US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

[indra]

So, we threaten military service to one group of people (young) to get another group of people (adults) to pay more attention to politics?

I think it's great that you want people to pay more attention, and I agree with that sentiment, but that's horrible, horrible logic. In fact, downright scary logic.

Isn't that why people have children though? So they can use 'em as pawns/live through them.

 

[Strongbow]

John McCain is John Kerry. no question. the Republicans looked around at the rest of the freak show running for president, and decided he was the *only* electable candidate.

The fact that John McCain is the most electable Republican candidate does not make him John Kerry. Its the Democrats(including many in this forum) who always bitch and wine that if they had picked one of the other Dem candidates they would have won in 2004.

John Kerry served in Vietnam, but since then, his questionable activities after the war, and his weakness on Foreign Policy and National Security issues made him a weak candidate and it stands in stark contrast to John McCain's career and strengths in Foreign Policy and National security.

McCain's success has less to do with his own heretofore disastrous campaign and more to do with the imploding of Giuliani, the rise of Huckabee, and the shocking plasticity of Romney.

Its what people say in just about every campaign when someone they counted out rises to the top forcing them to eat their words. McCain was already rising well before the Primaries.

he won Florida by appealing to anti-Bush GOP moderates. hardly a victory for the Republican party itself, as the infrastructure -- from Limbaugh to Malkin to Coulter to Hannity -- all despise the man.

Although it may disapoint you to hear this, most Republicans don't actually listen to Limbaugh and Coulter. McCain won left leaning Republicans, moderates, and pulled even with the conservative base of the Republican party to win by a margin of 5 points even though there were 5 candidates on the ballot. A cross section of Republican leaders and figures from General Norman Schwarzkopf, Florida Senator Mel Martinez, and Florida Governer Charlie Crist who had already voted weeks earlier for McCain, endorsed McCain. McCain got votes from every part of the Republican party that night and if the margin of victory had been any higher, it would have been percieved as a blowout considering that there were 5 candidates people could vote for.

the war in Iraq has helped McCain only insofar as he has distanced himself from the obvious disaster of pretty much everything, pre-"surge." he's spent countless speeches bashing Rumsfeld and Cheney, stopping just short of bashing Bush. he's had to do this. it was the only way to have any sort of credibility with anybody beyond the Republican base.

McCain has NEVER distanced himself from the most fundamental and vital aspects of the Iraq war to include the decision to invade and remove Saddam from power and to keep US military and civilian personal engaged in Iraq to insure it is rebuilt and does not descend into a chaotic situation where Al Quada could form a new base or Iran could take intolerable advantage of the situation. Bush, McCain, Colin Powell, and many active and retired military, pentagon and State Department personal are all in agreement on those strategic issues. Where the differences come up are tactics and specific decisions on particular issues. Like Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld, McCain still supports the decision to remove Saddam from power and stay as long as required to effectively rebuild Iraq into a stable country, just as the United States is currently doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. The vast majority of Republicans support the war and do not want to rapidly withdraw as Hillary, Barack and Edwards have recently proposed doing.

More importantly, McCain has probably been the most visible person opposing the new 2006 Democratic congress's efforts to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq in less than a year. Just look at the publics opinion of John McCain to the publics opinion of the new Democratic Congress to see who is winning that debate. The Democrats have failed in all their efforts and many of them spent the last quarter of 2007 admitting that the surge plan was succeeding despite declaring that the begining of the year that it would either fail or make things worse. It even forced the top Democratic candidates to briefly say they could not promise that US troops would be out of Iraq by 2013. As we move further into 2008, the Democratic Congress has its tail tucked firmly between its legs on the Iraq war.

but, ironically, the "success" of the "surge" -- insofar as it creates the perception of progress for the next few months -- will put Iraq out of everyone's mind, especially as the US economy continues to crumble. and, thus, McCain will find it most difficult to speak to the base of either party.

McCain was already thought of as a formidable candidate in the national election back in 2000 when the United States was not involved in a major war. Its true that the unusually rapid and increasing level of success in Iraq could make it less of an issue, but that won't necessarily benefit the Democrats as the war in Iraq is still far from over, and there are and will be more national security issues, and McCain has shown himself to be an expert who has been right on these issues time and again while his opponents in the Democratic Party have either been wrong, don't understand the issue, or change their position depending on where the political winds are blowing.

it will be a battle for the middle, and watch for McCain to swing back to the middle after pandering for the next few weeks.

McCain still has not won the nomination yet, but he now has more momentum than he has ever had before and does have a chance to essentially knock Romney out of the race this Tuesday. There is no other candidate running who has as long and successful a history of working with the opposite party and getting members on the otherside to support his policies than McCain. That bodes well for the national election that will be hard to win for the Republicans, but is certainly possible and at this time will definitely not be a situation where the Republicans get blown out as so many here including yourself have claimed.

