The drive to downplay differences between Obama, McCain
By Steve Benen Monday Jun 09, 2008 3:10pm
Just a few days ago, Paul Krugman had an interesting item on his blog on the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign as the dominant story shifts from a heated primary race to the general election. When the focus was on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it was in the media’s interest to exaggerate differences between two candidates who agree on almost everything. With the focus shifting to Obama and John McCain, it should make the media’s job easier — there are, as Krugman noted, “stark differences on issues between the candidates.”
I assumed that Obama and McCain are so different — personally, ideologically, professionally, temperamentally — the media just can’t screw this up.
I stand corrected. The LA Times ran an editorial the other day, noting that we “might be surprised at the breadth of issues on which they largely agree.”
Some might complain that this means voters will have little to choose between in November. We say: Welcome to the middle, candidates. We hope you stick around here once you’re in office, unlike the White House’s current occupant.
Specifically, the Times pointed to general agreement between Obama and McCain on national security policy (both want a bigger military and oppose torture), immigration (both want comprehensive reform, including a “pathway to citizenship”), environmental policy (both want to create a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases), and social issues (both oppose gay marriage and support stem-cell research).
Bloomberg ran a similar news item, insisting that on global warming, immigration, government transparency, and Guantanamo Bay, Obama and McCain are not only in agreement, but are “probably” more aligned “than any major-party candidates since 1976.”
Login or Register to post comments.
LOL Nice try Repugs. This won't last and the difference between the 2 the important voters (Conservative Dems and Indies) already know. Something else that Obama and his people will slam down with little effort.
Wow, this really does make it easier for me!
Let's see. The Rs have been mucking it up for going on 8 years now.
So I'll vote D.
/s
Well, they are both males and Americans. After that they differ as much as any two American males could in about as many ways as anyone can count.
This bs is so easy to knock down that it won't even be any fun.
Their ties are different colors.
Their stands on those issues are starkly different but they do have stand on those issues.
Jeez, this sounds like one hell of a desperate attempt by one hell of a desperate media and party.
one represents a third bush term and the other represents change from the bush administration period
Oh please! SPARE me!
Talk about grasping at straws! HA! MSM...I scoff at thee!
McCain flip flops so often, especially on torture and wiretapping, it's hard to tell where he stands anymore.
One is an apparently decent human being and the other is from the GOP.
Both have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Hmmm . . what else?
One is highly educated and the other didn't think much when he was exposed to higher education.
One is a man who appears very comfortable with himself, the other is a man who disappears in front of a lime jello colored background.
One believes in ending a war, the other believes in starting a new war.
Damn, they are right. These guys are identical
Anything for a byline. Who cares if it's true? The rubes will read it and ignore the death and destruction going on in their names around the world.
This may be a behind-the-scenes effort to make Obama less scary to vote for if you're a disgruntled Republican uneasy about jumping to the other side.
To be fair, I have absolutely no proof to back up this assumption.
What? They are both Republicans, McCain used to be closer to the moderate camp than he is now, but Obama is clearly a moderate Republican (and so is Hillary). We don't have an actual Democrat running for President in '08.
McCain Campaign Agrees With CNBC Pundit: Americans Making $200,000 Are ‘Not Rich’
McGrampa = Elitist.
Oh...okay! Well, then...if there's no real difference between McCain and Obama, then there's no reason why anyone should have any objection to my decision to vote for Obama -- is there??
The Economist has a picture of both on the cover of its most recent issue, with the caption "The Best America has to offer" or something like that. A further example of downplaying the differences.
McCain may have served his country in the past, but now he's serving the needs of the worst this country has to offer. He should move over and let new blood drive.
Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 15:
Wow.
97% of us are not rich. Tell me something I didn't know.
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 13:
Or the alternative - if there's no significant difference, feel free to vote for the one that makes you most comfortable (hint: old white guy)
Obama should run with this:
Do you folks realize that their last hope is to point out how much McCain is just like me? That's what they're saying now in the media. They think that the way to win is to point out that McCain isn't like Bush, he's like Barack Obama. Well I got news for all of you! He's not like me on [insert myriad issues], he's just like Bush on [insert myriad issues], and if you want me in the White House, you should vote for me!
