The "I'm thrilled about his choice for vp" is the bulk of the shock for me, bugs, but even after all these years, I'm still quite ruffled and surprised at some of your positions.
I will be voting for Obama. Do I agree with all of his postions? Certainly not. Do I think he's the absolute best man for the job? Certainly not.
He is, however, by far the lesser of two evils.
If there is anything that should be clear to every single person in the country, it is that the policies of GW, which McCain has supported to a ridiculous extent, have bled the country dry, and we cannot afford any more of it. We can't afford how much of it we've already had.
"Maverick" my ass. Party line buffoon is more accurate.
And come on - Palin? Is there a question out there that she is capable of actually answering?
A proven record of corruption, bullying, hypocrisy, and forcing her religious beliefs on her constituents.
No thanks!
I mean come on....trying to ban any books is more than I can tolerate, but Little Red Riding Hood?!?? Harry Potter?? WTF??!
(btw bugs - how embarrassed are you after her SNL appearance???)
I get my information from various internet news sites, cable news and local am radio. As usual I doubt the facts are in dispute but rather our views and conclusions that differ.
Larry Elder
Laura Ingraham
Dick Morris
Bill O'Reilly
Dennis Prager
Cal Thomas
George Will
I particularly agree with Charles Krauthammer on the topics of US and world politics.
You specifically wanted to know what was going on in the head of someone who likes her. Based on the issues I listed maybe you can tell me how I could possibly vote Obama/Biden? Believe it or not I really do try to understand where you're coming from, I so wish you could do the same for me. If you really want to then I'm more than happy to explain my views.
I'm actually glad you posted this thread because I don't have much of a chance to discuss politics with people as I used to.
WS, all I read was that you fell back to Obama/Biden as a lesser of 2 evils, but to me that's not supporting him that's just opposing someone else. What specifically can you point to that would make you a supporter of his campaign? If you were going to try to convince someone why he's good for America what would be your main points?
DL, I'm actually pretty cynical by nature so that side of me admits that politics is a pretty dirty and disgusting process. I do not believe McCain or Palin are some saviors going to solve all our problems. But I'm talking more right now as a partisan *within* the political process. As far as that goes the issues I listed are my main concerns.
As far as actually being thrilled at choosing Palin I must admit I do like her a lot. Why? I look to the core of the individual, I look to the principles and character as much as I can discern from my vantage point. When I look at Obama, I see arrogance and naivete. When I look at Palin, I see strength of character and the makings of an actual leader. The fact that she holds conservative ideals assures me that she would use the right thinking when making important decisions. Of course I am concerned about her lack of experience but that has to be balanced by what the alternative is.
Are you concerned by Obama's lack of experience? Is it just a question of a lesser of 2 evils for you? Are there any specific things that you like about his proposals?
And as far as all of this hype that the left drags up about her, you don't hear me bringing up the crap the far right throws at Obama. It's political mud slinging and it's a waste of time. Now even if I bought into all that ridiculous hype I would still have to point out that we're talking about the president of the US where the overriding concern is the public policies that will be enacted and not whether these are nice people to work with or for. Neither Obama nor Palin are guilty of breaking any laws that I'm aware of.
The official report regarding her corruption charges is "ridiculous hype"?
The attempt at banning books, and then the attempt to get rid of the people who opposed the ban is not a concern in regard to public policies??
Are you really comfortable with someone in office who wants to tell people what books they can get from the public library??
Attempting to trample the rights of the indigenous peoples of Alaska is not a public poliy issue?
Or is it just that her prejudices favor your views, so that makes it ok?
Strength of character????
That can't be anything other than a joke...
I don't see anything arrogant about Obama. I see a man that recognizes that this country is on a very seriously wrong path, and sees that the majority of people see it too.
And no I am not concerned about his "lack of experience". I don't see it being in any way comparable to Palin's utter lack of qualification.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 10-20-2008 18:00
Politics is a game of liars, damn liars, and politicians!
It always has been, and I sincerely doubt that evolution is going to be changing that anytime soon
On to some more serious stuff.
I already posted a link to the poop on Palin. It does a pretty accurate job of truly listing all that we know about her.
As for the Tax Plans - aside from the fact that I sincerely doubt that the Tax Plans as trotted out for public view will actually be enacted, here is some great info on both :
These links are about as impartial as I have been able to find (but these days, is there anything that is truly impartial)?
