US Politics?

[lost_grrl]

Originally Posted by Gartism

Honestly...I think the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot.

With a race this tight you're going to alienate roughly HALF of your voting base when one of the candidates is knocked out. Will they automatically jump to the other candidate in November...or will they be upset enough to consider the moderate McCain?

Going to be a long year

I really don't understand the problem here...it is frequently the case that the front runners attack each other in primaries and kiss and make up once the votes are in. It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.

Originally Posted by tailhook

I am very open to listening to anyone's example(s) of a single success during the recent loong Republican government domination.


1. Not one attack on US soil by foreign terrorists since 9/11.
2. Afghanistan is no longer in Taliban hands.
3. Iraq is no longer in Saddam Hussein's hands.

All 3 of those things were quite successful. Its the cost thats up for debate.

-TH

2. Afghanistan only appears to be out of the Taliban's hands. Although many Afghans welcomed the US, we have failed to make good on much of what we promised. The Taliban is no longer the official government, but it continues to oppress the people of Afghanistan. Schools are built and either destroyed or remain empty due to the Taliban's threats that people who teach or attend a secular school will face dire consequences. Police stations are blown up almost as fast as they can be built. And most of the areas outside the few cities are being re-taken (is that a word??) by the Taliban.

The Taliban scared the crap out of most Afghans, but their day-to-day life was secure. There were horrible atrocities committed, but they could walk down the street of Kabul without getting blown up. Most of the area's And don't forget about the opium issue. The Taliban strong armed poppy farmers into shutting down their farms. Now that the Taliban is no longer enforcing their ban on opium production, the entire world has been flooded with cheap, plentiful and potent heroin. Ninety percent of the world's heroin now comes from Afghan poppies and there is an actual surplus of heroin--with supply over 25& higher than demand.

3. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...Indeed, Saddam no longer controls Iraq. It is now not controlled at all, by anyone. The average Iraqi is much less secure than it was when Saddam was in power. And even more so than in Afghanistan, those Iraqis who may have welcomed US troops are changing their tune. In the process of trying to suppress an insurgency that nobody in charge apparently saw coming, both Americans and Iraqi citizens are losing their lives. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are being forced to flee their homes to escape the violence.

So yeah, we got rid of Saddam's government, but what did we leave in its place? Did the Iraqi people really trade up?

Clueless1der: So you would go for Obama/Clinton, but not the reverse? Or you would just prefer the former over the latter?

I think that Obama/Clinton would make a really great ticket--his charisma, her brains. I must admit that I really underestimated the American people with regards to voting for a black man. I am starting to think that he could actually do it--even against McCain, who is (IMO) the only Republican that ever had a real shot this time around. I wonder who he will choose as a running mate? I assume he will go with someone more conservative (that wouldn't be hard to find in the GOP, would it) and who is seen as more religious--maybe even Huckabee to try to snag those Evangelical votes. Evangelical Christians really aren't very politically active at all unless one of their own is running.

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

I really don't understand the problem here...it is frequently the case that the front runners attack each other in primaries and kiss and make up once the votes are in. It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast.



2. Afghanistan only appears to be out of the Taliban's hands. Although many Afghans welcomed the US, we have failed to make good on much of what we promised. The Taliban is no longer the official government, but it continues to oppress the people of Afghanistan. Schools are built and either destroyed or remain empty due to the Taliban's threats that people who teach or attend a secular school will face dire consequences. Police stations are blown up almost as fast as they can be built. And most of the areas outside the few cities are being re-taken (is that a word??) by the Taliban.

You can make the case they're trying to take it back, and doing what they can to oppress the people.. but you can't make the case they are still in power.

By that theory.. the Green Party would be in power here since everybody is so enviornmentally conscious these days.

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

The Taliban scared the crap out of most Afghans, but their day-to-day life was secure.

Unless of course you were female and happened to show some ankle. Then you were secure in the fact that you were up for the next game of Dodge Rock in the soccer stadium. And trust me... you didn't win at that game.

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

There were horrible atrocities committed, but they could walk down the street of Kabul without getting blown up. Most of the area's And don't forget about the opium issue. The Taliban strong armed poppy farmers into shutting down their farms. Now that the Taliban is no longer enforcing their ban on opium production, the entire world has been flooded with cheap, plentiful and potent heroin. Ninety percent of the world's heroin now comes from Afghan poppies and there is an actual surplus of heroin--with supply over 25& higher than demand.

