(Let the political polarizing commence.)
Really, though, my question is, who is this guy, what do people know about him and his record...
Joe Biden has been in the Senate for around 35 years at this point (I'd have to check to say exactly), about the same amount of time as McCain.
He's the lead Democrat (and therefor chair at this point) of the Foreign Relations committee. Given his long service in the senate and that committee in particular, he's on good terms with a mindboggling number of foreign leaders. He's also a good, old-fashioned street fighting Dem, so he's probably going to be the one visibly going after McCain on the trail.
He's relatively well known for a Dem senator, given that he's the party's resident go-to interviewee on non-military foreign policy issues (Gen. Clark is the military guy). So he's a face that gets seen quite a bit, even if he doesn't have instant name recognition.
Also, if you're trying to be a 'change' candidate, do you really want one of the most institutionalized senators as your running mate? Biden has been in the senate since Ford.
He also has very strong family values and commutes to work instead of having his family live in washington. His wife is younger than he is, but is also intelligent and continues teaching (she has a docterate in education).
The choice of Biden probably sured up some of the DNC's base a little, but very likely cost them around 10 to 15 points in the final vote.
I think that's a pretty hefty overstatement. One of the big digs on Obama has been "experience." If there's one thing Biden has more of than anyone else right now, it's experience.
He's the guy who referred to American troops as Nazis, called to the arrest of the Haditha troops without a trial , etc...
Links? Seems like I'd remember this.
Also, if you're trying to be a 'change' candidate, do you really want one of the most institutionalized senators as your running mate? Biden has been in the senate since Ford.
"Change" doesn't necessarily mean "new." Biden's got a very long record of fighting for positive change in government. He's definitely not the new kid on the block, but he's got a history of working himself raw for good legislation and fighting corruption.
He also goes a very long way towards shoring up the perceived "experience" weakness Obama's showing in polling. He's a face that the American people are comfortable with in the Oval Office (i.e., old and white), he's got a long record he can point to, good relations with foreign governments and a much bigger penchant for "straight talk" than the McMaverick at this point.
He is also one of the few senators who is willing to work across party lines. Along with Chuck Hagel he helped lead the 9-11 commision report, which was pretty thorough, the only thing missing was a stronger indictment against Saudi Arabia.
Actually,and unfortuantely, no. It was his office during the 9-11 commision which had the statement "Use the Republicans in this as long as you can, but the focus should be on embarassing the administration." (To sum up the exact quote.)
Biden is one of the most well known hyper-partisans, and has been for a very long time.
Like I said, his choice is meant to solidify the DNC's party machine, but the GOP is going to have a field day with his sound-bytes and news articles from the past 30-odd years.
Biden on Haditha: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2067187/posts
Biden on Haditha: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2067187/posts
And this is the point I stop caring about what you post. You can either find it somewhere that's a legitimate source of information, or it didn't happen.
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.
Yeah, well, I'm still voting Obama claims this local moderate. The alternative just makes me too nervous with international relations.
And this is the point I stop caring about what you post. You can either find it somewhere that's a legitimate source of information, or it didn't happen.
What's wrong? This is what happened as reported in live media coverage at the time...
And this is the point I stop caring about what you post. You can either find it somewhere that's a legitimate source of information, or it didn't happen.
Of course. Despite it being a linked article, and verified from hundreds of sources.. the fact that I used an admittedly biased blog which linked the story means it's all 'evil GOP stuff'.
Granted, he's not John Murtha or anything, but there's a LOT of very questionable statements from Biden over the years which will be sure to get played.
But the fact is, Biden was a fairly poor choice, meant to reward a DNC operative more than be a solid political choice to get those moderates (and Clinton supporters) who see McCain as more palettable than Obama.
Anyway. Biden said that Obama was too inexperienced to be Pres. and that the job didn't lend itself to "on the job training", AND that McCain would be better.
Yep, he did at that. (Biden was a Hillary supporter, by and large). Like I said, the GOP is going to have a field day with sound bytes and video clips for this election.
"Obama's VP choice supports McCain over Obama."
"Obama's VP choice supports McCain over Obama."
Say what you will of Biden's politics, he has a high IQ, and it shows... :D
Of course. Despite it being a linked article, and verified from hundreds of sources.. the fact that I used an admittedly biased blog which linked the story means it's all 'evil GOP stuff'.
Then post those links. Linking to the freepers in the context of an actual political discussion (particularly about a Democrat) is like linking to the KKK website's critique of the latest Tyler Perry movie.
Granted, he's not John Murtha or anything, but there's a LOT of very questionable statements from Biden over the years which will be sure to get played.
Which is bound to happen. Of course, the GOP has built up quite a reputation for baseless mudslinging at this point, so they're going to have to provide full documentation for anyone to believe most of it. That's a sword that cuts both ways.
But the fact is, Biden was a fairly poor choice, meant to reward a DNC operative more than be a solid political choice to get those moderates (and Clinton supporters) who see McCain as more palettable than Obama.
We'll see, won't we. I think it was a very good choice given the composition of the undecided electorate and the most common lines of criticism against Obama (lack of experience and foreign policy cred). I definitely don't think Biden's turning off any Clinton supporters that weren't throwing a hissy fit already, in fact he's probably pulling a good number of them back to the fold with his lifetime record on women's issues hovering in the mid 90s on most scorecards.
...them back to the fold with his lifetime record on women's issues hovering in the mid 90s on most scorecards.
And combined with Obama's anti-gun stance that is as bad as his, they just lost
a huge swath of the country. He should have picked someone from the South.
Most Democrats believe more fully in supporting those who can't support themselves. Most Democrats believe that goverment should spend money sometimes on domestic projects to help our country (not just military). Most Democrats value women and give them the moral and ethical choice about how to deal with child birthing issues. I think Biden fits this mold.
Vote Democratic!!
And combined with Obama's anti-gun stance that is as bad as his, they just lost
a huge swath of the country. He should have picked someone from the South.
I love how the folks who are obviously in the tank for McCain feel the need to concern troll Obama's VP selection.
The Obama campaign knows what it's doing. The fact that they took a no-name single term senator to the general election (and are currently holding a nationwide lead in polling and a lead in projected electoral votes in the mid 70s) means that people on a forum message board second guessing them are just blowing smoke.
Then post those links. Linking to the freepers in the context of an actual political discussion (particularly about a Democrat) is like linking to the KKK website's critique of the latest Tyler Perry movie.
The opening part of that link was the most complete text of the interview that I found. Just ignore the comments section, and all the data you want was there.
Which is bound to happen. Of course, the GOP has built up quite a reputation for baseless mudslinging at this point, so they're going to have to provide full documentation for anyone to believe most of it. That's a sword that cuts both ways.
The GOP only has that reputation among Democrats. You're making the assumption that everyone who is unhappy with Bush automatically would prefer Obama, which is not a correct assumption. There are many people that are unhappy with Bush that are conservative and feel that Bush has betrayed too many conservative principles.
The 'undecided electorate' is not made up largely of the 'anti-conservative' crowd, but a mix of people who just aren't sure about things right now. If Obama hasn't gotten them yet, it's unlikely to change in the near future.
We'll see, won't we. I think it was a very good choice given the composition of the undecided electorate and the most common lines of criticism against Obama (lack of experience and foreign policy cred). I definitely don't think Biden's turning off any Clinton supporters that weren't throwing a hissy fit already, in fact he's probably pulling a good number of them back to the fold with his lifetime record on women's issues hovering in the mid 90s on most scorecards.
Actually, Obama just polled WORSE among Clinton Democrats, by about eight points if I remember it right. Historically VP choices don't do much but to mitigate damage, despite all the posturing about 'he brings a balanced ticket'. Few people will vote FOR a VP pick, but they'll definately vote AGAINST one.
Most Democrats believe more fully in supporting those who can't support themselves. Most Democrats believe that goverment should spend money sometimes on domestic projects to help our country (not just military). Most Democrats value women and give them the moral and ethical choice about how to deal with child birthing issues. I think Biden fits this mold.
His record is impeccable with the Unions. He has a very strong dislike of health insurance companies. And he actually thinks it's a good idea to do such silly things like researching possible cures for cancer. As far as his stance on education goes, the country wouldn't do too terribly bad if he was taking the big seat instead of Obama.
I looked for anything I could find that would turn me away from voting for a Democrat, but Biden was the one good candidate I could find. I live in Iowa so I had alot more to choose from than the rest of the country. Our caucuses* drew alot bigger field than the ones that followed.
*I usually avoid caucuses just because I'd rather see who the parties choose and then form an opinion of the candidates. This year I looked into the process. A caucus is a combination tea party and square dance. Anybody that tells me our electoral system isn't screwy is gonna get punched, just out of spite.
The opening part of that link was the most complete text of the interview that I found. Just ignore the comments section, and all the data you want was there.
They either got it from somewhere (and should have linked to it) or they made it up. Link me to where they got it.
The GOP only has that reputation among Democrats. You're making the assumption that everyone who is unhappy with Bush automatically would prefer Obama, which is not a correct assumption. There are many people that are unhappy with Bush that are conservative and feel that Bush has betrayed too many conservative principles.
Where am I making the assumption that the anti-Bush crowd is unanimously pro-Obama, exactly? I don't remember stating that. Please quit trying to put words in my mouth. Thanks.
There are a lot of conservatives who feel that Bush violated their beliefs, and I don't honestly think they're wrong. Billions of dollars spent fighting a vanity war and a crumbling infrastructure at home will do that. Those folks will, likely, default to McCain. Nowhere in any of my posts did I imply otherwise.
The 'undecided electorate' is not made up largely of the 'anti-conservative' crowd, but a mix of people who just aren't sure about things right now. If Obama hasn't gotten them yet, it's unlikely to change in the near future.
The undecideds are made up of a lot of things, but they definitely include the anti-Bush conservatives that hear John McCain pandering to the pro-Bushies with statements about how much he agrees with Bush on everything, supports the same causes and has voted with him 90+% of the time (when he's actually be in the senate this last couple of years).
The rest of the undecideds are the same they always are; voters without definitive party IDs that are just now tuning in and waiting to make a decision. Nothing about that demographic really screams "I'm voting McCain," so I really don't see where you're basing your statement about Obama failing to win them. These are voters who are making a conscious decision to wait to make their choice. That has nothing to do with Obama somehow failing to win them over, anymore than it does McCain failing at the same.
Actually, Obama just polled WORSE among Clinton Democrats, by about eight points if I remember it right. Historically VP choices don't do much but to mitigate damage, despite all the posturing about 'he brings a balanced ticket'. Few people will vote FOR a VP pick, but they'll definately vote AGAINST one.
He also spiked 5 points amongst Dems in general with the announcement, more than counteracting the PUMAs that are going to be kicking and screaming all the way through the election. Those Clinton "supporters" (in quotations because her stance is fairly clear at this point) weren't going to vote for Obama regardless of VP pick. They're dead-enders who are happy to tell anyone who will listen. Winning them shouldn't even be on the Obama Campaign's radar; that energy is much better spent elsewhere.
The 'undecided electorate' is not made up largely of the 'anti-conservative' crowd, but a mix of people who just aren't sure about things right now. If Obama hasn't gotten them yet, it's unlikely to change in the near future.
Obama's VP pick was my choice for the big chair. Sorry mate, McCain'll have to really pull a rabbit out of his hat to win back this Indie.
And combined with Obama's anti-gun stance that is as bad as his, they just lost
a huge swath of the country. He should have picked someone from the South.
It's amazing to me that the Dems still stick to this anti-gun stuff so staunchly. If they could get over themselves on this, they'd certainly be a lot more popular. They want us to have choices as citizens. They're about personal freedoms. Well, guns don't count I guess. Here they allow emotion to override reality and they pay for it. Every time. The first pro-gun Dem will probably be the one that finds his office with the least struggle.
For those that think this stuff doesn't matter, ask yourself how many times we see Dem candidates "hunting"? They try to make it look like they actually care about people concerned with the issue. In reality, though, they come off looking worse than ever. Both Kerry and Hil-dog tried it. And it helped them a ton, no?
Obama's VP pick was my choice for the big chair. Sorry mate, McCain'll have to really pull a rabbit out of his hat to win back this Indie.
I'm not saying this to insult you, but there's no way in Hyades that you could be considered an 'indie'.
Biden is a centrist. He makes a great attack dog against McCain and it certainly helps that they've known each other so long. Biden will not be a yes-man when Obama is president. He'll challenge the policy decisions and that's good for the country. I like that Biden does not own an apartment in D.C., instead he takes the train home every night. I like that despite being in the senate for 35yrs he's not ridiculously wealthy. His earned income was $298,200 last year and if I'm reading the article right then $112,500 of that is from a book deal. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080824/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_biden_finances)
It's amazing to me that the Dems still stick to this anti-gun stuff so staunchly.
Especially since it violates the Constitution that they constantly say they defend and uphold...
Especially since it violates the Constitution that they constantly say they defend and uphold...
The Constitution is pretty clear about the purpose of legal firearms; a "well organized militia."
The second amendment is there so that members of frontier communities could collectively protect what they had staked out, not so crazy uncle Bob could have an Uzi. The "right to bear arms" doesn't in any way specify the right to assault weaponry or freedom from registering items that are designed to kill things with the proper authorities.
Biden is a centrist.
"Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent."
Try again...
The Constitution is pretty clear about the purpose of legal firearms; a "well organized militia."
The second amendment is there so that members of frontier communities could collectively protect what they had staked out, not so crazy uncle Bob could have an Uzi. The "right to bear arms" doesn't in any way specify the right to assault weaponry or freedom from registering items that are designed to kill things with the proper authorities.
Actually, you are wrong. Read the ENTIRETY of the latest Supreme Court decision and the Miller V United States SCotUS decision.
Actually, you are wrong. Read the ENTIRETY of the latest Supreme Court decision and the Miller V United States SCotUS decision.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Show me where it says that you don't have to register your guns in the quoted text please. Or where it accounts for assault weapons and cop-killer ammo.
Court decisions, particularly those driven by a particular ideology, may be valid interpretations of the text, but they aren't the text itself.
The Constitution is pretty clear about the purpose of legal firearms; a "well organized militia."
Which was made of every male citizen that could vote. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was that the idea of having only the government with firearms was a very, very bad idea.
You seem to hate the government, Bats, and I bet you're not too fond of the police. Do you want to give them absolute and total power with force of arms? That's what the 2nd admendment was designed against.
Think it won't come up? The 1960s and civil rights movement beg to differ.
Which was made of every male citizen that could vote. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment ...
Remember the 1st Amendment only covers tech up to the hand printing press. Any electronic mode of communication isn't covered by the 1st Amendment...
The Constitution is pretty clear about the purpose of legal firearms; a "well organized militia."
The second amendment is there so that members of frontier communities could collectively protect what they had staked out, not so crazy uncle Bob could have an Uzi. The "right to bear arms" doesn't in any way specify the right to assault weaponry or freedom from registering items that are designed to kill things with the proper authorities.
The Dems are not simply against assault weapons and registration is not their only tool of control. They are against guns. Period. They are for (or at least not against - Obama qualifies here) lawsuits holding gunmakers responsible for the crimes committed with their guns. The reason? To bankrupt them out of existence with exhorbitant legal fees. They don't hold knife makers, Lousville Slugger, Jack Daniels, GM, Ford, etc accountable for crimes commited with their products, though, so it sorta shows a bias. The new target, since America really does want to keep it's guns, is to try and ban ammunition or raise taxes enough to make it unaffordable. That's obviously again targeting guns and gun owners. Registration (while I actually don't care too much about it) is worthless as far as finding criminals that use weapons. Criminals don't need to register - thanks to the Fifth Amendment. So who does it target? The amount of crimes solved with the help of registration is also dismally small. Why? Criminals steal guns. They buy them illegally. It does no good to require registration. People that register aren't going to commit crimes. They, obviously, follow the law. Registration has also been demonstrated to be simply a staging point for national confiscation. England and Australia are the big examples.
Thankfully the Supreme Court has finally made a ruling on this. And the right one. It's still not enough, though. One state (can't remember which) recently placed in it's constitution a guarantee of it's citizens rights to hunt and firearms. Hopefully one day we will see the same added on a national scope.
Which was made of every male citizen that could vote. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was that the idea of having only the government with firearms was a very, very bad idea.
I have never once stated, nor has any Democrat with any sense, the intention of taking all firearms away from Americans. But there's nothing wrong with registering implements meant for inflicting damage and death at range; you register cars, you register dogs, why the frack shouldn't we register guns, again?
You seem to hate the government, Bats, and I bet you're not too fond of the police. Do you want to give them absolute and total power with force of arms? That's what the 2nd admendment was designed against.
If the government wants to take over the country by force, they'll be successful. They'll catch everyone while they're sleeping, confiscate the weapons we have and imprison those that had them. Any defense or insurgency movement won't be armed with the guns we have now; they'll be armed by the guns provided by America's political enemies.
Think it won't come up? The 1960s and civil rights movement beg to differ.
Funny, I don't remember any african american's shooting at people as a way of securing civil rights. I remember lots of social pressure and political will, but no firefights.
Funny, I don't remember any african american's shooting at people as a way of securing civil rights. I remember lots of social pressure and political will, but no firefights.
Because you don't hear about it much. It's part of the uglier part of the Civil Rights Movement narrative. In the 1960s a lot of local police groups used their guns to terrorize locals to keep them 'in line for segregation'... a number of small gun battles on this issue occurred all throughout the south. Violence was extremely high.
http://www.crmvet.org/nars/perdew1.htm has a narrative of one such incident.
The Dems are not simply against assault weapons and registration is not their only tool of control. They are against guns. Period. They are for (or at least not against - Obama qualifies here) lawsuits holding gunmakers responsible for the crimes committed with their guns. The reason? To bankrupt them out of existence with exhorbitant legal fees. They don't hold knife makers, Lousville Slugger, Jack Daniels, GM, Ford, etc accountable for crimes commited with their products, though, so it sorta shows a bias.
You're painting Dems with an extremely broad brush here. This kind of legislation has been pushed in urban areas by fearmongering Dems trying to win the security vote. It is in no way a party policy to try bankrupting firearms manufacturers through litigation.
It does no good to require registration. People that register aren't going to commit crimes. They, obviously, follow the law.
And they'll have paperwork saying that they do. Just like the owner of a car can prove he didn't steal it. That's what registration is; a legal recognition of ownership. Nothing more.
Thankfully the Supreme Court has finally made a ruling on this. And the right one. It's still not enough, though. One state (can't remember which) recently placed in it's constitution a guarantee of it's citizens rights to hunt and firearms. Hopefully one day we will see the same added on a national scope.
There's a difference between hunting rifles and automatic weapons. That's a distinction that needs to be made; one gets used for hunting or the various odd-job on the farm, the other is designed specifically to kill people.
Because you don't hear about it much. It's part of the uglier part of the Civil Rights Movement narrative. In the 1960s a lot of local police groups used their guns to terrorize locals to keep them 'in line for segregation'... a number of small gun battles on this issue occurred all throughout the south. Violence was extremely high.
http://www.crmvet.org/nars/perdew1.htm has a narrative of one such incident.
Violence was extreme throughout the south during the civil rights movement. Shooting never resolved the issues, though. I still don't see why you are trying to link armed skirmishes with the success of the movement as a whole; they are completely unconnected.
"Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent."
Try again...
Have you ever noticed that every 4 years the conservative groups list the Dem front-runners as "the most liberal" of the year? Considering that the conservative groups are the ones that come up with the "tests" its almost like they want to scare people with the liberal bogeyman.
Let me tell you he's way more moderate than me ;)
When the current president has a 21-29% approval rating and 80% of the country says we're on the wrong track then the "average" and therefore what is a "moderate" is farther to the left then it was in say 2000 or 2004. Supporting gay rights and saying the Iraq war was a stupid idea used to be only a liberal postion. Now the majority of Americans want out of Iraq and Hallmark is selling Gay-marriage cards. Either the majority of Americans are now liberals (which is way too much to hope for ;) ) or the scale has changed.
There's a difference between hunting rifles and automatic weapons. That's a distinction that needs to be made; one gets used for hunting or the various odd-job on the farm, the other is designed specifically to kill people.
And you know what? It's the latter that the 2nd amendment was designed to protect. It's not about hunting, or odd-jobs, it's about killing enemies of the people even if they're part of the government.
Violence was extreme throughout the south during the civil rights movement. Shooting never resolved the issues, though. I still don't see why you are trying to link armed skirmishes with the success of the movement as a whole; they are completely unconnected.
I didn't cite it as a big 'win' for the movement. I cited it as proof of why the 2nd admendment was neccesary.
You're painting Dems with an extremely broad brush here. This kind of legislation has been pushed in urban areas by fearmongering Dems trying to win the security vote.
Obama supports DC & Chicago gun bans. So he is, by your definition, a fear mongering Dem.
There's a difference between hunting rifles and automatic weapons. That's a distinction that needs to be made; one gets used for hunting or the various odd-job on the farm, the other is designed specifically to kill people.
Wrong AGAIN, see Miller V United States & the most recent SCotUS decision.
And you know what? It's the latter that the 2nd amendment was designed to protect. It's not about hunting, or odd-jobs, it's about killing enemies of the people even if they're part of the government.
Here's the problem with this logic, though; the "enemies of the people" are also going to be armed with those weapons under this interpretation, whether they're government officials or private citizens. What you're encouraging here is a mindset of constant armed conflict between various sides. This leads to violence escalation and a major increase in innocent deaths. It's not a system that has any place in supposedly civilized countries.
I didn't cite it as a big 'win' for the movement. I cited it as proof of why the 2nd admendment was neccesary.
And by this same logic we need to protect the Iraqi insurgent's right to keep and bear arms, as well as their right to kill American soldiers who they feel might be attempting to oppress them.
I don't disagree that there need to be better systems for dealing with oppression in this country, but arming both sides and throwing down the gauntlet isn't a product way of dealing with it.
Obama supports DC & Chicago gun bans. So he is, by your definition, a fear mongering Dem.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Supporting keeping dangerous guns off the streets is quite different than calling for and lobbying for a ban on all weaponry. You can interpret his stance here however you want. Given your predilections, I'm not expecting a terribly fair outlook towards Obama.
Wrong AGAIN, see Miller V United States & the most recent SCotUS decision.
Link me.
Have you ever noticed that every 4 years the conservative groups list the Dem front-runners as "the most liberal" of the year?
Not a conservative group. The dems own voting records.
Let me tell you he's way more moderate than me ;)
And that is relevant how?
When the current president has a 21-29% approval rating and
And the current rating for the Dem Congress is in SINGLE digit range AND the lowest in history... LOWER than the Pres...
I don't disagree that there need to be better systems for dealing with oppression in this country, but arming both sides and throwing down the gauntlet isn't a product way of dealing with it.
It's the only one that, historically, has worked.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Supporting keeping guns off the streets is quite different than calling for and lobbying for a ban on all weaponry.
Link me.
Go to the Supreme Court site. Both are there.
Who would have thought that someone concerned with individual rights wouldn't have read the most important Bill of Rights decision in decades...
It's the only one that, historically, has worked.
Yes, see how we got rid of the most powerful nation on Earth when we were oppressed, AFTER all other peaceful methods used by brilliant men failed...
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
No, by YOUR definition Obama IS a fear mongering Dem. If that is the type of politician you want running the country, vote for him...
Who would have thought that someone concerned with individual rights wouldn't have read the most important Bill of Rights decision in decades...
I have this thing called a job. It keeps me busy upwards of 80 hours a week. I'm familiar with the ruling overall, but I don't exactly dive into the court records to analyze everything the conservative-slanted SCotUS does these days.
I was mainly asking for the specific wording that you feel invalidates my statement against assault weapons.
No, by YOUR definition Obama IS a fear mongering Dem.
Did he sponsor the bill? Did he lobby for it? Did he help build public support for it? Does he use it in his campaign materials to try and convince scared people to vote for him because of it?
"Supporting" means nothing. I "support" the Kansas City Chiefs. What did he do to get the specific legislation passed, and is he banking on it to help him electorally? That's what fearmongering is, after all; using fear to help your electoral chances. If he's not actively pushing his gun control policy as a reason to vote for him, he's not fearmongering.
I have this thing called a job. It keeps me busy upwards of 80 hours a week. I'm familiar with the ruling overall, but I don't exactly dive into the court records to analyze everything the conservative-slanted SCotUS does these days.
I was mainly asking for the specific wording that you feel invalidates my statement against assault weapons.
Read Miller V United States. The US got SC okay to make illegal individuals owning a sawed off shotgun as it wasn't used as a standard infantry weapon at the time. An individual could own standard weapons used by infantry. Today that is the M16... So, Uzi is probably out, not fully auto M16's.
I'm not saying this to insult you, but there's no way in Hyades that you could be considered an 'indie'.
Pro-choice, Pro-gun, Pro-death penalty, Pro-military, Pro-stem cell research, Pro-gay marriage, Anti-torture, Pro-Free speech, Pro-socialized medicine, Pro-palestine, Pro-Israel (don't ask), pro-civil rights and I'm all for politicians that have faith in some religion* but have the wisdom not to try to legislate it.
And a disabled, decorated veteran. Not to mention that I have never missed an election in the seventeen years I have been eligible to vote because I feel it's my most sacred duty to the republic to make certain that my voice is added to the millions of other voices in this country in how it's to be run.
But if you can tell me which party I'm supposed to belong to, by all means, feel free. Mind you I support both Harkin and Grassley from Iowa because it's good to balance out the equation.
A hamstrung government doesn't go to extremes, it sits there twiddling it's thumbs because it can't make up it's mind. Just the way it should be.
* I consider Atheism a sort of religion, simply because the denounciation of a god is a philosophical position and much like Buddhism, it does tend to encourage forward thinking, rather than blind obedience.
Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent.Not a conservative group. The dems own voting records.
Wait who's giving the percentages then? Who's the one interpretting the votes for you? If a bill went before the Senate that allowed for a border fence to be built but provided high-achieving high school students who are long-term illegal immigrants, and who wish to serve in the armed forces or attend college to be able to gain legal status would that be a Liberal or Conservative bill?And that is relevant how?
I'm sorry. I'll refrain from any attempts at having a light-hearted discussion on a message board run by a game company.And the current rating for the Dem Congress is in SINGLE digit range AND the lowest in history... LOWER than the Pres...
Absolutely. Congress has not had enough backbone to defy what Bush wants so it get negatives from Liberals and Moderates (see previous post on 80% of the country wanting a new direction). On the flip side its run by Dems so the Conservative Republicans don't like it at all. Congress's numbers would be better if they weren't abdicating their responsibilities to the President. When the people swept the Republicans from power in 2006 it was based on getting out of Iraq and having a check on Bush's power. It hasn't happen so Congress is disliked by everyone Right and Left.
There's a difference between hunting rifles and automatic weapons. That's a distinction that needs to be made; one gets used for hunting or the various odd-job on the farm, the other is designed specifically to kill people.
I have to disagree with you on this, Batshido. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the type of arms the people have the right to bear.
My own personal take on the topic is that the founding fathers included that one so that the people could form up a defense when the armies of this nation were otherwise occupied or to openly revolt if a tyrant was able to secure power.
Registration wouldn't be totally out of line, but if you legally own your weapons, you have already applied for and gotten the permits. It's simply a matter of the government checking it's own records, isn't it?
Most crimes are not committed with legally purchased firearms anyway. By stripping away the right of self-defense, you grant those who own illegal firearms a bit of an edge that they don't currently have.
And by this same logic we need to protect the Iraqi insurgent's right to keep and bear arms, as well as their right to kill American soldiers who they feel might be attempting to oppress them.
I agree wholeheartedly. Mind you that is also the reason I want to see those very American soldiers returned home now, rather than in the fifty years Mr McCain wants.
The choice of Biden probably sured up some of the DNC's base a little, but very likely cost them around 10 to 15 points in the final vote. He's the guy who referred to American troops as Nazis, called to the arrest of the Haditha troops without a trial , etc...
Also, if you're trying to be a 'change' candidate, do you really want one of the most institutionalized senators as your running mate? Biden has been in the senate since Ford.
I seem to recall the nazi comment thing. I remember it being not so cut and dry though. I thought that he wasn't really accusing them of being Nazis. Wasn't it just a case of another verbose politician putting his foot in his mouth? Do you have a link to the actual story. I can't really remember the details?
I think you are right about the base (and the 10-15 point loss). Even though I like Biden, Obama really could have picked a less liberal guy with equally good foreign policy credentials if he wanted to attract more middle of the road voters. Also Biden has a bad habit of talking until his says something stupid (i.e. the nazi example). The big problem Obama faces, is that McCain is very attractive to moderate democrats and socially conservative democrats. Also, even though people are upset with the Current White House's planning and execution of this war. Many voters, even those like me who were against the war in the first place, feel we have a responsibility to rebuild and secure Iraq because we toppled the gov there. I am a little concerned about Obama's plans for the middle east. I have a bad feeling that he simply thinks doing the opposite of Bush will automatically yield good results. The Truth is Iraq is an important region there, with lots of valuable resources. I do not believe a fragmented or weak Iraq will be a good thing.
Pro-choice, Pro-gun, Pro-death penalty, Pro-military, Pro-stem cell research, Pro-gay marriage, Anti-torture, Pro-Free speech, Pro-socialized medicine, Pro-palestine, Pro-Israel (don't ask), pro-civil rights and I'm all for politicians that have faith in some religion* but have the wisdom not to try to legislate it.
And a disabled, decorated veteran. Not to mention that I have never missed an election in the seventeen years I have been eligible to vote because I feel it's my most sacred duty to the republic to make certain that my voice is added to the millions of other voices in this country in how it's to be run.
