click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Bar Stool Economics
by C Michael PattonOctober 28th, 2008
146 Comments
This is saying the same thing I said a few weeks ago about a demotivated work force. Punish the rich and you may not get your beer at all.
Source Unknown (if you wrote it, claim it).
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Similar Posts:
- When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?
- Belated Twelve Days of Calvinism
- Culture11
- Is Obama the Antichrist?
- It comes in pints? I'm gettin' one . . .
Loading ...
146 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Brit–I’ll take a stab at the McCain and his views on abortion question. As I have researched this particular issue I found that McCain was largely painted as a moderate for two reasons. He conceeds in the case of rape and a mother’s health that abortion should be available. And, he approves stem cell reseach on stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed. Otherwise his voting has been pretty conservative/prolife. He was painted moderate in primary campaigns when there were clearly candidates more conservative than he. Senator Obama is about as prochoice as one can get even saying he would select judges who would uphold Roe vs Wade (although not so bluntly). Perhaps those using ths issue as their sole decission maker are picking the lesser of two evils.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Minnow
Thanks for your comments.
I am glad to hear that John McCain would support abortion on those two particular issues. That is a healthy shift from the 100% anti-abortion stance.
Certain people on the conservative right are not in favour of abortion even in the case of rape, and are dubious about terminating on the grounds od protecting a mother’s health. These are the people in the Republican party who should not be voting for either candidate in my opinon, given their disposition to highlight the abortion issue at any and every possible opportunity. Such a vote could not be cast with any real sense of integrity, certainty or conviction.
I have personal experience of a committed Christian relative who was viciously raped while tending the grave of a family friend in a cemetery in broad daylight while she was still a teenager and a virgin. I can still remember the agonising wait we had to endure to discover if she was pregnant or not.
I remember thinking then, and I still believe the same now, if she had fallen pregnant, and she had decided to keep the baby as her own, or give birth to it and then offer it for adoption I would have backed her 100%.
However, if she had said that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy, I would have also supported her all the way 100%. What was the most important thing is that it would have been HER decision to make and nobody else’s! So in this type of scenario I am most definitely unashamedly pro-choice, and what is more, knowing what she had gone through, I am equally sure that God would have understood whatever decision she had made and loved her exactly the same.
With regard to getting perturbed, when someone says things about me (ie I am apostate..I would hope you do not agree, but you might!) that is fine, it is water off a duck’s back and actually I tend to find it rather amusing and view it almost as a badge of honour! After all if they are talking diSparagingly about me then at least they are leaving someone else alone!
However, what pettrubed me most was when someone else (in this instance, Barack Obama) is being attacked in the strongest terms and in the most abusive and vilest ways possible. What daisappointed me more than most was that apart from one person (Terry) nobody mailed in to challenge the tone of the language. Silence in the light off such abusive language often signifies tacit apptroval in my book. I have to say Minnow, that I did think that you would be one of the people who would have commented but sadly that was not the case. Just because you do not wish to vote for him does not mean you cannot defend him when abused in such a way does it?
Can I also ask Minnow that there is a slighly less use of the generalisation an dthe exaggeration which Republicans appear to have made into a fine art.
“eg My problem with Obama (and democrats in general) is that he seems to think more government can solve all our problems.£
I do not think that increased government is the answer to ALL our problems. It may be a partial solution to some problems, but certainly not all. It does annoy me when genrealisations are made in order to exaggerate a point, and it happens all too often I am afriad.
“My disappointment in the Church is that we have dropped the ball when it come to being the hands, feet, eyes, ears, and heart of Christ.
Secondly, I fully agree with you in the first part of this staement with the exceoption that you were not specidfic enough. Surely yopur diasappopintment must be wmore woth the conservative-ebvangeoilcal wing of the church fro they are the ones who have truly dropped the ball, that’s assuming they ecver picked it up in the first place, which is open to debate! I guess you are most disappointed with your own consituebncy which I admiore you for.
“It is to OUR shame that any would see Senator Obama ( or the government) as savior.”
Yes Minnow, I agree! But I would hjust like to contend that again this is a massiv eexaggeration. At no point have I ever in dicated that Barack Obama will eb “America’s or the world’s Saviour” There is ony one perason who lays claimt o that title and he has been, gone and at some time will retuen
I personally bel;ieve rthat Obama has a deeper level of statemsmandship and vision than McCain./ I a, also deeply impressed by the way he and Michelle have handled themselvdes, not seeing the sdeperate and opatheic need to go and Saturday Night live in a derpaerate bid tp get a few more voteas! Not onlty that there has been some horrifiic iand slanderous insinuations that have been made and Obaam has risen above it all. He is a man of really stron character, buit I do not in any way shape or formview him as a Savoiour. As I mentioned before, I have seen two British Prime Min sters arrive in similar euphoric diaster, one, Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative (Republican) and the other, Tony Blair Labour (Democrat) !
Both of them were as disastrous as each other so I am naturally averse to hailing anyone as a “Saviour”.
I do think however, that should McCain be eleceted he would be an immesureable inmprovement on the current Bush Republican administration. Having said that, wouldn’t any candidate have been able to achieve that…it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult now would it?
Like or Dislike:
0
I was editing it butran out of time allowed before getting to the the closing paragraphs Yes Minnow, I so here goes!
agree! But I would hjust like to contend that again this is a massiv eexaggeration. At no point have I ever in dicated that Barack Obama will eb “America’s or the world’s Saviour” There is ony one perason who lays claimt o that title and he has been, gone and at some time will retuen
I personally bel;ieve rthat Obama has a deeper level of statemsmandship and vision than McCain./ I a, also deeply impressed by the way he and Michelle have handled themselvdes, not seeing the sdeperate and opatheic need to go and Saturday Night live in a derpaerate bid tp get a few more voteas! Not onlty that there has been some horrifiic iand slanderous insinuations that have been made and Obaam has risen above it all. He is a man of really stron character, buit I do not in any way shape or formview him as a Savoiour. As I mentioned before, I have seen two British Prime Min sters arrive in similar euphoric diaster, one, Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative (Republican) and the other, Tony Blair Labour (Democrat) !
Both of them were as disastrous as each other so I am naturally averse to hailing anyone as a “Saviour”.
I do think however, that should McCain be eleceted he would be an immesureable inmprovement on the current Bush Republican administration. Having said that, wouldn’t any candidate have been able to achieve that…it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult now would it?
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
Congress has the final say in everything. Has the Bush administration failed? How so? Did Bush incite the unprincipled business practices and headless approvals to unworthies for home loans? Did Bush cause 9/11? Clinton had Usama bin Laden in his cross-hairs years ago and didn’t take him out!
What of Homeland security?
If the Bush administration has failed, Congress has failed too!
Usama, opps, Obama wants to go to war in Pakistan and he’s not even elected! Obama is a racist!
Iraq has a 450,000 man standing army and they can’t even defend their own country – STILL!
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
This is how the closing stages of the post should have read! Eureka..I think I have got it right this time!
I would just like to contend that again this is a massive exaggeration. At no point have I ever indicated that Barack Obama will be “America’s or the world’s Saviour” There is only one person who lays claim to that title and he has been, gone and at some time will return.
