Legal

Dvorak says U.S. presidential candidates won't help tech industry; News.com has different take

Notoriously grumpy tech pundit John Dvorak has projected his grumpiness onto the U.S. presidential election and the effect that he thinks it will have on the tech industry. CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh has a different take.

Notoriously grumpy tech pundit John Dvorak has projected his grumpiness onto the U.S. presidential election and the effect that he thinks it will have on the tech industry. In a recent MarketWatch column, Blame Washington that tech will remain flat, Dvorak said that he didn't think any of the three presidential candidates still in the running -- John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton -- have much knowledge about tech, and that he doubts any of them will provide much assistance for the technology industry in the coming years.

Dvorak's low opinion of U.S. presidential candidates

Here are some of the highlight from Dvorak's article:

  • "None of the three leading candidates is known for tech expertise or appreciation."
  • "To be honest, I cannot see any of the three ... setting a clock without help from a 12-year-old. This does not bode well for technology, a sector that in other countries gets a lot of government support and attention."
  • "Unfortunately, understanding technology and its importance is like good taste. If you don't have good taste, you don't miss it."
  • "Tech's only hope in the next decade will be relentless good performance, because it shouldn't expect to get much help or attention from these folks. Unless the winner of the race at least gives a nod to tech, it's going to be miserable, you watch."

Photo credit: John McCain 2008 Campaign

McCullagh sees a favorite among geeks

News.com Chief Political Correspondent Declan McCullagh has a different perspective. He recently did a podcast in which he discussed "What's behind the geek passion for Barack Obama."

During that interview, McCullah said:

"Obama is the candidate of the Internet for the Democrats, much like Ron Paul was, at least for a while last year, for the Republicans.

"Hillary has spent the last seven years trying to shore up her support from technology companies. This is back when Obama was a nobody -- a state senator with ambitions -- and she was already meeting with folks like Steve Ballmer, speaking to all of these corporate high-tech boards, introducing broadband bills, and so on."

"Obama, when he was a relatively young senator, was out there tangling with bloggers... He joined them in debate in a way that Hillary Clinton had not and has not."

"[Obama] was using the Internet personally... I found some newspaper articles from circa 1999 when he was complaining that his ISP was over-charging him."

McCullagh also published an article "In tech support, Obama bests Clinton," in which he highlighted some of Clinton's tech credentials:

"She introduced five different broadband bills. She showed up at roundtables with chief executives like Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, Adobe Systems' Bruce Chizen, and Symantec's John Thompson. She spoke at a board meeting of the Information Technology Industry Council, whose members include Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, eBay, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft. She talked up nanotech, lower taxes on stock options, and better e-voting security. She won a coveted endorsement from prominent venture capitalist John Doerr, and, in fact, won more votes in Silicon Valley during last month's California primary."

Nevertheless, McCullagh concludes that Obama is the candidate who has been embraced by the technology industry, and he cites several reasons:

  • Obama's popular convention speech in 2004, which led him to meet Warren Buffett, who then introduced him to Bill Gates
  • Obama was one of only four senators (Clinton wasn't among them), who had a blog back in August 2005; Obama said that he updated it himself
  • An endorsement from Stanford law professor Larry Lessig
  • Clever use of wikis and the my.barackobama.com social-networking site

Photo credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET News.com

For more on the technology issues in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, see:

Which, if any, of these candidates do you think you could help the tech industry? Join the discussion.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

54 comments
JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Leasing is for people who will never be rich because they waste all their money trying to look rich. I've never even financed a car as I don't like payments or paying interest. And I've never even bought a new car, because I don't like taking >30% depreciation hits in the first 2 years. I've invested in myself extensively, so that I don't have to worry about being replaced "in two seconds flat". If I lose my job tomorrow, (which is very unlikely) there are a dozen other things I could do. I do pity those who let their fate's rest with what they are told by others like yourself. They will never know freedom, and will automatically resent those who are.

rob mekel
rob mekel

Is it not that the ones who can help themselfs are best off? Isn't it better to convince the "public" of the "need" of Tech Industry (TI)/IT in general? There lays the challenge TI / IT has to overcome. And yes politicians are convinced if the public is convinced ... ergo ... find the money for the public and the politicians will adore TI / IT whether they're left- or rightwing Republicans or Democrats or ... (is Ralphy joining the elections in november ... again?) Rob

tungstendiadem
tungstendiadem

You make a sagacious point it really is a matter of the public's opinion and if a large enough segment of the voting public favors tech then the politicians will compete for tech oriented votes by making tech oriented promises.

pgm554
pgm554

Is it me or don't you folks understand what makes a politician care? It's called MONEY! If you throw enough money in their direction,guess what? They care. Which side of the turnip truck do you think we fell off of? Sheesh!

tungstendiadem
tungstendiadem

Money ceases to be a motivating need when the need for money is satisfied. The overwhelming majority of politicians are moneyed, precluding the need being a motivator. Politicians are motivated by power. They want it that is why they are in politics and not say investment services. If the goal is to acquire as much money as possible, politics is not the best strategy. For starters it costs a fortune just to run. Playing the stock market is more profitable than politics and a lot less likely to draw the scrutiny and militated opposition to your survival and success than it as well.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"Which side of the turnip truck do you think we fell off of?" Judging by the pattern of tire tracks across your back, I'd say the left side. ;)

nmprodan
nmprodan

Apparently you're not following politics very closely. Furthermore, general blanket statements about one party or the other are quite lame, have no standing, and contain no facts to back them up.

armchairmusician
armchairmusician

Thank you... I was trying to read through this without commenting, but it was getting very difficult.

