Why Nobama

[gagged_Louise]

Ragoczy, I honestly don't see what kind of hope you could have that an Iraqi government will become stable and sane, and neither give in to sects and tribes nor become a mere puppet of the US. The first seems the outcome of your view that it's a ragbag of a country that would dissolve fast unless kept together by force (isn't that what Saddam Hussein realized too?), and the other alternative, a puppet regime, means the US troops will stay for decades to come - and become a permanent recruitment poster for those militant movements that do not accept the idea of being puppeted. And anytime in the future when that unrest flares really high, more of those troops - young American men and women - would have to be sent in. So? This is exactly the quandary that the US found itself in as soon as the hot phase of the war was over and Hussein had fallen. They had no real idea how to build a civilian regime, to restore democracy. Some of the "leaders" they wanted to work with were the very kind of angry old mullahs that are the fear of every American schoolboy when they are reigning in Iran, just across the border.

As for your idea that the US can and should do what it wants - yeah okay, but then you'd have to agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a daring and extremely skillful act of war, don't you? And motivated too, because the Japanese felt hemmed in by the presence of the US navy and air force in the Pacific, and they could see that the age of European colonies in Asia was coming to an end. Who could argue with them if they aim to take the naval base out and run for the booty of east Asia and the Pacific?

I guess we've come a bit off the subject of what Obama will do if he's elected, but at least I think he sees that the matter of US presence in the Middle East isn't as simple as "our boys are there as a benevolent peacekeeper and to make sure things don't slide back to barbarism".

[Ragoczy]

Ragoczy, I honestly don't see what kind of hope you could have that an Iraqi government will become stable and sane, and neither give in to sects and tribes nor become a mere puppet of the US. The first seems the outcome of your vierw that it's a ragbag of a country that would dissolve unless kept together by foirce (isn't that what Saddam Hussein realized too?), and the other alternative, a puppet regime, means the US tropps will stay for decades to come - and become a constant recruitment poster for those militant movements that do not accept the idea of being puppeted. So? This is exactly the quandary that the US found itself in as soon as the hot phase of the war was over and Hussein had fallen. They had no real idea how to build a civilian regime, to restore democracy. Some of the "leaders" they wanted to work with were the very kind of angry old mullahs that are the fear of every American schoolboy when they are reigning in Iran, just across the border.

First of all, if I gave the impression I was calling the Iraqis a "ragbag", then I need to clarify. I meant nothing derogatory about the Iraqi people, simply that they have thousands of years of history behind their tribes and sects as something other than Iraqi. This is the same issue faced by so many African "nations" after the Europeans pulled out, having forged countries based on geography out of what had traditionally been multiple, hostile peoples. Overcoming that will be difficult for them, I think, but I hope they can and I also think they have a better chance of success if their new government is stable and in control before the US leaves.

Ultimately, I have a great deal of respect for the Iraqi people. I find it somewhat humbling that they had such a high percentage of voter turnout when there was the very real possibility of getting killed for voting -- when in America most people take it so much for granted that they don't bother.

But, yeah, the situation sucks. The question I have to ask myself is: Will the Iraqi people be better served by the US pulling out immediately or waiting until the Iraqi government tells us they're ready? I think, and always have, that it's the latter -- and there's significant progress toward that.

As for your idea that the US can and should do what it wants - yeah okay, but then you'd have to agree that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a daring and extremely skillful act of war, don't you? And motivated too, because the Japanese felt hemmed in by the presence of the US navy and air force in the Pacific, and they could see that the age of European colonies in Asia was coming to an end. Who could argue with them if they aim to take the naval base out and run for the booty of east Asia and the Pacific?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The Japanese were an aggressor long before Pearl Harbor, taking significant land in Asia before attacking the US.

My point was that the US, faced with guarding another country's border for the next fifty years, might be reasonably expected to eliminate the need to do that. If you're comparing the US's involvement in Iraq with, say, the Japanese invasion of Korea, then I think your analogy is faulty. The US has never had the intent of conquering and ruling Iraq -- the intent has always been to stabilize an elected Iraqi government and then leave.

As to Pearl Harbor, I think it was a brilliantly executed military operation and those who characterize it as a "cowardly sneak attack" are fucking idiots. In war, you're supposed to try and catch the other bastard sleeping.

I guess we've come a bit off the subject of what Obama will do if he's elected, but at least I think he sees that the matter of US presence in the Middle East isn't as simple as "our boys are there as a benevolent peacekeeper and to make sure things don't slide back to barbansm".

