BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

[SD Jarhead]

This year, the candidate is a very good candidate, terrific personality, and ability to get people excited. That's why this year should be a lot different. Gore and Kerry just sucked ass. You may hate Obama's policies and think he never did anything and doesn't deserve to be where he is but he's a fabulous candidate, speaker, campaigner, organizer, etc.

 

I do disagree with just about all of the Messiah's policies and that he hasn't really done anything. I also think he is terribly naive WRT foreign policy and diplomacy. But I do not disagree that he has, to this point, been a good candidate for the Dem's. He's articulate and has a few notable speeches. His performance so far has only been in the primaries though. It remains to be seen how he'll do leading up to the big show when he's not perperually getting his ass kissed by the adoring masses of Lefties.

[Kelly the Dog]

I do disagree with just about all of the Messiah's policies and that he hasn't really done anything. I also think he is terribly naive WRT foreign policy and diplomacy. But I do not disagree that he has, to this point, been a good candidate for the Dem's. He's articulate and has a few notable speeches. His performance so far has only been in the primaries though. It remains to be seen how he'll do leading up to the big show when he's not perperually getting his ass kissed by the adoring masses of Lefties.

It's not going to be easy and it's surely going to be nasty. But IMO this is where his abilities as a candidate are going to shine. He's not like earlier candidates in that respect. He's not easily ruffled. He's usually (but not always) very smooth and controlled. His team and organization and he himself have had an extraordinarily quick learning curve in the primary and he usually doesn't make the same mistake twice (evidenced in how quickly they are able to blunt or stave off potential problems now versus the beginning).

 

His talent as an organizer in both literal and theoretical uses is highly underestimated (meaning it's right up there at the top of most important things in a campaign but not talked about much). His ability to raise money and get people excited is inarguable.

 

One of the things that haven't been spoken about IMO has been the decision making of his campaign, which has also been terrific. And why I think he could end up being a good President. One of the reasons he is being called an empty suit and lacking in programs and ideas is that they have been intentionally avoiding it. Because they were winning. It was unnecessary and one of the few ways he could have lost once they started the locomotive running. He has very detailed plans and ideas on a lot of policy but they themselves decided it wasn't worth it to get into because that isn't the game right now, the game is winning. If he was losing you would have seen a lot more of that kind of stuff. But he hasn't fought Hillary on a lot of issues, he hasn't done a lot of meat because they realized early on that the "change" and "hope" and outside Washington stuff was working so well, why mess with it. This race was over MONTHS ago and they all knew it, and the campaign made a lot of smart decisions IMO.

 

He actually answers questions that are posed to him, which is a remarkable trait for a politician. Again, you may hate what he says or think he is naive or unprepared, but he has talent for what the great politicians in our day (like Reagan and Bill Clinton) have, which is an ability to work a room, work the press, and perform. Like it or not, that is what wins elections. I am not saying I believe he is just an empty suit, I don't at all. I think he's an extremely smart guy. He's just a talented politician regardless of policy.

 

I'm a proud bleeding heart liberal. But I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. Not because I loved his policies but I genuinely thought that is what the country needed at the time. We were being bullied around the world, we'd lost a lot of our confidence and mojo and I just felt we needed a guy like that right then more than someone with more policies I liked. And that's why I like Obama now. I think the country needs a guy like him now because we have lost a ton of strength around the world. I think he is the right guy to mend a lot of those broken fences. I think he will be the antithesis of the my way or highway attitude I think has crippled our standing in the world.

[DC Tom]

The difference this year IMO is your assessment of the Democrats' problems. The "lightweight" in the last two elections has easily been the Republican candidate. And you're right about the fact the Dems couldn't beat the weakest President in decades when IMO Bush was the weakest Presidential candidate even before he imploded. The problems for the Dems wasn't that the candidates were lightweights, it was that they were criminally terrible candidates, personalities and campaigners. Kerry and Gore were highly qualified, they just sucked ass as candidates and I don't even think most Democrats liked them at all, they just liked the majority of democratic stances versus Republican stances.