And yes, I was serious about doing some dialog here, at least so that we can get an understanding of one another.
I certainly will not be abrasive or accusatory in my responses, if I can avoid it
I truly do believe that Obama will make a better President - his record, his background and previous work, plus the incredible campaign that he ran (and won) against the formidable Mrs. Clinton has removed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not only ready to be President, but will be.
He is a smart man, has surrounded himself with some pretty savvy people, has shown that he can make the right decisions, when they need to be made, and can outmanuever and outperform his opponents. This is the type of President I want in office. A competent one, who will make the right decisions as they need to be made, and is more than prepared to deal with the consequences of his decisions (which are normally very well thought out). He is very willing to work the aisles, get the right people to work on the right problems, and solve them.
His winning the nomination out of the blue, so to speak, as a newcomer certainly shows all that I have posted here.
Actions do speak louder than words, at least they do to me.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I'm just gonna go ahead and make a few blanket statements, like Bugimus. I feel it important to sum up my support of Obama in as few meaningful points as possible:
Taxes: I believe that Presidents almost never develop, and only in context lead, in the world of assigning tax burdens to the population. That said, I don't support a man who treats corporations as #1 and their employees as #2. Sure, companies are great, they give us money that we can turn around and give to other companies, but this chicken/egg complication, I think, is meaningless without the people. People will make companies if they want to--they don't stay away from it based on the taxes assigned to it. McCain wants to make it even easier to go ahead and make companies--great!--but he's opposed legislation regarding reform in the area of regulation at each and every juncture, up until very, very recently. Very St. Paul of him, really, to rail against it for most of his life, then at the very end when it's obvious he was wrong, oh, yes, regulation is important!
Foreign Policy: McCain is an old war hero who deserves our respect. He also flies off the handle. General after five-star general has come out against the very IDEA that McCain has his finger on "The Button." He was a maverick in the 80s and early 90s. Now he's a doddering old man who would just as soon bomb Iran than DISCUSS any policy initiatives.
Federal Spending: This country spends a lot of money. We should probably start trimming that. But McCain rails against earmarks as these evil, evil things--but earmarks are what give us new roads, new parks, new rec centers to give our otherwise unoccupied kids something to do while we're busy setting up new corporations to bleed consumers dry. Frankly, I don't want a situation where all beaches, all parks, all rec centers, all lovely strolls down a river are privatized and tickets are sold at just slightly above what we can afford. The places wherein we need to save money are NOT in those services (I use the word) that we have come to expect from the government. And McCain can preach all he wants--when push comes to shove, he has a proven track record of ignoring whatever the hell he promised before and going with whatever will get him the most payback. I'm not saying he's corrupt, but he has some definite clarity issues in this. And he even admits it.
Abortion: Roe v. Wade was a turning point in this nation's history, not because it allowed for the merciless approval of women in pain, but because it took the fingers of government OUT of private citizen's internal organs. I don't give a rat's ass if you're pro-choice or anti-choice: the discussion shouldn't even be had at the levels of government anymore. The law is decided. I can't believe that so-called "Christians" would lay all their beliefs on this one concept, but BLATANTLY refuse to acknowledge that "conservatism" DEMANDS that we maintain the clarity of the law, while the Republican belief of SMALLER GOVERNMENT that is LESS INVASIVE has been tossed to the wayside in an effort to curry favor with otherwise mindless drones who can't put two thoughts together without invoking their deity.
Supreme Court Nominations: The next President will be nominating one, perhaps two justices to this, the highest court in the land. The sorts of right-wing-nutjobs that McCain would likely propose (obviously not his actual choices, but those gathered by his High Council, peopled with the likes of Karl Rove and Abramoff) terrify me. Yes, let us introduce more gray areas to our Constitution, so that those who have good lawyers can get away with murder, while the rest of us can be easily and quietly silenced as terrorists. McCain was tortured for years in Vietnam, and yet his group thinks torture is just fine.
Sarah Palin: This woman terrifies me. If you think she's a valid candidate for ANYTHING beyond the lowest-tier of PTA situation in tiny towns, then you've completely forgotten what it is to lead. She's not your average conservative woman because she's not conservative! Let us create a theocracy here, and she can be your funny-hatted leader, that's fine. But until you tell me that to believe in anything other than Christianity is tantamount to treason, I will spend each and every dollar I ever get making sure she never, ever reaches the top tier of governing here in this country. Ignorant, flippant, and completely lacking in the gravitas that this post demands, I think her selection was nothing less than a SLAP in the face of every fiscally-conservative voter in this country.