Are their ulterior motives to being in Iraq? Sure. It's certainly not an altruistic desire to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. One of those motives is to not spend the next five decades defending Kuwait. Another is the hope that a democratic Iraq will be cordial to the US. Another reason for staying now is, hopefully, a lesson learned from Afghanistan after the Soviets left -- that abandoning a country to a power vacuum results in Bad Things happening.

No, if it was entirely altruistic, we'd also be in Darfur and wouldn't have left the Rwandans so totally fucked.

But yes, ranging far afield from the thread's topic.

Obama has a different perspective on the Middle East than I do, which is one of the reasons I don't support him. I don't think unconditionally sitting down with the leaders of Iran is the answer and he's willing to do that. I don't think lessening support for Israel is the right thing to do, and he will.

[mkemse]

We invaded Iraq, so the GBush Jr. could finish the job his Father did not or could not finish

[gagged_Louise]

Well, I didn't imagine you were despising the Iraqis as individuals, or as a "nation" - and of course this is a country with a cultural heritage that goes far back into history, back to Sumer. With "a ragbag" I was pointing to your assertion that the country doesn't have any real unity, and so it can be freely redrawn. I agree the borders of Iraq and Syria today are an outcome of the colonial era, but if the country is so tribalized it can blow apart at any moment unless it's kept down by the military, then what chances ar there of bringing about a democratic state? The Kurds want a state of their won, today they are effectively living in their own country but many of them, and many exile Kurds, wish to have a "larger Kurdistan" including large parts of present Turkey and some of NW Iran. That's not going to happen for reasons of big politics, but as long as Iraq is as tribal as this, building democracy isn't just a question of arranging elections and setting up an Iraqi government.

The country is pretty much walking on crutches and is not choosing how to handle its own trade, business, foreign policy and so on. The American influence on all of those fields, and on the economy, is overwhelming.

By the way, the United Nations is under no obligation to safeguard the precise borders that existed in 1945 or at any point after, and do it indefinitely. If that was it they would have tried to stop the German reunification in 1990. You're casting the UN and the "international community" (mostly enemies of the USA it seems) as a slow, conserving force that doesn't accept any kind of change in borders or state system. Now, the UN involvement in Iraq was more about trying to prevent aggressive war and trying to assure the people were not put to more suffering. This may be niff-naff to you, but the human costs of the embargo in the 1990s (medicines, milk, foodstuffs) and the Iraq war since 2003 have been huge and there is really no reason why the Iraqi people should pay. Let's be honest, if Saddam had been a dictator of Mali or Kenya the US would not have tried to oust him, it would have been a too obscure affair.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The Japanese were an aggressor long before Pearl Harbor, taking significant land in Asia before attacking the US.
My point was that the US, faced with guarding another country's border for the next fifty years, might be reasonably expected to eliminate the need to do that. If you're comparing the US's involvement in Iraq with the, say, the Japanese invasion of Korea, then I think your analogy is faulty. The US has never had the intent of conquering and ruling Iraq -- the intent has always been to stabilize an elected Iraqi government and then leave.

As to Pearl Harbor, I think it was a brilliantly executed military operation and those who characterize it as a "cowardly sneak attack" are fucking idiots. In war, you're supposed to try and catch the other bastard sleeping.

The US may not have any major land possessions in the Middle East but its presence through military bases, subsidies to regimes and corporate power is overwhelming. In the fifties the US and British effectively deposed the Iranian prime minister Mossadeq when he became too uppity and tried to nationalize the oil industry - as all major oil companies in the countyry were foreign (mostly English and American) and oil was the major export goods of the country, those companies and could easily kill any budding independent competing private companies before they grew big, so nationalization was really the only option to create your own oil industry. I think the Iranians were right in viewing it as a national interest - just consider what would happen in war if their oil industry had been foreign controlled - but it wasn't hard for the US to put him out of action. In Iran and among politically interested people in the Middle East, they have never forgotten that, just as you have never forgotten the Tehran Embassy occupation of 1979-81. Both of those are kind of defining symbols to either side.

That kind of meddling has been going on all through the past century, and I would not agree that the US soldiers guarding the Kuwait -Iraq border between 1991 and 2003 were just keeping up a UN resolution or a ceasefire for the good of Kuwait - it was about US political and corporate interests too. We can argue till Hell freezes over about how much of a real chance the Iraqis had to successfully rebel against Saddam on their own or about how sane the US-Saddam tug-of-war really was after the mid-90s. The main points to me are that
1)the US would become an aggressor too when conflict flared up - as it did several times in those years, airspace control and so on. When war broke out in 2003, triggered by the US, America became the instigator.

