US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-02-2008, 06:14 PM   #361
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if you're only going to rely on one polling company to get your info, then you're going to be woefully misinformed.

in mid-September 2004, Gallup showed a 13 point lead for GWB over Kerry. the Gallup poll was wrong in 1948 as well as in 1976. the point is not that Gallup is bad, but that Gallup isn't alone.

to claim that only one poll is always trustworthy, and that others are not, is foolish.

but if we want to look at Gallup, they support one of my main contentions: Obama is winning, big, in the Latino community.
I never said Gallup was perfect, only that its been more accurate than any other polling company and has been at it longer than any other polling company. I also never said that one polling company should be relied on. Gallup does not do state polls. I also posted another good polling website
RealClearPolitics - RealClearPolitics Poll Averages .

As for the Hispanic voters, remember this little nugget from July 2004:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul21.html

Quote:
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 22, 2004; Page A01

At a time when Bush and Kerry are running about even among all registered voters, Kerry enjoys a 2 to 1 advantage over Bush among Latino registered voters. Hispanics give Bush lower approval ratings than the overall population does, and the poll shows that the bulk of the Latino community continues to identify with the Democratic Party.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 08:58 PM   #362
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
and thus, we come to my earlier conclusion, which remains fully confirmed: it's early July, and nobody. knows. anything.
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-02-2008, 09:26 PM   #363
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
as expected, McCain flip-flops and starts to kick the gays:

[q]McCain Officially Endorses California Marriage Ban

By Kerry Eleveld
An Advocate.com exclusive posted July 2, 2008

John McCain’s position on California’s marriage amendment has officially switched from supporting the voters’ right to define marriage as they see fit to endorsing efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage by amending the state’s constitution, according to a statement by the Log Cabin Republicans.

ProtectMarriage.com, the group leading the charge to constitutionally ban gay marriage in California via a ballot measure, published the following statement from the McCain campaign on its website last Thursday: “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.” The wording varies from the campaign’s original statement following the state supreme court’s May decision to legalize gay marriage, which asserted that McCain supported “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman…”

Conservative organizations such the Christian Broadcasting Network wasted no time hailing the new statement as an endorsement of the antimarriage amendment. But until Tuesday, Log Cabin representatives said the campaign itself had neither confirmed nor denied that the Arizona senator had in fact changed his position from neutrality to active support.

A statement released Tuesday by the Log Cabin Republicans read, “Late last week, the group pushing California’s antimarriage constitutional amendment released an e-mail from a McCain staffer saying the senator backed the amendment. We now have confirmation that this represents the senator’s view.”

Log Cabin president Patrick Sammon asserted in the statement that supporting the amendment is inconsistent with McCain’s belief in federalism. “Unfortunately, his position on this amendment hurts gay and lesbian families. We obviously disagree with Senator McCain on this issue and do not believe he should have interjected himself into this state issue,” Sammon said in the release. “Backing California’s ban sends the wrong signal to the independents who will decide this election because it creates the impression that he’s pandering to social conservative leaders.” McCain held a closed meeting in Ohio late last week with social conservative leaders, around the time the new statement appeared on ProtectMarriage.com.

Sammon, who has met several times with McCain’s campaign staff and once with the senator himself, declined to discuss the nature of those meetings or whether the senator had indicated what his official stance on California’s ballot measure would be.

Senator McCain’s campaign did not return phone calls for this article. His stance on other marriage ballot measures -- such as Florida’s or one that just qualified for the November ballot in his home state of Arizona -- remains unclear. [/q]



i wonder what his first wife's position is on this?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 01:14 AM   #364
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 11:39 AM
What I find annoying about both Obama and McCain is how they're both beginning to jump through the usual hoops in order to win. They both at one time came across to me as a breath of fresh air. . .and now, well, the air has long been stale with McCain and it's getting a little tepid with Obama too.

Is this really what one has to do to become president?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 01:32 AM   #365
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:39 AM
Yes, and it will only get worse, the demographic hump of boomers will wield influence for a good while to come.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 02:37 AM   #366
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:39 AM
Quote:
During a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.

Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus.

