Perhaps not. But do you think a McCain administration could — or should?

SD: If you look back at the cuts during th eClinton Administraiton, entire divisions were cut out of the military and the military went through a reduction in force.

Actually, if you look even further back I think you'd find Clinton's predecessor, one GHW Bush — and if my memory serves me, also advocated by his Sec Def at the time, one Dick Cheney — was the one that put the wheels in motion. GHWB called it the “peace dividend.” Be that as it may, I guess the essential issue is… were they wrong? And if so, how so? And was it so stark as to call it a black and white thing? Or does whatever your call on it require an eye to nuance?

That last question could be more generally applied, even to this thread (not to mention the federal government as a whole, or its role in spending anything for whatever purpose). It seems there is some thought through this thread that if the hundreds of billions of dollars which could be saved by failing to pursue new military hardware — a pursuit which shows some evidence of turning into a boondoggle — must only be spent instead servicing the medical interests of those who have already served on a penny for penny basis. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I doubt anyone else here does either. So the question I have is, why should anyone make that assumption? And should McCain be elected instead of Obama, would he be immune to whatever criticism accrues?

Looking at the larger picture, I had occasion a few days ago to listen to Arthur Laffer (of Laffer curve fame) speak on what his intentions were during the Reagan administration. He indicated that what he intended to do was to point out how revenues could be maximized by appropriate adjustment of tax rates as they existed at the time. And that involved cutting them. He also noted that he admired Pres. Clinton because he understood that some of the revenues obtained can be used to incentivize research, innovation, and the development of new industries, thus expanding the entire economic base. And let me say that IMO, that's something government does far better than the industry sector does, regardless of what industry is discussed. Left to their own devices, industry is far more interested in protecting their behinds than exposing them to some new wind (so to speak).

If you look back at the cuts during th eClinton Administraiton, entire divisions were cut out of the military and the military went through a reduction in force. Cutting 25% without personnel cuts means either new weapons development is stopped, old equipment is not replaced, or the force stops training. A 25% cut would also require huge civilian workforce layoffs and a reworking of priorities in the Pentagon to decide what the military will stop doing.

But cuts at the Pentagon won't happen. Frank and Lieberman have vested interests in keeping the bloated pork in VERY hitech programs.Think tanks like Heritage haven't met a weapons system that didn't give them a “woody”. While the personel objectives behind FCS are beyond debate, the wastefull spending on “future technologies” isn't anything like NASA and lacks a visionary like von Braun

Also, you cannot cut 25% from the defense budget without cutting troop strenght. thus a reduction of the military's budget will mean firing people from the military during a recession. At least Clinton downsized the military during a boom in the economy.

You have analyzed coal but you should also look at gasoline. For alterantives to become more viable, the price of gasoline needs to remain high. But Obama is promsing lower fuel prices. he will be stuck with trying to lower the short term price of fueld with the idea that alternative fuels will become non-viable or he will keep fuel prices high and pay an economic price.

This is another chicken that will come home to roost on the next administration's watch.
The costs of stress on the troops from continual deployments will be high. As the Democrats have stressed this issue in criticizing Bush, there is no way Obama can short-change benefits for the troops without paying a terrible price.

Where is the money going to come from, on top of the $700 billion recent incentive?

As a conservative, I am not unhappy about the GOP implosion. I think a good way of looking at it is like market discipline punishing a badly run company.

I would argue that conservatism . . . certainly the American strain . . . has run out of ideas.
Ronald Reagan swept in like a breath of fresh air amid the stagflation and collapse of traditional Keynesian economics. Arguably, Gingrich renewed it politically in the 90s.
But there doesn't seem a whole lot there now except “No” to this and “No” to that IMHO.

Of course, some people might argue that McCain would be better than the Neo-Bolshevik Obama administration

I suspect Amanda calls this right in her comment above . . . . With Democrat payback this time, there will be a corrective swing to the Right in the 2010 election (a la 1994).

That is . . . however . . . if the GOP plays ITS cards right.

There is the JOKER that is Palin . . . who knows what she will mean for the future of the GOP. I won't even go there . . . .

I don't think defense spending is the most efficient way to create jobs. Nor even am I arguing against cuts.
But with plants spread across Congressional districts, Barney Frank is clearly wishful thinking if he dreams a 25% cut could ever survive.

My focus was basically on the political dilemma a President Obama will face in making tough decisions that will infuriate this or that constituency of a bloc that is now more or less solidly behind him.

There will be bitter fights to come, that will fray the Democratic coalition.