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

Original post: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=599 John Dvorak doesn't think so. Declan McCullagh thinks Barrak Obama is the geek favorite. What do you think?

hanse
hanse

Most of the technologies were started due to DoD needs, i.e. internet. But now, we are heading back into the Carter Era Syndrome. Need to see ?Barack Obama?s Military Strategy.? Guess the Al Queada?s will be partying! On top of that, recession due to job lost. He doesn?t even respect our nation?s history. Scary!

Questor1
Questor1

IT Box score: McCain 0, Obama 0, and Clinton 0 Obama Clinton, and McCain said at first that NAFTA needs to be "examined". Then they said NAFTA needs to be "reviewed". Now they all say NAFTA should be re-negotiated. What will keep NAFTA agreements that undercut IT in the USA on the table for discussion? ONLY IT WORKERS WHO COMPLAIN TO THE MEDIA will keep this issue alive because politicians would prefer to forget public complaints about NAFTA. What do all three candidates say about the use of H1-b and L-1 workers for US companies, including the IT industry? Clinton, Obama, and McCain: They all favor increasing the number of visas granted through H1-b and L-1 visa program, even though 75% of these applicants are sponsored by IT outsourcing companies based in foreign companies. Bill Gates be damned! Increasing the allocation of H1-b and L-1 workers visas is a government failue and embarassment to US IT workers. Each candidate claims the US should increase the amount of education each worker has so they can get another job. The problem is that age discrimination is rampant where having more education can be a drawback rather than a benefit. I live in Ohio and cannot get an IT job with my IT cert training and 3 college drgrees because I am labeled "over-qualified". The real reason for the H1-b and L-1 increases are to bring in low wage workers that undercut US wages. It does not matter how much education or how many certs or degrees I earn if jobs continue to be handed to foreign outsourcing companies with H1-b and L-1 workers.

wyattbest
wyattbest

Everyone keeps making a fuss over this stuff, but a much larger problem is our internet. We cannot compete with Europe if they have internet access lightyears ahead of ours. We need one of two things: 1. Some innovative company (Google?) to build their own network and undercut the sluggish giants. 2. Some politician to introduce a reasonable net neutrality bill (that's short enough to read in less than an hour) and do something about the last-mile wiring rights. Solution 1 is far more preferable, as it bypasses the feds and could make the idiot telecoms irrelevant. Either way, we must have more competition and much cheaper bandwidth to compete with other large powers.

Questor1
Questor1

IT Box score: McCain 0, Obama O, and Clinton 0 Obama Clinton, and McCain att said at first that NAFTA needs to be "examiner". Then they said NAFTA needs to be "reviewed". Now they all say NAFTA should be re-negotiated. What will keep NAFTA agreements that undercut IT in the USA on the table for discussion? ONLY IT WORKERS WHO COMPLAIN TO THE MEDIA will keep this issue alive because politicians would prefer to forget public complaints about NAFTA. What do all three candidates say about the use of H1-b and L-1 workers for US companies, including the IT industry? Clinton, Obama, and McCain: They all favor increasing the number of visas granted through H1-b and L-1 visa program, even though 75% of these applicants are sponsored by IT outsourcing companies based in foreign companies. Increasing the allocation of H1-b and L-1 workers visas is an embarassment to US IT workers. Each candidate claims the US should increase the amount of education each worker has so they can get another job. The problem is that age discrimination is rampant where having more education can be a drawback rather than a benefit. I live in Ohio and cannot get an IT job with my IT cert training and 3 college drgrees because I am labeled "over-qualified". The real reason for the H1-b and L-1 increases are to bring in low wage workers that undercut US wages. It does not matter how much education or how many certs or degrees I earn if jobs continue to be handed to foreign outsourcing companies with H1-b and L-1 workers.

s_luckman
s_luckman

Ofcourse, Barrak Obama is the geek of favourite. Republican party doesnt do anything in the past for the Tech industry. Democratic party Barrak Obama is expected to do a big change in favour to Tech Industry.

steven.taylor
steven.taylor

We really don't know, do we. He really hasn't made much clear, except he will raise taxes, restrict trade, and pretty much try to implement socialist policies. I do not want that. Less government is better for the tech industry and and industry in general.

ZenWarp
ZenWarp

If either of those two get it over Obama, you will see an increase in H1B's etc./ as Clinton takes money from TATA for election and McCain is McSame as the Rest of the Republican Facists who would rather see their pockets lined with green backs than Americans getting a decent wage Obama might be the only one left to stand up for the American worker cause surely the Repubilcan neo-con facists don't give a tinker's dam and it has become some Democrats don't give a tinker's dam either. vote them all out now. We would be a far better off a nation under Socialism than Kapitalism under Socialism we would take care of what the Greedy Kapitalists have done to screw the American people! Wake up!!

kmoore
kmoore

Think about it: Pharmaceuticals, Healthcare, Oil, Wal-Mart, Fortune 500 companies, any thing or any one that has been successful they will try to bring down or, at least, bring under their control. The more high tech the industry, the more successful; the more successful, the more liberals despise us. They want to ?level the playing field? by dragging every one down to the lowest level rather then elevating any one. Ken

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

They can't stand individuals who are sucessful. People who are sucessful and self-reliant cannot be enslaved or controlled.

