today.

But building a sports complex does attract business. Why wouldn't it? Under Palin, property tax rates did, in fact, go down; and the sales tax did go up from 2 percent to 2.5 percent.

The big-ticket items that created the debt: $14.7-million for a new multi-use sports complex; $5.5-million for street projects; and $3-million for water improvement projects.

And on the other hand==Al Gore was well-prepared to be Vice-President. Over-qualified, if anything. And he spent most of two terms with his thumb up his butt.

When I browsed through Sarah's interviews, speeches, and debates as Governor on C-Span & YouTube, I saw amd heard a sharp, well-informed woman. In fact, it was hard to believe that she was the same person in the Couric interview. The only explanation I can think of is that McCain's handlers have been filling her with bullshit about what she should & should not say. If she tells them all to fuck off, she can still win the debate on Thursday and salvage her political stardom.

DuWayne:

No, it doesn't mean that all religious people are dangerous. Nor does it mean that all religious people in political office are dangerous. But when a politico running for a rather important office, says their actions are guided by their god or their faith, then yes, I consider them a danger.

Wow. Then you must have considered everyone who ever ran for President to be a danger.

I feel sorry for you - seeing danger in just about everyone around you. It must be tiring to be so afraid.

The only explanation I can think of is that McCain's handlers have been filling her with bullshit about what she should & should not say.

Then you aren't thinking conspiratorially enough.

Think on this: http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/025096.php

it must be pointed out that any conservative voting for McCain is doing much worse than throwing his vote away – they’re contributing to the increasing socialist direction of this country by allowing those responsible to get away with political murder. A vote for Obama is a vote for the socialism – so is a vote for McCain. And in supporting either, you’re not doing the right thing for your country – you’re being duped by the very people most intent on destroying it.

Also, the amount of congitive dissonance is astounding. there are people who will go the the ends of the universe to protect and defend palin. to quote a friend of mine, "reality always wins".

The fact is, the republicans have embraced anti-inellectualism, finding 'good' in the stupid, and adhereing to gross fallacies that if not blatant, are ignorantly made.

Pointing at Biden or Obama does not relieve that Palin is a shit choice. McCain mocks the VERY GROUP that trashed him in 2000. And they're suckers for it.

McCain wasn't conservative in 96. Nor was he a conservative in 2000.

What in HELL makes you think he's still conservative? Reread the first paragraph of this post.

Farker, I like you for calling yourself Farker. I like Fark. But...

> doing much worse than throwing
> his vote away - they're
> contributing to the increasing
> socialist direction of this
> country by allowing those
> responsible to get away with
> political murder.

That's overwrought. Elections in America are always about taking the lesser of two evils. Of course there are things about the candidates we don't like. I too wish the stranglehold of the Republicans and Democrats on these things (ballot access and debate stagings) could be broken.

But in the meantime, you're welcome to sell your ideas to anyone you want to. You can start your own political party and do your absolute best... Good luck. It's not likely to go very well for you. I think Americans like the two-party system for two reasons: First, it diminishes the probability of extremist candidates. Secondly, as similar as the parties are, they cover the territory for most people.

> you're being duped by the
> very people most intent
> on destroying it.

That's pretty vague. I'd ask you for a pamphlet for your party, but I suspect you'd give me a whole book, and be just heartbroken when I didn't agree with every chapter. (Besides, Americans are in a hurry, OK? We have our own lives to lead.)

> the amount of congitive
> dissonance is astounding.

I can't find the aphorism on Google just now, but it's said that adulthood is the ability to hold two contrary ideas in your head at once and not go wacky. As has often been expressed here, I believe that obsession with hypocrisy betokens immaturity. It's not enough to say that people should always tell the truth. You have to understand that sometimes truth doesn't fit in a single sentence, and that things are as complicated as they need to be. The world will not be simple just because it would be more convenient for us if it were.

> there are people who will go the
> the ends of the universe to
> protect and defend palin.

Well, I personally would rise from a comfortable chair to that, and have actually done so a couple times this week.

> to quote a friend of mine,
> "reality always wins".

What point what your friend trying to make?

> the republicans have embraced
> anti-inellectualism

Not really, but I'd admire them if they did. (By the way, there's only one e in 'adhering'.) Y'know...

Her anti-intellectualism isn't really all that deep. She doesn't seem much like a booklearnin' type, but I'm OK with that. Booklearnin' types haven't done as much for this planet --certainly not in political venues-- as many people want to pretend. The people who really make things happen do it by working like dogs, living with pain, taking risks, associating well with others, and showing up sober. None of those things really demands tremendous candlepower.

