Presidential election may be up for grabs

[CougarKing]

And here is an article about tonight's debate which I could only watch part of before I had to head to a night class.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate

McCain, Obama get tough, personal in final debate
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 18 minutes ago


HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. - John McCain repeatedly assailed Barack Obama's character and campaign positions on taxes, abortion and more Wednesday night, hoping to transform their final presidential debate into a launching pad for a political comeback. "You didn't tell the American people the truth," he charged.

Unruffled, and ahead in the polls, Obama parried each accusation, and leveled a few of his own.

"One hundred percent, John, of your ads, 100 percent of them have been negative," Obama shot back in an uncommonly personal debate less than three weeks from Election Day.

"It's not true," McCain retorted.

"It absolutely is true," said Obama, seeking the last word.

McCain is currently running all negative ads, according to a study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But he has run a number of positive ads during the campaign.

The 90-minute encounter, seated at a round table at Hofstra University, was their third debate, and marked the beginning of a 20-day sprint to Election Day. Obama leads in the national polls and in surveys in many battleground states, an advantage built in the weeks since the nation stumbled into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

With few exceptions, the campaign is being waged in states that voted Republican in 2004 — Virginia, Colorado, Iowa — and in many of them, Obama holds a lead in the polls.

McCain played the aggressor from the opening moments of the debate, accusing Obama of waging class warfare by seeking tax increases that would "spread the wealth around."

The Arizona senator also demanded to know the full extent of Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s-era terrorist and the Democrat's ties with ACORN, a liberal group accused of violating federal law as it seeks to register voters. And he insisted Obama disavow last week's remarks by Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat, who accused the Republican ticket of playing racial politics along the same lines as segregationists of the past.

Struggling to escape the political drag of an unpopular Republican incumbent, McCain also said, "Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. ... You wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."

Obama returned each volley, and brushed aside McCain's claim to full political independence.

"If I've occasionally mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people — on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities — you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush," he said.

McCain's allegation that Obama had not leveled with the public involved the Illinois senator's decision to forgo public financing for his campaign in favor of raising his own funds. As a result, he has far outraised McCain, although the difference has been somewhat neutralized by an advantage the Republican National Committee holds over the Democratic Party.

"He signed a piece of paper" earlier in the campaign pledging to accept federal financing, McCain said. He added that Obama's campaign has spent more money than any since Watergate, a reference to President Nixon's re-election, a campaign that later became synonymous with scandal.

Obama made no immediate response to McCain's assertion about having signed a pledge to accept federal campaign funds.

Asked about running mates, both presidential candidates said Democrat Joseph Biden was qualified to become president, although McCain added this qualifier: "in many respects."

McCain passed up a chance to say his own running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was qualified to sit in the Oval Office, though he praised her performance as governor and noted her work on behalf of special needs children. The Palins have a son born earlier this year with Down Syndrome.

Obama sidestepped when asked about Palin's qualifications to serve as president, and he, too, praised her advocacy for special needs children.

But he quickly sought to turn the issue to his advantage by noting McCain favors a spending freeze on government programs.

"I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding if we're going to get serious in terms of research. ... And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it," he said.

In addition to differences on taxes and spending, McCain said Obama advocated trade policies that recalled those of Herbert Hoover, who presided over the start of the Great Depression.

Obama has called for tougher provisions in trade negotiations, arguing that is necessary to avoid undercutting the wages paid American workers.

McCain also said Obama has aligned himself with "the extreme aspect of the pro-abortion movement in America" and had voted present while in the Illinois Legislature on a measure to ban one type of procedure late in a woman's pregnancy.

Obama said the bill would have undermined Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that granted abortion rights, and had been opposed by the Illinois Medical Society.

"I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception," he added.

McCain sarcastically paid tribute to "the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's (for) health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything."

McCain's allegation about class warfare stemmed from one of Obama's campaign appearances last weekend.

In Ohio on Sunday, Obama was approached by a man who said, "Your new tax plan's going to tax me more."

A video clip caught by Fox News shows Obama replying, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

McCain referred repeatedly to that voter, Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Toledo, Ohio.

Wurzelbacher watched Wednesday night's debate and said he still thinks Obama's plan would keep him from buying the small business that employs him.

McCain's reference to Ayers reprised campaign commercials he has run to try and raise doubts about Obama's fitness to serve.