Obama should pick on someone his own size. (Obama is 6' 2")

How tall is Joe Lieberman? *

* A. His stature shrinks each time he opens his mouth.
deep is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 02:50 AM   #367
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
What I find annoying about both Obama and McCain is how they're both beginning to jump through the usual hoops in order to win.
Obama seems to have his base locked in, 35 and under, African Americans, among others so he is going after a portion of the Evangelicals. If he can take away 10-15 % that have been GOP voters, that will be a very good gain. And he also is going after the Blue-collar working class, 2nd amendment, types. Obama is perceived left, so he is moving right.

McCain's concern is that the GOP base still is not locked in. He is perceived moderate, so he is moving right.
deep is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 07:37 AM   #368
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Obama should pick on someone his own size. (Obama is 6' 2")

How tall is Joe Lieberman? *

* A. His stature shrinks each time he opens his mouth.



Deep, aren't you posting the same hearsay conjecture piece that you often criticize people of...
BVS is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 07:54 AM   #369
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
McCain's concern is that the GOP base still is not locked in. He is perceived moderate, so he is moving right.

so, clearly, we have more gay bashing to look forward to.

as i pointed out earlier, big McCain staff shake up yesterday. and the Rove boys are taking over the campaign.

i think many of us have been delighted that these were our two candidates and that we'd get a genuinely thoughtful discussion of the issues throughout the campaign. it's a vastly better match up than, say, Giuliani/Clinton, which would have brought out the absolute worst in us.

so i think it's sad to see that we're going to all start tumbling downhill. it does seem, though, that the Obama campaign has anticipated this and have attempted to lay the groundwork to frame any attacks on Obama as tantamount to racism.

we'll see if it works.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 09:13 AM   #370
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,257
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so, clearly, we have more gay bashing to look forward to.
That's a dumb thing to say. What makes you say this?
2861U2 is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 09:22 AM   #371
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
That's a dumb thing to say. What makes you say this?




[q]McCain Officially Endorses California Marriage Ban

By Kerry Eleveld
An Advocate.com exclusive posted July 2, 2008

John McCain’s position on California’s marriage amendment has officially switched from supporting the voters’ right to define marriage as they see fit to endorsing efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage by amending the state’s constitution, according to a statement by the Log Cabin Republicans.

ProtectMarriage.com, the group leading the charge to constitutionally ban gay marriage in California via a ballot measure, published the following statement from the McCain campaign on its website last Thursday: “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.” The wording varies from the campaign’s original statement following the state supreme court’s May decision to legalize gay marriage, which asserted that McCain supported “the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman…”

Conservative organizations such the Christian Broadcasting Network wasted no time hailing the new statement as an endorsement of the antimarriage amendment. But until Tuesday, Log Cabin representatives said the campaign itself had neither confirmed nor denied that the Arizona senator had in fact changed his position from neutrality to active support.

A statement released Tuesday by the Log Cabin Republicans read, “Late last week, the group pushing California’s antimarriage constitutional amendment released an e-mail from a McCain staffer saying the senator backed the amendment. We now have confirmation that this represents the senator’s view.”

Log Cabin president Patrick Sammon asserted in the statement that supporting the amendment is inconsistent with McCain’s belief in federalism. “Unfortunately, his position on this amendment hurts gay and lesbian families. We obviously disagree with Senator McCain on this issue and do not believe he should have interjected himself into this state issue,” Sammon said in the release. “Backing California’s ban sends the wrong signal to the independents who will decide this election because it creates the impression that he’s pandering to social conservative leaders.” McCain held a closed meeting in Ohio late last week with social conservative leaders, around the time the new statement appeared on ProtectMarriage.com.

Sammon, who has met several times with McCain’s campaign staff and once with the senator himself, declined to discuss the nature of those meetings or whether the senator had indicated what his official stance on California’s ballot measure would be.

Senator McCain’s campaign did not return phone calls for this article. His stance on other marriage ballot measures -- such as Florida’s or one that just qualified for the November ballot in his home state of Arizona -- remains unclear. [/q]




sadly, kicking gays is something that gets the Republican "base" to get excited about a candidate. it worked in 2004. i expect to see more of this.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 09:47 AM   #372
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Obama should pick on someone his own size. (Obama is 6' 2")

How tall is Joe Lieberman? *

* A. His stature shrinks each time he opens his mouth.