McCain may have served his country in the past,
Yeah, we really need to get a grip on this. Honor their service, yes, refuse to think critically about their skills because of that, uh uh.
Are we talking about the 2000 McCain doll or the newer model?
Ahh Republicans.. .relying on the idea that their voters are uneducated, ill informed rubes in the age of instant and eternal access to information isn't going to win you this election.
The Corporate media tries - once again - to pick our president FOR us.
I wonder why? Why do you think the Corporate media wants to pick the next president? I wonder why . . . .
*
How long has it been,maybe eight/nine years,since the media reported anything close to reality?
My newspaper,The Cincinnati Enquirer,has rarely if ever reported much reality in the political arena with the exception of endorsing Strickland over Blackwell for gov. this past election.
Another thing;how can people be so stupid as to believe any political ads?It os so obvious that they are propaganda.
Right. Stunning analysis. Almost as good as the "no real difference between Gore and Bush" pieces these guys were running eight years ago.
George W. Bush. "Compassionate conservative." That big splash was American Punditry heaving it's credibility over the side back in 2000.
This does not mean I don't think people are buying into this trope, though. Because I talk to people everyday who do. It's a big world out there, outside these little comment strings. And there's a lot of people in it who aren't noticing the sleight of hand.
being made similiar by some so they can use emotional personality issues to attract certain demographic voters
ie. confederate flag,people that believe barack is a muslim you know people that get their news from hannity
this is for black and white thinkers they don't want the facts that's too much work plus they might need to make new friends...
BaddogLtd @ 22:
older model same options
O.T. ED Hill apologizes for her 'terrorist jab remark' and is fired.
E in MD @ 23:
Why not? It got em the last two.
The internets have been around for a while now.
McCain served his country…explain this for me. I realize its conventional logic, especially in elite circles, but explain it to me so that it makes sense and pretend I’m not a blind US nationalist. I know it’s a touchy subject, but we did kill millions of people in SE Asia, and according to McCain we should have killed more. He also hates “gooks” and always will. I don’t think bombing a poor country for developing in ways that we didn’t approve of is “serving his country”, but I realize that we HAVE to repeat that phrase like it’s true, especially when not trying to look to radical…or honest.
McCain is a violent war mongerer who, if he had it his way, would start another Iraq, and quick. We COULD use his violent service in another immoral violent war but won’t, which undercuts a possibly good point.
Yep, there's a huge drive from the media and McDowell's campaign to equate the two (e.g."The Right Change"). His campaign strategy is to be Obama. McCain will start dressing like Obama soon.
G String @ 31:
Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 29:
Not fired - reassigned. Her new job title is Loofah Wench.
The media did the asame thing in 2000.they want them to appear to be the same;then they make it about character;and then the Rethug Swiftboaters do their thing.Obama will hopefully call them for what they are--lying scum who will steal whatever we have left after the Bush Crime Machine has tapped us out.
Dr. (terrorist fist jab) Matt @ 29:
Well, they pulled from that time slot. They're just going to move her around til the fuss dies down. She's still getting paid.
when i saw that fist thump i instantly knew it was going to be used as racists crap i'm not smart.. there just that predictable
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 34:
Assistant Loofah Wench? Senior Loofah Wench? Or, in her case, Cougar Loofah Wench.
bobsf @ 17:
Actually, the headline is "America at its Best". Here's the last paragraph:
Both candidates have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have those five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.
Yeah, this is simply to keep it from being a blowout, then a couple of weeks before the election the " ... except for the fact that Obama's a TERRAIST!" campaign goes into full effect to get those last few percentage points.
rooth terrorist fist jab hussein @ 38:
John Cougar Loofah Wench??
the EU knows the difference between these two
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080610160423.vc1w5t1b&show_artic...
LIES,
FALSE EQUIVALENCE,
WHATEVER!