2)Saddam was not a potentially powerful man outside Iraq after ca 1993; and not any big threat to peace. From most evidence, he had been forced by then to give up all resources to manufacture any WMD's (=any kind of ABC-weapons), and he had lost the respect he needed to stir up major terrorist attacks on other countries. He never rebuilt his WMD capacity; the technical evidence has proved hopelessly elusive after years of post-2003 search. There have been lots of those "petty dictators" and mostly the USA doesn't move in for any reason.

[gagged_Louise]

I'd like to add I also think the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was tactically brilliant, and you could argue the Japanese were bound to land in a war with the US soon anyway, so from their óbjectives the Emperor and his generals were right to take that route. I'm happy you recognize this. Which is not the same as saying that Pearl Harbor (or earlier Japanese attacks, the massacres in China etc) were morally straight.

[Ragoczy]

Well, I didn't imagine you were despising the Iraqis as individuals, or as a "nation" - and of course this is a country with a cultural heritage that goes far back into history, back to Sumer. With "a ragbag" I was pointing to your assertion that the country doesn't have any real unity, and so it can be freely redrawn. I agree the borders of Iraq and Syria today are an outcome of the colonial era, but if the country is so tribalized it can blow apart at any moment unless it's kept down by the military, then what chances ar there of bringing about a democratic state? The Kurds want a state of their won, today they are effectively living in their own country but many of them, and many exile Kurds, wish to have a "larger Kurdistan" including large parts of present Turkey and some of NW Iran. That's not going to happen for reasons of big politics, but as long as Iraq is as tribal as this, building democracy isn't just a question of arranging elections and setting up an Iraqi government.

The country is pretty much walking on crutches and is not choosing how to handle its own trade, business, foreign policy and so on. The American influence on all of those fields, and on the economy, is overwhelming.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying redrawing Iraq as multiple countries is your preferred solution? Or that you think it's mine? (My a/c broke and it's ninety-degrees outside, so I may be missing something.)

If it wasn't for the oil, multiple nations might be feasible, but the oil wealth is so centralized in one region that it would screw the others -- and result in conflict.

My point is simply that we have to deal with what we have -- and that's an Iraq that does have these challenges. For them to arrive at a real national identity is made harder by those challenges -- the impression I get is that the typical Iraqi outside of the large cities identifies first as something local before identifying as an Iraqi. That presents problems. I simply think they have a better chance as one nation -- and that they have a better chance of achieving that with support until their government's ready. Something they've already begun the process of -- telling the US it's time to talk about withdrawal.

Of course there's more to it than just arranging elections and setting up a government. And most of that more has to come from inside Iraq -- and they may, ultimately, not want it at all. My opinion is that they should, but it's really for them to decide -- I just think we should provide an environment where they might actually be able to, rather than chaos by default.

By the way, the United Nations is under no obligation to safeguard the precise borders that existed in 1945 or at any point after, and do it indefinitely. If that was it they would have tried to stop the German reunification in 1990- You're casting the UN and the "international community" (mostly enemies of the USA it seems) as a slow, conserving force that doesn't accept any kind of change in borders or state system. Now, the UN involvement in Iraq was more about trying to prevent aggressive war and trying to assure the people were not put to more suffering. This may be niff-naff to you, but the human costs of the embargo in the 1990s (medicines, milk, foodstuffs) and the Iraq war since 2003 have been huge and there is really no reason why the Iraqi people should pay. Let's be honest, if Saddam had been a dictator of Mali or Kenya the US would not have tried to oust him, it would have been a too obscure affair.

And if it had been a border dispute between two insignificant countries in 1991, the UN never would have agreed to anyone getting involved then. Iraq has greater import on the world stage because of its oil -- the Rwandans can die by the millions and no government will take action, because it is too obscure.

For the record, I cast the UN as a bloated, corrupt, ineffectual body whose uselessness and venality is rivaled only by the US Congress, most of whom I think should be keelhauled. Regardless, what I think should have happened in 1991 was a continuation on to Baghdad, the ouster of Hussein and a UN administration of supporting the Iraqis in forming a new government and determining their course. "Sanctions" are a fucking joke -- it seems like every sadistic, murdering dictator on the face of the planet is under some form of UN "sanctions" and the only people actually hurt by it are the innocent citizens of those countries. But don't tell me that UN programs to administer "humanitarian" aid did a damn bit of good, because there's too much evidence that the only thing those programs aided was the bank accounts of a few UN and Iraqi officials.