I personally believe that Obama has a deeper level of statesmanship and a broader world vision than McCain. I also have been deeply impressed by the way he and Michelle have handled themselves, not seeing the desperate need to go on Saturday Night live a la Palin, in a pathetic bid to shore up a few more votes! Not only that, but there have been some horrific and slanderous insinuations that have been made about him, yet Obama has risen above it all. He is a man of really strong character but I do not believe he is a “saviour” in any way, shape or form.
As I have mentioned before, I have seen two British Prime Ministers arrive in similar euphoric diaster, one, Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative (Republican) and the other, Tony Blair Labour (Democrat) ! Both of them proved to be unmitigating disasters, so I am naturally averse to hailing anyone as a “Saviour”.
I do think however, that should McCain be elected he would be an immeasureable improvement on the current Bush Republican administration. Having said that, wouldn’t any candidate have been able to achieve that…it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult now would it?
I for one am not taking anything for granted. I think it will be a lot closer than people have been predicting If McCain does get in, it will not be an unmitigated disaster, I would just prefer an Obama administration personally. Either way, God will still be Sovereign on the throne, so we can all take a few deep breaths and rest assured!
Regards
Phil
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
You have entirely missed the point and issues altogether.
You remark:
“This is where I found your argument more than a bit confusing. You seem to be very sympathetic towards Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen, Vijay Samuel etc.. Yet they are still Anglican in their practice and sacerdotal by nature. Is this an Orwellian case of “All Anglicans are apostate, bit those on GAFCON are less apostate than the other?”
I know you Anglicans have canons/individuals and address them as such, but really, you have not mentioned one single verse from Scripture that supports the posture of the “apostates” within the pale of the Church.
When did the bride of Christ become a brazen whore?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Vladimir
Please explain.
In what way exactly are we a “brazen whore?” Please, do enlighten me, I would like to know!
Sounds like yet another insulting badge of honour to add to an ever-increasing and expanding list?
Also you don’t have to mention Scripture all the time. You can argue from Scriptural principles, not merely by using Scriptural verses/proof-texts.
I would seriously contend that you often use Scripture, but some of the tone and content of your postings do not sit well with Scriptural injunctions on behaviour towards others when you look at some of their tone and content.
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
Two issues:
1. When did God ever condone homosexuality?
2. When did God condone the ordination of women to public ecclesiastical office?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
“…Please, do enlighten me…”
As a public reader you should consult your oracle – the word of God. It is the Christian’s SOURCE of theology.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
God does not condone homosexual practice. Neither do I.
I do believe there are examples in Scripture where God called women to leadership. I am not going to get in a debate with you here but I believe it to be true. What I will say is that I have sat under the ministry of a number of female ordinands and I do not have any doubts whatsoever that they are called, gifted and anointed by God. A number of them are significantly better at their job and more gifted in their calling than some of the men I have encountered! Immeasureably so in some cases!
Do you also hold the Baptist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Methodist Church, Congregational Church, Presbyterian Church and parts of the Pentecostal Church as apostate, because they all ordain women? Or is just the Anglican church that is afforded that luxury?
If so, heaven is not going to be that full is it. You will have plenty of space and freedom to roam around those heavenly mansions.
Can I just mention a few names of those who have down the centuries been part of this so-called “brazen whore”.
Thomas Cranmer, Lord Shaftesbury, William Wilberforce, William Temple, Countess of Huntingdon, CS Lewis, Rev Dr John Stott, Dr J I Packer, Rev Dr Alec Motyer, NT Wright, Elaine Storkey, Donald Coggan, Desmond Tutu, David Watson, Baroness Cox, David Sheppard, George Carey, John Sentamy; Sandy Millar, Nicky Gumbel, Peter Akinola, Peter Jensen, Vijay Samuel
Given that all the above are clearly apostate and part of the brazen whore and who are in your opinion all hellbound, can I just say Vladimir, you are the only Christian I have ever met who has succeeded in making heaven appear one of the most unpleasant places to reside for all eternity, while at the same time also making hell appear to be a much more preferable and pleasing alternative. I for one do not wish to partake in your sanitised, exclusivist, isolationist version of heaven. You are more than welcome to it!
Also can I just challenge your assertion that you are using Scripture as your final authority. I think you are using your interpretation, or your denomination’s (whatever that denomination may be) interpretation of Scripture as your yardstick and treating that interpretation as if it is perfect, infallible, and beyond reproach.
In reality, your interpretation is merely the construct of a fallible human being/organisation/denomination. Nothing more and nothing less.
Like or Dislike:
0
The answer: the site you’re quoting is falsely equating McCain and Obama on this issue. McCain’s views on both issues are moderate/conservative; Obama’s views are extremely libertine (Palin’s are extremely conservative).
Obama has backed legislation which allows doctors to freely abandon newborns to death who are born alive during abortion attempts; he has also opposed legislation which attempts to regulate and reduce this practice, so we can be assured that his intent is clear. This is not an unheard of or minor thing, either; although it’s not immensely common (since late-term abortions are unusual), it does regularly happen, and because some women have sued their doctors for malpractice after an abortion left them with a live child, doctors have a financial incentive to make sure the baby is DEAD.
This is not right; it’s not Christian; it’s not humane; it’s not HUMAN. Calling it “extreme” is taking it too lightly. It is entirely unacceptable.
“Bloodlust” is a peculiar choice of words in this instance. Do you mean “bloodless”? It would seem that a desire to see less killing of innocents wouldn’t earn the term “bloodlust”.
But yes, the purpose of Palin’s nomination was to appease the conservatives, who were and are concerned that McCain would compromise his principles in his desire for a legacy. Palin’s nomination serves as a down payment of sorts.
And it would be foolish to disregard Palin when voting for or against McCain; he won’t be serving a second term. If he’s elected and his legacy carries on, it’ll be most likely through her succeeding him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi William
“And it would be foolish to disregard Palin when voting for or against McCain; he won’t be serving a second term. If he’s elected and his legacy carries on, it’ll be most likely through her succeeding him.”
I acknowledge that you have said “if he’s elected and his legacy carries on” but isn’t is a bit presumptuous to assume that:
a the Republican party will want Sarah Palin to take over the helm as their presidential candidate if John McCain retires in four years time. Just becasue she is Vice-presidnet does not ensure her a shoe-in at the next election does it?
b given the penchant for politicians to cling onto power for as long as they possibly can, and given that Ronald Reagan was way older than McCain will be in four years time, I have my doubts that McCain would voluntarily hand over the reins to Palin anyway.
c In order to succeed him, Palin will have to elected by the public in four years time. I am not as confident as you are that she would successfully win an election campaign under her own steam given what I have seen during this campaign. This might be the biggest ask of all!
Also William, can I just say that I do not include you as someone who has a one or two issue approach to the electoral process. You appear to have a wider economic/political vision than that, which I greatly respect.
The only Republican people who I would argue should not vote for McCain are those who are against abortion full stop and there are plenty of those. I do not agree that voting for Sarah Palin is a satisfactory alternative for them. They should not, in all conscience be voting for either candidate tomorrow.