They are pulling out all the stops! They have five months to try to screw up people's heads. They haven't even warmed up yet. I can't wait to see how many Scarboro talking points they will try to float. Fasten your seatbelts, your rollercoaster ride-of-lies is just beginning. This one will have dips, loops, drops, twists and sharp turns. try to keep your eyes in your head and your ears from being torn off.
For relief, I recommend three stooges reruns. I imagine russert as moe, chrissie as larry and scarboro as shemp or joe. I'll borrow the whole cnbc staff as curley(they posted the 'obama tax hike' meme on their streamer and undergraph all day).
One of them opposes torture by voting for it every time he can.
i'm not surprised, the media is going to work overtime to make mcsame look good.
and they are going to have to work real hard because i can't listen to a mcinsane speech
without laughing and wondering WTF kind of nutcase train wreck is this guy???? how can anyone in their right mind take him seriously?
it FREAKING bizarre, the guy is a freak of nature!!!!
remember that marketing campaign with stickers placed on items that said "buy me" it's same b.s. for people who don't want to make a decision
when mcsame smiles after he says something that "he thinks" s a gotcha moment
on OBAMA..... well it's just pathetic.
and of course he leads every thought with "friends" like he's talking to a bunch of school children.
it's like the twilight zone
this is in the same vein and mccain trying to play up his similarities with hillary.
some maverick, phhpt, he spends all his time trying to prove he is like the others.
obama is for:
1) End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas (mccain voted 'no' on this)
2) Hold corporations responsible for pensions & work conditions
3) Close tax loopholes for US companies relocating abroad
4) Enforce environmental & labor provisions in trade agreements
5) Stand firm against CAFTA for labor & environmental standards
6) Insist on labor and human rights standards for China trade
mccain supports:
1) Cut corporate income taxes to keep jobs here
2) No environmental provisions in trade agreements
3) Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track
4) Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade
those who have run across my posts before, and remember them, might recognize me for my constant (and repetitive) railing against military and economic imperialism (neoconservatism and neoliberalism), and i pray to FSM that obama will be the REAL change agent, and reject any form of imperialism. revert the IMF back to its post-WWII agenda. tie environmental and labor standards into ALL trade agreements, and stop acting as if we own the globe.
Comrade Rutherford @ 14:
Dude,
Even your Repub buddies call Obama the nation's "most liberal Senator". I knew one of you fools would come out with this shit. And I thought Helen Keller was dead.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 34:
New job is shooting beaver in your face.
karl @ 37:
Me too. You know why? Because it was an honest genuine sweet moment between a man and wife, a heterosexual couple with affection for each other and an obvious bond between them.
The kind of thing that makes the Greedy Old Perverts froth at the mouth and want to destroy something. That makes Lynne Cheney want to write lesbian love stories with violent overtones amidst the heaving busoms. That makes someone in the White House send for Jeff Gannon/Guckert to spend the night. That makes GOP Congressmen go looking under bathroom stall doors and Congressional interns run for their lives.
Even Barney isn't safe.
sully18 @ 50:
I`m sorry. It should have read "in the face."
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 41:
John Cougar Melon Loofah Wench
EU is tired of the u.s. hegemony strategy they want barack...http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
I have defended Obama against Clinton’s dishonest attacks and the corporate press’ fake Wright PR controversy. I have also pointed out that he will lead to little REAL change, because of personal ideological objection, elite inside the beltway thinking and institutional barriers. This is an example of what I’m talking about. He has now named a staunch WalMart defender as his chief economic advisor. His book, the second link, shows that he, like all ideologically rigid and stuck in the past economists, is a strong believer in “free markets”. This is a change from what exactly? His difference in McCain’s economic policy is basically superficial, not fundamental.:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/06_missing_markets_furman.aspx?p=1
And you guys thought getting voters to vote against their own best interests was EASY. Sheesh!!
G String @ 55:
thanks for that, that is some crucial information.
i didn't know about the wal mart-apologist...
as far as his belief in the so-called "free" market, i figured that if he got the dem nomination he must believe in that myth. it seems to be a requisite POV to succeed in either party at a national level.
that said, check out some of the issues he does support (me@48), there is some hope.