 

This year, the candidate is a very good candidate, terrific personality, and ability to get people excited. That's why this year should be a lot different. Gore and Kerry just sucked ass. You may hate Obama's policies and think he never did anything and doesn't deserve to be where he is but he's a fabulous candidate, speaker, campaigner, organizer, etc.

 

I just wanted to say that, save your estimation of Kerry's and Gore's qualifications, I agree with this.

[Kelly the Dog]

I just wanted to say that, save your estimation of Kerry's and Gore's qualifications, I agree with this.

All I really meant by it were generalizations, meaning they had a lot of "resume" experience in politics, the Senate, the White House, high level committees, Washington, military, etc. I didn't mean to imply they were authorities on any of this stuff. As opposed to the inexperienced Obama, Bush (as Governor) and even Hillary.

[SD Jarhead]

I think he will be the antithesis of the my way or highway attitude I think has crippled our standing in the world.

 

I don't disagree with most of what you posted, but have to call BS on this opinion. Where has he demonstrated that he is anything but a left wing politician? Isn't that the Dem's beef with Bush (other than Flightsuit, Haliburton...etc)?

 

The whole change thing is merely change to the hard left, which is in my opinion not what we need. We need someone who can lead from the middle. This is something Clinton actually did fairly well. He worked hard to push welfare reform through congress as an example. I just don't hear any of this coming from the Messiah.

 

One of the things I respect about McCain and it is the thing that most Republicans have a problem with, is that he will reach across the aisle if it means getting something he believes is in our national interest done. I don't always agree with him, but I respect that he has a proven track record of having done so, often times at great political risk.

 

Give me one example from the Messiah of having crossed party lines to move an idea forward...I don't believe you can come up with one.

 

Make no mistake about it, McCain is a politician (look at his 'gas tax holiday' sham), but you're fooling yourself if you think the Messiah is any different.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't disagree with most of what you posted, but have to call BS on this opinion. Where has he demonstrated that he is anything but a left wing politician? Isn't that the Dem's beef with Bush (other than Flightsuit, Haliburton...etc)?

 

The whole change thing is merely change to the hard left, which is in my opinion not what we need. We need someone who can lead from the middle. This is something Clinton actually did fairly well. He worked hard to push welfare reform through congress as an example. I just don't hear any of this coming from the Messiah.

 

One of the things I respect about McCain and it is the thing that most Republicans have a problem with, is that he will reach across the aisle if it means getting something he believes is in our national interest done. I don't always agree with him, but I respect that he has a proven track record of having done so, often times at great political risk.

 

Give me one example from the Messiah of having crossed party lines to move an idea forward...I don't believe you can come up with one.

 

Make no mistake about it, McCain is a politician (look at his 'gas tax holiday' sham), but you're fooling yourself if you think the Messiah is any different.

The line you quoted has nothing to do with partisan politics and the fact he is a liberal. I am talking about working with other countries, not going around saying we're bigger and stronger than you and if you don't like what we're doing get lost. I think, and said it even before the war, that part of Bush's problem with the war started long before it. He immediately took the cowboy approach on the world stage well before 9/11. You may have hated the Kyoto Treaty and thought it was stupid but Bush's stance on it had a HUGE effect on the Iraq war. He came out of there saying to the rest of the world, we don't need you, we have our own way of doing things. A lot of the reason there was difficulty gaining a strong coalition for the war was the fact other countries were playing payback. They just said you're so tough, and don't need us, screw you. And that's exactly what happened.

 

Obama is the antithesis of that. He's very ingratiating. A lot of politics that is just show and appearance is very important and not just performance. It's making people in general and world leaders and countries as a whole believe in you and that you're trying to do the right thing. America has lost the moral high ground in the last eight years. When Hillary or even McCain or the press or the right wing have attacked him he almost always just takes the high ground, and says there isn't room for this. That's a personality trait and to me, a talent I think he can utilize on the world stage.