Ed H.
Ed H.

Think about it: The industries you mention have consistently screwed Americans to increase their profits - but then again for conservatives that appears to be the purpose of government, to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Pharmaceuticals- The prescription drug benefit entitlement bill was written by two drug company lobbyists and included a provision that prohibited Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices (like the VA) ensuring that the government pays top dollar for drugs and the corrupt insurance companies get their greedy fingers in taxpayer money. Boy did they succeed in screwing the taxpayers! Health care - This industry is opposed to coverage for all Americans because and health care reform because it would potentially decrease corporate profits. Better to have a system where they can deny coverage and claims to increase profits than a system that cares for its citizens. Pretty sad for a country to have its own people seek medical procedures and drugs in foreign countries because they are so outrageously expensive here. That's a success for you! Oil - Oh My, where should I start with this wonderfully corrupt industry! In the most recent limp energy bill the obstructionist republics representing Big Oil blocked an effort to eliminate the corporate welfare the oil companies have been receiving - an industry which is making obscene record profits - and instead use the money to spur development of alternative forms of energy so we will not continue to have our young men and women dying in places like Iraq for oil and pay record prices. What the hell is wrong with their own money? I suppose you think it's better for them to use taxpayer money to enrich themselves. How successful! Wal-Mart - How many Americans have lost their jobs and how many companies have been driven off-shore because of Wal-Mart? The high cost of low price - what a success story! What you say indicates you are totally clueless and appear to just be spewing out propaganda which has no basis in reality. Pull your head out and get some fresh air!

bruno_ann
bruno_ann

Like it or not, NOBODY is putting a gun to your head and forcing you or anyone else to purchase ANY of these products. Europeans have been paying high prices for fuel for decades! We're just catching up. What are you doing to fight the higher prices? Do you support alternative fuel efforts? Do you drive a hybrid car? Do you push for better public transportation? As for pharmaceuticals, the U.S. pays for the VERY expensive research that goes into developing new drugs, then shares the developments with other countries, which allows Americans to buy drugs more cheaply from those other countries, like Canada. Go ahead, but your drugs from another country! Then wait to see how many new drugs are introduced to the market. It seems to me that your major complaint isn't really that the public is getting "screwed" but that others are getting rich and not sharing their success with everyone else. Why should they? If you want to venture into business and make your own riches, nobody is stopping you. Forget about the rich corporations and individuals and think instead about what their products and businesses do for the country. Nobody goes into business strictly for altruistic reasons. A good businessman or woman puts their time, money and effort into a business for profit. Take away the profit and you take away the motivation. Motives are rarely unselfish. How many people vote for the candidate who is going to benefit them the most? All of them. It's human nature.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

First of all, Bush is hardly a "conservative". There was nothing "conservative" about the socialist boondoggle that was the "prescription drug benefit entitlement program". And if I recall correctly, the only problem that the Democrats had was that it didn't go far enough. So your entire argument here is a non-sequitur. Health Care: Unquestionably the best in the world. However, the biggest problem with health care in this country is that everybody expects somebody else to cover the bills. Few understand what "insurance" is or how it should work. And then you have the government mandating how everything should work. I can't imagine a better way to screw up an industry. Oil: Since there's nowhere in the US that the democrats are going allow anyone to drill for, then it's all gotta come from somewhere else. And frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a country where the oil industry wasn't profitable. You'd either have "affordable" energy that was totally unobtainable, or incredibly expensive energy. And since it's the espoused agenda of the eco-left to have European-like energy costs anyway, I really don't know what you're complaining about, unless it's the fact that the shareholders of Exxon-Mobil are making the money instead of the government. (which already profits more through energy taxes than the oil companies do anyway) Wal-Mart: Consumers spending less on stuff means they get to spend more money elsewhere, like on taxes and exploding government payrolls. In a country with a

kmoore
kmoore

The best medicines in the world. The best health care in the world. The best retail system in the world. The best petroleum system in the world. Even in spite of liberals not letting them drill, produce, refine, or transport it without very many restrictions. How did we ever get along before these little god-like creatures were here to take care of of?

tungstendiadem
tungstendiadem

You are right, and then on the other hand you are right.

bruno_ann
bruno_ann

I have to agree. Unfortunately, Democrats base their actions primarily on whatever will give them more control. Even if one of them promises to support IT, you may be sure it will not be a high priority. As for none of the three candidates having any real IT savy - that may well be true, but name a president who did!

ronald.bell
ronald.bell

What you really mean is price technology so that only the top 1% get to use the technology while the bottom 99% pay for it! Wake up and smell the coffee! Conversatives want everything paid for by anyone but them.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

> It?s hard to know what "the Palestinian people simply want". Since they overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, it's difficult to purge the notion that it is anything but the idea of "peaceful co-existence". > I?ll agree with you there.

herlizness
herlizness

> you haven't figured out that the Palestinian people simply want a state? To the extent that we're not willing or unable to do anything about that, you're right, there's no point in talking. When I talk about opening communications channels with the entire world, the predicate for that is that we're prepared to act. First you use carrots, then you use sticks. If you're unwilling to use either, then disengage and watch the mayhem on CNN or FOX. I'm not willing to spend a trillion here and a trillion there for no results. If we simply MUST give Halliburton and KBR piles of money, let's get 'em working here in the US repairing infrastructure.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...I came across this this morning: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200803/FOR20080314a.html Certain candidates think that a "progressive" approach would be to enter into dialogs with certain enemies, like Hamas, in order to have better relations. Again, I ask, how is it possible to "dialog" with "leaders" who honestly believe that "death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children"?