A vote merely to “stop Obama” is not a good enough argument.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Clinton had Usama bin Laden in his cross-hairs years ago and didn’t take him out!
Just like Bush Senior had Saddam Hussein in his “cross-hairs years ago you mean, and failed to finish the job and take him out, which is the real reason we went into IOraq it would appear – to deal with asome unfinished family business! To try and accomplish what Dad could not!
“Obama is a racist!”
On what premise do you make this claim which is astonishing even by your standards
Given that the Bush regime has already made numerous incursions into Pakistan in recent months, killing many innocent civilians in the process, then surely your beloved George Bush Jr administration must be a racist one too!
“Iraq has a 450,000 man standing army and they can’t even defend their own country STILL!”
Isn’t that partly what the American and other allied forces are in Iraq to do, to train and equip the Iraqis to defend their own country. Well it can’t be claimed to be a “job well done” exactly, can it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Vadimir
While I would never subscribe to your view that Obama is a racist, I do have experience of inter-ethnic hostility and tension.
The city where I studied for my degreee is one of the most multi-ethnic integrated cities in the whole of the UK.
During my time od study there, Indira Gandhi the Inadian Prime Min siter was shot dead.
I can remember the palpable tension there ws between Sikhs and Hindus and the acts of exteme violene that took place in the aftermath of her death.
Racis is deplorable and unacceptable whether it is white upon black, black upon white, or inter-ething iie basded ion tribe, religion, sect or caste rather than on coskin colour.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vladimir
I apologise profusely…I should have got it right first time and didn’t! It should have read…
While I would never subscribe to your view that Obama is a racist, I do have experience of inter-ethnic hostility and tension.
The city where I studied for my degree is one of the most multi-ethnic integrated cities in the whole of the UK.
During my time of study there, Indira Gandhi the Indian Prime Minister was shot dead.
I can remember the palpable tension there was during the immediate aftermath between Sikhs and Hindus, and the acts of exteme violence that took place following her death.
Racism is deplorable and unacceptable whether it is white upon black, black upon white, or inter-ethnic ie based on tribe, religion, sect or caste rather than on skin colour.
Like or Dislike:
0
No… It just means that she’s what he’s chosen right now as his legacy. She wasn’t chosen because she was the next biggest vote-getter in the primaries (that’s the traditional way to choose a VP, as Reagan chose Bush I) or because she’s a recognized expert in a field in which the Presidential candidate is weak (that’s the most common current reason to choose a VP, as Bush II chose Cheney and Obama chose Biden); it’s because McCain HAD to prove that he wanted to leave a legacy that was acceptable to his conservative base.
Reagan was about 2 years younger than McCain when elected. And in spite of how popular he was and remains, I get the impression that people suspect he faded a lot during his second term, and you shouldn’t think for a moment that the Republicans want the Democrats to be using THAT against them.
As for handing over the reins… Um, if he hated the idea, he wouldn’t have nominated her for VP. The VP is the only reliable place to gain experience for the presidency, and it’s the most reliable way to launch a bid for it. And even if McCain decides not to retire, and even if the party decides to back him (which seems to me like it would be foolish), he still has to hand over power after 8 years — and, again, that power usually goes to the VP.
I definitely didn’t say that Palin was a shoo-in to win; I just said that McCain picked her as his intended successor.
But I think judging her based on what you’ve seen is premature. Take a look at her gubernatorial campaign (some of the debates are on youtube); it’s pretty clear that her weakness in this campaign was a matter of bad preparation, not of stupidity. She won her previous campaigns while running against her own party establishment AND against the opposing party. That’s not easy.
Thank you, Phil. I appreciate that, and I do try to analyze without being overly caught up in partisan fervor. It’s easy for me to act like a sports fan cheering on the home team, but it’s usually neither practical nor prudent.
This is an odd thing to say in two respects.
First, you have no reason to think you understand what Republicans or pro-lifers want.
Second, you assume that McCain himself is heading in a direction that the “full stop” people don’t like. Perhaps he’s not as aggressive as they want to be; but he’s clearly heading in the right direction, and Palin is headed there a bit faster.
An analogy might be that pro-lifers think we’re on a bus heading off the edge of a cliff. A vote to slow the bus down isn’t good enough, and a responsible single-issue pro-lifer would probably not vote. But a vote to stop the bus is good enough; a vote to turn the bus around and drive slowly away is good enough. Yes, we might want to drive FAST the other direction, but if the only politically plausible choice is to stop… That’s good enough.
Why not?
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
It is not as difficult as you and the individual’s and even the denominations you mentioned above make it out to be in understanding the biblical authors and God’s social order.
You and those afore mentioned make it plain that you don’t understand the biblical text – esp. St Paul.
I didn’t say anything about hell – you did. But, if an apostate is disobedient/rebellious against God – not me, then you can make of it what you will (and I’m convinced now you’ll do just that).
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
“There are certain adherents (though by no means all) within the Anglo-Catholic fraternity which can only be described as “pure camp”, manifesting itself, amongst other things, in the dressing up in layers upon layers of colourful vestments. I can assure you, their flamboyance would not look at all out of place in the gay parade. You may even find that, after the meeting has finished, one or two of the GAFCON bishops might secretly head for the streets to enjoy the party!”
Is this a slight to the signifcance of the vestments of the high church or a loose slander and unfounded defamation of character from you or is it a reference to the fickleness of some in the clergy?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi William
“But I think judging her based on what you’ve seen is premature. Take a look at her gubernatorial campaign (some of the debates are on youtube); it’s pretty clear that her weakness in this campaign was a matter of bad preparation, not of stupidity.”
Whatever the reason for the weaknesses in her gubernatorial campaign it is still very worrying that she performed so poorly. Why did she fail to prepare for these events? Did she think she could just wing it? Was she complacent? If it was merely a case of time constraints resulting in lack of preparation time, well part of the making of a good President/Vice President is that they perform well when under pressure, therefore the “lack of time” excuse does not wash either.
So why did she prepare so badly? It is a question that needs asking and requires answering if I am to be convinced that she has what it takes to be Vice-President/President-in-waiting.
“it’s because McCain HAD to prove that he wanted to leave a legacy that was acceptable to his conservative base.”
That’s interesting, so it was a convenient decision rather than a correct decision. He appointed her not because she was the best person for the job but merely to appease the baying of the more conservative right?
“Second, you assume that McCain himself is heading in a direction that the “full stop” people don’t like. Perhaps he’s not as aggressive as they want to be; but he’s clearly heading in the right direction, and Palin is headed there a bit faster.”
I still think this is not acceptable. The way some pro-lifers aggressively push a totally anti-abortion line, I find it amazing that they can lower their standards to uncritically vote in a candidate who in certain circumstances is both pro-abortion and pro gay civil union.
In fact the second issue is more worrying than the first for more conservative Repuiblicans. With regard to the pro civil rights for gay couples in what way exactly is McCain “going in the right direction”. Please enlighten me.
“A vote to slow the bus down isn’t good enough, and a responsible single-issue pro-lifer would probably not vote.”
