Obama gives me a reason to vote for McCain

OMG- FOREIGN CARS- DA HORA!!!

Can any Obama supporter explain how we are going to "improve our standing" in the world by refusing to trade with it? Seems a bit counterintuitive, no?

Posts like this make me question whether you pseudo pundits are really just morons in disguise. Your actually whining about not getting "warm fuzzies" for Obama because of this ad. Geez, talk about setting up a false equivalency. Honestly, WTF is wrong with you. What do you think Mccains entire campaign is? All truth and sweetness? ITs pretty much agreed that McCain is running the most dishonest campaign in recent memory. What havent they lied about? ANd you think a McCainn adminstration would be magically more honest and open than his campaign? Obama may not be your perfect candidate, but he's generally acted like an adult as opposed to the oppositon. DOn't we want adults in charge? Or do you think the last 8 years are the model we should strive for? I only read you occasionally, so i don't know your views for the last 8 years, but i'd be willing to bet that you were a Bush supporter way back when, and you probably disregard those who could tell Bush was just frat boy playing as a grownup. And in case your thinking i'm overreacting to your post..i wouldnt disagree. But i'm sick of seeing these whiny posts that dont acknowledge any sense of reality from supposedly intelligent people.

It's a dumb ad. Every campaign produces a few of them. The worst aspect of this one that instead of highlighting McCain's hypocrisy with regard to the car industry and then promoting a good Obama policy -- which is what it sets out to do -- the presentation of the ad simply makes uncomfortable viewing for anyone who owns a foreign car. The ad tries to highlight a clear instance in which the Straight Talk Express yet again got jammed into reverse, but by demonizing the foreign brands individually rather than simply pointing out what a transparent lie McCain told when he blathered on about only buying American, it just insults viewers with that brand demonization. Crude and clumsy.

In answer to Bill Kilgore, I don't think Germany or Japan's somewhat restrictive approach to trade seems to have harmed them in international relations, and certainly not China, which seems in international terms to have moved way beyond the status of hot babe du jour. But what the more restrictive approach has certainly done for these countries is helped them immensely in terms of relative gains. The net result of our trade policies of the past 15 years has been to diminish American economic performance. The fact that world economic performance has no doubt been improved overall is scant consolation when the US is in such dire condition and the whole world system is so unstable.

Besides, if free trade is so darned good at "improving our standing," why is our standing in the toilet after the trade deals of the past 15 to 20 years? Seems to me that our only trading partners that appreciate our free trade stance are the Central American ones.

The United States cannot go on running the deficits it runs, including the trade deficit, unless we simply abolish nation states and go to one worldwide state. That is obviously not going to happen. Relative gains and balance sheets, contrary to the free trade ideologues, are still important, as the current financial crisis demonstrates all too clearly.

[...] Here’s a thoroughly disgusting ad from Barack Obama. I’m hopelessly torn over whether the xenophobia, the protectionism, the promise of subsidies, or the general gutter identity politics is the most noxious element. Christ. [...]

I tried commenting on your previous post, several times, but nothing happened. So I'll post it here:

PALIN: Dr Kissinger, what a pleasure to meet you!

DR K: The pleasure is all mine, governor.

PALIN: I've heard so much about you! For some reason John [McCain] just can't stop talking about you! That's so weird... it's almost like he has issues, or something. At any rate, you entered government with Richard Nixon's promise to end the Vietnam war, with honor, didn't you? How did that work out for you?

DR K: Uh...

PALIN: Yes, well, at least you two did finally end the Vietnam war during Nixon's second term, right?

DR K: Uh, technically Dick was no longer President, then... but, uh, during the Ford administration, yes.

PALIN: Wow, that's right, I didn't want to bring up that Watergate thingy. So... You must be glad that Vietnam is doing really well these days, with its free market reforms? I mean, the one million plus boat refugees and the terror that followed the communist victory must have been quite the burden on your conscience all those years!

DR K: Conscience? What is this thing you speak of?

PALIN: So... remind me.. how did you feel again about my hero, Ronald Reagan, during the 1970s and 1980s?

DR K: Uh... I came to appreciate Reagan later...

PALIN: What do you mean later?

DR K: Around 1989.

