Sara Palin

[drk]

Your sharp fangs are showing.

As to Obama, he is inheirently unlikable as a leader, so he will lose.

As to Bush, the sum total of his presidency is this: we have not been attacked on his watch since 9/11.

My personal opinion on Bush is favorable. I don't see him as the conservative warrior this country is going to need at some point, but he did fulfull his chief mission: keep this country safe.

There was a good Thomas Sowell yesterday. Did you read it? I subscribe to his thesis.

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

[Pete Hanlin]

What, specifically, impressed you about McCain?
I was most impressed by his POW account. Specifically in how he entered Vietnam as someone who was very focused on himself and how his focus was transformed during his time as a POW. I'm sure there will be cynics out there that say its "so much BS," but two things give me pause. First, interviews with those who knew McCain before and after his experience confirm he did undergo a change in view and second I kinda believe the experience would have a profound effect on a person.

By contrast, having read Sen. Obama's book- and having heard him speak on several occasions- I think he is a man focused primarily on himself. His rhetoric revolves around what I will do for the people of this country. McCain summed it up well in his speech. McCain doesn't feel that he is destined to lead the country or that the country requires his leadership- he seems to approach his candidacy as an opportunity to give back to his country. You choose to believe him or not- having listened to him, I believe him.

Dude, McCain is the one with the reputation for being a hothead. Obama may sling mud under pressure, McCain may launch nukes. I'm sorry, that would be nuk-u-lar weapons, in the repubican vernacular.
Thank you Spexvet. I grimace when I see some of the conservatives on this board who make insulting comments about liberals. I can always count on you to demonstrate that the blade cuts both ways.

Because he isn't:
Sen. Obama (and other Democrats) are going to have a tough road to hoe if they're hoping to make Republicans believe McCain isn't a maverick. I've spent over a decade being annoyed at McCain's "going against the grain" approach to politics. Now you're trying to convince me he's just another loyal GOP lackey... Next you'll be trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge.

Look at the record - for the last eight years, the repubican controlled executive and both legislatives branches of the federal government, with McCain featured as a leader in the senate actually spent money we don't have, and didn't have a plan to pay the bill - I don't call that "being on my side, or the side of my kids, grandkids, etc." And what did we get for all the repubican spending? Better healthcare? Cheaper gas? Less reliance on foriegn oil? More jobs? No. The rich got richer, and a whole lot of folks got killed and injured in Iraq. And when the injured ones got back to the US, they got to stay in lovely, paint peeling, mold infested Walter Reed Hospital. There is nothing to indicate that the next repubican will do anything different.
Wow, you sound like a Democrat political ad... guess you just buy straight into whatever they sell you. Its probably easier to just repeat what the party feeds you, but just make an attempt to look into the kind of spending Sen. Obama is promising. As for Republican spending, I'm right with you- the most disappointing aspect of this administration has been a lack of fiscal responsibility (see, you can find fault with someone in your own party- its called being objective). McCain is promising to cut spending, Obama is promising to dramatically increase spending. All politicians are liable to failing to live up to their promises, but I'd much rather back the guy who at least indicates an intention to reduce spending (rather than hope the other guy doesn't get away with spending what he wants).

To you. He's no Newt Gingrich. Biden is a well-respected senator.
Well, you are consistent- as always. There isn't a single member of the GOP you respect is there? There's plenty of Democrats who would have made excellent VP picks, but Obama chose one of the most polarizing Democrats in the Senate. Oh, and Rep. Gingrich was the author of the only significant political reformation in the past 20 years- the Contract with America. Unfortunately, that contract wasn't honored- but its inception was brilliant.

You don't understand. I'm shocked that Americans would vote for someone who espouses the same failed policies and practices of the last eight years, and who lied in her official capacity (I don't care if someone lies about their personal life).
Isn't it inconvenient when you have to clarify when its "okay" to lie- but that will happen when... well, we'll leave that alone. I'd like to hear what specific "failed practices" of this administration are being espoused by the McCain/Palin team. Oh, and btw- your guy was caught lying on official subjects as well as personal.

Well, repubicans are involved, aren't they?
Yep, Republicans will be up to their arms in the muck- which is something I point out rather consistently. And there's the difference- I see faults on both sides of the aisle (because that is reality). You, on the other hand, seem to see a wonderland on one side and a wasteland on the other. News flash- both parties reek of corruption, deceit, and "me first country secondism." Neither one of these candidates will bring salvation to a country addicted to spending- and neither one will devastate a nation with the resiliance of America.