But if you can tell me which party I'm supposed to belong to, by all means, feel free. Mind you I support both Harkin and Grassley from Iowa because it's good to balance out the equation.
A hamstrung government doesn't go to extremes, it sits there twiddling it's thumbs because it can't make up it's mind. Just the way it should be.
* I consider Atheism a sort of religion, simply because the denounciation of a god is a philosophical position and much like Buddhism, it does tend to encourage forward thinking, rather than blind obedience.
I don't agree with you on everything, but your okay in my book. I believe, like me, you have thought on each issue individually rather than accepted them as some sort of ideological package.
I don't agree with you on everything, but your okay in my book. I believe, like me, you have thought on each issue individually rather than accepted them as some sort of ideological package.
Isn't that the point of an informed populace? The system breaks down when people stop thinking and just start voting based on which candidate has better hair, flashier suits, et cetera. Two parties is not enough, we should have dozens, if not hundreds.
I seem to recall the nazi comment thing. I remember it being not so cut and dry though. I thought that he wasn't really accusing them of being Nazis. Wasn't it just a case of another verbose politician putting his foot in his mouth? Do you have a link to the actual story. I can't really remember the details?
I remember it being a very badly munged quote, but it's about three years old now and can't find it any more. Besides, on that score, I think there's far far more mileage to be gained in that Biden supported Saddam Hussien and voted AGAINST attacking the Talbian after 9-11. (Not just Iraq, mind you).
Like I said, Biden was a choice for the base to make them happy. (Which results in no boost for Obama) but will kill him in the long term in the general. (People vote AGAINST VP picks, not for them). And Biden's baggage is absolutely huge.
He's nowhere near as vitriolic as Murtha, but his positions are very hard to square with moderates, and there's some pretty damning sound bytes out there to be had. It's hard to believe that Obama couldn't have made a wiser choice.
I remember it being a very badly munged quote, but it's about three years old now and can't find it any more. Besides, on that score, I think there's far far more mileage to be gained in that Biden supported Saddam Hussien and voted AGAINST attacking the Talbian after 9-11. (Not just Iraq, mind you).
Like I said, Biden was a choice for the base to make them happy. (Which results in no boost for Obama) but will kill him in the long term in the general. (People vote AGAINST VP picks, not for them). And Biden's baggage is absolutely huge.
He's nowhere near as vitriolic as Murtha, but his positions are very hard to square with moderates, and there's some pretty damning sound bytes out there to be had. It's hard to believe that Obama couldn't have made a wiser choice.
I didn't realize he voted against the invasion of Afghanistan. That could be a killer in this election actually (expecially since Obama is touting it as the real front in the war on terror). How did he support Saddam Hussein? He was an ally of ours in the mid 80s. More info?
I seem to recall the nazi comment thing. I remember it being not so cut and dry though. I thought that he wasn't really accusing them of being Nazis. Wasn't it just a case of another verbose politician putting his foot in his mouth? Do you have a link to the actual story. I can't really remember the details?
Biden, when asked if he'd heard Bush's speech in front of the Knesset in Israel, could only respond with "********". He couldn't believe that Bush compared Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran to Neville Chamberlain's compromise in Munich in 1938. Aside from being extremely tacky, it took our domestic political squabble to the floor of the Israeli parliament, a place where it certainly does not belong.
I didn't realize he voted against the invasion of Afghanistan. That could be a killer in this election actually (expecially since Obama is touting it as the real front in the war on terror). How did he support Saddam Hussein? He was an ally of ours in the mid 80s. More info?
He voted against Gulf War I as well. He actually proposed ending the embargoes and working with Saddam in the interim. Biden was one of Saddam's biggest allies in the Senate for all of the Clinton years. (And this was no secret.) I can't speak to his motivations, but it seemed like he considered Saddam a more-or-less 'stablizing force' in the region, even with the Gulf Wars.
Pro-choice, Pro-gun, Pro-death penalty, Pro-military, Pro-stem cell research, Pro-gay marriage, Anti-torture, Pro-Free speech, Pro-socialized medicine, Pro-palestine, Pro-Israel (don't ask), pro-civil rights and I'm all for politicians that have faith in some religion* but have the wisdom not to try to legislate it.
Well I'm a card-carrying Liberal but I bet we'd find a lot of common ground. I'm probably less pro-gun then you are... ;) I'm not sold either way on the death penalty; leaning towards only extreme cases and I think you need DNA before it should even be considered. I'm Pro-military in the sense that I think we should have a good one. I think that lately America sees it's military as a hammer and all international problems as nails. I'd like us to increase our soft powers so our soldiers are shot at for bad causes. I'm whole-hardily with you on Pro-stem cell research, Pro-gay marriage, Anti-torture, Pro-free speech, Pro-socialized medicine, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Israel, and Pro-civil Rights though.
Biden, when asked if he'd heard Bush's speech in front of the Knesset in Israel, could only respond with "********". He couldn't believe that Bush compared Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran to Neville Chamberlain's compromise in Munich in 1938. Aside from being extremely tacky, it took our domestic political squabble to the floor of the Israeli parliament, a place where it certainly does not belong.
No, this was older than that. It was a very badly munged comparison of our troops in Iraq with Nazi soldiers. It was a response to something Murtha had said along those lines.
And, well, I do think that Obama's willinging to negotiate with Iran's leader compares to Chamberlain's Munich compromise - as far as principals are concerned. It's unlikely, in the short term at least, that the ramfications will be the same, however.
I remember it being a very badly munged quote, but it's about three years old now and can't find it any more. Besides, on that score, I think there's far far more mileage to be gained in that Biden supported Saddam Hussien and voted AGAINST attacking the Talbian after 9-11. (Not just Iraq, mind you).
Biden is a strong supporter of a thing called diplomacy. You don't get a chance for people like the UN to actually get anything done if you send in thousands of armed men before their ambassadors get there.
For all the things that people hold against the Taliban, they were able to at least cut down on the Opium coming out of Afghanistan. And if that wasn't bad enough, the Afghanis and Iranians weren't terribly friendly before this mess. Something about competing theologies and ancient fueds....
I have to disagree with you on this, Batshido. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the type of arms the people have the right to bear.
My own personal take on the topic is that the founding fathers included that one so that the people could form up a defense when the armies of this nation were otherwise occupied or to openly revolt if a tyrant was able to secure power.
There's also nothing there that guarantees access to full-on military weaponry. That means it's kind of open for interpretation in either direction.
I should say now that I completely understand the pro-gun side of this. I get the idea that citizens should be able to protect themselves from their government, and that guns are a part of American life. As a Kansas country boy that moved to the national frontrunner in gun-related deaths, though, my stance swings towards restriction on this. Some folks (like the ones I grew up around) are just fine with automatic weaponry, others (like the ones waving guns in the air on North Broad) can't handle it. Restricting access to that type of weaponry, and registering each legal instance of it, makes the illegal instances easier to identify and prosecute.
Registration wouldn't be totally out of line, but if you legally own your weapons, you have already applied for and gotten the permits. It's simply a matter of the government checking it's own records, isn't it?
Not really. There are lots of weapons out there that are legal but don't have permits (grandfathered in, or whatever), and some places (at least last time I checked) where you could have one permit and multiple guns. What I'm saying is that identifying and cataloging every legal gun, so law enforcement can tell with a quick check whether any given weapon is legal or not.
Most crimes are not committed with legally purchased firearms anyway. By stripping away the right of self-defense, you grant those who own illegal firearms a bit of an edge that they don't currently have.
Easier identification of illegal guns means faster, higher quality response by law enforcement.
I've never advocated taking all weapons away. That is in no way my stance. The things I personally favor getting rid of aren't really self-defense tools; automatic weapons, modified shotguns, etc. Those are guns that are built or altered to be used aggressively. A semi-automatic pistol or revolver does just fine in a self-defense setting.
Biden is a strong supporter of a thing called diplomacy. You don't get a chance for people like the UN to actually get anything done if you send in thousands of armed men before their ambassadors get there.
We gave Iraq ten years for Maker's sake. The problem is that many people, such as Biden, consider diplomacy a solution in and of itself.. it is not, it is a method. For Iraq, that method was a clear failure.
For all the things that people hold against the Taliban, they were able to at least cut down on the Opium coming out of Afghanistan. And if that wasn't bad enough, the Afghanis and Iranians weren't terribly friendly before this mess. Something about competing theologies and ancient fueds....
Are you seriously going to start praising the Taliban and Al Queda now?
He voted against Gulf War I as well. He actually proposed ending the embargoes and working with Saddam in the interim. Biden was one of Saddam's biggest allies in the Senate for all of the Clinton years. (And this was no secret.) I can't speak to his motivations, but it seemed like he considered Saddam a more-or-less 'stablizing force' in the region, even with the Gulf Wars.
See this I don't think is so bad. Lots of people, especially now, see him as having been a stabilizing (and largely secular--until his final days) force in the mid east.
See this I don't think is so bad. Lots of people, especially now, see him as having been a stabilizing (and largely secular--until his final days) force in the mid east.
It's a difficult calculus to be sure. If he hadn't had invaded Quwait and started rolling to Saudi Arabia, things would be much, much different. The trouble was that Saddam himself proved anything BUT stable and he had made defying the UN into an art form.
@TFVanguard: Not quite, actually. His defiance led to sanctions, which among other things meant he couldn't even get aspirin from abroad for most of the last 15 years - and crippled not only most of the economy, but any WMD programs he might have dreamt about if he actually wanted to pursue them. Even the infamous oil for food program didn't wield enough cash for them to be internationally important - though I guess a few Swiss and other firms got a nice margin.
And no, he did prove quite stable - as moral as a pit viper, perhaps, but not a loon by any chance. Considering how he stayed in power over a country with what, 70% Shiites and Kurds while antagonizing Iran more than he ever did the US, he did quite well in that regard. Actually, stability is the one thing Iraq has consistently lacked since he was deposed, as all the regional powers, religious fanatics, minorities and others that he kept down have been scrambling for power ever since (with an influx of foreign jihadists at one point). Just because his regime was tyrannical and brutal didn't meant it did not provide a fair bit of stability - at least you only had one group of thugs to fear and avoid. It may take a while for Iraq to reach that level, not to say go any higher. Anarchy is a hard weed to uproot, especially without stamping it out.
No, this was older than that. It was a very badly munged comparison of our troops in Iraq with Nazi soldiers. It was a response to something Murtha had said along those lines.
I don't know, but in that context I would probably agree with him. You don't make friends by stomping around in their yard like a bunch of jack-booted thugs.
You want to make friends in Iraq? Start by sending them tons of food. Send money for their schools, so they can buy the books that the teachers of those schools think they need. Teach them about America, don't force it on them from the barrel of a gun. You want democracy to flourish, give them the tools they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
And in the end, tell them they don't owe you a thing, we were helping or Islamic brothers. You'll score more goodwill from them than you could ever imagine. You want them to see things your way? Don't force it, make friends.
See this I don't think is so bad. Lots of people, especially now, see him as having been a stabilizing (and largely secular--until his final days) force in the mid east.
Of course he was. That's why Bush 1 (at his post in the CIA) helped install him. He, like every other dictator America has propped up over the years, made the region more stable and was amenable to doing business with U.S.-based corps.
He didn't get targeted for removal because the region became unstable (it wasn't, really). He was targeted because he stopped playing nice with oil corps.
He was a horrible human being, don't get me wrong. Oppression and slaughter of minority groups, one-candidate elections, etc. But there's a reason the Republicans put him there in the first place, just like there was a reason they were arming the Taliban in the 80s.
He was a horrible human being, don't get me wrong. Oppression and slaughter of minority groups, one-candidate elections, etc. But there's a reason the Republicans put him there in the first place, just like there was a reason they were arming the Taliban in the 80s.
Erm... you do realize that it was Carter that started the support of Saddam?
I remember something similar surfacing about Kerry in 2004 - how he was one of the most liberal members of the Senate. Where is he on that list now, I wonder?
Still pretty much there. Remember Obama was a newcomer, so his placement is 'new' (dislogding a Republican so really pushing the meter over a bit). Biden is pretty far left and always has been...
Gore was closer to the center, though.
Erm... you do realize that it was Carter that started the support of Saddam?
Carter was in office, sure. But the guys running the overthrow/embed agency were Republicans and fairly famous ones at this point; Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. Those were the guys making the calls on the ground to put the mustachioed madman in charge of millions of people who he didn't like.
You're painting Dems with an extremely broad brush here. This kind of legislation has been pushed in urban areas by fearmongering Dems trying to win the security vote. It is in no way a party policy to try bankrupting firearms manufacturers through litigation.
Fair enough. Though it certainly seems it was a common enough practice when it first was en vogue. Though there are some Reps that have tried the same.
And they'll have paperwork saying that they do. Just like the owner of a car can prove he didn't steal it. That's what registration is; a legal recognition of ownership. Nothing more.
There's no need for it, IMO. And it has been proven in England and Australia that registration can be far more than simple recognition of ownership.
There's a difference between hunting rifles and automatic weapons. That's a distinction that needs to be made; one gets used for hunting or the various odd-job on the farm, the other is designed specifically to kill people.
Actually, it is illegal to own automatic weapons without a hard to get and expensive special FFL classification. If you meant sem-automatic, however, planty of hunting firearms are semi-automatic. I actually just purchased one recently for squirrel hunting. It's semi-auto and a handgun. But thems is bad. Not to mention that there are many firearms designed for things other than hunting. Target, action shooting, etc. Home defense is a big one. What better gun is there to use for defending your home than one that is designed for people? There are many types of firearms and there needs to be. They are a tool. And one should be able to use the best tool for the job at hand. Self defense is a valid "job".
Carter was in office, sure. But the guys running the overthrow/embed agency were Republicans and fairly famous ones at this point; Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. Those were the guys making the calls on the ground to put the mustachioed madman in charge of millions of people who he didn't like.
And they were acting under direct orders from Carter. It's hip to blame Bush for Saddam, but it's just not the whole story. Carter wanted it done because the situation in Iran was deteriorating and wanted a 'strong-man ally' in the reigion. Saddam was already being courted by the Soviets (to whom he eventually went anyway) and Carter wanted to pull Saddam back from them.
Now, it was clearly a mistake, but the logic in Carter's actions with Saddam DID make sense at the time, particularly given the fact that we had next to no intelligence on the region at the time. (Which, in turn, was part of the kneejerk reaction to Nixon's time in office.)
I've never advocated taking all weapons away. That is in no way my stance. The things I personally favor getting rid of aren't really self-defense tools; automatic weapons, modified shotguns, etc. Those are guns that are built or altered to be used aggressively. A semi-automatic pistol or revolver does just fine in a self-defense setting.
As someone that owns three assault rifles*, I'm not sure that I could agree with that. I think handguns are far more dangerous. I would rather have the population armed with weapons that were obvious when carried, rather than easily concealed.
*One of the players in my gaming group is an ATF agent, so the government does know I have them and it's perfectly alright.
Carter was in office, sure. But the guys running the overthrow/embed agency were Republicans and fairly famous ones at this point; Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. Those were the guys making the calls on the ground to put the mustachioed madman in charge of millions of people who he didn't like.
I see if it were a Republican president it would have been his fault, but because it was a Dem instead the buck lies elsewhere. Right?
Are you seriously going to start praising the Taliban and Al Queda now?
No, I was pointing out one good thing the Taliban was able to do in Afghanistan. That is quite a long way from praising them. However, being able to find common ground, any common ground, makes it more likely that you'll be able to open lines of communication.
Al-Qaeda's only redeeming quality might be that they could become a powerful political voice in the region, assuming they can quit blowing stuff up.
As someone that owns three assault rifles*, I'm not sure that I could agree with that. I think handguns are far more dangerous. I would rather have the population armed with weapons that were obvious when carried, rather than easily concealed.
*One of the players in my gaming group is an ATF agent, so the government does know I have them and it's perfectly alright.
Handguns are used for hunting (I use them almost exclusively now) and many shooting sports. They also make mini versions of the AR that are smaller than a couple hanguns that I own. What's wrong with legal concealed carry? Being able to defend yourself is our right as human beings. A concealed weapon facilitates this.
Being able to defend yourself is our right as human beings. A concealed weapon facilitates this.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
It's a difficult calculus to be sure. If he hadn't had invaded Quwait and started rolling to Saudi Arabia, things would be much, much different. The trouble was that Saddam himself proved anything BUT stable and he had made defying the UN into an art form.
I agree that it isn't as black and white as either side tends to make it. But I do think he was contained following the Gulf War (by the way I supported that conflict, and believe we acted correctly by not taking him out of power). It is pretty clear that the brutality of his reign is largely what kept order in Iraq. And that a stable Iraq is important to the stability of the middle east. That said, I am not sure we should be supporting authoritarian regimes just because it maintains the balance of powers. Like I said, it is a complicated issue. Every approach has serious downsides, that neither the left nor the right like to acknowledge.
.
You want to make friends in Iraq? Start by sending them tons of food. Send money for their schools, so they can buy the books that the teachers of those schools think they need. Teach them about America, don't force it on them from the barrel of a gun. You want democracy to flourish, give them the tools they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
And in the end, tell them they don't owe you a thing, we were helping or Islamic brothers. You'll score more goodwill from them than you could ever imagine. You want them to see things your way? Don't force it, make friends.
Aren't we trying that in N.Korea?
As someone that owns three assault rifles*, I'm not sure that I could agree with that. I think handguns are far more dangerous. I would rather have the population armed with weapons that were obvious when carried, rather than easily concealed.
*One of the players in my gaming group is an ATF agent, so the government does know I have them and it's perfectly alright.
Then it's a disagreement. I'm not actively pushing legislation to take guns away here. I'm just saying that the town I currently live in could definitely benefit from better means of identifying illegal weapons and keeping guns out of the hands of the population in general.
I see if it were a Republican president it would have been his fault, but because it was a Dem instead the buck lies elsewhere. Right?
Nope. The CIA puts in power who the CIA wants to put in power. The President gets briefed on the decision and makes the call to put someone in power, but the decision gets made by the people on the ground grooming potential dictators. In this case, those people were Bush 1 and Rumsfeld, the guys who then took turns throwing American lives at Saddam and his legacy.
And they were acting under direct orders from Carter. It's hip to blame Bush for Saddam, but it's just not the whole story. Carter wanted it done because the situation in Iran was deteriorating and wanted a 'strong-man ally' in the reigion. Saddam was already being courted by the Soviets (to whom he eventually went anyway) and Carter wanted to pull Saddam back from them.
And Iran was in the middle of destabilizing, why, again? More CIA interference in the middle east. I understand the underlying reasons behind propping up the Kurd-slaughterer. I'm not really for that sort of foreign policy (deposing one leader just to put another, worse one in charge because we think they'll listen to us) no matter whose watch it comes under.
The bottom line, though, is that Carter was acting on intel he got from the CIA; Bush's CIA. The same Bush that would later play dumb, draw a line in the sand and bomb a third world country even further back into the stone age going after the same dictator he set up.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I get that. So you'd be happier if we carried Bushmasters over Glocks? Is the concealability an issue for you?
Aren't we trying that in N.Korea?
North Korea is mostly saber-rattling. Not so much on the humanitarian side.
I get that. So you'd be happier if we carried Bushmasters over Glocks? Is the concealability an issue for you?
It is for me, to a point.
If we're actually using these weapons for self-defense, why not use their presence to preempt violence altogether. Concealed weapons don't project the idea of forceful rebuttal, shoulder-slung rifles on the other hand do.
Nope. The CIA puts in power who the CIA wants to put in power. The President gets briefed on the decision and makes the call to put someone in power, but the decision gets made by the people on the ground grooming potential dictators. In this case, those people were Bush 1 and Rumsfeld, the guys who then took turns throwing American lives at Saddam and his legacy.
So Carter signed on to do it Right?
I get that. So you'd be happier if we carried Bushmasters over Glocks? Is the concealability an issue for you?
Actually, I don't care either way, I was just saying that anything concealable is more likely to be used in an illegal fashion.
Personally, I think every man, woman and child in this country needs to learn gun safety and be able to use one. I'm strongly in favor of people being taught the right way to use them so that you see less accidents with legal firearms and possibly less use of illegal ones.
So Carter signed on to do it Right?
Yep. Just like Bush signed off on the deaths of thousands of Americans.
What's your point? I already said that I didn't approve of Carter doing it.
Of course he was. That's why Bush 1 (at his post in the CIA) helped install him. He, like every other dictator America has propped up over the years, made the region more stable and was amenable to doing business with U.S.-based corps.
He didn't get targeted for removal because the region became unstable (it wasn't, really). He was targeted because he stopped playing nice with oil corps.
He was a horrible human being, don't get me wrong. Oppression and slaughter of minority groups, one-candidate elections, etc. But there's a reason the Republicans put him there in the first place, just like there was a reason they were arming the Taliban in the 80s.
Now you are playing with history a little too much. The reason he became an enemy of the US wasn't because he refused to play nice with US Oil Companies. It was because he invaded Kuwait. Now to be fair, in a meeting with Donald Rumsfeld (i think it was with him) Saddam implied he was going to invade and wanted to know how the US viewed such an action. By many accounts, Rumfeld knowingly or unknowingly gave him the green light. The invasion of Kuwait is what broke out relationship. There are a number of views about how this went down, and at the end of the day our relationship with him did boil down to our access to oil, but you are putting a slant on it that is very partisan and frankly untrue.
Yes our arming and training of the Taliban was a huge error. Though at the time it did keep the Soviets at bay. Much of what is happening in the mideast today is aggrivated by our prior involvement in that region. But I also think it is very unfair to lay the blame completely on us. There are internal religious and social factors in the Mid East, that caused them to view any non-muslim presence in their part of the world as a great evil. The terrorist threat in the middle east is not simply a nationalist movement throwing off the yoke of foreign rule. For one thing, we had influence, but we never held anything like imperial sway over the middle east. There are places in the world (like the Philippines) where this argument can be made. But the US never governed in the Middle East the way England and France did. What is happening there is a product of the writings of men like Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood. His views were more a reaction to to Nasser's crack down on the Brotherhood. They are a product of the social evotion of Egypt following its liberation from pro-western rulers, and Qutb's interpretation that the Middle East needed to rid itself of secularism and all western influences to be truly Islamic again. Yes the US has made serious misteps in the Middle East. But the proposition (popular among many democrats) that we are directly responsible for the development of terrorism in the Middle East is an intellectually bankrupt notion.
And Iran was in the middle of destabilizing, why, again? More CIA interference in the middle east.
Actually it was more KGB undermining the Shah, who, sadly, was all too underminable to begin with. The Soviets (this IS the Cold War we're talking about) didn't like having a US ally so near to their territory.
Yep. Just like Bush signed off on the deaths of thousands of Americans.
What's your point? I already said that I didn't approve of Carter doing it.
No you made a point at showing that Repuplicans were to blame because Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA, you cannot have it both ways.
Actually it was more KGB undermining the Shah, who, sadly, was all too underminable to begin with. The Soviets (this IS the Cold War we're talking about) didn't like having a US ally so near to their territory.
I strongly urge people to read Keddie's "Roots of Revolution". It is a narrative of the Iranian revolution from the perspective of an Iranian Historian living in America. Very informative.
It is for me, to a point.
If we're actually using these weapons for self-defense, why not use their presence to preempt violence altogether. Concealed weapons don't project the idea of forceful rebuttal, shoulder-slung rifles on the other hand do.
Well the sad fact is that there are people biased against gun owners and too many people that refuse to understand the weapons and therefore fear it. Since those that did carry openly would be treated differently, there's a reason they want to keep it hidden. It's also a matter of convenience occasionally as well. My father recently got his CCW so that when he goes bowhunting he can be armed. You don't want to carry a full pack, a stand, a bow, wear all that gear, etc and carry a rifle on top of it. Just a couple of reasons for concealability off the top of my head.
Actually, I don't care either way, I was just saying that anything concealable is more likely to be used in an illegal fashion.
Personally, I think every man, woman and child in this country needs to learn gun safety and be able to use one. I'm strongly in favor of people being taught the right way to use them so that you see less accidents with legal firearms and possibly less use of illegal ones.
You can conceal an AK in a car right up until you get out of it to do whatever it is you're doing. Limits placed here generally effect the law-abiding more than the non.
I completely agree with your education position. Well said. Everyone should understand firearms and what they are capable of. When I first learned to shoot, it was at reactive targets. Water filled bottles, etc. The reason? You see a tiny bullet like a .22 and you think "what can this puny thing do?". Then, if you shoot a piece of paper, you still have no idea. Dynamic targets shake, spray and even explode. As soon as I shot my first Downy bottle full of water and a bit of soap, I got it. Too many of us have no idea of what a gun can do. They either then irrationally fear it or grossly underestimate it. Education, as with just about everything, is truly the answer to these problems.
Now you are playing with history a little too much. The reason he became an enemy of the US wasn't because he refused to play nice with US Oil Companies. It was because he invaded Kuwait. Now to be fair, in a meeting with Donald Rumsfeld (i think it was with him) Saddam implied he was going to invade and wanted to know how the US viewed such an action. By many accounts, Rumfeld knowingly or unknowingly gave him the green light. The invasion of Kuwait is what broke out relationship. There are a number of views about how this went down, and at the end of the day our relationship with him did boil down to our access to oil, but you are putting a slant on it that is very partisan and frankly untrue.
Saddam's actions would have put the continued access of oil companies to Kuwait's oil in jeopardy. That was what necessitated American involvement in a conflict that wasn't even remotely our business to be in in the first place.
You can call it partisan, but those are the facts; it was about oil, not some fear that the region would destabilize or humanitarian concern for the Kuwaitis. Gassing Kurds, oppressing Islamic sects, rampant corruption, aggressive posturing towards neighbors; none of that made any difference until he threatened the flow of oil.
Yes our arming and training of the Taliban was a huge error. Though at the time it did keep the Soviets at bay. Much of what is happening in the mideast today is aggrivated by our prior involvement in that region. But I also think it is very unfair to lay the blame completely on us. There are internal religious and social factors in the Mid East, that caused them to view any non-muslim presence in their part of the world as a great evil. The terrorist threat in the middle east is not simply a nationalist movement throwing off the yoke of foreign rule. For one thing, we had influence, but we never held anything like imperial sway over the middle east. There are places in the world (like the Philippines) where this argument can be made. But the US never governed in the Middle East the way England and France did. What is happening there is a product of the writings of men like Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood. His views were more a reaction to to Nasser's crack down on the Brotherhood. They are a product of the social evotion of Egypt following its liberation from pro-western rulers, and Qutb's interpretation that the Middle East needed to rid itself of secularism and all western influences to be truly Islamic again. Yes the US has made serious misteps in the Middle East. But the proposition (popular among many democrats) that we are directly responsible for the development of terrorism in the Middle East is an intellectually bankrupt notion.
I'll agree that Europe screwed the pooch early and often in the middle east; imperialism will do that. Iraq specifically was created by the English drawing borders to cut ethnic groups into quadrants and avoid organized uprising by the ruled populations. From the very earliest existence of the country there were massive tensions and an underlying distaste for foreign rulership.
Where America and Russia really messed the region up, though, was in arming them to fight proxy wars for us. At that point, we took what were simmering ancient conflicts and distrusts that rarely resulted in large-scale violence an kicked it into overdrive. Intra-sect violence had existed for centuries, but it was outside interference that has lead to the widespread bloodshed that we've been seeing for years now.
Education, as with just about everything, is truly the answer to these problems.
I agree completely. I have yet to see a problem that educating myself about it didn't solve. Even if the solution was the understanding that I couldn't do anything about it.
No you made a point at showing that Repuplicans were to blame because Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA, you cannot have it both ways.
So I can't blame every government official involved in that kind of international cluster****? I have to pick one and it has to be the sitting President at the time?
If that's the case, Bush Jr. has more to answer for than I thought.
Actually it was more KGB undermining the Shah, who, sadly, was all too underminable to begin with. The Soviets (this IS the Cold War we're talking about) didn't like having a US ally so near to their territory.
Well, it was the whole KGB/CIA too-many-hands-in-too-many-places thing. Western manipulation of middle eastern nations and governments. Espionage, counter espionage, it's all just an excuse to screw people who don't look like you to further your political goals.
You're right, though. That specific instance was KGB, I misspoke (mistyped?).
So I can't blame every government official involved in that kind of international cluster****? I have to pick one and it has to be the sitting President at the time?
If that's the case, Bush Jr. has more to answer for than I thought.
Actually Bush does have a lot to answer for, but that's another discussion.
I agree completely. I have yet to see a problem that educating myself about it didn't solve. Even if the solution was the understanding that I couldn't do anything about it.
I do agree that we need better education regarding firearms in this country.
Growing up in the boonies, surrounded by vets, I never had any question how serious firearms really are. The problem is that not everyone gets the opportunity for that kind of upbringing. We live in a culture that glorifies gun violence in media but never really deals with the consequences (unless it makes a good personal interest story for the newspapers).
If we fix the misconceptions and romanticizations about what "blam" and "dead" really mean amongst those who aren't fortunate enough to grow up around people who take guns seriously, I'd probably withdraw all my misgivings about weapon ownership in this country. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
So I can't blame every government official involved in that kind of international cluster****? I have to pick one and it has to be the sitting President at the time?
Blame whoever you want. But in the end, what does it solve? So we know who poohed the scrooch, but what's that get us? Does picking a guilty party, right or wrong, help us to achieve peace?
Find solutions, not someone to blame.
Blame whoever you want. But in the end, what does it solve? So we know who poohed the scrooch, but what's that get us? Does picking a guilty party, right or wrong, help us to achieve peace?
Find solutions, not someone to blame.
The first step to a solution, though, is identifying where you went wrong. It doesn't have to be about assigning blame, but if you don't examine the actions that lead to the problem you won't have any better idea of how to handle it next time. And that's where our current knee-jerk reactions to major problems (on both sides of the aisle) is hurting us as a nation; instead of learning and fixing we just react. Bad policy.
