ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics

last SG · 2007-07-19T09:34:50+00:00

Repeat after me monkey brain: "Ad Hominen attacks do not constitute an argument."

walesa SG

To be fair, 911 gave him the platform - and in a way, altered his mindset drastically and forced him to become the delusional "destiny politician" he regards himself to be - to create the mess which will always be synonymous with his administration. That, more than anything, accounts for his Iraq adventures.

The biggest issue I take with the incumbent, besides his inexcusably remarkable incompetence Laughing , was his inability to put capable people in key positions of his administration. In the context of US politics, that is what usually happens (although in this instance, his suspect intellect must have compounded matters no doubt) with someone who owes nothing to his ability and almost everything exclusively to the reputation and capability of his other family members who have him a headstart. While it's less clear he owes his place at Yale to the fact that James Prescott Bush and George HW Bush were Yale alumni, it's just about beyond any reasonable doubt anyone with his incompetence and inexperience could have risen through the ranks of the GOP the way he did - just analyse his huge war chest in the GOP Presidential primaries compared to others vying for the GOP nomination in 2000.

It says a lot about the PR abilities of a man who regards Putin as a friend, Musharraf as a credible ally and actually regards this fascist regime as worthy of paying 3 visits (at least) to while in Office, doesn't it?

The greatest remiss of the whole economic mismanagement of the Bush administration stems not so much from what things are like as they stand. Rather, you do sometimes wonder if things might have been better had the incumbent inherited his father's economy rather the one Clinton vacated - there's no denying the fact the rosy economy which existed when Clinton left Office gave the incumbent massive leeway (and by extension, massive confidence of the American masses) in the way he's run national affairs. Obviously, 911 was a just reason (whatever the consensus on his actions, it was almost a universally shared belief that he had to do something to put that right) that further accentuated the urgency of Bush's policies we've seen over the last few years. That said, the underlying reason behind the national debt could very much - IMO at least - be attributed to a string of daft and naive policies (not least, his mind-boggling estimation of timeframe required for operations in Iraq - if anything, it's the Americans who have been "shocked and awed" Laughing ).

walesa SG

You're really making me laugh.

Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, lowest inflation rate since the Kennedy administration, highest average wages across the board for all ethnicity, first administration to churn out bugdet surpluses instead of deficits since Lyndon Johnson (and that's before you consider Clinton transformed the greatest budget deficits ever to the highest budget surpluses ever during his term of office) and more people going to college than any point in time. All that for the world's strongest economy (perhaps, you need reminding the economy of scale we're talking about here). That's not an economic legacy worthy of mention?

If the drivel you've been espousing is what this regime's propaganda mouthpieces have been feeding you, I can surely understand why they're ranked 154th in the world for press freedom.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Not least, when George W. Bush returned, a lot of the ideological idiots in the previous administration returned and they single handedly created the largest ever deficit since the Great Depression or WWII. Laughing

And yes, this guy's been spouting all the crap from the ST, hardly the place to go for International news.

walesa SG

You're making me laugh, really.

Are you in the business of re-writing history? You're the first chap to tell me Reagan's spending on the military "brought down the Soviets and ended the Cold War". Laughing

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

He's been reading too many Tom Clancy books and right wing articles, i.e. The Straits Times. Laughing

walesa SG

This whole argument is pointless because there are numerous takes on it, depending on your perspective.

Officially, the USSR ceased to exist on 25th December 1991 when Gorbachev formally announced its dissolution - then again, by then, the USSR was effectively non-existent with the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) already drawn up and the former Soviet republics (as we now come to address them collectively) were in the midst of drafting their new Constitutions.

If you want to credit the dissolution of the USSR to Yeltsin, then you'd be talking about the failed coup where Yeltsin stood atop the tank (pictures of that can be found easily on the internet).

That said, it wouldn't be illogical to attribute the dissolution of the USSR to Lech Walesa and the Pope's actions in the early 1980's either, culminating in the de-satellisation of the Eastern Bloc, which eventually prompted the unrest that spreaded across the Soviet Union itself.

walesa SG

She should - and with good reason. It'd be foolhardy not to play on your strength against an opponent.