PALIN: You mean when he had been a world historical success? Doing the opposite of almost everything you stood for? I suppose he had the advantage of knowing for sure that detente was pretty useless because you had the brilliance of trying it first, right? Yes, that was really clever on your part, setting up Reagan for victory by so thoroughly discrediting the 'respectable' alternative policy first! Did he speak much to you during his time in the White House?

DR K: [looking at his shoes] Have you been to NY before?

PALIN: So I hear you've been talking to President Bush once every three months and to Dick Cheney once every month during the duration of the Iraq war? That must have been like old times, aye? Vietnam all over again?

DR K: [smiling] It did bring back good memories!

PALIN: I bet you were all ready for that scene where our evacuation helicopters are mobbed by American loyalists on the roof of the American ambassador's residence in Baghdad's Green Zone! If you'd played your cards right you might have been up for another Nobel while another million refugees made their way to... well, to somewhere.

DR K: [beaming with false modesty] Sometimes I think I've been awarded too many prizes.

PALIN: [all coy] Oh, don't be silly, Dr K! I bet you've been telling Bush and Cheney during all those years of Oval Office chats that Iraq strategy really, really sucked. That it wasn't a good idea to have the same people from the failed Nixon administration pushing the same failed policies in the same failed ways in a very similar new, failing war. You probably told them: "if I've learned anything, it's not to listen to me! But that presents you with a paradox not seen since the lying Kretenzer, ha ha!" You probably advocated the surge ever since 2003? Much as you advocated a change of strategy in Vietnam? Did you pick Petraeus in the same way that you pushed for a radical military overhaul thirty-five years ago?

DR K: Uh...

PALIN: Well, you know what, Dr K? This talk has been sooo very instructive! Thank you so much! I know you think as highly of me as you thought of my hero, Ronald Reagan, and as highly as you thought of his beliefs and policies during the 1970s and 1980s. I can't tell you how much comfort this gives me! Because, you know, if history teaches us anything, it is that Western governors know how to lead the country away from a period of Kissinger policies right into a period of success.

[Palin smiles and exits]

Dan:

I tend to agree that the more we see of Obama, the less there seems to be to like. Hope and change seems, somehow, to have morphed into Walter Mondale, with a Daily Kos aftertaste.

But sometimes, no matter what your ideological heart says, you have to look at the two men before you. Obama is inexperienced, but seems to have a calm approach, and does not govern from his dyspeptic gut. He also thinks about things. He leaves one with the impression you might be able to get him to change his mind if circumstances dictate.

McCain, on the other hand, has a foreign policy that is aggressive, a domestic policy that is aggressive, and a temper that is aggressive. The markets are in melt down? Fire the SEC head! Ban short sales! Use the blunt instrument of government to knock heads together! Bush, in the current situation, has at least had the grace to be invisible. Can you imagine McCain handling this situation? All of Wall Street would be working for the government for 15,000 per year!

As for free trade -- I think Obama would have two years to push things through before he loses his Congressional supermajority. I am dubious he can do much damage in that time. And I don't think McCain is going to be able to push things through, like a Colombian free trade agreement or negotiaition authority. And it's not like the Doja Round was going anywhere anyway.

In any event, since we both live in non-swing states, our votes don't matter much anyway -- do they?

You're seriously still thinking about voting for McCain over protectism?

When the Chinese invade during the McCain administration, I'm gonna be the first one to remind you of this one.

Consider also the dynamics of this campaign. Both Obama and McCain had a centrist image prior to the primary. McCain was already tacking sharply to the right during the primary. And Obama had to tack in a populist economic direction after the primary to appease Hillary voters.

In the general election campaign, Obama is having to appease the Democrats' economic base while McCain is still dealing with the legacy of all the drivel Rush Limbaugh fed ideological right-wingers for years about McCain somehow being a moderate rather than the hardcore neocon that he is -- drivel that gained credence because of McCain's one repudiation of neocons of major consequence, campaign finance reform. So both Obama and McCain have had to tack away from the center for the general election campaign, in reversal of the usual rules. Of course, for McCain, there's an upside -- Limbaugh's drivel also gained credence with the shallow centrists who dominate the MSM, hence us having been force-fed all these glowing tributes from network and cable news about what a lovable "maverick" John McCain is, while his volcanic temper, extreme ideology, and gross ignorance get swept under the carpet.