Ayers, who was a member of the violent Weather Underground in the 1960s, hosted a meet-the-candidate event for Obama in an Illinois race many years later.

"The fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Sen. McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me," Obama replied.

 

[Yrys]

Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama

Colin Powell has his dancing shoes on, fueling speculation that he's gearing up to do the Obama Two-Step.

The normally staid former U.S. secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff performed an impromptu hip-hop dance alongside
well-known rap stars Tuesday following a speech at a festival in London celebrating African-American music and fashion. His address at the
"Africa Rising" celebration inside London's Royal Albert Hall fueled speculation that an endorsement of Barack Obama is imminent.

Powell -- who has yet to back a candidate -- told the audience: "I stand before you as an African-American. Many people have said to me you
became secretary of state of the USA, is it still necessary to say that you are an African American or that you are black? And I say yes, so that
we can remind our children."

"It took a lot of people struggling to bring me to this point in history," Powell told the audience. "I didn't just drop out of the sky. People came
from my continent in chains."  Powell has said in the past that he has been hesitant to make an endorsement until he hears more from both
candidates. Political pundits have speculated that his endorsement might come shortly after Wednesday night's presidential debate at Hofstra
University, during which both Obama and John McCain will square off on domestic issues.

Many political analysts -- including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Novak and William Kristol -- have predicted that Powell, who was secretary of
state under President Bush, will back the Democrat in the race. After Powell's address to the audience, he took center stage -- dressed in a
suit and tie -- to show off his hip-hop dance moves.

 

[tomahawk6]

McCain's comments tonight.Pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSmQqw65Pg&eurl

 

[GAP]

Beautiful shots!!!  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

Sarah! Sarah! Sarah! :blotto:

 

[Drag]

McCain could not keep his cool.  In my opinion he set himself back with that debate performance...  There are so many better issues to hammer Obama with than Bill Ayers.  The people who care about Ayers are already voting for McCain...

 

[Kirkhill]

And the people that don't are already voting for Obama.

 

[Drag]

It is not an issue that expands McCain's electorate and makes him seem aloof to actual problems the country is facing ie. the economy.  Obama has been hammering him by focusing on the economy while McCain is farting in the wind by focusing on Ayers

 

[tomahawk6]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

Some Surveys Indicate Tighter Presidential Race

A spate of widely publicized newspaper and network polls over the past week have shown Barack Obama opening a big lead over John McCain. But other surveys tell a somewhat different story, suggesting the presidential race is still close, and the Republican has even gained ground in recent days.

The reason for the divergence: Pollsters are facing new challenges this year, trying to gauge whether the electorate is changing, and how much.

Surveys giving Sen. Obama a large and growing lead tend to assume that a growing proportion of voters are Democrats, and a shrinking percentage Republicans. They also point to a big increase in turnout, particularly among voters under the age of 30. Surveys showing a closer race assume less change in party affiliation in particular.

To be sure, Sen. Obama leads in every national poll, and the Electoral College map appears to favor the Illinois senator, who campaigns this weekend in Republican-leaning states that all voted for President George W. Bush.

Real Clear Politics, a nonpartisan Web site that tracks major polls, reported Thursday that Sen. Obama led Sen. McCain by 49.5% to 42.7%, based on an average of 13 national surveys taken in the past week.

The polls feeding into that conclusion show a wide range, from a CBS/New York Times poll giving Sen. Obama a 14-point lead, to a Gallup poll showing the Illinois senator with just a two-point edge, equal to the margin of error.

A Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll this week shows the Illinois senator leading by nine points, while a Pew Research Center survey gives him a seven-point lead. But an Investor's Business Daily-TIPP poll shows Sen. Obama with a nearly four-point advantage. Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports and Zogby International show Sen. Obama leading by four and five points, respectively.

One Gallup poll shows the Democratic nominee's lead has shrunk since last week, falling to six points from 10. "Clearly, the race has tightened," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Daily.

The polls owe their wide variations, in part, to differences in how they determine likely voters. Gallup actually conducts two separate daily polls, one that includes all surveyed adults who say they will vote, and a second that is more restricted, using a decades-old methodology that determines "likely voters" in part by examining historical models on the types of voters who have showed up at the polls.