At a TV station where I used to work, we had this crew chief who was always a little insecure about being the one on the staff without a degree. One day he was late for a meeting, and the boss cut him in half: "Tom, it doesn't take a college degree to be on time." I've been wanting to use that line ever since.

I often wonder if workaday Americans gave as much credit to "intellectualism" in earlier decades. The GI Bill did miraculous things for this country, no question... But I think it also gave us some bad rhetorical habits.

Well, gave some of us bad rhetorical habits.

Snobs, allaya.

Crid - Hey, Norman! Are you the guy I used to call "Dry-Goods Norman"? The one who believes that world peace will be achieved when we start dropping free merchandise from Best Buy onto the villages of impoverished countries?

That's me. I remember you were incapable of understanding an argument, preferring to rebut your own invention. An image of you punching yourself in the face comes to mind: "take that! how do you like that, eh?!"

Which country do you live in, again? I forget.

Nothing to be ashamed of, old timer!

I wonder if anyone here in the United States would be able to name the vice president or second member of the executive branch in your country. Or name a candidate for that office. Or tell you whether or not her religious affiliations were worrisome.

Probably not.

I agree. I can't name them all myself. Big fish, little pond.

We're terribly flattered by your attention, little fella!

Ah, patronising sarcasm - a winning combination. Well, it's good to see someone is willing to step up and say which posters are allowed to make comments in this blog. Thanks for putting me in my place, Crid! Nothing beats your ad hominem response. It diverts attention away from whatever I have to say, to where I happen to live!

Well, Normasaures, some of us find your interest in our politics a little patronizing. And bizarre.

@Crid - I sure don't mean to patronise - please point it out and I'll change. But why bizarre? You are electing the de facto leader of the free world. I belong to that world. I don't have a vote, but I do have an opinion. You want me to just sit at the back of the bus?

> why bizarre?

Because it so backhandedly welcomes American dominance of your imagination. It mocks the heritage of whatever nation you do call home (UK, if memory serves, maybe Canada or some other corner of the empire). Your (the world's) obsession with our political details isn't just inane; it's pathetic.

Part of this is certainly the thundering penetration of our glamorous media. Americans are the best communicators on the planet, with no contenders. We gave the world jazz, movies, and the internet. And dramatic depictions of mundane materials can soothe lonely spirits, causing more attention to be given to things than they deserve. But it's just tragic that so many people can't take such interest in their own government... Hell, their own lives.

So maybe they don't take that interest because our commercial media have more presence in their homes than do their domestic sources. (I don't care.) Maybe they don't take that interest because because their traditions are more authoritarian. (I don't care.) Maybe they don't take that interest because their political cultures are designed for less dynamism, and are unrewarding to citizen participation. (I don't care.) Maybe they don't take that interest because they recognize, consciously and otherwise, that the people of the United States are leading the way with a personal courage which that they themselves could never muster. (I don't care.)

> You are electing the de
> facto leader of the
> free world.

This "leader of the free world" stuff has gotten out of hand. Free people don't have leaders, they have (public) servants. I don't know how to look it up, but I'd wager that figure of speech was created by an American politician for use in some campaign or another, be it electoral or military; I doubt he expected anyone to be so casually invoking it 50 (80?) years later.

Furthermore, why is it "de facto"? "De concedo" is more like it. Certainly in terms of military responsibilities, the rest of the world (Hi, Europe!) is content to let Americans spend the money, take the risks, and do the killing when necessary.

Now, to an important extent, that's what the United States wanted out of Europe after the war... 'You guys start making cars and cheese and stuff, and we in the States will take care of the big picture.' But as stateless actors take a larger part of the threats to civilization, it would be great to see a more serious response from these commenters who prefer to observe our elections as they might watch a new TV season of "Dallas". Instead, they (you, Mr. Britain?) seem content to cede their own nations first.

> I don't have a vote

That understates things. Merely saying it like that makes it sound like perhaps in some other arrangement, you possibly might have a vote in our election. But you're a citizen of another country. 'K? So that can't happen. Sorry. (The reprehensible United Nations may have nurtured your confusion on this matter.)

> You want me to just sit
> at the back of the bus?

See, you don't get this. You're so American in every way... I think your whole life has been built around American themes and narratives and patterns so that you can't appreciate the irony of your wording. (Do you recognize your metaphor?)

Well, you're not on the bus. To the extent that you're along for the trip anyway, you haven't paid for a ticket.