I'm missing the point here. In other words.. so?

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

3. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq...Indeed, Saddam no longer controls Iraq. It is now not controlled at all, by anyone. The average Iraqi is much less secure than it was when Saddam was in power. And even more so than in Afghanistan, those Iraqis who may have welcomed US troops are changing their tune. In the process of trying to suppress an insurgency that nobody in charge apparently saw coming, both Americans and Iraqi citizens are losing their lives. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are being forced to flee their homes to escape the violence.

That wasn't the question though. The question was what this administration has been successful at. And in that.. the administration has been quite successful in removing Saddam from power. They might not have been as successful securing the peace... but thats a different issue.

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

So yeah, we got rid of Saddam's government, but what did we leave in its place? Did the Iraqi people really trade up?

We get the same thing that follows most revolutions throughout history. Something that I figured would happen before we ever went in.

Civil War.

If all of a sudden the government of this country were to just.. go away... we would also have Civil War in pretty short order.

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

Clueless1der: So you would go for Obama/Clinton, but not the reverse? Or you would just prefer the former over the latter?

I think that Obama/Clinton would make a really great ticket--his charisma, her brains.

His brains.. her muscle. One thing she is good at.. as she keeps trumpeting.. is fighting... a very good talent for a prospective VP. Obama needs a good bag man. In other terms.. he's the carrot.. she's the stick. He's good cop.. she's bad cop. This is why I would go with O/C but not C/O. The attack dog always has a leash in case they need to be pulled back and it allows the head guy deniability if the attack dog ever goes too far. But if you go C/O and put the attack dog out front and he/she goes too far there is no way to recover politically. You'll just have political gridlock with people not playing ball with you.

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

I must admit that I really underestimated the American people with regards to voting for a black man. I am starting to think that he could actually do it--even against McCain, who is (IMO) the only Republican that ever had a real shot this time around.

:> I've said that for a while now. Her people like to try to make the claim he can't win in the big states. Well.. the next time California and New York go Republican is the next time hell hath officially frozen over. Thing is.. Obama can play in the states she hasn't a chance in hell of pulling while he'd be solid in any of the states that go Democratic.

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

I wonder who he will choose as a running mate? I assume he will go with someone more conservative (that wouldn't be hard to find in the GOP, would it) and who is seen as more religious--maybe even Huckabee to try to snag those Evangelical votes. Evangelical Christians really aren't very politically active at all unless one of their own is running.

I don't see Huckabee... good guy and decent candidate but waaaay too many people against him on principle and a little too far right for the centrist McCain.

-TH

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

It doesn't matter who is on the Democratic ticket.

Like transparent, free market capitalism, Democracy works well and is self-correcting like LOST paradoxes. The Republicans are deservedly and appropriately doomed as a direct result of their loong-time failed performance record on every American issue - RichPundit

btw, a recent in-depth, U.S. Intelligence assessment led and reported by our current, excellent Secretary of Defense Robert Gates concluded that: 1) the 9/11 terrorist group Al Qaeda, led by Bin Laden now sheltered in U.S. propped military dictatorship Pakistan, is stronger now than pre-9/11 and strengthening, and 2) Afghanistan is in increasingly dire straits [& not the band], even producing 90% (!) of the world's herion poppies as its primary economic activity. Iraq a success?!?? Dems the facts Ma'am!

Wow.. incredibly shrinking text.

And securing the peace was never something I claimed this Administration was successful at. Getting Saddam Hussein out of power? They were quite successful at doing that. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

-TH

[lost_grrl]

Originally Posted by tailhook

You can make the case they're trying to take it back, and doing what they can to oppress the people.. but you can't make the case they are still in power.

The Taliban have more power in Afghanistan than most people know. They have really made a resurgence in the past couple of years. They may be officially out of power, but they are really controlling quite a bit of what goes on in rural Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by tailhook

Unless of course you were female and happened to show some ankle. Then you were secure in the fact that you were up for the next game of Dodge Rock in the soccer stadium. And trust me... you didn't win at that game.

I don't at all minimize the absolute horror that was the Taliban regime. But as horrible as those rights violations were, the simple fact is that time and again throughout history people have been willing to sacrifice liberty for security. Under Taliban rule people, especially women, were denied many rights and liberties that we in the Western world see as essential, but the reality was that most--the vast majority-- people followed the rules and thus didn't fear for their lives on a daily basis. They knew that they would probably die if they broke the rules, but also knew that the same fear that kept girls out of school prevented crime.