This is what I would hope and expect from responsible single issue voters, however I still think they will vote in order to try and stop Obama.
“An analogy might be that pro-lifers think we’re on a bus heading off the edge of a cliff.”
I think it is a clever analogy, although I think we may find today that the bus which American voters want to stop from plunging down the cliff and to turn around is the Republican driven bus. They desperately want a change of direction, and they want it now, today!
A vote merely to “stop Obama” is not a good enough argument.
Why not?
Because like so much of the Republican campaign this year it is a purely negative vote, (I have never heard such a negative bunch of people in all my life as the Republicans this time around) borne out of fear-mongering and at times unjustified personal abuse of Obama. What positive things has McCain got to offer? I have hardly heard any! What positive things has he presented to the American public?
To vote to merely “stop Obama” and not because you genuinely believe in McCain, means the Republican party must be in a truly desperate state of affairs.
Like or Dislike:
0
It is not as difficult as you and the individual’s and even the denominations you mentioned above make it out to be in understanding the biblical authors and God’s social order.
You and those afore mentioned make it plain that you don’t understand the biblical text – esp. St Paul.
I didn’t say anything about hell – you did. But, if an apostate is disobedient/rebellious against God – not me, then you can make of it what you will (and I’m convinced now you’ll do just that).
Vladimir
Hi Vladimir
Do I detect a slight softening in the apostate approach. Could it possibly be that some of us apostates may not end up in hell but may be alongside you in heaven after all.
Correct me if I am wrong, but when people accuse an individual or a denomination or series of deniominations of being apostate it is usually the case that they are suggesing that such people are hell, rather than heaven bound.
Where I think you are completely wrong is that my eternal salvation is dependent solely on how I responded to the saving work that Jesus Chjrist undertook in dying for my sins on the cross at Calvary and rising to eternal life. It is my faith in him that will gain me entrance into heaven.
My eternal salvation will NOT be based on my view of the ordination of women. It will be a secondary, minor issue. You may have a tick list of obligations which people have to fulfil in order to be assured of their place in heaven, but I am sure that God’s list is much shorter and less oppressive.
Also my Bible, in the book of Revelation I read of a heavenly vision of eternity being filled with people from every tribe, every race, every tongue and every nation. That means that there will be countless people there who will be “DIFFERENT” from you and me. Heaven will be full of creative diversity and wonderful variety and not dull, bland uniformity.
I do not subscribe to a version of a spiritually ethnically cleansed heaven (ie removing from heaven those who do not believe or subscribe to certain doctrines to the nth degree). That does not mean I am a universalist (I am most definitely not!). I just wonder sometimes Vladimir, what you believe the entrance requirements to heaven actually are?
“Is this a slight to the significance of the vestments of the high church or a loose slander and unfounded defamation of character from you or is it a reference to the fickleness of some in the clergy?”
“Next week about 1,000 senior conservative figures, including Archbishop Akinola and other African and South American leaders, will meet in Jerusalem to discuss the way forward at Gafcon.
The city’s annual gay parade is due to take place at the same time.”
Actually Vladimir, I did not see the need for you to make the comment about the gay parade in Jerusalem taking place a the same time as the Gafcon conference. Why the need to mention it?
With regard to your question, I would contend that there are some in extremely high church settings who do enjoy the “dressing up” and go way over the top with all the ceremonial stuff . It also at times makes it very difficult to minister and witness to tough, working class men who do not get all this “blokes in frocks” stuff, and who prefer to be be ministered to be more “real” guys.
With regard to loose slander and defamation, I did preface my comment by saying that it did by no means apply to all within the high church fraternity. But I will say that there are some of those in the high-church, both on the liberal catholic side and the more traditional conservative Anglo-Catholic side who ,it would not at all be surprising to discover, though it is not admitted openly, that they are gay. That is not slander, that is how it is, and there are many people who would agree with this statement.
My intention was to enlighten people that GAFCON is made up of conservative-minded evangelicals and traditionalist Anglo-Catholics. Within the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics are, I would contend, some “closet” gay people.
For GAFCON to “look the other” way as if this were not an issue, when it is the biggest issue they harp on about is disingenuous to say the least. The fact that it is OK for Gafcon to condone having some silently within their ranks but to castigate others does not wash with me I am afraid.
By the way with regard to robing this is where I stand. The church which I help lead has a policy of minimal robing. Our Team Vicar will robe (in an alb) for sacramental purposes such as communion, baptism etc. The other six members who share the leading/teaching roles do not robe (including three clergy and three lay leaders including myself.)
However, when I am invited to lead worship and/or preach elsewhere in other Anglican or non-Anglican churches I adopt a “when in Rome” approach. If I am going to a church where they are happy for me not to robe, or where they do not themselves robe, I do not robe. When I go to a church where the tradition is to robe, I robe with them, my robes consisting of a very simple black cassock with a white surplice on top and with royal blue Reader’s scarf around my neck. For me, I prefer not to robe out of choice but it is not something which I choose to make an issue of.
“With regard to loose slander and defamation”
By the way Vladimir, with regard to loose slander and defamation, what could be more slanderous than the casual and lazy bandying about of the term apostate which you have been doing fairly regularly of late.
And I still cannot make out where you stand on the apostate issue. You seem to have sympathy with the GAFCON–led Anglicans and it appears that they have suddenly become much less apostate of late in your view. I would still contend though that, being still very much Anglican in practice and nature, (even if they have considered themselves to have broken away from the Anglican communion) they must still, according to your reckoning and terminology, be apostate.
Like or Dislike:
0
I would just like to post these thoughts from Gavin Hewitt, a BBC correspondent who is covering the American election. I think this exderpt is absolutely superb. I guess many of you may disagree.!
“Another man I met said it “would change the face of America”. For him, it would be the moment WHEN THE AMERICAN DREAM HAD MEANING. HE SAID THAT IT WOULDMEAN THAT ANY PERSON, WHATEVER THEIR COLOUR OF BELIEF, COULD MAKE IT TO THE TOP.” (capitalisation is mine for emphasis, not Gavin Hewitt’s)
I asked several people how they would react at the moment they knew that the next president of the United States was a black man. One woman said to me with a smile: “Cry. I will cry. Cry for joy and cry for all that has passed.”
The 72-year-old said he would cry too. Tomorrow night, if victory goes to Obama, there will be a lot of tears and a lot of memories, some painful.
I came away from these conversations struck again as to how momentous this night could be. I met people who remember benches with the words “whites only” on them. Others talked about sit-ins at lunch counters. Others talked about the “Freedom Rides”. All of this is within living memory.
There will be millions of African-Americans tomorrow who will recall the long struggle that has brought them to this point.
How times have changed and how Barack Obama has changed the times. The gangs had no role models and saw no means of escaping their neighbourhood. Obama, from the outset, did not want to define himself as a black candidate. Part of his appeal was that he said there was no black or white or Hispanic, only Americans.