Tell you what. Get all your friends together, and the people at work. Call your local, regional, and national government representatives. Convene, and announce that you want to be (agreeably) annexed by the United States; renounce your loyalty to whatever flag waves over your capital; and send approximately 45% of your personal income by certified check to the White House. We'll see what we can do.

Or, even better: Start taking a more realistic posture towards the international and cultural threats to your safety, so that we don't have to do it for you. Then, and only then, we'll take sincere interest in your thoughts about the faith of the Governor of Alaska.

And reading newspapers and watching political TV informs you? How? The MSM is an echo chamber, if anything. I'd say anyone who is getting their news from TV or regular newspapers is sadly spinning into butter, listening to the echoes.

Crid - Do you recognize your metaphor? To the extent that you're along for the trip anyway, you haven't paid for a ticket.

Yes, I chose the metaphor with your culture in mind. I'm glad you noticed. I haven't paid for a ticket? That's one way of looking at it. Another is that I'm on this bus and don't have a choice about getting off, so I'd like to voice my opinions about the incoming driver and the proposed route.

Then, and only then, we'll take sincere interest in your thoughts about the faith of the Governor of Alaska.

I'm not sure who you're speaking for. I'm close to retirement, which means that I'm interested in stocks and shares. So when the US subprime mess spreads around the whole world it directly affects me. That makes me interested in US politics.

As for getting my friends together to join the US, you've asked for that before, and I don't really think you're serious. You're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is. I don't think I could even emigrate to the US at my age, should I want to.

You're so American in every way

You say it like it's a bad thing. I spent most of my life in the "American Century" so that should be no surprise.

Start taking a more realistic posture towards the international and cultural threats to your safety, so that we don't have to do it for you.

Fair point; but it cuts both ways. I could ask you what date the Second World War started, for example.

In short, you'd just like me to shut up on US politics, and leave it all in your capable hands.

Crid -

Your (the world's) obsession with our political details isn't just inane; it's pathetic.

Pathetic hell, as much as the U.S. affects the rest of the world, I would be just about as interested in our train wreck of a political system if I lived abroad, as I am now.

In fact, let me ask you this Crid. Is it pathetic for an Iraqi to be fixated on our politics? What about an Israeli? Or someone from Georgia? What about those who have a stake in our economy?

What exactly is so pathetic about people who are going to be affected by our political decisions, being rather fixated on our politics?

> I chose the metaphor with
> your culture in mind.

I don't believe it for a moment. Even if it's true, it came too readily to you. Remember that time Rupert Pupkin had to catch a bus? It's like that. (An American movie, Norman!)

> I'm on this bus and don't
> have a choice about
> getting off

Of course you do. Of course you do. You could insist that your government, other institutions and even your personal friends deliver the kind of performance and moral clarity that the United States does. Then, even if you were still lower on the scale in terms of some economic measure or something (which would become less likely), you wouldn't carry on like a loon about our elections. You wouldn't have time.

> I'm interested in
> stocks and shares.

Yet you've never mentioned them.

> As for getting my friends
> together to join the US, you've
> asked for that before, and I
> don't really think you're
> serious.

I don't have to be. The intent is to point out your obliviousness to your own concerns.

> You say it like it's a
> bad thing.

It is, when it rattles one's perspective so horribly.

> I could ask you what date
> the Second World War started,
> for example.

You could, though I can't imagine what point would be 'exemplified'. (May '39, iirc. Maybe July.)

> you'd just like me to
> shut up on US politics

No, Honey... Chatter away. Give your heart to it. Pin a poster of our Secretary of Transportation to your bedroom wall, for all I care.

But Dood... understand how fucking twisted it is. Consider the dementia of the wording by which you cluck at us:

> something to bear in mind
> when you come to vote.

What do you mean, "come to vote"? Are we arriving at some destination where you've been lounging? Should Her Royal Highnesses loyal subjects be instructing us on suffrage?

> On the other hand we
> have Obama promising

What do you mean "we", Norman? Like I said, you've devolved into a fantasy world. It's like a child of whose parents fight brutally for two years before a divorce, so the kid starts calling his best friend's mother "Mom". Maybe it's righteous that you'd feel so impotent about the politics of your own country. But I doubt it. And even if it's true, it doesn't recommend your opinion as something for us to be concerned with.

So yesterday afternoon, I'm walking to my neighborhood post office to send in a parking ticket. While passing a famous recording studio, you'll never guess who I cross on the sidewalk! That's right, Seal! The famous rock 'n roll singer!