Accordingly, I'd suggest that anyone who is still undecided review the overall record of these candidates and the company they keep. Obama is a moderate, no doubt about it. McCain is nuts, and an extremist -- overall, in my view, tied with Fred Thompson for the status of "most right wing GOP candidate this year". Frankly, I'd have rather had Romney as the Republican nominee, because we could at least have had the semblance of a real debate during the campaign and he could have been relied on not to blow up the country as president. McCain is the worst of all possible worlds, an aging, hard core lunatic, yet with a fake moderate reputation and beloved by the media until his lies got just too much a couple of weeks ago, with a fringe secessionist running mate who still manages to get good press. We therefore have a circus on the Republican side, rather than a chance for a real debate about issues. And no-one talks about McCain's platform -- a platform that shows us he's really someone who believes that the only things Bush did wrong were not to borrow enough money, not to cut enough taxes and not to invade enough countries.

So the McCain ads falsely saying Obama wants to teach little kids about sex roll right off your back, but Obama's fake promise to bring back jobs gives you the cold fuzzies?

This ad just seems desperate and dumb. Obama's weakness is really, really clear. I mean, it should really be very hard to lose to a Republican this time around. We haven't had such a stellar time as of late, given the Iraq fiasco (Surge or no Surge), Katrina, and now the collapse of the financial sector. Yes, all of these problems are much larger than Republican actions, but jeez, they've been in charge for the past 8 years, and it should be so easy to pin blame on them. The fact that it's even close suggests there's something very wrong going on in the Democratic party. If they lose, they should just disband, otherwise we'll be stuck in a one-party state by default.

As an aside, can I just vote for you, you know as a write-in? "Drezner '08"

I suppose it's better that we're subsidizing Detroit rather than simply using tariffs and trade barriers.

It does raise a question, though: why shouldn't we subsidize and promote certain key industries? Most of our competitors do it - several European nations subsidize key industries, while the Japanese and Chinese use trade barriers (the Japanese especially are good at this). Not that this means that we ought to aim for some kind of export-oriented economy, but it probably would be a good thing to at least try to cultivate some industries.

This was easier when I was the only Eric commenting... Darn you new Eric!

Anyhow, I pretty much agree that it the ad is ridiculous. I gave up judging candidates purely on the ads they run a long time ago. I don't like all of Obama's economic populism, nor do I think all of his economic advisors like it either. On balance, I agree with more of what Obama has put forward than what McCain has put forward, particularly on foreign policy, but also on domestic issues.

Pandering always bugs me, but that seems to be the price of campaigning these days. Both campaigns are doing it; McCain's VP choice was the ultimate pander (anyone really want to defend it on the merits of Palin's expertise?). So I shake my head, sigh, and look at whose policies I prefer. And I do admit to thinking about how McCain typically responds when challenged or confronted with a crisis situation and come away unimpressed.

Last little addendum -- candidates pander because it works. That is more a commentary on the populace than on the candidates, sadly. Turns out McCain's ridiculous celebrity ads had an effect. Both sides could agree not to run such callous ads, but then both have an incentive to do so (ah, Prisoners' Dilemma, is there any situation that you can't help explain?!).

Welcome to the pox on both their houses camp. I'll probably, like you, end up voting Obama. And probably for similar reasons. But I really, really, don't like Obama's politics.

The McCain "strraight talk" moment you mention reminds me of a moment in the tv show THE WEST WING, in which Alan Alda (yes, Alan Alda!) played a conservative presidential candidate. At a press conference someone asked him how many jobs he intended, as president, to create. He said something like, "None. Presidents don't create jobs. The private sector creates jobs."

Boy, did you miss the point of the ad. The point of the ad is to show McCain's hypocrisy and how he lies — he said he always buys American, ha! he actually owns 3 foreign cars! It also plays on the "he's just old and out of touch" theme. The video segment of McCain is particularly well suited for auto manufacturing states. So the point of the ad is to show that McCain is not a straight talker, he lies. Where you get the whole swing states and pandering to protectionism thing is quite a stretch. And missing such an obvious point of the ad makes me question your grounding in the "real world".

This is the first time I've read your blog and despite the endorsing quips in the side column, I'm not impressed. Your four points have no relation to the ad. If you want to bring up your fears, or push readers' buttons, that Obama seems willing to give loan guarantees to every Tom, Terry & Betty, then bring that up. Trying to make a connection to the ad just make you seem desperate to fill blog space. Really, people can tell when you have nothing to say and are just trying to generate buzz for your blog.