Summation: If you think the past 8 years were just peachy keen, vote for McCain. It will be more of the same. Much more. New medical records indicate his chances of 10 year survival from today to be less than 60%, which means Palin could be sworn in as President. Her rigorous grooming as mayor of a tiny town in a state that is separated from us BY ANOTHER COUNTRY and then followed by a very short (yet scandal-filled) term as governor DO NOT CANNOT WILL NOT prepare her for any role in national politics.
Moreover, the Republican party MUST LEARN that their party has fallen very, very far from the Barry Goldwater ideas to which I fervently subscribe. The government DOES NOT know how to run your life better than you do. It should be there to support you with your goals, picking you up, to any extent it can, when you fall, because this is good for the country. It is patriotic to pay taxes. It is patriotic to join the military. It is patriotic to start a new business. Those are the core values of the Republican party. But do they really believe it?
- The Republican party wants to lower taxes across the board, with the richest 10% getting the biggest break.
- The Republican party loves war, and the economic burst we get from it, but how can you run a war if you have no exit strategy, no interest in a lasting peace, and no viable alternative to bombing a country back to the stone age just because you're afraid of a theocracy that looks an awful lot like the one you want to install here in this country?
- The Republican party wants you to start a business, and succeed. And it seems that they want you to do this at the expense of any employee you may ever get. Strike-busting, and off-shore HQs are all too common; if taxes are patriotic, and business-building is patriotic, why the move to the Bahamas with your HQ, and your employees all living in Delhi?
No, the GOP is in dire need of a Renaissance. And they will get it when this country tells them, in a 60%+ voice, that their direction is WRONG WRONG WRONG for this, the country known as the freest place on Earth, the land of enchantment, the home of the brave.
And to you Christians... You've had your time as a meaningful voting bloc. You can have your beliefs, and you can vote with them. But when you turn a national campaign into a "I'm more pious than you!" argument, you cheapen us all. You cheapen your faith. You cheapen your good words, your charity, your help, your God, your savior. You make it okay to put "<DEMOCRAT NAME> is a fatty" right next to "Jesus is great." Are you okay with that? Do you really want your savior to be invoked amid lies and statistics and misleading half-truths?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 10-21-2008 11:21
There is one thing that I would like to comment on, being that I am a Veteran.
John McCain is not what I would consider a "hero" - and I served much longer than he did in actual combat, and never received most of the medals that he did.
That is his war record. Note that he only had 20 hours of actual combat time.
Note that apparently, John McCain had problems flying and landing planes in one piece, apparently.
Now, being a PoW is certainly not a nice thing to be, especially not in the hands of the North Vietnamese. One needs to remember here, that there were MANY PoWs in the hands of the North Vietnamese - they were mostly not hailed as heroes. In fact, one of the things that McCain helped do is to BURY their records, as they were still PoWs.
That is not the action of a "hero" to me.
The documented FACT that he disobeyed the Military Code of Conduct is disturbing - certainly not the act of a "hero". Now, I know that torture and duress is not nice. But there it is.
A hero would not have betrayed the Military Code of Conduct, not even under duress and torture. A hero would have worked hard and diligently to get EVERY LAST ONE OF OUR POWs BACK!
I have met real heroes - recipients of the Medal of Honor (everyone has to salute a recipient of the Medal of Honor).
The person in question received his Medal of Honor in the Vietnam war, where he was wounded 29 times, still manned the machinegun nest, and single-handedly drove back the Vietcong rush, loading and shooting the MG by himself, with all those wounds, and saved the rest of the platoon.
That is a hero.
He stayed in the military after serving two terms in Vietnam, and now does training for recruits.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
DL, nobody's record is perfect. When you run for public office the other side will always look for anything negative and do their best to trump it up. Yes, you bet there is a lot of hype. Me calling it hype does not mean that there aren't issues there but rather they have to be carefully judged as to who is alleging what and why.
If we just read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin we get an outline of some of the problems you point out. If you can tell me there is anything there that rises way higher than a typical candidates profile during a nasty campaign bid then I'll be the one who is shocked.
