Barack Hussein Marx Trotsky Obama

In Soviet America, Healthcare socialises you!

Barack Obama thinks money is margarine. If we aren’t careful, he’s going to “spread it around” everywhere. (Badum-psh…)

“This is no time to be playing around with Socialism”, quips Palin. No, I guess not. Nor is it really time to be “palling around with terrorists”, but then I don’t really think that Obama is doing either.

Last time I checked, Obama was in favor of making some adjustments to tax policy, not nationalization of industry. That’s the Bush administration’s deal at the moment. Taxing people in order to provide them with a service is not socialism, and tax policy that will be a tax cut for the vast majority of people also certainly doesn’t seem socialist.

So why did he say it? “We’ve got to spread the wealth around.” “AHA! WE KNEW IT!” – Rush Limbaugh runs in stage right, pulls off Obama’s mask- “he’s really a European Socialist!”. “And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids plumbers!”

Joe the Plumber certainly seems to be anti government- (so much so that he opted against getting a license) – but what does he really have to fear from an Obama administration? Apparently not an increase in taxation, given that the income from his business is split between two people, and neither of them thus earn over $250,000. But surely he can fear socialism? Everyone in America does!

This is what I just don’t understand. I live in the UK, I spend time on the Continent, I travel frequently to America. There just isn’t the stark difference that some people imagine. Yes, the UK has socialized health care, and a slightly more progressive tax policy – people aren’t queuing in the streets for bread, members of the politburo aren’t being assassinated! In fact, last time I checked, the UK had outgrown the USA for much of the last decade, and London had become the world’s financial center. Damn all that socialism!

Luckily, the US won’t be missing out, because it’s pretty much just as socialist as many European powers already. The US Government spends more per person on health care than many European states including the UK, so by that measure US health care is already more socialized than European. About the only difference is that we have somehow contrived to spend more than everyone else on health care, without enabling our citizens free and universal access to it. Never mind the fact that, of course, we already have socialised police forces, schools, fire brigades, armies….banking?! All Obama is proposing is basically a slight change to the effective tax rate. It isn’t enough to take you behind the Iron Curtain.

It’s almost McCarthyist- a small change proposed in the effective bands of taxation, and all of a sudden we’ll have the ghosts of Lenin and Marx parading up and down the Mall while we all sing the Ode to the Motherland. The reaction to the statement is nothing less than hysterical, when you consider what is being proposed.

Pro abortion radical?

“”He hopes you won’t notice how radical, absolutely radical, his ideas on this and his record is until it’s too late.”

According to Sarah Palin, we should all watch out, because Obama is “radically” pro abortion. But, hang on a minute, isn’t abortion already legal? If Obama is elected, what exactly will we find out too late? If abortion is legal, what possible “radical” policy can he enact? Making it compulsory?!

I should think that Obama will probably change little to nothing regarding abortion- rather he will maintain the status quo. Perhaps Palin should check up on the meaning of radical, because it seems to me that it more applies to someone who would “counsel against” abortion even in cases of incestuous rape.

Why don’t I want to write about Walter Monegan?

I may not have many readers, but at least a couple of them are quite vocal. I do increasingly hear “why aren’t you writing something about this or that”, and it is true.

In the last week and a bit I have ignored:

-The second Presidential debate

-The bailout being passed

-The stock market still being in freefall

And, today, I will almost certainly be ignoring the fact that Palin was found by Alaska’s legislature to have acted for her own benefit in firing Walter Monegan. Why?

Well, firstly because I’m quite busy- it’s the first week of the year at college (or uni as we say here), and there is a lot going on.

Secondly, however, it’s because I’m not the Washington Post. There is almost zero point in me writing about everything that is newsworthy, primarily because if I tried I would fail, but also because there would be little reason to read it. Let’s face it, there isn’t much point in reporting events as the NYT or the Washington Post do, especially not when I’m basically getting the facts from them in the first place. So, there is only a reason for me to write about something when I feel I have an interesting opinion on it- otherwise I’m just an intermediary between you and the papers.