As for the 'balance the budget' issue - Puh-leeze! Recent history has shown the budget deficit grows far more under a Republican President than a Democratic one, even though they all mindlessly recite the fiscal responsibility mantra over and over again.
Yeah, yeah, yeah- if it weren't for those spend happy Republicans, then those thrifty and fiscally-conscientious Democrats could really save us all some money (and before I hear anything about Clinton balancing the budget, explain why he didn't seem focused on that task until after he had lost Congress to the Republicans). They ALL spend too much money. As indicated earlier, I'd just rather back the guy who isn't promising to spend money on everything under the sun. Note I included two items that are budget busters- and the Iraq War was one of them.

For all you folks who have bought into Obama, relax. The electoral map is WAY on your side this go round. Short of a few million people losing track of what day it is and forgetting to vote, Obama will walk away with the election- maybe even with an electoral mandate. And, for all my disdain of him (now that I've had time to take a look at what he brings), Obama won't sink the country (unless Congress loses its sanity and approves some massive new entitlement in the form of national health care). If national health care becomes a reality, I'll get to chuckle when my grandson shows me his first paycheck and whines about the confiscation of 62% by various government programs. I'll pat him on the back and say, "Well, at least you have 'free' health care!"

As for VP Palin, I suggest a nice tall glass of "chill out" everyone!

[shanbaum]

Your sharp fangs are showing.

As to Obama, he is inheirently unlikable as a leader, so he will lose.

As to Bush, the sum total of his presidency is this: we have not been attacked on his watch since 9/11.

My personal opinion on Bush is favorable. I don't see him as the conservative warrior this country is going to need at some point, but he did fulfull his chief mission: keep this country safe.

There was a good Thomas Sowell yesterday. Did you read it? I subscribe to his thesis.

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

If Obama is indeed unlikeable (and incapable of "leading"), I wonder how one might explain the massive crowds, the historically large amount of money raised, his defeat of a "shoo-in" on his first try... those sorts of things. Lucky, I guess.

If you conclude, upon review of what the current administration has done since 9/11, that their actions have in fact prevented another attack, well, I probably just can't argue the point with you. I believe that Bush gave bin Laden exactly what he wanted (an attack on a Middle Eastern country, and the elevation of al Quaeda to a kind of parity with the U.S. in the minds of Muslims), and that most of the actions of this administration have directly diminished our ability to detect and prevent another attack. But we've been through all that before. McCain is your guy; he looks at foreign policy as you do, apparently, where every action ends in "victory" or "defeat". I'm just not acute enough to understand the world in those terms.

Sowell's conclusion (that Reagan's military expenditures in the 1980's led to the demise of the USSR) is risible; if Gorbachev (or someone else unwilling to use force to hold the Soviet Union together) had not acceeded to power in the USSR, the cold war (and the USSR) would persist to this day.

[drk]

For all you folks who have bought into Obama, relax. The electoral map is WAY on your side this go round. Short of a few million people losing track of what day it is and forgetting to vote, Obama will walk away with the election- maybe even with an electoral mandate. And, for all my disdain of him (now that I've had time to take a look at what he brings), Obama won't sink the country (unless Congress loses its sanity and approves some massive new entitlement in the form of national health care). If national health care becomes a reality, I'll get to chuckle when my grandson shows me his first paycheck and whines about the confiscation of 62% by various government programs. I'll pat him on the back and say, "Well, at least you have 'free' health care!"

Hey Pete. I'm going to take you to task!

Check out this electoral vote map: BHO is not light years ahead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mccain/?map=10

Granted, it factors in polls to date, not how they'll play out. Yes, he leads largely when factoring out battleground states.


Here's what everyone seems to be missing in the media:
If Barack is elected, he will have Congress in his back pocket. Supreme court judges will beat a path to retirement.

If John is elected, he will have to compromise tremendously to get anything done at all. He will not be a strong president short of being Mr. Veto. Supreme court justices may hold on a little longer, as well, but it will be difficult for an obviously conservative justice to be confirmed.

McCain will have to be bi-partisan in the truest sense of the word. Obama will steamroll his agenda.

High stakes for conservative America...we need John just to play defense.