Well, I love rock 'n roll! Rock 'n roll has shaped my entire personality! I'm listening to some right now! There's an electric guitar at my knee!

(I'm not a big fan of Seal's because I'm too old, though I liked that one record twelve years ago.)

As it happens, Seal is married to a pretty girl, model Heidi Klum. Well, I love pretty girls! And I love rock 'n roll! So, like, I feel a total affinity for what Seal's life is like, OK? I'm on the bus!

But even so, I didn't stop him on the street to discuss anniversary gifts for the missus.

Get the picture?

> Is it pathetic for an Iraqi
> to be fixated on our politics?

If an Iraqi cames to this forum to share his thoughts, we'll have many, many discussions about how his nation can pull its shit together. Same as with any of the nationalities you mention. And Norman's.

Eventually, the problem is not that the United States is so disproportionately interesting. The problem is that the rest of the world is so shitty.

If an Iraqi cames to this forum to share his thoughts, we'll have many, many discussions about how his nation can pull its shit together. Same as with any of the nationalities you mention.

No, I suspect what would happen, is that you'll tout more of your pathetic Americacentric bullshit. Probably getting off on condescending those who have a very real interest in what happens here politically, because you're just so much better than they and from so much better a country.

Keep clucking away crid, keep clucking away.

Well, darlin', if they come to us to make a connection, we can assume it's because they want one.

See what I mean?

Not really. I assume that if they come to us, they are interested in joining the discussion. I doubt they are interested in being condescended by a crotchety (not so) old man with a superiority complex.

Certainly, Peyton Manning is flattered by the attention that office drones give to his work as they recompile their Fantasy Football league rankings late on Sunday night. But he doesn't consult them when he's composing his playbook during mid-week practices. He knows they have no idea what his responsibilities are really like.

DuWayne, if you want to give your vote to Norman, by all means do so. He apparently thinks it's his anyway, and if you agree, why would I complain?

But I'd think your both pathetic.

Sweet, sweet crid, I am not giving my vote away to anyone, but I am more than happy to talk to folks. And I don't get all pretentious about it either, whether I agree with them or not. I listen, I argue if I think their wrong and leave it at that. Not to say that I can't be quite the asshole - I am who I am. But I don't make condescending comments about my imagined superiority, just because in spite of having a stake in the elections here, the person arguing with me doesn't have a voice in them.

But no, I can't give my vote away, when I have already made up my mind who I am voting for - none of the above. The only question really, is if I will write someone in and who that would be.

Oi and based on your crotchety attitude, especially at such a young age, I find you kind of pathetic too. I still love ya though.

I know

I think the political chat shows give you a look at the opinions of the media and chattering classes, but those opinions are quite the same as facts. They all shout at each other, and then agree.

It's possible to be informed without being a policy wonk, but anymore if you're not in agreement with the NYT op-ed page, then you're obviously uninformed.

By the way, Norman is by no means alone in his bad rhetorical habits. A famous thinker talks about "we" in the most grandiose terms of human achievement; but when it comes to the budget and sacrifices that fund those achievements, only one nation is worth mentioning. Guess which. No, really, go ahead... Guess.

Now more than ever, "we" is a word used to describe the contents of another man's wallet.

> I have already made up my mind who
> I am voting for - none of the above.
> The only question really, is if I will
> write someone

PS - In the past 24 hours, I've come to precisely the same conclusion. I'll never be able to take pride or comfort in voting for any of these four unprincipled, opportunist ne'er-do-wells. I'll vote in the other races, but this isn't a choice worth making.

Re not voting: my US lodger has also said she won't vote because she doesn't like any of the candidates.

Personally, I think it's important to vote if only to keep the turnout high. If the turnout is low, small numbers of extremists can have a disproportionate effect - though that applies more in electing parties than a president. No matter how few people vote, the winner will be either Obama or McCain. Does a low turnout reduce the president's mandate in practice?

The radio news reported a crowd of women chanting "We want Sarah!" this morning.

Norman, I gotta know... If the Stateside readers of this blog had appeared on British comment stacks to discuss what contenders for PM were offering "us", would you think it was American imperialism?

Just curious.

"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there."

Um, yeah. She's a politician. Helllo?

Crid - some surely would. No matter what the US does or does not, there will be complaints of American Imperialism. That may change during this century, however.

Don't tell me you feel oppressed by my tuppence worth? I imagined you felt more as if you had a bunch of flies buzzing around your head. I'm not deliberately aiming to annoy you. It is just collateral damage.