In the first Gallup sample, Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by six points. The second group yields the two-point gap. Both polls were conducted from Oct. 13-15.

Differences over how to accurately gauge party affiliation also help account for the discrepancies. Some pollsters argue polls should be statistically "weighted" so that their results achieve a partisan composition that reflects long-term national averages -- particularly if a poll shows that one party gets an unusually large share among the respondents, compared with past elections.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen, for example, weights current polls so that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 39.3% to 33% margin, while pollster John Zogby adjusts polls so that Democrats account for around 38% of the electorate and Republicans, 36%. So even if a particular sample of calls shows different ratios, the pollsters adjust to fit that formula.

"What troubles me is when I see some of my colleagues have 27% of the respondents that are Republicans. That's just not America, period," says Mr. Zogby, whose polls have shown Sen. Obama with a lead ranging from two to six points this month. He argues that while party affiliation fluctuates over time, it doesn't change "day-to-day, and it never fluctuates by eight points in a short time period."

Other pollsters argue that polls should use whatever partisan mix results from a particular survey rather than arbitrarily establishing party affiliation weights. "How do you know that's right? I mean, they're making up numbers," says Susan Pinkus, who conducts the Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, which isn't weighted. In this week's poll, the respondents were 34% Democratic and 26% Republican.

Both campaigns are running large vote turnout operations, and the Obama campaign is counting on unprecedented turnout from young voters, which further complicates efforts to determine likely voters. "It's more art than science in many cases. They're very difficult decisions to make," says Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll.

Predicting turnout among young voters remains particularly challenging because many of those voters don't use landline phones that pollsters traditionally rely on to achieve a balanced sample. Pollsters have also struggled with accurately predicting minority turnout and how race could influence the current election.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com

 

[a_majoor]

Time is tight, but the "Joe the Plumber" momentmight have hurt Senator Obama when he inadvertently revealed his program of income redistribution. Lots of "Joe's" out there would like to achieve financial success and buy their own business, hearing from the candidate's own mouth that won't happen on his watch might be a bit much to take.

The other thing which might turn the tide is the increasing realization that the Democrats are responsible for this financial crisis. Most people might not be too interested in the historic roots of the crisis in the Carter Administration, but they sure will get in a knot when they really wake up to discover the Bush administration tried to correct the problem in 2003 and 2006, but was blocked by the Democratic house. I wonder if there isn't something like the Swiftboat movement trying to get this out:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q4/mail540.html#Swiss

"The average American listening to all the news of bank failures, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who?) being taken over by the government, and now a "bail-out" of large, privately owned and well known companies, is at first bewildered, and then angry. The average American should be furious.

But with whom should Americans be furious? That seems to be the big question as political fingers are pointing in every direction. Was it greedy CEO's with their "golden parachutes?" Was it the Democrats? Was it the Republicans? Was it Wall Street? (Who, exactly IS "Wall Street?") The simple answer is that it is all of the above.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke were on Capital Hill taking a verbal beating from some of the very people who should not be asking the questions, but answering them and answering those questions under oath.

Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.) and Congressman Barney Frank, (D-Mass.) are the first two who should be grilled, not by fellow politicians, but by an independent and hopefully very clever, angry, and mean attorney hired by the American people. No one from the present Justice Department need apply. Both should be asked how much money they have taken from lobbyists hired by the CEO's of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Since that is public record, they should then be asked what Fannie and Freddie got in return for that money. Barney Frank should be questioned about his House Bill, H.R. 3838, that is clearly designed to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat as long as possible despite all the signs that there was serious trouble ahead. But all his bill did was make the hole bigger in the side of the Titanic. Basically all H. R. 3838 did was: "To temporarily increase the portfolio caps applicable to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to provide the necessary financing to curb foreclosures by facilitating the refinancing of at-risk sub prime borrowers into safe, affordable loans, and for other purposes."

Barney Frank and his counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.) did everything they could to delay and cover-up the outright fraud and book-cooking that was going on within Freddie and Fannie. As far back as 2003, Freddie and Fannie were $9 billion dollars in debt because of bad loans that continued to be accepted on a daily basis. Pressure from liberals in Congress to continue giving out bad loans was relentless and for years it continued with CEO's, who happen to be friends of Dodd, Frank, Schumer, and Clinton, leaving with millions in their bank accounts as the companies they ran went under.

