*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[Homer J Simpson]

Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?

Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs.

No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.

This isn't necessarily true.

Yes it is. If you want a different way of thinking about this, think about it in terms of people employed as opposed to dollars. It's not like there's this huge sea of people who are just sitting around doing nothing. Generally speaking, people who don't have a job either don't want one (full-time students, stay-at-home-mons, retirees), can't find one because the economy is temporarily bad (a temporary problem that goes away on its own) or simply going through the normal job search process (intrinsic to any labor market). In an environment like this, it isn't possible to "create" jobs without destroying jobs elsewhere. Everybody who you employ building windmills, say, is a person who is no longer doing whatever it is they did before they started working at the local windmill factory.

Now, this might be a good thing. Maybe building wind turbines is pretty easy so that windmill-builders are drawn from people who used to pick fruit. We then outsource our fruit-picking jobs to people from other countries, and we gained some nice jobs in the process. But maybe people who go into windmill-building used to be auto-makers, or ship-builders, or something like that. In that case, all we're doing is shifting workers from one good-but-not-great blue-collar job into another similar job.

"Creating jobs" in green industries necessarily means destroying jobs elsewhere. The question you should ask is "Do we want to trade jobs in other industries for jobs in alternative fuels?" The answer you give may very well be "yes," and that's fine, but that's a more realistic way of framing the issue.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources, so I don't mean for this post to sound like I'm being critical of Obama. It's just that presidents don't really "create" jobs out of the blue.

Well, considering the millions of manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the last decade, I'm thinking there are lots of skilled workers out there who are currently in jobs that they are overqualified for. So while it may be shifting people from one job to another, those new vacancies can be filled by the fruit-pickers in your example.

 

[adonis]

Ok, it's obvious I support Obama, but this is a bit over the top:

Dear Adonis --

Be the First to Know Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

http://my.barackobama.com/vp

You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.

Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.

No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.

Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America

Now seriously, there are likely good reasons why no other campaign has done this before.

So you signed up, right?

Email and text -

 

[Clayton Gray]

Ok, it's obvious I support Obama, but this is a bit over the top:

Dear Adonis --

Be the First to Know Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

http://my.barackobama.com/vp

You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.

Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.

No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.

Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America

Now seriously, there are likely good reasons why no other campaign has done this before.

So you signed up, right?

Email and text -

 

[adonis]

This thread will do. I don't want to start a new one.I know a guy whose son is secret service. I don't know the guy well. I don't know if he's generally a BSer or not. He is politically very conservative. I don't know about his son's political views.His son said (according to the dad's retelling) that Obama, on a personal level, is generally very nice.This is in sharp contrast to Hillary. The two Hillary stories I got from the dad are these.1. You know the famous Bill Clinton haircut on board the Air Force One at LAX? It wasn't just a matter of style. Hillary got mad at Bill and hit him in the head with a coffee cup. Bill required stitches. That was the haircut.2. The son once said "Good Evening, Mrs. Clinton" as she walked by. She stopped, turned around, and said to him: "I have to stare at your ugly mug all day. I don't have to listen to it as well!!"

Gopher just added another name to his Hillary hit list. Make your time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

 

[kaa]

This thread will do. I don't want to start a new one.I know a guy whose son is secret service. I don't know the guy well. I don't know if he's generally a BSer or not. He is politically very conservative. I don't know about his son's political views.His son said (according to the dad's retelling) that Obama, on a personal level, is generally very nice.This is in sharp contrast to Hillary. The two Hillary stories I got from the dad are these.1. You know the famous Bill Clinton haircut on board the Air Force One at LAX? It wasn't just a matter of style. Hillary got mad at Bill and hit him in the head with a coffee cup. Bill required stitches. That was the haircut.2. The son once said "Good Evening, Mrs. Clinton" as she walked by. She stopped, turned around, and said to him: "I have to stare at your ugly mug all day. I don't have to listen to it as well!!"