[Steve Machol]

Yeah, yeah, yeah- if it weren't for those spend happy Republicans, then those thrifty and fiscally-conscientious Democrats could really save us all some money (and before I hear anything about Clinton balancing the budget, explain why he didn't seem focused on that task until after he had lost Congress to the Republicans).

Name the last Republican President who submitted a balance budget?

I'm sorry but Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to fiscal responsibility. The proof is in their actions, not their words.

And the latest trick of taking certian items 'off-budget' (can you say Iraq War?) is further hypocrisy.

I have no doubt that if the American people were told they would have to pay for this war instead of forcing their children and grandchildren to do it, we would never have started this war to begin with. The hypocrisy extends to us the American people as well.

P.S. I voted for Reagan over Carter in 1980 because of Carter's deficits only to watch Reagan dwarf them.

[Jana Lewis]

By contrast, having read Sen. Obama's book- and having heard him speak on several occasions- I think he is a man focused primarily on himself. His rhetoric revolves around what I will do for the people of this country. McCain summed it up well in his speech. McCain doesn't feel that he is destined to lead the country or that the country requires his leadership- he seems to approach his candidacy as an opportunity to give back to his country. You choose to believe him or not- having listened to him, I believe him.

I thought Obama's mantra was " Yes WE Can" ????

[drk]

If Obama is indeed unlikeable (and incapable of "leading"), I wonder how one might explain the massive crowds, the historically large amount of money raised, his defeat of a "shoo-in" on his first try... those sorts of things. Lucky, I guess.

I think you will find that Obama leaves a sour taste. He did best when he was a fresh unknown.

If you conclude, upon review of what the current administration has done since 9/11, that their actions have in fact prevented another attack, well, I probably just can't argue the point with you. I believe that Bush gave bin Laden exactly what he wanted (an attack on a Middle Eastern country, and the elevation of al Quaeda to a kind of parity with the U.S. in the minds of Muslims), and that most of the actions of this administration have directly diminished our ability to detect and prevent another attack. But we've been through all that before. McCain is your guy; he looks at foreign policy as you do, apparently, where every action ends in "victory" or "defeat". I'm just not acute enough to understand the world in those terms.

It's impossible, I agree, to attribute cause and effect in something as near-chaotic as human events. The fact stands, however, as you will agree.

You are well within your rights to argue a different root cause of that fact. I'm going to credit the federal leadership, including Congress who--for all their political haymaking and bellyaching--in essence supported the war.

Sowell's conclusion (that Reagan's military expenditures in the 1980's led to the demise of the USSR) is risible; if Gorbachev (or someone else unwilling to use force to hold the Soviet Union together) had not acceeded to power in the USSR, the cold war (and the USSR) would persist to this day

Maybe, maybe not. All we can go on is tangibles.


Shanbaum, deep question to a deep liberal, and I won't get touchy-feel-y or resort to a logical attack: Do you ascribe to the reality of good vs. evil?

[DragonLensmanWV]

Your sharp fangs are showing.

As to Obama, he is inheirently unlikable as a leader, so he will lose.

As to Bush, the sum total of his presidency is this: we have not been attacked on his watch since 9/11.

My personal opinion on Bush is favorable. I don't see him as the conservative warrior this country is going to need at some point, but he did fulfull his chief mission: keep this country safe.

There was a good Thomas Sowell yesterday. Did you read it? I subscribe to his thesis.

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

Wow, your sharp fangs are showing.
We were attacked on 9-11 with only one other attack since WW2. I'd say we're pretty safe anyway until Bush PO'd the rest of the world.

[drk]

Dragon timline?
Pearl Harbor
Bush pisses off world
9/11

[shanbaum]

Maybe, maybe not. All we can go on is tangibles.

Recall the logical fallcy of correlation = causation.

Shanbaum, deep question to a deep liberal, and I won't get touchy-feel-y or resort to a logical attack: Do you ascribe to the reality of good vs. evil?

If you mean the reality of both good and evil: no, I am not a Manichaean; are you? I know many Christian fundamentalists who are; Mani lives!

Were I a Christian, I would be more an Augustinian (or neo-Platonist, if you will)... evil as the absence of good (analogous to darkness as the absence of light).

[shanbaum]

I think you will find that Obama leaves a sour taste. He did best when he was a fresh unknown.

Maybe... but I know that if I hear "theenks but no theenks" one more time, I'm gonna puke...

[drk]

Recall the logical fallcy of correlation = causation.