The US may not have any major land possessions in the Middle East but its presence through military bases, subsidies to regimes and corporate power is overwhelming. In the fifties the US and British effectively deposed the Iranian prime minister Mossadeq when he became too uppity and tried to nationalize the oil industry - as all major oil companies in the countyry were foreign (mostly English and American) and oil was the major export goods of the country, those companies and could easily kill any budding independent competing private companies before they grew big, so nationalization was really the only option to create your own oil industry. I think the Iranians were right in viewing it as a national interest - just consider what would happen in war if their oil industry had been foreign controlled - but it wasn't hard for the US to put him out of action. In Iran and among politically interested people in the Middle East, they have never forgotten that, just as you have never forgotten the Tehran Embassy occupation of 1979-81. Both of those are kind of defining symbols to either side.

That kind of meddling has been going on all through the past century, and I would not agree that the US soldiers guarding the Kuwait -Iraq border between 1991 and 2003 were just keeping up a UN resolution or a ceasefire for the good of Kuwait - it was about US political and corporate interests too. We can argue till Hell freezes over about how much of a real chance the Iraqis had to successfully rebel against Saddam on their own or about how sane the US-Saddam tug-of-war really was after the mid-90s. The main points to me are that

Yeah, the history sucks. What should we do?

1)the US would become an aggressor too when conflict flared up - as it did several times in those years, airspace control and so on. When war broke out in 2003, triggered by the US, America became the instigator.

I don't see it that way. From my perspective, the US was, primarily, left holding the bag on that border. With choices of stay forever, leave or remove the reason for being there.

2)Saddam was not a potentially powerful man outside Iraq after ca 1993; and not any big threat to peace. From most evidence, he had been forced by then to give up all resources to manufacture any WMD's (=any kind of ABC-weapons), and he had lost the respect he needed to stir up major terrorist attacks on other countries. He never rebuilt his WMD capacity; the technical evidence has proved hopelessly elusive after years of post-2003 search. There have been lots of those "petty dictators" and mostly the USA doesn't move in for any reason.

True, very little in the way of WMDs have been found (not none). But he did continue to act like he had them -- so do you take the risk or act if your neighbor says he has a gun and wants to shoot you?

[Ragoczy]

I'd like to add I also think the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was tactically brilliant, and you could argue the Japanese were bound to land in a war with the US soon anyway, so from their óbjectives the Emperor and his generals were right to take that route. I'm happy you recognize this. Which is not the same as saying that Pearl Harbor (or earlier Japanese attacks, the massacres in China etc) were morally straight.

And yet another tangent discussion miles from the original topic -- but what the hell, I'm having fun.

I don't think there's a moral equivalency between Pearl Harbor and massacres in China. And I realize you weren't really implying equality.

So, yes, it should have been clear to the Japanese at the time that the US was eventually going to get into the conflict. Whether it would have been better strategically for them to have waited and consolidated their other positions is arguable, but they may have known or believed that our entry was imminent, in which case their attack made sense. I don't believe in "fair fights", so I don't fault them for not sending us a "Hi, we're going to be at war with you ... Tuesday good to start things off?"-note -- sudden, unexpected, overwhelming force is ideal. Also, their attack was on primarily military targets, to the extent that it was possible with the technology of the time. So I see no moral issue with Pearl Harbor.

Their actions against civilians in China, Korea, etc. -- morally reprehensible.

[Ragoczy]

Can an Obama supporter please explain how you support his position on this from the ABC Primary debate:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax ... he admits it will reduce government revenue ... but he wants to do it anyway ...

Lower capital gains taxes spur investment, investment creates jobs, jobs are good for people who don't have one ...

[mkemse]

Can an Obama supporter please explain how you support his position on this from the ABC Primary debate:



Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax ... he admits it will reduce government revenue ... but he wants to do it anyway ...

Lower capital gains taxes spur investment, investment creates jobs, jobs are good for people who don't have one ...