I knew an ornery female manager that acted in similar fashion. Basically it was her leadership style. Its a face she put on because she was insecure about being the leader. She hated doing it and behind all the gruff was a genuinely sweet person. Many people could not see it for what it was though and were laughably afraid of her. But those in the know would throw it right back in her face, to the utter shock of those who were genuinely afraid of her.

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

 

[bigbottom]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

So no deductions for charitable donations?

 

[cstu]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

So no deductions for charitable donations?

I don't believe in putting charities on a pedestal above for-profit businesses. When we do that, it implies that making money is somehow wrong. It isn't.

 

[bigbottom]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

So no deductions for charitable donations?

I don't believe in putting charities on a pedestal above for-profit businesses. When we do that, it implies that making money is somehow wrong. It isn't.

Sweet! More taxes for all my liberal social programs!

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

But that's backwards thinking. The free market is always the best solution. Therefore during a crisis it is MOST important to get government out of the way and let the private sector find the answer.You DO realize that the Depression was the direct result of government INTERFERENCE in the free market. To be specific, the government, in the middle of a an economic collapse, wrongly assumed the major threat was INFLATION. Therefore, FDR levied a MASSIVE tax on the business sector, which annihilated growth and pushed many companies over the edge. That caused the Depression to stretch the entire decade until WWII. If the government got out of the way, the economy would have rebounded mightily after the panic of 1929. But government strangled it. It was people like you, who felt it was somehow wrong to wait and let the free market find the answer, that caused it in the first place.

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

So no deductions for charitable donations?

I don't believe in putting charities on a pedestal above for-profit businesses. When we do that, it implies that making money is somehow wrong. It isn't.

Sweet! More taxes for all my liberal social programs!

I'm not a fan of taxes in general.

 

[NCCommish]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

So no deductions for charitable donations?

I don't believe in putting charities on a pedestal above for-profit businesses. When we do that, it implies that making money is somehow wrong. It isn't.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

I realize the government does these things. And I think it should be stopped. I am strongly against any sort of "social engineering" like tax credits for doing something the government thinks people should be doing. That is utterly immoral because no government should have that kind of power. The government exists to provide basic services, not to mold the society it serves.

So no deductions for charitable donations?

I don't believe in putting charities on a pedestal above for-profit businesses. When we do that, it implies that making money is somehow wrong. It isn't.

Sweet! More taxes for all my liberal social programs!

Almost a trillion dollars in tax expenditures that can now be put to work!

 

[adonis]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

X

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

If the truth hurts, I guess I hit a sore spot.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

If the truth hurts, I guess I hit a sore spot.

That actually makes even less sense. Congrats.

 

[urbanhack]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

If the truth hurts, I guess I hit a sore spot.

The free market isn't free Ace.

 

[Print Is Dead]

Does kaa have a newsletter?

 

[kaa]

Obama has to be close to making a veep choice - it is August 11th and the democratic national convention in Denver begins August 25th. Republican strategist Karl Rove offered his thoughts on the pick on Face the Nation on Sunday August 10th.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/10/...in4336134.shtml

Rove: Obama Will Make Political Veep Pick

Suggests Choice Of Virginian Tim Kaine Would Be An "Intensely Political Choice" That Ignores Responsibilities Of Presidency

August 10, 2008

Karl Rove believes that Barack Obama should have a significant advantage over John McCain in the polls. Rove tells Bob Schieffer that Obama's slight lead shows that people have "grave doubts" about him.

(CBS) Republican strategist Karl Rove said on Face The Nation Sunday that he expects presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama to choose a running mate based on political calculations, not the person's readiness for the job.

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

Kaine, who is widely seen as one leading contenders to become Obama's running mate, said that the fact that Obama is competitive in his home state of Virginia is "basically astounding" since no Democrat has won there since 1964.

He said polls that show Obama with only a slight edge over rival John McCain nationally are not a cause for concern.

"We are feeling very, very good about where the senator is in the polls and we obviously expect as America - the American electorate turns their attentions even more to this race in connection with the conventions, we expect to do - to do quite well," Kaine said.

Kaine suggested that McCain's recent ads casting Obama as a celebrity are "out of touch with what the issues are."