[q]Lieberman Favs Shellacked

Running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in 2006, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman did his best to avoid irritating the Democratic base in order to win at least some of their votes in November. Now, having so publicly backed John McCain, those who didn't abandon Lieberman that year are moving away from him, a Quinnipiac University poll shows.

The survey, conducted 6/26-29, polled 2,515 registered voters in the Nutmeg State for a margin of error of +/- 2%. And according to those respondents, the state's junior Senator has just a 45% approval rating, while 43% disapprove. That includes just 26% of Democrats saying they like the way Lieberman is handling his job, while 62% disapprove.

That's the lowest job approval rating Lieberman has ever had in the Quinnipiac poll, down from a high of 80% who said they approved of his job performance in September, 2000, as he was running for Vice President on Al Gore's ticket. His rating has dropped seven points since the last survey, in late March, while his disapproval ratings have gone up eight points.

Connecticut gave John Kerry a ten-point win in 2004, though neither of the campaigns put any significant effort into the state. And while John McCain's campaign has hinted that the state might be in play come November, few strategists actually think the state will deliver anything but a big win for Barack Obama.

So, will Lieberman continue running as an independent when he's next up, in 2012? If the Connecticut Senator continues to back McCain and goes so far as to speak at the Republican National Convention, a la Georgia Senator Zell Miller in 2004, Democrats may be less interested in his service as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, especially if the party picks up seats in November.

One thing is sure: A bigger Democratic majority that devalues Lieberman's vote as a quasi-Republican would mean left-leaning bloggers, who spearheaded the move to oust Lieberman in 2006, will put significant pressure on Senate Democrats to elevate someone new to the post of chairman.
[/q]
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 01:26 PM   #373
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post


Deep, aren't you posting the same hearsay conjecture piece that you often criticize people of...
are you serious ?
deep is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 04:36 PM   #374
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:39 AM
Quote:
Obama to 'Refine' Iraq Withdrawal Plans
Illinois Senator Had Pledged to Withdraw Troops From Iraq in 16 Months if Elected
By SUNLEN MILLER and TEDDY DAVIS

July 3, 2008 —

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Thursday that he will "continue to refine" his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq in 16 months when he travels to the war-torn country later this month to meet with American military commanders.

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," said Obama. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

Obama's openness to adjust his 16-month withdrawal plan appears to be somewhat at odds with the stance he took during ABC News' April 16 debate in Philadelphia. At the time, Obama seemed to stand by his campaign manager's pledge to have troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

On a March 7 conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe emphatically said Obama has been "crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in -- as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity."

At the April 16 debate, ABC News' Charlie Gibson asked Obama about his campaign manager's unambiguous pledge.

Obama seemed to stand by Plouffe's words, saying, "the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie." The Illinois Democrat later gave himself some wiggle room "with respect to tactics." But he also indicated in his answer that such deference on tactics would only come once he has given U.S. commanders "a new mission."

Obama's Thursday comments, which he made at a press availability in Fargo, N.D., are also at odds with the Iraq plan that he currently has on his campaign Web site.
I have posted that I was 53% leaning to voting for Obama a fews weeks back but that I was at about 55% leaning McCain lately.
Now those margins are narrowing and may flip again.


I am finally starting to get this change thing with Obama.
(sorry, for being a slow learner, Forgive me, Let live me.)

It means he can change anytime he wants.

He has gone from Obama outsider 'progressive" to Obama "Clintonist" triangulater in less than thirty days.

Soon we will have the opportunity to vote McCain or McCain lite?

He has asked you to believe in change.

And he is delivering.
We may be able to vote for the 6' 2" McCain.
deep is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 04:57 PM   #375
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,145
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Obama's evolving stance on Iraq? His softening of anti-NAFTA rhetoric? His support of the second amendment in DC? His rejection of public campaign financing?

It's almost Change I Can Believe In. And all in the course of about 30 days. Imagine all the "nuance" we can squeeze out of him in 4 years !
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 05:00 PM   #376
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
i think you've misunderstood what Obama's position on Iraq always was. to stick to a promise of "16 months" no matter what is Bush-like in it's rigidity. such black-and-white thinking is what got us into this mess to begin with.

he's always retained flexibility in his position, even when it seemed as if the most politically astute thing to do would be to go hard to HRC's left. and he didn't do that. his stated position is a withdrawal of combat forces on a 16 month time frame which brings us -- contrary to what other posters would like you to believe -- to a departure of *combat* forces in June of 2010. depending on many things. that's plenty of time for him to influence the course of events over there. contrast this to a Senator who's quite excited about the construction of 50-60 permanent bases.