Did you see David Cameron's speech last night? (He's the leader of the Conservative Party, which is currently in opposition.) Comments welcome - by me at any rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7645053.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7644451.stm

He's "the man with the plan" which makes me think of Panama for some reason. I saw parts of it; it seemed vapid to me. The Tories have still to distance themselves from Thatcher before they'll get anywhere. If Cameron could just do that one thing, it would help his party, even if it got him nowhere.

Amy -

I'm with Crid in feeling sick voting for any of these four losers.

Then don't. Write someone in or abstain. The surest way to throw away your vote, is to vote for anyone you don't actually want to see in office.

Norman -

Personally, I think it's important to vote if only to keep the turnout high. If the turnout is low, small numbers of extremists can have a disproportionate effect - though that applies more in electing parties than a president.

First, I am voting, just not for the president (unless I write someone in).

The problem I have with your logic here, is the same I have with the notion that voting third party is throwing away your vote - because thirds don't have a chance; This is exactly why we are stuck in this fucked up, republicratic deathlock on our electoral politics.

And make no mistake. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more chilling to our democracy, than the two party system. We are a extremely diverse nation of billions. Yet we are supposed to be represented by one of two fucking options? This leaves the majority of the population unrepresented.

I know that neither party represents me or my interests. Nor do they represent the interests of very many people I know. For the most part, they only represent their own interests. They do not have any allegiance to the American people, that isn't superseded by their allegiance to themselves and their parties.

Just look at the primaries and what happened after. Obama was inexperienced and not right for being the presidential candidate. But as soon as she lost, Hillary was all about supporting him. The same is true of the other republicrats running.

Honestly, I think the best thing that could happen - not that it will, is if the very, very few actually voted for president, voted a write in or third party. The results will be the same whether ten million vote or ten thousand vote - but if ten thousand vote, it would send a very loud message.

DuWayne - Yet we are supposed to be represented by one of two fucking options?

The thing to focus on is the "one" in that sentence, not the "two." However you arrange the voting system, you only have one winner, which by your logic leaves a majority unrepresented.

Your mistake is in the word "representative" as in "representative democracy." It has two meanings: (1) being a typical example, and (2) acting on behalf of. It is clear that no one person can be typical of two hundred million people (not billions) - the president cannot be male and female, white and black, young and old, and is unrepresentative in that sense. But it's the other meaning that applies. The president can - and ideally does - represent everyone in the sense of acting for them, in their best interests.

It's a common mistake, perpetrated by the media, and it undermines representative democracy, so please do what you can to fight against it.

Here's another example of language abuse. An idiot on a radio program here (in the UK) complained that the free market was not free at all because "you have to pay for everything." After complaining about the money value of everything, a few minutes later she was arguing in favour of individual freedom of people to spend their money as they see fit. What a twit.

Crid -

I Know

I'm feeling the love, feeling the love.

I'll vote in the other races, but this isn't a choice worth making.

Believe me, I will be voting in the other races. Local elections are my very favorites, though we schedule those kind of weird here in Oregon - Portland really is weird. And the ballot initiatives are fucking great fun.

Norman -

The thing to focus on is the "one" in that sentence, not the "two." However you arrange the voting system, you only have one winner, which by your logic leaves a majority unrepresented.

No, we have a great many winners in the legislature, where we are actually represented. Your mistake is in assuming that I was only talking about the presidency and that I meant just who actually wins the presidency.

We have a two parties that pretty much own the presidential election cycle - not very representative. Too, we have a very large legislature that is also dominated by the republicrats. That is where we are actually supposed to be represented - yet only two parties actually have any power.

DuWayne - Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the system? It is polarised here in the UK too. Everyone ends up voting extreme right or left just to keep the other lot out, and the middle ground is lost. It's been this way since early 20th century.

A proportional representation system would probably help - we use first past the post, which is in the interests of the extreme right/left because it magnifies small voting differences into a large number of seats in parliament. The general election is decided by a very small number of floating votes; most people's votes are effectively wasted.

Meantime there seems little effective check on the growth of government spending. No sign of cutbacks due to the world financial storms, for example. Everyone else has to pull in their belts, but not the government.

drudgereport.com
UK ambassador delivers frank assessment of 'decidedly liberal' Obama in secret letter to British PM Gordon Brown... LONDON TELEGRAPH to reveal all in leaked letter... Developing...

Kanchoo people mind your own beeswax?

> - Do you have any suggestions for
> how to improve the system?