The first step to a solution, though, is identifying where you went wrong. It doesn't have to be about assigning blame, but if you don't examine the actions that lead to the problem you won't have any better idea of how to handle it next time. And that's where our current knee-jerk reactions to major problems (on both sides of the aisle) is hurting us as a nation; instead of learning and fixing we just react. Bad policy.
I agree, but we aslo can't be blaming just the Republicans or Democratic party, that kind of near sighted bias IMO is just as bad.
Which was made of every male citizen that could vote. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was that the idea of having only the government with firearms was a very, very bad idea.
Actually you can find just as much evidence that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that any army raised by the government was composed of citizens as opposed to mercenaries. That way no matter how much the "government" had firearms, the fingers on the triggers were always citizens with direct connections to any civil insurgents they might be ordered to fire upon. (Not that using militia from other states could not get around that.)
You might also note that the militia at the time was every male white citizen.
And you might want to note that the militia had serious issues with maintaining personal arms, showing up for drills, mustering for an entire campaign, obeying orders that were constitutional but which they opposed politically, and generally performing overall. That of course being why the standing army that is so difficult to maintain under the Constitution is so well maintained anyway, and why some legal legedermain had to be enacted creating an "organized" militia and an "unorganized" militia so the spirit of the Constitution could be fulfilled even if the letter of the law could not properly manage the full scope.
The South, for obvious reasons, did NOT.
I agree, but we aslo can't be blaming just the Republicans or Democratic party, that kind of near sighted bias IMO is just as bad.
No, we should be blaming the people who make the bad decisions in question. Right now, the vast majority of decision making in general is in the hands of Republicans, and it's not hard to make a case for most of being handled poorly.
You can call that nearsighted, but we've got two wars, a housing crisis, corporate bailouts, collapsing bridges, failing health care and a budget deficit headed quickly towards a trillion dollars that would disagree.
Saddam's actions would have put the continued access of oil companies to Kuwait's oil in jeopardy. That was what necessitated American involvement in a conflict that wasn't even remotely our business to be in in the first place.
You can call it partisan, but those are the facts; it was about oil, not some fear that the region would destabilize or humanitarian concern for the Kuwaitis. Gassing Kurds, oppressing Islamic sects, rampant corruption, aggressive posturing towards neighbors; none of that made any difference until he threatened the flow of oil..
It is partisan. I already said our base concern was oil. But that is different from saying he was invaded because he wouldn't play nice with oil companies. His invasion of Kuwait threatened the oil supply there and threatened the stability of Saudi Arabia. Our access to oil in the mid east demands a stable saudi arabia. This was a diplomatic and economic nightmare. But at the end of the day, we need oil to surivive.
I agree with much of what you are stating.
I'll agree that Europe screwed the pooch early and often in the middle east; imperialism will do that. Iraq specifically was created by the English drawing borders to cut ethnic groups into quadrants and avoid organized uprising by the ruled populations. From the very earliest existence of the country there were massive tensions and an underlying distaste for foreign rulership..
You are talking about something that happened in the middle of the last century. The British mandate ended in 1932. Following the mandate you had a series of pro-western, native rulers, beginning with Faisal. And British involvement in the country was absolutely at an end by the July 14th Revolution.
Where America and Russia really messed the region up, though, was in arming them to fight proxy wars for us. At that point, we took what were simmering ancient conflicts and distrusts that rarely resulted in large-scale violence an kicked it into overdrive. Intra-sect violence had existed for centuries, but it was outside interference that has lead to the widespread bloodshed that we've been seeing for years now.
No it wasn't. Our interference is what made us a target of the extremists. The extremists would have existed without the help of the US. And probably would have the same level of influence and numbers in the Mid east without our ivolvement. Modern Islamic fundementalism and extremism is less about ancient, simmering conflicts, and more about purifying the Muslim world from percieved non-muslim influences. Do you think The state of the Middle East would be any better today if Russia had maintained control of Afghanistan? Put simply you are taking an overly appologetic view of the middle east, that is actually insulting to its inhabitants. You are implying that they are powerless victims of history who have no control over their future. How about laying the blame on terrorists, on the terrorists themselves?
Blame whoever you want. But in the end, what does it solve? So we know who poohed the scrooch, but what's that get us? Does picking a guilty party, right or wrong, help us to achieve peace?
Find solutions, not someone to blame.
Yes. Holding on to percieved historical wrongs is what fuels conflict in the region. We shouldn't be a party to this kind of thinking. Lots of people had their hand in the oil jar, and frankly the middle east has been independant (until our recent invasion) for some time. They have foreign alliances and relationships like any other players on the globe. Some nations have more influence and sway than others. But they are not client states.
It is partisan. I already said our base concern was oil. But that is different from saying he was invaded because he wouldn't play nice with oil companies. His invasion of Kuwait threatened the oil supply there and threatened the stability of Saudi Arabia. Our access to oil in the mid east demands a stable saudi arabia. This was a diplomatic and economic nightmare. But at the end of the day, we need oil to surivive.
Again, it's about oil. Saudi-based or America-based, the oil corps got antsy about the move. Then, and only then, did we stop him from invading and start posturing for regime change targeting the dictator we put in power in the first place.
You are talking about something that happened in the middle of the last century. The British mandate ended in 1932. Following the mandate you had a series of pro-western, native rulers, beginning with Faisal. And British involvement in the country was absolutely at an end by the July 14th Revolution.
Oh, I'm aware. But the existence of "Iraq" as a geographic and political entity is due to British imperialism an their division of the region into easy to manage areas that cut off traditional cultural groups and forced previously cold-warring factions into one pot.
Modern Islamic fundementalism and extremism is less about ancient, simmering conflicts, and more about purifying the Muslim world from percieved non-muslim influences.
Western over-involvement with middle eastern political affairs is what allowed that purifying movement to take root. You can only spend so many decades being blatantly manipulated into war by foreign powers before you start to take it badly.
Do you think The state of the Middle East would be any better today if Russia had maintained control of Afghanistan?
No. What I think is that the region never should have become a cold war battleground in the first place. They should have been left to their own culture and politics, potentially developing trade relationships with the west but nothing more. It wasn't the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan that caused the problem; it was their military presence there in the first place.
Put simply you are taking an overly appologetic view of the middle east, that is actually insulting to its inhabitants. You are implying that they are powerless victims of history who have no control over their future. How about laying the blame on terrorists, on the terrorists themselves?
I'm not acting as an apologist for anyone, nor am I trying to insult anyone. I'm merely stating the fact that, were it not for European colonization and the cold war, the situation would be vastly different. It was those events that fomented the now-institutionalized hatred for the west, and disrupted the region to the point where those feelings could take root and grow.
There's no excusing terrorism or the actions of terrorists. I was in no way attempting to do that. It's just important, when engaging in discussion of the region, to look at the underlying issues that have brought us to where we are today. European colonization and manipulation factors very heavily in the current state of the region.
"If Rome hadn't tried to invade the German frontier, then World War II would have never happened."
The 2nd Amendment is probably the most obviously 'compromised' of the Bill of Rights. This shouldnt' be too much of a surprise though. Compare the how different the artisan-based north was compared to the Europe-like South... the North wanted every able-bodied man to be able to defend his home.
The South, for obvious reasons, did NOT.
Except of course the first such militia bill was passed in 1792, not 1862. (When the law was changed to allow blacks to serve in the militia.)
And the first people to come up with an excuse for not obeying orders when serving as militia in federal service were New Englanders refusing to cross into Canada during the War of 1812 unless ordered by the President, in person. That other American troops died because of this was irrelevant to them.
Unfortuntely what you're saying is very akin to:
"If Rome hadn't tried to invade the German frontier, then World War II would have never happened."
It's also no less true.
In order to understand any conflict, you've got to look back to the root causes, even if those were hundreds or thousands of years ago. You've got to understand each side, their motivations and desires. You've got to understand the current political realities, and have plans for likely outcomes of events. You've got to be able to approach them on their terms, knowing what they know, and offer them something they want.
That's why Iraq went to crap in a cradle so fast; we didn't take the time to understand any of that. We didn't look beyond the immediate situation in the country, if we even got that far. We didn't even bring translators for most of the units, for cripe's sake. Now we're stuck backpeddling through a mire of political stalls and sectarian violence that we should have foreseen and forestalled going in.
It's like Duke always said at the end of the episode, folks; Knowing is half the battle.
Unfortuntely what you're saying is very akin to:
"If Rome hadn't tried to invade the German frontier, then World War II would have never happened."
Yes, exactly. I am not denying the impact of the west and Russia on the middle east. But you, Batshido (not you vanguard) are denying the impact that Middle Easterners have had on their own society. Its a mixture of outside forces and internal ones. Keep in mind the Muslim brotherhood became radicalized in response to Nasser and his policies. They were reacting to the fact that Muslims appeared to be embracing foreign influences (secularism, socialism, democracy, etc). To pin the moral blame on the US is sloppy history. We share some blame for things that happened in the mid east. But I don't believe we are morally culpable for the unintended consequences of our actions. I also think, that after a certain amount of time, as vanguard points out, you can't really blame the US. I mean, even as recently as as the Gulf War, much of the middle east was behind the invasion. It wasn't like we were going against the will of the Saudi's the Kuwaitis or the Israelis. Nor could we have foreseen that a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden would re-ignate the Qutbian hatred of the US because of our presence on what he regarded as sacred soil. Simply put you are over-simplifying the Muslim world.
It's also no less true.
But it's pointless.
As an aside, Bats, do you realize that you've actually exactly echoed most of the infamous Soviet Memes in this thread?
It's also no less true.
In order to understand any conflict, you've got to look back to the root causes, even if those were hundreds or thousands of years ago. You've got to understand each side, their motivations and desires. You've got to understand the current political realities, and have plans for likely outcomes of events. You've got to be able to approach them on their terms, knowing what they know, and offer them something they want..
I agree, but you are simplifying the root causes. Laying all blame on the west, and not allowing middle easterners to take responsibility for any of their own actions or history.
That's why Iraq went to crap in a cradle so fast; we didn't take the time to understand any of that. We didn't look beyond the immediate situation in the country, if we even got that far. We didn't even bring translators for most of the units, for cripe's sake. Now we're stuck backpeddling through a mire of political stalls and sectarian violence that we should have foreseen and forestalled going in..
I agree. I was taking my MIddle East studies courses at the time. And many of our professors predicted exactly the events that have unfolded. A brief look at a map of Iraq coded to the ethnic and sectarian make up of the population shows the complexity of the country. Bush and his group were motivated by an ideology predicated on the ideas of men like Harrington and his "Clash of Civilizations." They had a reverse dominoe theory that simply couln't overcome the facts on the ground. BUt the dems are equally ideological. If anything they underestimate the threat of Muslim Extremism, and believe that that the Qutbian notion of removing all western influence is the best solution...often to the point of believing we should let Israel hang. This is equally short sighted.
It's like Duke always said at the end of the episode, folks; Knowing is half the battle.
Except teh Democrats don't understand the middle east any better than republicans. They just like to think they do. As someone who spent years studying Arabic and the Middle East, I can assure you, knowledge of the region can be as crippling as it is enlightening. Every position has down sides. There is no one "good solution" to the middle east.
I can't speak to his motivations, but it seemed like he considered Saddam a more-or-less 'stablizing force' in the region, even with the Gulf Wars.
[sarcasm] How wrong was he, huh? Silly Biden thinking that a secular power intent on keeping out Islamic radicals, so afraid of sectarian feuds he aggressively stomped out any tribalism, and was in constant conflict with Iran was stabilizing the region. [/sarcasm]
I mean Saddam was a gaping bung-hole, no doubt, but he kept things from getting worse.
We gave Iraq ten years for Maker's sake. The problem is that many people, such as Biden, consider diplomacy a solution in and of itself.. it is not, it is a method. For Iraq, that method was a clear failure.
Iraq was under control. Between us and Iran, Iraq wasn't gonna do squat. Yeah, diplomacy wasn't working in that Saddam wasn't gonna be talked into stepping down, but we had them by the short and curlies. We could have gone another 50 years by covering the no-fly zones, and we'd be a hell of a lot better than we are now. So Diplomacy wasn't working well, no, but it sure didn't screw things up like the invasion did.
It's a difficult calculus to be sure. If he hadn't had invaded Quwait and started rolling to Saudi Arabia, things would be much, much different. The trouble was that Saddam himself proved anything BUT stable and he had made defying the UN into an art form.
I have a couple of relatives that were military officers. They both opposed taking out Saddam in Gulf II as he was the only counterweight to Iran's ambitions.
I mean Saddam was a gaping bung-hole, no doubt, but he kept things from getting worse.
The situation now, for everyone involved, is far better than the situation 10 years ago, much less prior to that. Unless, of course, you consider hundreds of thousands of dead from genocides a good thing...
I have a couple of relatives that were military officers. They both opposed taking out Saddam in Gulf II as he was the only counterweight to Iran's ambitions.
I agree that he should have been left in power. But it still is a fuzzy area morally. Especially for people living in the region.
Oh, I'm aware. But the existence of "Iraq" as a geographic and political entity is due to British imperialism an their division of the region into easy to manage areas that cut off traditional cultural groups and forced previously cold-warring factions into one pot.
What about French Imperialism?
Ottomoan Imperialism?
Arab Imperialism?
Islamic Sectarianism?
If you do not mention those then you are just as guilty of not knowing about the underlying issues in the region as you accuse others of being.
Western over-involvement with middle eastern political affairs is what allowed that purifying movement to take root. You can only spend so many decades being blatantly manipulated into war by foreign powers before you start to take it badly.
Then you mean Ottoman over-involvement, as they manipulated the region for centuries before the West showed up.
No. What I think is that the region never should have become a cold war battleground in the first place. They should have been left to their own culture and politics, potentially developing trade relationships with the west but nothing more. It wasn't the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan that caused the problem; it was their military presence there in the first place.
Except the more transportation technology increases, and the more trade and communications increase, the less it is possible for any place to be left to its own culture and politics.
The Prime Directive is silly in Star Trek, it is impossible in the real world.
I'm not acting as an apologist for anyone, nor am I trying to insult anyone. I'm merely stating the fact that, were it not for European colonization and the cold war, the situation would be vastly different. It was those events that fomented the now-institutionalized hatred for the west, and disrupted the region to the point where those feelings could take root and grow.
If you are citing only European colonization and the cold war, then you are acting as an apologist, and you are insulting people.
Those events were minor compared to the 14 centuries of militant Islamic expansion, sectarian warfare, nationalist warfare, and cultural warfare.
Those have significantly more to do with the situation than Western actions.
As an aside, Bats, do you realize that you've actually exactly echoed most of the infamous Soviet Memes in this thread?
Such as?
I agree, but you are simplifying the root causes. Laying all blame on the west, and not allowing middle easterners to take responsibility for any of their own actions or history.
I'm not really trying to lay the blame anywhere. I'm just pointing out that the western manipulation had an effect and helped create the issues that exist today.
Without that influence, who knows what would have happened in the middle east. It could have turned out just fine, or it could have turned sectarian faster. The thing at issue, though, is the actions of the westerners. I'm merely focusing on them because that's what's being debated.
Except teh Democrats don't understand the middle east any better than republicans. They just like to think they do. As someone who spent years studying Arabic and the Middle East, I can assure you, knowledge of the region can be as crippling as it is enlightening. Every position has down sides. There is no one "good solution" to the middle east.
Nobody really understands the situation, and that's the problem. The Democrats would have tried something more diplomatic (if anything at all given the lack of evidence tying Iraq to the WTC attacks) and it probably would have failed too. The thing I prefer about that approach, though, is that it would have resulted in a lot less dead American soldiers.
Half (or more) of our problems with the rest of the world really boil down to a lack of widespread knowledge. The people who understand the situations in far off places aren't the ones making the decisions, and the world suffers for it.
The situation now, for everyone involved, is far better than the situation 10 years ago, much less prior to that. Unless, of course, you consider hundreds of thousands of dead from genocides a good thing...
I think this isn't the case. It is one thing to live under a tryants rule. Another to live amid sectarian conflict. There is a saying in Iraq these days. "During Saddam, I would have sacrificed a lamb to get rid of him. Now I would sacrifice a bull to have him back." The majority of people lived in relative stability during his reign. This isn't to whitewash the killing of the kurds or the killings of percieved political threats and dissidents. Just to point out that for most people, life was relatively peaceful. Now everyone lives in fear for their lives. It is still a very messy place (even if our own soldiers are no longer taking heavy losses, the population is). Trust me, Iraq is in a much more precarious position now internally and externally than it was during Saddam. Particularly during his years of "containment".
If you do not mention those then you are just as guilty of not knowing about the underlying issues in the region as you accuse others of being.
Then I'm illustrating my point just as ably as they are.
I have little knowledge of the pre-European middle east. With that in mind, I'm not in any way qualified to be making decisions around military or political occupations there. I can argue my side until the end of time, but I don't have the backing to make those calls.
People who do have the ability to make those calls should understand what's going on before they make them. Otherwise they're just reacting.
Half (or more) of our problems with the rest of the world really boil down to a lack of widespread knowledge. The people who understand the situations in far off places aren't the ones making the decisions, and the world suffers for it.
The problem is the people who understood the situation were cherry picked. Huntington and Fukuyama are no dummies when it comes to the middle east. but their perspective needed to be balanced by heeding the the insights of other scholars. However the problem is most schools of thought on the middle east still fall down party lines. This is especially true on the subject of Israel. There are moderate Arabists, but they are far less attractive to people motivated by politics than writers like Fukuyama and Said (both deeply misguided in my opinion).
Such as?
I'm not really trying to lay the blame anywhere. I'm just pointing out that the western manipulation had an effect and helped create the issues that exist today.
Without that influence, who knows what would have happened in the middle east. It could have turned out just fine, or it could have turned sectarian faster. The thing at issue, though, is the actions of the westerners. I'm merely focusing on them because that's what's being debated.
.
But the west isn't the only culture to have manipulated the middle east in recent or more distant history. The Russians had an enormous impact on the modern middle east. Perhaps even more than the US or Europe. The ottomons and the Byzantine Empire also had a huge impact. In fact the Byzantine treatment of Christian heretics is one of the main things that contributed to Muslim expansion into the North Africa and Syria. Muslims also acquired the use of veils (and then reinterpreted the Koran to support their use) from Byzantine culture. The Turkic nomads also had a profound impact on the movement of the middle east. Not to mention the internal forces at work, that are just as important as foreign influences. Remember the british secured influence by playing different groups against one another in the middle east. They didn't simply invade the middle east. They worked by establishing relationships with prominent Muslim leaders. Through diplomacy!
By this logic, the whole world is to blame. What does this kind of thinking solve? Does it really offer any solutions? Historical causes are not the same as identifying root causes of current problems. They are what led to them. But you can't go back in time. The best you can do is identify where tensions exist. Why they presently exist. And how can we alleviate them with doing the least amount of damage to ourselves and the region.
Then I'm illustrating my point just as ably as they are.
I have little knowledge of the pre-European middle east. With that in mind, I'm not in any way qualified to be making decisions around military or political occupations there. I can argue my side until the end of time, but I don't have the backing to make those calls.
People who do have the ability to make those calls should understand what's going on before they make them. Otherwise they're just reacting.
Except you are assuming that everyone else knows just as little about the pre-European, and indeed post-European, middle east as you do.
Worse, you make that assumption on the basis of you not liking the decisions and how you perceive the consequences.
Still worse, you make the assumption that the entire situation could have be resolved instantaneously.
That is three critical errors you have made, all with the admission that you really do not understand the history of the region yourself at all.
So indeed, you are not qualified to make decision, and indeed not even qualified to make any analyses. As such you should not be all that surprised when people who do know more shrug off your arguing your position because it has no base.
Except you are assuming that everyone else knows just as little about the pre-European, and indeed post-European, middle east as you do.
Worse, you make that assumption on the basis of you not liking the decisions and how you perceive the consequences.
Still worse, you make the assumption that the entire situation could have be resolved instantaneously.
That is three critical errors you have made, all with the admission that you really do not understand the history of the region yourself at all.
So indeed, you are not qualified to make decision, and indeed not even qualified to make any analyses. As such you should not be all that surprised when people who do know more shrug off your arguing your position because it has no base.
When did I say that people should be listening to me, exactly?
I've just been pointing to what I know and stating what I see as the issue. Given that this whole thing started as a discussion of American involvement in the politics of the region (a subject I'm much more versed in) and veered off as people were discussing various aspects of it, I don't really see why my lack of knowledge here is ruffling your feathers. It's not like I struck out to blame the entire Iraq war on British colonization or blamed the existence of the various religious sects on the current American occupation. I merely contextualized some of my statements (particularly the idea that we should have taken more time to understand the region before diving into occupation) with my knowledge of the region. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.
By this logic, the whole world is to blame. What does this kind of thinking solve? Does it really offer any solutions? Historical causes are not the same as identifying root causes of current problems. They are what led to them. But you can't go back in time. The best you can do is identify where tensions exist. Why they presently exist. And how can we alleviate them with doing the least amount of damage to ourselves and the region.
It's not really about blame, though. That's the thing. Something got fouled up somewhere. We as a country (and as a species in the larger sense) need to figure out what that was so that we can avoid it in the future and improve our attempts to stabilize the region in the immediacy.
That's all I've been saying, sans sidetracks.
It's not really about blame, though. That's the thing. Something got fouled up somewhere. We as a country (and as a species in the larger sense) need to figure out what that was so that we can avoid it in the future and improve our attempts to stabilize the region in the immediacy.
That's all I've been saying, sans sidetracks.
Knowing what events occured 80 years ago that led to internal developments which aggrivated extremism and resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood and then ultimately Al-Qaeda, don't really tell you much about how to solve the problem. Knowing what is going on right now in the middle east is important. Studying the past can sometimes help you. But since there are different narratives and explanations in any field of history, it doesn't help you as much as you might think. This is particularly true of recent history. Most historians accept that it is simply impossible to construct an objective narrative of events that are within recent memory (say anything the historian himself has lived through). It is just too hard to seperate your own politics from your reading of the data.
Ultimately your argument is about blame. You are directly pinning responsibility for the state of the middle east on the West. You even used highly judgmental language when talking about our actions, but shied from such langauge when talking about extremism. Using your rationale the west is at much at the mercy of its historical circumstances as the middle east. No one is respsonsible for their actions, because their actions are a product of the past.
Ultimately your argument is about blame. You are directly pinning responsibility for the state of the middle east on the West. You even used highly judgmental language when talking about our actions, but shied from such langauge when talking about extremism. Using your rationale the west is at much at the mercy of its historical circumstances as the middle east. No one is respsonsible for their actions, because their actions are a product of the past.
When did I ever say anything positive about terrorism or terrorists? I'm curious to see this, as it was obviously something I blacked out to type.
I was just talking about context folks, that's all. Context. There's no excuse for terrorism, and I never tried to give one. Saying I did is putting words in my mouth.
The issue at question here was U.S. involvement in the middle east. The subject then moved to European involvement in the middle east. You'll forgive me for focusing on those subjects and their effects on the situation rather than constantly pointing out the other factors instead. I'll remember that I'm supposed to do that from now on; rag on things we're not actually talking about in order to cater to some overblown sense of fairness.
Sweet jebus, people. This started as a thread about Joe fracking Biden. Why am I now being berated (or as some might say, "ganged up on") for my lack of formal education about the Ottoman Empire?
When did I say that people should be listening to me, exactly?
When you posted a message.
I've just been pointing to what I know and stating what I see as the issue.
Which you did becase you wanted nobody to read it?
Or because you wanted people to take notice of it?
Given that this whole thing started as a discussion of American involvement in the politics of the region (a subject I'm much more versed in)
Except you are not that versed in it as you do not know the background.
and veered off as people were discussing various aspects of it, I don't really see why my lack of knowledge here is ruffling your feathers.
Actually, for the most part, your lack of knowledge is beneficial.
It makes it that much easier to expose the flaws in your position, and demonstrate just how your prescriptions for dealing with it are wrong.
It's not like I struck out to blame the entire Iraq war on British colonization or blamed the existence of the various religious sects on the current American occupation. I merely contextualized some of my statements (particularly the idea that we should have taken more time to understand the region before diving into occupation) with my knowledge of the region. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.
Because in context, you admit that you do not know what you are talking about.
I am not doctor, and I did not play one on TV. Would you like medical advice from me?
I am not a lawyer, and I did not play one on TV. Would you like legal advice from me?
You are not well versed in the history of the middle east, and that limits your ability to fully understand the current situation. Of what value is your analysis then?
Ultimately what you are saying comes down to:
"I do not know your job, but I think you should be good at it before you do it for me."
That rarely impresses the person questioned.
Sweet jebus, people. This started as a thread about Joe fracking Biden. Why am I now being berated (or as some might say, "ganged up on") for my lack of formal education about the Ottoman Empire?
Because you made the same sort of judgement about the middle east based on a lack of knowledge of the relevant history of the region as Joe Biden has made.
The only difference is that Joe Biden might actually know better, and is just making his public statements based on political maneuvering. That would actually make him worse, and if he were to come on by and admit to such he would get a much harsher berating.
It makes it that much easier to expose the flaws in your position, and demonstrate just how your prescriptions for dealing with it are wrong.
Then lay it on me, oh learned one. Where did I go wrong?
Or are you just here to hassle people you don't agree with?
Edit: My position was never that my preferred methods should be accepted without question. I was just stating that the people who actually know what's going on should make the decisions. If you're claiming to be one of those, let's hear your plan.
When did I ever say anything positive about terrorism or terrorists? I'm curious to see this, as it was obviously something I blacked out to type.?
You didn't. But you did not use the same judgmental language to describe them, as you did to describe the west.
I was just talking about context folks, that's all. Context. There's no excuse for terrorism, and I never tried to give one. Saying I did is putting words in my mouth..?
Everyone agrees that context is important. But you seemed to be saying that western imperialism was sole reason for extremism in the middle east. That isn't context. That is writing history with crayons.
The issue at question here was U.S. involvement in the middle east. The subject then moved to European involvement in the middle east. You'll forgive me for focusing on those subjects and their effects on the situation rather than constantly pointing out the other factors instead. I'll remember that I'm supposed to do that from now on; rag on things we're not actually talking about in order to cater to some overblown sense of fairness...?
We were talking about how to best handle the situation in the middle east. And how to understand it. Focusing on the impact of western diplomatic and military efforts in the region confuses the situation as much as claiming the Koran promotes violents does.
Sweet jebus, people. This started as a thread about Joe fracking Biden. Why am I now being berated (or as some might say, "ganged up on") for my lack of formal education about the Ottoman Empire?
No. Few people know enough about the middle east to make informed judgments about it. I studied the freakin place for 4 years, and don't know how to fix it. Both sides are selling snake oil. The reblicans proved that their vision of democracy spreading through the middle east was a pipe dream. The democrats would rather blame the US and the west in general, than recognize that terrorism is a serious threat to peace. They also think that the US pulling out, will magically make things better. Lets be clear, if we pull out, lots of Iraqis will die. It is not simply a matter of this being non our business. We went in and took out the leadership. Now we are responsible for keeping Iraq stable.
Then lay it on me, oh learned one. Where did I go wrong?
Or are you just here to hassle people you don't agree with?
As it happens, most of your key errors have already been highlighted by others.
First, understand that the region has been a mishmash of races, cultures, and religions since a few thousand B.C., all of whom have created patchwork empires and states in the area. You may as well blame the Sumerians for forging a state from diverse peoples as the British.
Second, the entire region was once upon a time not Muslim and not Arab. That was caused by a violent imperial conquest.
Third, the region has a major split caused by a combined political and religious schism among the Muslim Arabs.
Fourth, that split is exacerbated by two major nearby ethnic divides, those being the Kurds and Persians being right next to the Arabs, and choosing different sides in the religious schism.
Fifth, the entire region then suffered a series of disruptions caused by political and religious in-fighting among the various Islamic groups.
Sixth, the entire region was disrupted by the arrival of the Mongols.
Seventh, the entire region was disrupted by the Crusades.
Eighth, the entire region was disrupted by the arrival of the Turks. This disruption affected the region as the Turks arrived, conquered the area and well beyond it, and then slowly declined. The culimantion of the Turkish disruption was the genocides against the Assyrians and Armenians.
Ninth, as a result of the Turkish decline, certain fringe areas of the Arabian peninsula came under British oversight. It was not domination, or the full out imperialism of other areas, but they were subject to some control.
Tenth, with the final collapse of Turkish dominance, the area became subjected to two major conflicting impulses - Arab nationalism on one side and British and French colonialism on the other. As this developed, a third major influence inserted itself, the Islamic fundamentalism of the Wahabbis.
Eleventh, with the end of World War and the colonial presence in the middle east, Arab nationalism combined with socialism to produce new governments in the region. These governments were based on the old colonial borders, but it was equal factors of internal conflict that prevented any move towards unity among them. Simply, everyone wanted to be in charge.
Twelth, although appearing to be stable under their dictators, the situation in the secular, non-monarchist states remained subject to their need to present a strong face. The Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan could manage with the occassional internal crackdown, but the weakest (Jordan) required a full scale war, and the most fringe (Yemen) suffered a long duration civil war.