I remain convinced Al Gore made the fatal mistake in 2000 of distancing himself from the man who, despite his personal indiscretions, has an economic legacy worthy of putting him right up there with the finest individuals to have graced the White House.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

The trouble back then, was that the Republics pandered themselves to the Christian fundamentalists and successfully got them to back them. Apparently, these bastards represent some 10% of the electorate. Not only that, they got them to vote for the Republicans. Much of this was to do with superior Republican electoral planning which totally outmaneuvered the Democrats.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

THere were of course many factors that would have led to the collapse, but many of the movers of the collapse were hell-bent on taking control of the state and plundering it. It was PAP on steroids.

walesa SG

I think the bigger flaw stems from Al Gore's campaign - by distancing himself from Clinton, he made himself unavailable to most (if not all) of the key players who had propelled Clinton to office in 1992. Of course, the worse thing he could have done was to prevent Clinton, who'd readily made himself available, from campaigning for him. Besides, I'm unconvinced if Al Gore had had James Carville (the strategist who had propelled Clinton to office in '92 and re-election in '96) on board running his strategy, he'd have lost.

Of course, it's easy for me to talk about that on hindsight, but if you consider the fact that Gore lost by 537 votes in Florida - a state where more than 100, 000 votes went to Ralph Nader - and numerous other close losses elsewhere (and Gore had the simple majority, mind), the whole Clinton economic legacy could have just tipped things his way.

The whole notion of the GOP paddling their religious drivel to the fundamentalists doesn't really strike a chord with me despite it covering 10% of the eligible electorate because it's hard to track how many of those eligible in this category actually turned up to vote on election day. Referring to the above paragraph, it's pretty clear - to me, at least - Al Gore's indiscretions were instrumental in his failed bid. Ironically, if you needed an indication (Gore was needlessly worried about the female votes considering the Lewinsky affair), more women had actually voted for him in 2000 than those who did for Clinton's re-election bid in '96 - it's indeed a shame, among his other oversights, he placed too much of an emphasis on the women's votes.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Certainly if he allowed Clinton to back him, I believe more of the Democrat base would have supported him. However, if I recall correctly, feminists are quite a number in the democrat bloc and perhaps he tried to gain their support. What with the Lewinsky scandal and the feminists were baying for Clinton's blood. It might have been remedied if Hillary Clinton came out as well to support Gore.

Not entirely sure what was the state of the Democrat leadership then but the Republican political machinery managed to side track the debate into a values debate (pretty much what the PAP does every election) which the Democrats lost. It's little wonder that Hillary Clinton herself tried to play the values thing especially when she tried (foolhardy in my opinion) to ban violent video games or something like that.

Apparently, from some articles I read, the Republicans, at least for the 2004 election, went as far as getting vehicles to transport their supporters to the booths. The trouble with the electoral system of course, is that voting is not compulsory. It's one thing to get supporters, it is another to get them to vote.

Arapahoe SG

You have to be a registered voter, they are the ones that vote for either party. most poll would conduct from the pool of the registered voter.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Well, there has to be an incentive to vote... as it isn't compulsory voting.

Arapahoe SG

Hmm.perspective

I dont think Hillary is riding on Bill but more because she is might be the first female commander in chief. She is gaining popularity from different demographic that cut across party line. infact i think her last name maybe a drag rather than positively influence. Voters does not want another Bush nor Clinton to be in the whitehouse.

As for Bill his popularity maybe stronger in Asia especially after he stepped down in contrast with Walker Bush. But after 911, public took a 2nd look and the continue developing of Nuke in NK did not help his popularity within the US..but left with Monica. Both houses were dominated by Republican because voter could not find a cohesive democrats agenda.

Bill was probably more fortunate during his white house term, For economics success, I would attribute more to James Rubin abilities to reduce interest payment on national debt, and Greenspan abilities to keep interest low during the Bills years, all these help for the fed to balance budget. Bill was also fortunate that the global economy was ridding on IT growth and increase productivities. I believe the one bill was probably his legacy was 401K Plan.

As for fiscal cut, (as a matter of perspective) I think he cut too steep into CIA cold war intelligent ops. That may have weakened Intel capabilities on highlighting other threats to the United States. Especially some of the FBI/CIA works. There was serious critical report came up but than it was the beginning of a cool down period between Russia and US. Spooks were out of job. It may have contributed to Clinton miss-calculated the threats and did not response strong enough to take out Osama when he had the chance. For that he has to live with it.