If you look at the quote you posted he does not say he will raise captial gaines taxes all he said was he would lok at it, many thing have changed in the last couple weeks
I also saw a CBS new poll tonigh that has Obama up 15%

And ealiertoday (Oct 14, 2008 the Chairman of the RNC said if Mccain does not get a huge bump in the Polls aftertomorrows debate, he plans to redirect someo f the money foing to Mccain to other GOP races so even the GOP seems to be loosing faithi n Mcaain ability to win

On the upside, the rock Groups Heart, Jackson Brown Survior and John Cougar Mellencamp have all filed lawsuits again the McCain/Palin ticket using thier songs in their campaign and at the covention without prior permission, as jackson brown said "I do not want any of my songs used by them, i have asked them to stop and they didn't so i filed a law suit, I do not support them or thier ticket and i do not want any one who hears my songs associated with them to think I do, it misrepresents who I am"

I love what was said last night, at Mccain rally he said yes he was concerned about loooisng the race andwanted to focus onthat, later that day Obamam said he want to concentrate on those who may loose their homes, jobs, 401k's, seem ot me big difference in priorities right now
To Bad Ron Paul isn't in this

[Ragoczy]

If you look at the quote you posted he does not say he will raise captial gaines taxes all he said was he would lok at it, many thing have changed in the last couple weeks

Right ... that's the other thing he said recently, that he might have to put off implementing his economic plan because it might have a negative effect on the economy ...

Should the next President have an economic plan that he thinks might make the economy worse?

I love what was said last night, at Mccain rally he said yes he was concerned about loooisng the race andwanted to focus onthat, later that day Obamam said he want to concentrate on those who may loose their homes, jobs, 401k's, seem ot me big difference in priorities right now

What was the question being asked and the context of the two quotes?

At various times in the last couple months, I've said:

My top priority is getting users of the application I'm writing something mocked and, ultimately, useless, so they can test the user-interface.

That doesn't change that my longer-term top priority is to get them an application that's useful to them. Or that my top priority in a different context is to do everything I can to ensure the continued success of the company I work for. And none of that takes away from my ultimate top-priority of taking care of my family.

But what I describe as my "top priority" changes with the context and the specific question I'm answering.

Seems that, right now, yeah, a candidates "top priority" would be winning the election -- since if they don't do that, none of their other priorities really matter.

[hopperboo]

NObama - The Big Spender
NObama - The Supporter of BIG GOVERNMENT

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...rnment_vi.html

[mkemse]

Nobama and our next President

[lucy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...rnment_vi.html

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

However, i don't get to vote so i won't comment further. What i really hope tho is that whoever will be your next president he's capable of bringing you guys and gals closer together again. From over here in Europe it sure looks as if you could use a president that unifies and doesn't alienate Americans further from each other.

[hopperboo]

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

We don't need a Socialist as our president. (IMHO)



But I do agree with you. It would be nice to have a president that could bring the people together. I think a lot of it has to do with the people though...extremists on both sides will not be in favor of sharing something "together." People tend to look first for the differences, and hold onto those issues, instead of the things that would bring them together.

I am not a supporter of big government OR Obama's taxing plan, his plan for Iraq, his stance (the actual voting history, not what he says) on late term abortion, etc. I could very easily deal with a democratic president if there were major points I agreed with. Obama is not that case however.

[mkemse]

If Obama wins and all inidcation w/3 weeks to go are he will do so, let's all give him a chance to prive himaelf
I f you are looking for a New Car, don't NOT buy it because you have a neighbor who does not likes his, YOU try drivinf irt and see f you like it

After 8 years of Bush, we ayt least need to give him chance to prove himself, we don't like he, we vote again in 4 years
I do not want a "Bush Clone" for another 4 years

[hopperboo]

If Obama wins and all inidcation w/3 weeks to go are he will do so, let's all give him a chance to prive himaelf
I f you are looking for a New Car, don't NOT buy it because you have a neighbor who does not likes his, YOU try drivinf irt and see f you like it

After 8 years of Bush, we ayt least need to give him chance to prove himself, we don't like he, we vote again in 4 years
I do not want a "Bush Clone" for another 4 years

McCain is not Bush, and he has shown it with his solid plans and his ability to speak without someone holding his hand. He has shown it with his ability to cross party lines and not be a total dunce in general. I don't want a Bush clone either. I have been keeping up since this campaign started and I wasn't a big fan of McCain until a little later on. Funny thing is, I almost trust McCain. With Obama...I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He is an eloquent speaker, but it plays to whichever type crowd he thinks will bring him the most votes.

I don't want Obama to prove himself. If half of what he supports comes to pass we will have a lot less of our freedoms in disguise of having freedom. (Doesn't make sense does it?) Big government is not our friend.



***"Sentor Obama, I am not President Bush. You wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." - McCain

[DesertDom]

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

However, i don't get to vote so i won't comment further. What i really hope tho is that whoever will be your next president he's capable of bringing you guys and gals closer together again. From over here in Europe it sure looks as if you could use a president that unifies and doesn't alienate Americans further from each other.