The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes ~ By Charley Reese
Pardon me for mentioning this for about the tenth time but McCain has been ponderously and somewhat ineptly moving back to centrists positions for some time. This is why he dumped the Hagee endorsement. I believe that I also mentioned that this would be done with the assistance of the main stream media. Although many expect a massive turnout asymmetry in the vote to produce a landslide in Obama's favor this cannot be counted on. This is why it will be necessary to pull the Democratic party back together. It's going to be a much closer election than most people think.
The Washington Post also jumped onto this silly little bandwagon - TWICE within the last couple of days.
First, an Editorial, no less: "Obama is like President Bush"
[Well, permit me to point out one overriding difference, Mr. Editor:
You love, worship and cringe before the looniest president the country has ever had -
but you hate Obama's guts. Why this is so would make a much more interesting topic for the WaPo readership than the unbelievably far-fetched notion that they have anything at all in common.
You're just a trouble-maker, sir.]
Then, a piece yesterday trying to imply that Republicans and Democrats have much in common:
[What IS this? Ah, yes: The Fred Hiatt LEGACY. A covered a$$ is not a dead a$$, huh?]
Gimme a break.
The LA Times is owned by someone who has a reputation for being a "committed Zionist," in Sam Zell , who is a McStupid backing skid mark ; the LA Times now possesses all the legitimacy of the Weakly Substandard and the American Sphincter.......
Peter G @ 59:
good points there
the dems do need to come together. but, also, obama must continue to reach out to indeps (like me), repubs and greens, etc.
the rove as genius meme is dead. his basic political ploy, to solely cater to the base, has been upended and sunk.
That is just ridiculous. No two candidates have had such opposite viewpoints since Vietnam. Without policy differences, it just comes down to personality. What is better for a leader, age and experience, or youth and inspiration?
Watching Obama's repulsive, dignity-destroying performance before the bloodthirsty AIPAC crowd recently, sporting his little dual US/Israel flag pin in his lapel, tells us all we need to know about the supposed differences between the candidates.
This (AIPAC) is the same evil organization that gives standing ovations to pastor John "nuke Iran" Hagee, wants the US military in Iraq forever, thinks we should attack Iran immediately, and regularly spies on us.
Obama is just another morally and intellectually bankrupt pol, willing to say and do whatever it takes to gain the presidency. Status quo wrapped in a thin veneer of rhetorical "change" for the sheeple's consumption. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll throw you a bone. The sheeple's dignity and complicity comes cheap after all.
The Democratic party has a huge AIPAC problem. The Democratic party's unholy lock-step relationship with AIPAC is morally equivalent to the GOP's pandering to religious nuts like Hagee. One can either take a moral stand against evil, or, as Obama just did, belly-crawl up to it and start vigorously sucking its cock.
What's the shock? The corporate media has been manipulating this process since it started. They aren't in the business to inform or serve the public's interest. They are in business to promote their own agenda. They are propagandists who are opposed to every principle upon which this country was founded. Their every energy is dedicated to undermining the influence of those principles and extirpating them from our national culture. They are methodically working to destroy democracy and liberty in this country in favor of a totalitarian state in which the corporations, which are the only entity these propaganda outlets serve, will be the ruling elites. This particular instance is just one example of what is sure to be typical of the remainder of the process: them promoting the candidate corporate America believes is the one most likely to be theirs to own, totally control and operate if elected.
The corporate MSM is no American's friend and is no friend of America as we would know it.
Sumerian @ 64:
I'm guessing you're not Jewish.
If John McCain says anything, lays claim to any policy, rants about his maverickisciousness, claims he's a bi-partisan player, THINK the EXACT OPPOSITE. (I apologize for the shout.) He's lying through his teeth.
Quod erat demonstrandum...