Obama has always been centrist -- orderly, timely, reasoned withdrawal. not pull out all the stops. it seems you've believed the lies that are put forth by some on this forum -- immediate withdrawal! -- that are critical to the false narrative they put forth about both the course of the war and the positions of the two candidates.

i'm as anti-Iraq as you get, but i don't want immediate withdrawal, nor do i want an absolutist "16 months" president. nor do i want a presidential candidate who isn't going to make several wise post-primary adjustments in policies. do you think candidate HRC would be any different? do you think she would do the Bush thing and do what she wants irregardless of what people on the ground say?

so it seems both you and STING have fooled yourself into believing what you wanted to be true about Obama in order to continue to justify your "opposition" to his candidacy.

there's no real story here. people want there to be a story, since the dominant narrative this week is "Obama tacks right," but if you look at the details beyond the headline, there's not much that's different.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 05:02 PM   #377
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Obama's evolving stance on Iraq? His softening of anti-NAFTA rhetoric? His support of the second amendment in DC? His rejection of public campaign financing?

It's almost Change I Can Believe In. And all in the course of about 30 days. Imagine all the "nuance" we can squeeze out of him in 4 years !


DC handgun band is different -- he said he'd respect the court's decision.

one would wish McCain would do the same in California.

it is shocking, though. it seems that Barack Obama is trying to win the presidency.

shocking.

would you like me to enumerate the lack of "maverick" "straight-talk" McCain moves over the past few months?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 05:09 PM   #378
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:39 PM
some excerpts from his website:

[q]"All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year."[/q]

do we not redefine policies based upon new information?

it boggles the mind. we're getting mad at him for doing exactly the opposite of what has made Bush the worst president in recent history.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 05:18 PM   #379
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Obama's evolving stance on Iraq? His softening of anti-NAFTA rhetoric? His support of the second amendment in DC? His rejection of public campaign financing?

It's almost Change I Can Believe In. And all in the course of about 30 days. Imagine all the "nuance" we can squeeze out of him in 4 years !

I read an article a few days back
one among many I did not post about for fear of being called anti-Obama diatribe

the jest of the article was that

Reagan was a "movement" president, that set an agenda for "change" and got the people behind him to implement it.


Clinton was a candidate that ran on change. If you get a copy of his convention speech, he keeps repeating "WE CAN DO IT" with the crowd chanting with him. (sound familiar). The first couple of years, they could not do it. Remove the gay ban from the service completely, reform health care. He did not have the American people behind him. So to accomplish some successes he modified his agenda to get a large portion of the American behind him.

The article said that Obama was positioning himself to follow the Clinton style over the Reagan style.

The Clinton style makes more sense to me.

Progressives can not get to the 60 + percent to be a successful movement.


My concerns for Obama is that he is doing this so quick. His problem is that because he had to rebuke the Clintons so much during the primaries, he is starting pretty far left, and this much movement so quick may cause him to lose credibility.
deep is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 07:06 PM   #380
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think you've misunderstood what Obama's position on Iraq always was. to stick to a promise of "16 months" no matter what is Bush-like in it's rigidity. such black-and-white thinking is what got us into this mess to begin with.

he's always retained flexibility in his position, even when it seemed as if the most politically astute thing to do would be to go hard to HRC's left. and he didn't do that. his stated position is a withdrawal of combat forces on a 16 month time frame which brings us -- contrary to what other posters would like you to believe -- to a departure of *combat* forces in June of 2010. depending on many things. that's plenty of time for him to influence the course of events over there. contrast this to a Senator who's quite excited about the construction of 50-60 permanent bases.
But "out of Iraq now" is the campaign cry of so many of his supporters, the majority of the liberal and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. If he truely is trying to quietly change his policy on Iraq, its because his past predictions on Iraq have been so way off the mark and he has been opposed to the Surge policy in Iraq which has dramatically changed conditions on the ground in Iraq for the better. If Obama is adjusting his Iraq strategy from "out of Iraq now" to the Buch/McCain strategy of withdrawal as conditions on the ground warrent such withdrawals then that is really a huge shift.