In contrast, Syria and Iraq needed major external enemies to distract from the lack of internal freedom. Yes, they managed to override tribal and religious enmities - by mass executions. The moment that appearance of power would crack, it would all collapse. Despite other differences, the model for what is inevitable in those two countries is Yugoslavia after Tito died. They will not hold together. Syria has managed by diverting the internal violence to Lebanon, and maintaining Israel as a villain. Iraq had problems. Hussein first lost a war against Iran. Iran did not win, but they did not have to for Hussein to lose. He then invaded Kuwait and overextended his threat profile to Saudi Arabia. That got him another lost war, and required even more internal repression. That finally led to his removal from power because he needed to keep posturing against the US, "standing up" to us to establish his "street cred". Unfortunately for him he pushed that too long, against someone with a family vendetta (something he underestimated as that is a highly relevant local motivator), and with a related vendetta (the terrorist attack). As noted, with Hussein gone, Iraq was naturally headed for a Yugoslavia-style split.
Thirteenth, enter realpolitik, from the UN, the EU, China, Russia, and anyone else who could stick their nose in. Rather than just divide the country up, the US was forced into a position of trying to keep it together. Rather than unleash the almighty smackdown (ala "the surge"), the US was forced into a position of declaring "mission accomplished". This led to four easily predictable occurences: the Shia semi-insurgency, the Sunni insurgency, the Kurdish autonomy, and the Al Qaeda attack. Of these, the tactics were generally predictable: the Shia and Sunni attacked the US, trying to demonstrate power so we would declare them the "winner" and "award" the government to them, the Kurds closed their borders and tried to avoid trouble while smiling constantly and hoping for later support against the Turks, and Al Qaeda attacked the Shia and Sunni attempting to turn their political war with side helping of sectarian conflict into a full-blown and exclusive religious conflict, looking to encourage intervention by any and all neighbors to cause chaos and humiliate the US.
Fourteenth, after everyone had shown their hand, the Surge happened. Again the results are pretty well as could be expected. The Shia have given up, the Sunni have switched sides, the Kurds keep smiling, and Al Qaeda has been smashed. About the only thing remaining is for them to try a Tet Offensive, the last option they have in this kind of assymetric warfare short of just leaving and going to Afghanistan, which they will do anyway.
Fifteenth, a few down minor local factors and major and minor regional factors I did not account for in the above due to space considerations.
Everyone agrees that context is important. But you seemed to be saying that western imperialism was sole reason for extremism in the middle east. That isn't context. That is writing history with crayons.
That's not what I'm saying at all. The focus of the conversation up to that point was on the US, with some forays into Cold War politics. I was speaking in that context. Any bias you are reading into my statements is just that; you reading too much into them.
No. Few people know enough about the middle east to make informed judgments about it. I studied the freakin place for 4 years, and don't know how to fix it. Both sides are selling snake oil. The reblicans proved that their vision of democracy spreading through the middle east was a pipe dream. The democrats would rather blame the US and the west in general, than recognize that terrorism is a serious threat to peace. They also think that the US pulling out, will magically make things better. Lets be clear, if we pull out, lots of Iraqis will die. It is not simply a matter of this being non our business. We went in and took out the leadership. Now we are responsible for keeping Iraq stable.
This has absolutely nothing to say with the text you quoted.
Sweet jebus, people. This started as a thread about Joe fracking Biden. Why am I now being berated (or as some might say, "ganged up on") for my lack of formal education about the Ottoman Empire?
I'm certainly agreeing with you. Bush had decided to invade very early on in his presidency. I'd say that a measured approach would have prevented the war but it wasn't like the administration didn't want the war.
SpearSpike -
You seem to have greatly inflated with Bats was saying. I have not heard Bats say he is a Middle East diplomat with years of experience dealing with international crisises. Like pretty much everyone here he's a thinking human being and can see that the current policies are not working. If the current policy that didn't work was running head-first into a war perhaps the next strategy to try is diplomacy.
Oh and as far as staying in or leaving Iraq I think we should maybe listen to the Iraqis. The fact that the nominal Iraqi government that we created wants us out means that we need to leave.
Bringing this back to the original thread...
Biden is a foreign policy expert. He has years of experience dealing with international issues. He is on the Rolodex of foreign leaders. He went to Georgia at the request of President Saakashvili. It is one of the reason why I think Biden is a pretty good choice for Obama. He might not resonate Change but the fact that he doesn't live in the beltway help mediate any damage.
SpearSpike -
You seem to have greatly inflated with Bats was saying. I have not heard Bats say he is a Middle East diplomat with years of experience dealing with international crisises. Like pretty much everyone here he's a thinking human being and can see that the current policies are not working. If the current policy that didn't work was running head-first into a war perhaps the next strategy to try is diplomacy.
Oh and as far as staying in or leaving Iraq I think we should maybe listen to the Iraqis. The fact that the nominal Iraqi government that we created wants us out means that we need to leave.
.
I don't think I have inflated what he said. You will note that I didn't disagree with him on many of the major points. I disagreed with the way he framed it. Particularly how he seemed to be blaming the west for the problems in the middle east. I also said I wasn't a supporter of the initial invasion. It was a foolish thing to to, and based on a flawed ideology that had no facts to support it. But we are there. We can't change what our votes gave Bush the power to do. I voted against him twice. Apparently the second time around, his blunder wasn't a big enough issue for Americans to vote him out of office. We are there, not just because of him, but because people voted for him in two elections. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people now. I am telling you, if we leave, lots more Iraqis will die.
The nominal Iraqi government that claims to want us out, will collapse if we don't stay in some capacity. What I imagine they are doing, is trying to distance themselves from the US, because being associated with us is extremely controvertial in Iraq. Perhaps they want to give the extremists less reason to target them, or at least give the extremist conemnation of the Iraqi government less credible, by looking like less of a US puppet state. Once we are gone, things will quickly slip into a full scale sectarian civil war. Everyone group is going to make a power grab.
Imagine this scenario. Iran, by some miracle, is able to succesfully attack the US and topple the government to put an end to our aggresive posturing in the middle east, and to save us from ourselves. Imagine that the sectarian violence breaks out between people who want things like nationalized health care, and people who want unregulated capitalism. Added to the mix is a wild card who isn't so concerned with economic theories but will do anything to put God back into the government and the schools. On top of that you have radical libertarian militias creating trying to carve out a country in the upper midwest. I know this scenario is a little ridiculous but just play along. Then, the Iranians bring in more troops to clamp down on the violence and help a democratic government get re-established. Wouldn't the Iranians have some responsibility, to keep the situation from deteriating to a Balkan-style war. Imagine that you belong to a group that supports the "democrats", and you live in fear that gangs who support the "republicans" might kidnap one of your children and torture them to death. Imagine that it happens. Your son is kidnapped. You recieve a phone call the next day. SOmeone asks is your son a democrat or republican. Desperate to save your son, you lie and say he is a republican. They hang up the phone. You answered wrong. And your son is murdered by a Democratic militia. This is what is happening in Iraq right now.
You and I can disagree on the stay in or stay out. I happen to think that there will be a civil war regardless of whether we're there or not. I'm not sold on the idea that Iraq needs to remain 1 country. Biden and others have suggested breaking it into 3 (Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni). At this time the Iraqi government says that's off the table. One of the many stated goals was to create a democratic government. So if they say its off the table then that's their right. That same government is telling us to leave. That's it. That's the end of it. What further rationale is there for us to remain as occupiers?
Regardless even the Bush administration is unable to sustain a no-timetable stance. Current agreements look like it's over in 2011.
The current situation is not sustainable. The number of troops necessary for the surge which is keeping the violence down can not be kept there indefinitely. This is the extent of the U.S.'s hard power when dealing with an unpopular war. (See WWII for the extent of U.S. hard power when dealing with a motivated population).
No it requires a draft to sustain. I don't think we should maintain the level of troops we have there now. For one, it gives us, and the Iraqi, government a false sense of security. Violence has decreased, but once the surge is over, it will rise up again. Better for us to have lower troop numbers so we can get a better sense of where the country is going. As I said, we as a country went in and invaded.
You and I can disagree on the stay in or stay out. I happen to think that there will be a civil war regardless of whether we're there or not. I'm not sold on the idea that Iraq needs to remain 1 country. Biden and others have suggested breaking it into 3 (Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni). At this time the Iraqi government says that's off the table. One of the many stated goals was to create a democratic government. So if they say its off the table then that's their right. That same government is telling us to leave. That's it. That's the end of it. What further rationale is there for us to remain as occupiers?.
Because the violence taking place in Iraq is a direct result of our decision to go in in the first place. The 3 country solution is an interesting one, but reaks of the same kind of articifial border drawing that created Iraq in the first place. If the Kurdish region gains autonomy, there is a very, very good chance that it will be invaded by Turkey. If the Shi'ite region (which you must keep in mind does have a Sunni population) gains autonomy, it will likely be absorbed into Iran. And if the Sunni region gains autonomy, Sunni arab nations will likely vie for control. A much better solution, if you are going to nation carve. Would be simply to make the Sunni region part of Syria. Make the Shi'ite region part of Iran. And then let the Kurds get devoured by Turkey. The problem with this kind of thinking is it doesn't take the human cost into consideration. Nor does it allow people to govern themselves. The Iraqi government, for all its faults, is at least modestly representational.
The situation is far more complicated than the government asking us to leave. If he really wanted us to leave, we would. My guess is the US is helping him to appear defiant toward the US, in order to abate anti-government sentiment in Iraq. But even if we accept his words at face value, he wants us out by 2011, but is open to a the US presence in an "advisory and training" capacity. Also, he is the Prime Minister. But he doesn't speak for everyone in the government. His voice is an important one, but not the only voice to consider. Frankly I don't think we need to act in as visible a fashion as we have. But I believe it would be foolish for us to withdraw completely. I would like to see it reach the point where a UN security force can be put in place in order to maintain the security of the country and the stability of the government.
Regardless even the Bush administration is unable to sustain a no-timetable stance. Current agreements look like it's over in 2011.
That is what the timetable looks like. But the situation is so unstable that that date could easily change in the near future. Personally I pin the blame on Bush and his administration. I feel, at the very least, the man should be impeached for misleading the American people and destabilizing the entire middle east.
No it requires a draft to sustain. I don't think we should maintain the level of troops we have there now. For one, it gives us, and the Iraqi, government a false sense of security. Violence has decreased, but once the surge is over, it will rise up again. Better for us to have lower troop numbers so we can get a better sense of where the country is going. As I said, we as a country went in and invaded.
Violence will not increase with something pushing it. A lack of an American presence is not a drive, it is a pull. If the elements that would push it are gone, even with the pull, it will not happen.
Because the violence taking place in Iraq is a direct result of our decision to go in in the first place.
It is not. It is a direct result of the situation underlying Iraq in the first place, much as the violence in Yugoslavia was there and was going to happen whether some foreign nation intervened or not.
The situation is far more complicated than the government asking us to leave. If he really wanted us to leave, we would. My guess is the US is helping him to appear defiant toward the US, in order to abate anti-government sentiment in Iraq.
No, it is the need to appear strong enough to control the situation without the US.
What needs to be done is the same thing as was done in Afghanistan. The international presence has to be predicated on a theme of "Some of our enemies are squatting in your territory. May we pay you so we may hunt them down and kill them with your permission?" This avoids embarassing the local government that we want to support by implying they need our help to kill their enemies (a sign of weakness), that they do not actually control their own territory by portraying said enemies as just criminals instead of invaders (a sign of weakness); and bolsters them by showing we need their help through the permission to hunt on their territory (a sign of strength), by us paying them for the privilege (a sign of strength and a gain of strength), and when they are solicited help us directly (a sign of even greater strength, particularly given our international prestige).
The mistake is not considering very simple realpolitik issues of saving face and being able to claim power whether you have it or not, as well as recognizing that a massive display of power was needed to establish proper credentials in the first place.
Violence will not increase with something pushing it. A lack of an American presence is not a drive, it is a pull. If the elements that would push it are gone, even with the pull, it will not happen..
Could you be alittle more clear on your point here. This is terribly cryptic (PS I don't mean this as an attack, I really just think there is a lot of room for me to misinterpret what you are saying here).
It is not. It is a direct result of the situation underlying Iraq in the first place, much as the violence in Yugoslavia was there and was going to happen whether some foreign nation intervened or not...
I agree to a point. Yes the violence was there waiting to happen all along. But Saddam was keeping it at bay. Our invasion allowed the floodgates to open. Since the violence wouldn't have occured if no one invaded, since Saddam was able to maintain stability, much of the blame can be pinned on us. That said, at some point, the Iraqis do need to be able to fend for themselves. I just don't think we can throw them to the wolves so soon, given out involvment.
No, it is the need to appear strong enough to control the situation without the US.
What needs to be done is the same thing as was done in Afghanistan. The international presence has to be predicated on a theme of "Some of our enemies are squatting in your territory. May we pay you so we may hunt them down and kill them with your permission?" This avoids embarassing the local government that we want to support by implying they need our help to kill their enemies (a sign of weakness), that they do not actually control their own territory by portraying said enemies as just criminals instead of invaders (a sign of weakness); and bolsters them by showing we need their help through the permission to hunt on their territory (a sign of strength), by us paying them for the privilege (a sign of strength and a gain of strength), and when they are solicited help us directly (a sign of even greater strength, particularly given our international prestige)..
I don't disagree with this. Except I think the first statement is an over simplification (as was mine in hindsight). I believe you are correct that the government needs to maintain the appearance of being "tough enough" without the US. But I think, given the make up of the government and the threats it faces, Prime Minister al-Maliki is being pressured (internally) not to give the appearance of being America's lap dog. The militia groups still view it as a foreign occupation, and teh governments perceived loyalty to the US, makes them appear like a puppet government to many Iraqis.
The mistake is not considering very simple realpolitik issues of saving face and being able to claim power whether you have it or not, as well as recognizing that a massive display of power was needed to establish proper credentials in the first place.
Whose mistake are you referring to?
As for power displays. While Saddam maintained stability through them, I doubt anything short of an autocratic dictatorship could have contained the violence. It wasn't a simple matter of the government needing to flex its muscles once to show it meant business. Just look at how most Middle East countries are governed. It requires frequent clamp downs, and serious violations of human rights to remain in power. Do you think the Saudi's would still be in power without Chop Chop square? Mubarak in Egypt?
Obviously the Iraq situation is complicated. One of the reasons for the low approval of Congress is that they are unwilling to really delve into the law breaking of the current administration and specifically get into the intelligence created for the war.
At this time the 3-part solution is out. And I do agree with you on all the complications... plus they'd have to agree on oil sharing. I think Turkey's earlier mini-invasion vetoed the idea for now. I would not be surprised if the Kurd separated as soon as we leave / redeploy though. It's not like they have so many ties with the rest of the country. That is really going to cause issues. It's a political no-no to fire on other NATO countries. Once again political soft power seems to be the key for diffusing this issue. Biden has foreign policy credibility. I would argue that Biden will help Obama govern much better than the other choices (Bayh, Kaine, or Sebelius).
I know I'm on a message board so I'm supposed to ignore your scenario and simply attack some small part of the premise... but I'll answer like an adult.
I understand what you are saying. And yes I agree that the U.S. has a moral obligation to help fix Iraq. I am not sure if it is possible to do so short of a WWII occupation. We defeated the standing army of Iraq so who can do the formal surrender so the population can live in peace? It seems like our troops are exacerbating the problem. When we stop handing out our bribes things will get worse again. When we redeploy things will get worse. When the surge ends because we can't sustain it things will get worse again. What exactly would fixing Iraq entail? That's been the problem. It's easy to say leaving is bad. No S***. What does success look like? How can it be realistically achieved? The surge was created for a number of reasons (I won't get into the domestic issues). One of the reasons was to create enough stability to create a functioning government. Well violence is down. The only thing the major governmental players seems to agree on is that its time for us to go. And yes quite a few of them want us to leave so they get to be the big bully. I'm just not sure what options there are. I'm not a foreign policy expert. The Middle-East is not my major area of study. I do pay attention and I didn't need Lieberman to tell me that Al-Q was not going to be welcome in Iran.
As much as I like talking about this I would respectfully suggest we limit the scope of this discussion and get back to what Biden does and does not bring to the ticket.
I personally did not like Kaine or Bayh. Kaine is too conservative. Bayh was the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC is big into the ugliness of the 50+1% strategy. Both Kaine and Bayh would mean less enthusiasm from the liberal activists. I liked the idea of Sebelius, Kansas Gov, female, credited with making Kansas a little bluier. I don't know how she would have been in practice. Biden can throw an attack. Can Sebelius? Her response to the State of the Union was only so-so.
Could you be alittle more clear on your point here. This is terribly cryptic.
A push is something to cause an action, a pull is something to make an action occur at a particular place.
A drunk staggering down a street is a "pull" for a thug to roll him.
A gang leader browbeating a gang member is a "push" for the thug to roll him.
In Iraq, the US leaving, like a policeman walking around a corner, could be a pull. It still requires the presence of a group dedicated to violence to blow people up on the street.
You can reach a point where you have killed or co-opted those most likely to secede.
I agree to a point. Yes the violence was there waiting to happen all along. But Saddam was keeping it at bay. Our invasion allowed the floodgates to open. Since the violence wouldn't have occured if no one invaded, since Saddam was able to maintain stability, much of the blame can be pinned on us. That said, at some point, the Iraqis do need to be able to fend for themselves. I just don't think we can throw them to the wolves so soon, given out involvment.
Unless of course Hussein was overthrown by internal revolt. Given how far he had fallen recently that is not that impossible.
I don't disagree with this. Except I think the first statement is an over simplification (as was mine in hindsight). I believe you are correct that the government needs to maintain the appearance of being "tough enough" without the US. But I think, given the make up of the government and the threats it faces, Prime Minister al-Maliki is being pressured (internally) not to give the appearance of being America's lap dog. The militia groups still view it as a foreign occupation, and teh governments perceived loyalty to the US, makes them appear like a puppet government to many Iraqis.
There are a few fine details, yes, but the general overview is what it is.
Of course when it comes to it, al-Maliki is an issue himself.
Note though that the militia groups that view it as an occupation are being marginalized out of relevance.
Whose mistake are you referring to?
The ever popular "them".
A combination of national representatives, talking heads, and NGO spokesmen.
National representatives may be playing the game, but the others have a strong tendency to be purely ignorant.
As for power displays. While Saddam maintained stability through them, I doubt anything short of an autocratic dictatorship could have contained the violence. It wasn't a simple matter of the government needing to flex its muscles once to show it meant business. Just look at how most Middle East countries are governed. It requires frequent clamp downs, and serious violations of human rights to remain in power. Do you think the Saudi's would still be in power without Chop Chop square? Mubarak in Egypt?
That was a point I touched on before.
However, there is a very distinct difference in scale between Hussein and the Saudi's or Mubarak.
I know I'm on a message board so I'm supposed to ignore your scenario and simply attack some small part of the premise... but I'll answer like an adult.
I understand what you are saying. And yes I agree that the U.S. has a moral obligation to help fix Iraq. I am not sure if it is possible to do so short of a WWII occupation. We defeated the standing army of Iraq so who can do the formal surrender so the population can live in peace? It seems like our troops are exacerbating the problem. When we stop handing out our bribes things will get worse again. When we redeploy things will get worse. When the surge ends because we can't sustain it things will get worse again. What exactly would fixing Iraq entail? That's been the problem. It's easy to say leaving is bad. No S***. What does success look like? How can it be realistically achieved? The surge was created for a number of reasons (I won't get into the domestic issues). One of the reasons was to create enough stability to create a functioning government. Well violence is down. The only thing the major governmental players seems to agree on is that its time for us to go. And yes quite a few of them want us to leave so they get to be the big bully. I'm just not sure what options there are. I'm not a foreign policy expert. The Middle-East is not my major area of study. I do pay attention and I didn't need Lieberman to tell me that Al-Q was not going to be welcome in Iran..
Thanks for responding to the scenario
. I am not going to suggest that any one solution is the correct one at this point. As I said, all solutions have serious down sides that need to be considered, and no one can predict the future. I do feel that our moral responsibility to Iraq should inform our policy (though it need not mean we simply stay there and wait for things to get better). The problem with the surge is it has created an artificial sense of peace in the region. It has bought us some time. But it it was a bandaid fix to a more deeply rooted problem. As much as I like talking about this I would respectfully suggest we limit the scope of this discussion and get back to what Biden does and does not bring to the ticket.
I personally did not like Kaine or Bayh. Kaine is too conservative. Bayh was the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC is big into the ugliness of the 50+1% strategy. Both Kaine and Bayh would mean less enthusiasm from the liberal activists. I liked the idea of Sebelius, Kansas Gov, female, credited with making Kansas a little bluier. I don't know how she would have been in practice. Biden can throw an attack. Can Sebelius? Her response to the State of the Union was only so-so.
Sounds fair. Though it looks like I should at least respond to one other post on the subject after this.
Personally I like Biden. But I was concerned with the electability issue. A more conservative democrat, with strong foreign policy credentials, perhaps even a military man and not a politician, would have been a more electable choice in my opinion (and I suck at politics so take it with a grain of salt). But as far as me the voter. I am happy with the Biden choice. Just a little worried what it will mean for Obama's chances.
Personally I like Biden. But I was concerned with the electability issue. A more conservative democrat, with strong foreign policy credentials, perhaps even a military man and not a politician, would have been a more electable choice in my opinion (and I suck at politics so take it with a grain of salt). But as far as me the voter. I am happy with the Biden choice. Just a little worried what it will mean for Obama's chances.
Biden was a lousy choice for one long term reason:
His age.
Assuming Obama manages two terms, Biden will be 74 when it is time to replace Obama. Given the chaos this time, and the issues raised with McCain, you would think the Democrats would have learned something from it all. That they have not is yet another in a long line of confidence destroying missteps on their part.
A push is something to cause an action, a pull is something to make an action occur at a particular place.
A drunk staggering down a street is a "pull" for a thug to roll him.
A gang leader browbeating a gang member is a "push" for the thug to roll him.
In Iraq, the US leaving, like a policeman walking around a corner, could be a pull. It still requires the presence of a group dedicated to violence to blow people up on the street.
You can reach a point where you have killed or co-opted those most likely to secede..
If you are saying that a strong US presence is helping to decrease violence, then yes I agree. Though I think it is a double edged sword, since out presence is also an aggravation and rallying cry for many extremist groups.
Unless of course Hussein was overthrown by internal revolt. Given how far he had fallen recently that is not that impossible...
I think that was largely up to us as well. We were the ones puttin genough pressure on him to make it happen. But dispite our best efforts for over ten years, he was able to stay in power. His rise was nothing short of amazing, and he was a resourceful leader who knew how to stay in power in Iraq. That he was giving lip service to Islam, and moving away from his secular roots, shows that he saw where the winds were blowing. Certainly an interesting possibility. The consequences could have been the same though, unless an equally strong leader or group siezed power after his fall.
There are a few fine details, yes, but the general overview is what it is.
Of course when it comes to it, al-Maliki is an issue himself.
Note though that the militia groups that view it as an occupation are being marginalized out of relevance....
Malaki is. But we will have to wait and see what happens and how he plays the game. I wouldn't rule out the militia groups just yet. The true test will be when the surge ends.
The ever popular "them".
A combination of national representatives, talking heads, and NGO spokesmen.
National representatives may be playing the game, but the others have a strong tendency to be purely ignorant..
I don't deny this. But I am still unclear which mistake you were referring to.
That was a point I touched on before.
However, there is a very distinct difference in scale between Hussein and the Saudi's or Mubarak.
The Saudi's and Mubarak have been iron fisted nonetheless. And with good reason at times. But just bear in mind that that same Iron fistedness that secures keeps these countries secure produced, respectively, Al-Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood.
Biden was a lousy choice for one long term reason:
His age.
Assuming Obama manages two terms, Biden will be 74 when it is time to replace Obama. Given the chaos this time, and the issues raised with McCain, you would think the Democrats would have learned something from it all. That they have not is yet another in a long line of confidence destroying missteps on their part.
This is a valid concern. But I regard it as an electability issue (at least for the party). But lets be honest, if the dems were going to go with electibility neither Barrack Hussein Obama nor Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been the frontrunners. This was their election to lose, and it looks like they may still lose it if they are not careful.
McCain will choose his running mate. I really hope that McCain chooses Romney. He'll get to do it on his birthday. I think every Democrat should make it a point to wish him a happy 72nd birthday.
Republicans will then have their convention. As long as McCain doesn't do another green screen challenge there will be dueling bounces. Given that the conventions are one right after another I just don't see big bounces for either unless there are big screwups.
Then we'll see Obama and McCain together in a debate. Neither are particularly great debaters but Obama will seem "Presidential" and that should be enough. McCain is a known quantity. People are still making up their minds about Obama. Therefore if Obama shows up and seems "Presidential" he doesn't lose. Then he makes every point about how McCain and Bush have the same policies. Only 23-29% of the population still likes Bush. And really McCain doesn't challenge any of his policies. Except lately McCain seems to want more wars with China and Russia.
Here's a few items for election day. There are way more self-described Dems than Repubs across the country. Every swing-state has had record numbers of newly registered Dems. Obama has shown that he has an impressive ground game and that he gets people to the voting booth. Also, I find it fun that McCain is polling 47% to Obama's 41% in Arizona. When was the last time that VA and NC were swing states? Let alone North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska. I don't think Obama will make 370 Electoral College votes like Clinton did (unless Barr and Nader actually make a difference) but I think he'll win with > 43% of the vote.
I kinda look at it this way. McCain had several months as the only candidate. Despite having 80% of the Republican vote he doesn't get above 45% of just about any poll to date. Obama tends to have slightly less party support but slightly more independents. When he increases the party support (which I think will happen around Wed or Thurs of this week) he'll start getting his bump. Pollster averages around 120 different polling results. Obama is ahead in 101 of those. Last poll I saw had 43% of Obama's supporters as very excited... and only 14% for McCain. This tells you who is motivated about actually showing up to vote.
McCain will choose his running mate. I really hope that McCain chooses Romney. He'll get to do it on his birthday. I think every Democrat should make it a point to wish him a happy 72nd birthday.
Republicans will then have their convention. As long as McCain doesn't do another green screen challenge there will be dueling bounces. Given that the conventions are one right after another I just don't see big bounces for either unless there are big screwups.
Then we'll see Obama and McCain together in a debate. Neither are particularly great debaters but Obama will seem "Presidential" and that should be enough. McCain is a known quantity. People are still making up their minds about Obama. Therefore if Obama shows up and seems "Presidential" he doesn't lose. Then he makes every point about how McCain and Bush have the same policies. Only 23-29% of the population still likes Bush. And really McCain doesn't challenge any of his policies. Except lately McCain seems to want more wars with China and Russia.
Here's a few items for election day. There are way more self-described Dems than Repubs across the country. Every swing-state has had record numbers of newly registered Dems. Obama has shown that he has an impressive ground game and that he gets people to the voting booth. Also, I find it fun that McCain is polling 47% to Obama's 41% in Arizona. When was the last time that VA and NC were swing states? Let alone North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska. I don't think Obama will make 370 Electoral College votes like Clinton did (unless Barr and Nader actually make a difference) but I think he'll win with > 43% of the vote.
I hope you are right, but McCain appears to be catching up to Obama (to be honest I am not as worried about a McCain presidency as I would be about a Romney presidency-- hopefully he doesn't get picked as his running mate). Also Obama just has issues as a candidate. At least in terms of electability.
First, his middle name is Hussein. Unfortunately this is about as helpful as having Khomeini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Bin Laden, as a middle name. For lots of liberals this doesn't seem like a big deal. But there are lots of people who wont vote for him based on his middle name. This is especially true given that Obama has had trouble shaking the whole "he's a muslim thing" (and yes being a Muslim, or if people just belive you are, will lose you the presidency). Add to this that his first name sounds like Osama, and you have a sound bite recipe that will spell disaster as the election gets closer and closer.
Second, he isn't a terribly good speaker. Now let me be clear. He is a great lecturer. He would do well at the university or on Public Radio. But his akward and cautious style of speech, though appreciated by many north east liberals, is going to hurt him in a general election. Especially since it has been making him appear less assertive when answering direct questions. He seems to suffer from the "nuance" problem that plagued Kerry.
Third, he lacks experience. He just wasn't ready to be a candidate yet. Now I could be wrong. Maybe people are ready to elect a guy who isn't percieved as being as much of a political insider as his opponent. I am certainly not saying it makes someone less qualified to be president. Since we have elected plenty of people with little to no political experience in the past, and our system welcomes such candidates. But I do think this will be used as a weapon against him. And that in such an important election, the dems should have picked someone with a more solid resume. Barrack is a bit of a gamble.
These are not even substantive criticisms. These are just the superficial ones. But when the attack ads fly, I suspect they will be designed to feed off of these three issues.
As far as speaking though... Obama at his best beats McCain at his best (as long as they're answering the same questions unlike Rick Warren's thing). Midling Obama vs best McCain can be different. Neither Fox nor ABC are in charge of any of the debates so they won't be obviously out to get him. Now McCain has a bit of a temper.. what happens if he melts during a debate? Even if he doesn't snap he probably won't answer questions as precisely. Also a lot of the population thinks that McCain is pro-choice... not sure why but they do. I expect that misconception to be laid out during the debates.
His relative lack of experience has already been used against him. He beat Hillary regardless and McCain is running the same campaign. Regardless McCain isn't above 45%. This is why Obama keeps talking about judgment. McCain for all of his experience is wrong so often. This is again why Obama picked Biden who has even more experience than McCain. I sas a description of Biden as looking like "mom's boyfriend". Biden helps attract some older voters who are scared of Obama. Obama doesn't need a lot of them to come over to take FL. Biden also helps in OH and PA... again Obama doesn't need a lot of help to win those states hands down. PA right now looks good.. OH less so.
Unlike 2004 just about every swing state has a Dem Sec of State which means polls stay open, there are enough ballots in Dem counties, and evil Diebold voting machines get trashed. Ohio is planning for an 80% turnout. I doubt it will be that high but if it gets up there I can't see how that's bad for Obama.