The truth is that this financial disaster for the American taxpayer didn't begin under George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or George Herbert Walker Bush, or Ronald Reagan. It started under Jimmy Carter. It started with the passing of The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. Basically, this act pushed local community banks and lenders, to "bend" the rules a little and give loans to low-income families. Like many liberal schemes, it seemed like a good idea at the time. There was a provision that protected the nervous lender in the clause that stated that loans should be given "in a safe and sound manner." This gave the bank some leeway and choice in the loans that were given out.

Under Bill Clinton, The Community Reinvestment Act was revised. Basically, the revision started to put pressure on lenders to take more financial risks. It was felt that lenders were not being "fair" to minorities and the poor who only wanted to share in the American dream of owning their own home. Janet Reno began to outwardly threaten banks and mortgage lenders with prosecution if home loans were not approved for those who wanted to purchase homes that, in truth, they could not afford. Fearing federal retribution, loans started being approved for people who had no down-payment, no jobs, no collateral, and absolutely no hope of ever being able to meet any mortgage payment after the grace period of low interest ran out. Then, the greed took over. Banks would "bundle" up loans, good and bad, and sell them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making all their money up front for loans they knew would default eventually. As these loans did default, in larger and larger numbers, even Fannie and Freddie could no longer stand up under the hemorrhage of money loss. Wall Street panicked and so did the federal government.

Were there warning signs that a disaster was looming? Of course, there were. But there was money to be made and politicians and CEO's alike were not about to give up the gravy train of money being crammed in their pockets. The CEO's of Freddie and Fannie would hire lobbyists to slip money into the pockets of Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, who was supposed to be overseeing the banking industry, to the tune of $133,900 since 1989. Barack Obama was number two at the trough with over $120,000 which was no small feat since he has only been in the Senate for three years. Dodd and Obama were closely followed by the last Democratic nominee, John Kerry, (D-Mass.) and then Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.)

What were these lobbyists buying for the millions they sprinkled around the Senate and House of Representatives? They were buying a blind eye. They were buying little or no oversight into the juggernaut that has finally crashed on the heads of the American taxpayer. CEO's got rich, politicians got rich and they got votes, being able to tell minorities and the poor, "See what we are doing for you?" For years, the red flags were stuffed under the desk and ignored.

Early in his administration, George Bush sounded an alarm over the small amount of working capital Fannie and Freddie had on hand. He urged them to sell more shares to increase their reserve in funding and put them on a more stable ground. He urged them to be more selective in the loans they bought. This suggestion was declined because the current stockholders would not make as much profit. Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae CEO from 1999 to 2004, decided to retire early, taking millions with him, under a cloud of accusations that he had cooked the books to make it appear the company was making money instead of going head-long into debt. Another player in this financial kabuki dance is Jamie Gorelick. That name should ring a bell with every American. She seems to surface right at the heart of every American disaster in the last 15 years. Ms. Gorelick was vice-chair of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003. Like all the others, she left with millions in her pocket while declaring that Fannie Mae "is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

The next year it was found that Fannie was $9 billion dollars in the red. Oddly, this $9 billion had been overlooked in the books Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Raines kept. Let's put Mr. Raines and Ms. Gorelick on the stand. The American people deserve to hear how much they gave lobbyists to pass on to their friends in Congress to keep the blinders on. That number is a staggering $16.2 million dollars since 1997. That amount bought very large blinders. And, it bought time. It bought time for the likes of Raines and Gorelick to make their millions and bow out before the bottom fell out.

Republican nominee John McCain raised the alarm two years ago but his plan for more oversight was killed in the Democrat-controlled committee. Over 20-year span, McCain took $20,000 but this did not stop him from voicing his concerns. The problem was that Democrats didn't want to hear about it. President Bush's warnings were also ignored. Should Bush have done more? Yes he should have. Unfortunately, Bush was distracted by the 9/11 attack and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So now, nearly every hour Americans watch as a pompous Chris Dodd or Barney Frank struts to a microphone to declare the "failed economic policies of the Bush administration are responsible for this mess." No, Senator, he is not. YOU and your greedy friends are responsible. It took three decades to reach the point of no return and some were there with their hands out nearly all of those years. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching (what I hope will be) a full investigation into all of this. This investigation will abruptly end should Barack Obama win in November. The last thing Democrats want is the American people learning how complicit so many of them are in the illegal practice at Fannie and Freddie that led to the taxpayers bearing the brunt of the their unbridled greed. While politicians want oversight over the "bail-out," there has been little outcry for an investigation into how all this evolved.