Purely on past records, McCain would be the president who could attempt brings the parties together. He has worked throughout his career for the general good, stepping across the party lines many times. I live in Arizona, his home state, and many times, he has mystified us because he appeared to support a socialist cause. In talking to him and I have does so a few times, he really tries to do what is best for the country.

Obama, well, he is the typical party hack, who says what each crowd wants to hear. It really mystifies me as to why the media does not go down the road of exposing his past and his varying stances on issues depending on what crowd he is speaking to. If the media would have done half the investigations into his past and his true stances that they did trying to find dirt on Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton probably would be running against mcCain now.

If Obama is elected and he starts to put his program in, the divisions in this country will get worse than they are now. There will eventually be no middle ground.

[mkemse]

Purely on past records, McCain would be the president who could attempt brings the parties together. He has worked throughout his career for the general good, stepping across the party lines many times. I live in Arizona, his home state, and many times, he has mystified us because he appeared to support a socialist cause. In talking to him and I have does so a few times, he really tries to do what is best for the country.

Obama, well, he is the typical party hack, who says what each crowd wants to hear. It really mystifies me as to why the media does not go down the road of exposing his past and his varying stances on issues depending on what crowd he is speaking to. If the media would have done half the investigations into his past and his true stances that they did trying to find dirt on Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton probably would be running against mcCain now.

If Obama is elected and he starts to put his program in, the divisions in this country will get worse than they are now. There will eventually be no middle ground.

If Mccain wins we have 4 more years of Bush Polucy as MCcAin has supported 95% of all Bush Policies

They can go back on Barack's life, but why bring up what happens in the 60's when he was 8 years old

We need the Candidates to use the last 3 weeks we have to STOP attacking each other to any degree and discuss the issues and their solutions, I personaly do not care who Obamam hung around with when he was 8 years old, he does not associate withthose people now, except on 1 board of directs he is on which has 5 Repulicans on it already anyway

Lets discuss the Housing Issue, Let's Discuss how us taxpayers get our $750 Billoin Dollars back after the Bail Out, Or how they plan to stock AIG for asking for money every other week then taking a $400 weekened outing

These issue concenr me far more the what Obamam did in the 60's

What impresses me, is after Barack got his College DEgree, he turned down countless "Wall Strreet" Job offer with Golden Parachutes, but chose instead to return to Chicago and work in the Inter City, haven't hear MccAin do anything like that
As far as an American Heroe, yes no question McCain is an American Heroe, but so is Bruce Jenner and Nicheal Phelps, but all in different ways
And I do not mean to discredit McCain for his Heroe for survinig being a POW, or his service to his country, but thses qualitfictions alone do not qualify you to be a President

The REality is, if you are drowing 50 yards out from the shore, and see a person standing there with a rope and life presever, you want to know if they can throw the preserver to you and not if they are a Repbulican, Democrat, White, Black, Asian ect
The REality is, when Clinton left office we HAD a $450 Billion Dollar SURRPLUS and Gas was only $1.75 a gallon,

When Bush leaves, we will have a Defecit of almost $1 TRilloin Dollars and be paying $2.50-$3.00 for a Gallong of gas,

I bring this up only because McCain supports most of the current Policies the we have now and needless to say, i can honeslty say NO I AM NOT BETTER NOW THEN I WAS 4 or even 8 YEARS GO, Mccain will simply be 4 more years of Failed Bush Policies

[DesertDom]

If Mccain wins we have 4 more years of Bush Polucy as MCcAin has supported 95% of all Bush Policies

Really hard to discuss on a cogent basis politics when tired political talking points are the only thing being used. To say that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is absurd. McCain has been known for years as going his own way, he thought about leaving the RP because of his beliefs not being mainstream Republican and he is not well thought of here in Arizona amongst conservatives because of his tendency to reach across the aisle and support non conservative issues. I am not a big fan of McCain for his tendency to compromise conservative principles, but out of the 2 choices, he is the better choice for me.

What impresses me, is after Barack got his College DEgree, he turned down countless "Wall Strreet" Job offer with Golden Parachutes, but chose instead to return to Chicago and work in the Inter City, haven't hear MccAin do anything like that

I wold tend to agree with you there about McCain not serving as a community organizer hobnobbing with the likes of Rezko (sp?), McCain was busy serving in the military defending the right to free speech in his younger days.

The REality is, when Clinton left office we HAD a $450 Billion Dollar SURRPLUS and Gas was only $1.75 a gallon,

If you look beyond the political talking points again, you will find that most of the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved by removing money from the SS Genral Fund and was nothing more than an accounting manuever.