Do I like the ethics violation? No. Am I comfortable with it? Yes, if we're talking about electing someone to higher office. Why? Because I'm very practical when it comes to politics, I am NOT an idealist. Take Clinton as an example of ethics violations in higher office, I do not think his actions disqualified him to be president of the US. I don't approve of his personal behavior nor any other politician who crosses the line, but I am far more concerned with public policy than their personal lives. (edit: now you show me someone who breaks the law and then I'm coming down hard... that's why I would have given Clinton a pass on the sexual harassment but couldn't when he upgraded to perjury)
So you asked me then about public policy issues. I need to read more about the trampling of native American rights. From what I understand from what I've read so far she wanted to expand commercial hunting and fishing. Do you have a good link for this allegation? The book banning thing most certainly looks to be hype. What books were banned? Or is the charge that she wanted to ban them? I know how you feel about religious conservatives, is it possible you're prejudices are making more out of this charge than the facts support?
In regards to Obama. I hope for his sake that he does care about the country. I actually have no reason to believe otherwise. What I do know is that our people have been hurt deeply over the years by well-meaning left wingers. So while I don't question there good intentions I do worry about the policies they support and the problems they're likely to cause.
I want to clarify more the arrogant charge. Do you not find his comments about certain Americans clinging to their guns and religion to be condescending? Also, I've heard commentary that on a personal level he comes across as arrogant. That was why I mentioned that.
The naivete I worry about with him is based on his total lack of foreign policy experience. Just as with Palin the lack of experience is the concern but with him I worry because of his principles. Since I very much disagree with his left wing perspective I worry about the decisions he'll arrive at when he's first faced with serious challenges on the global front. Which brings me to this, I would be interested to know what you think of Biden's latest pronouncement and whether or not you think an Obama victory would somehow invite a national crisis:
twItch^, I had no idea you were a Goldwater conservative. Believe it or not I do agree to some degree that the Republican party has really screwed up the last few years... shoot! ran out of time for this morning...
quote:So extreme is Palin on tribal sovereignty issues that she has sought to block tribes from exercising any authority whatsoever even over the welfare of Native children, adhering to a 2004 legal opinion issued by the former Murkowski Administration that no such jurisdiction exist (except when a state court transfers a matter to a tribal court).
Both the state courts and the federal courts have struck down Palin?s policy of refusing to recognize the sovereign authority of Alaska Tribes to address issues involving Alaska Native children. Native Village of Tanana v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-12194 CI (judgment entered Aug. 26, 2008) (Ak. Super. Ct.); Kaltag Tribal Council v. DHHS, No. 3:06-cv-00211-TMB (D. Ak.), pending on appeal No 08-35343 (9th Cir.)). Nonetheless, Palin?s policy of refusing to recognize Alaska tribal sovereignty remains unchanged.
Blocks are mine, to emphasize what she has tried to do, and then even when the Court has struck down Palin's policy, she still continues it.
WS, my apologies but can you please provide me the board's approved list of sources? What in the world are you talking about??? Foxnews leans right but it is actually one of the fairer news organizations. Would you have said anything if I had cited the New York Times or the BBC? I'm guessing probably not, but they're more left leaning than Fox leans right would you not agree?
My problem is this: when someone associated with Obama did something strange or unusual or borderline unethical or downright bad, people tag Obama with it. But when Palin's administration tramples on the rights of the natives in Alaska, or bans books--oh, she wasn't PERSONALLY involved, so surely it's not an issue.
The double-standard makes me sick.
Also, maybe this makes me an arrogant lawyer, but I happen to agree that people are clinging to their guns and religion out of an outdated sense of purpose and meaning. I also happen to think that people cling to their atheism for the same reason. Just because he's going to be our next President does not mean that he has to represent EVERY OPINION HELD BY EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY.
I'm sorry, Bugimus, I know you're a man of faith, deep conviction, and intelligence. But my own personal beliefs, which are absolutely not invalid because they conflict with yours and the majority of this country, say that people who follow 2,000 year old religions without any basis in reality or progress are insane. Insane. I use the word.
And... I happen to know for a fact that Goldwater agreed with me, staunchly. Religion has absolutely no business in a major political party. That we demand our candidates say "GOD BLESS AMERICA OMFG" after every speech makes me want to throw up. It's disgusting. Absolutely revolting.
Christians should be ashamed. When did your personal faith, hope, and charity become platforms for the corrupt? Ashamed.