"I mean, it was funny, but wearing a clown suit and juggling would be funny, too, but it doesn't connect with the concerns Americans have about gas prices, about the war, about the economy," he said. "So I think on things like that, shoot, I hope the McCain camp does more of those ads and we'll just let them do those ads."

He added that while Obama is running positive ads during the Olympics, "Senator McCain is running the same old negative, Karl Rove-style ads that we're all tired of."

Rove said the closeness in the polls between McCain and Obama is a signal that Americans are have concerns about the Illinois senator.

"With a restive electorate, with an economy that's sort of chugging along, with a war in the background, at the end of eight years of Republican rule in the White House, Obama should be way ahead," Rove said. "...the fact that he isn't says that there are grave doubts about Senator Obama."

Rove said Kaine's characterization of McCain's ads compared to Obama's was wrong.

"I would make the argument that part of the reason why Senator Obama is in the shape he is in today is because he's failed to run a positive campaign," said Rove. "He's run a negative campaign. He's claimed to be something new and different, and yet given these - you know, it is really beyond the pale to sit there and insinuate that Senator McCain is somehow going to attack him for being black, which is what he did for over a month."

Interesting. Rove seems to think Obama's incendiary negative attacks on McCain are the problem. Well its hard to be more negative than to call the voters a bunch of "bitter clingers".

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

If the truth hurts, I guess I hit a sore spot.

The free market isn't free Ace.

Unfortunately some ill-advised liberals have had a hand in that. We need reform to make it more free by moving away from statist ideas.

 

[urbanhack]

Obama has to be close to making a veep choice - it is August 11th and the democratic national convention in Denver begins August 25th. Republican strategist Karl Rove offered his thoughts on the pick on Face the Nation on Sunday August 10th.

Rove: Obama Will Make Political Veep Pick

Suggests Choice Of Virginian Tim Kaine Would Be An "Intensely Political Choice" That Ignores Responsibilities Of Presidency

August 10, 2008

Karl Rove believes that Barack Obama should have a significant advantage over John McCain in the polls. Rove tells Bob Schieffer that Obama's slight lead shows that people have "grave doubts" about him.

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

This is rich.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obama has to be close to making a veep choice - it is August 11th and the democratic national convention in Denver begins August 25th. Republican strategist Karl Rove offered his thoughts on the pick on Face the Nation on Sunday August 10th.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/10/...in4336134.shtml

Rove: Obama Will Make Political Veep Pick

Suggests Choice Of Virginian Tim Kaine Would Be An "Intensely Political Choice" That Ignores Responsibilities Of Presidency

August 10, 2008

Karl Rove believes that Barack Obama should have a significant advantage over John McCain in the polls. Rove tells Bob Schieffer that Obama's slight lead shows that people have "grave doubts" about him.

(CBS) Republican strategist Karl Rove said on Face The Nation Sunday that he expects presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama to choose a running mate based on political calculations, not the person's readiness for the job.

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

Kaine, who is widely seen as one leading contenders to become Obama's running mate, said that the fact that Obama is competitive in his home state of Virginia is "basically astounding" since no Democrat has won there since 1964.

He said polls that show Obama with only a slight edge over rival John McCain nationally are not a cause for concern.

"We are feeling very, very good about where the senator is in the polls and we obviously expect as America - the American electorate turns their attentions even more to this race in connection with the conventions, we expect to do - to do quite well," Kaine said.

Kaine suggested that McCain's recent ads casting Obama as a celebrity are "out of touch with what the issues are."

"I mean, it was funny, but wearing a clown suit and juggling would be funny, too, but it doesn't connect with the concerns Americans have about gas prices, about the war, about the economy," he said. "So I think on things like that, shoot, I hope the McCain camp does more of those ads and we'll just let them do those ads."

He added that while Obama is running positive ads during the Olympics, "Senator McCain is running the same old negative, Karl Rove-style ads that we're all tired of."

Rove said the closeness in the polls between McCain and Obama is a signal that Americans are have concerns about the Illinois senator.