Not only that - check out NPR's Morning Edition this morning (Tuesday) - the lede was Obama and McCain are virtually indistinguishable on immigration
Karen @ 20:
Exactly. Just when I think the corporate media can't get any lower they surprise me again. Did you see Jon Stewart last night? He was great! He got on the corporate media's case for not reporting that Bush lied us into war. Except, you know, if the corporate media did report that then they'd have to report their own role in it too. Oh well.
serge @ 67:
you got it contrarian bull shit
If the MSM can make them seem similar on positions, they then can focus on character issues. Which translates into what they do best: gossip.
So now that everyone realizes that there's no difference between Obama and McCain, here's the site that will help push you that little bit further to vote republican: http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ (not what you think, probably)
Jen in Brooklyn @ 68:
neither one of them is going to do much if anything about illegal immigration why corporations don't want citizens empowered.. illegal immigrants don't ask for wage increase,benefits and/or healthcare
Comrade Rutherford @ 14:
Ummmm. Ralph Nader? Cynthia McKinney?
i am especially interested to know obama's reaction to the kucinich impeachment resolution...
i wonder if he may have groaned, "eek - not now, dennis", or if he's glad to comment on it...
i wonder...
Peter G @ 66:
You mean like this guy?
No, Obama Can't! by Uri Avney
You're not under the impression that AIPAC speaks for all Jews are you? That's like saying that the neoconservatives speak for all Americans.
I just mentioned one economic advisor, look at the rest of his economic team. There are HUGE contradictions in Obama’s rhetoric and what would be needed to make it a reality. Frankly, I think this is the case with most liberals, I say that as someone left of center, not as a right winger.
I’ll give you a couple of examples, if my logic is off let me know. Our healthcare crisis is, more than anything, the result of the market being involved with healthcare delivery & financing as much as it is. Lack of service is implicitly guaranteed, which was one of the benefits of HMO’s from the “free market” perspective. Basically, good healthcare delivery costs money, which eats into profits. So the less service offered, the more profitable the company. The need to keep track of this horrible set up means there will be a huge administrative apparatus. So administrative costs are many times what they are in a universal system and always will be, which is money basically wasted. Obama’s plan does nothing about this, it is a healthcare plan that still relies on typical market measures. If he involved the government more directly inflation will increase and capital will flee. That doesn’t have to be the case, but is now.
You said that he wants to create tax incentives. The dollar is already currently low. What will the tax incentives do? Well, they’ll put the US at a competitive disadvantage from other countries. Investors will look at countries not doing this and put their money elsewhere, which will cause more capital to flee, further depressing the dollar’s value which will increase inflation by making imports more expensive. We don’t have much of an industrial base, outside of weapons, so while our exports will be cheaper what could be export to take advantage of that? I guess, since the dollar is low, Colombian death squads and Israeli hawks will kill their enemies cheaper.
I think “globalization” is immoral and logically indefensible, as long as you know what you’re talking about. I just think that since Obama, like all gutless politicians in the Democratic Party, is going towards the “center” (at a time when the country is already to his left according to polls), his talk of expanding healthcare, brining social justice and attacking corporate power will be nothing but empty rhetoric. Coverage will probably increase a little, costs might decrease a little but same structural problems will exist. Radical measures are needed to make expanded, or universal, healthcare a reality. Same with economic and social justice. Look at Obama’s economic team and tell me if that is in the cards.
This has huge implications. The economic system feeds the healthcare and educational system. If the economic system doesn’t undergo a radical transformation then those systems will also not fundamentally change, and they need to.
Filthy Harry @ 71:
Exactly!!!!! That is the reality.
the MSM are running a shell game..plain and simple.
sumerian@76 I would not suggest for a moment that AIPAC speaks for all Jews. Mr. Avney I can assert speaks for almost none. I do note, furthermore, that most people who rant about AIPAC generally use it as a stalking horse for Jews in general. This is especially clear when they use the kind of language you use.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
this is a good look at AIPAC speech
Relief:
http://www.blackcabsessions.com/sessions.php?id=1212166715&sort=chronolo...
This shows how pathetic the repug/neocon/fascist party is.....they can't focus on the differences, so they focus on the mythical sameness of the two...so at least the loyal repuggies can vote for this old fart.
How sad. (But there are 45% of America that will vote for this old flea bag.)