Anyway, this will all be moot in 2 weeks when Obama is elected and the right wingers in this country can have a little bit of time to think about how sucky it is to be treated like terrorists, as I have been for the past 8 years. I have been called a terrorist, a rabble-rouser, a bastard, a sinner, and an unethical tramp by this Republican party for 8 long years. Thoughts that have been commonplace for the past few decades suddenly turned around as horrible ideas by a Rovespierre intent on destroying opposition in the same exact way that Nixon tried to back in the 60s.
Yeah, there's a disconnect between me and the norm. I'm on the far, far, far left socially (my beliefs can be summed up thusly: You don't fuck me, I don't fuck you. If we do fuck, we'll figure it out, and I don't need a goddamn form to submit to the government so I can be allowed to figure it out), and fiscally I call for sensible actions that won't cause the downfall of our weak fucking economy. There's no one for me to support fully. But if I have to choose, I'm NOT going to take the easy way out and vote with my wallet, so I go for the leaders who won't look down from their gilded throne and call ME a sinner.
twItch^, you really shouldn't think of it as a double standard: the majority of republicans aren't smart enough to be that two-faced. They're just stupid, they follow their leaders' examples.
quote:Religion has absolutely no business in a major political party. That we demand our candidates say "GOD BLESS AMERICA OMFG" after every speech makes me want to throw up. It's disgusting. Absolutely revolting.
Christians should be ashamed. When did your personal faith, hope, and charity become platforms for the corrupt? Ashamed.
That is about as good as documenting the sources get, Bugs. I am truly puzzled by what you mean.
Each and every point is backed up with the actual case # for the judicial court ruling. One can look them up easily enough - they are, after all, public records.
So when you say "the boards", what exactly do you mean? Which board?
As for Fox...well, you just keep watching and reading them.
I won't be.
And I tend to try to avoid the NYT & Associates, as well. They may have once been more about actual journalism, once upon a time, but those times have come and went, if they truly ever existed.
I deal in facts, where I can. Things that I can substantiate.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 10-22-2008 14:17
quote:Foreign policy: Obama has said he would sit down with the president of Iran with zero to few preconditions - Bugs
I find this remark dangerously close to that what Palin once mentioned (and got hammered on).
You are aware that that is also the position of former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, right?
(this is documented in the Katie Couric interviews, and one can actually see the actual film footage of Mr. Kissinger stating this himself - take a jaunt on YouTube).
So...I take it you are opposed to the views of Mr. Kissinger, especially in this regards?
If so, why? I can think of no other person that has had such a profound effect on shaping America's foreign policy, and that with an incredible amount of skill and diplomancy, not to mention insight and a solid grasp of the issues at hand.
If you were not aware of this, how does that now alter your view that Obama has the same stance?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Seriously, folks, I just want this country to stop being so absolutely divided. I see an Obama presidency as a possible way of achieving this. I do not see that with McCain or Palin. That's what it all comes down to.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Some inexperienced Illinois senator said that once.
quote:
"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 10-26-2008 20:07
From DL's link
quote:Dan Quayle loyalists
There was more than one?
And talk about a dream ticket for the Democrats in 2012... Palin/Quayle.
I watched the usual group of Sunday morning pundits and all, to some degree, went on about Palin going rogue but I have to wonder if it (going rogue) isn't part of a plan as the campaign winds down.
I will not be surprised if McCain or Palin, perhaps both, show up next Sunday morning on at least Fox News Sunday to show off their maverick and rogue facades. One last gasp... 'look at us... we're not Bush & Cheney.'
Quayle Loyalists. I think there must be a gov't grant available ...endangered or extinct species...
___________________________________________________________________________
?It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.? Voltaire
There's definitely a sinking ship effect in play. But I have to stick to my principles on this. I'll honor who ever is elected as my president. I like Krauthammer's latest opinion piece from the Washington Post.
(I copied the article because I think you need to be registered to see it, sorry if that's a problem)
quote:McCain for President
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; Page A19
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
This Story
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
ad_icon
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
So, Krauthammer wants a president who won't rely on other people for measured response (that's a king, right?), and really liked Hillary's anti-Obama ad (the 3AM reference). Got it.
And since when do Republicans care about experience? Alaska's largest circulating newspaper said that the current world situation would stretch Palin beyond what she can do. They instead opted to support Obama. Same with the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that has never endorsed a Democrat.
And, frankly, I am absolutely sick and tired of people using terrorism as a reason to elect anyone at all. If you think, even for a moment, that Gore would've acted differently from Bush on 9/11 (i.e., point at Afghanistan and say "destroy that") then your ignorance goes beyond any comprehension I have. Bush was untested before election. So would McCain, and so will be Obama. That's because none of those three people had been elected president before they were elected president.
