Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Brian]

I don't know that Romney can unhypocritically accuse the Obama administration of shady business dealings, but this surely is shady.
EDIT: Although I guess they earned some special treatment by not being in the coal business.

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't know that Romney can unhypocritically accuse the Obama administration of shady business dealings, but this surely is shady.
EDIT: Although I guess they earned some special treatment by not being in the coal business.

I don't see it as shady. Even the Times doesn't see it as shady. There are times when being at the right place at the right time works to your advantage. The fact that your corporate agenda is congruent with the President's vision is something that can't be undone, just because you know each other. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

OR: it might be totally crooked Chicago politics at its finest. Who knows?   

[Scarpia]

Definitely shady.  I was expecting Obama to assemble an administration of people who do not know anyone at all.   Maybe it could be organized in small cells, where each administration member doesn't even know who else is in the administration. 

[Todd]

Wait, let me get this straight: the Obama Administration is peopled by staffers with corporate connections.  Outrageous.  The only way to solve that problem is to put a Republican back in the White House.

[Gurn Blanston]

Wait, let me get this straight: the Obama Administration is peopled by staffers with corporate connections.  Outrageous.  The only way to solve that problem is to put a Republican back in the White House.

Right. They don't have the connections; they are the connections. Cut out the middleman! 

[Todd]

Cut out the middleman!

Efficiency in government is a laudable goal.

[Brian]

Wait, let me get this straight: the Obama Administration is peopled by staffers with corporate connections.  Outrageous.  The only way to solve that problem is to put a Republican back in the White House.

[Florestan]

Elections in Norway, anyone? Switzerland, anyone? Denmark, anyone? The Netherlands, anyone? Why is it that only the US elections stir such passion across the world? The day that nobody in the whole world, Americans included, would really care about who wins the US presidential or congressional elections would mark a big evolution of the human race. 

[Scarpia]

Elections in Norway, anyone? Switzerland, anyone? Denmark, anyone? The Netherlands, anyone? Why is it that only the US elections stir such passion across the world? The day that nobody in the whole world, Americans included, would really care about who wins the US presidential or congressional elections would mark a big evolution of the human race. 

I don't see your point.  Do you fail to understand that a change in government in a country which is large enough to have a significant effect on the world is of interest?  That is why there was interest in the outcome in France, which has the potential of altering the response to the European sovereign debt crisis.

[Brian]

Elections in Norway, anyone? Switzerland, anyone? Denmark, anyone? The Netherlands, anyone? Why is it that only the US elections stir such passion across the world? The day that nobody in the whole world, Americans included, would really care about who wins the US presidential or congressional elections would mark a big evolution of the human race. 

First, as Scarpia said; I was very closely following Hollande v. Sarkozy.

1. The American President is generally considered the most powerful and influential person in the world, or the second-most powerful behind Angela Merkel.
2. American foreign policy decisions have a far greater global impact than, e.g., Dutch ones, since America starts wars (Afghanistan, Iraq), is one of the major powers in Middle East policy, is the main protagonist in the "soft power" struggle among China's neighbors, etc.
3. Although many nations' election campaigns are dirty, malicious, and generally shocking, American ones are also financed with literally billions of dollars of nonstate funding. The most recent estimate I could find (June) had a single man, Sheldon Adelson, spending $71M to finance Republicans.
4. America is the only nation in the "developed" world in which issues such as availability of contraception, abortion rights, the morality (and curability) of homosexual behavior, the existence of climate change, the right to freely purchase assault rifles, capital punishment, and candidates' piety are all considered contentious matters of political debate. This contributes to a sense in many countries, especially the United Kingdom, that American elections should be closely watched for their comedy value.

[Todd]

Elections in Norway, anyone? Switzerland, anyone? Denmark, anyone? The Netherlands, anyone? Why is it that only the US elections stir such passion across the world? The day that nobody in the whole world, Americans included, would really care about who wins the US presidential or congressional elections would mark a big evolution of the human race.

Well, this is a thread about the US election.  Seems suitable to post about it here.  People can always start threads about elections in other countries.

It's a very good thing for citizens to care about elections in their country.

[Florestan]

I don't see your point.  Do you fail to understand that a change in government in a country which is large enough to have a significant effect on the world is of interest? 

My point is that a world in which a US President's fart contaminates the air in Stockholm, Bucharest or Abu Dhabi is a pretty fucked up one... 

[Florestan]

1. The American President is generally considered the most powerful and influential person in the world, or the second-most powerful behind Angela Merkel.
2. American foreign policy decisions have a far greater global impact than, e.g., Dutch ones, since America starts wars (Afghanistan, Iraq), is one of the major powers in Middle East policy, is the main protagonist in the "soft power" struggle among China's neighbors, etc.
3. Although many nations' election campaigns are dirty, malicious, and generally shocking, American ones are also financed with literally billions of dollars of nonstate funding. The most recent estimate I could find (June) had a single man, Sheldon Adelson, spending $71M to finance Republicans.

IOW the US is an empire whose internal policy affects the world at large... 

[Todd]

1. The American President is generally considered the most powerful and influential person in the world, or the second-most powerful behind Angela Merkel.

Or third, behind Hu Jintao and Angela Merkel. 

My point is that a world in which a US President's fart contaminates the air in Stockholm, Bucharest or Abu Dhabi is a pretty fucked up one... 

Fret not, in not too many years, Chinese flatulence will have a similar effect. I'm sure everyone will be happier.

[Florestan]

Fret not, in not too many years, Chinese flatulence will have a similar effect. I'm sure everyone will be happier.

Not me for sure. I hate empires whether white or yellow. 

[Todd]

Not me for sure. I hate empires whether white or yellow.

You're living on the wrong planet.

[Florestan]

In the past the 'air' throughout the world has been contaminated by states and rulers a lot more malicious than the US.

Certainly. But I am opposed to it on principle, not on persons. 

[Scarpia]

Not me for sure. I hate empires whether white or yellow. 

Yes, anarchy is preferable, ask anyone in Sudan.

[Florestan]

You're living on the wrong planet.

Said Nero to the Christians... 

[Florestan]

Yes, anarchy is preferable, ask anyone in Sudan.

You can't imagine anything else than either empire or anarchy, can you?