I'm not saying that Obama can't lose. But he beat the institutional favorite by playing a better game. I think he'll play a better game in the general election too. I'm really looking forward to his speech... that said I need to find Michelle's online somewhere...
This is way better then discussing how many at-wills does the Warlock get ;)
No, we should be blaming the people who make the bad decisions in question. Right now, the vast majority of decision making in general is in the hands of Republicans, and it's not hard to make a case for most of being handled poorly.
You can call that nearsighted, but we've got two wars, a housing crisis, corporate bailouts, collapsing bridges, failing health care and a budget deficit headed quickly towards a trillion dollars that would disagree.
So you go head and blame the Republicans, I'll blame government as a whole. This kind of hate only perpetuates the lies on both sides and gets nothing done. What I love is how George Bush is the Republican Party. Most if not all of the Republican party is against illegal immigration and was against no child left behind, yet they get blamed because George Bush is for it, on the flip side when we were going to war with Iraq the Democratic party was against going to the war but that didn’t stop the majority of Dems in the house and senate voting for it and the billions of dollars needed to keep the war going.
I hope you are right, but McCain appears to be catching up to Obama (to be honest I am not as worried about a McCain presidency as I would be about a Romney presidency-- hopefully he doesn't get picked as his running mate). .
Why do you not like Romney for McCains running mate? And may I add your argument are very informative.
So you go head and blame the Republicans, I'll blame government as a whole. This kind of hate only perpetuates the lies on both sides and gets nothing done. What I love is how George Bush is the Republican Party. Most if not all of the Republican party is against illegal immigration and was against no child left behind, yet they get blamed because George Bush is for it, on the flip side when we were going to war with Iraq the Democratic party was against going to the war but that didn’t stop the majority of Dems in the house and senate voting for it and the billions of dollars needed to keep the war going.
George Bush IS the face of the Republican party, sorry. He's the most visible member, and he's the one leading the (public) charge for the policies that are killing the Republican brand at this point. From the mismanagement of the war to torture to the economic "slowdown" (read: "recession") to the record national debt; he's the face for all those screw-ups. And the Republicans in congress have been right there with him on virtually every issue. You can try to confine the failure to one man, but the reality is that the Republican party can't handle actually being in power; the "ideals" the party is supposedly built upon (small government, fiscal responsibility, smart foreign policy, etc) fall to the wayside as soon as they get the big chair. They make an ok opposition party, but they have proven time and time again that they aren't fit to run things.
As for the Dems that voted for the war, they've either gotten theirs or they're going to get it. Voting for the war cost Clinton the nomination. It's cost several sitting Reps primary races. That kind of B.S. posturing doesn't win fans in the Democratic party, especially when it costs the lives of thousands of our soldiers. Those Dems are to blame as well, and it's coming back to bite them, believe me.
Why do you not like Romney for McCains running mate? And may I add your argument are very informative.
As a Massachusetts resident, I actually thought Romney did an okay job (though I think the mandatory healthcare he and Kennedy pushed is terrible). But I disagree strongly with his stance on immigration and how to deal with terrorism.
George Bush IS the face of the Republican party, sorry. He's the most visible member, and he's the one leading the (public) charge for the policies that are killing the Republican brand at this point. From the mismanagement of the war to torture to the economic "slowdown" (read: "recession") to the record national debt; he's the face for all those screw-ups. And the Republicans in congress have been right there with him on virtually every issue. You can try to confine the failure to one man, but the reality is that the Republican party can't handle actually being in power; the "ideals" the party is supposedly built upon (small government, fiscal responsibility, smart foreign policy, etc) fall to the wayside as soon as they get the big chair. They make an ok opposition party, but they have proven time and time again that they aren't fit to run things.
As for the Dems that voted for the war, they've either gotten theirs or they're going to get it. Voting for the war cost Clinton the nomination. It's cost several sitting Reps primary races. That kind of B.S. posturing doesn't win fans in the Democratic party, especially when it costs the lives of thousands of our soldiers. Those Dems are to blame as well, and it's coming back to bite them, believe me.
I don't believe Clinton voting for the war lost her the nomination, considering she had close to half of the delegates needed and if the Democratic party had not pushed out Florida and Michigan or the if the story about John Edwards was reported by the National Press instead of the Enquirer then she would have had the nomination IMO. That being said again your right the Republicans were in power as the Dems are now but it is very easy to make a case against the Democratic party as it is for the Republican Party. There is a saying that you don't feel the true impact of a Presidency until after he has left office. In other words if I go by your logic I shouldn't vote for the best person for Presidency but for the best party. Sorry but that does not fly with me. I didn’t vote for George Bush the first time not because he was a Republican but because he was an idiot and not a true conservative. I voted for him the second time because I thought John Kerry was a bigger idiot.
As a Massachusetts resident, I actually thought Romney did an okay job (though I think the mandatory healthcare he and Kennedy pushed is terrible). But I disagree strongly with his stance on immigration and how to deal with terrorism.
But how does that make him a bad running mate. The majority of conservative agree with his stance on illegal immigration including myself, maybe not his implementation and his economics were dead on and his strategy for the war is not that much different from McCains.
But how does that make him a bad running mate. The majority of conservative agree with his stance on illegal immigration including myself, maybe not his implementation and his economics were dead on and his strategy for the war is not that much different from McCains.
It means he will likely be the Republican nominee in after a McCain leaves office. But he also has a particularly hard line view on immigration, which he often expressed as governor. McCain, though he changed his position to win the primary, has in the past expressed a more moderate view on immigration. Having dealt with US immigration law first hand with my wife (who is a foreigner), I would very much like to see our laws on immigration relaxed. Particularly I would like to see it become much easier to become a citizen and get a green card.
It means he will likely be the Republican nominee in after a McCain leaves office. But he also has a particularly hard line view on immigration, which he often expressed as governor. McCain, though he changed his position to win the primary, has in the past expressed a more moderate view on immigration. Having dealt with US immigration law first hand with my wife (who is a foreigner), I would very much like to see our laws on immigration relaxed. Particularly I would like to see it become much easier to become a citizen and get a green card.
I don't disagree with you about how hard it is to get a green card a friend of mine married a woman from Canada and it took a lot of money and time for her to become a citizen even after they were married. At the same time having little or no regulation creates other problems as well and I think Romney's economic plan are what's best about him. Not that I agree with his national health care especially after what Deval Patric and the state legislature are doing with it's baby brother right now. I live on the border of Mass.
It means he will likely be the Republican nominee in after a McCain leaves office. But he also has a particularly hard line view on immigration, which he often expressed as governor.
I never heard him be particularly hard on immigration. What was hard line?
I never heard him be particularly hard on immigration. What was hard line?
Maybe not hardline, but too hardline for me (I am pretty liberal on the immigration issue). This is the article I had in mind when I mentioned his position:
Romney's words grow hard on immigration
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | March 16, 2007
PHOENIX -- When Mitt Romney swooped into the heart of John McCain country this week, he brought a pointed message on illegal immigration: McCain's approach is the wrong one.
Proudly touting the endorsement of Joe Arpaio, a sheriff in the state who is known nationally for rounding up immigrants in desert tents, Romney boasted of cracking down on illegal immigrants as governor and denounced an immigration bill that the Arizona senator introduced with Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 2005.
It is a theme Romney has hit hard in recent weeks in his appeals to conservatives, many of whom attack McCain's immigration bill for proposing an eventual path to citizenship for immigrants living illegally in the United States and a guest-worker program to help fill American jobs.
"McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer," Romney said in a well-received speech to conservatives in Washington this month, describing it as an amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits.
But that is markedly different from how Romney once characterized McCain's bill, elements of which are receiving new attention in Congress and from President Bush. Indeed, Romney's past comments on illegal immigration suggest his views have hardened as he has ramped up his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."
Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."
Asked about the discrepancy between Romney's comments in 2005 and now, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said: "Over the past year and a half, as the American people have learned all the details of the McCain-Kennedy approach, they have arrived at the same conclusion as Governor Romney: It rewards people who are here illegally."
Fehrnstrom added that Romney took strong action against illegal immigration as Massachusetts governor by vetoing a measure to grant in-state tuition rates to children of undocumented immigrants, opposing proposals to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and authorizing National Guard troops to assist with border patrol.
Last year, shortly after the Globe reported that some state contractors relied heavily on illegal workers, Romney sought federal permission to deputize state troopers to detain illegal immigrants they encountered on the job.
Asked by reporters in Phoenix Tuesday to elaborate on his immigration views, Romney said he disagreed with several aspects of the McCain-Kennedy bill, charging that the legislation sought a special course for illegal immigrants already in the country that "could result in virtual amnesty."
"My view is there should be no advantage for those that are here illegally in pursuing a course of permanent residency," Romney said at a press conference at the Arizona Republican Party headquarters. He also indicated he opposes a guest-worker program because it would "substantially increase the number of individuals who would come through on a temporary worker basis and open a path for citizenship for them, as well."
Romney also declined to comment on last week's federal immigration raid of a New Bedford leather goods company, Michael Bianco Inc., that resulted in the detention of more than 300 workers. And he renewed his call for a fraud-proof federal identification system for foreign workers, so employers know the status of the people they hire.
Other Republican opponents of McCain's legislation have tried to deride it as an amnesty bill, a label to which McCain and other proponents have objected strongly.
Under McCain's and Kennedy's plan, which also called for stepped-up border security, undocumented immigrants could obtain temporary, three-year visas by paying fines and back taxes, getting certification from an employer who wants to hire them, and clearing security background checks. The visas could then be renewed for another three years.
The bill envisioned that workers, once they completed six years on a temporary visa, could apply for a green card and permanent residency, but would not get extra credit for having held the temporary visa and would have to get in line behind legal residents already in the citizenship pipeline. They would be able to continue to work legally in the United States for up to five years while they applied.
"They're definitely not getting any advantage over people who come today," said Eileen McMenamin, McCain's Senate spokeswoman. She added that it is wrong to suggest that the bill would provide illegal immigrants public benefits such as Social Security, as Romney charges.
Romney has also expressed an openness to changing the US policy of granting automatic citizenship to those born on American soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Some conservatives call them "anchor babies," because as adults they can apply to bring their relatives from abroad.
Romney's recent rhetoric on immigration has drawn criticism in some quarters, including in Florida, where many politicians are more accepting of immigration as part of the state's heritage.
His appearance this week with Arpaio -- a Springfield, Mass., native viewed as a hero by opponents of illegal immigration -- underscores his pursuit of the conservative GOP primary vote. Romney called Arpaio "a man who respects the law, enforces the law, and does his very best to help people by teaching them the principles of the law."
Arpaio said in an interview that Romney -- who is facing questions about his shifts to more conservative positions on abortion, gun control, and other issues -- first sought a meeting with him last year and that he has met with Romney five times since then. He said Romney's positions and actions on immigration were a major factor in deciding to endorse him, though not the only reason.
"If I could go around, I'd get my deputies arresting every illegal here and dump them and bring them back to Mexico," Arpaio said. "It could be done, state by state."
Romney's trip to the West came as Bush, in Latin America, faced criticism that the United States had failed to modernize its immigration laws to recognize the value Latin American immigrants bring to the US economy.
Scott Helman can be reached at [email]shelman@globe.com[/email].
From: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romneys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/
Here's Romney's fun flip-flops:
1. Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as an abortion opponent.
2. Gay rights. In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, he said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
3. Gun control. Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."
4. Campaign finance. In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. This year, he said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.
5. Immigration. In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as "reasonable." He now denounces it as an "amnesty plan." In December 2006, he signed an agreement authorizing state troopers to round up illegal immigrants.
Then we'll get to show Romney saying the following:
"[McCain] doesn’t want to talk about the economy, because frankly, he has pointed out time and again that he doesn’t understand how the economy works."
Believe me I'm really looking forward to Romney...
Another front-runner is Giuliani... and then I'd get to look forward to hearing Biden's attack over and over again: ""There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11."
I'd love McCain to pick Romney. Romney was a moderate in MA and ran hard-right in 2008. He's had more flip-flops than a boardwalk. In the last week we've had the whole how many houses do you own attack... adding Romney will only add to the fun. Remember when Repubs said that Kerry was out of touch because he had so much money (by marrying an heiress... not unlike another pres candidate we know)? I'd love McCain to choose a running mate with an estimated total worth of $200 million.
Here's Romney's fun flip-flops:
1. Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as an abortion opponent.
2. Gay rights. In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, he said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
3. Gun control. Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."
4. Campaign finance. In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. This year, he said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.
5. Immigration. In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as "reasonable." He now denounces it as an "amnesty plan." In December 2006, he signed an agreement authorizing state troopers to round up illegal immigrants.
Then we'll get to show Romney saying the following:
"[McCain] doesn’t want to talk about the economy, because frankly, he has pointed out time and again that he doesn’t understand how the economy works."
Believe me I'm really looking forward to Romney...
Another front-runner is Giuliani... and then I'd get to look forward to hearing Biden's attack over and over again: ""There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11."
Actually I think he hasn't flip flopped on the gays in the military thing. He just is for not changing the existing policy, because he feels it is working. honestly, the dems shouldn't bring this issue up again. It is a losing issue for them. If anything it will lose them votes if they start talking about gays serving in the military.
I'd love McCain to pick Romney. Romney was a moderate in MA and ran hard-right in 2008. He's had more flip-flops than a boardwalk. In the last week we've had the whole how many houses do you own attack... adding Romney will only add to the fun. Remember when Repubs said that Kerry was out of touch because he had so much money (by marrying an heiress... not unlike another pres candidate we know)? I'd love McCain to choose a running mate with an estimated total worth of $200 million.
Here's Romney's fun flip-flops:
1. Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as an abortion opponent.
2. Gay rights. In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, he said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
3. Gun control. Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."
4. Campaign finance. In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. This year, he said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.
5. Immigration. In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as "reasonable." He now denounces it as an "amnesty plan." In December 2006, he signed an agreement authorizing state troopers to round up illegal immigrants.
Then we'll get to show Romney saying the following:
"[McCain] doesn’t want to talk about the economy, because frankly, he has pointed out time and again that he doesn’t understand how the economy works."
Believe me I'm really looking forward to Romney...
Another front-runner is Giuliani... and then I'd get to look forward to hearing Biden's attack over and over again: ""There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11."
Could you also put up all the issues Obama supported not 2 or three months ago that he's thrown under the bus to become more moderate.
Could you also put up all the issues Obama supported not 2 or three months ago that he's thrown under the bus to become more moderate.
I think this is exactly the problem with calling someone a flip-flopper. Both have demonstrated they are willing to bend their principles to win an election.
"Jimmy Carter was a man of decency and a man of principle, but it wasn't enough. That's the first time I realized that on-the-job training for a president can be a dangerous thing."
Interesting, I wonder what he thinks now.
I think this is exactly the problem with calling someone a flip-flopper. Both have demonstrated they are willing to bend their principles to win an election.
Exactly
Maybe not hardline, but too hardline for me (I am pretty liberal on the immigration issue). This is the article I had in mind when I mentioned his position:
Oh, I thought you meant immigration rather than illegals.
I don't deny this. But I am still unclear which mistake you were referring to.
Overlooking the obvious.
Particularly with talking heads, they love to overlook the obvious, and pontificate without any basis in the background of what they are blatehring about.
And when they are taken as the basis for public opinion . . .
The Saudi's and Mubarak have been iron fisted nonetheless. And with good reason at times. But just bear in mind that that same Iron fistedness that secures keeps these countries secure produced, respectively, Al-Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood.
Those grew up from a different source than the iron fisted control. That is why there was no domestic equivalent in Iraq under Hussein. Expatriates, sure. Tribal hideouts in the Kurdish regions from Turkey, yes. And of course the terrorist groups he supported. But a movement like that directed at him? There was no base and no room to develop such. Saudi Arabia had Egypt had both, and so the groups spawned. Particularly Al Qaeda which started as an extranational group that later moved home.
Could you also put up all the issues Obama supported not 2 or three months ago that he's thrown under the bus to become more moderate.
FISA and somewhat with oil drilling. Here's a little secret about Obama... he's not a hard-core liberal. I have my disagreements with him. He tends to compromise for a greater goal. FISA less so then oil wells. He's basically said... sure we can give land to the oil companies... but in return they don't get tax cuts and we'll fund alternatives like solar, wind, and bio. While Obama can drive me nuts at times when he says that he will work with the other side to actually pass bills he actually means it.
When Romney was in the Repub debates it was a running joke of how many positions he had on any given subject.
McCain on Romney:
"One thing I think we should really give Governor Romney credit for -- he is consistent," McCain said. "He has consistently taken both sides of any major issue. He has consistently flip-flopped on every issue…
Referring to Romney's stance [on immigration], McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."
I understand if Governor Romney has changed his mind given the obvious success of the surge. But the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.
Romney on Romney:
MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus.
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I.
and then later...
HELEN REYNOLDS: Now, I know that a lot of the gun rights folks aren’t sure about your position on gun rights. Would you pledge to veto any new gun control bills that come across your desk as President?
MITT ROMNEY: Yeah.Yeah, I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support. In regards to guns, I think we have enough legislation and should enforce the laws as they exist. I was pleased that when I ran for Governor that I received the endorsement of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now.
So yes I do really really want McCain to pick Romney.
When Romney was in the Repub debates it was a running joke of how many positions he had on any given subject.
Ah, good old Multiple-Choice Mitt.
As to Obama, I'm with you on the FISA and drilling thing. He's definitely more centrist than I'd like him to be, but he's also willing to back up his talk of compromise to accomplish things, so he's got my respect there.
One interesting tac that I've seen kicked around is opening up off-shore drilling with the caveat that all the oil stays in America for use by Americans. It's a fight that the Dems are going to lose anyway (since having a backbone is apparently seen as hazardous to their electoral prospects), so why not make things uncomfortable for the pro-drilling crowd?
I'd love to hear them try to explain why they are voting down regulations to keep oil here while claiming that off-shore drilling is going to directly impact gas prices. The logical loops would be entertaining, to say the least.
So yes I do really really want McCain to pick Romney.
That wasn't my question I understand how candidates have to appeal to their bases in order to get the nomination and I'm sure you could pick a lot more examples of Romney's flip-flops and I could pick Obamas or Biden’s. So far you haven't shown me anything any other candidates has not done including the Democratic nominee. You like Obama we get it and he is a hard core liberal otherwise he never would have got the delegates he needed to get even near his nomination. What he says now is for the mainstream public to make himself look better. As for Romney he is a moderate conservative trying to look like a hard core conservative during the primary's.
You like Obama we get it and he is a hard core liberal otherwise he never would have got the delegates he needed to get even near his nomination.
Obama's a pretty clear centrist, in the grand scheme of things.
The only really "liberal" positions he holds at this point are his opposition to the war (and that would make 80% of Americans "liberal") and his plans for fixing college tuition. The rest of the stuff he talks about (clean energy buttressed by existing infrastructure, fixing healthcare via incentives, civil unions, etc) are all very middle of the road.
He's a ways out left of the Republican party, but so are the vast majority of the American people at this point.
One interesting tac that I've seen kicked around is opening up off-shore drilling with the caveat that all the oil stays in America for use by Americans. It's a fight that the Dems are going to lose anyway (since having a backbone is apparently seen as hazardous to their electoral prospects), so why not make things uncomfortable for the pro-drilling crowd?
I like it
Considering that the oil companies have some 40 million acres of unused leased government owned land... why not specify that all oil from the unused leased land also stay in domestic markets? Damn I wish it were economically feasable since there's certainly visceral feel of justice about it... In the actual scheme of things there would be just as much oil being drilled but the speculators would create a massive spike in the price per barrel...
Obama's a pretty clear centrist, in the grand scheme of things.
The only really "liberal" positions he holds at this point are his opposition to the war (and that would make 80% of Americans "liberal") and his plans for fixing college tuition. The rest of the stuff he talks about (clean energy buttressed by existing infrastructure, fixing healthcare via incentives, civil unions, etc) are all very middle of the road.
He's a ways out left of the Republican party, but so are the vast majority of the American people at this point.
Exactly. Where the "center" is has moved. I guess 7 years of a Republican trifecta did accomplish something.
Damn I wish it were economically feasable since there's certainly visceral feel of justice about it... In the actual scheme of things there would be just as much oil being drilled but the speculators would create a massive spike in the price per barrel...
The fact that it's not feasible is what makes it so great. The people pushing for drilling have to go on tv and explain to the American people why they can't ensure that the oil that's drilled here stays here. Once they have to do that, they've lost the argument.
Drilled in America, stays in America, for Americans
Spin that you greedy ****s. ;)
Obama's a pretty clear centrist, in the grand scheme of things.
The only really "liberal" positions he holds at this point are his opposition to the war (and that would make 80% of Americans "liberal") and his plans for fixing college tuition. The rest of the stuff he talks about (clean energy buttressed by existing infrastructure, fixing healthcare via incentives, civil unions, etc) are all very middle of the road..
Really, I mean really thats your argument on how conservative Obama is?
so are the vast majority of the American people at this point.
Thats funny and when you say "vast majority" could you give me a number just for the record I'm curious because that's what the liberals said in the last election.
He's a ways out left of the Republican party, but so are the vast majority of the American people at this point.
Which accounts for the dead heat in the nat polls... ;)
Really, I mean really thats your argument on how conservative Obama is?
I didn't say anything about "conservative." I said that he's a centrist, and that's borne out by his overtly centrist policies.
Thats funny and when you say "vast majority" could you give me a number just for the record I'm curious because that's what the liberals said in the last election.
Democratic party identification is hovering around 52% in national polls at this point. Republican ID, on the other hand, has dropped around 10% since the last Presidential election, and is now somewhere around 35-36%.
More people are identifying themselves as "Democrats" than "Republicans."
Which accounts for the dead heat in the nat polls... ;)
Given that the "Dead Heat" trends toward a 5% Obama lead, I'd say so. That's the composite of nationwide polling, btw. Obama also holds around a 75 EV lead based on state-by-state polling at this point. It gets even worse when you do generic polling (Rep vs Dem rather than Obama vs McCain), spiking to a 10% nationwide lead for Democrats in some polls.
Given that the "Dead Heat" trends toward a 5% Obama lead, I'd say so.
Actually, the major independent nat polls have been within the statistical margin of error. This is a poll of likely voters nationally.
Really, I mean really thats your argument on how conservative Obama is?
Thats funny and when you say "vast majority" could you give me a number just for the record I'm curious because that's what the liberals said in the last election.
Actually my argument for electability is that McCain had a free pass for months as Obama continued a bruising primary... and yet Obama is still ahead in every poll.
Actually, the major independent nat polls have been within the statistical margin of error. This is a poll of likely voters nationally.
And which poll was that, exactly?
The only polls I've seen that have McCain within the margin of error are Rassmussen, and the guy who coordinates that is a McCain funder.
The composite of national polling has had Obama ahead since the end of the primary, with the margin being anywhere from 12% to 4%.
Edit: I'm honestly curious as to the polls you're citing here. I generally rely on a couple of sites that collect polls for me to look at rather than track each one down myself. It's entirely possible that I've missed some.
One of the liberal bloggers understands stats a lot better than I do so I'll quote him:
But here's the big picture on the Obama-McCain polling. Pollster.com lists 112 polls between the two since Obama captured the Democratic nomination in early June. It breaks down like this:
Obama ahead: 101
McCain ahead: 6
Ties: 5
Now you might think all those polls showing McCain ahead or tied are very recent but you'd be wrong. The rare non-leading Obama polls go back all the way to mid-June when an ABC poll showed McCain leading by 1 and a Gallup poll later that month showed a tie. There were several in July like that and a few in August. Folks, when a 101 out of 112 polls show you with a lead, even a narrow "within the margin of error" type lead, you are ahead.
And which poll was that, exactly?
poll
poll
poll
poll
poll
poll
So, it's three Gallup (the pollster that managed to make themselves a laughing stock over the course of the Dem primary) that show Obama either tied with McCain or statistically so, and one Pew poll that shows Obama leading by a statistically significant margin.
Got it.
No love for the other dozens of polling outfits? That's why I trust composites more than individual polls.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/az/08-az-pres-ge-mvo.php
My other take on Obama's strength goes to how competitive he is in Arizona. AZ doesn't vote Dem but McCain only leads by 5 points and is below 50% (47 to 41).
http://www.pollster.com/polls/az/08-az-pres-ge-mvo.php
Yeah, it's not a great sign when the hometown crowd isn't a fan of a long-time senator.
No love for the other dozens of polling outfits? That's why I trust composites more than individual polls.
Yep, the same pollsters that did amazing work on exit polling. :D
Actually, it will be close, popular vote wise. The electoral college thing is what will make or break it.
Yep, the same pollsters that did amazing work on exit polling. :D
Nobody had terribly good showings during the Dem primary. The demographics (and ID voting) were all crazy. Especially in states with open primaries.
Actually, it will be close, popular vote wise. The electoral college thing is what will make or break it.
Yep, that's where it all ends up. As of right now, the composite state-by-state gives Obama a *checks site* 314 to 224 lead in EVs. It'll be interesting to see how that shakes down.
Yep, that's where it all ends up. As of right now, the composite state-by-state gives Obama a *checks site* 314 to 224 lead in EVs. It'll be interesting to see how that shakes down.
This is interesting. Can you post the link for the comp?
This is interesting. Can you post the link for the comp?
Here's the site I'm getting the EV count from; http://www.mydd.com/evobama
It's a "liberal" site, but it's also the place that was generally the closest (outside of DKos) for tallying the delegate count during the Dem Primary. It's also just their graphic, not their poll. They commission the composite from another, non-partisan, firm.
Here's the site I'm getting the EV count from; http://www.mydd.com/evobama
Thanks!
I thought D.C. didn't get a vote for Pres?
Thanks!
I thought D.C. didn't get a vote for Pres?
They don't get a vote in congress. They still have a Rep, though, which translates into one EV.
They don't get a vote in congress. They still have a Rep, though, which translates into one EV.
Yep, that was it.
It is WAY too early for there to be any real predictions on who will win.
Definitely. There aren't any numbers available at this point that could possibly be predicative of the outcome. The usefulness of polls right now is in gauging movement and direction rather than trying to declare a winner in August.
I also feel that the day to day movement they exhibit has a tendency to be over-analyzed. A three point swing could be because of a new ad or a gaffe, or it could just be MoE self-correcting.
Edit: A great example. That graphic I linked to not half an hour ago now has it at 307 to 231. That's probably a MoE correction in two or three states, but it completely changes the map.
I didn't say anything about "conservative." I said that he's a centrist, and that's borne out by his overtly centrist policies.
Centrist:a person who holds moderate views
“In politics, a moderate is an individual who holds the middle position between those generally classified as being left-wing or liberal and those seen as right-wing or conservative. An alternate definition, and one widely held among swing voters is that a moderate is one who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right.”
So where are Obama’s conservative issues?
.
Democratic party identification is hovering around 52% in national polls at this point. Republican ID, on the other hand, has dropped around 10% since the last Presidential election, and is now somewhere around 35-36%.
More people are identifying themselves as "Democrats" than "Republicans."
That’s great more conservatives in the Democratic Party that’s good to hear, and what I have read people are leaving both parties altogether to become independents.
.
Centrist:a person who holds moderate views
“In politics, a moderate is an individual who holds the middle position between those generally classified as being left-wing or liberal and those seen as right-wing or conservative. An alternate definition, and one widely held among swing voters is that a moderate is one who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right.”
So where are Obama’s conservative issues?
He doesn't have "conservative issues." He has middle of the road (politically) stances on most issues. Hence, he's a Centrist, by the definition you just provided.
That’s great more conservatives in the Democratic Party that’s good hear, and what I have read people are leaving both parties altogether to become independents.
I'm not seeing more Conservatives in the Democratic party. Do you have anything to back up this assertion?
As to the "people are leaving both" statement, I'd think that the fact that Dem ID has gone from mid 30s to low 50s (or high 40's depending on the poll) in the last 4 years says differently. As do the 1.5 million and counting newly registered Democrats since the start of the primaries.
Actually my argument for electability is that McCain had a free pass for months as Obama continued a bruising primary... and yet Obama is still ahead in every poll.
That's great and how much money did Obama spend in comparison to McCain?
He doesn't have "conservative issues." He has middle of the road (politically) stances on most issues. Hence, he's a Centrist, by the definition you just provided..
In order to be a centrist you have to have some conservative points of views otherwise you are a liberal. So where are his?
I'm not seeing more Conservatives in the Democratic party. Do you have anything to back up this assertion
The Republicans are leaving the party and becoming Dems right? So by your own assertion that Republicans are conservative and they are becoming Democrats therefore they must still be conservative in some way right?
They don't get a vote in congress. They still have a Rep, though, which translates into one EV.
Little bit of nit-picking here, but D.C. actually has 3 electoral votes, granted by the Twenty-third Amendment.
Faelar
Thought I might edit to explain a little better: the 23rd Amendment states that the district can choose electors as if it were a state (i.e. based on population) but that it is not allowed to have more electors than the least populous state (Wyoming, based on the 2000 census). So because Wyoming only has 3 electoral votes, D.C. only has 3.
In order to be a centrist you have to have some conservative points of views otherwise you are a liberal. So where are his?
The Republicans are leaving the party and becoming Dems right? So by your own assertion that Republicans are conservative and they are becoming Democrats therefore they must still be conservative in some way right?
This is a rather simplistic way of looking at things. Some people define a centrist as a person holding both conservative and liberal views based on their personal outlook on social, economic, etc. matters, while others say that a centrist will hold positions that fall somewhere between extreme left and right points of view.
Faelar
In order to be a centrist you have to have some conservative points of views otherwise you are a liberal. So where are his?