The Palin story is fairly cut and dry- Walter Monegan was fired in an abuse of power, say Democrats. No, cry Republicans, it is the probe that is the abuse of power as it was politically motivated. I don’t particularly care- I don’t really think it is that relevant to voters, or it shouldn’t be.

As far as I’m concerned, I was already quite aware that Palin would be a disaster in the White House, this doesn’t really change that. The only interesting thing I could say about it would be to look at the impact it will have on the race. “It will negatively affect McCain/Palin” about sums it up, and this isn’t twitter so I need more than one line!

THAT’s more like it…

I wrote some time ago that at the beginning of the Presidential race I could well have supported McCain over Obama. Since then, the tactics and policies adopted and proposed by the McCain campaign have turned me off. I don’t particularly blame McCain for it- I think he is a decent guy, but he has let the wrong people influence and run his campaign.

So it was quite unexpected, right in the middle of typical negative (and irrelevant) attacks on Obama, for McCain to say the following things:

In response to a supporter saying he was “scared” of an Obama presidency:

““I want to be president of the United States and obviously I do not want Senator Obama to be, but I have to tell you — I have to tell you — he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.” He got booed by his own supporters for that one.

Or, in response to a woman stating that she couldn’t vote for Obama because he was “an Arab”:

“No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.”

Last time I checked, people originating from the Arab world could be decent family men and citizens of the USA, but we get McCain’s sentiment. It isn’t that surprising that he didn’t agree – he could hardly have accused Obama directly of being a Muslim, that’s left up to the campaign staff to imply. However, he didn’t need to call him “decent” or a “family man”, both of which were essentially compliments.

The NYT thinks that this reflects McCain’s “lurching campaign”- that, essentially, the campaign managers, losing ground, are desperately trying whatever tactic they can. Perhaps the decision to go negative is part of that, but I personally don’t think these statements are tactical. I think that we are seeing the real McCain come through the obfuscations of his campaign managers, that after seeing supporters at rallies shouting “kill him” in reference to Obama, or screaming racial insults at a black reporter, McCain is perhaps just a bit appalled by things. Just maybe, what we are seeing is McCain really being a “maverick” again- but this time against his own campaign.

Working across the isles?

We’ve heard a lot of talk about bipartisanship from the McCain camp recently, with McCain stating that in the next debate he’ll be taking a much harsher line, and will be seeking to show that he is the true bipartisan senator.

It is true that McCain has worked on some significant bipartisan pieces of legislation, and indeed his claim to be the more bipartisan candidate might even be justified. But does it really matter that much? Certainly, for him it would- he would be facing congress that without doubt will not be in Republican hands. I don’t think it is nearly as relevant for Obama- why should anyone care if Obama wants to work with the Republicans or not? If he gets in, in all likelihood he won’t need to. Moreover, given the negative perception of the Republican party at this time, would voter’s even want Obama to start giving ground to the wishes of the party that they just kicked out of power?

“Bipartisan” has become a buzzword, it’s almost as if the US wants to pretend it doesn’t have a party system. Granted, there is a lot more individuality in US parties than almost anywhere else, the party glue isn’t as thick, but at the end of the day, if people are voting Democrat, they kick the Republicans out of office, and it really is drawn on party lines like that, why should it not be the case that the Democrats work to use their advantage and put through their agenda? Why should Obama or any other Democrat try to work on a bipartisan basis with Republicans unless they actually need to?

I don’t expect anyone to strongly make this argument publically, least of all Obama, it is a bit too cold and calculating.  But perhaps he might at least remind voters that McCain will certainly have to prove his claims of bipartisan expertise if he gains office, as he will without doubt face a Democratic Congress. The American people don’t want gridlock between the Presidency and Congress, not at times like these that require decisive action.

Debate wrapup

At least he didn't pull her chair out for her.

So, the big debate finally happened – I stayed up until 2:00 to watch it, and despite my droopy eyelids the events on screen were interesting enough to keep me awake. That said, they weren’t as interesting as I’d hoped- no Biden gaffes, and no Palin catastrophe. Obviously, I’m a little more disappointed about the latter than the former, but either way, as US pundits are fond of saying, this “wasn’t a game changer”.