It's time for Americans to go to their windows and throw them open and yell, "We are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore!" Then, in November, vote the lot of them out of office!"
[/qiote]

 

[OldSolduer]

"Income redistribution"?

Sounds like good old socialism to me. Take from the hard working and give to the lazy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder if the award of the Nobel to such a well known critic of Bush and, increasingly, McCain, will have any measurable impact on the election. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a ‘feature’ article on 2008 Nobel laureate Paul Krugman:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wkrugman1017/BNStory/International/

A laureate who loves to beat around the Bush

SINCLAIR STEWART

Globe and Mail Update
October 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM EDT

NEW YORK — The history of any Big Idea, regardless of field or discipline, is invariably rooted in the thrill of epiphany. Archimedes had his bathtub. Newton had the pendant bough of an apple tree. Paul Krugman, somewhat less famously, had the departure lounge at Boston's Logan Airport.

Long before he became a celebrated columnist for The New York Times, inspiring both adoration and outrage for his withering, relentless critiques of the Bush administration, Mr. Krugman was a frustrated young economist struggling for recognition.

Yale University had decided not to give him a research fellowship. Colleagues weren't showing much interest in his theory of trade – nor, for that matter, were influential economic journals.

But in 1979, as he waited to catch a flight to Minnesota, he had what he once described in a brief autobiographical sketch as a “revelation.”

“Another patch of fog lifted,” he recounted, “and I saw my way clear to integrate monopolistic competition and comparative advantage.”

Okay, as Eureka moments go, this one isn't likely to supplant the discovery of gravity. But it was enough to revolutionize the study of global trade patterns and vault him into the firmament of respected academics, a place that was cemented this week when – in a surprise to many, himself included – he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Not that he doesn't have the credentials. But some observers felt the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would take pains to avoid the spectre of a politicized award on the eve of the U.S. election: Mr. Krugman has not merely launched acid attacks against President George Bush (whom he accused last year of leading the country into “strategic disaster and moral squalor”); he has increasingly done so to Republican candidate John McCain, whom he recently described as “more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago.” Mr. Krugman, 55, was defensive on this point with reporters.

“Nobel prizes are given to intellectuals,” he said after receiving the award. “A lot of intellectuals are anti-Bush.” The Academy, meanwhile, insisted that it made its selection solely on the basis of his economic research, particularly in two key areas: his new trade theory, and his later work on economic geography.

In the former, he countered centuries of received wisdom surrounding trade patterns: that countries are different, and will trade with one another based on what their comparative strengths are. England will export wool to Portugal, for instance, while Portugal will export wine to England.

But that model failed to account for why a handful of countries dominated trade, and did so in many of the same areas, with little obvious advantage. For instance, Sweden will import BMWs from Germany, and the Germans will import Volvos.

Mr. Krugman recognized that consumer demand for diversity of choice was also a fundamental driver of trade flows, allowing similar countries to exchange many of the same goods.

Likewise, his work on economic geography showed how transportation costs, coupled with greater economies of scale, lead to higher wages, in turn increasing migration into major cities.

If both of these ideas sound simple, it is because they are – deceptively so. Colleagues and fellow academics hold this out as one of Mr. Krugman's strengths, and is undoubtedly a hallmark of his success as a columnist, as well: an uncanny ability to create lean, crisp models to illuminate complex ideas.

“When he was doing new research, he had almost a unique skill at creating very, very simple theoretical models,” says longtime colleague Avinash Dixit, a professor of economics at Princeton, where Mr. Krugman still teaches a few classes.

“It was like wielding a stiletto that went right to the heart of the problem.”

Inspired by science fiction

Mr. Krugman was born in Long Island, N.Y., in 1953. His father worked for an insurance company and his mother was a housewife. As a kid, he was consumed with science fiction – particularly Isaac Asimov – and credits this childhood passion with propelling him into economics. In his Foundation Trilogy, Mr. Asimov devised a group of characters known as “psychohistorians,” who save civilization. This group of social scientists had no corollary in the real world, but the young Mr. Krugman decided that economics was the next closest thing.