But less and less these days do we have to remain beholden to that collective bargaining. A vocal and energized minority, like an online community in the era of web 2.0, can have great impact on politics, especially downticket races. Is it going to be less important that a candidate is a “democrat” when that can mean any range of things? Instead we can search and debate individual records and do not need the filter of the media to tell us what the corporate overseers want us to know. Admit it, we use the labels (liberal, conservative, democratic, republican) to make it easier for us to discuss these matters without having to resort to the nuance of actual accuracy. Instead we can paint our opponent with broad stereotypic swathes. Is a post-partisan US politics coming? Or are we going to remain entrenched in our need for the familiar party names while attaching numerous modifiers to distinguish ourselves. “The blue-dog, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, anti-tax democrats versus the pro-gun, bill of rights, libertarian leaning, social conservative, anti-immigration democrats.

On the separate topic of the GOP, I doubt if most people are happy about the way the party has imploded. Myself included. The election hasn't happened yet of course, but the degree to which it appears the Dems are likely to dominate does concern me. Then again, I'm not happy about the way the social conservatives have come to dominate the GOP, either. I have no problem with the idea of faith as a motivating force, but I do when it becomes a corrosive one. And it gets that way when people start thinking Christianity is the only true religion and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible is some kind of fundamental consideration for driving secular policy. Even the notion that the GOP is required to rely on white folks as their core constituency drives me crazy. That's nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but it violates a core belief upon which the party was founded. It's not called the Party of Lincoln for nothing. IMO, the GOP has to stop spending so much time concentrating on superficial symbols and get down to substance. I suppose I could say that members of the GOP should make a spectacle of pounding brass tacks into their foreheads, but that would contradict what I just said. Lol!

Another point wholly apart from anything ideological: I think a considerable amount of house-cleaning is needed in the executive branch. And from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think it goes without saying that an Obama/Biden administration would do a better job of that, at least in the short run, than a McCain/Palin administration. What the Bush administration has done by way of appointing political cronies to what should be career administrative positions is deplorable. And considering who is advising the McCain/Palin ticket, I simply don't have much faith that the house-cleaning that is needed will get done under a McCain/Palin administration. That's not to say that it will be guaranteed in an Obama/Biden one, it's just far more likely.

Converting security guards at airports to federal employees helps the Democrats. Creating another cabinet department that will lobby for more money is anti-conservative. Expanding entitlements without a thought to long term costs is a liberal idea. The Republicans added five trillon to the deficit and manage to do almost nothing with the money.

I'm not sure this is true. What items did he use to advance that debt?
Tax cuts… what Republicans wanted.
Dept of homeland security… pretty much what all but the most fiscal of conservatives wanted.
Medicare, part D… isn't what Republicans SAY they want, but consider this: most social conservatives are older, approaching or in retirement, and most Democratic voters are younger. While it may not jive with Republican ideology, it benefited the Republican base more than the Democratic one.
No child left behind… OK, more funding for education really was someting Democrats wanted. You are right about this one.

I'm an Obama supporter and a proud Democrat, but I recognize my party's weaknesses. There are a lot of members who are out for Republican blood and want to win so they can crush the opposition. They aren't concerned with the welfare of the nation as much as they are concerned with victory. If that wing of the party takes control of Congress, then my guess is there'll be a heck of a swing to the right during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Whether it costs Obama the Presidency depends on how he reacts to the far left. It'll be a delicate balancing act, opposing some members of your party while trying to maintain popularity with the rest. Just look at McCain's campaign for an example of how that can blow up in your face.

Also, there are too many examples of one party politics in the U.S. to believe that two party politics is natural. See everything from Mass. to Maryland to Chicago. They have been one party for decades where the Rep;ublicans cannot affect policy even if they manage to elect a moderate republican governor.

SD, I know you love to beat that racial demographic drum, but this stood out to me

“Does anyone really believe that Obama will get one less vote from blacks or in Manhatten no matter how badly he performs.”

Does anyone really believe that any Republican will get one less vote from evangelicals or in Texas no matter how badly they perform?

But don't despair too much SD. Republicans will change (or die), but there will be no one party rule of the U.S. The innate sense of fairness in Americans wouldn't allow it. Trust me, once Obama has a record, he will be much easier to oppose.

Apart from whether that's true or not, and apart from whether the same rationale could be applied to any other industry, is it a valid reason in and of itself for continuing to spend money on that industry? Doesn't that violate all kinds of conservative principles?

I hope so. But Republicans have shown a win at all cost mentality for too many years for me to have that much hope.