 

[martha]

Although it may disapoint you to hear this, most Republicans don't actually listen to Limbaugh and Coulter.

Then who the fuck is making these people rich?

 

[Strongbow]

some good insight here ...



But much of what's happened to make McCain the presumptive nominee has been luck, pure and simple. He was lucky, to begin with, that George W. Bush lacked an heir apparent – no Jeb, no Condi, no Dick Cheney – who could unite the movement establishment against him. He was lucky that Mitt Romney was a Mormon. He was lucky that Fred Thompson, a candidate who might have succeeded in rallying both social and economic conservatives against his various heresies, was out-campaigned by Mike Huckabee, whose appeal was ultimately too sectarian to make him a threat. He was lucky that Rudy Giuliani ran an inutterably lousy campaign. (More on this anon.) He was lucky that Mike Huckabee won Iowa; lucky that the media basically treated that win as a McCain victory (though obviously his skill in cultivating the press made a big difference, in that case and many others); lucky, as David Freddoso suggests, that Huckabee decided to campaign in New Hampshire and (taking my foolish advice) Michigan instead of going straight to South Carolina; lucky that Giuliani decided not to campaign in New Hampshire after Christmas; and lucky, finally, that Fred Thompson decided to go all in against Huckabee in South Carolina, thus delivering McCain the Palmetto State and with it Florida. And he was lucky, above all, that his strongest challenger was a guy that almost nobody liked – not the media, not his fellow candidates, and not enough of the voters, in the end.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/fortunes_favorite.php

[/q]



but, hey, if luck had to strike one of the Republicans, i'm glad it was McCain.

Reminds me of all the Democrats who tried to explain why they were so wrong about the results of the 1991 Gulf War that they opposed. 2008 may be a year filled with many reports of "luck" and other types of excuses for success's that some pundits claimed would never happen.

 

[Strongbow]

and as Nader fules his egomanical fantasies and tries to remake the world in his own image, we are approaching 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq.

way to fucking go, Ralph. you helped elect a guy who's killed far, far more people than you saved making cars safer.

Is that how you also feel about the nearly 500 Americans that have died serving in Afghanistan, that "Bush killed them"?

 

[Infinity]

Which may finally shut people up about how wonderful all these wars are.

Including all the draft-age young men who post in here.

Hey, hey, hey. How can you not support the men and women in uniform? They all want to win, let them win. You are very unpatriotic to go against the men and women who are dying for us.

Besides, if they weren't in war for us. Saddam Hussein definitely would have given one of his nukes to Osama bin Laden, and we would have had another 9/11. Thank god our troops knocked him over.

 

[Strongbow]

Then who the fuck is making these people rich?

There are a lot of different people in the Republican party, a big tent indeed. Room enough for Rush and others to make money off of certain segments.

 

[martha]

Hey, hey, hey. How can you not support the men and women in uniform? They all want to win, let them win. You are very unpatriotic to go against the men and women who are dying for us.

Besides, if they weren't in war for us. Saddam Hussein definitely would have given one of his nukes to Osama bin Laden, and we would have had another 9/11. Thank god our troops knocked him over.

Can you please quote me where I said I don't support people in uniform. Jesus, you are so thick sometimes.

Where did I "go against" them?

And how come you're not over there "knocking Saddam over" then? I thought you were anti-war. Isn't that why you worship that idiot Ron Paul?

 

[Infinity]

Can you please quote me where I said I don't support people in uniform. Jesus, you are so thick sometimes.

Where did I "go against" them?

And how come you're not over there "knocking Saddam over" then? I thought you were anti-war. Isn't that why you worship that idiot Ron Paul?

I'm guessing you didn't sense the sarcasm in my post.

You know I support Ron Paul (who in my opinion is not an idiot), so did you really think I was serious in my post?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Saddam had a nuke? And he was going to give it to Osama? How romantic.

 

[martha]

I'm guessing you didn't sense the sarcasm in my post.

You know I support Ron Paul (who in my opinion is not an idiot), so did you really think I was serious in my post?

It occurred to me that you might have been joking, but at times you can make assumptions that don't make sense. And you have been known to be inconsistent in your opinions.

 

[Infinity]

Saddam had a nuke? And he was going to give it to Osama? How romantic.

Yea, he was. They are both Muslim, and both are anti-U.S., hence they must be involved together in 9/11, right?

 

[Infinity]

It occurred to me that you might have been joking, but at times you can make assumptions that don't make sense. And you have been known to be inconsistent in your opinions.

I've never ever been inconsistent with my opinion on Iraq and non-interventionalism.

 

[2861U2]

That bodes well for the national election that will be hard to win for the Republicans, but is certainly possible and at this time will definitely not be a situation where the Republicans get blown out as so many here including yourself have claimed.

