Sunday, February 10, 2008

Permanent smile

Editor's note: I'd normally delete this post, except that it's emblematic of a new trend: Come home late drunk, donate to the Obama campaign, and spend two hours combing YouTube and C-SPAN for Obama speeches. I stayed up until 6 a.m. last night doing this stuff. It beats buying a bunch of Whitesnake on iTunes.

Every time I watch him I can't get the grin off my face, but it makes me so happy that I don't even care.

18 comments:

dmbmeg said...

WHERE IS THE BIBLE STUDY?!

crimenotes said...

Next week.

LisaChelle said...

i love oboma, too! ive recently become his speech stalker as well and much to dissapproval of my friends have began quoting him. and donating.

crimenotes said...

Obama is the new college football.

sam said...

I too am somewhat enamored with Obama, but be careful, his main agenda is the redistribution of wealth in America. The wealth he is speaking about redistributing is ours. He will tax the living shit out of anyone who prospers. I'm afraid that the days of the 50%tax bracket are going to come back like a plague.

CrimeNotes said...

The wealth he is speaking about redistributing is ours.

Assuming that your premise is correct (and I think that, unfortunately, political realities probably mean that it's not) and speaking only for myself, I'd be completely on board with this. It's time to shut down this bastard great-grandchild of the Gilded Age I'd go considerably farther than what you suggest. But like I said, that's probably impossible; the richest segments of the country will fight tooth and claw to hold on, while infrastructure, labor and education keep rotting.

Crunk Raconteur said...

I'm just confused how anyone who uses terms like "agenda" and "redistribution of wealth" comes to be enamored with Obama.

I mean, I find him inspirational, too...but I also agree with what he says. How he says it is particularly good, but not so good that it would make me forget that I disagree with what he stands for (if I did).

Cock D said...

50% top rate would still be a gift...

Remember the old laffer curve, right? It works- seriously - it's true. There is a point at which governmnet's lowering of the tax rate will increase revenues. That point has been determined by some studies to be about 70%.

Of course, the faith based economists would say it should be lower, but you can't optimize revenue to the fisc at a 0% rate (duh).

So yeah - take it to 50%; then watch our economy flourish as the government rebuilds infrastructure, repays the deficit and acts like an otherwise responsible party. Remember, to fight the cold war and build the eisenhower interstates, the government had to have oodles of revenue; If we need to repair our crumbling infrastructure and fight a "war on terror" we're going to have to do the same, because aint no one going to lend us more money...

Crunk Raconteur said...

Speaking of infrastructure, has anyone else heard that the Minnesota governor is being seriously considered as a running mate for John "Hundred Years' War" McCain? You know, the guy who dramatically vetoed the extra money the Minnesota dept of transportation said it needed...only to watch his constituents die when one of the bridges collapsed?

I mean, wouldn't you think that "citizens dying thanks in part to executive negligence" would disqualify someone for advancement in the Republican party?...oh, wait...

Of course, this is a bit far afield of the post, but we have no choice. Yes we can post more than once a week! Si, se puede!

CrimeNotes said...

LAFFER CURVE! Seeing a comment mention the Laffer Curve makes me happier than getting 100,000 new hits. Thank you.

Is there an obvious choice for a Republican VP? A friend e-mailed arguing that Huckabee would be formidable, but I don't see it. A lot of them see Huckabee as not sufficiently conservative. Condoleezza Rice was being mentioned a few days ago, but she's not the great on her feet and I can't picture her as an effective campaigner. Mel Martinez seems perfect for them -- but he was born in Cuba and therefore disqualified. So who the hell could McCain pick that makes sense? Hutchinson? Again, not a great speaker, not very aggressive. Maybe they'll revive Jack Kemp.

Cock D said...

If McCain wants 8 more years of Bush, why doesnt he just take W as a running mate?

Could you imagine that?

Glad you enjoyed the Laffer Curve.

Crunk Raconteur said...

For the life of me, I can't think of a good GOP VP candidate. On one hand, this is not particularly surprising, since remember the collection of losers they assembled for their presidential candidates.

Still, I can't think of anybody who would be attractive enough to them to win votes...but at the same time has no career prospects or ambitions and would want to sign on to this sinking ship right now.