As last night’s performance showed, Palin was prepped to high level for this debate- she made no gaffes, she appeared relatively knowledgeable . My hope is that Americans will realise that, as Palin herself said, she has “only been at this for five weeks”. Palin has effectively been cramming for an exam, and as someone who frequently does that, I can attest to its affectiveness at preparing you for an imminent test- but it doesn’t prepare you for much beyond that.

That Palin did not fail to understand key principles like the Bush Doctrine this time round only shows that she was prepared for a debate, not that she is prepared to be VP or President. Indications are currently positive on that front, with polls showing less than 50 viewing her as qualified to be VP, in contrast with Biden who is over 80%.

Unfortunately, as a result of a hiccup free debate, I don’t get that much material to write a blog about- the general analysis is that Biden was the superior debater, and that Palin did what she had to in pulling off a competent performance. So far, so what.

So, instead of analysing who won, perhaps a few words about what was said, the content of the debate, which after all is so often overlooked as we tally the points scored by each candidate.

Palin’s big push was clearly on energy policy. So much so, in fact, that she referred to it constantly, regardless of its relevance to the question. Unfortunately, what she said was not particularly encouraging. Palin set out an energy policy with strong emphasis on Offshore drilling, a populist non-issue from earlier on in the campaign. Most worryingly, she misleadingly asserted that drilling offshore would mitigate current energy shortfalls and lead to energy independence for the USA.

In fact, the fractional increase in domestic oil supplies from offshore drilling would not be seen for a decade, and America will never be able to be energy independent as long as oil remains the main source of energy. As Biden pointed out, the USA holds 3% of world resources, but consumes 25%, do the math…

Biden was a bit more grounded, clearing up his record on clean coal and asserting support for renewables, but it all seemed fairly vague- some sort of optimistic idea of selling renewable technology to China seemed to take shape, but no solid campaign commitments. This isn’t that surprising- green issues have taken a hit in the face of economic turmoil.

On the economy, Palin was evasive, often trying to refer back to her comfort zone of energy, but she did repeatedly assert that cutting taxes would create jobs. I’m not claiming to be an expert, I only did economics in highschool and for the first year of my degree, but even with that limited exposure it is obvious enough that things are more complicated than that.

At times cutting taxes may create jobs, at others it may not. Alternate schools of economic thought offer differing perspectives. I don’t have the answer to that particular argument, but I can bet that Palin doesn’t either, so it is frustrating to hear her stating things like that as fact.

Biden offered a much more nuanced approach to the economy, in which regulation of Wall Street and tax relief for the middle classes seemed to be big features. Palin raised a misleading accusation that Obama/Biden would increase taxes for families earning $42,00 a year, which Biden successfully rebutted, but it might have been worthwhile pointing out that for the tiny percentage of those earning $42,000 a year who would be effected negatively by the Obama/Biden plan, the actual increase would be less than $15 per year.

Foreign policy was a little less illuminating, Palin perhaps being more reserved given her awareness of Biden’s experience in this area. However, a few small interesting claims- firstly, she called a planned withdrawal from Iraq a “white flag of surrender”. This seems to suggest that she believes there is “victory” to be had in Iraq, and that is a worryingly simplistic view of the situation there. She has boiled it down to “win” “lose”, when I think it is obvious to anyone out there that any “victory” in Iraq would be a hollow one given the disaster that has gone on to this point.

Somewhat disturbingly, Palin went on to suggest that the war in Iraq really was a war on terror, something which wasn’t even part of the bogus claims used to justify the war in the first place. Remember WMD’s? I think by now most Americans realise that organisations like Al Qaeda were not present in Iraq prior to the war and that terrorist bases in Iraq are a consequence of and not a justification for the war.

Biden articulated a rational strategy of withdrawal and transition in Iraq, which I believe should resonate well with voters, and restated the Obama/Biden ticket’s commitment to a transition in emphasis on foreign policy from Iraq to Afghanistan, Iran and Packistan. He also picked an interesting argument with Palin regarding surge tactics in Afghanistan, in which he referred to a comment by the military commander in Afghanistan made that day suggesting they would not work. Palin, vigorously prepped, had at least heard about the remarks earlier that day, but it makes you wonder why she suggested adopting the surge in Afghanistan during the debate.