Back to the auto foreign or domestic debate: Autos are assembled from components built all over the globe and the whole thing could be assembled in Tennessee or MIchigan. What determines if a auto is domestic or foreign, it seems, is the nameplate on the grill. Is a Ford built of foreign made parts and assembled in Michigan any more or less domestic than a Volkswagan built of foreign parts and assembled in Tennessee? That's the real reason the ad weak.

You can rest assured that this is merely campaign rhetoric that has nothing to do with what Obama will do in office. As for "Both Obama and McCain had a centrist image prior to the primary." Obama the most liberal Senator in the U.S.Senate a 'centrist'? How many 'present' votes and mind-numbingly statements of zero content did Zero Obama have to make to fool you into that?

What Obama will do in office will be an utter and absolute catastrophe. No fear, he'll find a way to blame the 'market' and 'Republicans' and 'bitter clingers' for all the damage he'll do. It's worked before ...

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/09/blame-fannie-mae-and-congress-for.html

"If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

#11 "Pandering always bugs me"

Yet you are voting for the party (the Dems) that has made pandering on the taxpayers dime into an art form. A very expensive art form.

These are the guys who spent $300 billion on a housing bailout just 3 months back, threw in billions for pork just to keep their special interests well greased (ACORN), then when Paulson comes calling for his $700 billion, they say, but wait, we havent dont anything for homeowners. we need more! Egads. Oh, and they just threw in $25 billion auto industry bailout in the budget CR ... chump change for a drunken sailor Democrat Congress!

"why shouldn’t we subsidize and promote certain key industries?"

You mean what reasons *other* than that it will feed failure and starve success, mis-direct capital from efficient firms to politically-connected ones, and end up making us poorer overall than if we just kept taxes, regulations lower and tamer?

Gee, can't think of too many. :-)

But consider this: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were examples of GSEs - Govt Sponsored Enterprises. They were a form of industrial policy. Congress wrote and tweaked rules - like Community lending etc. in order to encourage some 'good stuff' happening. Like giving not-very-credit-worthy people chance to own a home with low-money down.

Hows that been working out lately? Want a repeat?

There seems to be a LOT of hate out there!

Funny thing - I actually like both candidates this year. Often for me the issue is which candidate is the least bad, but this year I think there are two good choices.

I don't buy into the rhetoric which implies that either one of them is the archtype of evil - not even for (gasp!) dishonest or misleading ads. You people who whelp litter's of puppies after seeing this stuff - where have you been? Remember 2000? 2004? You know, Swift Boats & faked memos written on behalf of a long-dead NG colonel (but surely what he would have written if he could come back). So how did they work that out? With an ouja board?

This is actually a clean campaign by comparison, perhaps the cleanest in 24 years.

Obama is my choice, and stuff like this doesn't queer the pitch for me. What I really dislike is the "you must be a racist if you don't vote for Obama" line a lot of 'commentators' are selling. That comes periously close to a direct insult. Was I a 'racist' because I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry? If I voted against Obama for similar reasons would that paint me as a racist?

Apparently yes. Folks, get off the culture wars message. It's ooooooollllllldddddd! Obama sees that and (mostly) doesn't play those cards - Bill Clinton actively argues against it - so why can't the rest of the Democrats see that it queers the pitch with a lot of voters you NEED to CONVINCE?! Could it be - brain damage?

I have bought many American made cars. Ford, Chevy it did not matter. I alway had problems with them. Went Toyota, Honda and now Nissan. You cannot compare the quality of my Nissan Van to any American made van. And the American auto dealerships have such poor customer service it is amazing to me that they have lasted this long. The Obama presidency will be the nail in the coffin of our heavy industries. I guess all the out of work auto workers could go to Mexico or Canada. Or stay here and build bikes.

Obama the most liberal Senator in the U.S.Senate a ‘centrist’?

Remember that John Kerry is also the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate. In wing-nut world, becoming the Democratic nominee makes a Senator the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, by definition.

Meanwhile, actual voting data places McCain pretty far to the right.

[...] you can expect pressure on him to pursue many misguided policies. Whether we are talking about free trade, unions, or more government healthcare, his party will pressure him hard to deliver. - 8 [...]

[...] a good deal of Obama’s advertising has had a bit of a xenophobic twinge to it, most notably this one, which protests the fact that McCain owns foreign-manufactured cars. Note to the Obama campaign: so [...]