Let me reiterate: it's a job that is exponentially more difficult than anyone can imagine. No one is prepared for it. The best you can do is surround yourself with as many thoughtful people as possible, and get to the solutions that you can, when you can. You really think that, say, Gore would've had us reading the Quran in school right now if he had won in 2000? Or that Kerry would've handed over the Iraqi government to extremists if he had won in 2004? Don't be ridiculous.
And McCain's 40 years of service? Sure. Great. Awesome. He has lots of experience as a senator, no one will deny that. And if for even a moment you think that the legislative branch of which he was part of is the same as the executive branch he wants to join, then I point you to the United States Constitution.
This tired old argument really chafes me. I don't want the same people responsible for our current situations to be the ones charged with fixing it. If you go to an auto mechanic who routinely screws things up, do you keep bringing your car to him? Obama's relative short time in Washington is one of the crowning reasons for why I voted for him this weekend.
twItch^, I agree the Republicans have dropped the conservative ball on quite a few issues most notably in federal spending. I am extremely disappointed with the party on that score, truly. I will even go so far as to say a part of me wants to see them punished. The only thing that holds me back is my concern for the future of this country. However to use your analogy, if my car mechanic is doing routinely poor job I would not take it to a bicycle repair shop expecting better results. That is really what I'm faced with in this election.
FYI, Krauthammer was critical of the choice of Gov Palin precisely on the inexperience issue.
The terrorism point is an interesting one indeed. I am certainly one who has said Gore would have been disastrous in the moments and weeks after 9/11. Do I think we would not have survived as a result? Of course not. But I seriously doubt he would have invaded Afghanistan and I'm sure we can all agree he would not have gone into Iraq. What I really think he would have done is do what Clinton did after the first attack which is to treat the terrorists like bank robbers. He would have pursued them with probably no more than special forces here and there attempting to track down a handful of those "responsible". Once he got a few I believe he would have handed them over to the courts and have them prosecuted much like was done under Clinton. I think he would have declared victory and moved on.
quote:Seriously, folks, I just want this country to stop being so absolutely divided. I see an Obama presidency as a possible way of achieving this. I do not see that with McCain or Palin. That's what it all comes down to.
How can one disagree with the desire for unity? I share that wholeheartedly with you. Just read the article I posted about the deep divisions in this country. Some dismissed it as just us vs. them rhetoric but here you state we are "absolutely divided". I want and wish for us to desire the best for this country and once the election is over that we pull together and work toward that goal. You will see me filling the role of the "loyal opposition". You will not hear, nor have you heard, me denigrating the other side unfairly because at the end of the day we are all Americans and that is our common ground.
The terrorism point is an interesting one indeed. I am certainly one who has said Gore would have been disastrous in the moments and weeks after 9/11. Do I think we would not have survived as a result? Of course not. But I seriously doubt he would have invaded Afghanistan and I'm sure we can all agree he would not have gone into Iraq. What I really think he would have done is do what Clinton did after the first attack which is to treat the terrorists like bank robbers. He would have pursued them with probably no more than special forces here and there attempting to track down a handful of those "responsible". Once he got a few I believe he would have handed them over to the courts and have them prosecuted much like was done under Clinton. I think he would have declared victory and moved on.
I am a little confused. I have to assume you are saying this would have been....a bad thing?
Guys, for reasons I've gone into at length here before, YES, I'm saying treating terrorism like a crime as opposed to an act of war is a far less effective approach. I really doubt you want me to explain it anymore than I already have. The last time I did I was met with what I considered and inability to understand my position and not just a disagreement with it which I found profoundly disappointing. I don't expect agreement but I do expect people to think outside of their own world views enough to understand the world better.
twItch^, got it, been there done that. I don't know if you know this but I was very much in agreement with yours and DL's views on foreign policy up to the end of the 80s. I voted for Mondale/Ferraro at the time and they advocated unilateral disarmament during the Cold War. That should be proof enough that I do understand your positions quite intimately. I have not changed my position based on anything but cold hard reasoning. There's come a point where you have to be true to what you believe are the facts of life and the logical conclusions that derive there from.
quote:So...I take it you are opposed to the views of Mr. Kissinger, especially in this regards?