Wrong. In order to be a Centrist you just have to have middle of the road stances on most issues. Obama has those. He doesn't have to espouse conservative talking points to earn the title.
The Republicans are leaving the party and becoming Dems right? So by your own assertion that Republicans are conservative and they are becoming Democrats therefore they must still be conservative in some way right?
Republicans are leaving their party, but it's not them that's going to the Dems. Democratic recruitment is drawing from those that were previously classified "undecided" or "independent" and who are tired of Republican rule.
Little bit of nit-picking here, but D.C. actually has 3 electoral votes, granted by the Twenty-third Amendment.
Faelar
Yeah, I flubbed that one.
Yeah, I flubbed that one.
Along this line. Why would they run dem primary in P.R.?
Along this line. Why would they run dem primary in P.R.?
Because it's a territory of the United States, and could eventually (theoretically) become a state.
The publicly announced reason is to allow Puerto Ricans a voice in deciding our nation's President, since they don't get any electoral votes, as a sort of goodwill gesture from the Democratic party. The more pragmatic (and less public) reason is that it 1) helps bring in votes from those of Puerto Rican descent that are living in the States and 2) helps build an infrastructure for the party on the island in case it does become a state.
Because it's a territory of the United States, and could eventually (theoretically) become a state.
The publicly announced reason is to allow Puerto Ricans a voice in deciding our nation's President, since they don't get any electoral votes, as a sort of goodwill gesture from the Democratic party. The more pragmatic (and less public) reason is that it 1) helps bring in votes from those of Puerto Rican descent that are living in the States and 2) helps build an infrastructure for the party on the island in case it does become a state.
I thought it was to get the "in state" PR votes. Thanks.
Overlooking the obvious.
Particularly with talking heads, they love to overlook the obvious, and pontificate without any basis in the background of what they are blatehring about.
And when they are taken as the basis for public opinion . . ..
This can be true. But it is a very general criticism. There were people speaking about Iraq at the time, who knew what they were talking about. The problem was they were often cherry picked, so the public got a skewed perception of how maintstream the "experts" were.
Those grew up from a different source than the iron fisted control. That is why there was no domestic equivalent in Iraq under Hussein. Expatriates, sure. Tribal hideouts in the Kurdish regions from Turkey, yes. And of course the terrorist groups he supported. But a movement like that directed at him? There was no base and no room to develop such. Saudi Arabia had Egypt had both, and so the groups spawned. Particularly Al Qaeda which started as an extranational group that later moved home.
I think people want to discuss the VP nomination. If you would like to continue a middle east discussion we should start a new thread or go into PM.
The difference is the scale you mentioned earlier. Saddam was so Iron fisted he smashed any internal opposition. But in the case of the Brotherhood, even though they emerged along side and supported Nasser, his crackdown on them, and especially Said Qutb's time spent in prison, re-shaped the brotherhood for the worse. Arguably an even more iron handed approach could have destroyed Al-Qaeda or the Brotherhood. But let us be honest, neither the Iraqi government nor the American forces are willing, quite rightfully, to engage in that level of force in order to root out extremism.
Obama's a pretty clear centrist, in the grand scheme of things.
The only really "liberal" positions he holds at this point are his opposition to the war (and that would make 80% of Americans "liberal") and his plans for fixing college tuition. The rest of the stuff he talks about (clean energy buttressed by existing infrastructure, fixing healthcare via incentives, civil unions, etc) are all very middle of the road.
He's a ways out left of the Republican party, but so are the vast majority of the American people at this point.
Civil Unions are not middle of the road. I think he has recast himself as a moderate. But his voting record, and his rhetoric prior to the election would indicate someone a little left of center within the Democratic party. Right now I would say he is a moderate Democrat. But he isn't a centrist. He is certainly partisan, and that is okay. One of the things that bothers me about the dems, is they have no backbone. You don't see republicans trying to avoid being labeled a member of their own party. Dems, especially when the Republican party is at its lowest in over 30 years, should embrace their party affiliation. Even if I dissaggree with them on some key social issues, I would still respect them a hell of a lot more if they stood up for themselves and their ideology a little more.
I think you have been paying too much attention to the democratic talking points. I have family working for the democrats like you and, though I respect them and agree with them on most positions, they are a little out of touch with where the American people are on many issues. On most fiscal issues, I think the majority of the American people (however much we might disagree with it) are with the republicans. On social issues, with a couple of exceptions (immigration and homosexual marriage/civil unions), I think most people are with the Dems.
On social issues, with a couple of exceptions (immigration and homosexual marriage/civil unions), I think most people are with the Dems.
That's why, even in CA, they couldn't pass a pro gay marriage law... And CA is one of the most lib states (if not the most). So that shows you where the "middle" is on that issue, considering the whole country. And it ain't civil unions.
On most fiscal issues, I think the majority of the American people (however much we might disagree with it) are with the republicans. On social issues, with a couple of exceptions (immigration and homosexual marriage/civil unions), I think most people are with the Dems.
Polling shows otherwise, on both counts. A solid majority (around 60% depending on the poll) blame Republican policies for the economic crisis and our ballooning national debt. A similar percentage are in favor of gay marriage (or some facsimile thereof). The immigration thing is a little murkier.
As for Obama being "left of center in the Democratic party," that's simply not the case. As far as Democratic lawmakers go, he's not really liberal at all. Wexler, Boxer, Kennedy; those are your leftist Dems. Obama hangs out somewhere in the middle with Pelosi and Biden, though focusing on different issues. He's not calling for complete government takeover of the healthcare or trying to cut all use of fossil fuels, he's to the right of a lot (around 40% I'd say) of the Dems in Washington right now.
I do agree that we need more Democrats with backbones. The old definition of Democrat ("someone so circumspect they won't take their own side in a fight") needs to go the way of the dodo. One side of the political spectrum has allowed itself to be pushed around by the other for entirely too long in this country.
That's why, even in CA, they couldn't pass a pro gay marriage law... And CA is one of the most lib states (if not the most). So that shows you where the "middle" is on that issue, considering the whole country. And it ain't civil unions.
Isn't there a ballot going through the legal screenings to re-outlaw gay marriage in California? It's polling low, which doesn't bode well for it historically, but the need for it's existence tells me that there are gay marriage laws on the books in the state at least, right?
Ah, it was a ban that was struck down as unconstitutional;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/
And now the ballot initiative to re-ban it is failing;
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid59992.asp
Recent polls suggest the election could be close. A Field Poll taken last month found that 51% of likely voters said they would vote against Proposition 8, while 42% said they would vote for it. (AP)
Traditionally, being the "Yes" option (which the re-ban is on the ballot) means you have to either have overwhelming early support (which this doesn't) or you fail.
Polling shows otherwise, on both counts. A solid majority (around 60% depending on the poll) blame Republican policies for the economic crisis and our ballooning national debt. A similar percentage are in favor of gay marriage (or some facsimile thereof). The immigration thing is a little murkier..
Polls are easy to come by. I have seen so many contradictory polls this political season it isn't funny. I don't doubt that 60% might blame "republican policies" on the bad economy and debt. But that doesn't mean they disagree with republicans on specific fiscal issues (like raising taxes for the rich, or reducing social welfare programs). I would be interested to see what polls say on this, but I doubt that they are as favorable to the democrats as democratic campaigners would like to think. I seriously, seriously doubt the gay marriage assertion you make here. Where did you get this poll? Where did it appear? Who did it sample? Since gay marriage was basically the wedge issue that brought voters in to vote republican last presidential election, I find this hard to believe. Immigration is murky. I am very liberal on immigration and on illegal immigrants. I feel strongly that it is wrong to break up families to enforce failed immigration policies (this almost happened to myself, and to many people I know). But I realize that I am in a minority. Most people don't sympathize with illegal aliens. Most people want stronger, firmer immigration policies.
A
s for Obama being "left of center in the Democratic party," that's simply not the case. As far as Democratic lawmakers go, he's not really liberal at all. Wexler, Boxer, Kennedy; those are your leftist Dems. Obama hangs out somewhere in the middle with Pelosi and Biden, though focusing on different issues. He's not calling for complete government takeover of the healthcare or trying to cut all use of fossil fuels, he's to the right of a lot (around 40% I'd say) of the Dems in Washington right now...
I don't dispute his stance on these two issues. That doesn't change his voting record or his previous public statements. It also doesn't change the fact that he is using a lot of coded leftist language. Just like Bush used a lot of coded far right language when he ran as a moderate in his first bid for the white house.
I seriously, seriously doubt the gay marriage assertion you make here. Where did you get this poll? Where did it appear? Who did it sample?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/opinion/polls/main4180335.shtml
Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.
Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.
30 + 28 = 58%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/
The latter survey found 54 percent of respondents favor civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, with 42 percent opposing them.
And my personal favorite, though completely inadmissible as a legitimate poll due to methods and circumstances;
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/01/61982
As of Jan. 19, 60 percent of respondents -- more than 508,000 voters -- said, "I favor legalization of homosexual marriage." With an additional 7.89 percent -- or 66,732 voters -- replying, "I favor a 'civil union' with the full benefits of marriage except for the name," the AFA's chosen position, "I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and 'civil unions,'" was being defeated by a 2-1 ratio.
Heh, silly fundies. Looks like the internet really is the tool of the devil.
I don't dispute his stance on these two issues. That doesn't change his voting record or his previous public statements. It also doesn't change the fact that he is using a lot of coded leftist language. Just like Bush used a lot of coded far right language when he ran as a moderate in his first bid for the white house.
Can you elaborate on this "coded leftist language?" Not that I would dispute the fact that he talks to his base (Democrats) on occasion, but I'm curious as to what you think he's using as dogwhistles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/opinion/polls/main4180335.shtml.
30 + 28 = 58%.
I think that was a bad poll.
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/.
This one seems to yield inconsistent results. One poll shows 59% are against civil unions. One shows that 54% approve (but this same poll changes against later on). Looks to me, like a lot depends on who is conducting the polls.
[[Can you elaborate on this "coded leftist language?" Not that I would dispute the fact that he talks to his base (Democrats) on occasion, but I'm curious as to what you think he's using as dogwhistles.
Sure, when he says things like a government that works for "every american". When he makes veiled references to FDR. Things like that. I don't think this is bad. Or that he is bad. But it is there. I recognize it as a leftist.
I think that was a bad poll.
Care to explain?
This one seems to yield inconsistent results. One poll shows 59% are against civil unions. One shows that 54% approve (but this same poll changes against later on). Looks to me, like a lot depends on who is conducting the polls.
It also depends a lot on the national mood at the time. The poll showed a definite upswing in the number of people who feel that civil unions (or even full on gay marriage) is acceptable, and over a relatively short period of time. The results lie well outside the margin of error on that. This is the kind of thing we're seeing these days.
Sure, when he says things like a government that works for "every american". When he makes veiled references to FDR. Things like that. I don't think this is bad. Or that he is bad. But it is there. I recognize it as a leftist.
Referencing a successful and well-thought of President with whom you agree ideologically is leftist, now? I'm sure Reagan and his supplicants at the various debates would be surprised to hear that.
Care to explain?.
Yes. It appeared on a popular news source, and it doesn't match any poll I have ever seen on the issue (including the ones from the other article you posted).
It also depends a lot on the national mood at the time. The poll showed a definite upswing in the number of people who feel that civil unions (or even full on gay marriage) is acceptable, and over a relatively short period of time. The results lie well outside the margin of error on that. This is the kind of thing we're seeing these days.?.
I don't think we read the same article then. It still looks like most people are in the anti-gay marriage (even civil union) side of the debate.
Referencing a successful and well-thought of President with whom you agree ideologically is leftist, now? I'm sure Reagan and his supplicants at the various debates would be surprised to hear that.
When you don't mention him by name yes. Because he is associated with some of the most robust social prgrams our country has seen. And many democrats, like myself, would like to see a return to his kind of leadership. But make no mistake FDR remains a dirty word when you are talking about fiscal policies in this country.
Yes. It appeared on a popular news source, and it doesn't match any poll I have ever seen on the issue (including the ones from the other article you posted).
So, the fact that it was done by a news outlet makes it suspect? If the methods are sound (and they appear to be from the linked pdf) then why is there an issue?
The other one I linked to had similar results (majority pro-union or marriage, turnaround from earlier polls showing opposite).
I'm not seeing a legitimate reason to discount it.
I don't think we read the same article then. It still looks like most people are in the anti-gay marriage (even civil union) side of the debate.
Were. Most people were on the anti-marriage side, back when it was an effective wedge issue. There's been a fairly major realignment around the issue, though, as shown by continued polling like the one I linked to.
When you don't mention him by name yes.
Again, the Reaganites would be surprised.
Because he is associated with some of the most robust social prgrams our country has seen. And many democrats, like myself, would like to see a return to his kind of leadership. But make no mistake FDR remains a dirty word when you are talking about fiscal policies in this country.
Growing up in a rural area in Kansas, I have to dispute this. I was raised in one of the reddest counties in America, but the name Roosevelt was always held in high regard by even the most conservative of the people I knew. He was the architect of the services and programs that kept a lot of small towns like mine from drying up and blowing away, and people who were around then remember that.
Invoking Roosevelt isn't leftist language, it's pointing to a leader who did a lot of good for Americans.
Polling shows otherwise, on both counts. A solid majority (around 60% depending on the poll) blame Republican policies for the economic crisis and our ballooning national debt.
Wow, I'm in a minority. I blame the ballooning national debt on all the politicians that don't understand the concept that when you run out of money you quit writing checks. Sadly, neither party can really be blamed for it. Some of the senators and congressmen today weren't even alive when the national debt started it's meteoric rise.
Heh, silly fundies. Looks like the internet really is the tool of the devil.
Anton? Is that you?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
No, we should be blaming the people who make the bad decisions in question. Right now, the vast majority of decision making in general is in the hands of Republicans, and it's not hard to make a case for most of being handled poorly.
How does that saying go? If you're not part of the solution....
Along this line. Why would they run dem primary in P.R.?
Because as a US territory they do get a vote in the electoral college. It's in the Congress and Senate that they don't get a vote, however their representatives are otherwise afforded all the rights and priveleges that any other state's representatives would be.
So, the fact that it was done by a news outlet makes it suspect? If the methods are sound (and they appear to be from the linked pdf) then why is there an issue?.
The fact that it was done by a network like CBS, and that most other polls I have seen don't jive with that one make it suspect. How do you know their methods were sound? Are you a political pollster? If so, who did they poll? How many people did they poll? Did they poll only registered voters and people who vote, or did they ask anyone who answered the phone?
The other one I linked to had similar results (majority pro-union or marriage, turnaround from earlier polls showing opposite). ?.
The other link you posted showed a majority of the country opposed civil unions and gay marriage.
Were. Most people were on the anti-marriage side, back when it was an effective wedge issue. There's been a fairly major realignment around the issue, though, as shown by continued polling like the one I linked to. ?.
This is a highly dubious claim. You are saying that within 4 years, a considerable number of people who are opposed to homosexual marriage have shifted their position on the issue? People don't "realign" that quickly on social issues. Again, bad polling is a much more likely explaination.
Again, the Reaganites would be surprised.?.
The conservatives are not affraid to mention Reagan by name.
Growing up in a rural area in Kansas, I have to dispute this. I was raised in one of the reddest counties in America, but the name Roosevelt was always held in high regard by even the most conservative of the people I knew. He was the architect of the services and programs that kept a lot of small towns like mine from drying up and blowing away, and people who were around then remember that.
Invoking Roosevelt isn't leftist language, it's pointing to a leader who did a lot of good for Americans.
First, you have to realize I am not saying FDR was a bad president or should be ashamed of. I like FDR. And I subscribe to the traditional narrative of him. But I think I can view this with a more open mind than you, simply because I am less partisan. So please, here me out, and understand that I am mostly on your side here.
Yes it "was" held in high regard, by the WWII generation. But the boomer conservatives have done a lot of historical revision on FDR. To the point where he is being blamed for prolonging the depression. I am not saying they are right by any stretch. I love FDR. But the people who watch Fox News, LIsten to Bill O'Reilly and talk radio, blame FDR for big government and prolonging the depression. Why, the entire conservative movement for the last half century has been slowly trying to undo the man's work.
I don't deny that he did a lot of good for Americans. You are so partisan that you are arguing with someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, and is trying to help by pointing out where the republicans have an edge. He was a great man, but in the past 10-20 years there has been a shift in how he is viewed (even by liberal historians). The Republican narrative is beginning to overshadow the traditional one of FDR rescuing us from the problems of the depression.
First, you have to realize I am not saying FDR was a bad president or should be ashamed of. I like FDR. And I subscribe to the traditional narrative of him.
Now I always thought he was a socialist and responsible for the current thinking on budgeting that the government uses. Not that any of it matters. He is dead after all and blaming him for his faults some sixty years post-mortem is foolish and a waste of time. He did however manage to avert one of the worst economic disasters of our history by making the government spend more money and for that we'll always be in his debt*.
* this pun was completely unintentional. Nothing to see here people, move along.
Wow, I'm in a minority. I blame the ballooning national debt on all the politicians that don't understand the concept that when you run out of money you quit writing checks. Sadly, neither party can really be blamed for it. Some of the senators and congressmen today weren't even alive when the national debt started it's meteoric rise.
Well, people blame the visible power for their problems. Republicans are currently running the government, and have been for a good long while now, so they shoulder the burden. The tables would be turned if the Democrats were in charge.
The fact that it was done by a network like CBS, and that most other polls I have seen don't jive with that one make it suspect. How do you know their methods were sound? Are you a political pollster? If so, who did they poll? How many people did they poll? Did they poll only registered voters and people who vote, or did they ask anyone who answered the phone?
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,038 adults nationwide, including 930 registered voters, interviewed by telephone May 30-June 3, 2008. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. The error for the sample of registered voters is plus or minus four points.
It's a pretty standard setup for this sort of thing. They could have shaved some MoE by tightening the time window, but it's a perfectly valid poll as it stands. It also goes on to give breakdowns by demographic, and how those compare to earlier polls if you're interested.
The other link you posted showed a majority of the country opposed civil unions and gay marriage.
The other link showed two polls conducted a few months apart. The first showed what you are describing and the second showed a reversal of that. That was kind of the point.
This is a highly dubious claim. You are saying that within 4 years, a considerable number of people who are opposed to homosexual marriage have shifted their position on the issue? People don't "realign" that quickly on social issues. Again, bad polling is a much more likely explaination.
So called "social issues" become political issues very quickly (abortion went from being a political non-issue to being a national platform point in less than an election cycle) and can dissipate as wedge issues just as quickly when more substantial issues come to the fore. It's not that people are actually changing their minds in those kinds of numbers (though it's fairly obvious that a good chunk of folks are changing outlook on this), it's that they are suddenly much less concerned over who's having sex with who in light of a mortgage crisis and a failing health care system. With that in mind, the people responding (and voting on ballot initiatives or for elected officials) are much more likely to take a more moderate stance (civil unions) rather than a hardline one (no legal recognition at all) when they've got other things on their mind that are obviously more important.
First, you have to realize I am not saying FDR was a bad president or should be ashamed of. I like FDR. And I subscribe to the traditional narrative of him. But I think I can view this with a more open mind than you, simply because I am less partisan. So please, here me out, and understand that I am mostly on your side here.
Yes it "was" held in high regard, by the WWII generation. But the boomer conservatives have done a lot of historical revision on FDR. To the point where he is being blamed for prolonging the depression. I am not saying they are right by any stretch. I love FDR. But the people who watch Fox News, LIsten to Bill O'Reilly and talk radio, blame FDR for big government and prolonging the depression. Why, the entire conservative movement for the last half century has been slowly trying to undo the man's work.
I don't deny that he did a lot of good for Americans. You are so partisan that you are arguing with someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, and is trying to help by pointing out where the republicans have an edge. He was a great man, but in the past 10-20 years there has been a shift in how he is viewed (even by liberal historians). The Republican narrative is beginning to overshadow the traditional one of FDR rescuing us from the problems of the depression.
Whether or not you're correct here (and I don't honestly believe you are for a lot of reasons), none of that makes talking about Roosevelt a "coded leftist message" as was your original statement.
Whether or not you're correct here (and I don't honestly believe you are for a lot of reasons), none of that makes talking about Roosevelt a "coded leftist message" as was your original statement.
When you talk in code about the man and his policies, then yes it is a ledtist code. Because they know republicans will jump on it. Taxes and social welfare programs are unpopular.
Of course, many people who vote Republican may prefer other methods, but I think depending on the specifics there can be exceptions
This is a rather simplistic way of looking at things. Some people define a centrist as a person holding both conservative and liberal views based on their personal outlook on social, economic, etc. matters, while others say that a centrist will hold positions that fall somewhere between extreme left and right points of view.
Faelar
Umm exactly, let's try again "a centrist as a person holding both conservative and liberal views based on their personal outlook on social, economic, etc". If a person hold both "liberal" and "conservative" views, that means on some issues they are conservative say on taxes and other issues they are liberal say on the environment in other words they don't hold a neutral position on the issues there stance goes from left to right on multiple issues.
Wrong. In order to be a Centrist you just have to have middle of the road stances on most issues. Obama has those. He doesn't have to espouse conservative talking points to earn the title.
Explain to me your idea of a middle position then?
Republicans are leaving their party, but it's not them that's going to the Dems. Democratic recruitment is drawing from those that were previously classified "undecided" or "independent" and who are tired of Republican rule.
So where are the ex-Republicans going then?
Explain to me your idea of a middle position then?
On what?
A middle position between unfettered offshore drilling and 100% investment in clean energy is, well, somewhere in between the two extremes.
A middle position between legalizing same sex marriage and banning it via constitutional amendment is civil unions.
A middle position between digging in in Iraq and immediately withdrawing all troops is a staged withdrawl stretching over months.
Those are centrist policies. Being centrist doesn't mean being a whacko liberal on one issue and a wingnut conservative on another; that just makes you crazy.
So where are the ex-Republicans going then?
They're reregistering as independents or (in the case of the Ron Paul crowd) Libertarians. Dropping one party ID doesn't mean you're switching directly to the opposition.
On what?
A middle position between unfettered offshore drilling and 100% investment in clean energy is, well, somewhere in between the two extremes.
A middle position between legalizing same sex marriage and banning it via constitutional amendment is civil unions.
A middle position between digging in in Iraq and immediately withdrawing all troops is a staged withdrawl stretching over months.
Those are centrist policies. Being centrist doesn't mean being a whacko liberal on one issue and a wingnut conservative on another; that just makes you crazy.
.
I still think moderate democrat fits Barrack Obama's current stance on the issues. He is not a centrist in the strict sense of the word. Being for civil unions is not centrist. Support of gay marriage is far left. Support of Civil unions is left. It is a socially liberal position. His positition on Iraq is about as leftist as a politician can get away with these days, it is not centrist as I believe we are using the word. If by centrist, we mean someone who falls in the middle on most political issues between liberal and conservative. I think it is highly disingenious to label Obama a centrist. What is his stance on taxation? What is his stance on affirmative action? What is his position on abortion (he has changed his position a number of times on this issue)? What is his position on legalizing drugs? What is his position on welfare? What is his position on the 2nd amendment? What is his stance on every issue that defines one politically? If you examine him on all the issues, it is clear he is not a centrist.
There is a Centrist Party in the US and these are its tenets:
Tenets
To protect, support and further justice and liberty in concert with national and societal needs. While needs and societies change, governance and its administrative responsibility does not. It is the job of governance to meet the needs of the nation and its people. Achieving higher levels of individual opportunity through education and awareness empowers independence. The Centrist Party will endeavor to promote policy based on due consideration of the Tenets to achieve its goals.
AccountabilityWe shall endeavor to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions and recognize that governments, groups and individuals all carry the burden of responsibility for their actions in word and deed, to their best ability.
ActionActions speak louder than words. Actions driven by principles, value and common sense. Not relying on others to take or alleviate individual moral responsibility. We expect that government properly administrates the welfare of the nation but not that we should be a welfare nation. That individuals, governments and organizations take responsibility for decisions/actions.
ArgumentReasoned argument allows for the examination of perspectives from various points of view and including special interests. All argument should include relevant perspectives and be weighed with the aggregate need of the people and the nation. Groups shall not be given undue influence over individual needs and the common good. Arguments should thoroughly explore relevant points weighed with the health definition.
BalanceExamining short and long-term ramifications with regard to solution development is required. Voters and politicians need to disregard the election cycle and look beyond perceptions. We need to ask what is right for the people. While extreme measures may at times be necessary, ways and means to deal with problems by well thought out planning and consideration shall be the rule of thumb.
ConsiderationConsideration of relevant factors and the relative health of a decision is the job of those tasked with such responsibility. Public need must not be restricted to corporate wealth building that excludes or diminishes the public need or the common good. Merit, need, resource and ramification must be considered in policy making.
CourageHaving the fortitude and the strength to deliver the needed political message, rather than the politically correct message should be adhered to at all times. Politicians should pay less attention to focus groups and polls, and stand up for what is right for the nation/region and the common good.
CriticismRelevant criticism helps develop new ideas and formulate new solutions to changing circumstances. Closed-minded policies impede progress and negatively impact effectiveness of an administration. Short and long-term consideration enable the construction and implementation of solutions prone to success and adapt to circumstance rapidly as awareness of need develops.
IndividualThe development of the individual is held as the highest goal, above any group. Education is key. The richness and rewards of reason become stronger in a more empowered electoral base and enable a more reasonable government and economic environment. The founders of our nation sought to reduce group influence over individual rights through responsible governance.
IndependenceWhile the human mind is subject to various degrees of influence, we shall endeavor to increase awareness through reasoned argument, education and application of common sense. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty (Edward R. Murrow). Questioning our leaders is as patriotic as respecting the rights of individuals to dissent or agree as they so choose. Common sense should always be our guide.
HealthIs a policy or decision healthy? For the purpose of policy formation and consideration we are using the following model definition:
The Health Model Definition
Healthy: anything that reduces anxiety, simultaneously and/or consequentially, on an individual and/or group basis, with consideration of short, medium and long-term consequences.
Unhealthy: anything that increases anxiety, simultaneously and/or consequentially, on an individual and/or group basis, with consideration of short, medium and long-term consequences.
(More About Health Definition...)
HonorBeing honest is easier than being honorable. Not just saying I did, or did not say "that", but I 'mean' this or that. America is tired of politicians that word craft their way in and out of positions and rely on popularity polls to figure out what they need to say next to pander to some special interest, or manipulate the electorate to get more votes or support for a piece of misnamed, mis-intentioned legislation. Political spin erodes the integrity of the vote and certainly that of the politician. To honor the electorate, candidates need to be motivated by the strength of their honorable and well-reasoned convictions.
HumilityTo demand respect, rather than earn respect, as a method of governance is a mistake, which has been repeated throughout history. It has always resulted in the downfall of civilizations. Mistakes are not to be hidden, but communicated in order to increase wisdom. Hiding mistakes or using spin to characterize them in a misleading manner in order to foist the perception or illusion of a strong leader, is a terrible precedent to set. We need strong leaders, not ones that just want to look like strong leaders.
IntegrityStrength of conviction and an open mind are keys. Strength does not mean stubbornness, and leadership does not mean illusion. Pretending to change ones mind merely to gain political favor with voters is dishonest and dishonorable. At the same time, changing ones mind to adapt to the needs of the people to represent the needs of the people defines integrity. How are we to decide in the torrent of spin we are subjected to? To divine the difference is the challenge we face when listening to politicians and awareness of the problem is key to the solution.
Open-MindednessBeing open-minded is critical to a fast changing environment. Flexibility and adaptation to new circumstances allows new understanding and methods to develop.
PragmatismSolutions must not bow to special interest agendas, unreasonable dictates not in the public interest, extremist positions or narrow vision.
Reason and consideration of the health of a decision, public need, economic stability, and short and long-term ramifications of choices and decisions must always be included in the process of administrating the public need.
ReasonWell-reasoned understanding results from exercising the tenets when approaching any given policy consideration. By applying the scope of the tenets with and open approach and communicating with involved entities, a well-reasoned policy is developed to meet the needs of the nation and the people.
ResponsibilityThat the Action of government should be primarily to administrate the needs of the nation and its people without undue influence from groups. That government actions should be founded in simplifying the manner of regulation with the goal of fair and equal opportunity gained by work and intellect for individuals not groups.
StrengthConviction tempered by wisdom with humility and open-mindedness empowers reason within circumstance. Strength comes from challenges, not lethargy. To lay down ones sword, be it the sword of reason or the sword of battle, is to accept defeat and slavery to the will of those that would impose upon our lack of will to stand and argue, or fight for that which we believe and that which we can own in our consciousness.
ValueThat value is not just an economic principle but also a life principle, and that the value of our actions as well as our interactions should be considered fully. That our communities, our homes and our friendships should all be considerate of value, equity, balance and fairness. In this we may find a better way to exist as individuals, families and as a nation.
Barack Obama on Abortion
Click here for 24 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Barack Obama on Budget & Economy
Click here for 24 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
A different economic approach vs. McCain's 4 more years. (May 2008)
Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq. (Feb 2008)
Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)
More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)
Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)
Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)
Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)
Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)
Bankruptcy bill pushed by banks &. (Jan 2008)
Lack of an energy policy is a financial burden. (Jan 2008)
Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out. (Dec 2007)
Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them. (Dec 2007)
Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)
Rejects free market vision of government. (Oct 2007)
Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages. (Aug 2007)
Government regulation needed for when markets fail. (Aug 2007)
Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending. (Oct 2006)
Bush's economic policies are not working. (May 2004)
Supports federal programs to protect rural economy. (May 2004)
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace. (Jan 2001)
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)
Barack Obama on Civil Rights
Click here for 54 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable. (Feb 2008)
People want to move beyond our divisions. (Jan 2008)
2004 DNC speech merged "heritage" with "diversity". (Dec 2007)
The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
1980s boss predicted Obama would be heir to MLK's voice. (Aug 2007)
Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Affirmative Action
Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)
Fight job discrimination to give women equal footing at jobs. (Feb 2008)
Remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote. (Feb 2008)
Benefited from affirmative action but overcame via merit. (Dec 2007)
Include class-based affirmative action with race-based. (Oct 2007)
Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
Blacks should infiltrate mainstream to affect change. (Aug 2007)
Commitment to diversity by CEOs is advisable. (Mar 2007)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Gay Rights
Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)
Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)
Sponsored bill for special-needs evacuation plans. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored bill for a Rosa Parks commemorative postage stamp. (Dec 2005)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)
Barack Obama on Corporations
Click here for 9 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.