I would even dare to say that if it ends up being McCain vs. Hillary (or better yet, McCain vs. Hillary vs. Nader) that the Republicans would actually be the favorite.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I'm guessing you didn't sense the sarcasm in my post.

You know I support Ron Paul (who in my opinion is not an idiot), so did you really think I was serious in my post?

The video where Ron Paul expressed his views about evolution showed him being an idiot.

 

[Infinity]

The video where Ron Paul expressed his views about evolution showed him being an idiot.

What video? And no matter what he said in the video, if you think he is an idiot, he is nowhere in hell as much of an idiot as the other Republicans and their foreign policy strategies.

 

[Infinity]

And you have been known to be inconsistent in your opinions.

I'd like to correct myself. I said i've never been inconsistent with any of my opinions on Iraq. But where have I been inconsistent? Of course my opinions have changed over the years, as probably have everyone else's, but nothing radical like from being anti-war to this "if you are not pro-war, you don't support the troops" crap.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What video? And no matter what he said in the video, if you think he is an idiot, he is nowhere in hell as much of an idiot as the other Republicans and their foreign policy strategies.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zz94-OrnXzE

At least with Paul there wouldn't be public schools in which the establishment clause could be violated

He can't possibly be all things to all people, sure he is non-interventionist (he wants to pull out of the UN, fine), he opposes the War on Drugs (great) but he also thinks Don't Ask Don't Tell is a good policy and puts civil rights issues as state rights (for instance Sodomy Laws). Is it possible that a libertarian could see the rights and liberties of individual citizens of a country trumping opressive laws made in the name of states rights; individual sexual liberties trumping state discrimination (not only sexuality but race and religiousity as well).

He raises important issues but at the same time he pulls in the tinfoil hat crowd as well as the palaeocons; attacking him for the people that he gets support from is simply ad hominem but the reasons that they support him can be quite revealing (and at the extreme there are the real bigots who see anti-federalism as the best way to pursue their social agenda - not everybody in America is fortunate enough to live in a blue state, Jesusland would be feesible).

The other problems I have with Paulians are their poll-spamming (the real reason why online support exceeds voter turnout) and making him into a single issue candidate (he opposed Iraq - so what? How is he going to abolish the Federal Reserve and restore the gold standard? How strong is his commitment to restoring Letters of the Marque and Reprisal (which I think is a legitimate idea that deserves robust debate)).

 

[verte76]

I'm sad because Edwards dropped out.

 

[Irvine511]

Reminds me of all the Democrats who tried to explain why they were so wrong about the results of the 1991 Gulf War that they opposed. 2008 may be a year filled with many reports of "luck" and other types of excuses for success's that some pundits claimed would never happen.

yeah, it seems like pretty much everything in here reminds you of one of the Gulf Wars. no matter the topic, you always come back to some entirely unrelated point where there's no connection whatsoever to the original post.

but keep it up!

 

[Irvine511]

Is that how you also feel about the nearly 500 Americans that have died serving in Afghanistan, that "Bush killed them"?

yes.

and i say that for you, because you, and ONLY you, think that Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same thing.

so, to keep it simple, yes.

but, in reality, it's more complex than that, one being a war that was pretty much deemed a necessary response to 9-11 right up until we diverted resources away from Afghanistan when they had OBL cornered in the Tora Bora Mountains in December of 2001.

Iraq never, ever should have happened, and had there been any other president in office, Iraq would never, ever have happened, certainly not in the ass backwards bone-headed arrogant wasteful careless and destructive manner that it did.

that is Bush's war. only Bush felt this was worth going to war over.

but if you'd like to belive eth same thing about Afghanistan, go right ahead.

keep it simple.

 

[Irvine511]

Yea, he was. They are both Muslim, and both are anti-U.S., hence they must be involved together in 9/11, right?

one was a socialist secularist, the other a religious fundamentalist.

one wanted nothing to do with the other.

 

[2861U2]

and had there been any other president in office, Iraq would never

How can you be so sure? Crystal ball?

only Bush felt this was worth going to war over.

What are you talking about? Most people thought this war was justified. Most Americans did at the time. Most members of Congress did at the time- or at least until things started going bad and they backed away from their vote.

 

[Irvine511]

How can you be so sure? Crystal ball?

i'm sure.

What are you talking about? Most people thought this war was justified. Most Americans did at the time. Most members of Congress did at the time- or at least until things started going bad and they backed away from their vote.

no, no, no.