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

> Not the point. The reality is that from a domestic political standpoint, it would have been very difficult to award the contract to Boeing after all the ethical boondoggles over the last several years. BTW; the US is one of the few countries on the planet that legally demands transparency in business deals internationally. In most of the rest of the world, bribes and payoffs are just "costs of doing business". It buts Boeing at a serious disadvantage when competing against state-subsidized Airbus for foreign sales. > Job growth in this country has been consistent over the last 8 years. The problem is that the greatest growth sector has been government. (again, thank you George Bush and spendthrift Congresses) Government jobs do not create wealth, but zap it. (Since these jobs are supported by the wealth created by everyone else) Hardly a generation after even liberal economists rejected Keynesian economics, someone in Congress recently mocked, "We?re all Keynesians now!" > It very much does matter. The upper education "industry" does not operate in a complete vacuum as they like to think it does. Upper education is in fact a "marketplace", responsive to the elasticity?s of supply and demand. If the total amount of money available for all students rises, then the universities are free to raise tuitions until equilibrium is reached for each school. And as for Bill Gates and H1-B visas: There are plenty of trained Americans available. What there are not of are plenty of trained Americans WILLING to go to school for 5-6 years for a job that pays only $40k. The H1-B fiasco isn?t about getting engineering talent. It?s about getting it on the cheap. And by expanding H1-B, the problem they say exists will only get worse; There are plenty of careers out there that pay far better than $40k that require much less work than engineering. Why bother going into engineering if you can do better doing something cheaper and easier? If you want a great example of this, look at Britain: Most of Britain?s new doctors are now foreign born. Why is this? Is it because there aren?t enough schools or potential students in all of England? Or is it that because doctors in Britain are now basically civil servants, and bright and focused British schoolchildren choose to pursue other careers? Indian kids: Glad you brought up that example! India subsidized higher education in the belief that it was the key grow them out of 3rd-world status. Unfortunately, they were incorrect. The keys to a vibrant economy are political stability, property rights, and economic freedom; things that the soviet-style centrally controlled Indian economy lacked. So what they ended up with was millions of PhDs working call centers for American countries at minimum wage, and those lucky enough to get H1-Bs to work for us on the cheap. I would agree with you that subsidized higher education is a worthwhile thing. (I am, in fact, a beneficiary of a generous state in that regard) The problem is that subsidies breed contempt, inefficiencies and sloth. In so many ways my university was an embarrassment. I did not feel as though the taxpayers were getting a fair return. > Good point! I am one of 300 million. And since so many of my fellow 300 million are asking me to pay for their goodies, I feel more than entitled to criticize. Barrowers are always beholden to the lender. Either way, it?s a non-sequitur. It is possible to get a degree (or many degrees) without going into massive debt. The only problem is that it won?t be easy, won?t involve much partying, and won?t be at a 1st class institution. Sorry. Reality bites. > You are comparing apples to oranges. Originally, you said "I want every American who needs to see a doctor, dentist or optometrist to be able to find one s/he can afford at typical prevailing wages". You didn?t say "emergency care", which is what "insurance" is for. Some simple questions; Did your friend not have insurance? And why not? It really is obtainable for most Americans, especially those making over $40k. I had health insurance when I was a starving student making less than $20k. Yeah, I didn?t have a new car or got to eat out all the time like my uninsured friends did. But I guess I had different priorities. > Paying cash is smart, and I do have insurance. I have a very high deductible policy that is very affordable. It is for emergencies. And unlike most low deductible plans, it pays 100% after the deductible level. Up to that deductible, I pay cash. Unlike for most Americans, this gives me incentive to shop my health care. (unlike most people who don?t care how much things cost since they are not the ones writing the check) I am actually the customer for health care, as opposed to an insurance company. If more people purchased health care this way, I assure you that health care WOULD be more affordable to all Americans. > There is no such thing as "market failure". That is a "pop" term that is a value judgment. The market reacts rationally. It?s just that we often don?t like the outcomes. For example, people complain that health care is expensive. And yet again, they demonstrate that they?d rather spend their money on other "expensive" items such as automobiles, entertainment, and gadgets. This isn?t "market failure"; it?s people making choices that are morally questionable. Again, reality bites. > I travel too. You need to get out of the cities more then. I can only guess which countries you are speaking about, but my guess is that they are places where the medias are very aligned with the governments, and the economies are very burdened by their social welfare costs. They love to hate us because it distracts them from their own failings. Quite frankly, if we were to follow the agenda they pretend to wish we would, they?d be totally screwed. (They ?hate us?, but seem to love the billions we spend on bases in their country ? listen to them howl when we leave) Also, behind closed doors, many appreciate that it?s the US that does so much of the globe?s ?dirty work? that they are no longer capable (politically or logistically) to do themselves. I think that?s the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives would rather be "right" than "loved". > That was as disjointed a paragraph as I?d ever read. (You are writer for Obama?) The "smart, progressive left" is all about appearances. It?s no accident that the "smart, progressive left" has not taken seriously, even by self-proclaimed liberals in this country on defense/security issues for the last 40 year. > I know plenty about Islam and jihadism. I?ve grown up with and am friends with many people who?ve personally endured it. And when I see that these people are scared, I certainly feel justified in being concerned too. 25% of AMERICAN Muslim youth feel that suicide bombings are justified. Again, these are AMERICANS! Are you ready to submit to Sharia law? Because that?s what they are demanding for you. (It?s cool if you?re a misogynist, but kinda sucks if you?re a woman) > Sorry, but I call them like I see them. > Sorry, that?s what happens when I write before breakfast.

