[RichMor]

I picked 'other'.

I believe either candidate would be a decent President and either candidate could turn out to be a good President. (Back in 2000 I thought littleGeorge might be an OK President so my predicting skills are questionable.)

But the main message I want to send with my vote is:
'bad elephant, bad elephant, go stand in the corner'.

The Republican party has become something that I consider a real danger to the 'American way of life'. The GOP no longer represents anything except fear and dislike of all who are not 'real people'.

And that's not an accident. The GOP deliberately chose to create an election strategy based on splintering the people and trying to pick up 51% of the pieces. For a while the strategy worked.

Obama tries to bring people together and form a coalition. IMO, that's mainly why Obama will win.

[y66]

"Style of governance"

I want leaders who think clearly, respect and consult others, listen, tell the truth, act with courage to do what they believe is right, constantly assess their actions against reality, make reasonable judgments and adjustments and demand these things from their colleagues and subordinates.

[Al_U_Card]

TimG, on Nov 4 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 4 2008, 08:00 AM, said:

TimG, on Nov 4 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

The greatest glories that the US has experienced in the last century have been military victories.

I would dispute that.

The US, on the other hand, has dominated the World economically, intellectually and culturally (OK, some would say entertainment-vise instead of culturally, but that's just another word for the same). In fact the only areas in which the Soviet Union was able to compete were military and sport.

If you asked an Ameican on the street what the greatest US glory of the last century was (and expected an answer within a few seconds), none (or very few) would say moving Disney to Paris or dominating the world economy (if that is even true) or cite the number of Nobel Prizes or Gold Medals that have been won by Americans.

Victories in WWI and WWII would be overwhelming winners, I think. Being the first to place a man on the moon would probably be 3rd; "winning" the Cold War 4th.

The greatest glory of the US last century, previous century, since its inception was to create a novel form of government (pretty rare occurance when you consider the previous trials and errors of "civilized" mankind) that had the potential and the capacity to function adequately without danger of hi-jacking or subversion. (Despite the best efforts of neocons and other nefarious types since it's inception.)

The only question is will it be resilient enough to withstand the latest onslaught?

[jonottawa]

His grandma was a bridge player. She even played at the Dallas Nationals in 1997. Good enough reason?

[kenberg]

TimG, on Nov 4 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 4 2008, 05:49 AM, said:

And this in a country so large that foreign relations should barely matter. In the EU, overseas relations are the theme of some 0.01% of all political debate.

There is, to me, a stunning amount of "American are the best" rhetoric in the US. Listen to any stump speech and you'll here "Americans are the most innovative" or "Americans are the hardest working" or any other number of superlatives. I don't know how you measure most of these things, but I doubt many of them are true, it's just the candidate trying to make the public feel good about themselves by putting down the rest of the world.

But, the US probably does have the biggest army, the most bombs, the largest navy, etc. This is an area where America is best (if size matters). It is not surprising to me that millions of Americans cling to the "strong military" line -- it's a way for them to feel superior to the rest of the world.

There's also a sense that the US saved the world from evil in WWI and WWII and the way the US did that was by flexing its military muscles. The greatest glories that the US has experienced in the last century have been military victories. There are people born in the second half of the 20th century that say "we beat Hitler" even though they had nothing to do with it.

I think lots of people, whether consciously or not, vote big military because big military gives a sense of pride, importance, and superiority.

I have a pretty high regard for the importance of the military but I would not put it the way you have. I see it as:

German tanks rolled into Paris in 1940 because they could.
The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941 because they could.
I could add: The white man took the North American continent from the native population because we could.
The Berlin Airlift took place in 1948 (if I have the year right) because the Russians were unable to prevent it.
Like it or not, I don't believe the world is different now, and I don't expect it to become different. I hope we use our power with wisdom, restraint, and with respect for all mankind. But I think that it is important that we have the power. Breast beating and parades have nothing to do with my views.
And I am not under the impression that the US, by its lonesome, saved the world from evil. I think we made major contributions to that effort.
Military force is most certainly not the only thing. The Soviet Union was really defeated economically, although there was a strong military component to that economic defeat. To say that the military component is an important part of our national life does not at all mean ignoring the great importance of the economy, education, science, political freedom, and so on.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 4 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Style of governance.

mine is philosophy of gov't, which is probably pretty close to this

I don't think what you mean is anything near what I mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are referring to things like understanding the role of federal vs state government, whereas I am referring to things like how the president makes decisions about which policy proposals to support and how to get people who might not completely agree on board.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 4 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Style of governance.

mine is philosophy of gov't, which is probably pretty close to this

I don't think what you mean is anything near what I mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are referring to things like understanding the role of federal vs state government, whereas I am referring to things like how the president makes decisions about which policy proposals to support and how to get people who might not completely agree on board.

no, you're right... it's just that the i believe the things you mention are answered from within a person's philosophy of government... that's why i said they were pretty close (imo)

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Nov 4 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

Military force is most certainly not the only thing. The Soviet Union was really defeated economically, although there was a strong military component to that economic defeat. To say that the military component is an important part of our national life does not at all mean ignoring the great importance of the economy, education, science, political freedom, and so on.