We're #1, we're #1....
Invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation last weekend in Arizona, President Bush spoke for almost an hour of his future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living. Though vague on the details of his plan, he appeared enthusiastic about his ideas for helping his 'red brothers.'
At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the President with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name -- 'Walking Eagle'. As the President departed waving to the crowd in his motorcade, a news reporter asked the group of chiefs how they came to select the new name given to the President.
They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.
G String - would you rather his advisors all be yes-men and single-minded?
not me...
G String @ 77:
Well said. If Obama's stated intents are to be taken at face value, then it is incomprehensible how he can, for example, propose the solution to health care that he has. Meanwhile, the candidates who offered the best hopes of actually changing things for the better were eliminated early on, thanks mostly to the massive and successful efforts of the MSM to dictate what would or wouldn't be included in the national dialogue, dictate who would be allowed to articulate that dialog, censore entire lines of natioanl discussion and manipulatively shape the thinking of those who are consumers of MSM propaganda. And, once again, we are left having to choose between two candidates that don't satisfy our needs.
Where I don't see a lot of difference is between Obama and HRC (who I think was the MSM's first choice, because she is more thoroughly a corporate tool than is Obama). But it's only a matter of degrees. It seems almost as if McCain was stood up to provide comic relief and serve as a buffoon who is intended to lose and make the other shill look good. Either way, nothing really changes. Just my opinion, but the last real prospects for change ended when Kucinich, Dodd and Edwards were manipulated out of the running.
In any event, I'll be voting for Obama. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Abbybwood @ 74:
No, they are not Democrats, they are, instead, true progressives, something that the [alleged] agent of hope and change is not. This is the reason why it would make Obama very nervous to see either of those two in the debates this summer, as it would expose Obma to be the fraud that he truly is. That is why it is highly probable that the television executives will once again collude with the Democrats and the Republicans, as they did against Nader in 2000, to make sure that a third party candidate's voice is silenced, as that third party candidate would point out how both Obama and McCain are bought and paid for by the corporate establishment.
Peter G @ 79:
Of course. The "anti-semite" canard. Who couldn't have seen that coming.
If one is against groups agitating for U.S. involvement in illegal wars of aggression (the supreme crime against humanity according to the Nuremberg standard) and those that are enablers of such groups, and think politicians should put the interests of THIS country before the interest of foreign lobbies, then it must mean I'm an anti-semite.
You are of course free to assert anything you like, but it's patently obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are
katy @ 84:
No, I’d like them to stop mindlessly continue the status quo when the status quo’s ideas not only don’t work but are disastrous. Matter of fact, if they DID disagree that would be a good thing, since all his economic team is made up of Wall Street economists who have no ideas beyond extending mass privatizations and more neo-liberalism. There isn’t a single leftist economist amongst them. The ones called “liberal” are liberal only if the word liberal no longer describes someone who cares about things like poverty, universal healthcare, attacking corporate power, amongst other things. I linked above Obama’s chief economic advisor’s abstract for his paper. Know what it says? It says that markets are used ENOUGH, not too much, but not enough. He mentioned emergency rescue, like Katrina, as an example. In New Orleans after Katrina Blackwater was there and used before and just as much as the government, at least early on. How about privatizing the military further? More profit in war, great idea. Privatizing intelligence? Already happening. Privatized healthcare? Got it. Maybe the fire department is next, who knows.
“Free trade” has not had mixed results, the results are horrible. Not just for this country, look at a report (that I’ll link bellow) by the Mexican government, who SUPPORTS “free trade”. Their findings showed that the environmental costs more than two and a half times the benefits to Mexico and the benefits are highly concentrated and getting worse. I’d like some new ideas, and Obama’s team will not bring that about on an economic level. He might be forced into it but only if some mass social movements evolve and force him to.