herlizness
herlizness

> Hardly ? but if ALL the players in the game are corrupt, how do you figure the solution is to award the contract to NG/EADS? Has the EADS involvement in corruption in South Africa escaped your attention? Think they have completely clean hands here? Besides, you totally ignored my other examples of job loss in the US; your reply is just a distraction from the issue > Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? Doesn?t matter; I?ve been in favor of dismantling the Department of Education for years ? but I don?t want to see Bill Gates at a congressional hearing looking for more H1-B visas because there are allegedly not enough trained Americans when college costs have gone through the roof. Do you know how much Chinese and Indian kids pay for college? > YOU are one of 300 million Americans. Please remember that fact when you argue policy. > You can?t figure out ?prevailing wages?? How about the US Household median income, which is about $47K? Look, I don?t how much you use that cell phone but here?s some reality: I took a friend with a severe headache to the ER; they did an MRI for $2400 and referred to a neuro, who did another one plus a couple of follow-ups ? total cost: about $6800. One more: a relative had some palpitations of the heart and was concerned; her gyno referred to a cardio guy who did the standard stress test and ECG ? 1.5 hours, $8200 bill, for which he decided to take the insurance payment of $5100. This is not affordable at individual or systemic levels, period. Let me add that the answer is not the usual, ?we have to figure out a way to pay for it? ? the answer is getting those bills down to where they really should be. BTW, if paying your doctor in cash means you don?t have health insurance, get smart and get some ? if you can. > I don?t really want the government in the game either ? fact is, it will be, and it will be at the behest of both liberals and conservatives. People are not willing enough to endure reasonable degrees of risk, whether it be military, environmental or other. And, no matter how enamored one may be with ?free markets,? market failure is and always has been a hazard; private enterprise does not always step up to the plate, for any number of reasons. > I don?t rely on the media for my impressions here; I travel to and work on 5 continents and talk to and with everyone I can, from the business and government elites down to the people making $1 a day. America?s prestige is in tatters. There are many who still envy us, many who still fear us, and plenty still interested in making a dollar with us or on us ? but the respect is fading and it?s quite palpable. > It?s not about ?warm and fuzzy? ? it?s about being smart, tough and pragmatic. There?s not a human being alive who doesn?t want something from the next guy. We need to use what we still have for leverage to our advantage before we have no more chips left to bargain with. It?s interesting to note that the complainers about active and aggressive diplomatic engagement are the very same people who become apoplectic over the alleged xenophobia of ?the left.? The smart, progressive left isn?t worried about appearances; we?re ready and willing to talk to everyone ? and yes, you bet that includes Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Raul Castro and Ahmadinejad. You can play poker or you can play with nuclear weapons ? take your choice. Talks do not imply capitulation; how did that notion ever gain any currency? You need to learn more about Islam and Islamic jihadism; there?s no doubt that some of these people are radical and dangerous. Without doubt, it?s a challenge to deal with the minority with terrorist inclinations ? frankly, we?re learning as we go on this one because there?s no textbook, no ?Fighting Terrorism For Dummies? to turn to. That said, diplomatic isolation, occupations, nation-building and imposed military presence all over the globe are not the solution for the long term. That game worked for a time post-WW2 but its time is past. Finally, be careful about what you assume about my supposed naivet?; I find it unseemly to blab about credentials and experience, so I will once again resist the urge and let the arguments stand on their own merits ? but, na?ve I am not. PS: ?Disdain? is not spelled ?distain.? Just thought you should know.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