“The power of economic models to show how plausible assumptions yield surprising conclusions, to distill clear insights from seemingly murky issues, has no counterpart yet in political science or sociology,” he once wrote.

Mr. Krugman showed promise from a young age, according to Jagdish Bhagwati, a Columbia University professor who taught him at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the late 1970s. “I gave him some work one summer and, in three weeks, he came back with a finished paper.”

Normally, a professor takes the credit when research is published, but “I didn't have to change a comma, so I had to make him the lead author,” recalls Prof. Bhagwati, who also is widely viewed as a candidate for the Nobel. “From the beginning, he showed enormous talent, but no one knew how far he could go, including myself.”

After Prof. Bhagwati helped him have his seminal paper published in 1979, Mr. Krugman became a fixture in economic circles. He taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford, and in 1991 was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal, a prize handed out every two years to an influential economist under the age of 40. Along the way, he has written several books, including a few bestsellers.

Yet, in the late 1990s, he began to veer away from cutting-edge economic research. He went through a divorce and then married Robin Wells, also a professor of economics at Princeton, in 1996, about the same time he embarked on his media career.

He began by writing columns for Fortune and Slate, the online magazine, before catching on with the Times's op-ed page in 1999. Since then, he has continued to stray, going farther into the political arena and using his column to skewer Mr. Bush and the Republicans, whom he once labelled “the party of the stupid.” Critics claim he has morphed from an economist into a polemicist, a partisan-minded scold often blind to troubling policies – financial or otherwise – hatched by the Democrats.

Even supporters occasionally chafe at the latter-day Krugman. Personally, they find him engaging and funny (he has a penchant for Monty Python, often using their skits to describe Republican decision-making), but some believe he goes too far with the printed word.

“I've read a couple of columns, and wish he hadn't written them,” says one of Mr. Krugman's friends, an influential economist – and Democrat – who did not want to go on the record with his misgivings. “Someone asked me, ‘Why is he always against Bush?' And I said, ‘To write twice a week, you need great passion – either a great love or a great hate. And he picked a great hate.'“ As for his economic musings in the Times, the friend adds: “Paul leaves people frustrated because you don't know where he stands frequently. He argues one thing one day, and another the next.”

But Princeton's Prof. Dixit says his colleague's persona as a popular commentator shouldn't detract from his real contributions to economics.

“The column in the Times has nothing to do with his research,” he insists. “He's clearly recognized as one of the top few researchers on trade. And he basically single-handedly revolutionized the study of economic geography.”

Of course, given the lustre of the Nobel, and his embroidered-on-the-sleeve political sympathies, some wonder if Mr. Krugman might not find a home in Washington as some kind of economic adviser in a Democratic government should Barack Obama be elected next month.

But Mr. Krugman, with trademark candour, curtly dismisses the idea.

“I am temperamentally not suited,” he said. “I say the wrong things.”

Sinclair Stewart is a Globe and Mail correspondent based in New York.

For good or ill, Krugman’s bona fides just got a HUGE lift so his criticisms will carry more weight, but it’s not clear to me that any significant number of people know what he thinks – beyond “Bush is an idiot.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

As many expected, Colin Powell endorses Obama. He did so very publicly, on Meet the Press, and blasted McCain for a dirty campaign and for picking an unqualified running mate.

 

[Kirkhill]

The US risks becoming ungovernable.

With 95% of Blacks clinging to their race and whites split amongst those that support blacks, those that know they should support blacks and those that just can't support blacks the outcome is fraught (to use an archaic word).

If Obama loses there is a risk of a reaction not on Rodney King lines but more on the scale of Watts-Detroit 1968.

If Obama wins I don't expect an equivalent white reaction immediately but I fear that the possibility exists that with an Obama-Reid-Pelosi Washington the policies will drive locals further away from the centre and more likely to challenge or ignore the centre.  And that way takes you back to the days of Whiskey Rebellions, Revenuers and Prohibition, as well as the Ungovernable West, Jacksonian Mountains and "independent-minded" not to mention secessionist states.

One term of Obama the US will survive handily.  Two terms are a problem.  But if the O-R-P philosophy takes hold in Washington then I think that the Great Post Partisan could end up being seen as the catalyst for the greatest division that the US has seen since their Civil War.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don’t agree.