The past two times that I have heard Michelle Obama, she has told a story. She talks of meeting an 80-year-old on the rope line who says to her: “I never thought I would live to see the day.” On neither occasion does she finish the thought. She does not have to. Everyone listening knows that the man was saying that he never thought he’d live to see a black man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
So, a victory for Obama on Tuesday evening would lead to huge celebrations – but to reflection, too, on the struggle that brought Americans to the point that they would vote for an African-American.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow, you must REALLY hate Palin… I tell you that her gubernatorial campaign was extremely strong, and you choose to “read” that as saying that it was weak.
I’m ending this particular discussion; you’re ignoring me.
It looks like he appointed her in order to set his legacy. I suppose you can bay about that if you want.
You refuse to listen to my description of my values; what goes on as a consequence is not best described as “thinking”. You may have an opinion, but you have it only because you value it for its own sake, not because you reached it by reason.
This is exactly the character-empty, totally negative campaign that we’ve gotten all this election cycle from all the news media and Democratic politicians. Before the election started, they started their press claiming that the Republicans were going to run an impossibly negative campaign, were going to falsify votes on electronic machines, were going to lie, were going to suppress the votes of poor people, and so on. Long before the campaigns started the dirty campaigning started.
We’re supposed to conclude that McCain is a bad person because we’re told that the entire Republican party is full of bad people, and McCain is just one of them.
I’m sorry to hear that. I found this election to be unusually positive, in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear. Obama and McCain are collegial and gentlemanly. Both talk about the negatives of electing the other, but that’s perfectly reasonable.
I have to point out that you haven’t listened for any, and when I listed them in my post above you ignored it.
For example: Obama’s talked about cooperation, but has only done it once (the Coburn-Obama bill). McCain’s built his entire career on cooperating, even to his party’s immediate detriment (gang of 14, immigration reform).
BTW, the immigration reform that Obama praises on his website was in the last McCain bill; Obama proposed and passed a poison-pill amendment which helped to kill it. (It’s not clear that it would have passed anyhow, but he could have HELPED rather than hurt it.)
Think about that. What it means is that the voter who does that believes that Obama is in a truly desperate state of affairs. Projecting that onto the Republican party is senseless.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
You continue to evade my direct questions with your pia rhetorica!
If you and those I mentioned before think it is a slight – slight to God to make a mockery of HIS revealed will then that is and will continue to be your accountability. But don’t justify your flakiness and ill concieved notions with propositional truth written, recorded and displayed for any and all to see. Where is that pray tell! In the Bible, you see?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
You wrote:
“I apologise profusely…I should have got it right first time and didn’t! It should have read…”
I agree. From a supposedly educated man and cleric and believer and assumed leader this *constant grating* has come to an end as far as I’m concerned.
BTW, perhaps an orange or red suited evangelical would be less distracting than the “blokes in frocks” attire! Weeee! Look at me and disregard the message.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
William
I take your point about the gubernatorial campaign but you carefully avoided making any further reference to her lack of preparation, which to me is a very serious weakness in someone who is wishing to be Vice President of her country. In fact it would be an alarming trait. You appear to view this as a minor flaw, I prefer to view it as rather more serious than that because if you fail to prepare, you are preparing and deserving to fail.
I do not “REALLY hate” Palin. I do not hate Palin at all. Please take care to temper your language and do not insinuate things that are untrue.
At times I have actually felt sorry for Sarah because I feel she is VERY much out of her depth. I simply do not think she possesses the necessary attributes to be the Vice President of the USA and I definitely do not think she has what it takes to “lead the free world” I guess you have less exacting standards than I do.
“ I’m sorry to hear that. I found this election to be unusually positive, in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear. Both talk about the negatives of electing the other, but that’s perfectly reasonable.”
I find your first sentence a bit confusing. What is meant by “in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear.”
“Obama and McCain are collegial and gentlemanly.” Why has this not been said earlier. You are the first Republican on this, or any other site who I have heard say this. Why does it almost have to be admitted thorugh gritted teeth? You appear to critcise me for comments but said absolutely nothing when Vladimir was saying some deeply offensive stuff about Obama. Why did you keep so quiet if you think he Obama “a collegial and gentlemanly guy”, yet be extremely critical of me . And Vladimir, if you are watching could you come in and refute William’s view that Obaba is a collegial and gentlemany man in the strongest possible terms, as you have done whenever I have tried to make this point!
Contrary to assumptions, I actually admire McCain in many respects. When there were some vicious comments from the floor about Obama during some Republican campaign rallies that he came out and said that Obama was a good man, which I thoughtn was courageous. Why has it taken so long for someone to come out and say he is dignified, gentlemany and collegial.
I couldn’t agree more that they can point out the negatives in each other’s campaigns so long as they focus more on the positives in their own.
And for the record, yes I greatly admire McCains’s anti-rendition and anti-Guantanamo Bay stance, though it was a long time in coming from the Republican side of the fence! Yes I admire his totally different take on the war in Iraq! Yes I respect and admire that he is a maverick and willing to take on the hawks in the current Bush administration.
What I do question most of all thoughy is his judgement. I have to question his judgement, particularly in the choice of his of running mate, who has often been in the headlines more than he has, and mostly for many of the wrong reasons. Did he not foresee that before he chose her?
In the long run when all the dust has settled, it will probably be agreed that it was John McCain’s poor judgement calls in the heat of the election battle that has probably cost him this election campaign. He took a huge gamble and it doesn’t look as though is going to pay off.
I may be wrong. We shall see over the coming hours.
Like or Dislike:
0
“orange or red”
That would make a nice refreshing change from the desperately dull grey, sombre funereal black or oh so nice and sensible dark blue booted and suited evangelical preacher!
By the way when I teach, I normally just wear a shirt and tie, (forget the suit) and occasionally, shock horror…no tie at all.
Whee…look at me
Like or Dislike:
0
Well Brit I will write you a private response but I think I have found my teeth.
@Vladimir # 49 “Such a sort as Obama…would even have the audacity to run” The implied prejudice is frightening, Vladimir. Your refusal to answer is taken as confirmation.
Brit–from there until #104 much of your discussion with V was about Church matters I do not presume to understand.
# 104 “Usama, oops. Obama…” Grow up.
#71 Rediculous, to put it ever so harshly. Our “offerings” (or rather lack of) have nothing to do with calling taxes charity. That is simply balderdash! Furthermore, I am not one to confuse the government with the Church or visa versa.
# 74 Oops. “Cannot be peturbed” was Vladimir. Many apologies WmT.
“Just such sort of people” Could you possible mean the marginalized, discounted, “least of these”? I have been “helped” by such as you and will never choose to be again.
Originally Brit I did not engage with Vladimir because I am weary of participating in the ugliness of political discourse and hope that by not giving such the time of day it will become bored and go harrass someone else.
Like or Dislike:
0
By the way Vladimir
At least I do apologise from time to time.
I have yet to see you have the humility or grace to do so even once.
I get the impression that you rarely feel the need to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Minnow
Thanks very much for your response.
I guessed it was the case that you were wisely deciding not to join the fray.
There is part of me which secretly hopes and yearns for a McCain victory because I dread to think what the P&P blogosphere will be like if, as appears may be the case, Obama wins the day!