"The American taxpayer has footed the bill to build up every bit of infrastructure -- physical, political, economic and otherwise -- that makes this country what it is; in return, what I want is for that taxpayer, and future taxpayer, to have a shot at working in the Boeing plant building the next generation of refueling tanker aircraft, a shot at being a craftsman in a North Carolina furniture manufacturer, a shot at building the next generation of computer operating systems ..." Boeing lost the contract because of their own corruption and corruption within Congress and the Department of Defense. Do you wish to continue subsidizing corruption? "I want every American family to be able to afford to send their kids to college if they're prepared and choose to attend ... without a raft of loans to be re-paid over the next 20-30 years" Do you know that if you were to draw a plot of the rise of government subsidies to higher education and the rise in cost of higher education, the plots would be almost perfectly parallel? It is possible to get a higher education "without a raft of loans to be re-paid over the next 20-30 years". I did it. I?m sure your kids could do it too. They may not get to go to a school with a great football team and spend spring breaks in Jamaica, but they?ll get a good education. "I want every American who needs to see a doctor, dentist or optometrist to be able to find one s/he can afford at typical prevailing wages" This is way too vague to even criticize. What do you mean by "typical prevailing wages"? Most American?s already can see doctors, dentists, or optometrists at affordable rates. I pay cash to see my doctor, and that visit usually costs less than my cell phone bill. The problem is that too many others don?t have the same spending priorities. "I want this nation to become energy independent, and I want to see it happen at the earliest possible moment in time." Then I?d suggest getting the government out of the way. As long as politicians and lobbyists are allowed to pick and choose which technologies shall be sanctified, we?ll be slaves to oil. If the current ethanol fiasco doesn?t convince you of this, then nothing will. "I want to see every bit of infrastructure in this country -- roads, levees, dams, power grids, aqueducts, sewage facilities, airports, etc -- maintained and replaced if necessary" Can?t argue with that. But that will never happen until politicians are held responsible, and voters stop voting for them based upon what freebies can get expropriated from other taxpayers. There?s been plenty of money available for infrastructure. The problem is that it either gets diverted by politicians for "pet" projects or just disappears altogether. For example, there was plenty of money for New Orleans levy maintenance. It?s just that it got diverted for infrastructure to build casinos instead. Government makes far more profit from gasoline than the oil companies do. But how much of that gets spent on infrastructure instead of other goodies? "I want to see America's prestige restored in a world that has less regard for us than at any point in recent memory" You?ve fallen victim to the media on that one. America is not as lowly regarded as you may think, and certainly not as much as you?ve been told. In almost any foreign travel outside of where the ?elites? live, you will find that this distain of America is a mostly a myth. And consider this; How many other countries are there where so many people are literally risking their very lives to come to? "I want to see America's military strong, proud and so well trained and equipped that no nation would dare engage us" You certainly won?t find attitude amongst at least 2 of the current presidential candidates. One has previously openly shown her distain for the military. The other barely even mentions the military on his web site, beyond wanting to close Guantanamo Bay. "I want to see an intelligent foreign policy which forges alliances and new relationships which will obviate the need to ever deploy that military into combat" I know that this very naive "warm and fuzzy" approach is popular. But the reality is that we are dealing with people who honestly believe that God has told them that we are either to be conquered or killed. In their schools, their children are being taught this, and worse. There isn?t very much middle ground to strike with people who see nothing wrong with strapping high explosives to their own children to die as suicide bombers. "I want to see economic policy that is informed by a clear understanding that budgets should balance, excessive national debt will destroy us sooner or later, that the nation's currency cannot be permitted to flounder in the global market .. and that a house of cards is a house of cards" Agree on that one. Too bad the last few congresses couldn?t care less. The current congress, which pledged to eliminate corruption and "earmarks" has litterally submitted twice as many as the previous one. (So much for "change") "I want a trade policy that recognizes that you can trade globally all day and all night, 24x365, freely and fairly ... but that you cannot give away the vital resources of a nation without doing irreparable harm to it" Agree on that one. Too bad the last several congresses couldn?t care less. "If you know your history, then you know that an America that looks like this is possible. But none of it will ever happen unless we escape the mindset of greed which has gripped America." Agreed there too. Except, I seen very few politicians willing to stand for dismantlement of the "entitlement nation" for at least a dozen years. You know darn well that any one that does will instantly be demonized as "hateful", "racist", "insensitive", "fascist", so on so on.

herlizness
herlizness

> I can't imagine what on earth would give you the idea that I favor "giving people something for nothing" ... I certainly have not written it here and would not write it anywhere. The American taxpayer has footed the bill to build up every bit of infrastructure -- physical, political, economic and otherwise -- that makes this country what it is; in return, what I want is for that taxpayer, and future taxpayer, to have a shot at working in the Boeing plant building the next generation of refueling tanker aircraft, a shot at being a craftsman in a North Carolina furniture manufacturer, a shot at building the next generation of computer operating systems ... I want every American family to be able to afford to send their kids to college if they're prepared and choose to attend ... without a raft of loans to be re-paid over the next 20-30 years I want every American who needs to see a doctor, dentist or optometrist to be able to find one s/he can afford at typical prevailing wages I want this nation to become energy independent, and I want to see it happen at the earliest possible moment in time I want to see every bit of infrastructure in this country -- roads, levees, dams, power grids, aqueducts, sewage facilities, airports, etc -- maintained and replaced if necessary I want to see America's prestige restored in a world that has less regard for us than at any point in recent memory I want to see America's military strong, proud and so well trained and equipped that no nation would dare engage us I want to see an intelligent foreign policy which forges alliances and new relationships which will obviate the need to ever deploy that military into combat I want to see economic policy that is informed by a clear understanding that budgets should balance, excessive national debt will destroy us sooner or later, that the nation's currency cannot be permitted to flounder in the global market .. and that a house of cards is a house of cards I want a trade policy that recognizes that you can trade globally all day and all night, 24x365, freely and fairly ... but that you cannot give away the vital resources of a nation without doing irreparable harm to it I want markets that are free, open and as transparent as can be; I don't want endless vaporous commentary about the joys of our current markets, because they are ANYTHING BUT FREE If you know your history, then you know that an America that looks like this is possible. But none of it will ever happen unless we escape the mindset of greed which has gripped America. And THAT is up to all of us; NO politician, no government can do it for us. And we can't do it unless and until we're willing to spend the time and effort -- and find the fortitude -- to see things as they are.