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/NAFTAEnviroKGAmerProgSep04.pdf
First, since 1985 real incomes have grown at just 2.5% per year, and less than one percent per capita. Second, according to INEGI, major environmental problems have worsened since trade liberalization began in Mexico. Despite the fact that Mexico reached levels of income beyond the range of a predicted EKC turning point, national levels of soil erosion, municipal solid waste, and urban air and water pollution all worsened from 1985 to 1999. Rural soil erosion grew by 89%, municipal solid waste by 108%, water pollution by 29%, and urban air pollution by 97%. The results have been costly to Mexico’s prospects for development.
The INEGI studies estimate the financial costs of this environmental degradation at 10% of GDP from 1988 to 1999, an average of $36 billion of damage each year ($47 billion for 1999). The destruction overwhelms the value of economic growth, which has been just 2.5% annually, or $14 billion per year.
I fly geese and chew bacon, rabbit ears and yellow yo yo's siiiing to me
big difference on taxes
http://www.reuters.com/news/video
Why, they're both carbon-based Earthlings who even speak the same language! Of all the different entities in the universe, they're more alike than they are different. Either way we're getting Bush's third term, so all you kids and black folks just stay home like usual and let the old folks take care of things ... hey, look, new iPhones!
Sumerian @ 87:
<a
Of course you're not the least bit anti-semitic, no doubt some of your best friends are Jews. It's just the pesky ones who started the Iraq war for their own nefarious purposes you don't like. It had nothing to do with George Bush and his cronies did it? Of course, the incitement to war and its' general support,at the time, among most politicians, the main stream media and the population in general had nothing to do with George and company . It was all AIPAC. The hidden agenda of these foes of democracy and all that. Perhaps you'd care to propose your final solution to this problem. I hold no brief with any of the neocon spokesman for this war but conflating them with "Jewish" interests is just plain scary. The members of AIPAC are, by and large, American citizens who are perfectly entitled to advance the proposition that U.S interests and Israeli interests coincide because in many respects they do. To suggest that they represent some wicked foreign power bent on subverting American democracy (a popular theme of the anti-AIPAC crowd) is just plain nonsense.
Well, working people are the majority of the country, yet they are nowhere to be found in government. Their opinions are considered “special interests” when they are. Rich white men are a small percentage of the country and control most of government and big business. Numbers alone don’t equal power. Who could deny that right wing, reactionary Jews are not influential far beyond their numbers, just like financial capitalists, big business lobbyists, rich white men, etc? This ISN’T a democracy, this is a republic. We don’t have direct power, if we did opinions representing minorities (ideological, racial, ethnic, etc) would be represented in government roughly on the same level as in society. We have one dollar one vote and, like it or not, Jews have a lot of dollars and a lot influence. It isn’t anti-Semitic to point out reality. How is it that Israel has such a high standard of living (outside of violently throwing people off their land and stealing key resources like water)? They’ve received huge financial assistance, again, far beyond their percentage of the population. If people were as influential as their numbers, and it had nothing to do with money or access to power, our assistance to Mexico would dwarf Israel and Mexico would have a comparable standard of living, just like Israel does.
The fact is that Israel is represented in military and economic aid, rhetoric, political backing far beyond what people in the US want, according to polls. It ISN’T democratic, just like the influence of financial capital or big business isn’t. If we ever get rid of our outdated democracy maybe we can correct this.
I don't know how Washington ever found 2 people who think torture is bad. *snark*
Peter G @ 92:
ooh, this is getting good.
Yes, since they are "pretty much the same" except one is white and the other is black, well, you decide America.
You make good points, but if you don't see that the statement "Jews have a lot of money" is , while perhaps not anti-semitic, certainly a blanket statement about an entire group of people, then I cannot help you. You can say one thing about Jews, across the board: They are all Jews. That is all. Anything beyond that is ignorance. If you want to talk about particular Jews, by all means, but when you say ALL [insert group here] are X, well, I think you know what you are doing there.