[mkemse]

Really hard to discuss on a cogent basis politics when tired political talking points are the only thing being used. To say that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is absurd. McCain has been known for years as going his own way, he thought about leaving the RP because of his beliefs not being mainstream Republican and he is not well thought of here in Arizona amongst conservatives because of his tendency to reach across the aisle and support non conservative issues. I am not a big fan of McCain for his tendency to compromise conservative principles, but out of the 2 choices, he is the better choice for me.



I wold tend to agree with you there about McCain not serving as a community organizer hobnobbing with the likes of Rezko (sp?), McCain was busy serving in the military defending the right to free speech in his younger days.



If you look beyond the political talking points again, you will find that most of the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved by removing money from the SS Genral Fund and was nothing more than an accounting manuever.

ok i will give you that, but so have milloins of other in the service Mccain is/was not the only servinbg our coutry to defend our right nor was he the only POW we ever had, THIS IS IN NO WAY TO DISCREDIT HIM for what he did and went through
Bush only served in the Texas National Guard
I have no issue exceot that Mccain as President to me, is 4 more years of Bush Policies, he has recently tried to distance himself from BUsh, BIG MISTAKE he should have done that MONTHS AGO and not waited til he was a far behind in the Polls ect as he is now, distancing him now to me was nothingf more then a Politcal move based on his past support of Bush, andwithout sounded sexist which iam sure is how this will come out
I think he made a HUGE Mistake is selecting Palin,It was said he did this to attrack Clinton Followers, I seriously doubt alot of her followers would support him, since Palin and Clinton Politicaly are as differnet as summner and winter, but this is just my opnion
and i real apprciate your remarks and comments on thisthread

thank you

[mkemse]

Really hard to discuss on a cogent basis politics when tired political talking points are the only thing being used. To say that McCain is 4 more years of Bush is absurd. McCain has been known for years as going his own way, he thought about leaving the RP because of his beliefs not being mainstream Republican and he is not well thought of here in Arizona amongst conservatives because of his tendency to reach across the aisle and support non conservative issues. I am not a big fan of McCain for his tendency to compromise conservative principles, but out of the 2 choices, he is the better choice for me.



I wold tend to agree with you there about McCain not serving as a community organizer hobnobbing with the likes of Rezko (sp?), McCain was busy serving in the military defending the right to free speech in his younger days.



If you look beyond the political talking points again, you will find that most of the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved by removing money from the SS Genral Fund and was nothing more than an accounting manuever.

even if that WAS thecase, we never the less have almost a Trilloin Dollar deficit right now, the largst in UnistedStates Histiry and oil has gone from $35 a Barrel with cliton to as high as $145 with Bush now back down to about $70 no commodity in US Histry has ever gone up that much in 8 years, if so kindly tell me which one, i have heard omtheradio from Commodities Brokers who said over the last 8 years no commodity has ever gone up 150% in 8 years much less oil
Mccain may have "gone his own way" but he suupported the Iraq invasion, he supported the Tx Rebates, almost every Bill that Bush has signed he has agreed with

Actualy Ron Paul would have been a great choice

Let's have Ron Paul as a Democrat and let the Republicans have Joe Liberman, who to me anyway is a Party Traitor but that is only my opnion

thanks again for all your replies and feeback

I for one will be THRILLED after November 4 is over, just to have it over, enough is enough already

[denuseri]

I actually believe the democratic party betrayed Lieberman. Just as it did Kilpatrick so many years ago.

[Ragoczy]

Looks like a pretty good plan to me.

However, i don't get to vote so i won't comment further. What i really hope tho is that whoever will be your next president he's capable of bringing you guys and gals closer together again. From over here in Europe it sure looks as if you could use a president that unifies and doesn't alienate Americans further from each other.

That's not going to happen. Obama is so far-left that I simply can't support him -- and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. (I also think Clinton should have been charged with perjury, but that's a different issue.)

The Left in this country will simply not be satisfied with a centrist, which McCain actually is (by American standards). His history of bipartisan legislation (McCain-Feingold, -Leiberman, -Kennedy, etc.) is irrelevant to a large, vocal horde.

[Ragoczy]

If Obama wins and all inidcation w/3 weeks to go are he will do so, let's all give him a chance to prive himaelf
I f you are looking for a New Car, don't NOT buy it because you have a neighbor who does not likes his, YOU try drivinf irt and see f you like it

After 8 years of Bush, we ayt least need to give him chance to prove himself, we don't like he, we vote again in 4 years
I do not want a "Bush Clone" for another 4 years

"Let's give him a chance" only works if there's doubts about his policies. I know I don't want socialized medicine in this country and that's his plan. I know, because it's been historically proven, that increasing capital gains taxes will harm the economy and cost jobs. I know that increasing the minimum wage results in job losses and is primarily a tactic to increase union wages.

