tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8905987503146144771.post6204463882531118698..comments2022-12-08T04:19:56.947-05:00Comments on Comments on the News- IAS Group: HOW 2008 IS DIFFERENT FROM 1932IAS Grouphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09391319791782314667noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8905987503146144771.post-66481925426555339912008-04-13T11:30:00.000-04:002008-04-13T11:30:00.000-04:00Let me react to a couple of points. First, many D...Let me react to a couple of points. First, many Democrats do dream of a sweep like 1932's, followed by period of policy innovation like FDRs. I've heard that from the horse's mouth. <BR/><BR/>My major point, similar to Anonymous #2, is that ill-defined "change you can believe in" does not consitute a mandate, will not translate into fundamnetal policy change (for my second, third and fourth reaons), and thus will contribute to another failed presidency. I say "failed" because when 81 percent of the country says the country is going in the wrong direction, failure to produce fundamental change IS a failure.<BR/><BR/>The only way I see to avoid that is to make explicit your overarching national goal and to do so in the corse of teh campaign.<BR/><BR/>For example, Obama or Clinton could say, in a way reminiscent of Kennedy's New Frontier aim of putting a man on the moon, that the next administration will achieve energy security by maximizing energy production at home. With the right tax policies, upgrades to our infrastructure, and a streamlining of the regulatory approval process, we can produce more and cleaner energy at home. As we do, we can cut back on oil and gas imports -- now one-third of or overall trade deficit -- and borrow less from abroad. Better federal government support for R&D would help sustain the proces of innvoation and invetsment to keep us compeittive over time.<BR/><BR/>The results would be pretty spectaculer: more investment, more production, more jobs, more revenue for government at all levels, less foreign borrowing, and a reduced need to get embroiled with the unsavory regimes that sit atop most of the world's oil and gas.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, energy is an issue felt by all Americans. That's a lot more tangible and closer to the household's pocketbook than JFK's aim for space dominance. (JFK was aked: "Why go to the moon? "Because it's there" was his answer.) Energy security would not just make us feel better now, we could live better, too, both now and far into the future.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to mandates, that's what I'm talking about.<BR/><BR/>Charles BlumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8905987503146144771.post-10478005432560097222008-04-09T09:46:00.000-04:002008-04-09T09:46:00.000-04:00I think that Barak Obama has simply expressed what...I think that Barak Obama has simply expressed what many in his generation feel but can't really articulate. The children of the baby boomers know that something is wrong; adrift but can't quite pin it down. Public life seems adrift, completely lacking direction. I suppose this is much like during Hoover's time when he bravely confronted crisis by doing nothing. Nothing, then as now, is the strategy. It's no wonder that Obama is so popular. He is the candidate of 'change.' Americans don't know what the change is but they know that the current course is adrift. Obama is no fool and undoubtedly has a rich intellectual pool of resources at his disposal. However, it remains an unfortunate fact of political life that the more articulated the plan, the more opportunity there is to nit pick it to death. It might be better of Obama stick to mantras that resonate well with the public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8905987503146144771.post-5994343020295459482008-04-07T12:25:00.000-04:002008-04-07T12:25:00.000-04:00I disagree that Democrats pine for 1932. The Demo...I disagree that Democrats pine for 1932. The Democratic Party does not want Americans to suffer just so that their electoral prospects brighten. I agree that the debate format we have endured to date has been a disgrace. Asking candidates to raise their hands or answer questions from YouTube posters is both juvenile and uninformative. While I am having a hard time stomaching it, I agree with Gingrich that the best format would be for the two candidates to engage in a lengthy and indepth debate on the pressing matters of our day. I would like polysyllabic answers lasting more than 30 seconds to accommodate American's increasingly-shorter attention spans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com