Thanks to a Constitution that is a work of genius and the evolution of a wondrous array of e.g. foundations, institutes and centres woops, I mean centers that embrace the whole political spectrum: right, centre and left, the Americans have managed to create a slow moving, cautious (dare I say conservative?) system that is hard to shift too far too fast, even during a crisis.

There is, always, an eloquent ’government in waiting’ that is countering whatever the president and/or the congress propose. The new media makes it faster and easier for the foundations, institutes and centers to get their message out.

The American president’s powers are relatively restricted – even when he has a same-party congress. And the congress is powerfully influenced by local people and their issues – like a hanging, having to get re-elected every two years focuses the mind  - and by the industry group lobbyists on K Street who fund all the election campaigns.

There are a lot of checks and balances in the American system – beyond the ones taught in grammar schools. American legislators show a commendable independence – especially when someone tries to whip them into a nice, neat, partisan line. And powerful voices whisper into the ears of presidents and speakers, cabinet secretaries and congressmen and political advisors, too.

Knee jerk shifts in policy happen – just as they do here, but they are fairly rare.

 

[Kirkhill]

Problem that I see Edward, is that politicians are elected by their constituents every two years.  And you are right, they do get elected by pandering.  But when downtown Detroit sees the world differently than Sabetha, Kansas and both of those entities have the capability of creating their own day to day existences, through locally elected Mayors, Sheriffs and Judges, then the risk is that the unifying Federal can be inched (Kansas) or shoved (Detroit) out of the way.

In places like Sabetha, the long term strategy for dealing with the Federal intruders is to adopt Trudeau's strategy for the Governor-General and do nothing: just let it wither to irrelevance.  And that attitude prevails across much of Red State America  (dominated by Joel Garreau's Empty Quarter aka Flyover Country aka Jesusland).  They are defiantly proud to be Americans but they find little comfort in anything Washingtonian.  For most of them Washington is seen as a place that takes, and takes too much).

In Detroit, (and Washington proper) Washington is seen as a place that gives, and gives too little.

Generally speaking Americans get along, but the level of discourse I am observing during this election cycle seems to be incrementally more divisive than it has been in previous campaigns and those were progressively more divisive as partisans on both sides became more and more frustrated with the "Other".

While I accept your "Checks and Balances" argument as it applies to Washington directly, Washington has to fight to impose itself, make itself relevant, to Americans. I would argue that geography, politics, history and demography all work against a "United" country.

The Federals have been remarkably successful in holding the country together, and their is NO reason why it cannot continue to hold together in the future.  I just point out that there are many faultlines that require will and energy to bridge.  Lacking will and energy then the bridges will fail.  This is especially true if others find advantage in exploiting the faultlines.

My concern is that, at this moment in time, the bridging forces are weakening while the exploitative forces are strengthening. 

 

[tomahawk6]

If Obama is elected we may see the greatest challenge to the Constitution since the Civil War.Obama is out to force the US into a marxist box.His big stumbling block will be the states.The one's that are already blue states will be less of a problem for him than the red states.

As for General Powell if he thinks the McCain campaign is negative he obviously is blind to the outragous lies,fraud and intimidation that is the Obama campaign.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/07/16/oklahoma_rebellion

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Key's resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."

Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.

State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.

 

[Kirkhill]

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War,

A Tennesseean of my acquaintance, way back in the 80s, was adamant that the proper name for the discussion was "The War for States Rights".

 

[a_majoor]

Besides the Civil War (which made the subtle but fundamental change to America's name, from "These United States" to "The United States"), I think the greatest legislative change to the character of the United States was the Congress making very broad and sweeping interpretations of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" in a well intentioned move to enforce Civil Rights.

Once the Congress realized they had the ability to reach past the States and local legislators, (with the support of the Judiciary, which *could* have stopped this), then the expanding reach of the State was no longer checked, with results as diverse as the "Great Society" and the "Sub Prime" mortgage crisis. If all the Red States stood together with Oklahoma, I suspect the US Supreme Court would act to strike down these initiatives and the Congress would work to subvert the process through whatever means necessary for them to prevail.

 

[Drag]

As far as I remember slavery fell under the domain of states' rights....  And it took the Civil War to abolish it.