I don't need to give the man a chance to know I don't want him doing these things.

[mkemse]

I actually believe the democratic party betrayed Lieberman. Just as it did Kilpatrick so many years ago.

No Lieberman betrayd the Dems. not sure how you seem the Dems betyraying him??
He was the Dem who lost his election, He WAS THE DEM who Decided to Run as an Independnt, he was The Dem who indorsed MCCain and spoke at The Repbulcan Convention,, i seem NO Democratic Beytrayl here, i see lots of Lieberman betryal here however, please clarify that

thanks

[mkemse]

That's not going to happen. Obama is so far-left that I simply can't support him -- and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. (I also think Clinton should have been charged with perjury, but that's a different issue.)

The Left in this country will simply not be satisfied with a centrist, which McCain actually is (by American standards). His history of bipartisan legislation (McCain-Feingold, -Leiberman, -Kennedy, etc.) is irrelevant to a large, vocal horde.

Mccain will be 4 more years of unsucceful Bush policy Obama at least brings a clean slte in, the country seems to be behind Obamam and I believe thier anger towards Bush is the reason MCcain will loose, not necessarily because MCcAn supports most of Bush's Policy, but I believe America is just tried of Republican Ruler (or lack there of) over the last 8 years, McCain's loss if he does loose is more of Bush's fault the his own and rhe RNC sais ysetrday that if he did NOT score a huge win in the last Debate, that they will strat to funnel there money to stater and local election where REubplcans are trying to hold onto seats in both houses
Seems to me The RNC is abandoning thier own choice for President, and they formal took all ad moey out of Michigan today as well as cancelling all future ads there, McCain said he wants to keep runing ads there to try and catch up, the RNC said NO

[Ragoczy]

Let's have Ron Paul as a Democrat and let the Republicans have Joe Liberman, who to me anyway is a Party Traitor but that is only my opnion

The treatment of Leiberman by the Democrat Party was despicable in my opinion.

He disagreed with the party-line on a single issue and had the moral courage to stick with his convictions, so they go after him politically. Is there actually no room for disagreement with the party-line? Is it really all-or-nothing?

I've never heard of the Republican Party doing something like that. In fact, my own Representative is a Republican and voted against the surge -- he didn't think it was a good idea. There were no political repercussions -- the Party didn't withdraw their support and throw it behind a challenger for his seat.

You know, believe it or not, I self-identified for years with the Democrat Party -- and it's crap like their treatment of Leiberman and Zel Miller that drove me away.

[denuseri]

It is funny how the former VP pick for the party of Al Gore has been literally blacklisted for standing up for whats right.

The Dems and especially the media often have hung him out to dry becuase he refused to allow Ned Lamont (a party yes man) to walk in and take his seat?! Or becuase he is Jewish and subsecuntly supports Isreal?

Sounds to me its the ussuall liberal propaganda at work yet again, if you disagree with even a small position on the party dogma and dont allways do as your told, watch out we will brand you a traitor or kick you to the curb unless your Ted Kennedy then your excused becuase your drunken royalty?!


"I'm a loyal Democrat, but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party, and that's my loyalty to my state and my country."

Joe Lieberman

I have allways liked Lieberman becuase he doesnt follow party lines so much as he follows whats right.

[DesertDom]

I actually believe the democratic party betrayed Lieberman. Just as it did Kilpatrick so many years ago.

No kidding, Lieberman did an incredibly courageous thing in backing someone who he felt was the right choice irregardless of party lines. He knew what it would cost him and did so anyway. He deserves a lot of respect for having the courage to follow through on his convictions.

And it is incredibly telling for those who bother who to pay attention how the Democratic party treated him.

[Ragoczy]

No Lieberman betrayd the Dems. not sure how you seem the Dems betyraying him??
He was the Dem who lost his election, He WAS THE DEM who Decided to Run as an Independnt, he was The Dem who indorsed MCCain and spoke at The Repbulcan Convention,, i seem NO Democratic Beytrayl here, i see lots of Lieberman betryal here however, please clarify that

thanks

That scenario only holds water if you start at him losing the primary. Look at the reason he lost the primary: he didn't follow the party-line on one issue and the party threw all its support behind a challenger for his seat. What follows isn't him "betraying", it's him standing on principle and not rolling over.

Again I ask: Is there no room in the Democrat Party for personal conviction? Is it all party-line?