Keith

I was under the impression that Bush after almost 8 years as President would have had major responsibility for the state of the US economy.

He claimed victory in Iraq. Why can't he claim responsibility for sub Prime.

I was forgetting that Bush has been written out of McCain's campaign approach. Conservative pundits do not want to connect McCain with Bush's indifferent legacy.

Connecting sub Prime on Democrats, not with the US Federal Reserve, or the US Treasury or with Bush is quite easy if judicious pre election innuendo is thrown in. But blaming the sudden plunge into the sub Prime crisis on the Clinton Presidency after at least 6 years of Bush's "economic management" is an extraordinary stretch.

One could easily hypothesise that the cost of Bush's Victory in Iraq has been many $billlions in excessive defence spending and inordinate US governmental concentration on Middle East issues. Bush took his eye of the economic ball and distorted the US economy. Sub Prime is the result.

That said McCain, with long experience and often sound judgement, may be a better President than Bush. As many are saying though his age combined with the manifest inexperience of Palin is a worry.

About Obama - he may be good but his name and colour will probably prevent him being voted in - in the conservative US electorate. If he got in US extremists, some of whom are still in or would soon leave US military or security bodies, will probably knock him off. Oswald, after all, was former US Army.

Pete

Correction - to last line of my previous post. Oswald was in the MARINES.

Pete

Thermy

There is no fraud. There is just a general lack of understanding of what the US presidential election is all about.

Central to any presidential election are two power groupings:

Both are right wing.

The two competing groups are the rich northern elites and the rich southern elites. Neither are particularly interested in social reform nor religious conservatism. Both are interested in protecting their respective legacies ie their and their families money.

Both attract fringe dwelling hangers-on, who 'generally' have neither money nor influence, but who try to influence the respective parties social policies. Rarely are they successful and more bark than bite. Their influence is absolutely restricted to election times.

Hence the huge numbers of people who don't vote(40%) because they know neither party is at all interested in them or their interests.

Many commentators in Australia simply do not understand that while the opposing parties are headed by people with pretty well similar backgrounds and philosophies, they not going to change anything.

The characteristics of both parties candidates are similar:

Rich,
Intent on maintaining the wealth and interests of elites,
Well connected to their respective elites,
Are 'embedded' with the respective elites 'advisers',
Educated within the elites structures.

Occassionally ... er rarely ... a candidate is thrown up who doesn't represent either elites. Some have gone on to become fabulous Presidents. In our time there have been only two, Reagan and Carter. Carter sadly failed and they eventually got to and neutralised Reagan.

Of the current candidates I think the best chance at a reformed and more humane(slightly) US is probably Palin.

It occassions great mirth to me when I see people espousing the views as they are expressed in the above article... for they merely expose their own ignorance, misunderstanding and/or blind prejudice.

I'd love to ask all those in Australia who support Obama if they'd have voted for him if he had run in Australia ... for his party would have been to the right of John Howard and would have harboured great hatred for the Labor Party and it's policies.

Thermy (please pass this on to Keith ;)

I agree Reagan was a great President. I agree with all Keith's other comments, which are both surprising and refreshingly leftwing, until he gets down to the third last para.

Keith (please excuse if I address you directly) Palin is indeed untainted by a national power elite camp because she has no record on the national stage.

No national record or experience of national government would be normally considered a grave defect for any deputy leader - however in a US election no record means no black marks. The makes no national record or attendent experience or knowledge a positive plus.

Like Condi she is a woman. Like Condi she may turn out to be a malleable token. If she had worked up through the political ranks like Thatcher or Helen Clark she would have experience. Thatcher was and Clark is a very good leader.

With experience Palin's gender would not be a vacuous (but probably effective) electoral plus for the Republicans.

So to your power elite model I add the token and untainted novice model.

And BTW I'm straining to find an applicable political label to cover me. Athiest, small "l" liberal, but who beleves in building up an independent nuclear weapons capability for Australia. I'm planning on starting a Greens for Nukes Party :)

Pete

Pete

You misunderstand.

I'd have voted and worked for George Bush. McCains ok but tends to favour Government interference. I hold great disdain for Obama's lefty mates... and fear they might gain a foot in the door. I'd fear Palin for her committment to change.

I am laughing at the current solution to the financial mess in the US. The anti government regulation mob of Bush, McCain, Obama etc are championing the tax payer buying all those repo houses in the US, at their original cost, and in the process giving themselves and their favoured mates a pretty much unlimited amount of cash.

I think they might run out of cash before the full extent of the corrupt loan giving is exposed ... or taxpayers start to voice massive objection, refuse to pay tax or riot.

Keith

I agree. As a good socialist I would critique that its OK for Bush to bail out multi-billion dollar businesses with uncertain benefits for the little people just before Bush returns to work at his Daddy's billion dollar oil empire.

The point - it has been known for a national leader's personal circumstances to influence his decisions.

I'm almost loathe to say that thank God we have China to buy our resources because traditional reliance on the health of Uncle Sam would be unhealthy. If Rudd diversifies our recent reliance on China with some attention to India then maybe we won't become a poor outpost of America's past greatness, or a new Chinese outpost but an independent country (that can play off interests).

America may rebound a bit but all I know is that China AND India are rising quickly

Pete