WS, I agree with Mr. Kissinger when he says the following:
quote:Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/27/kissinger-says-obama-wrong-kissingers-position-debate-tonight
I think the key point here is whether or not negotiations occur at the presidential level.
A question for Obama supporters: How important is the debt to you? If it's important can you explain why you believe Obama will cut government spending enough to bring down the debt? McCain is the only candidate that is calling for spending cuts and Obama is calling for increased spending almost across the board. I once thought he would claim a savings in spending on the war but recently he's changed his position on the war and wants to pull out of Iraq and send all the troops to Afghanistan so no savings there at least judging from his own words.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 10-28-2008 23:19
Bugs, I go by what I have actually SEEN Mr. Kissinger say on video tape.
I looked at that article of yours. It is a link to a blog post about what Mr. Kissinger supposedly said. But there is NOTHING backing it up!
You are kidding, right?
I hope you have something a bit more substantial to back up
quote:I have not changed my position based on anything but cold hard reasoning. There's come a point where you have to be true to what you believe are the facts of life and the logical conclusions that derive there from.
Seriously, you do have something more substantial proving that Mr. Kissinger actually has stated what was in that article, right?
One more thing
quote:Some dismissed it as just us vs. them rhetoric but here you state we are "absolutely divided".
First of all, if I was being spoken of here, I did not "dismiss" it. Rather, I see it for what it truly is - and believe me, it is not two divides here, but a multitude of divides, a multitude of "us vs them" that is what is really occuring.
The main obstacle here is the two party system in the US. For for all intents and purposes, only through one of the two parties is it possible to practice power. And that is the one that is currently in power.
Thus, one tends to see this struggle, and ignore the real struggles beneath them.
In both of the main parties, and across all borders of the US, there are stuggles between many different types of groups, world views, beliefs, groups, etc. Republicans are not just "republicans", not by a long shot! Neither are Democrats (and other party affiliates).
There is the far Right, the Religious Right, the Moderates, etc and there is the far Left, the Loonie Left (ok, I threw that in there, so sue me ), Moderates (Liberals, right?), etc. All these groups struggle for control of the parties as a whole.
What we see a lot of, is the "us vs them" mentality, and it tends to blind us (sort of like the cannot see the forest for the trees syndrome). Especially the far Right and Left like to have this view of things (for they always think of it as "us vs them", either you are with us, or against us) - extremist viewpoints. The Media of course thrives on this, for it sells better than other types of views.
But America is the great melting pot. It is infused with a bewildering amount of cultures, traditions, races, practices, groups, you name it! To be honest, one sees a lot of "Right vs "left", and somehow, there is a lot of "independents" out there, who are supposed to side with one or the other (we see this all the time, as one party attempts to out-bid the other in attempts to "woo" the Independent voters over, primarily due to the two-party system that "shares" power - to be precise, competes for power would be a better description).
Of course, these "independents" are really not supposed to exist, not for those who are Republican or Democrat. It just does not fit into the two-party, "us vs them" mentality.
But it is there.
So no, I do not believe that there is a "great divide" in America, not like you or twItch^ have put it. Instead, I think there are many divides, many fences in America, that are jumbled into the Republican, Democrat, and Independent mold, and they certainly are competing with one another. It is just that most of these groups are aware that to gain and exercies real power, they have to go through one of the two parties.
quote:A question for Obama supporters: How important is the debt to you? If it's important can you explain why you believe Obama will cut government spending enough to bring down the debt? McCain is the only candidate that is calling for spending cuts and Obama is calling for increased spending almost across the board. I once thought he would claim a savings in spending on the war but recently he's changed his position on the war and wants to pull out of Iraq and send all the troops to Afghanistan so no savings there at least judging from his own words.
Ok.
Now, I consider debt to be pretty damned important. Now, why do I consider Obama to be a better pick to do the job than McCain?
Well, that is easy enough to answer.
I personally do not know if either candidate is going to be able to find a way to reduce spending. I don't know if it is even going to be possible - things are really pretty bad, and I am not sure what exactly is the best course of action at the moment. I can say this - McCain is not very trustworthy. He flip-flops on positions (he has been doing it for quite awhile now, and it is well documented, especially on what he says), so I really do not trust him to be able to implement anything he says.
Here is what I expect Obama to do - get some good people together (he is really good at doing that, btw - actions speak louder than words here, as usual), and let them put their expertise to good use. Then I am sure he will make the decisions that have to be made.