Americans thought the war was "justified" under the premise that SH had WMDs and was going to give them to "terrorists" and float a bomb up the east river and lower the upper east side. THAT is how the case was made to the American people -- fear of Saddam's weapons capacities, and don't let anybody tell you any different. variations on this theme were made to different audiences, but look at ANY of Condi's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's speeches from 2002-3, and all you will find are references to Saddam's WMD capacities and "mushroom clouds" and "9-11."

the WMDs turned out to be bogus. totally false. and the American public was manipulated and the hurt and fear and sadness of 9-11 was ruthlessly manipulated to get the country into a war that was always only about oil. just talk to STING, he'll tell you it's only about the oil. but oil would never, ever have garnered the administration enough support to invade, as most Americans would be fine sending soldiers to defend *us* but they would not be fine sending their kids to die to defend *oil*.

the deterioration of the security situation due to the total absence of post-war planing, total incompetence of the Bush administration, and the on-going civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia just compound the original dissatisfaction with the war which started with the realization that the American public had been lied to, that WMDs were a fantasy, the books were cooked, and that this has been the greatest failure of intelligence in our lifetimes.

you can say "Germany and France agreed with the intelligence," which is only partially true. everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. that is true. but there was no agreement on the success of containment, or the success of UN weapons inspectors who were pulled out of Iraq in order for the US to invade. and, finally, there was NO agreement on the "actionable" nature of the intelligence. it is not a science. some intelligence is better than others. and you act on the best intelligence there is, you don't shape intelligence to support whatever you've already decided the action is going to be.

 

[2861U2]

"Nancy Reagan for McCain, top source tells Drudge: She adores him, and is fully supporting him in her private life. She will not publicly endorse."

 

[BVS]

What are you talking about? Most people thought this war was justified. Most Americans did at the time. Most members of Congress did at the time- or at least until things started going bad and they backed away from their vote.

Spin, spin, spin...

Most fell for it.

 

[2861U2]

Obama most liberal senator:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Most_liberal.html

 

[2861U2]

Top Al-Qaeda Commander in Afghanistan Killed:


CAIRO, Egypt — One Al Qaeda's top commanders in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi was killed according to a Web site used by militant groups, reported the Washington-based SITE Institute which monitors the internet.

While the claim could not be verified independently, the announcement appeared as a banner in a section of the Web site reserved for affiliated militant organizations.

"As the banner was posted ... by a webmaster of the forum, it seems as if the announcement of his death has been confirmed to the forum administrators," noted SITE in its statement.

Al-Libi was an Al Qaeda training camp leader who has appeared in many Internet videos and who the U.S. says was likely behind the Feb. 2007 bombing at the U.S. base at Bagram during a visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney that killed 23 people.

A knowledgeable Western official said that "it appears at this point that Al-Libi has met his demise," but declined to talk about the circumstances. "It was a major success in taking one of the top terrorists in the world off the street," the official said. He added that the death occurred "within the last few days."

Al-Libi was a key link between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

He was listed among the 12 most-wanted men the U.S. offered a US$200,000 reward for five.

Pakistani counterterrorism officials say al-Libi — "the Libyan" in Arabic language — has served as an Al Qaeda spokesman and commander in eastern Afghanistan. They say they have no information on his current whereabouts.

Al Qaeda's media wing, al-Sahab, released a video interview with a bearded man identified as al-Libi in spring 2007. In it, the militant accused Shiite Muslims of fighting alongside American forces in Iraq, and claimed that mujahideen would crush foreign troops in Afghanistan. Al-Libi made no reference to the Feb. 27 attack at Bagram.

Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said last year that al-Libi was a guerrilla fighter "knowledgeable about how to conduct suicide bombing missions and how to inflict the most civilian casualties." He had probably directed "one or more terror training camps."

In a tacit admission that terror camps have continued to operate on Afghan soil since the Taliban regime's ouster more than five years ago, Belcher said al-Libi had been the subject of "especially close focus" by U.S. intelligence since 2005, when U.S. forces destroyed a militant training camp believed set up by al-Libi in the eastern province of Khost.

But he described al-Libi as "transient," moving where the Libyan thinks he can count on support.

"Terrorists like al-Libi use the rugged terrain of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to conceal themselves while they plan violent insurgent activities. Our sources indicate that Abu Laith al-Libi favors tribal regions, including North Waziristan," Belcher said.

North Waziristan is a lawless enclave in neighboring Pakistan where last year the Pakistani government reached a peace deal with pro-Taliban militants. U.S. officials have since expressed concern that Al Qaeda could be regrouping in Pakistan's border zone.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Obama's speaking here tomorrow night. Too bad I'll be out of town. It would have been interesting to see how I felt about him in person. I definitely would have gotten tickets, too, since because of my work I was included on an early invitation list. Oh well. I'll have to hear about it from my colleagues.

 

[U2democrat]

Aw too bad you won't get to see him. Whether you like him or not, seeing him speak in person is quite an experience.

I'll be seeing him, and possibly Hillary as well Feb 9