If you mean the reality of both good and evil: no, I am not a Manichaean; are you? I know many Christian fundamentalists who are; Mani lives!

Were I a Christian, I would be more an Augustinian (or neo-Platonist, if you will)... evil as the absence of good (analogous to darkness as the absence of light).

Superb focusing of my question! (I do believe the second scenario.)

To my real point: How do you, as an apparent secular humanist, propose to deal with foriegn threats to our national security from the less enlightened?

My take is: Good and evil exist. We are right to judge. We are morally entitled to punish evil or defend ourselves against it. (Mind you, I'm talking about the United States, not myself.)

[shanbaum]

To my real point: How do you, as an apparent secular humanist, propose to deal with less enlightened humans' foriegn threats to our national security?

With great care, in such a way as to produce positive outcomes.

[drk]

Is dropping a bomb on their heads an option?

[Steve Machol]

FWIW the groundwork that led to 9/11 transcended one President or Administration. It goes back at least 30 years. The two things I do hold Bush accountable for though is his refusal to take the Al Qaeda threat seriously in spite of the numerous warnings from Richard Clarke and others, and his utter
derelication of duty when he failed to do anything after the being presented with the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."

The excuse that 'they didn't tell us where, when and how they were going to strike' is one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard.

[drk]

Steve, I hear you--we have to prevent terrorist attacks. What do you think the president could have done?

[shanbaum]

Is dropping a bomb on their heads an option?

I am not unconditionally opposed to the use of violence. I do believe that it rarely produces good outcomes (for example, it will not produce a good outcome in Iraq). So, I would not advocate it unless I had thought about the situation a great deal and come to the conclusion that violence would indeed produce a positive outcome, and that no less harmful alternative could do so.

If by "their" you mean "the less enlightened" - the prospect of "dropping bombs on the heads of the less enlightened" strikes me as something that should be embraced only in truly extraordinary circumstances. For some reason, Chip comes to mind.

[Steve Machol]

Steve, I hear you--we have to prevent terrorist attacks. What do you think the president could have done?

Are you saying you would have sit through that and done nothing? I could be wrong but somehow I think that you would not have ignored this in the way Bush did.

As for me, I would have demanded more info from the various intelligence agencies and told them to escalate this to a higher priority. I would also have either informed the relevant agencies (transportation, FBI, etc.) and put them on a higher alert status. I would also insist on daily updates at a minimum.

Not being President I'm sure there were other tools and options available that I am not aware of, but I would certainly not have sit back and done nothing. This man is incredibly uncurious and I have no doubt that a more curious and alert mind would have put measures in place that conceivably could have prevented this tragedy.

[Pete Hanlin]

I have no doubt that if the American people were told they would have to pay for this war instead of forcing their children and grandchildren to do it, we would never have started this war to begin with.
Ditto on the concept of national healthcare (as you indicate, the hypocrisy extends to the American public). Everyone thinks its a grand idea to provide healthcare to everyone- and don't get me wrong, it is. However, the cost of this kind of entitlement will bury future generations in debt. Likewise, if people got to "take home" the 15% or so in salary that goes into FICA- and then had to pay it in- I think there might be some actual realization of just how asinine Social Security is.

America needs to become fiscally responsible- that is, we need to live within our means both individually and corporately. That means saving up for the things we want to purchase until we can afford to pay for them rather than racking up huge credit debt (both personally and socially). As long as any legislative branch candidate's platform can reliably run on "I'll bring more Federal funds to the district" we're going to have a problem.

What we NEED is another, stronger Graham-Rudman bill that forces Congress to live within our country's means. Want to increase spending? Then you'll have to increase taxes to balance the budget (and I already pay enough in taxes- so that leaves cutting spending).

[drk]

Shanbaum: I just wanted to hear you say it. Good for you.

Steve: I'm with you all the way. I'm not sure what the anti-terrorism infrastructure was at the time, but any perceived threat should have been taken seriously.

As an anti-terrorist yourself, what do you think, generally, should be the US strategy to protect itself?

[Spexvet]

...
Dude, McCain is the one with the reputation for being a hothead. Obama may sling mud under pressure, McCain may launch nukes. I'm sorry, that would be nuk-u-lar weapons, in the repubican vernacular.
Thank you Spexvet. I grimace when I see some of the conservatives on this board who make insulting comments about liberals. I can always count on you to demonstrate that the blade cuts both ways.