Fire the Queen. Terminate her hairy black ass. Close the office and get your money back.

I didn't know you guys had a queen.

Oh, I thought you were soliciting suggestions to improve your system.

You were, of course, soliciting suggestions by which we might improve our own.

Will your intrusions never end?

If you'd read the posts, you would see that DuWayne was complaining about the US system, so why not ask him how he would improve it? I might learn something.

I would fire the queen, but the next in line would just step up. Monarchies are blooming difficult to get rid of. And I would guess that a majority of the population would not support such a move, at least with the present queen. If Charles was king (and Camilla consort) it might well be different.

Heck, we can't even get rid of inches and pounds. We use a mixture of imperial and metric units.

Will the intrusions never end? Crid, it's getting too easy to press your buttons.

Norman -

Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the system?

Absofuckinglutely.

First and foremost; Completely eliminate all public support of the republicrats. I.e. no more using public election mechanisms from the primaries, no more party caucuses on publicly owned and operated properties, no more public acknowledgment of party affiliation - absolutely no more use of public properties for any party activities. Right now the republicrats have the distinction of being quazi official entities, cut that out completely.

Second; Implement runoff voting - thus making it easier for folks to vote their conscience, without feeling they are "throwing away" their vote.

Third; Actually get serious about campaign finance reform.

Those are off the top of my head.

Crid -

Fire the Queen. Terminate her hairy black ass. Close the office and get your money back.

Which would effectively accomplish what? It is my understanding that the British monarchy is politically powerless.

> Which would effectively
> accomplish what?

Remind people that the excellence of their freedom and responsibility ought not be mocked, and that whatever they've accomplished with their lives --or not accomplished-- is very much their own doing.

> It is my understanding that the
> British monarchy is politically
> powerless.

It was my understanding that until Rowling hit her stride, Elizabeth was the richest woman in the United Kingdom. ("Kingdom"!) How did she earn that money? Do you suppose having it gave her any political power?

> so why not ask him how he would
> improve it? I might learn
> something.

If you'd read the posts, you would see that I think you're giving far too much attention to the improvability of our nation and far too little to improving your own.

> the next in line would just step
> up.

You missed the part about "closing the office".

> Monarchies are blooming
> difficult to get rid of.

Jody does that too... When pushed into a corner, she gets all cute'n idiomatic, as if to vanish in fog of patois. But nobody asked you whether it would be difficult.

> a majority of the population
> would not support such a move

Right. Monarchy appeals to basic human impulses.

First, it satisfies the need to believe that there's an organic, cosmic righteousness to being dominated by another human being, as a child is by family seniors. It feels very comfortable.

Secondly, it simultaneously suggests that there, but for the grace of God (or dumb luck or vagaries of seniority), go I. This second one allows the royal subject to wallow is his powerlessness and irresponsibility by the certainty that the whole of civilization's machinery is arrayed against him, as you just did with your "blooming difficultes." ("Ah, well, maybe next life we'll get around to it....")

Americans can't make excuses like these. In the United States, if you want to be Steve Jobs, and you think you can do better than Steve Jobs (an adopted child), then you can't whine if you don't try. Maybe you won't grow up to be Steve Jobs, but it might work out OK for you anyway.

Now, the French have no King nowadays, but they're still kinda tickled by their heritage... They still have an office called "Prime Minister." American public service titles have no such religious or familial overtones, at least to the common ear.

We don't even call our President "Big Daddy" as a joke. Those fuckers are working for us, and everybody knows it.

> If Charles was king (and Camilla
> consort) it might well be
> different.

Obviously, you're too enchanted with these people to give it a go. The little wretch called Hot Ginge gets shuffled into and out or Iraq under cover of his less well-born "fellows", and at tremendous public expense, to execute a pathetic simulacrum of military service... and everyone's OK with it.

The truth is that huge chambers in the European heart still throb for the Middle Ages. Is it my imagination, or are the reprehensible practitioners of Islam most attracted to --and able to settle within-- the Euro capitals most attached to monarchical trappings and theater?

Crid - I have to agree with much of your analysis, and it's why I do not support monarchism. It is the root of a lot that is wrong here, though the connections are not always obvious. The bottom line is that monarchism encourages an infantile outlook. It also screws up the monarchs - what kind of life do they get?

Kewl. Call us when you've got that dealt with, and we'll get your reading on Piper Palin's senate run.

There is little doubt that this is considered the fingest places in the World to travel to. Trust me, save your cash and spend 2 weeks here. You will love it!