The final area of interest was, I think, an unusual one. It regarded the role of the VP- Palin seemed to endorse Cheney’s view that the VP is a legislative as well as an executive office, while Biden responded by stating that such a view of the role was “dangerous”, and that indeed Cheney had been the most dangerous VP in history. I think I can agree with the latter statement- but it seems like Cheney’s influence on the Presidency has been the real danger over the last 8 years.

Still, Biden was correct to point out that the VP should only intervene in the Senate to break a tie, but it did then seem odd that he suggested part of his role would be to get things done in Congress. Either way, I’m in favour of an expanded role for the VP- the veep is being payed, and presumably is qualified to be President, we might as well get him or her to actually do something.

Bail me out?

I was having lunch with my father today, having returned from holiday, and being one of my select group of readers, he asked me why I hadn’t written anything about the bailout deal. Well, my initial response was that I’d been on holiday, but it seems to me that the real answer is that I essentially don’t have the foggiest idea whether its a good thing or not.

Obviously, it is a bad situation to be in, but the questions regarding what exactly it says if we bail out failing companies, and the economic ramifications of doing or not doing so, are beyond me.

There are a few things I can say about it-

Firstly, I think it is worth looking at some of the comparisons between the Bush administration leading up to Iraq and the Bush administration leading up to this bailout. Prior to Iraq, the Bush administration requested unprecedented levels of power at an unprecedented pace. The justification was that any delay for contemplation would result in disastrous consequences. I am not necessarily asserting that the consequences of a bailout will be the financial equivalent of the Iraq war, but the methodology used by the administration is strikingly similar. Again, the administration is seeking extreme executive authority- the ability to spend what could end up being something like a trillion dollars, requesting that said authority be unchecked and unquestionable, and asserting that any delay could be disastrous for the USA. I’m hardly the only person making this comparison, in fact I’ve even heard it said that Paulson is a financial equivalent of Rumsfeld (which isn’t exactly promising).

Yet, perhaps something encouraging can be drawn from this current crisis. After September 11th and in the buildup to the Iraq war, Congress broadly deferred to Presidential decisions on issues relevant to national security. It would seem that today Congress is much more wary. There are strong groups in opposition to the plan, on both sides of the house. The legislature has perhaps realised that, given the startling incompetence of the Bush administration, it is not appropriate for it to be the rubber stamp that it has been during previous crises.

One can only hope that those in the relevant committees are a little more enlightened about the whole thing than the rest of us.

Incidentally, I know I’m a bit late, but I found McCain’s “nonpartisan” rush back to the Senate laughable. As pointed out on the Daily Show, the guy isn’t even allowed in the room where the negotations are taking place, and he seemed perfectly happy to miss the last four hundred votes or so. Not to mention that in between “suspending” his campaign he was interviewed and loitered around in New York for almost an entire day before showing up to save the day.

However, it could have been a fairly clever political move if it had played out a little better- if Obama had agreed to a campaign suspension, he could have avoided having to carry on talking about the economy, which hasn’t been a favourable subject area for him, and he would have denied Obama his chance to improve his reputation on foreign policy, an area in which McCain was ahead anyway.

As a final note, I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of the bailout plan? I would love to hear from her about it, but she seems to have somewhat disappeared…

Palin: Because she’s worth it.

Yes, Yes, Yes!

“Sarah Palin spoke to an energized crowd of Republicans”…”Democrats face attacks from an energized Republican party”. Apparently, the GOP is positively buzzing. “Energized”. The word is everywhere- the pages of the new york times, the Washington post.

It isn’t just Palin- in the NYT: “This election is going to be a game changer,” an energized Clinton (D-N.Y.) said.”

It could just be me not being a proper American, but I don’t get it. It sounds like a shampoo commercial. Are Palin rallies akin to a refreshing shower? Do they come with a free sampler of herbal essences and a trip to a day spa?