Tit for tat, my friend. Just be sure that you include yourself in that "some".

Because he isn't:

Sen. Obama (and other Democrats) are going to have a tough road to hoe if they're hoping to make Republicans believe McCain isn't a maverick. ....

Convincing a repubican of something that the party has not said is not a tough road to hoe, it's impossible. Those minds are CLOSED! Luckily, the goal is not to convince repubicans, just independants and swing voters. Did you watch the video? Didn't W and McCain say the same things? Where's the Maverick? A maverick would have chosen Leiberman as his VP, which was McCain's first choice.

Look at the record - for the last eight years, the repubican controlled executive and both legislatives branches of the federal government, with McCain featured as a leader in the senate actually spent money we don't have, and didn't have a plan to pay the bill - I don't call that "being on my side, or the side of my kids, grandkids, etc." And what did we get for all the repubican spending? Better healthcare? Cheaper gas? Less reliance on foriegn oil? More jobs? No. The rich got richer, and a whole lot of folks got killed and injured in Iraq. And when the injured ones got back to the US, they got to stay in lovely, paint peeling, mold infested Walter Reed Hospital. There is nothing to indicate that the next repubican will do anything different.

Wow, you sound like a Democrat political ad... guess you just buy straight into whatever they sell you. Its probably easier to just repeat what the party feeds you,...

It's reality.
Why is it always the money, with you, Pete?

You don't understand. I'm shocked that Americans would vote for someone who espouses the same failed policies and practices of the last eight years, and who lied in her official capacity (I don't care if someone lies about their personal life).

... I'd like to hear what specific "failed practices" of this administration are being espoused by the McCain/Palin team...

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Are you so naive as to think that he'll change when he's in the oval office?

Well, repubicans are involved, aren't they?

... And there's the difference- I see faults on both sides of the aisle ...

No, the difference is that I have a sense of humor - in your quote, you left out the smiley. Here's the whole thing

Well, repubicans are involved, aren't they?

... If national health care becomes a reality, I'll get to chuckle when my grandson shows me his first paycheck and whines about the confiscation of 62% by various government programs. I'll pat him on the back and say, "Well, at least you have 'free' health care!"
...

If it doesn't become a reality, he'll be paying 50% of his check to a health insurance company. Then he'll pay another 40% for taxes to pay off the debt run up by the repubicans for the war, and oil subsidies, etc.:hammer:C'mon, Pete - open your mind and consider both sides.

[Spexvet]

My take is: Good and evil exist. We are right to judge. We are morally entitled to punish evil or defend ourselves against it. (Mind you, I'm talking about the United States, not myself.)

My question is: do you always presume that you are the good one, and everyone else is evil? If yo do, how do you know if you are right?

[Steve Machol]

As an anti-terrorist yourself, what do you think, generally, should be the US strategy to protect itself?

I'd start by making a serious attempt to understand the root cause of terrorism first. Treating it like a 'war' with a well-defined enemy is doomed to failure. We need to strike at the root cause. This is a war for the hearts and minds of the people who will either be persuaded to side with us, or be convinced to side against us. If we do not understand what motivates our enemies then we have little or no chance of defeating them and winning over the people that will make the difference.

And I can can guarantee that it's not 'They hate us for our freedoms.' Nor do I think stripping us of our freedoms and rights as guaranteed under the Constitution is a way to fight this either.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any serious effort among Republicans or Democrats to do this. Republicans because they are masters of demagoguery, and Democrats because they are afraid to appear 'weak' on terror - whatever that means.

[drk]

My question is: do you always presume that you are the good one, and everyone else is evil? If yo do, how do you know if you are right?

Don't personalize this. America is the subject.

Is there not a general global consensus on fairness and justice?

[drk]

I'd start by making a serious attempt to understand the root cause of terrorism first. Treating it like a 'war' with a well-defined enemy is doomed to failure. We need to strike at the root cause. This is a war for the hearts and minds of the people who will either be persuaded to side with us, or be convinced to side against us. If we do not understand what motivates our enemies then we have little or no chance of defeating them and winning over the people that will make the difference.

And I can can guarantee that it's not 'They hate us for our freedoms.' Nor do I think stripping us of our freedoms and rights as guaranteed under the Constitution is a way to fight this either.

I agree.

I think the root cause of terrorism is the desire by some to restore the Caliphate. Check this out...

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html