Lets be clear, Obama had his own very specific policy proposal in opposition to the Surge Strategy in January 2007. It proposed essentially the same thing he had been proposing consistently up until the past couple of months. Withdraw 1 to 2 combat Brigades per month with ALL US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. He wanted to do this despite the difficult sectarian violence which had grown since the Febuary 2006 Shia Mosque bombing, and the lack of an Iraqi military and police force ready to replace US combat brigades as they withdrew. A recipe for disaster according to the latest NIE on Iraq. Obama's policy was much closer to fellow Democrat Jack Murtha than it was to any policy that was based on conditions on the ground or had some sort of flexibility to it.



Now, 18 months later, the Surge has been completed or will be by the end of this month. US casualties have been reduced to the lowest levels of the entire war despite many Democrats claims that the surge would only increase the violence and the casualties. People on here claimed that the US military presence on the ground was causing the sectarian violence!!? Yet, civilian casualties in Iraq have dropped to their lowest levels of the entire war, dramatically lower than they were 12 months ago thanks to a strategy that Barack Obama was firmly opposed to. The Democratic congress report card on Iraq's current 18 Benchmarks for development show satisfactory progress on 15 of the Benchmarks, up from just 8 a year ago. The only two Benchmarks where progress was unsatisfactory was on the disarmament of Militia's and the passing of a final oil law. Despite that, Militia activity has dropped to record lows and thousands have been disarmed. Despite the fact that the Oil law has not been passed yet, Oil revenues are being distributed to all provinces in Iraq. The Sunni block of the government that had left last year is now ready to rejoin. The one Benchmark that was given "mixed" progress was on the security forces because the police force development has been rated unsatistifactory. But Iraqi military development has progressed very well, and despite some early setbacks during the winter, it has dramatically demonstrated many new capabilities that few thought would be possible to develop in this short time frame.

All Democrats still wedded to the 2006 Democratic campaign promise to yank all US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible can say now, is that the United States is still taking casualties, Iraqi civilians are still being killed, and not all of the political benchmarks have been met yet. Essentially, the only way you can believe that the Surge policy failed is if it was supposed to produce an environment in just 18 months where nobody was being killed and Iraq had succeeded in making political developments that have taken some countries decades to complete. The fact is that the murder rate in Iraq is now lower than it is in most large US cities like Atlanta, Detroit, and Washington DC. Not all of the political benchmarks have been met yet, but progress is being made on all of them, and things are substantially improved from where they were just a year ago. Iraqi oil production is almost back to its pre-war capacity and in the years to come could set a new all time record for the country. GDP per capita is now nearly equal to neighboring Syria.

So much progress has been made in such a short time that even Barack Obama might be trying to quietly revamp his policy on Iraq. The one area where the public rates McCain better on is Iraq policy. Policies that are an obvious success often eventually receive the support of many who opposed the policy even if its done in the shadows. That may be happening with Obama now but there is still a large part of Obama's party that is ideologically wedded to "out of Iraq now" regardless of conditions on the ground, which had previously essentially been Obama's policy on Iraq. Obama does not want to anger such a voting block, so he'll be trying to have it both ways in the weeks to come along with a little historical revisionism on what his past remarks on Iraq policy meant.

A position that is flexible to when it comes to troop levels in Iraq, that is willing to withdraw troops when conditions on the ground warrent it, or send in more troops when conditions on the ground warrent it, has been McCain policy since day 1, and at least Bush policy since late 2006 if not earlier. Thats not where Barack Obama has been since at least January 2007 until perhaps recently. Moving closer to Bush and McCain on Iraq policy would certainly be the right thing for Obama to do, but it is risky since his victory in the Democratic nomination race was largely based on his total oposition to all phases of the Iraq war and his firm commitment to withdrawal regardless of conditions and problems on the ground because in his view those were things that the United States could not help resolve and did not need to help resolve. The facts on the ground in Iraq though over the past 18 months have helped to destroy that myth, and Obama may be trying to find a way to jump on the bandwagon that is moving Iraq closer to a day of peace, stability and prosperity.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×