bruno_ann
bruno_ann

First, let me just reassure you that I have no doubt everyone who reads your posts thinks you're smart! Feel better now? You see, I've dealt with human nature enough to know that those who attack, especially with the overdone "I'm smart and you're not" attitude, do so in an attempt to correct some flaw in their own character. We don't know each other, but I KNOW that by the time you're done reading this you will be fit to be tied! There's nothing a self-perceived intellectual hates more than having his or her intellect challenged. I fully expect to get a scathing reply to this post. You said: "I don't suppose you've noticed that Barack Obama gets a very high percentage of his support from the best educated and more affluent demographic." Let's be specific - he gets a high % of his support from the LIBERAL best educated, affluent demographic. Yes, there actually are some! And I don't suppose YOU've noticed that he's black, and don't tell me that makes no difference! If he were a Republican I'D vote for him just for a refreshing change. Also, look at his present liberal competition! There really isn't a viable option! You said: "yes, that's painfully obvious" And just where did you grow up that automatically makes you better informed? You said: "ALL politicians like to play this game with the bottom 5% .." Try the bottom 50% and growing. At what point do we stop giving people something for nothing? I grew up in a large family with a working father (2 jobs and no welfare) and a deceased mother. I had to carve out my own future and I've done pretty well because I made good, responsible life choices. My HUSBAND and I had 2 children because that is all we could reasonably care for and educate. When I left home it was because there were no jobs in my "small home town" and I didn't qualify for student loans or scholarships (admittedly, MY OWN FAULT!) so I joined the military, and if you think that was easy then I consider you an unreasonable person and have nothing further to say to you! (Not really; I rather enjoy sparring with you and I already know you're an unreasonable person)! You said: "they're terrified of what will happen if people were "forced to take care of themselves"" Do you deny that most low-income families vote for Democrats? As I stated in a previous post, there are those out there who genuinely need help because they've fallen on tough times, and they deserve TEMPORARY, SHORT-TERM assistance. But understand, with rights comes responsibility. NO NATION, STATE, FAMILY, INDIVIDUAL, SPEC HOME BUYER OR UNSCRUPULOUS LENDER CAN HOPE TO SURVIVE WITH ONE AND NOT THE OTHER. You said: "no ... what's scary is your implication that only "certain" people should have the vote;" What's more scary are people like you who know nothing of human psychology. Do you REALLY believe that people have a chance in HE11 of becoming motivated when there is no incentive to do so? Maybe YOU need to spend less time listening to Air America and more time trying to UNDERSTAND human nature. BTW, I don't listen to talk radio. ALL talk shows and their hosts have agendas. If they didn't they wouldn't be there; any fool can see that. I'd much rather make up my own mind, which is why I'm not a Democrat. Have a nice day!

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...since you clearly are under the notion that George Bush and his administration is "conservative". In practice, he's been far more liberal than Bill Clinton ever was.

herlizness
herlizness

> I don't suppose you've noticed that Barack Obama gets a very high percentage of his support from the best educated and more affluent demographic > yes, that's painfully obvious and now you work for Right-wing beneficiaries of corporate welfare and government largesse ... check it out; read the Federal budget and the tax code sometime; be warned that it does take time and effort, something most breezy neo-cons are not willing to invest when they get the latest orthodoxy from Talk Radio while sitting on their butts

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

The people of which you speak have unwittingly made themselves slaves to the state, and the politicians who are saying "Vote for me, and I'll keep your vittles coming". As slaves to the state, they will never know self-sufficiency or pride in themselves. It's a very sad and pathetic state of affairs. And I think that those of us who are paying the bill have every right to be critical of it.

herlizness
herlizness

> I guess you haven't been in any "socialist nations" lately. There is plenty of "diversity of income," to put it one way. There is also plenty of corruption and it matters none whether it emanates from the private or public sector; it's still corruption. Here in the US we prefer a hybrid system, spreading the corruption more or less evenly in a cozy private/public cooperative. > Again, guess you haven't been in China or India, have you? Taxation has nothing to do with it. Think *incredibly* cheap labor. Of course if you can get yet another tax break through your lobbyist, hey, that's the American way, right? > Completely off the mark, both in fact and in ordinary logic; government workers, in general, are not that worried about outsourcing. Government jobs continue to proliferate ... at the behest of both Democrats AND Republicans. If we don't wise up soon, they're going to be the only jobs available to a large number of Americans. Think about it: is there any real, compelling business reason that Oracle cannot move headquarters to Dubai and all development to China and India? I suppose there might be few "major account" sales jobs left ... unless of course their customers have moved right along with them to Dubai. Free market capitalism works only when you have free markets; if you'll take the time to learn just a little bit about economics, law and politics you will understand that this country does not have free markets. Oh I can hear the outcry and outrage and I say this: tell me the last time you saw a posted price list at your doctor's office; tell me who *controls* the number of physicians in the US ... and that's nothing but the tip of the iceberg Follow the money, Ann ... then the story tells itself