[SD Jarhead]

The line you quoted has nothing to do with partisan politics and the fact he is a liberal. I am talking about working with other countries, not going around saying we're bigger and stronger than you and if you don't like what we're doing get lost. I think, and said it even before the war, that part of Bush's problem with the war started long before it. He immediately took the cowboy approach on the world stage well before 9/11. You may have hated the Kyoto Treaty and thought it was stupid but Bush's stance on it had a HUGE effect on the Iraq war. He came out of there saying to the rest of the world, we don't need you, we have our own way of doing things. A lot of the reason there was difficulty gaining a strong coalition for the war was the fact other countries were playing payback. They just said you're so tough, and don't need us, screw you. And that's exactly what happened.

 

Obama is the antithesis of that. He's very ingratiating. A lot of politics that is just show and appearance is very important and not just performance. It's making people in general and world leaders and countries as a whole believe in you and that you're trying to do the right thing. America has lost the moral high ground in the last eight years. When Hillary or even McCain or the press or the right wing have attacked him he almost always just takes the high ground, and says there isn't room for this. That's a personality trait and to me, a talent I think he can utilize on the world stage.

 

I understand and sort of agree with your viewpoint on Bush. I don't like his Texas tough-guy approach, but the Kyoto treaty was a bad deal for us that I am very glad we didn't get roped into.

 

You make a good point about the Messiah, he is smooth and I must admit, I like his appearance of taking the high ground. For me it's the issue of style over substance. And yes, he wins on style points. I'm more of a substance person. That's the thing w/ Bush. If that fukker had an ounce of understanding about presentation I think he'd have been much more effective. Look no farther than Reagan as someone who pissed people off in doing the right thing but was smooth about it and could disarm some of his adversaries. Bush, I feel, believes he's doing the right thing, but he could care less about the public appearance.

 

At the end of the day, I am more comfortable (at this point) with what McCain brings to the table. Anyhow, gotta go be productive...

[Bishop Hedd]

Well the RepubliCons are piling on Scotty like so many Mean Machine atop of Ray Nitschke. Now it is Viagara spokesman and failed presedential nominee Bob Dole's turn; http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart..._McClellan.html

 

 

Note, once again, how the right wing stooges attack McClellan but say nothing of the points he made in the book.

[DC Tom]

Well the RepubliCons are piling on Scotty like so many Mean Machine atop of Ray Nitschke. Now it is Viagara spokesman and failed presedential nominee Bob Dole's turn; http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart..._McClellan.html

 

 

Note, once again, how the right wing stooges attack McClellan but say nothing of the points he made in the book.

 

You know, you don't really have posts, per se. It's more like you have an uncontrollable spastic reflex.

[Peter]

The book (at least the reports about the book) confirms what a lot of us already knew. The reason the architects wanted to go to war had little or nothing to do with WMD. You may recall that the inspectors were there and were in the process of confirming that there were no WMD. We pulled them out.

 

The war was about achieving the PRE-September 11 goals of the neoconservatives to re-make the Middle East and help certain allies. Although the real goals that the administration had were legitimate, they were certainly not sufficient under the circumstances to justify a decision to go to war (especially without the type of coaltion that George H.W. Bush built for the first Gulf War).

 

Moreover, from a practical perspective, the architects of this war knew that there was no way to sell the war to the American people on this basis or for the cost that we would have to bear.

 

Instead, the administration used 9/11, the deaths of 3,000 Americans, WMD, and Al Qaeda to sell the war. They lead the American people (about 80% at one time) to believe that Saddam and Iraq were involved with 9/11. They spoke of not letting a mushroom cloud over NYC be the smoking gun etc. To further sell the war, Cheney said that we would be greeted as liberators and Wolfowitz testified that the Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the reconstruction.