We’ll never hear the end of it!
I look forward to hearing from you.
PS You can take your teeth out again now if you wish!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Minnowspeaks wrote:
“Well Brit I will write you a private response but I think I have found my teeth.
@Vladimir # 49 “Such a sort as Obama…would even have the audacity to run” The implied prejudice is frightening, Vladimir. Your refusal to answer is taken as confirmation.
Brit–from there until #104 much of your discussion with V was about Church matters I do not presume to understand.
# 104 “Usama, oops. Obama…” Grow up….
# 74 …. “Cannot be peturbed” was Vladimir….
“Just such sort of people” Could you possible mean the marginalized, discounted, “least of these”? I have been “helped” by such as you and will never choose to be again.
Originally Brit I did not engage with Vladimir because I am weary of participating in the ugliness of political discourse and hope that by not giving such the time of day it will become bored and go harrass someone else.”
Well, since you have already revealed your fangs and bitten, I’ll extend to you the courtesy of biding you farewell, not at you wish, but because of my good sense.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
You wrote:
“By the way Vladimir
At least I do apologise from time to time.
I have yet to see you have the humility or grace to do so even once.
I get the impression that you rarely feel the need to do so.”
Actually, I try not to put myself in such a posture to begin with. I think they call it foresight. Let me dispel your presumption, I need Christ for various reasons – and that not in vain.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
“Whee…look at me.”
No, lets not. (1 Cor 15:33f; 1 Cor 14:36f).
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Your opinions on this are hardly binding on anyone else, since they’re backed only by your personal desire to believe them. It’s not immoral to vote for a candidate with whom you disagree on one issue. It’s not immoral to single-issue vote (although you’d better pick that issue carefully). It’s definitely not immoral to get fed up with “holding your nose and voting”, but that doesn’t make it right.
This time we get to choose between a moderate pro-life candidate and a radically pro-abortion one (so radical on this issue that he’s repeatedly spoken and voted against born-alive protections).
That’s called “hyperbole” — by which I mean your accusation in this case. Yes, both candidates have been called HORRIBLE things, and accused of horrors that they are not in any way guilty of. Neither of them have had anything happen that hasn’t happened to every other campaigner in a national race.
Given your accusations here, you’re clearly not familiar with any actual data on giving (click on the link for an article that presents the numeric results).
We should be ashamed of our giving, personal spending, and foolish debt. But conservatives need not lead the shame parade.
I understand why you’d think that; Obama presents himself as a much calmer, more relaxed person. That does indeed look like a person who’s not desperately focussed on the here-and-now, and I see why you’d want to assume that he’s therefore focussed on the future.
Unfortunately, there’s no evidence for that assumption; Obama’s spent his career climbing the ladder, not accomplishing change. Maybe he does have a vision; if so, his vision starts at the presidency rather than anywhere short of it.
McCain has a vision too, and you can see him work for it every year for the past 26 years.
Nor did they appear parodied in SNL skits in “desperate” attempts to tarnish their images. They did, of course, appear on other entertainment venues, famously on Oprah’s show.
No, it shouldn’t be hard to improve on that record. All one needs to do is finish ONE thing that they started, and they’ll massively improve on Bush’s and Pelosi’s legacy. Unfortunately, one of those will still be in a position of power after this election.
Like or Dislike:
0
Minnowspeaks, I’m not contradicting your numbers; you called for no conclusions, so I’m not contradicting those, either.
There are a number of posts above that claim that failing to support higher taxes that purport to take care of the poor is a failure of charity. I say it’s not a failure of charity, but rather a call for true charity; charity that begins because Christ has changed your heart. Charity, also, that does not play from a book of rules, and therefore cannot be subverted by scoundrels who abuse those rules.
It’s not clear to me that charity can have free play when the government takes such a large part of incomes. Christians must still be responsible givers, but one cannot expect the same societal level of free charity when there’s such a large measure of forced “giving”.
Like or Dislike:
0
I see your point; I didn’t notice you were talking about it because I don’t see it as a “trait” at all, but rather a problem caused by a lack of time to prepare. It’s true that Palin hadn’t been grooming herself for national office… But that’s never been a disqualifier.
I insinuated nothing… I clearly and directly stated that your attitude toward Palin was one of hate. This manifested itself in ignoring positive evidence and reading the worst possible interpretations into negative behaviors.
For example, you called “lack of preparation” a “trait”, as though it were in the same category as a bad temper or poor judgment in companions. Lack of preparation is a result of paying attention to something else. Ignorance of national affairs is curable; stupidity is not.
Palin is not stupid. All who know her, including her Alaskan political opponents, admit that. Any who watched her Alaskan debates, or who saw the results of her policy changes in Alaska, have to admit that. Or for that matter, anyone who realizes that she won while openly running against her own party’s establishment, and then delivering what she campaigned on.
I don’t blame you for not understanding that… I had to think hard to remember what I meant. I apologize for the vagueness, and thank you for asking rather than assuming the worst (which would have been only reasonable!).
My point is that both candidates have huge negatives in their past, and both have been courteous and generous, at least at the top level of the campaign, in calling the other on it, and both have generally immediately smacked down on members of their party who were less than gracious (or who have gone off the deep end into lies).
This is the first time here that the false claim has been made that this election is terrible and nasty. And I don’t grit my teeth in saying it; I simply state the obvious. It’s like saying that Obama is in favor of Hope and Change: true, but hardly a presidential platform.
I welcome refutation, but I didn’t see any disagreement on this point. I take no responsibility to do your job in defending your candidate, although I’ve gladly spoken against ridiculous implausibilities from my own side.
Nope, no need. Go ahead and point out negatives! McCain’s positives are well known; Obama’s positives are well-promoted. That leaves Obama’s and McCain’s negatives to be brought to light, and that won’t be done at all unless the other side does it. And both did; they both spent amazing sums on revealing the negatives of the other side.
You’re absolutely right that she’s been in the headlines for the wrong reasons: the media has been desperately seeking to vilify and discredit her. Thankfully, it’s now settled that the only accusation against her is baseless (even the politically run inquiry against her admitted that she’d done nothing wrong, and the administrative inquiry cleared her completely); and as I pointed out earlier, the accusations of stupidity are poorly thought out.
I’m surprised that you’d base your entire case against McCain on this one matter, though, especially given that I’ve rebutted your case previously (I don’t claim to have refuted it).
Obama himself didn’t put any weight on trying to claim Palin was an idiot; he leaned much harder on claiming that McCain was a third Bush term (false). More credibly, he claimed that McCain completely fumbled the bailout crisis (true), and expanded on that to claim he’d fumble any crisis (false, given his history).
No, the results of the election won’t tell us whether Palin was a good choice; contra your claim, there are many possible reasons to accept Obama or reject McCain.
Palin will be running again regardless of the results. Next time she won’t be getting any slack from me — she knows the stakes now, and that national issues are profoundly as deep as local ones.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
“I see your point; I didn’t notice you were talking about it because I don’t see it as a “trait” at all, but rather a problem caused by a lack of time to prepare. It’s true that Palin hadn’t been grooming herself for national office… But that’s never been a disqualifier.”