Cap the farm subsidies for Fortune 500 companies. (Dec 2007)
End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. (Aug 2007)
Hold corporations responsible for pensions & work conditions. (Aug 2007)
Tax incentives for corporate responsibility. (Jun 2004)
Close tax loopholes for US companies relocating abroad. (Jun 2004)
REAL USA Plan: Reward companies that create domestic jobs. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Prevent money laundering by disclosing corporate owners. (May 2008)
Barack Obama on Crime
Click here for 20 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.
Reduce recidivism by providing ex-offender supports. (Feb 2008)
Ban racial profiling & eliminate disparities in sentencing. (Feb 2008)
Have a civil rights division enforce laws fairly and justly. (Jan 2008)
GovWatch: No, more young black men in college than in prison. (Jan 2008)
Lack of enforcement sets tone for more hate crimes. (Dec 2007)
Legislated protecting police detainees during interrogation. (Nov 2007)
Pushed Illinois bill to videotape all capital interrogations. (Oct 2007)
No extra penalty for gang association. (Oct 2007)
Works on ex-offender laws because it could have been him. (Aug 2007)
Need justice that is not just us, but is everybody. (Jun 2007)
Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment. (Oct 2006)
Videotape all capital punishment interrogations. (Oct 2006)
Passed 150 laws to toughen penalties for violent crime. (Oct 2004)
Restrict police entry rules, to protect our civil liberties. (Oct 2004)
Death penalty should be enforced fairly and with caution. (Oct 2004)
Death penalty should not discriminate by gang membership. (Oct 2004)
Battles legislatively against the death penalty. (Jul 2004)
Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal justice. (Dec 2005)
Barack Obama on Drugs
Click here for 13 full quotes on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.
Look at needle exchange; and expand treatment. (Feb 2008)
Fight to rid our communities of meth. (Feb 2008)
Expand drug courts; help prisoners with substance abuse. (Feb 2008)
2001: questions harsh penalties for drug dealing. (Oct 2007)
Not first candidate to use drugs, but first honest about it. (Oct 2007)
Do not lower drinking age from 21 to 18. (Sep 2007)
Experimented with cocaine but turned down heroin. (Aug 2007)
A "secret smoker", especially around reporters. (Aug 2007)
Smokes cigarettes now; smoked some pot in high school. (Feb 2007)
Admitted marijuana use in high school & college. (Jan 2007)
Deal with street-level drug dealing as minimum-wage affair. (Oct 2006)
Understand why youngsters want to use drugs. (Aug 1996)
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use. (Sep 2007)
Barack Obama on Education
Click here for 32 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education.
Merit pay ok if based on career instead of a single test. (Apr 2008)
Evolution & science aren't incompatible with Christian faith. (Apr 2008)
Supports charter schools; it's important to experiment. (Feb 2008)
Children's First Agenda: zero to five early education. (Feb 2008)
$4,000 college tuition for 100 hours' public service a year. (Feb 2008)
Put billions of dollars into early childhood education. (Jan 2008)
Need after-school and summer programs with good parenting. (Jan 2008)
Get parents re-engaged in educating the children. (Dec 2007)
We need a sense of urgency about improving education system. (Sep 2007)
Nationwide program to reconstruct crumbling school buildings. (Sep 2007)
STEP UP: summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged. (Aug 2007)
We left the money behind for No Child Left Behind. (Aug 2007)
Pay "master teachers" extra, but with buy-in from teachers. (Aug 2007)
Sends kids to private school; but wants good schools for all. (Jul 2007)
Supreme Court was wrong on school anti-integration ruling. (Jul 2007)
Incentives to hire a million teachers over next decade. (Jun 2007)
Pay teachers more money & treat them like professionals. (Jun 2007)
Cut banks out and add $4.5 Billion to college loans. (Mar 2007)
Public school system status quo is indefensible. (Oct 2006)
More teacher pay in exchange for more teacher accountability. (Oct 2006)
Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education. (Jun 2006)
Sex education needed to help children discuss molestation. (Oct 2004)
Provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism. (Jul 2004)
Address the growing achievement gap between students. (May 2004)
Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas. (May 2004)
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools. (Jul 1998)
Free public college for any student with B-average. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
First Senate bill: increase Pell Grant from $4,050 to $5,100. (Aug 2007)
Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Barack Obama on Energy & Oil
Click here for 46 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
GovWatch: $150B for electric car batteries & new technology. (Jun 2008)
GovWatch: Supports nuclear power if it's clean & safe. (Jun 2008)
GovWatch: Opposes Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. (Jun 2008)
Gas tax holiday is a classic Washington gimmick. (May 2008)
Voted for failed IL gas tax holiday & learned from mistake. (May 2008)
$150B investment over 10 years to reduce oil usage by 35%. (May 2008)
Figure out how to sequester carbon and burn clean coal. (May 2008)
GOP right on cap-&-trade: guidelines instead of bureaucracy. (Apr 2008)
Raise fuel efficiency standards to reduce long-term demand. (Apr 2008)
Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Self-contradictory on Bush's clean-energy plan. (Jan 2008)
Reduce the consumption of energy and be more efficient. (Jan 2008)
Aggressively address accelerating climate change. (Dec 2007)
Fuel efficiency and Middle East stability help on fuel costs. (Oct 2007)
Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism. (Sep 2007)
Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007)
Cheney met environmentalists once; but Big Oil 40 times. (Jul 2007)
Cap-and-trade carbon emissions; raise CAFE standard. (Jun 2007)
Stop sending $800M a day to Mideast dictators for oil. (Mar 2007)
Wants Detroit to build more hybrids & use more ethanol. (Oct 2006)
We cannot drill our way out of our addiction to oil. (Oct 2006)
3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror. (Jun 2006)
Cap-and-trade is more specific on reducing greenhouse gases. (Jan 2006)
Conserve, develop alternative fuels, increase efficiencies. (Oct 2004)
20% nation's power supply from renewable sources by 2020. (Sep 2004)
20% renewable energy by 2020. (Jul 2004)
Invest in alternative energy sources. (Jun 2004)
Increase CAFE to 40 mpg. (Jun 2004)
Tradable credits for renewable energy. (Jun 2004)
Renewable Fuels Standard: require ethanol in fuel supply. (May 2004)
Voting Record
Passed tax credit for installing E85 ethanol at gas stations. (Feb 2008)
Sponsored legislations that improve energy efficiency. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill for tax credit for providing 85% ethanol gas. (Apr 2005)
Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
Barack Obama on Environment
Click here for 19 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment.
Willing to suspend ethanol subsidy to keep food prices down. (May 2008)
Genesis teaches stewardship of earth: sacrifice for future. (Apr 2008)
Regulate animal feeding operations for pollution. (Feb 2008)
Will end the notion of Yucca Mountain nuclear storage. (Jan 2008)
Promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standards. (Dec 2007)
Organized inner-city recycling; fought environmental racism. (Oct 2007)
Reduce mercury and lead to protect community health. (Aug 2007)
Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests. (Aug 2007)
1985: Organized asbestos removal in Chicago housing project. (Aug 2007)
Passed lead abatement & 24 other laws in IL Senate. (Aug 2007)
Give Katrina contracts to locals, not to Halliburton. (Jun 2007)
Health Care for Hybrids proposal for fuel efficiency. (Mar 2007)
Scored 60% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
Three months working on minority students recycling. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Tax credit to remove lead-based housepaint. (Nov 2005)
Establish commission to examine Katrina response. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored health impact bill for environmental health. (Apr 2006)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)
Barack Obama on Families & Children
Click here for 8 full quotes on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.
Teach both abstinence and contraception to teens. (Apr 2008)
Expand flex-work & Family and Medical Leave Act. (Feb 2008)
Parents should control what's coming over the airwaves. (Jan 2008)
Restore dream of making children's lives better than parents. (Dec 2007)
All kids should learn about sexual abuse. (Jul 2007)
FactCheck: 'Sex Ed for Kindergarten' means 'age-appropriate'. (Jul 2007)
Listening to evangelicals bridges major political fault line. (Oct 2006)
Sponsored bill banning high lead levels in children's toys. (Nov 2005)
Barack Obama on Foreign Policy
Click here for 40 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.
Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)
Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)
Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)
Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)
Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)
Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)
President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)
Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)
China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)
Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)
Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)
No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)
Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)
Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)
$50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)
No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)
At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)
Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)
Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)
My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)
China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)
Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)
No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)
Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)
Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)
U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)
We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)
Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)
Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)
Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)
Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)
Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)
US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)
Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)
Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)
Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)
Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)
Barack Obama on Free Trade
Click here for 14 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.
Strong labor, safety, and environmental standards on trade. (Feb 2008)
More Transition Assistance for displaced workers. (Feb 2008)
Enforce environmental & labor provisions in trade agreements. (Jan 2008)
Enforce existing safety laws against Chinese products. (Dec 2007)
NAFTA needs to be amended. (Dec 2007)
Stand firm against CAFTA for labor & environmental standards. (Aug 2007)
Congress subsidizes megafarms & hurts family farmers. (Aug 2007)
People don't want cheaper T-shirts if it costs their job. (Aug 2007)
Amend NAFTA to add labor agreements. (Aug 2007)
Reinvest in communities that are burdened by globalization. (Jun 2007)
Insist on labor and human rights standards for China trade. (Jul 2004)
Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Barack Obama on Government Reform
Click here for 55 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.
GovWatch: Promised public financing, and then retreated. (Jun 2008)
AdWatch: I opt out of broken public campaign finance system. (Jun 2008)
GovWatch: No, McCain & RNC don't get much money from PACs. (Jun 2008)
Lobbyists & special interests have strangle-hold on agenda. (Feb 2008)
Consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks. (Feb 2008)
Created a publicly searchable database on earmarks spending. (Feb 2008)
Need a government that listens to the people again. (Feb 2008)
Give D.C. the opportunity to elect its own representatives. (Feb 2008)
Shine light on federal contracts, earmarks, & proposed bills. (Feb 2008)
Capping credit card interest rates at 30% is not enough. (Jan 2008)
Never took money from federal lobbyists or their companies. (Jan 2008)
Release people in bankruptcy due to health care problems. (Jan 2008)
I opposed both the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills. (Jan 2008)
Accountability and oversight over the financial markets. (Jan 2008)
Modify some of the fraudulent & predatory lending practices. (Jan 2008)
Bad idea to over-classify information. (Dec 2007)
Bush's signing statements are a clear abuse of prerogative. (Dec 2007)
Public submits policy ideas on Obama's "My Policy" website. (Oct 2007)
Create "Google for Government" to track government spending. (Aug 2007)
Prayer can't prevent disasters; good policy can handle them. (Aug 2007)
1998: First law passed, 52-4, stripping legislator perks. (Aug 2007)
2004: Used state money for seemingly political mailing. (Aug 2007)
Registered 150,000 new minority voters in Chicago in 1992. (Jul 2007)
Half of us don't vote; time for taking it back. (Jun 2007)
Bush administration has done "great damage" to U.S. (Mar 2007)
Sponsored bill to disclose earmarks on Internet. (Oct 2006)
Filibuster has long tradition, but used to harm civil rights. (Oct 2006)
Electing US Senators empowers people: keep 17th Amendment. (Oct 2004)
People are really ready for a message for change. (Jul 2004)
Campaign race baiting works in both directions. (Aug 1996)
Campaign Finance Reform
Ended corporate jet travel subsidized by lobbyists. (Feb 2008)
No lobbyist money; no PAC money; fund campaigns instead. (Jan 2008)
Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. (Nov 2007)
Reduced cost TV ads for candidates; $85M presidential limit. (Oct 2007)
Ok to take $5 donations from drug company employees. (Sep 2007)
Public campaign financing with free television & radio time. (Aug 2007)
No "bundled" money from federal-registered lobbyists. (Aug 2007)
Campaigns last too long & cost too much. (Aug 2007)
Doesn't take PAC money or federal lobbyists' money. (Jul 2007)
People know his "bundlers" because he pushed disclosure law. (Jul 2007)
FactCheck: no lobbyist money; yes from bundlers who lobby. (Jul 2007)
First bill ever passed was campaign finance reform. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: no lobbyist money, yes from lobbyist spouses. (Apr 2007)
Hopefund PAC pushes government to honor sacred commitments. (Nov 2006)
Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money. (Oct 2006)
Voting Record
FactCheck: Yes, Obama cast 130 "present" votes in IL Senate. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Election reform is #1 priority to prevent disenfranchisement. (Jan 2001)
Sponsored bill criminalizing deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
Sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored bill to post earmarks on the Internet. (Jan 2006)
Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Click here for 11 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Barack Obama on Health Care
Click here for 74 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care.
End-of-life self-medication ok; euthanasia by others not ok. (Apr 2008)
Hillary's plan must either be enforced, or leave out people. (Feb 2008)
The problem with health care is about affordability. (Jan 2008)
Subsidies to people who can't afford care--not single payer. (Jan 2008)
Bring GOP & Dems together to make haelthcare affordable. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Reducing obesity would save $18B, not $1T. (Dec 2007)
Reforms in prevention and drug price negotiation save money. (Dec 2007)
Tackle insurance companies on reimbursement system. (Oct 2007)
Help young people deal with the cost of medical education. (Oct 2007)
Morally wrong that terminally ill must consider money. (Sep 2007)
FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B. (Sep 2007)
National smoking bans only after trying local bans. (Sep 2007)
Reform failed in '90s because of drug company lobbying. (Jul 2007)
Take on insurance companies; drive down health care costs. (Jun 2007)
Address minority health needs by more coverage & targeting. (Mar 2007)
Health care tied to balancing costs and taxes nation wide. (Jun 2006)
Allowing seniors to bulk purchase will save taxpayers' money. (Oct 2004)
Allow prescription drug re-importation. (May 2004)
AIDS
Use whatever works with AIDS, including teaching abstinence. (Apr 2008)
We need condom distribution to deal with the scourge of AIDS. (Aug 2007)
Homophobia prevents talking about HIV/AIDS. (Jun 2007)
Got tested for AIDS, with wife, in public, in Kenya. (Jun 2007)
Curing AIDS must be all-hands-on-deck effort. (Mar 2007)
Lead global fight against AIDS. (Jul 2004)
Universal Coverage
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton's. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama's plan costs less than Clinton's. (Apr 2008)
Universal health care means anyone who wants it can get it. (Feb 2008)
Insurers are happy to have a mandate; issue is affordability. (Feb 2008)
Voluntary universal participation, like in Medicare Part B. (Feb 2008)
Mandating kids' insurance ok; mandating adults has problems. (Feb 2008)
Young adults up to age 25 can be covered under parents' plan. (Feb 2008)
My plan does more than anybody to reduce costs. (Feb 2008)
My health plan does not leave 15 million people uncovered. (Feb 2008)
Adults will get health care as they can afford it. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: punishing uninsured families doesn't make sense. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Hillary's plan does mandate; but so does Obama's. (Feb 2008)
No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition. (Feb 2008)
Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange. (Feb 2008)
Against enforcement mechanism for mandating insurance. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama favored single-payer, despite denial. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: No, US costs are not twice as much as others. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Pressure insurance & drug companies to change. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: OPPORTUNITY to insure all, but no GUARANTEE. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Don't make it illegal not to have health care. (Jan 2008)
Being poor in this country is hazardous to your health. (Dec 2007)
Problem isn't mandating coverage, but affording it. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Coverage plan might leave 8.5 million uninsured. (Nov 2007)
Cautious incremental plan offers choice & subsidy. (Nov 2007)
Added 20,000 children to Illinois healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007)
Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007)
Health plan cuts typical family's premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007)
Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance. (Apr 2007)
Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007)
Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007)
Healthcare system is broken without lifetime employment. (Oct 2006)
The market alone can't solve our health-care woes. (Oct 2006)
Focus on the affordability of a broad healthcare plan. (Jan 2006)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary. (Oct 2004)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported. (May 2004)
Ensure access to basic care. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
No need to mandate coverage; just let people afford it. (Jul 2007)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Increase funding for AIDS treatment & prevention. (Jan 2001)
More funding for Rx benefits, community health, CHIPs. (Jan 2001)
Improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007)
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
Barack Obama on Homeland Security
Click here for 58 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.
No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)
Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)
Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)
Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)
Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)
Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)
No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)
No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)
Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)
No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)
Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)
Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)
Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)
2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)
Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)
If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)
America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)
Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)
2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)
We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)
Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)
Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)
America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)
Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)
Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)
Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)
Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)
Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)
Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)
Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)
Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)
We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)
Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)
Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)
Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)
National Service
Expand Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 slots. (Feb 2008)
Put forward a national service program. (Jan 2008)
Give 18-year-old women opportunity to serve. (Dec 2007)
Register women for draft, but not for combat. (Jul 2007)
Veterans
Improve veterans' mental health treatment & PTSD benefits. (Feb 2008)
Address the deficiencies in the VA system. (Jun 2007)
The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits. (Jun 2007)
Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans. (Jun 2007)
Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare. (Mar 2007)
Voting Record
Support veterans via the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget. (Jun 2006)
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. (Feb 2008)
Barack Obama on Immigration
Click here for 38 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.
GovWatch: Anti-immigrants fuel xenophobia, but 45% increase. (Jun 2008)
Encourage every student to learn a second language. (Feb 2008)
Need to look at different aspects of immigration reform. (Feb 2008)
Have border patrolled, surveillance, and deploy technology. (Feb 2008)
Increasing the legal fees on immigrants is not helping. (Feb 2008)
Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical. (Feb 2008)
Immigration raids are ineffective. (Feb 2008)
Solve the driver's license issue with immigration reform. (Jan 2008)
Immigrants are scapegoats for high unemployment rates. (Jan 2008)
Support the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)
Health plan: not enough resources for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)
Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. (Dec 2007)
Don't deputize Americans to turn in illegal immigrants. (Dec 2007)
OK to provide government services in Spanish. (Dec 2007)
Comprehensive solution includes employers & borders. (Nov 2007)
Undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007)
Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Lightning IS likelier than employer prosecution. (Nov 2007)
Illegal immigrants' lack of ID is a public safety concern. (Oct 2007)
Immigration system is broken for legal immigrants. (Sep 2007)
Reform must include more border security, and border wall. (Sep 2007)
Sanctuary cities show that feds are not enforcing law. (Sep 2007)
Pathway to citizenship, but people have to earn it. (Aug 2007)
Let's be a nation of laws AND a nation of immigrants. (Aug 2007)
Do a better job patrolling the Canadian and Mexican borders. (Jun 2007)
Give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship. (Jun 2007)
Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Comprehensive immigration reform without amnesty. (May 2005)
Sponsored bill paying fair prevailing wage to guest workers. (May 2006)
Provide funding for social services for noncitizens. (May 2006)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Barack Obama on Jobs
Click here for 24 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs.
Fight attacks on workers' right to organize & strike. (Feb 2008)
Focus farm programs on family farms, not giant corporations. (Feb 2008)
Paying more at Wal-Mart is worth it for having US jobs. (Dec 2007)
Give public safety officers collective bargaining rights. (Aug 2007)
Chief co-sponsor of IL ENDA, against gay job discrimination. (Aug 2007)
Chicago's Soldier Field stadium construction created jobs. (Aug 2007)
Pres. candidates can afford minimum wage; most folks can't. (Jul 2007)
Make the minimum wage a living wage. (Jun 2007)
Burdens of globalization are placed on the backs of workers. (Mar 2007)
Owes unions who endorsed him; that's why he's in politics. (Oct 2006)
Working full-time should mean enough to support a family. (Oct 2006)
Overrode federal overtime rules and raised the minimum wage. (Sep 2004)
Make sure that African-American men have access to jobs. (Jul 2004)
Fund Trade Adjustment Assistance for service workers too. (Jun 2004)
Increase IL minimum wage to $6.50 an hour. (Jun 2004)
Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. (May 2004)
Obama will strengthen unions and workers' rights. (May 2004)
Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill allowing an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
Match minimum wage increases to Congressional pay raises. (May 2006)
Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
Barack Obama on Principles & Values
Click here for 150 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.
GovWatch: Wears flag pin to deflect anti-patriotism critics. (Jun 2008)
I revere the American flag; I don't refuse to wear flag pins. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, refused to wear a flag pin, last year. (Apr 2008)
Actions can be seen in 20 years of my public service. (Feb 2008)
Suggesting that I plagiarized Deval Patrick is silly. (Feb 2008)
Wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared. (Feb 2008)
Don't seat MI & FL delegates; they're based on non-campaign. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Ranked most liberal in Senate, based on 99 votes. (Feb 2008)
The Clinton years were undeniably better than the Bush years. (Jan 2008)
Turn the page on the failed politics & policies of the past. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Obama praised GOP for having ideas, not GOP ideas. (Jan 2008)
Objected to Republican ideas; did not compliment them. (Jan 2008)
Made the right decisions that were not politically popular. (Jan 2008)
Clinton earned a great relationship with African-Americans. (Jan 2008)
Campaigning on change from the bottom up that King stood for. (Jan 2008)
Ran for Congress in 2000 & lost. (Nov 2007)
Gave away all Rezko "boneheaded" donations to charity. (Nov 2007)
2 years older than JFK when JFK ran for president. (Nov 2007)
On "inexperience": he wrote policy books that media ignores. (Oct 2007)
Don't know if life beyond earth; focus on life here on earth. (Oct 2007)
Registered 150,000 young Chicago area black voters in 1992. (Oct 2007)
Criticizes voter cynicism from decades of disappointment. (Oct 2007)
Voted with Democratic Party 96.0% of 251 votes. (Sep 2007)
The Plan: Raise Obama's profile, including African adventure. (Aug 2007)
Assigned RFK's Senate desk; invokes RFK regularly. (Feb 2007)
Hopefund PAC donated $500K to Democratic Senate candidates. (Nov 2006)
Convention speech understood country yearns for unity. (Oct 2006)
Post-1960s politics more about moral attitude than issues. (Oct 2006)
Americans dislike partisanship--not solution like Dems think. (Oct 2006)
Enlist the American people in the process of self-government. (Jan 2006)
Unflinching progressive but ok to downstate conservatives. (Jul 2004)
Be strong or be clever and make peace. (Aug 1996)
Guilt is a luxury that not everyone can afford. (Aug 1996)
Campaign Themes
Go beyond the divisions so that the government can work. (Feb 2008)
Life experiences taught me how to bring people together. (Feb 2008)
People understand we must bring the country together. (Feb 2008)
I have shown the right judgment to lead. (Feb 2008)
Labels like "most liberal" prevent problem-solving. (Feb 2008)
Overcome politics of demonizing opponents. (Jan 2008)
Focus on Iraq, revising presidential power, and healthcare. (Dec 2007)
If you join me I promise you we can change America. (Dec 2007)
Resounds with American theme of overcoming burden of history. (Nov 2007)
Cultivates comparison to Jack Kennedy. (Nov 2007)
Campaigns assiduously in black churches. (Nov 2007)
Viral video "I Got a Crush on Obama" by Obama Girl. (Nov 2007)
Community politics: merges Alinsky & political activism. (Oct 2007)
Apply lessons from both Goldwater and McGovern. (Oct 2007)
Invites supporters to join him on "This Improbable Quest". (Oct 2007)
Resolve "most electable" vs."most progressive" by being both. (Oct 2007)
Turn the page: invite GOP & independents to join in agenda. (Sep 2007)
Seen as both critical outsider and establishment insider. (Aug 2007)
People have an urgent desire for change in Washington. (Jul 2007)
A "hopemonger", having seen the power of hope. (Jun 2007)
Washington can change if we say: Yes we can. (Mar 2007)
Replace partisan bickering with politics of hope. (Feb 2007)
On cover of Time magazine, about his book & presidency. (Oct 2006)
Portrayed as a multiplier instead of a divider. (Oct 2006)
Progressives should recognize common morality with religion. (Oct 2006)
"Audacity of Hope" to change politics to reflect common good. (Oct 2006)
Seek common ground, not a moral crusade. (Oct 2004)
Offer real hope-not blind optimism-to the American people. (Jul 2004)
I'm living my parents' dreams and the American dream. (Jul 2004)
Greatness based on Declaration of Independence, not military. (Jul 2004)
We are one people all defending the United States of America. (Jul 2004)
Want common-sense solutions, not liberal-conservative labels. (Jul 2004)
Past Campaigns
State Senate opponents disqualified on technicality. (Aug 2007)
Lost campaign for US Congress against Bobby Rush in 2000. (Aug 2007)
Senate 2004 campaign theme: "Yes we can". (Aug 2007)
2004: Won Senate seat against Alan Keyes, 70%-29%. (Aug 2007)
Personal History
GovWatch: "Worked his way thru college" meant 2 summer jobs. (Jul 2008)
FactCheck: Took Rezko's donations, but never represented him. (Jan 2008)
"Dreams From My Father" is an archetypal search. (Dec 2007)
Obama REPRESENTS something; doesn't have to DO anything. (Dec 2007)
Won Grammy for recording "Dreams from My Father". (Nov 2007)
Real estate deal with felon was "boneheaded" but ethical. (Oct 2007)
First major politician of the post-Baby Boom generation. (Oct 2007)
Most decisive moment: transition from high school to college. (Aug 2007)
High school jock--played football as defensive lineman. (Aug 2007)
Goal as youth: Leave the world a better place. (Aug 2007)
Planned on presidency since well before 2004 Convention. (Aug 2007)
Dreams from My Father originally about Harvard Law Review. (Aug 2007)
Favorite authors: E. L. Doctorow & Shakespeare. (Aug 2007)
To understand Obama, understand Hawaii's cultural mix. (Aug 2007)
Father was first African exchange student at U. Hawaii. (Aug 2007)
1990: Elected Law Review president with conservative support. (Aug 2007)
Met Michelle Robinson at law firm; married in 1990. (Aug 2007)
A reformed smoker but occasionally burns one. (Mar 2007)
Traces ancestry to Jefferson Davis, President of Confederacy. (Feb 2007)
Lost Congressional primary in 1999 to Bobby Rush. (Feb 2007)
Personal story is basis of political desire to unite. (Feb 2007)
Greeted as hero on visit to ancestral Kenya. (Feb 2007)
Father died in car crash before Barack got to know him. (Feb 2007)
Born in Hawaii; lives on Chicago's South Side. (Nov 2006)
Full name: Barack Hussein Obama; family calls him "Barry". (Oct 2006)
First black president of the Harvard Law Review. (Jul 2004)
Ryan quits Senate race amid sex scandal allegations. (Jun 2004)
Mother attacked for playing with a black girlfriend. (Aug 1996)
Poverty of political organizers was proof of their integrity. (Aug 1996)
Racism & Race
GovWatch: never a Muslim, but school listed him as Muslim. (Jun 2008)
Rev. Wright and flag pins re distractions from real issues. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: William Ayres never killed anyone with bombs. (Apr 2008)
Intertwined search for father and racial identity. (Dec 2007)
A Bound Man: inner turmoil of 1960s black nationalism. (Dec 2007)
Rooted in African-American community but also more than that. (Dec 2007)
Embodies smothering racial power in individual democracy. (Dec 2007)
More influenced by his race than public perceives. (Dec 2007)
In college, rejected multiracialism for black identity. (Dec 2007)
Whites sense that Barack grants them "benefit of the doubt". (Dec 2007)
Fans see Obama as opportunity to vote for redemption. (Dec 2007)
Balancing "challenger" for blacks & "bargainer" for whites. (Dec 2007)
Bradley effect: black candidates poll above actual votes. (Oct 2007)
Veiled racism in dismissing Obama as "unqualified". (Oct 2007)
Catching a cab, no one questions he's "authentically black". (Jul 2007)
Issue of race has given Senate a black eye. (Mar 2007)
Candidacy taken seriously despite his race or because of it? (Oct 2006)
Convention keynote speech highlights party's black targeting. (Jul 2004)
America's race and class problems are intertwined. (Aug 1996)
Biracial heritage has caused identity crisis. (Aug 1996)
There is some hope of eventual reconciliation between races. (Aug 1996)
Racism wasn't merely the cruelty involved, but arrogance too. (Aug 1996)
Religion
I joined church to commit to Christ, not to Rev. Wright. (May 2008)
In hard times, people take refuge in traditions, God & guns. (Apr 2008)
I am a person of faith; and I reach out to people of faith. (Apr 2008)
Blacks are angry; but I dissociate myself from Rev. Wright. (Apr 2008)
Religion is foundational; not clinging nor elitist. (Apr 2008)
Rev. Jeremiah Wright helped bring me to Christianity. (Apr 2008)
Exposure to Islam taught me that Muslims can partner with us. (Apr 2008)
I am a proud Christian who believes deeply in Jesus Christ. (Jan 2008)
Despite attack email, pledges Allegiance & uses Bible. (Jan 2008)
Attends church with press, to dispel rumors that he's Muslim. (Dec 2007)
Joined church that emphasized a "Black Value System". (Dec 2007)
Madrassa myth perpetuated by false email & fabricated story. (Oct 2007)
Uses prayer to take stock of his moral compass. (Oct 2007)
Reach out to faith community;faith has role in public square. (Sep 2007)
Active in the Trinity faith community. (Aug 2007)
Carries Bible on campaign trail, & refers to it weekly. (Aug 2007)
Embrace Christ as an ally. (Mar 2007)
Source of his book title "Audacity of Hope" was a sermon. (Feb 2007)
Raised secular, but with working knowledge of world religion. (Oct 2006)
Baptized as an adult in the Trinity United Church of Christ. (Oct 2006)
Religious concerns ok, if translated into universal values. (Oct 2006)
There's a call to evangelize in politics. (Apr 2004)
I'm a big believer in the separation of church and state. (Apr 2004)
Spent time in both Muslim and Catholic schools. (Aug 1996)
Voting Record
Biggest mistake was intruding in Terri Schiavo case. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Member of Congressional Black Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Reject Bush's Florida electors due to election fraud. (Jan 2001)
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
I still think moderate democrat fits Barrack Obama's current stance on the issues. He is not a centrist in the strict sense of the word. Being for civil unions is not centrist. Support of gay marriage is far left. Support of Civil unions is left. It is a socially liberal position.