 

The war was a war of CHOICE not one of necessity. It was a choice that never should have been made for a whole host of reasons including the lack of support from our allies. It distracted us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. Moreover, it pissed away all of the goodwill we had around the world after 9/11.

 

As I said earlier, the real reasons for the war were not illegitimate (they just were not sufficient in my mind under the circumstances). The administration should have tried to sell the war on its own merits and also informed the American people of the costs of going to war. If they had done that, the American people could have made a much more informed decision whether to support the war. [i seriously doubt that the Country would have supported the war if the adminstration had leveled with the American people.] Further, if the administration had been straight with the American people regarding the administration's primary reasons for going to war, we would not be in the mess we are in. We either would not be there (because the American people would not have supported it) or the American people nevertheless would have supported the war and W would be subject to the claims that the country was misled.

 

The other problem (as I see it) was the administration did not view time as being on their side. The longer it took to go to war, the more likely it would have been that there would be confirmation that Saddam did not pose any threat to us and support for the war would diminish. [As Colin Powell said in an interview some months before 9/11, Saddam posed no threat to us given the no fly zone etc -- when, oh by the way, we were only spending $5 billion per YEAR on Iraq].

 

Because of this, the administration compounded its initial mistake of pursuing a war of choice by not having enough troops and not sufficiently preparing for the occupation phase.

 

George W. Bush will go down as one of the worst (if not the worst) presidents in the history of the United States. Further, he did not take advantage of the opportunity he had to accomplish paleo conservative goals that he could have accomplished. He pissed it and everything else away on the war. He also has crippled the Republican party (of which I am a member). I have some doubts about McCain, but I hope that he can rebuild the party and win in November.

 

As an aside, I seriously doubt that W came up with the idea of going to war with Iraq on his own. I believe that this was driven by the neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, and Wolfowitz who wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11. [Those of you who have not read "A Clean Break: A New Stategy for Securing the Realm" may want to google it.] Perle and Wolfowitz in particular were beating the war drums against Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when there was no reason to suspect Iraq and every reason to blame Al Qaeda. W's biggest failing is his lack of curiousity. He failed to ask the tough questions -- like many members of Congress and the media.

 

Just my two cents.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

As I said earlier, the real reasons for the war were not illegitimate (they just were not sufficient in my mind under the circumstances). The administration should have tried to sell the war on its own merits and also informed the American people of the costs of going to war. If they had done that, the American people could have made a much more informed decision whether to support the war. [i seriously doubt that the Country would have supported the war if the adminstration had leveled with the American people.] Further, if the administration had been straight with the American people regarding the administration's primary reasons for going to war, we would not be in the mess we are in. We either would not be there (because the American people would not have supported it) or the American people nevertheless would have supported the war and W would be subject to the claims that the country was misled.

 

...

 

As an aside, I seriously doubt that W came up with the idea of going to war with Iraq on his own. I believe that this was driven by the neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, and Wolfowitz who wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11. [Those of you who have not read "A Clean Break: A New Stategy for Securing the Realm" may want to google it.] Perle and Wolfowitz in particular were beating the war drums against Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when there was no reason to suspect Iraq and every reason to blame Al Qaeda. W's biggest failing is his lack of curiousity. He failed to ask the tough questions -- like many members of Congress and the media.

really good analysis Peter

 

In all fairness to Dubya, given his collection of advisers, he really didn't know what the costs would be, especially if they were using Afghanistan as a primary data point. The reasons were all wrong as you stated, but Hindsight 20/20 on the costs. Then again (also as you corrected pointed out) they didn't plan the occupation, so it's no surprising how far off they were on the projected costs.

 

You are also correct he didn't come up with the idea on his own. People that were in the room at Camp David 4 days after 9/11 when the response was being formulated, gave specific accounts of Wolfowicz and others trying to position Saddam and Iraq as the #1 threat in Middle East, if not the world. CIA and others said it was not the case; there was no evidence that supported that connection. George Tenet then ordered his team to check everything they had going back 10 years to see if there was a link that connected Iraq to 9/11 and there was none. However, the pro-Iraq invasion group eventually convinced Bush that he needed to remove Sadam and he ran with it...