"With a restive electorate, with an economy that's sort of chugging along, with a war in the background, at the end of eight years of Republican rule in the White House, Obama should be way ahead," Rove said. "...the fact that he isn't says that there are grave doubts about Senator Obama."

Rove said Kaine's characterization of McCain's ads compared to Obama's was wrong.

"I would make the argument that part of the reason why Senator Obama is in the shape he is in today is because he's failed to run a positive campaign," said Rove. "He's run a negative campaign. He's claimed to be something new and different, and yet given these - you know, it is really beyond the pale to sit there and insinuate that Senator McCain is somehow going to attack him for being black, which is what he did for over a month."

Interesting. Rove seems to think Obama's incendiary negative attacks on McCain are the problem. Well its hard to be more negative than to call the voters a bunch of "bitter clingers".

 

[adonis]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

If the truth hurts, I guess I hit a sore spot.

The free market isn't free Ace.

Unfortunately some ill-advised liberals have had a hand in that. We need reform to make it more free by moving away from statist ideas.

The free market left to its own devices would stifle competition and cripple consumers. It requires regulation to be a good thing for people and business. Sure, sometimes it gets out of balance on regulation side, and sometimes on the free side, but it certainly requires regulation.Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

 

[whoknew]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The free market left to its own devices would stifle competition and cripple consumers.

I can't imagine how that would work. Are you sure you're talking about a free market (i.e., voluntary transactions), rather than something more like mafia-style threats of violence?

It requires regulation to be a good thing for people and business. Sure, sometimes it gets out of balance on regulation side, and sometimes on the free side, but it certainly requires regulation.

I think on issues like this, where good empirical evidence is scant (since there have been only a few, relatively short-lived anarchistic societies), certainty is harder to come by than you're giving it credit for.

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

True, but the relevant inquiry isn't whether the free market is good at something. It's whether the free market is likely to fare better than any of the realistic alternatives. There may be situations where the free market sucks, but not as much as real-world politicians do.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The free market left to its own devices would stifle competition and cripple consumers.

I can't imagine how that would work. Are you sure you're talking about a free market (i.e., voluntary transactions), rather than something more like mafia-style threats of violence?

Monopolies and trusts down?Yes, they are...because of regulation.

 

[flufhed]

Obama gives Clinton top billing on convention's 2nd night, women's right to vote anniversaryBy NEDRA PICKLER , Associated Press HONOLULU - Hillary Rodham Clinton will headline her own night at the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama's campaign announced Sunday in a nod to her strong second-place showing in the party's presidential primary.The former first lady will speak on the second night, Tuesday, Aug. 26 — the 88th anniversary of the women's right to vote. The campaign and convention committee in a statement called her "a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today."The Obama campaign is trying to avoid hard feelings among Clinton's supporters at their carefully orchestrated convention. But they still haven't reached a deal on whether Clinton will be included in the roll call vote for the nomination, which could make the party appear divided heading into the final stretch of the White House race.The campaign said Obama's wife, Michelle, is slated to headline the opening night on Aug. 25. The high-profile appearance at the kickoff is a chance for the potential first lady, who has been attacked by critics, to get more positive exposure. Even more importantly, she can help explain her husband to voters in the most personal terms.The yet-to-be-named vice presidential pick will speak on the third night, as is the tradition. Democratic officials say Bill Clinton is also scheduled to speak that night, but only the headliners were listed in Sunday's official announcement, made while Obama was vacationing in his native state of Hawaii.The former president plans to be in the audience Tuesday to watch his wife's speech. Democratic officials say she has not decided who will introduce her, but one option is her daughter, Chelsea.One Clinton adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity because speech preparations are being kept private, said she wants to deliver a "forward-looking" speech that pays homage to the historic nature of the primary between a black candidate and a woman candidate without dwelling on the divisions.John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee who finished a distant third in the primary, was left off the speakers list as he grapples with revelations that he had an affair with a woman hired to produce campaign videos.Obama is expected to become the party's first black presidential nominee on the fourth and final night as the convention moves from Denver's indoor Pepsi Center to a bigger venue at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium. It happens to be the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.Clinton told supporters she is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the convention and be united after the hard-fought nominating contest."Because I know from just what I'm hearing, that there's incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, 'OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.' That is what most people believe is the best way to go," she said, according to video of the remarks taken by an attendee and posted on YouTube last week.Obama told reporters Thursday he thought the negotiations with Clinton aides had gone "seamlessly," but he also rejected the notion that there might be a need for emotional release on the part of some Democrats."I don't think we're looking for catharsis," said Obama. "I think what we're looking for is energy and excitement."Advisers to the New York senator said she will almost certainly not ask to have her name placed in formal nomination at the convention to avoid a divisive vote.Under DNC rules, Clinton must submit a signed, written request to have her name placed in nomination, accompanied by a petition signed by at least 300 delegates. Some Clinton delegates have circulated such petitions, but the effort is meaningless without Clinton's signed request.Delegates are not formally pledged to any candidate so Clinton does not need to "release" them to Obama. The rules also say delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination.Good move here by Obama he needs the Clinton supporters to win this thing