I think in the US money is important to run campaign look at the campaign contribution fund they generated. Its a Lot of Money. CNN (Clinton News Network) only Fox audience is republican base. News media know how to project their candidates in a positive limelight. Opera Winfrey came out to support Obama with fund raising dinner of US$2400 a plate that is hard to bit. So money and media are important.

I think if one held a democrats view, we tend to see the positive side of it, and if you held a Republican view than it is easy to see the other way. For democrats I think I will look for the underdog John Edward Laughing

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

John Edward? Ewww... that guy is a fluff. Can't stand him whatsoever. He's the ultra-liberal type which I particularly despise. Total detachment from the realities of the situation. He was totally useless during the last John Kerry campaign. Heck, John Kerry should have picked someone else. I won't even consider him an underdog. He jolly well better be a nobody. Thank God he's not much really popular beyond a few states. Not least, that guy is .... ugh.. a total light weight in politics. You hardly see him in any of the important bills.

Hillary not getting a boost from Bill Clinton? I'm not so sure about that. Most of the American newspaper articles pretty much show that Hillary Clinton is in the lead running for the Democrat nomination, while Obama next, and John Edwards even further. That was a recent poll. A recent article in the Times magazine (US edition) show that she brings him around a fair bit, and quite a lot of people cheer for him. Even if she doesn't derive much support because of her ties to Bill Clinton, the latter is certainly helping her plan the campaign, which is a key advantage for her.

Actually, contrary to popular opinion, the CIA/FBI have been bumbling fools all the while, never mind cuts or no cuts. Things got even worse under George W Bush because he politicised the entire CIA/FBI what with his incompetent appointees. The Iraq war evidence is the largest piece of shit in a long time. They simply fired anyone who disagreed with the analysis given by Cheney and his goons.

Arapahoe SG

Laughing that is why he is underdog.

Right now it is difficult to see because they are campaning within their own party pulling supporter from one another so we always see crowd of supporters. She has to keep Bill by herside right now because public need to see candidates as a couple. also to keep him out of trouble ha ha. Remember the port ownership issue i believe clinton was the paid advisor. Laughing

I think intel from post 911 was weaked and it was further cooked and politised by Rumsfield and Cheny. I do believe that Intel during the cold war was really strong and they had connection with islamic group. Remember after 911 CIA have nothing on Afg at all.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Afghanistan was largely done through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There might have been contacts but not a whole lot. In fact, after the Soviets withdrew, the CIA couldn't recover all the American weapons. I am of the opinion that the Afghan operation really... was a stupid mistake.

Mat Toro SG

Wrong. Highest employment rate and highest salaries exists today, not during the Clinton years.

If you study US economy and politics carefully, clinton did nothing for the economy. The boom under his admin came about thru the spill over effect of the Reagan and Bush years and the IT boom. The Clinton administration was not able to even sustain the boom and we actually saw a shortage of power in California under Democrats. Recession actually set in during the Clinton admin itself.

Mat Toro SG

Good discussion and views of current US politics.

My bet is, Hilliary will win with Obama as VP.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Huh? You do realise that the US is a federation of states, and what one state does for its own energy policy isn't quite the responsibility of the Federal Government?

The Democrat, as a political party, is quite a fragmented one, since each Senator, Governor, etc. is actually answerable to the electorate? Same goes for the Republicans? I mean, even the current Republican Governor of California makes more deals with the Democrat legislators of California more than the Republican legislators.

As for sustaining the boom, the bursting of the IT bubble was quite out of the Government hands. You can't really blame them for anything, and many of the institutions exercise a fair degree of independence. This isn't Singapore you know, where the PAP exercises maximum control over everything.

And during the last 2 years of the Clinton Administration, the Republican controlled Congress simply stonewalled just about anything the Clinton Administration put out, and set the course for how the conservative right steamrolled just about anything for the last 6 years.

If there is something that Clinton can claim to, is that he reaped some of the largest surpluses the US Govt has ever had thanks to prudent spending. Contrast that against Reagan who simply spent tonnes of cash on military and other stuff and lowered taxes. The same went for the current administration.

The thing I believe I have noticed, is that the US Federal Government has very little control over the economy in general, and they only have some degree of macro control. I am no economist, but I have noticed that the economy of each state is highly dependent on how each state runs it. The Federal Bank (incidentally, the US Federal Government may appoint the Federal Board, but it does not exercise control or even own it.) is an extension of the macro control of the economy.

« Previous Page Next Page »