We did it! Barack Obama elected 44th President of the United States. Share: Twitter Facebook Google+ 2008 Elections
Indeed. Seldom have I felt better about casting a vote for President than I did this afternoon at my local NJ HS down the street from my home.The rebuke to the GOP and the lawless Bush Administration couldn’t be sweeter. One can only hope that Obama fulfills our high expectations. I have a feeling he will.
In Harlem people are celebrating in the streets. A couple of people started flailing whips at the street. Others yell and use noisemakers.
Congratulations, my friend. Although I continue to believe he was the wrong choice in many ways and for many reasons, I am comforted to know that good men like yourself are in his camp.As for me, I am returning to Iraq this week. Following 20 January, I will be assisting in the execution of President Obama’s Iraq policy. Whatever he decides it is to be, I will be there to make it so.
Congratulations to my American friends. I thought John McCain was very gracious tonight, and I hope the message of unity from both McCain and Obama will lead to an era where politics are not poisoned by extreme partisanship.And grim, my friend, stay safe. Life is more interesting when we can all get together spar in a peaceful and friendly manner in a blog like this.
Congrats. It must be nice to vote for someone, as opposed to voting against their opponent.I hope we get pragmatic Obama rather than radical Obama.
I’m of course disappointed but not surprised. I can only hope that Pres. Obama will exercise wisdom and perhaps restrain the extreme wing of his party. Weather we enter another age of partisan animosity is up to the victors. I hope they understand this.Well the dye is cast and it is time to give our new President the benifit of our loyalty as Americans and Citizens.
Even though it was expected, it's still pretty depressing. But congratulations to Obama & supporters.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Grim,Thanks for the comment and for your service. Like Canuckistani said “stay safe” and get home soon.
So what has Obama promised other than more taxes and more spending?
So what has Obama promised other than more taxes and more spending?See America Votes for a Restoration for a decent aggregation of commentary on the subject.BTW my irony meter broke on the “more spending” snark. You’re aware of what the federal deficit was when Bush took office, and what it is now, right? If not, Google it.raptin
Not sure how “raptin” got in my last post, but I’m trying to be on my absolute best behavior here, eschewing long schadenfreude comments on the McCain recrimination fest now in full fury. Still, it’s hard to overlook pieces where McCain staffers refer to things like “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”
Redhand- I’ve been trying to wait for some particularly egregious sour grapes before I unleashed the gloat, but I’d like to think that liberals and sensible conservatives can agree that Sarah Palin might not be the ideal candidate for 2012, unless someone can explain to her first that Africa is a continent.
It’s not too surprising that McCain staffers are trying to find a scapegoat for their own failure. I’d take anything they say with a big grain of salt.”particularly egregious sour grapes”Check out the post-election stuff at the Atlas Shrugs site that Stephen linked in an earlier post. That woman is a complete raving lunatic.
DavidC- There comes a point where crazy stops being funny and starts being sad, and Pam Gellar is way beyond that. I like to kick the s**t around with people I don’t agree with, but I don’t like arguing with the crazy people in the park yelling about the CIA microwaving their internal organs.
There comes a point where crazy stops being funny and starts being sad, and Pam Gellar is way beyond that.Yep, she’s out of her mind. Her post, Eating Our Own has some of the most deranged babbling I’ve seen from the wingnut right in a long, long time.
“BTW my irony meter broke on the more spending” snark. You’re aware of what the federal deficit was when Bush took office, and what it is now, right? If not, Google it.raptinBush defected to the Democrats on domestic spending. Yes. I’m not happy about that. I wanted McCain to explicitly promise to reject “the spending policies of Bush and the Democrats.”When did the Dems ever try to control domestic spending?
You’re aware of what the federal deficit was when Bush took office, and what it is now, right?”Redhand, To expand on the above:1. Pres Bill Clinton (D) was president before Bush and we had a surplus. True enough.2. For the years that the Federal budget was in surplus there was a GOP majority in both houses of Congress who were explicitly elected to combat the Leftwing tax and spend habits of the first two years of Clinton’s Adminastration. Also, I might add there were strong Democrat majorities in both houses for these two years.The point? well when the Dems controlled Congress and the White House between 92 and 94 they didn’t exactly do a bang up job and the voters punished them for it.Pres Obama is in an excellent position to do the right thing. Will he balance the budget? Will he be ideologically moderate? Will he truely try and mend fences with those of us who are conservative? It remains to be seen, and believe it or not, I will stand by and give him the benifit of the doubt.However, consider this. Like the GOP of the recent past the Progressives/Liberals are in control and whatever happens they will own it. I would rather be wrong, I lack confidence in our new president and congress, than suffer the benifit of a very expensive I told you so.
Answer me this: what good will Obama do for domestic economy?