If I meant to say it I would. I’m not afraid to say much of anything if I believe it. It is a fact that Israel has a standard of living above and beyond what they’d get just off of the resources in the area they’ve taken. This is a result of financial and military assistance. Jews here and elsewhere make up too small a percentage of the population to get Israel to that point economically. So, explain for me how that happened. Logically explain how Jews, Jews with a certain ideological makeup, have gotten the US to support Israel (and Israel’s right wing policies) if the majority of Jews apparently disagree domestically (although I’ve seen polls in Israel showing the opposite results) and the public is against it? Right wing capitalists tend to back similar policies. Reactionary, violent policies that further their interests while harming most everyone else. So you could claim that Jews are no different in that regard, you couldn’t say however that groups like AIPAC aren’t a vehicle for this.
WHY THEY ARE THE SAME:
Obama has 5 letters in his last name.....McCain has letters in his last name
Obama was a black baby.....Bush said McCain had a black baby
Obama will be voted president in 2008.....McCain wants to be voted president in 2008
Obama is against the war in Iraq.....McCain wants to move the war to Iran
Obama has a huge grassroots following.....McCain has a lawn which has grassroots
Obama wants poor people to have a place to live.....McCain has 57 houses for he and his wife to live
W00T!!! Somebody is going to be sad on November 5.... did somebody say McCain
Peter G @ 92:
lol
All logical fallacies and dishonest argument, but that is to be expected. Twisting and squirming, you have managed to do everything but actually address any of my points regarding AIPAC.
Where did I write that the Bushies are blameless? A straw man argument. I'd like to see them all strung up with piano wire from lamposts, after a fair trial of course. How do you get from me demonstrating that neoconservative groups like AIPAC only speak for a minority of the Jewish community in the U.S. to "conflating neoconservatives with 'Jewish interests'?" Another straw man. Your ability to reason and to construct a logical argument is non-existent.
Since you completely avoided the points regarding AIPAC, let's go over them again.
You are a defending an organization that gave standing ovations to pastor John Hagee, a man that wants to launch a nuclear strike against Iran as soon as possible, to bring about the "end times."
You are defending an organization that is constantly lobbying the U.S. congress and the executive branch to launch what is known as a war of aggression, which is a crime under international law. They did it with Iraq. They are doing it now with Iran.
You are defending an organization that has just been caught red handed spying on this country.
You are defending an organization whose policy stances are indistinguishable from those of the very neconservatives that the “progressives” here spend so much time denouncing.
Being against those who push the U.S. government to launch wars of aggression and who also spy on this country does NOT make me an anti-semite you witless ferret. And neither does being against the same neoconservative policies that are destroying this country. It makes me someone in possession of a moral compass.
WE ALL LOVE A LITTLE BUSH @ 99:
"Obama is against the war in Iraq". That statement is contradicted by the fact that Obama has voted to continue to fund the occupation of the Iraqi people each and every time that vote has come up. Not exactly the best way to support the troops or the Iraqi people, now is it?
they are both capitalists, and they both are deeply plugged into the industrial machine that is eviscerating the planet.
The difference between them is McCain doesn't care that he is eviscerating the planet, and Obama thinks it's a sad fact, but isn't going to do jack all to stop the death machine, or send the greedy bastards responsible to the early and painful deaths they deserve.
I'm not either, but I don't care. However, I don't care for a very different reason than McCain - I don't care because I know it doesn't matter. We're deep into overshoot, and the dieoff has begun.
Ah well. Back from dinner and where are we with our little AIPAC debate. I see Samson has come back with a little typing @100. Well not much there. The usual ad hominem crap. I see that I
"failed to address any of your points regarding AIPAC". Not sure anyone but a psychiatrist could address the "points" you made @64. In a debate it's always best to lead off with sane. I suggest a little time out for you, some meds and a little rest. Then try again.
There are INDEED big differences.
Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill in 2005, giving huge subsidies and tax benefits to the major oil companies making obscene profits. That bill provided for large biofuel subsidies for Illinois farmers.
McCain, on the other hand, voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill.
Nuff said.
You DO realize, don't you, that David Axelrod is a former lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry, right?
And that Axelrod's influence is why the legislation against Exelon written by Obama was watered down on behalf of that industry, making regulation compliance VOLUNTARY by the industry.
All that glitters is not gold, folks.
Login or Register to post comments.