Archive for the ‘John McCain’ tag

#  Something Nice →

October 30th, 2008 at 20:54 // In Worth Reading 

Bob Greene asks voters to say something nice about the man they’re not voting for in the presidential election. (This would have made a good video.)

(via Waxy)

#  Slate for Obama →

October 28th, 2008 at 15:22 // In Worth Knowing 

This shouldn’t shock anyone, but Slate’s staff is overwhelmingly pro-Obama. Bob Barr is getting as many votes from them as John McCain. And four times more people can’t vote as are voting for either of those two.

I’d love to see more publications try this out. I’d like to know the score at Time or The Economist.

#  “Spreading the Wealth” →

October 21st, 2008 at 18:46 // In Worth Considering 

On the topic of equality in America… Ross Douthat, on the heels of McCain’s attacking Obama for trying to speard the wealth around, agrues that it’s silly for conservatives to oppose all redistribution. 

In other words, a conservative welfare state would eliminate our current network of universal entitlement programs, and replace them with cheaper, means-tested programs that, well, spread the wealth - that spend your tax dollars to provide temporary assistance to the unemployed, underwrite health care costs for the aged and very poor, set an income floor underneath American seniors, and so forth, rather than taking money from the middle class with one hand and giving it back to them with the other. 

#  Superrich for Obama →

October 18th, 2008 at 18:45 // In Worth Considering 

Robert Frank points to new evidence he was right all along:

According to a new survey by Prince & Associates, voters worth $1 million to $10 million are favoring Sen. John McCain, while voters worth $30 million or more are favoring Sen. Barack Obama. …

The reason? Taxes.

(via Ideas)

#  Political Buzzwords 2008 →

October 13th, 2008 at 17:17 // In Worth Reading 

Elizabeth Dickenson has her list of campaign cliches she could do without. #1 is an ax I’ve been grinding myself.

1)  Wall Street to Main Street. I know the financial crisis affects me and that bashing bankers wins you applause. What I’d rather hear? A solid explanation of how the bailout will work (or won’t), how it will be paid for, and how it will affect government spending in the next administration.

#  On Earmarks →

September 27th, 2008 at 10:57 // In Worth Seeing 

I think this chart gives the one mentioned here a run for it’s money. There’s nothing like a well-made graph to make reveal the utter silliness of many political issues.

#  Barr Sues to Remove Obama, McCain from Texas Ballot →

September 19th, 2008 at 16:01 // In Worth Knowing 

An interesting bit of cocktail chatter, if nothing else:

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.

“The seriousness of this issue is self-evident,” the lawsuit states. “The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them.”

(via Slashdot)

#  Have Less Fear →

September 15th, 2008 at 20:12 // In Worth Reading 

I was torn between linking to this post about what Passport bloggers are reading, which contains a number of interesting suggestions, and this very approachable article from Fareed Zakaria that one mention. Obviously Zakaria won the coin toss; a sample:

It’s also worth noting that ever since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s witnessed a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to “Finlandize” Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of total collapse.

#  Lie Count →

September 11th, 2008 at 22:43 // In Worth Knowing 

I like the simplicity of this site, which simply aims to count all the times the US presidential candidates, their running mates, and their campaigns tell obvious lie. Like all and sundry, their is likely to be dispute of the political truth, but the sites definition of lies seems reasonable:

When a politician makes a point that can be clearly refuted with non-partisan sources, or even better their own words, we call that a lie. Given the claims each campaign has made regarding their own competence and ‘readiness’, we don’t believe there is room for ‘mistakes’ of speech either. So we mark any and all wrong statements as lies.

(via Yewknee)

#  The Candidates’ Websites →

September 10th, 2008 at 19:00 // In Worth Distraction 

You’d have good reason to condemn this analysis as simplistic, silly, or absurd, but I think it’s just enough of all of those things to share. The real contrast: Obama’s site is written in PHP, McCain’s in ASP.

(via clusterflock)