I believe that preparation is essential for a candidate for Vice-Presidency. There may be times when she has to think on the spot and wing it with little time for preparation, and Sarah Palin has at times shown that when placed in such a position she has a tendency to be found wanting.
“I do not “REALLY hate” Palin. I do not hate Palin at all. Please take care to temper your language and do not insinuate things that are untrue.
I insinuated nothing… I clearly and directly stated that your attitude toward Palin was one of hate.”
I am appalled by this statement. I do not hate Sarah Palin, that is simply untrue! I simply feel that she was an unsuitable candidate to run for Vice-President of Unoted States of America. Most other political commentators feel th same and were perplexed that he chose her ahead of, say, Joe Lieberman for example.
“For example, you called “lack of preparation” a “trait”, as though it were in the same category as a bad temper or poor judgment in companions. Lack of preparation is a result of paying attention to something else. Ignorance of national fairs is curable; stupidity is not.”
Lack of preparation William is actually an inability to prioritise as a result of paying inordinate amounts of attention to relatively unimportant matters. It DOES involve a poor judgement call. Thinking that you can wing it without proper preparation is clearly poor judgement as does a clear inability to decide as to what really matters when trying to win an election campaign. Ignorance of national affairs may be “curable” but when you are running for Vice President of your country it is pretty worrying if you show ignorance of national affairs. It is not far off being the unforgiveable political sin!
“Palin is not stupid. All who know her, including her Alaskan political opponents, admit that. Any who watched her Alaskan debates, or who saw the results of her policy changes in Alaska, have to admit that. Or for that matter, anyone who realizes that she won while openly running against her own party’s establishment, and then delivering what she campaigned on.”
Just one problem William, Alaska is in America but Alaska is not America! I admire her for taking on some of the corporate moguls in Alaska but she did not appear to effectively transfer this toughness to tackle the real issues onto the national stage. What is more, the majority of the American people did not believe she had this ability either.
“ I’m sorry to hear that. I found this election to be unusually positive, in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear. Both talk about the negatives of electing the other, but that’s perfectly reasonable.”
I find your first sentence a bit confusing. What is meant by “in spite of the horrid negatives both campaigns bear.”
I don’t blame you for not understanding that… I had to think hard to remember what I meant. I apologize for the vagueness, and thank you for asking rather than assuming the worst (which would have been only reasonable!).
My point is that both candidates have huge negatives in their past, and both have been courteous and generous, at least at the top level of the campaign, in calling the other on it, and both have generally immediately smacked down on members of their party who were less than gracious (or who have gone off the deep end into lies).
We may be on more common ground here William. I watched both John McCain’ concession speech and Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. Both were classic speeches of their kind. McCain was utterly gracious and dignified in defeat. It almost felt as if the real John McCain had returned. I don’t know whether you agree William, but I feel that what may have cost McCain the election was the Republican party machine/advisors/strategists/ surrounding him. They appeared to try to turn him into some form of “party machine/robot” rather than allowing him to be himself, such as he was in his speech last night. Apparently Barack Obama has spoken to him and said that he wants to sit down and talk with him. For me I would hope that Obama woild consider giving him a role to bring an end to the Guantanamo Bay sort of stuff, where I think he would genuinely excel as a statesman who gets things done..
“Obama and McCain are collegial and gentlemanly.”
Last night proved this beyond any possible doubt. History may prove that behind the rhetoric, this may have been a election fought between two deeply honourable, good and decent men.
“And both did; they both spent amazing sums on revealing the negatives of the other side.”
My over-arching question in response to this is – “Is this really money well spent?” Given the result of the election it could be argued that for the Obama team it was, but for the McCain team it most definitely wasn’t!
“More credibly, he claimed that McCain completely fumbled the bailout crisis (true)”
If I may say so William this was part of a self-induced double whammy for McCain which I believe probably cost him the election. Shortly before the economy nosedived McCain made a campaign speech in Florida stating the American economy was in a relatively sound shape. Is it any wonder that folk began to seriously question his judgement and credibility on economic matters when he got this judgement call so terribly wrong. He single-handedly undid all the good work he had done to put himself out adead in in the polls.
If it were possible , he then compounded this by suspending his campaign in an attempt to sort out the crisis. He clearly saw this as an opportunity to prove to the nation that he had what it took to stop the rot (he clearly didn’t!)and that he was the man to turn to in a crisis.(he clearly wasn’t!) . His intervention was totally ineffectual and did not make one iota of a difference. In fact, if anything the situation got significantly worse, with McCain weatching on helplessly from the sidelines.
It is no coincidence whatsoever that McCain’s “fumbling” of the bailout crisis (I would put it stronger than mere fumbling, complete botch up springs to mind!) preceded a sharp drop in McCain’s poll ratings and a massive surge in Obama’s! And it was all of his own making. Nobody else’s.
“Palin will be running again regardless of the results. Next time she won’t be getting any slack from me — she knows the stakes now, and that national issues are profoundly as deep as local ones.”
I am sure she will and hopefully this will have been a steep and beneficial learning curve. However I do not think she will run unopposed for the Republican nomination. In fac,t I don’t even think she will be the Republican candidate in 2012. I think she appeals far too much to to the more conservative base of the party, but completely switched off the centre ground/independent voters the Republicans need to win if they are to mount a serious challenge for the Presidency in 2012.
I’m not sure whether Condoleeza Rice will be eligible in 2012, but if she is, along with several others who may emerge would probably make a stronger, far more rounded Republican candidate for the Presidency in four years time.
Phil
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] is somewhat of an unusual post. It is basically my response to comments directed at me on the Parchment and Pen blog. I asked the writer (BritPhil) if I could use his comments in this post, explaining that I [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
# 134–perhaps I misread what you wrote or took the implication to far. I did not think you were arguing my numbers. I only took what you said to mean that we can let ourselves off the hook because we pay such high taxes. To that I say rediculous. Our mandate from scripture to bless (give) because we have been blessed is not (in my opinion) connected to amounts, wealth, etc. It is connected to need. If I have two shoes and you have none I give. If I have two potatoes and you have none. If we both have none tomorrow we have none together.
Like or Dislike:
0
I hope you don’t mind me saying so but it has gone a bit quiet Stateside on the P&P site.
I know it is only round about 8.20am but there are usually one or two up and blogging by now.
I take it you are all sleeping off your late night after watch last night’s momentous events unfold.
I was thinking of beginning my blog with a hearty rendition of “Oh what a beautiful mornin’, oh what a beautiful day!”. , but thankfully I thought better of it!
Having had a few hours to reflect, can I just say that I think Americans can be proud of themselves for the dignified manner in which thywe conducted themselves during the election yesterday, both during the both the voting process itself and in aftermath of the results. I though it was truly superb.
If I could bottle up just a bit of the 75% or so turnout and pour it out over our electorate in two years time I would. We will be lucky if we get a 40% national turnout,with the under 25s probably barely registering any interest whatsoever.