Now there are daily bombings in the major cities as the Taliban have taken a page from the Iraqi insurgent's handbook. There is a real possibility that you can be killed or maimed just by walking down the streets. That wasn't the case under the Taliban, which is one of the reasons why the Taliban was welcomed in the first place--physical security first, personal freedoms second.

Originally Posted by tailhook

That wasn't the question though. The question was what this administration has been successful at. And in that.. the administration has been quite successful in removing Saddam from power. They might not have been as successful securing the peace... but thats a different issue.

Ah, yes...but that wasn't the stated goal, was it. That became the revised goal after the WMD fiasco.

Originally Posted by tailhook

His brains.. her muscle. One thing she is good at.. as she keeps trumpeting.. is fighting... a very good talent for a prospective VP. Obama needs a good bag man. In other terms.. he's the carrot.. she's the stick. He's good cop.. she's bad cop. This is why I would go with O/C but not C/O. The attack dog always has a leash in case they need to be pulled back and it allows the head guy deniability if the attack dog ever goes too far. But if you go C/O and put the attack dog out front and he/she goes too far there is no way to recover politically. You'll just have political gridlock with people not playing ball with you.

Yup

Originally Posted by tailhook

:> I've said that for a while now. Her people like to try to make the claim he can't win in the big states. Well.. the next time California and New York go Republican is the next time hell hath officially frozen over. Thing is.. Obama can play in the states she hasn't a chance in hell of pulling while he'd be solid in any of the states that go Democratic.

Indeed you did. I was wrong and totally underestimated the voters. This is one time that I am happy to be wrong.

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by tailhook

Wow.. incredibly shrinking text.

And securing the peace was never something I claimed this Administration was successful at. Getting Saddam Hussein out of power? They were quite successful at doing that. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan. -TH

SOooo, as I understand our thread's current balance sheet for Republican successes after 7 full years of Republican domination of all three branches of our American goverment, we have: 1) my Chief Justice Roberts, and ...

2) that the world's only Superpower can militarily invade, defeat, and occupy tiny third world military dictatorships as demonstrated by our results in Iraq and Afghanistan. Curious, who in the world didn't already know that and how is this a success??? imho and I think shared by most in the world, a HUGE negative for decades for "We All Everybody" good guys!

Again my mantra, our Republicans are deservedly and appropriately doomed in 2008 no matter who is on the Democratic ticket. However, over time they will appropriately evolve leveraging their pile of good talent and be broadly welcomed back ... how transparent democracy, like capitalism, works well!

Importantly, "We All Everybody" are true Patriots, but with diverse priorities, strategies and tactics.

Namaste - RichPundit

btw, how do you do multiquotes, and can you include multiple posts from multiple posters? Tx!

[clueless1der]

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

Clueless1der: So you would go for Obama/Clinton, but not the reverse? Or you would just prefer the former over the latter?

I do. My reasons are varied.... and might not make much sense. I don't know that I'm as smart politically as you guys, but lemme tell you this is entertaining as all hell to read!!

I lived in Illinois when Obama was first making waves. I even voted for him in the 2002 Senate race.... and I can't help a down-homey kind of feeling... I lived in central IL though and he came to my college (GO panthers!) and spoke. He was just really engaging. I did however, vote for Clinton in the FL primary because well.... I really didn't think that the country would support Obama. Not very nice of me I know. I was trying for pragmatictism and ended up coming out feeling like a moron. Besides, my hubby kept telling me that it didn't matter who I voted for since the FL and MI primaries were rather bogus. But then I started seeing more of her campaign tactics... Billy boy turning bulldog for her... the fake tearing up thing.... and I just got annoyed. So to answer your question, yeah.... Obama/Clinton fer suuure... but the Clinton/Obama ... not so much. I don't know if I'm okay with her in the driver's seat. Strange that, usually I have no problems with the woman being on top!

Originally Posted by RichPundit

btw, how do you do multiquotes, and can you include multiple posts from multiple posters? Tx!

Once you're logged in, you should see 'multi quote this message' you click on all the ones you want to multi quote and go to town. If you want to speak to specific lines from another person's quote, well, there might be an easier way to do this, but I just copy and paste the poster's specific quote, then end it with the quote tag.