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

I'll throw out environmental concerns as item #1.

 

[Fennis]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include: Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

 

[Sammy3469]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

I'll throw out environmental concerns as item #1.

Or how about national defense....plus you can't tell me the recent oil activity has been great (and I'm not even talking about absolute price).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The free market left to its own devices would stifle competition and cripple consumers.

I can't imagine how that would work. Are you sure you're talking about a free market (i.e., voluntary transactions), rather than something more like mafia-style threats of violence?

Monopolies and trusts down?

Can you give an example of a monopoly that's down because of government regulation? So far as I know, no such examples exist. Standard Oil is often mentioned, most likely incorrectly.All the genuine monopolies I can think of are the result of government regulation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

I'll throw out environmental concerns as item #1.

This is where the baseline for comparison matters.The free market fails to give the environment optimal protection, but that doesn't mean that governments do any better. There is a positive correlation between horrible pollution and strongly regulatory environments. The areas where pollution is worst tend to be places like Poland, not places like Nevada.

To be sure, I agree that environmental concerns is a good example here; it's the first one I'd list myself. But IMO it's far from self-evidently a good example; it takes some defending (when comparing the shortcomings of a free market to the shortcomings of the most realistic alternatives to a free market).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include:

Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

Some of these examples are fairly naive, IMO.Regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA, for example, likely costs many more lives that it saves. It's probably the most frequently cited argument against the benefits of government regulation.

 

[whoknew]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

I'll throw out environmental concerns as item #1.

This is where the baseline for comparison matters.The free market fails to give the environment optimal protection, but that doesn't mean that governments do any better. There is a positive correlation between horrible pollution and strongly regulatory environments. The areas where pollution is worst tend to be places like Poland, not places like Nevada.

To be sure, I agree that environmental concerns is a good example here; it's the first one I'd list myself. But IMO it's far from self-evidently a good example; it takes some defending (when comparing the shortcomings of a free market to the shortcomings of the most realistic alternatives to a free market).

And in fact, isn't the free market doing much better at this?T Boone isn't working out of the goodness of his heart. And green buildings are all the rage in construction.

 

[Sweet J]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

I'll throw out environmental concerns as item #1.

This is where the baseline for comparison matters.The free market fails to give the environment optimal protection, but that doesn't mean that governments do any better. There is a positive correlation between horrible pollution and strongly regulatory environments. The countries where pollution is worst tend to be places like Poland, not places like Nevada.

To be sure, I agree that environmental concerns is a good example here; it's the first one I'd list myself. But IMO it's far from self-evidently a good example; it takes some defending (when comparing the shortcomings of a free market to the shortcomings of the most realistic alternatives to a free market).

And in fact, isn't the free market doing much better at this?T Boone isn't working out of the goodness of his heart. And green buildings are all the rage in construction.

Better than what? 100 years ago?

 

[kaa]

I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources

I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.

But realistically, the government does this sort of thing all the time. I'd far prefer to have the government shifting jobs toward the nuclear industry (for example) than the novelty-fake-vomit industry. The government could produce jobs in either industry if it chose to do so, but the first provides a much greater social gain than the second.