bruno_ann
bruno_ann

Low income people will always vote for the candidate who will give them things for free. There's a reason most low income people are not well educated, or, more appropriately, there's a reason educated people are not usually among those with low income. I'm not talking about those kids scraping along right out of college, or even high school, who intend to progress in life. Frankly, a good percentage of the population is tired of paying for other people's poor choices in life. I grew up in a small town where instead of getting educated and moving on, many people tended to go into the family business generation after generation - that of collecting welfare! When a young girl got tired of living with her parents all she had to do was get pregnant and she was set up with medical care, housing and food stamps for as long as she had a minor child, which encouraged her to have more illigitimate children. After all, that's what mom did!These are among the people who vote for Liberals. The only plus is that many of these people tend not to vote at all or will only vote if it's convenient for them to do so (I pray for bad weather on every election day!) Of course, now the Libs are bussing them to voting stations, providing child care while they're there, feeding them, etc. Next they'll be bringing their ballots to their front door! Liberals like to "provide" things to people so they're not forced to take care of themselves! What better way to maintain this sector of their voter base? I know this offends people and I apologize. I realize there are so many people out there who genuinely need help and I think they deserve it and should get it, but I grew up right smack in the middle of Left-wing beneficiaries and let me tell you, a more useless bunch of individuals does not exist yet their vote counts toward electing officials to run this country. It's more than a little scary!

bruno_ann
bruno_ann

The top 1% pays 27.6% of Federal income taxes overall. Individual income tax for the top 1% is 38.8%. They do pay 58.6% of corporate income tax though, but that stands to reason. The top 10% pays 72.7% of individual income tax. see: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf The fact is that unless we become a Socialist nation, there will always be a diversity of income. Over-taxing the top percentile results in corporations moving production to other countries and a loss of jobs in this country. Small businesses that can't afford to move overseas are the first ones forced to cut jobs or go out of business. I don't claim to know much about economics, but I do know that you aren't going to get a job from a low income person. As for outsourcing, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are probably a Government employee! Am I off the mark?

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...because he honestly thinks that it's only someone else's taxes that will be going up. He doesn't get it that when corporations get taxed more, those taxes will only get passed down to him in the form of higher prices. He doesn't get it that when "the rich" get taxed more, they will stop investing in this country, and will instead do so overseas. He doesn't get it that when politicians say they are going to make his employer give him more stuff, that instead they may just say "screw it" and outsource his job somewhere else. And most of all, he doesn't get it that if he feel's that he's "poor", it because "poor" is an attitude unto himself. It's a sad way to live.

kmoore
kmoore

Wait until the Dems increase y our taxes by 20%. Then come back and wine about how muchr money you have.

herlizness
herlizness

> ?? ok, guess you live with Mom & Dad or the GF/BF, are young, healthy and childless, and/or one of the incredibly stupid banks has given you a hefty credit line on your VISA/MC real people CANNOT live on the median US income, fella ... do the arithmetic; they will not be able to send their kids to college, they are currently avoiding medical and dental care, blah, blah, blah. These are not "liberal issues," they're "people issues." Maybe you're so enamored with Republicans because you had your first sex after Bush got into office ?? Tell us 'cause I can't figure it out

tungstendiadem
tungstendiadem

I don't know what your smelling but it ain't coffee. During the Clinton years I bordered on homeless and couldn't near a computer. Bush comes into office now I have a future, a laptop, and a mochiatto to call home despite an income that is currently at least three standard deviations below the mean average for the country, state, and county I live in. Seriously, I come from the kind of poverty liberals love to step on so that they never get up and are always there to lie economics to. I have seen changes in my quality of life and the quality of life for my family only under Republican administrations.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

"Wake up and smell the coffee! Conversatives want everything paid for by anyone but them." Strange cognitive disconnect you have. Every time I read about what Obama or Hillary has said in their efforts to buy voters, all I hear is about all the wonderful freebies they are going to give their constituencies should they be elected; ?Universal Health Care?, free pre-school, etc, while only raising taxes on everyone they know won?t be voting for them. Seems to me that it?s the left in this country that wants everything paid for by someone else.

herlizness
herlizness

> and YOU are not in that top 1%, Steve, and never will be ... so get with the program while there still IS a program to get with ... Now that McCain has brought Outsourcing Queen Carley Fiorina on board his campaign it should all be extremely obvious where he intends to go with economic policy ANY American who votes for a Republican in 2008 is, frankly, stone cold out of their mind .. (but Ohio probably will do it again; they apparently enjoy pain in that state)

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"The times that I made the most forward development (from a financial standpoint) in my IT career has been under Democratic administrations." Not me. Clinton killed me with his overemphasis on the IT sector, which, in my opinion, contributed greatly to the dot.com bust. I've seen the best wages I have ever seen after George W. took office. My current mantra; Anyone but a Clinton.

steven.taylor
steven.taylor

What is "price technology?" I haven't heard that concept yet. So you're saying that only the top 1% can use technology, while everyone else pays for it? I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. If you'd look up some facts, I think you'd see. And no, I'm not going to do it for you. BTW, the top 1 percent (as far as income) in the the U.S. pay more than half of the taxes..

steven.taylor
steven.taylor

It's so easy to blame someone else for our troubles. But this is liberalism at it's finest. It is based on victims. Everyone is a victim. Personal responsibility doesn't matter. It's really not Bush's fault that your business went under. And it was Clinton's fault that it did so well.

max
max

The times that I made the most forward development (from a financial standpoint) in my IT career has been under Democratic administrations. I have been hearing Republicans for years talk about smaller government and lower taxes and witnessing in their actions: more restrictions for small businesses trying to get a piece of the pie, higher taxes for individuals and large corporations getting fat and rich while establishing monopolies. I had to close down a business since Dubyu got in office. It was doing well before that. For economic growth, give me a democrat!