I agree that the "US victory in the cold war" was not military. I also agree that there was a large economic component to it.

But I think the largest factor in the end of the cold war was the unilateral decision by Gorbachev to 'just stop it'. He rightfully thought that the cold war was competely useless, that it sucked up money (yes, from the economy) into the black hole that the military was. Most importantly, Gorbachev had the nerve to stand up to the military (armed forces and military industry) where up to then, the power of the Soviet military in Soviet politics had been undisputed.

Now, we are about twenty years later. In the USA, the military (industry) is still largely determining the foreign political agenda. Instead of reducing the influence of the military in Washington, Bush only allowed the influence of the military in Washington to grow. I hope that Barack Obama can achieve what Gorbachev did (meanwhile avoiding the inevitable mistakes that Gorbachev made) and reduce the power of the military (industry) in the USA considerably.

Imagine what would happen to the financial crisis if only 5% of the military (industry) expenses are cut and redistributed to home owners. (Soldiers who were painting tanks would be laid off. They would end up in the free market and paint houses instead. The only thing that would change is the object that they are painting and the color of the paint. And of course, the free market would tell what they should be doing, rather than the government.) Or imagine that only 5% of the DOD research budget in Physics, Chemistry and Engineering would be redirected to applications like renewable energy. (You can use the same researchers to do that.)

But it takes a vision and guts to stand up to the military industry and achieve this. And I am sure that vision and guts alone are not good enough, given the enormous influence of the US military on the US society today. But, hey, I can dream, can't I?

Rik

[mike777]

" agree that the "US victory in the cold war" was not military. "

I think people forget history too easy.
1) Korean war was part of cold war..
2) Vietnam war was part of cold war
3) Greece war was part of cold war
4) Indonesia war was part of cold war
5) etc etc shooting wars that killed many many........
6) Germany willing to nuke its people and land for thousands years of waste was part of cold war.........( to stop USSR tanks) this was a supreme brave act.....

I agree Regan pushing USSR into an arms war hurt the economy of USSR but the USSR economy was on edge...just needed Regan push.......

[mike777]

"Now, we are about twenty years later. In the USA, the military (industry) is still largely determining the foreign political agenda. Instead of reducing the influence of the military in Washington, Bush only allowed the influence of the military in Washington to grow. I hope that Barack Obama can achieve what Gorbachev did (meanwhile avoiding the inevitable mistakes that Gorbachev made) and reduce the power of the military (industry) in the USA considerably"


I think you are extremely naive if you think the defense budget will be cut one USA buck.


I predict that at end of 4 year term....Defense budget is up billions and billions from 2008. ..OK I bet it is up tens of billions......

"and reduce the power of the military (industry) in the USA considerably""



If we are going to bet on reducing "power" then you need to come up with some measurement we can agree on........I wait to see Obama say.....I am going to reduce the "power" of the military........send me email when he does ty.

Send me email when Obama says we are going to reduce the Defense Industry compared to 2008...ty...

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on Nov 5 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

Most importantly, Gorbachev had the nerve to stand up to the military (armed forces and military industry) where up to then, the power of the Soviet military in Soviet politics had been undisputed.

Are you talking about the KGB or the actual military?

The military (proper) was quite subsurvient to the Communist Party apparatus. Trotsky had a power base in the Red Army. However, things changed a lot under Stalin.

[JoAnneM]

I worry about people who would pick just one issue and vote based on that. It is wrong and short-sighted. That is why your poll is flawed.

[Lobowolf]

JoAnneM, on Nov 5 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

I worry about people who would pick just one issue and vote based on that. It is wrong and short-sighted. That is why your poll is flawed.

Whether it's wrong and short-sighted or not, many, many people do just that (ask Joe Lieberman). Off the top of my head, I know many people who voted entirely on the Middle East, or entirely on abortion (particularly with a toss-up Supreme Court and a couple of appointments probably in the balance).