I would also say that John McCain’s concession speech was superb in its graciousness and magisterial in its dignity. If only he had not allowed himself to be so tightly and rigidly fashioned by the PR gurus within the Republican party campaign teanm during the run up to the vote the outcome could well have been entirely different.
I for one am someone who hopes very much that when Obama meets with McCain, Obama might find some conciliatory role for McCain in a new more inclusive administration which is suited to McCain’s considerable skills. His type of statesmanship is sorely needed. I still maintain that he made a mistake in selecting Sarah Palin. I think that either Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney would have been preferable candidates. I also think he made some very poor judgement calls with regard to the economic crisis. He also became less and less “himself” as the campaign wore on and hopefully the true John McCain will emerge once more over the coming days now he has been released from the party shackles which have had so tight hold of him in recent days.
Barack Obama’s acceptance speech was equally tremendous in its inspiration and eloquence He has received one of the worst legacies that any incumbent could face, but I for one will be praying that God would guide Him as he seeks to steer America, and with it the rest of the world, back on the path to financial stability and economic prosperity.
Every politician I have heard speak, both Republican and Democrat , (and I stayed up until 5.30am in order to cach both speeches) has praised Obama’s election campaign as one of the best that has ever been mounted. If he can bring such energy, dignity, drive and efficiency to the White House I feel that America, and indeed the world may be a far better place for it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hmmmm
Still eerily and spookily quiet over there on P&P!
It’s now 10am!
Where are all you guys?
You haven’t declared a day of mourning by any chance have you?
You should follow Kenya’s example. They are having a public holiday tomorrow! Now that should be some party!
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
I entirely agree with your last post! (What a pleasant change!) Except for one detail: no, we won’t have a national holiday; that’s reserved for Inauguration Day. Today we allow a little bit of relaxation to settle in.
I’m also happy that the resolution was so clear; we don’t have to pick through undervotes or overvotes or hanging chads…
Or pick out political trends…
Whew. It’s over; time to relax, and for some of us to lick our wounds.
The only reason I’m here at all is that I had to see how some close local votes were going. Particularly sad for me is that CA Prop 4 failed; we want to kill babies SO much we’ll take parental consent out of the loop, even when we’re given a law with plenty of safeguards. And then a HUGE bond passed; as if we’re going to be able to get that much in loans when our governor is begging the feds to bail us out (and worse, it’s for a completely new transit system, totally new technology for us; I’ll probably not live to see it running).
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh, and one more thing — I’m relaxing today, so I may or may not respond to your (britphil’s) message to me. I’ll read it over, I’ve got it marked in Google Reader. I don’t know if I’ll reply any more; it looks like we’re arguing in circles.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi William
Thanks for your comments.
Yes I think we are all relaxing today after all that pent up pre-election energy.
Who knows, maybe these two collegial intelligent guys might begin to usher in a slighlty more concensual political atmosphere in the near future. We can but hope and dream! Do we really all have to wait until January 20 before George Bush packs up and leaves the White House. Can someone please explain to me what that is all about? Here in the UK, the new Prime Minister is moving into 10 Downing Street before the previous one has even had time to have his breakfast on the morning after the nigfht before!
Although, on the plus side, it gives Obama a bit of breathing space to get his team together and plan some strategy for tackling some of their bigger issues that will face him come early 2009!
“Oh, and one more thing — I’m relaxing today, so I may or may not respond to your (britphil’s) message to me. I’ll read it over, I’ve got it marked in Google Reader. I don’t know if I’ll reply any more; it looks like we’re arguing in circles.”
William, on reflection I ‘d give it a miss and carry on relaxing for a while longer!…We may find ourselves arguiing again and it’s a bit too soon for that don’t you think!
Best regards
Phil
PS So far today I’ve escaped censure from Vladimir! I’m getting worried…something must be afoot!
Like or Dislike:
0
But this raises the question of what sort of preparation is essential. There are many kinds; Palin was well-prepared by her work background for energy and executive issues (in the latter she was the most prepared candidate), while on national politics she had a mere two days of preparation before her first speech, and it only got busier after that.
Yes, at times that happens; at other times it doesn’t; she did well enough in the debate, nearly as well as McCain or Obama, and definitely at least as well as Biden.
I do sympathize with one conclusion; it’s reasonable that you should start with some initial suspicion of her competence and wait to be shown that the suspicion is unreasonable; the campaign did not attempt to show that except when forced to. I’ll skip speculating on why they failed and whose fault that it; that’s past. The result is clear; it’s not your job to look up past debates made by someone you find distasteful in order to see whether they’re competent when given reasonable time to prepare; it’s that person’s job to prove it to YOU. I agree with you on that, even if I don’t match your conclusion (since I did take the time to look up her debates).
Palin will have another opportunity to change people’s minds in the next election; if she doesn’t run a campaign which offers people the evidence they truly need to make this
Jaw drop… Well, a little thought would clear THAT right up. Lieberman is a credit to his office, but he’s a loyal Democrat on every issue but the Iraq war, and furthermore brings nothing to the ticket that McCain doesn’t already have in spades. Lieberman was a decent pick for Gore, as he provided substantial experience (although I think he would have done better with an executive pick).
Meanwhile, many people are noting that the people who know Sarah don’t share the “political commentators” low opinion of her — friends and enemies alike agree that she’s sharp and competent.
I’m not sure where you pull that definition from. Lack of preparation means you were busy doing something else. Governing Alaska, for example, or working as a community organizer.
It’s hard to tell that — but I can state that the campaign failed to make any kind of case for her. They allowed her to draw crowds… But she didn’t make any case for herself. (I’m not blaming anyone specific, simply noting a historical fact.)
Oh, I agree. It was painful to watch his last few campaign speeches — he was obviously hurting when he gave his concession speech (probably more from exhaustion than disappointment, I speculate), but if you heard any of his last campaign speeches he sounded strong but was talking nonsense.
(For example, he claimed that Obama was going to give the bailout money to Wall Street, but he (McCain) was going to give it to Main Street. Huh? What?)
I’m not too sure what you mean, but I suspect that may be the case. I have to lay the ultimate responsibility for McCain’s campaign at McCain’s feet, though, with all due respect; and he nobly took all the responsibility.
I’ve speculated that Palin’s problem was overconstraint and overcoaching; we’ll find out in two years and four years whether that’s correct.
That’s a good point; there are many points where the two agree on the action, and McCain’s experience, connections, and credibility would be immensely helpful. OTOH, I don’t expect a cabinet appointment, and hope that if one is offered McCain gracefully turns it down.
Grin. I get your point, but I don’t think that proves what you want — it proves that NO money spent on a losing campaign is money well spent.
I like your Freudian typo there: “adead in the polls”.
There’s no doubt that Obama’s campaign was able to play that well against him. He may have been correct, but he showed no foresight.
I disagree. His mistake was offering to suspend his campaign, and then not doing it.
Let’s add “and Obama”.
We’ll see — my point is that she’ll run, and have her chance to prove herself out from under someone else’s wing and with time up front to study. She’s no Quayle, YET, although there’s time for her to build up a library of Quayleisms.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: bar stool economics
I found a well thought out refutation here
Like or Dislike:
0
thanks you men.
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3