That's the part that looks like [quote=RichPundit;and some #s then the end bracket.
Then whatever the line was from the other person,

then, make sure you have [/quote and the end bracket or it won;t work.

[RichPundit]

My Political Confession:

One of the key rationales for why I eagerly voted for Oilman Bush the 1st time in 2000 was cuz I and most others feared that the then scary $17-$18/barrel of oil would incredibly soar to $20/barrel! We correctly believed that this would be first devastating to our economy, then the global economy, and then quickly ripple to every facet of our well-being, particularly our growing good social/economic lives as well as National Security.

Clear evidence of how smart I am!

After 7 full years of Oilman Bush and his Republican party, oil is now at $109/barrel and potentially will soar higher. This is coupled with the lowest US dollar value in my grandparent's lifetime! And desperately pathetically, Bush is now even sending VP Cheney to the Middle East to "help" fix ... very bizarre, yet consistent failed behaviours!

Tx for my needed vent - RichPundit

[RichPundit]

Sorry, another steaming American Patriot rant:

It's despicably incredible how the Republicans/Neocons/Rightists (albeit not true conservatives like George Will & others), after having fought tooth & nail for unstoppable power for 7+ full years followed by their clear failures on every issue, are now shamlessly re-writing their own failed behaviours while keeping their ruthlessly unearned booty!

Short list of recent examples:

• Neocon Drudge Report headlines today that loong time, free money to the rich, Fed Chief Alan Greenspan now states: today we have the "worse financial mess since WW2". Greenspan's Neocon/Republican successor Bernanke acknowledges openly committing "Moral Hazard" by bailing out widely-known to be ruthless, obscenely wealthy Republican Bears Stern financial institution with, yes, taxpayer monies, as well as we unconnected fools with mutual fund IRAs/401(k)s.
• Neocon, now obscenely wealthy, Iraq/Middle East architect Richard Pearle claimed in a Sunday article that he was correct about everything except Bush team incompetence ... of course other than Bush team members: himself and a few select insider friends like Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, and Elliot Abrams.
• Neocon William Kristol (genetic Bad Dad Irving) writes today after a year of trashing Hillary and praising Obama: ... "with no particular dog in the Democratic fight, many conservatives have tended to think it would be good for the country if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, freeing us from the dreary prospect of the return of the House of Clinton. Now I wonder. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama?"

Obviously, these despicable Neocons/Republicans are not about their Patriot loyalty to our good 'ol United States of America, but some other narrow, personal agenda - RichPundit

[clueless1der]

Is it a bad thing that I actually derived pleasure from the stadium people boooooooooooo-ing when Double Ya threw out the first pitch?

[lost_grrl]

Rich: I am not sure how you feel about the program "Frontline" on PBS (Isn't it part of the so-called liberal media?), but I saw an episode (actually 2 episodes totally 5 hours) called "Bush's War" that was just fascinating. As a flaming liberal, I have always found the neocons extremely distasteful, but after that show...my opinion of them is even worse. Their determination to a) get us into Iraq any way possible (A note from Cheney or Rumsfeld on Sept 11th mentions "see if we can tie this to Iraq" not "see if Iraq is involved" because everyone in intelligence already told them it was Al Quaida) and to b) "stay the course" even when faced with the massive failures of that course was just mind-numbing. Not to mention the playground bully tactics that the neocon trifecta of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz used against the State Department and the Intelligence community. It wasn't really surprising, just really interesting to see the whole thing--from the planning up to the present--layed out.

One thing that they showed in a really great segment was how they used the "echo effect" to drum up support for the war. They would have someone in their staff i.e. a "Senior Whitehouse Staffer" give information to the media about something--yellowcake, aluminum rods, etc. The NY Times, Washington Post and others would then run the story with headline "Iraq Sought to Buy Enriched Uranium" or whatever, siting the senior staffer as the source of the information. Then they (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) would go on t.v. or into press conferences siting the NY Times as the source for the information "The NY Times had an article just last week about the uranium" to make it seem like it was legit information. And it worked like nobodies business--after all, the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal etc are serious publications and wouldn't blindly serve as puppets of dissemination for the Administration! Iraq MUST have uranium!! Crazy how for a period of time after 9/11 our newsmen really rolled over for them.