I would think an “emboldened” or “increasingly confident” Republican party would do just as well. But if not, why not go the whole hog:

“At a rally today, Sarah Palin was speaking to a brand new you Republican party. Before a crowd of reinvigorated, refreshed supporters with 60% longer lashes and no grays, she appeared to be their venus, their fire and their desire. Her ability to rejuvenate even the grand old party? “Maybe she was born with it”, said one supporter.”

Fiddling with the thermostat

Given hurricane Gustav’s impact on the RNC, I think I can just about tenuously connect geoengineering to the topic of the blog this week, so here goes:

I read an interesting article in the Economist this week about geoengineering, – while arguing that an interventionist approach to climate change couldn’t be ignored, the paper correctly pointed out that using science to control the earth’s climate could have unforseen and disastrous consequences.

People always look at it this way, as if the only problem associated with geoengineering is if it somehow went disastrously wrong. I can see some significant problems arising even if the technology worked perfectly, and indeed the better it worked the greater the problem.

If we suppose that geoengineering technology, whether by encouraging the growth of algae in the sea or reflecting the sun’s rays into space, was able to precisely control the climate of the earth, we would then have an international political conflict over where exactly to set the thermostat. In this respect it wouldn’t be too unlike the Eurozone, where economies in the different countries are all subject to centrally set ECB monetary policy. This can be problematic when one Eurozone country is booming and another is teetering on recession. Similarly, states that are too hot to be productive for agriculture would want the temperature turned down, those that are too cold would want it turned up. How can you balance the conflicting interests?

You would presumably need some sort of “World Central Climate Authority” to pull it off, in which case it becomes impossible to keep everyone happy. Many competing climate authorities in local regions would inevitably not work given the extremely complicated and interconnected nature of the environment.

Obviously, engineering climate change isn’t identical to monetary policy- it could be possible to create climates beneficial to both groups, but given the vast range of climates on the planet, it seems doubtful that we could achieve a situation where every single nation could be given the climate it required.

So, the Economist is right to assert that we should stick to traditional methods of combatting climate change whilst researching geoengineering- it just isn’t clear that such research will get us anywhere in the forseeable future.

There aren’t any conventions when it comes to handling a hurricaine…

Weighing up the options.

As Hurricaine Gustav is heading towards New Orleans, the Republicans have a real dilemma in correctly handling the situation. Firstly and foremost, they have to act with propriety. But what is the right thing to do?

Already, the relevant people are no longer attending, and with respect to President Bush in particular that is the right thing to do, on two fronts. Firstly, the President obviously needs to be on hand if the impact of the hurricaine is disastrous. Secondly, the last thing that the Republicans need is for their acting president to be seen to be ignoring a hurricaine in New Orleans.

However, the course for John McCain is not anywhere near as obvious- what can he possibly do that is appropriate to the situation?

On one hand, he can take the same course of action as Bush- i.e. he can turn his efforts to solving the situation. We have already seen hints of this, with McCain’s visit to the area and with the suggestion that the convention itself might become some sort of relief event.  The problem here is that while it is in the President’s job description to sort out a crisis, it isn’t in the job description of a Presidential not-yet-nominee. McCain runs a huge risk of appearing to use a catastrophe for political gain. Forget Obama looking presumptuous on tour…

On the other, McCain can carry on as normal, but this would be equally politically damaging, and there is zero chance of it happening. At the very least, we can expect that the tone of what is said there will change dramatically, in which case it will become a case of balancing the need to pay due attention to hurricaine Gustav and the need to avoid appearing to politicise the crisis.

A third option, and the appropriate one, would be to delay the convention if a disaster occurs. McCain should make the appropriate remarks when asked, and leave the politics for another time – in fact, he should really stay out of the way- visiting the area does nothing for the people who actually matter in this situation, the victims.

If McCain uses Gustav to gain political capital, I would hope that voters respond accordingly in November. I don’t believe he is that far gone, but I am certain that the Carl Rove’s of his campaign team are already calculating the appropriate reaction to maximise political capital, and he appears to be listening to them increasingly.