The most interesting thing is, that it could be that Obama gets the "political mandate" - such a majority of Democrats in both House and Senate, that no Republican filibuster is possible. If so, he can basically push through just about anything that he wants, with impunity. And considering the state the US is in, he will probably need to be able to do that, in order to reverse the unbelievable amount of damage that Mr. Bush has caused in 8 years.
Because that is what he has been doing all along. That is how he won the Democratic Nomination (against what was considered an "unbeatable Clinton", mind you) out of nowhere. And that is how he came out of that struggle, and put the hurt to the Republicans and McCain.
He's smart, articulate, gets good people in the right place, and makes good, sound decisions. He is not perfect - nope. Show me a politician that is. But you have to admire what he has accomplished in such a short time, and who he has defeated, and how.
McCain has proven, time and again, how to make the wrong decisions. Palin was the cherry topping.
Not only that, but a McCain in office (let us not consider the "dead McCain and Palin as Pres" thing, please) will be gridlock. A Republican President, without any sort of political mandate at all is a disaster, especially at a conjuncture like the one America is facing now.
And no, I do not think that McCain is remotely interested in working with the other party. At least, his idea of doing so is more like Mr. Bush's idea of it - you do it my way, or the highway. That is not reaching out to the other side (and to be quite frank, the other side here will have huge majorities in both the House and Senate, not a good thing for getting anything done, as we all well know).
So what I am really confused about is your stance. You KNOW how things work in American politics. You know that the House and the Senate has Democratic majorities (and may get that "magic number" here shortly to prevent filibustering). How is McCain&Palin supposed to be able to implement anything that they have suggested, Bugs?
And please, do not come back with the "oh, they will reach out" stuff. We all know that would not happen.
Why would you want to have such a "lame duck" President in office, when America is being faced by some of the most pressing problems it has ever had? McCain is not Reagan - he does not have the charisma, nor the stature. Quite frankly, a McCain Presidency would be a total disaster when one considers the political landscape (by this, I mean for the American People - I am sure that McCain would make sure that his buddies get theirs, just as Mr. Bush's buddies got theirs).
No, I think you are just going to have to make a "leap of faith" and give Obama the benefit of the doubt here. Because he has the best political landscape, the best conditions, to actually make those changes that the Country desperately needs. And since actions speak louder than words (especially when one is talking about politicians here), what Obama has demonstrated and accomplished so far is pretty amazing, contrary to what McCain has demonstrated and accomplished in the same timeframe.
WS, it's always good to double check sources, no prob there. Here's a phone interview Dr. Kissinger did stating the same thing I quoted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeCFiW_3zoo
I pretty much agree with your assessment of the different groups in America. I do agree that it's easy to get into the Right vs. Left, us vs. them mentality. Yes, there's the hardcore Right and Left with a healthy group of centrists who are to be swayed either way given any election.
I also agree with the melting pot analogy but there's one critical ingredient that needs to be stressed, we all submit our differences to our unity. In other words we unite under the banner and ideals of America so that we stand strong as one people. There have been many countries with varied cultures but what makes ours so special is we are Americans first. I think as long as we can continue to hold that concept dear we'll do well.
...I want to respond to the spending topic as soon as I get chance (so much less time these days to post )...
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 10-30-2008 13:06
quote:In other words we unite under the banner and ideals of America so that we stand strong as one people. There have been many countries with varied cultures but what makes ours so special is we are Americans first. I think as long as we can continue to hold that concept dear we'll do well.
I agree with that!
Unfortunately, YouTube is blocked here at work - I will have to look at that when I get home.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 10-31-2008 10:54
As for what I have been saying for awhile, now (years, in fact) - when you try to run two wars at once, things don't work well - url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/washington/31policy.html?ref=us]Afghan War [/url]
The "surge" in Iraq has consequences, you see.
And Mr. Bush, being the incompetent that he is, let this happen - now, the next President has a mess on his hands. A big mess.
Afghanistan has a long, bloody history, and has bloodied some of the most powerful of nations (including the USSR). To simply ignore things there, and let them fall apart because one considers another area more "important" (why is Iraq more important than finding and dealing with Bin Laden and Al-Qaida?) is not only incompetent, it is stupid.
I personally find it funny (hysterical, actually) that Mr. Bush is telling the candidates that they "need to have a plan coming into the White House" - that is just too funny.
Really.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
posted 10-20-2008 09:51
)...