We have a huge national security concern with our energy situation so while I normally don't support the government involvement in steering business, this is a case where we need to put the needs of the country above the free market. I do believe in the long run that the free market would solve our energy problems, but I'd rather not go through another depression waiting for it to happen.

The free market is always the best solution.

Not enough BIG RED X's on the planet for this one.

If the truth hurts, I guess I hit a sore spot.

The free market isn't free Ace.

Unfortunately some ill-advised liberals have had a hand in that. We need reform to make it more free by moving away from statist ideas.

The free market The government left to its own devices would stifle competition and cripple consumers.

Fixed.

 

[NCCommish]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include:

Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

Some of these examples are fairly naive, IMO.Regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA, for example, likely costs many more lives that it saves. It's probably the most frequently cited argument against the benefits of government regulation.

The reason we have these regulatory devices is the market has already proven unwilling to do it itself and it undermines what we have every chance it gets.

 

[Sweet J]

There is a positive correlation between horrible pollution and strongly regulatory environments. The areas where pollution is worst tend to be places like Poland, not places like Nevada.

I agree with your second sentence. But I don't know enough to agree that it is a result of the first sentence. There are a lot of factors that might go into rivers being polluted in Poland. For one, I have no idea what the "regulatory environment" in Poland or other the Eastern block countries is like vis-a-vis polllution and polluting companies. Also, because of the tightly packed nature of the eastern european countries, we may have an "tyrrany of the commons" sort of thing (if industry in the country next door is going to pollute a shared river and get a leg up over industry in your country, there may be less incentive to "regulate" pollution).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The reason we have these regulatory devices is the market has already proven unwilling to do it itself and it undermines what we have every chance it gets.

"The market is unwilling . . ." is a metaphor. What's the literal translation?

 

[Sweet J]

By the way, I love how people will ignore BGP's new iteration, just like they learned to ignore the last one.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I agree with your second sentence. But I don't know enough to agree that it is a result of the first sentence. There are a lot of factors that might go into rivers being polluted in Poland. For one, I have no idea what the "regulatory environment" in Poland or other the Eastern block countries is like vis-a-vis polllution and polluting companies. Also, because of the tightly packed nature of the eastern european countries, we may have an "tyrrany of the commons" sort of thing (if industry in the country next door is going to pollute a shared river and get a leg up over industry in your country, there may be less incentive to "regulate" pollution).

Right. All of these issues are complicated. That's the main point I had originally set out to make. I think people are taking a lot of "certainties" for granted that really aren't certain at all.

 

[Fennis]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include:

Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

Some of these examples are fairly naive, IMO.Regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA, for example, likely costs many more lives that it saves. It's probably the most frequently cited argument against the benefits of government regulation.

I almost left that one out, because I know Libertarians like to site that one. However, to suggest that the "free" market regulate new drugs is ludicrous. You are right, look how many people are negatively affected by drugs in the market, despite large law suits, bad press, and other free market pressures. These things occur when there is a regulatory body, multiply those affects by a very large factor to see what the world would be like without the FDA.Oh, your medication didn’t seem to work, so in the future we won’t buy your products is an extremely simplistic answer.

 

[NCCommish]

The reason we have these regulatory devices is the market has already proven unwilling to do it itself and it undermines what we have every chance it gets.

"The market is unwilling . . ." is a metaphor. What's the literal translation?

Which part of that post was unclear as to it's meaning? Been taking lessons from Christo in your spare time?

 

[Jackstraw]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include:

Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

Some of these examples are fairly naive, IMO.Regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA, for example, likely costs many more lives that it saves. It's probably the most frequently cited argument against the benefits of government regulation.

I almost left that one out, because I know Libertarians like to site that one. However, to suggest that the "free" market regulate new drugs is ludicrous. You are right, look how many people are negatively affected by drugs in the market, despite large law suits, bad press, and other free market pressures. These things occur when there is a regulatory body, multiply those affects by a very large factor to see what the world would be like without the FDA.Oh, your medication didn’t seem to work, so in the future we won’t buy your products is an extremely simplistic answer.