[ExiledInIllinois]

The whole Iraq/WMD horse has been beaten to death, so pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel good. The fact remains that your boys (the Democrats) couldn't beat the weakest President in decades during the past election cycle. Again I ask, why? The point has already been established that the Bush Admin. sucks at marketing.

 

The funny thing is it looks like the Dem's are repeating history all over again with the Messiah. Another election, another lightweight. The schit would be funny if it wasn't such an important time in our history.

 

Oh, and nice use of song lyrics to prove your point...it really adds gravitas to your argument!

 

The Bush people are really GOOD at marketing... It has taken five years to realize this? Where were you in 2003? Was your heart pitter pattering?

 

That's such a dumb argument... You can't beat the mob mentality (we Dems really know that and have mastered that! ), now couple that with the low mentality and low intelligence of the person who voted for Bush and his cronies in the first place. I never said that Bush was dumb, actually pretty smart... Same with Hillary... They are very bright people and know how to use the dummies in this country to their advantage... The president is actually very strong, he sure knows how to get people to vote for his lame agenda.

 

You don't beat the president... You have to sway the hearts and minds of the people that VOTE for the president... It is those hearts and minds that is slightly above a slug.

 

No badge of honor here JarHead. Now go wrap yourself in a flag and gently sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Halls of Montezuma or whatever...

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

The Bush people are really GOOD at marketing... It has taken five years to realize this? Where were you in 2003? Was your heart pitter pattering?

 

That's such a dumb argument... You can't beat the mob mentality (we Dems really know that and have mastered that! ), now couple that with the low mentality and low intelligence of the person who voted for Bush and his cronies in the first place. I never said that Bush was dumb, actually pretty smart... Same with Hillary... They are very bright people and know how to use the dummies in this country to their advantage... The president is actually very strong, he sure knows how to get people to vote for his lame agenda.

 

You don't beat the president... You have to sway the hearts and minds of the people that VOTE for the president... It is those hearts and minds that is slightly above a slug.

 

No badge of honor here JarHead. Now go wrap yourself in a flag and gently sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Halls of Montezuma or whatever...

 

 

So, you are saying, only dumb people vote? Well, I'll never vote again then. I don't want to be no dummy. Ha. That el learn em. Use me, will they!

[Wacka]

In my view it is the people with the low mentality and low intelligence that vote for the dems and liberals.

[blzrul]

In my view it is the people with the low mentality and low intelligence that vote for the dems and liberals.

Thereby proving out your low IQ. It's well documented and even Karl Rove admits that the more educated and intelligent people are, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I posted that quote here years ago.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Thereby proving out your low IQ. It's well documented and even Karl Rove admits that the more educated and intelligent people are, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I posted that quote here years ago.

 

You're a bigger fool than I thought. I don't believe even Kelly was saying one side has a monoploy on dumbness, or eliteness.

[SD Jarhead]

You mean Karl Rove the *Evil Genius*? Oh my Gosh!

 

Your stupid!

No, your stupid!

You're an idiot!

Well your a idiot to!

[SilverNRed]

Thereby proving out your low IQ. It's well documented and even Karl Rove admits that the more educated and intelligent people are, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I posted that quote here years ago.

I really doubt that Karl Rove ever said "The more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to vote for my party."

 

As for "educated", anyone who's even been in academia will tell you that some of the dumbest people in the world have a lot of degrees under their belt.

[Andrew in CA]

In my view it is the people with the low mentality and low intelligence that vote for the dems and liberals.

In my view it is the people with the low mentality and low intelligence that blindly follow one party.

[Alaska Darin]

In my view it is the people with the low mentality and low intelligence that blindly follow one party.

Amen, brother.