If I'm, say, a Republican governor or Senator with presidential ambitions, the last thing I would do is sign on to be VP now. Better to bide one's time.

Which is probably why he'll go with Lieberman...

CrimeNotes said...

Even in 2000, Cheney was sort of a default pick. Jack Kemp came along late in the game. Dan Quayle was a wildcard. Generally I don't think of the Republicans as having a thin bench, but they obviously do this time around. I think their ideal would be someone who attracts the disaffected conservatives without alienating everyone to McCain's left. You know, crazy anti-abortion supply sider, but with a smile. Wouldn't seem like a tough set of qualities, but they've got no one. Colin Powell sure as hell wouldn't accept the job; Lieberman would enrage right-wingers who think McCain is a closet Democrat. (He *is* still pro-choice, right?) Elizabeth Dole's star is now badly tarnished. So who the hell?

I can think of 6-10 possible Democrats, none of them perfect but all of them plausible -- Bayh, Wesley Clark, Webb, Feinstein, Mark Warner, Sebelius, maybe even Kerry if he'd take it (have Gore and Cheney's profiles made the job seem like more than worthless backup?). All have pluses and minuses, none would be fraught with danger. The Republican bench is messy.

CrimeNotes said...

If you buy my criteria ... Christ, is Romney the closest fit for it? Or is the Mormon issue too volatile?

22280 said...

Lindsey Graham?

He's not exactly a right-winger, but he did impeach Clinton, which counts for something, right?

Crunk Raconteur said...

Romney wouldn't go for it, I don't think (although it would be nice to have the Five Douchebags back in my life). I do think there's too much bad blood from the primaries. It's the same reason that the Hillary/Barry loser won't join the prospective superticket...

I shudder at the idea of Bayh, mostly because I loathe him...and not just because he never claimed his prize after I swallowed my hate and handed him the 2005 Crunk Raconteur Democratic Pride Award (http://coleslawblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/chief-justice-john-roberts.html). Now that I look at that again, 2nd runner-up Harry Reid isn't too high in my estimation these days either.

Webb would be kind of kick-ass, but it won't be Mark Warner (nobody will let the nominee take Warner away from his guaranteed Republican-seat Senate pickup). That said, I like the idea of Webb more and more...my rapidly-trending-blue home state of Virginia would be huge to win this year, and the downticket coattails of Mark Warner will be strong. Having Webb as VP would make them even stronger, and consider this...

Winning Virginia (13) and Iowa (7) would give Nominee X(Y?)* 20 more EVs right there than Kerry got. And the 251 EVs Kerry got are only 19 short of the necessary 270.

*Oh MAN that's good chromosomal humor...

CrimeNotes said...

The Republicans don't even like Lindsay Graham! There's always talk of a right flank putting a candidate against him in Senate primaries. Man, they're really cannibalizing everybody. Plus, you hear rumors that Graham's closet door is basically half-open. If true, seeing that party go to pieces over such a thing would be a wild ride.

I like Webb as well and think you're dead-on regarding Warner. The downside with Webb, I think, is that he's had a pretty short tenure in the Senate as well. If I had my pick, right now, I think I'd name Wesley Clark. He's a little older, he has some experience in national campaigns, military bona fides, and would campaign in a safe and temperamentally conservative style. A military guy would counter McCain's bio, at least a little, and Clark is blandly inoffensive without being weak or a lightweight. He's shares a lot of Webb's strengths but with a little less edge.

Crunk Raconteur said...

I tend to agree with that assessment about Clark, particularly the part about Webb's short tenure, which I confess I didn't consider (I'm still coming around from the Clinton side, where having an "experienced" running-mate is less necessary, but you're right. In this new Barry world, given that about the only thing the Republicans would have to say for the next nine months is "INEXPERIENCED!!!!!" (they will conveniently forget the fact that this did not matter when it came to, well, Bush) they probably don't want to give them any more ammo on that...).

Also, as far as Graham goes, I'll just say this about those rumors...perhaps it's because he's more prominent, but those rumors are more well-known around town than the rumors about Larry Craig were. It's sort of generally considered "fact"...watching the Republicans tear themself apart over it would just add to the delicious, delicious schadenfreude of it all...