But the poll wasn't designed to ferret out "the only reason" for anyone's vote, but rather the most important reason. The fact that most people have an issue that is more important to them than other issues doesn't imply that it's the only issue their vote is based on. That is why your comment is flawed.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2008, 06:00 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Nov 5 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

Most importantly, Gorbachev had the nerve to stand up to the military (armed forces and military industry) where up to then, the power of the Soviet military in Soviet politics had been undisputed.

Are you talking about the KGB or the actual military?

The military (proper) was quite subsurvient to the Communist Party apparatus. Trotsky had a power base in the Red Army. However, things changed a lot under Stalin.

As far as I can remember and from a Western European perspective:

The military was subsurvient under the strong leadership of Stalin, but under the weaker leaders Andropov and Tchernenko the military top was quite influential 'behind the scenes'. When Gorbachev came into power he was trying to reduce this influence and he managed fairly well. He wanted to reform the economy at the expense of the military (and he actually managed to reduce the military, leaving a lot of soldiers unemployed).
Obviously, the generals were not enthusiastic. Gorbachev and the military top were in a power struggle which then led to the famous military coup with the surrounding of the parliament and the famous scene of Boris Yeltsin on top of a tank. That, in turn, led to the end of the Gorbachev era.

While Gorbachev had been wrestling the top of the army, Yeltsin basically charmed the rifles off the soldiers' shoulders. The soldiers started to follow Yeltsin, rather than their generals. (Remember that the soldiers hadn't been paid for a long time. That wasn't exactly the case for the generals.)

So, I would say that the influence of the military on the Soviet politics was large before Stalin, then from Stalin through Chrustchev was relatively small. Under Breznjev the influence of the military started to increase somewhat and after Breznjev the influence if the military was substantial again until Gorbachev did something about it.

Meanwhile, the influence of the KGB was 'more or less constant' from Stalin through the beginning of the Gorbachev era.

Rik

[jdonn]

JoAnneM, on Nov 5 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

I worry about people who would pick just one issue and vote based on that. It is wrong and short-sighted. That is why your poll is flawed.

I don't see what's wrong with the poll. It includes factors other than political issues, and anyway it just asks what's the biggest factor in your decision not what's the only factor.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Nov 5 2008, 04:09 AM, said:

" agree that the "US victory in the cold war" was not military. "

I think people forget history too easy.
1) Korean war was part of cold war..
2) Vietnam war was part of cold war
3) Greece war was part of cold war
4) Indonesia war was part of cold war
5) etc etc shooting wars that killed many many........
6) Germany willing to nuke its people and land for thousands years of waste was part of cold war.........( to stop USSR tanks) this was a supreme brave act.....

The war was military (or parts of it were). But the ending of the cold war wasn't. The idea that the USA won the Cold war is prevalent in the USA, but not in other parts of the world.

Quote

I agree Regan pushing USSR into an arms war hurt the economy of USSR but the USSR economy was on edge...just needed Regan push.......

This is the great American misconception about the end of the Cold war. In the US, people think that Reagan won the Cold war. In Europe, people saw that Gorbachev pretty much unilaterally 'decided' to end the madness irrespective of what the US was doing or whoever happened to be the president. (If Mickey Mouse would have been the US president at the time, the people of the USA would have thought that Mickey Mouse had won the Cold war.)

Gorbachev was the Soviet leader who didn't care about starting to win the Cold war. He just wanted to stop losing it, so he ended the Cold war. No US president (or Soviet party leader for that matter) had ever thought of not losing a war by just ending it. (Remember that not only the USSR was losing the Cold war. The USA was losing it too and so was Europe and probably the rest of the world. Imagine how the USA would have been booming if they wouldn't have spend all those resources on the arms race.)

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of what happened. The strong point of the Reagan administration was that they were willing to listen to what Gorbachev had to say. In the process, Ronald Reagan and Mikael Gorbachev developed quite a liking for each other (as did Nancy and Raisa). That helped a lot. It enabled an atmosphere of hard, but candid negotiations where the two leaders understood each other's positions. I don't think Mickey Mouse would have been able to do that. Nevertheless, it is clear that the initiative to end the Cold war came from Gorbachev.

Rik

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Nov 5 2008, 04:22 AM, said:

I think you are extremely naive if you think the defense budget will be cut one USA buck.

The end of my post stated:

Quote

But, hey, I can dream, can't I?

I think that I am perfectly aware that the sketched scenario is not likely to occur.

Rik