What about patents? How many new drugs would be produced if the pharmaceuticals didn't have the protection of patents to make money off them?

 

[whoknew]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include:

Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

Some of these examples are fairly naive, IMO.Regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA, for example, likely costs many more lives that it saves. It's probably the most frequently cited argument against the benefits of government regulation.

I almost left that one out, because I know Libertarians like to site that one. However, to suggest that the "free" market regulate new drugs is ludicrous. You are right, look how many people are negatively affected by drugs in the market, despite large law suits, bad press, and other free market pressures. These things occur when there is a regulatory body, multiply those affects by a very large factor to see what the world would be like without the FDA.Oh, your medication didn’t seem to work, so in the future we won’t buy your products is an extremely simplistic answer.

What about patents? How many new drugs would be produced if the pharmaceuticals didn't have the protection of patents to make money off them?

Awesome. I was hoping MT would re-post that article on why there shouldn't be intellectual property. I've been looking for that. MT?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The reason we have these regulatory devices is the market has already proven unwilling to do it itself and it undermines what we have every chance it gets.

"The market is unwilling . . ." is a metaphor. What's the literal translation?

Which part of that post was unclear as to it's meaning? Been taking lessons from Christo in your spare time?

Sorry, I just think phrasing the point literally will help clarify the issues involved.Here's what I think you mean:

(1) Many companies care less about their customers' health than they do about their own profits.

(2) As a result, such companies will market potentially unsafe drugs to the public if doing so is likely to be profitable.

(3) There is a trade-off between (a) getting life-saving drugs to patients who need them, and (b) withholding life-threatening drugs from patients who may be harmed by them.

(4) The tort system by itself is insufficient to provide the right incentives for companies to make the trade-off in a socially responsible manner; in the absence of some additional restraint (such as regulatory oversight, or something like Consumer Reports, or any number of thousands of other possibilities somebody might think of) companies are likely to inappropriately err on the side of getting life-saving drugs to patients who need them.

(5) Of all the potential restraints hinted at in number (4), regulatory oversight or some other government-mandated solution will necessarily be closer to optimal than any of the other thousands of possibilities anyone might think of. Specifically, realistic market-based solutions will necessarily produce worse results than realistic government-based solutions.

If that's what you were getting at, I'm with you on numbers 1-3, and possibly number 4. I'd like to see some good evidence for numbers 4 and especially 5.

 

[Sweet J]

Also, there are other things that the free market isn't so good at.

In your opinion, what are these?

At a minimum doing anything that serves the overall public good, but where a financial incentive doesn’t exist.Some of these include:

Occupying third world countries, providing traffic signals, regulation of pharmaceuticals, policing large areas, protecting the food supply, regulating air traffic, building of infrastructure in under developed areas, providing fire services (fire, energy) to rural areas, funding of museums, libraries, providing education in poor areas.

Some of these examples are fairly naive, IMO.Regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA, for example, likely costs many more lives that it saves. It's probably the most frequently cited argument against the benefits of government regulation.

I almost left that one out, because I know Libertarians like to site that one. However, to suggest that the "free" market regulate new drugs is ludicrous. You are right, look how many people are negatively affected by drugs in the market, despite large law suits, bad press, and other free market pressures. These things occur when there is a regulatory body, multiply those affects by a very large factor to see what the world would be like without the FDA.Oh, your medication didn’t seem to work, so in the future we won’t buy your products is an extremely simplistic answer.

I really think we are confusing two very different points. One point is: "The side effects of the free market can be bad in certain specific situations." The other point is: "for a variety of reasons, we are better off having the government taking care of certain situations."I think Maurele and the others were talking about the former, but your examples are pretty much restricted to the latter.

I'm not sure where either one of you are going with respect to pharmaceuticals. I agree the the FDA is absolutely necessary. And I don't buy MT's statement that the FDA costs more lives than it saves. I think that would be very difficult to prove definitively either way. Altough MT doesn't usually pull stuff out of his rear, so he's probably got some link somewhere. Although I'm still calling bs.