Oops, I meant “domestic policy.”
Alan,I not sure I understand your question.”What good will Obama do for domestic poliy?”It remains to be seen what good or bad he will do. I’m not a Obama supporter, I voted the other way because at this juncture in time I think he will not be positive for domestic policy or any other policy. However, he was duely elected and I hope I’m wrong for all of our sake.
I thought my question was plain. What beneficial domestic policies does Obama promise? The only ones I know about are more taxes and more entitlements (like the universal health care promise from the primary race). More taxes and more spending don’t appeal to me.The only think I know y’all have in common with Obama is war policy. Is that it? Are y’all single-issue candidates this year?
Oops, that shoulda been “single-issue voters.”
What beneficial domestic policies does Obama promise? The only ones I know about are more taxes and more entitlements (like the universal health care promise from the primary race).I don’t know about you, but I like universal health care. It’s not even going to be more spending, if done right – Medicare and Medicaid cost as much as most countries’ universal health care schemes.
“I don’t know about you, but I like universal health care.”I don’t. Our current system could be better, but going to universal health care will probably make it worse.”It’s not even going to be more spending, if done right “In imaginary world maybe. Here in the U.S. it will involve a whole lot more spending. And it will almost certainly cost far more than any government estimate — just like pretty much any other big program. We need to be cutting spending, not increasing it — especially since the bailouts are still ongoing and getting more expensive.
I honestly don’t know how a US with universal health care will actually look like. The only baseline for comparison I have is existing systems in Europe. The ones I’ve used, like France’s, are faster, better, and cheaper. You know things are bad when what I pay with insurance in the US is way more than what I pay without insurance in France.
I don’t know what it would look like either. But I think it’s a safe bet that anything run by our government will cost more, perform less efficiently, and possibly damage the quality. Don’t forget, we’ll have to hire more bureaucrats to administer it, and maybe even create an entire new department. Do you like the Department of Homeland Security?
Health care is only directly run by the government in Britain and Israel… in France and even Canada, they have a single-payer system, which means health care is private, but the government pays (think Medicare). This in itself isn’t enough, so in France about 95% of the people have add-on insurance. My experiences with the French health care system involve having no add-on insurance.
Study Claims Medicare Debt Will Rise $32.4 TrillionI’m aware that a lot of doctors reject Medicare patients, but I had never looked into the issue before. Googling “doctors won’t take medicare” led me to this 2001 USA Today article. It boils down to two issues, summed up here:”Some doctors say the program can be downright frustrating. They complain that it doesn’t pay enough, has burdensome rules and puts them under the threat of being audited by government agencies searching for fraud.”Socialized medicine follows two basic models: government ownership of the medical providers (Britain’s National Health Service, American VA hospitals), or government welfare payments for medical services (Canada’s single-payer system). The US is more likely to follow the latter, where it doesn’t already follow the former. Many Canadians flood US hospitals in order to get timely care – that doesn’t speak well of single-payer. The folks at Samizdata know more about NHS than I do, and they’re posts on the issue aren’t positive.I’ve observed that since its introduction, LASIK surgery, which (at least for most of its existence) is not even covered by insurance, has steadily decreased in price. This suggests to me that there is something about the world of third-party payers (public or private) that depresses medical services achieving economies of scale.
Former blogger and current CEI senior fellow Iain Murray has an opinion of the NHS:”You see, I grew up in Great Britain, where the National Health Service supposedly provides top-quality health care to all Britons, free at the point of delivery. That’s the theory, at any rate. Yet you pay for it in taxes, of course, and in practice, the NHS provides below-par service. Sometimes the treatment can be excellent, but more often, you have to wait months or years for operations; equipment is outdated, and doctors are overworked. Britons are beginning to wake up to the idea that the NHS is no longer ‘the envy of the world,’ and even Tony Blair’s free-spending government has realized that universal, taxpayer-funded health care is an unsustainable ideal.”redhand,Out of curiosity, who is that in your icon? Some Roman general lifted off a Renaissance painting?
Alan, I honestly don’t know how Canadian health care is. From what I hear, it isn’t much better than American health care, if at all. The health system that I know, and that the WHO considers best in the world, is the French one.
What are the WHO’s criteria for making that judgment? Does it take into account financial solvency? Is France’s system a going concern, or does it operate under ballooning deficits?
The WHO is concerned only with results – public health metrics, system responsiveness, and how much patients have to pay.France is running big general budget deficits. This comes from having a very lush welfare state, though; the per capita public health expenditure is about $100-200 lower than in the US. If I’m not mistaken it’s rising more slowly than in the US.I have no idea what the health care deficit is. I’m guessing it’s impossible to discern, unless health insurance is treated separately from the government’s general budget. It is in the US, but not everywhere – e.g. it’s not in Israel, or the UK.