Then, as shown by the polls I linked earlier and dozens of others, between 55 and 60% of the country is "socially liberal" on this. When you're in agreement with the majority of Americans, and out right of a good chunk of them on a supposedly "liberal" issue, that makes a pretty good case for your stance being centrist.
His positition on Iraq is about as leftist as a politician can get away with these days, it is not centrist as I believe we are using the word. If by centrist, we mean someone who falls in the middle on most political issues between liberal and conservative.
Over half (and around 70-80% based on polling) of the American people want us out of Iraq. Again, the majority agree with him. Calling his stance "liberal" means that the majority of the American people are "liberal."
I think it is highly disingenious to label Obama a centrist.
I don't, and you're not really making a case otherwise.
What is his stance on taxation?
No tax increase for anyone making under 120K a year. Reinstituting a social security tax for money earned over the current ceiling. You can call that liberal, but his tax plan is actually less "liberal" than the one Reagan pushed in his second term.
There is a Centrist Party in the US and these are its tenets:
The Centrist party, with it's 4 digit membership (in a good year) doesn't really define the term centrist unless it's written with a capital "C." They're the same as the Libertarian party; they took a name that kind of describes them, tangetially, but really just looks good in flyers and campaign materials. It has little to do with the reality of the party itself.
But have some backbone as a democratic.
I've got plenty of backbone as a Democrat, thanks. Like I said before, I grew up in one of the reddest counties in the Union. I've been actively defending my beliefs and pushing for Democratic issues since before I even realized that was what I was doing. I've got no problem calling a liberal a liberal, or applying the term to myself, and I've also got no compunction against standing up and cheering someone who has the guts to push liberal policies in the public eye.
All I'm saying is that Barack Obama's stances on the majority of issues are as much centrist as they are liberal. The political spectrum has shifted pretty heavily nationwide. Rather than the center being on the right, it's now skewing to the left. That makes his policies "centrist," rather than "liberal." If he were really liberal on them, he'd be pushing harder for the true leftist positions; out of Iraq now, full marriage rights for gays, 100% clean energy, etc. Since he's not, he's pushing a more moderate and centrist line.
On what?
A middle position between unfettered offshore drilling and 100% investment in clean energy is, well, somewhere in between the two extremes.
A middle position between legalizing same sex marriage and banning it via constitutional amendment is civil unions.
A middle position between digging in in Iraq and immediately withdrawing all troops is a staged withdrawl stretching over months.
Those are centrist policies. Being centrist doesn't mean being a whacko liberal on one issue and a wingnut conservative on another; that just makes you crazy.
I never said that it does, so far everything you said is more left then right with the exception to offshore drilling which I would put more right then left considering the greeny's want no offshore drilling. And that's what I'm talking about no issue is in the middle unless you are undecided. A position must be taken leaning either left or right. Obama's postion on oil less then two month ago was far left now he's OK with drilling a right position. In the attempt to look more Moderate. So I agree with SpearSpike that Obama is trying to be more a Moderate Liberal to appeal to a wider spectrum of voters but in no way do I consider him a Centrist.
They're reregistering as independents or (in the case of the Ron Paul crowd) Libertarians. Dropping one party ID doesn't mean you're switching directly to the opposition.
You then said more Independents are joining the Democratic Party suggesting that the Republicans are leaving the party and are becoming Democratic not Libertarian which I totally understand that, that makes sense.
I've got plenty of backbone as a Democrat, thanks. Like I said before, I grew up in one of the reddest counties in the Union. I've been actively defending my beliefs and pushing for Democratic issues since before I even realized that was what I was doing. I've got no problem calling a liberal a liberal, or applying the term to myself, and I've also got no compunction against standing up and cheering someone who has the guts to push liberal policies in the public eye.
All I'm saying is that Barack Obama's stances on the majority of issues are as much centrist as they are liberal. The political spectrum has shifted pretty heavily nationwide. Rather than the center being on the right, it's now skewing to the left. That makes his policies "centrist," rather than "liberal." If he were really liberal on them, he'd be pushing harder for the true leftist positions; out of Iraq now, full marriage rights for gays, 100% clean energy, etc. Since he's not, he's pushing a more moderate and centrist line.
No it hasn't shifted that much. If he were a centrist, he wouldn't be pro-civil union. He would allow states to make the decision on their own. Civil Unions are a leftist position, and, even in the polls you site, barely supported by a majority (which is highly disputable). Almost half the country is against civil unions. Getting out of Iraq now is a far left position. Most leftists don't even think that is doable. That doesn't make him wanting to get out slowly a centrist position. Also, you just keep cherry picking the same issues:
(in 2008) His support of the consumer credit card bill of rights is a leftist position (a strong one, and one I support); His stance that being gay and lesbian is not a choice is not centrist; Voting for a civil rights division to ensure fair enforcement of laws is a leftist position; Wanting to meet with Cuban leaders and reduce restrictions is a leftist position; he endorsed banning handguns in Illinois (not a centrist position); His support of local gun bans in general is not a centrist position; His support of voluntary euthenasia is a leftist position; his positions on homeland security are mostly leftist; Is position on immigration is enoromously (and thankfully) leftist; His support of labor unions is leftist; Wanting to raise taxes for the wealthy is leftist.
All this said. I agree with Obama on most issues. I am even happy that he has come around on partial birth abortions. But these are just taken from his positions in 2008. If you got back to before 07, he increasingly looks more liberal. I am happy to call him a moderate democrat. But he is not a centrist, because he does not stand in the middle of the two political extremes in the country.
Then, as shown by the polls I linked earlier and dozens of others, between 55 and 60% of the country is "socially liberal" on this. When you're in agreement with the majority of Americans, and out right of a good chunk of them on a supposedly "liberal" issue, that makes a pretty good case for your stance being centrist.
.
No it isn't. This is a terrible case for being a centrist. Centrism is taking a middle position between the political extremes on an issue. Not taking the view of the majority. By your definition, Newt Gingrich could have been labeled a centrist in the 90s on many issues. By that reasoning Bush was also taking a centrist position when he invaded Iraq.
The Centrist party, with it's 4 digit membership (in a good year) doesn't really define the term centrist unless it's written with a capital "C." They're the same as the Libertarian party; they took a name that kind of describes them, tangetially, but really just looks good in flyers and campaign materials. It has little to do with the reality of the party itself.
I never said it did. I was just putting it out there because I thought it interesting.
No tax increase for anyone making under 120K a year. Reinstituting a social security tax for money earned over the current ceiling. You can call that liberal, but his tax plan is actually less "liberal" than the one Reagan pushed in his second term.
.
Your cherry picking aspects of his policy. The last thing I want is for a tax plan that is less liberal than Reagan's. Like I said have a back bone, and give a complete picture of his record on the issue:
Barack Obama on Tax Reform
Under Bill Clinton, rich people didn't feel oppressed. (Apr 2008)
No tax increase if earning under $250K; tax cuts under $75K. (Apr 2008)
Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue. (Apr 2008)
Tax cut for seniors and those making $75,000 a year or less. (Feb 2008)
I'm not bashful about it: wealthy will pay more taxes. (Jan 2008)
Stimulus package: $500 tax cut, & Social Security supplement. (Jan 2008)
Restore progressive tax; close loopholes; relief to seniors. (Oct 2007)
Trillion dollar giveaway: the Paris Hilton Tax Break. (Oct 2007)
Reduce Bush tax cuts to pay for health care & other programs. (Jun 2007)
Estate tax only affects the wealthiest 1/2 of 1%. (Oct 2006)
Specific tax relief for families making $75,000 or less now. (Jan 2006)
Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class. (Jun 2004)
Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore. (Jun 2004)
Last thing we need now is a permanent tax cut. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
I agree with him on taxes. But he isn't a centrist. He is clearly somewhere in the mid left on this issue.
Opinion
Obama's Tax Plan
Is Really a Welfare Plan
By PETER FERRARA
August 19, 2008; Page A17
The Wall Street Journal
Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.
Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.
Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%
The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.
His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers."
Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, "to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000." The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses."
The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to "increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families." In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers.
The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.
Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.
Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.
Mr. Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as associate deputy attorney general under the President George H.W. Bush.
what do you think?
So I agree with SpearSpike that Obama is trying to be more a Moderate Liberal to appeal to a wider spectrum of voters but in no way do I consider him a Centrist.
Then I guess the three of us just have to agree to disagree on this. He's got moderate (not terribly liberal, not conservative) stances on most issues. Where he does have a notably "liberal" stance, he's in line with the majority of the country. That screams "centrist" at least in my opinion. The rest is just semantics.
You then said more Independents are joining the Democratic Party suggesting that the Republicans are leaving the party and are becoming Democratic not Libertarian which I totally understand that, that makes sense.
I never said that old-school Republicans were joining the Democratic party in any sort of numbers. Go back and read what I posted. Independents are fed up with Republican rule and are backing Democrats (and changing IDs to vote in primaries), while Republicans are leaving their party for similar reasons. Never did I say that there was some mass exodus from the Republican party to the Democrats.
The last thing I want is for a tax plan that is less liberal than Reagan's. Like I said have a back bone, and give a complete picture of his record on the issue:
Like I said, I've got plenty of backbone. I was just pointing out the facts; Obama's plan is to raise taxes back to pre-Reagan levels, by increasing the burden on the rich while leaving middle-class and lower families untouched or in better shape than they are now tax-wise. I just find it funny that such a plan elicits cries of "liberal tax and spend" when the godfather of modern Republicanism was at least as guilty if not moreso.
I'm happy with Obama's tax plan, but I do feel like it could go a little further. Historically, the higher the federal tax rate (to a point anyway), the higher the quality of life and better the availability of education and other services in this country. Raising taxes also has been shown to raise average wages and take-home pay, since better government regulation and services are conducive to a productive economy.
I'm not trying to hide anything here. I just feel (and have backed up my reasoning) that Obama is more of a centrist than a true liberal. If you feel differently, that's fine, but I'm pretty much done with the subject since agreement isn't going to come anytime soon.
Speaking of interesting stuff and Obama's tax plan how about this:
Opinion
Obama's Tax Plan
Is Really a Welfare Plan
By PETER FERRARA
August 19, 2008; Page A17
The Wall Street Journal
Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.
Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.
Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%
The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.
His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers."
Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, "to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000." The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses."
The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to "increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families." In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers.
The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.
Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.
Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.
Mr. Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation. He served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as associate deputy attorney general under the President George H.W. Bush.
what do you think?
I support Obama's tax plan. I just don't think he is a centrist. I believe in social welfare programs as well. So no problems here for me.
what do you think?
I think that anyone who is president of a chapter of the Club for Growth anywhere shouldn't be taken seriously when it comes to critiquing any position held by a public official.
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPersonnel.nsf/Peter%20Ferrara%20bio?OpenPage
I think that anyone who is president of a chapter of the Club for Growth anywhere shouldn't be taken seriously when it comes to critiquing any position held by a public official.
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPersonnel.nsf/Peter%20Ferrara%20bio?OpenPage
Does that make what he says wrong? I don't know who this guy is and quite frankly I don't care.
Does that make what he says wrong? I don't know who this guy is and quite frankly I don't care.
It makes it extremely suspect.
He's a conservative mouthpiece that won't be happy short of complete deregulation of corporations and a 0% tax-structure. And he and the organizations he works for/with aren't above twisting the facts to further their agenda.
You may not care who he is, but it does color the stuff he writes rather heavily. As such, there's no way a Democrat (particularly one running for President) is going to get a fair shake in his column. Taking anything this guy says at face value without going and doing the research for yourself is a bad idea.
That said, I don't really think any of the things he outlines here as Obama's policy are actually bad ideas. He's trying to paint it in a bad light, obviously, but all the points Obama actually hits with his proposal are backed with sound economic reasoning and endorsed by a good number of economists on both sides of the political spectrum.
I think that anyone who is president of a chapter of the Club for Growth anywhere shouldn't be taken seriously when it comes to critiquing any position held by a public official.
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPersonnel.nsf/Peter%20Ferrara%20bio?OpenPage
This is the kind of ad hom one expects from talk radio, not from a civil debate on politics. I don't necessarily agree with all his points, but he does have enough experience to provide a perspective on the issue. He is certainly partisan, and I wouldn't take what he says at face value, but he does express a view held by many on the right toward Barack Obama's tax policies.
It makes it extremely suspect.
He's a conservative mouthpiece that won't be happy short of complete deregulation of corporations and a 0% tax-structure. And he and the organizations he works for/with aren't above twisting the facts to further their agenda..
But this is true of any X Mouth Piece. From the Heritage foundation, to Campus Watch, to the Southern Poverty law center, to the anti-defamation league, to the McCain and Obama campaign staff. Anyone
You may not care who he is, but it does color the stuff he writes rather heavily. As such, there's no way a Democrat (particularly one running for President) is going to get a fair shake in his column. Taking anything this guy says at face value without going and doing the research for yourself is a bad idea..
I agree. This is true of any source of information. It doesn't even matter who it is. Always check the information you get. And do your own research.
That said, I don't really think any of the things he outlines here as Obama's policy are actually bad ideas. He's trying to paint it in a bad light, obviously, but all the points Obama actually hits with his proposal are backed with sound economic reasoning and endorsed by a good number of economists on both sides of the political spectrum.
I think we both agree that these are not bad ideas, along with Barack Obama, because we are, all three of us, fiscal leftists. Go ahead, Say it: I am a fiscal leftist. It will actually make it easier to defend your position and candidate.
This is the kind of ad hom one expects from talk radio, not from a civil debate on politics. I don't necessarily agree with all his points, but he does have enough experience to provide a perspective on the issue. He is certainly partisan, and I wouldn't take what he says at face value, but he does express a view held by many on the right toward Barack Obama's tax policies.
Just saying; check your sources. Too much of the political discourse is so colored by partisan politics at this point that it's impossible to actually gain any worthwhile information from it.
But this is true of any X Mouth Piece. From the Heritage foundation, to Campus Watch, to the Southern Poverty law center, to the anti-defamation league, to the McCain and Obama campaign staff. Anyone
Again, just saying that mouthpieces don't make good sources. Non-biased information is getting harder and harder to find.
I agree. This is true of any source of information. It doesn't even matter who it is. Always check the information you get. And do your own research.
In complete agreement. The link to his bio was simply me illustrating why.
I think we both agree that these are not bad ideas, along with Barack Obama, because we are, all three of us, fiscal leftists. Go ahead, Say it: I am a fiscal leftist. It will actually make it easier to defend your position and candidate.
I'm perfectly happy to be qualified as a fiscal leftist. I'm more accurately described as a socialist on most issues, but that carries a lot of negative connotations in these parts and tends to reflect negatively in the public discourse on the people I associate with.
Again, I've just been covering my bases by providing more information about the response to Obama's policies. I'm not in any way trying to hide my affiliations or leanings here.
I haven't really gotten the impression that SirPatrick is fiscally liberal, though. Maybe I'm wrong.
It makes it extremely suspect.
He's a conservative mouthpiece ...
Hmm. Aren't you, admittedly, to a degree, a Democrat mouthpiece of sorts? You have an agenda, no? Not that I am trying to start anything, I just find it interesting that one with an agenda contends that one with a differing aganda is suspect while striving to be taken at his word. Should we find your commentary suspect as well? ;) :P
In truth, it's simply best to take everything we see and hear during an election season as filtered by whatever party is most interested. Both sides spew talking points and both sides fault the other for lack of research and telling falsehoods. Both sides do it. That's why this crap is so silly, IMO. People choose a side and then refuse to stray from it all the while telling you it's not the case. The proof? When someone offers something up contrary to what they believe, they're damned liars and nothing more. It's perfectly ok to do the same, however. For example: McCain flip-flops while Obama learns and adapts. Or the other way, of course. Stupid. Everything you hear is spun. Everything. So is what that conservative mouthpiece said suspect? Damned straight. And so is everything else everyone else has said.
By definition, though, political extremes are held by a minor percentage of the population. Ergo, centrists are most likely in the majority.
So you would have considered being for the Iraq invasion a centrist position in 2003? Centrism is traditionally defined as taking position between left-wing and right-wing politics. Being in the center of the two. It isn't a center that moves rapidly over short periods of time. Just because someone takes a position that the majority agrees with that doesn't make them a centrist. What makes them a centrist is being in the center of left wing and right wing politics.
I haven't really gotten the impression that SirPatrick is fiscally liberal, though. Maybe I'm wrong.
Never said he was. I said you, me, and Obama are fiscally liberal.
So you would have considered being for the Iraq invasion a centrist position in 2003?
Are you kidding?
The mob was screaming for blood, anyone's blood. The vote for war wasn't really a vote, it was job security, it was reciting the pledge of allegiance. Anoyone that actually voted against it wasn't ever going to hold political office again. The US was whipped into such a Nationalist frenzy that we would've invaded Canada* if Bush would've said they were behind it.
*Nobody hates Canadians, nobody. If there was a nuclear war tomorrow, they'd have the only patch of dirt that wasn't radioactive. We'd all glow in the dark and they'd be offering us a cold beer. All you'd have to do is say "You're a suicide bomber, eh?" and the silly buggers would take off the vests and go home. I've met people that can't stand kids or animals, but they've got nothing bad to say about Canadians.
Hmm. Aren't you, admittedly, to a degree, a Democrat mouthpiece of sorts? You have an agenda, no? Not that I am trying to start anything, I just find it interesting that one with an agenda contends that one with a differing aganda is suspect while striving to be taken at his word. Should we find your commentary suspect as well? ;) :P
Yes, you probably should assume that everything I say is colored by my outlook, just like every other poster here. That's the nature of discourse, though; it's never truly objective or absolute. My opinion is just like everyone elses, but at least around here you have a reasonable expectation that I'll try to back up whatever I say rather than disappearing until next week's column.
The nice thing about discussion forums as opposed to newspaper columns is that the invite a back-and-forth rather than purely one-way communication. In this sort of an environment, you can ask others for clarification, get a good handle on where they're coming from and call them on potentially misleading material. You can't do that with ink on paper; it says what it says and trying to have a conversation with it will only get you committed. ;)
Never said he was. I said you, me, and Obama are fiscally liberal.
Ah, I misunderstood then.
I'm definitely liberal as far as my views on taxation and government spending (and honestly just about everything else).
Are you kidding?
The mob was screaming for blood, anyone's blood. The vote for war wasn't really a vote, it was job security, it was reciting the pledge of allegiance. Anoyone that actually voted against it wasn't ever going to hold political office again. The US was whipped into such a Nationalist frenzy that we would've invaded Canada* if Bush would've said they were behind it..
Going with the mob does not make one a centrist. This just shows that people were probably going against their ideological instincts in order to stay in office. I would maintain that a true centrist wouldn't have put the invasion off the table, but would have demanded more evidence and deliberation. This is why measuring left wing, right wing and centrism over the short term is a bad idea. Just because people were affraid to voice there opinions. That doesn't mean those opinions were not there. I can confidently there was strong anti-invasion sentiment on college campuses, in churches, and in the private homes of many democrats.
*Nobody hates Canadians, nobody. If there was a nuclear war tomorrow, they'd have the only patch of dirt that wasn't radioactive. We'd all glow in the dark and they'd be offering us a cold beer. All you'd have to do is say "You're a suicide bomber, eh?" and the silly buggers would take off the vests and go home. I've met people that can't stand kids or animals, but they've got nothing bad to say about Canadians.
Agreed.
Ah, I misunderstood then.
I'm definitely liberal as far as my views on taxation and government spending (and honestly just about everything else).
I tend to be liberal on fiscal issues, the environment. On key social issues I tend to be conservative (On abortion, sex and gay rights I tend to be very conservative). I feel more at home in the democratic party. And as a person who is pro-life, I feel that the democrats have become more accomodating for people with my viewpoint in recent years (particularly on abortions late in the pregnancy).
I tend to be liberal on fiscal issues, the environment. On key social issues I tend to be conservative (On abortion, sex and gay rights I tend to be very conservative). I feel more at home in the democratic party. And as a person who is pro-life, I feel that the democrats have become more accomodating for people with my viewpoint in recent years (particularly on abortions late in the pregnancy).
Now this is something I can't understand. If you're against abortion, don't have one. Was that so hard? Sorry mate, but if your morality said Green Jello was sinful, would you want a ban on that? I can't say I would ever have one, but that would be my choice, for good or ill. It's not my right to dictate what you or anyone else should do in this situation, so I stay out of it.
The Gay Marriage* thing really annoys me. I'm against marriage in general if gays can't get married. Sorry, you want special rights because you're a monogamous heterosexual? I've tried to wrap my head around the thinking on this and the only thing I can come up with is that they're protecting gay people from divorce lawyers**.
* I think it should be a capital offense if you weigh in on this topic "to defend the sanctity of marriage" and then turn out to have a mistress, illegitimate child or gay lover.
** And if that's the case, I think all politicians should be strung up by their ankles and forced to watch Dr Phil until their brain curdles.
but the need for it's existence tells me that there are gay marriage laws on the books in the state at least, right?
Ah, it was a ban that was struck down as unconstitutional;
Right. Against the majority of the state's populations wishes... And again, CA is VERY left leaning.
Yes, you probably should assume that everything I say is colored by my outlook, just like every other poster here. That's the nature of discourse, though; it's never truly objective or absolute. My opinion is just like everyone elses, but at least around here you have a reasonable expectation that I'll try to back up whatever I say rather than disappearing until next week's column.
The nice thing about discussion forums as opposed to newspaper columns is that the invite a back-and-forth rather than purely one-way communication. In this sort of an environment, you can ask others for clarification, get a good handle on where they're coming from and call them on potentially misleading material. You can't do that with ink on paper; it says what it says and trying to have a conversation with it will only get you committed. ;)
Honestly, I expected something almost exactly like this from you. I think that this is why, though we certainly disagree, I have no problem reading what you have to say. You're honest. I like that. And you do have a point about the ability to actually converse here. Both sides have their pot-shot guys. Hell, some even pop in here from time to time. At least you make an effort to demonstrate where you've drawn your conclusions from (as have several others in this thread - amazingly - and good job to all for that).
It almost makes me angry. ;) I like the guys that I disagree with politically to be blind schills for their candidate. That way, I can simply dismiss them and move on. When someone actually has the background information that gave them their beliefs - no matter how "in bed" with the party/candidate they may be - I can't do that. I have to listen and try to see where those conclusions could have come from. I may not agree, I may not come to the same realizations, but I must understand that it's much more than sellin' what the candidate is preachin'. And I do.
Good job guys. It's rare to see discussion like this here. It's rare to see it involving this topic. You probably aren't going to sway any opinions, of course, but you will increase understanding. Excellent, all.
Now this is something I can't understand. If you're against abortion, don't have one. Was that so hard? Sorry mate, but if your morality said Green Jello was sinful, would you want a ban on that? I can't say I would ever have one, but that would be my choice, for good or ill. It's not my right to dictate what you or anyone else should do in this situation, so I stay out of it.
.
But for many people, including people who are not Christian like me, abortion is a human rights issue. If you accept that a fetus at a certain point in the pregnancy is a person, then not allowing people to violate the natural rights of the fetus is both ethical and constitutional (if you don't that is another story). This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has every thing to do with my concern for human rights. Comparing it to green jello is a false analogy. I would compare it to allowing mothers to feed their babies poisoned green jello. You would accept that a baby, once born has a right to life, wouldn't you? So what is so crazy about saying it had rights the day before it was born, or the day before that, etc. I don't want to open the whole abortion debate up again, as that isn't what this thread is about. But can't you see how opposing abortions (not just for myself but for all people) isn't simply legislating morality. There are good, non-religious reasons for opposing abortion. Good human rights and constitutional reasons for opposing it. That doesn't mean the other side is wrong, or isn't entitled to its position, but it does mean that what is at stake is far more significant than the color jello people choose to ingest.
). But here is the problem with them both ...Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
I know that McCain insists that Obama will raise taxes on the rich, but so far the only objective analysis I've seen so far comes from CNN Money which seems to indicate that if you are making 3M or more (CNN oddly uses 2.9M) your taxes are going up on an average of 700K (and that's 23% so yes that's a lot) but if you are only "rich" in the Obama sense (250K) your taxes only go up by $12 (
That and Obama has said he isn't ashamed that he will raise taxes for the most wealthy Americans:
I'm not bashful about it: wealthy will pay more taxes.
I support Obama's tax plan. I just don't think he is a centrist. I believe in social welfare programs as well. So no problems here for me.
My wife and I are those rich folks you hear about*. I don't like the way Obama tries to insert class as a wedge, but McCain does it as much, so its a bit of a wash there. Still, I have to say - we both welcome higher taxes, if it is spent on the right things. Yes, that right - welcome.
Why? you might ask. Well first off, my wealth is determined by much much more than taxes. And quite frankly, I could almost triple my tax burden, and still not take the same hit in wealth I have taken over the past two years.
What is more, a large part of our income is threatened by outsourcing, some by infrastructure problems, and some by the state of the economy (specifically investment vehicles, weighted to stocks). Simply put if IT or pharma goes overseas, our income goes down - Obama specifically has a plan to limit that. If the state (or local govt) can't afford to (for eg) refinish a road they make my company do it - Obama has a specific plan to address infrastructure issues. If the economy is in the crapper, my income takes a hit - and while I not sure on Obama details, what he has said so far seems on track, whereas McCain seems off track to me (specifically regarding a balanced budget). Now, IF taxes increase, AND it still gets poured into Haliburton's (or Exxon, or whomever corporation) coffers I will a) be ****** I didn't buy their stock, and b) take Obama to task on it.
Heres the other dirty secret. The ultra wealthy pay next to no taxes anyway. And they do it by simply avoiding taxable vehicles - trusts, corps, charitable foundations, what have you. So increasing the tax rate doesn't matter too much to them anyway. Neither candidate has addressed that sufficently, methinks. Nor will they......
*I know, this being the internet and all, its hard to prove this, but we are well into that bracket that Obama talks about as being wealthy. We aren't .1%ers but we are .5%ers
My wife and I are those rich folks you hear about*. I don't like the way Obama tries to insert class as a wedge, but McCain does it as much, so its a bit of a wash there. Still, I have to say - we both welcome higher taxes, if it is spent on the right things. Yes, that right - welcome.
Why? you might ask. Well first off, my wealth is determined by much much more than taxes. And quite frankly, I could almost triple my tax burden, and still not take the same hit in wealth I have taken over the past two years.
What is more, a large part of our income is threatened by outsourcing, some by infrastructure problems, and some by the state of the economy (specifically investment vehicles, weighted to stocks). Simply put if IT or pharma goes overseas, our income goes down - Obama specifically has a plan to limit that. If the state (or local govt) can't afford to (for eg) refinish a road they make my company do it - Obama has a specific plan to address infrastructure issues. If the economy is in the crapper, my income takes a hit - and while I not sure on Obama details, what he has said so far seems on track, whereas McCain seems off track to me (specifically regarding a balanced budget). Now, IF taxes increase, AND it still gets poured into Haliburton's (or Exxon, or whomever corporation) coffers I will a) be ****** I didn't buy their stock, and b) take Obama to task on it.
Heres the other dirty secret. The ultra wealthy pay next to no taxes anyway. And they do it by simply avoiding taxable vehicles - trusts, corps, charitable foundations, what have you. So increasing the tax rate doesn't matter too much to them anyway. Neither candidate has addressed that sufficently, methinks. Nor will they......
*I know, this being the internet and all, its hard to prove this, but we are well into that bracket that Obama talks about as being wealthy. We aren't .1%ers but we are .5%ers
I am perfectly comfortable with the middle and lower class demanding more contributions to society from its most wealthy members.
Tax evasion is another issue entirely. This is an enforcement concern that rarely gets discussed. It should be more in spotlight.
PS: Can I have some of your money. I need to pay off my student loans. About 200,000 dollars should cover it. We can even arrange it so that it is a charitable contribution of some kind.
Why? you might ask. Well first off, my wealth is determined by much much more than taxes.
Here's one of those strange cultural differences that people always think is "quaint". My wealth is determined by how much I can give away. If my friends and family have a want or need unfulfilled and I give it to them, then I am wealthy. Wealth isn't so much a matter of the stuff I have as the stuff I give. Sure, you might call me poor, but to those worse off than me, I'm someone very wealthy. I live at a lower rung on the ladder of success, but that's by choice.
Just a side note, I noticed the mention of Halliburton in your post. Did you catch it when Halliburton moved their Corporate offices to Dubai this spring? Halliburton isn't a US company anymore, they don't pay US taxes.
Honestly, I expected something almost exactly like this from you. I think that this is why, though we certainly disagree, I have no problem reading what you have to say. You're honest. I like that.
Thanks. I certainly try to be forthright as much as possible. I guess I've never really seen much point in discussing my views if I'm not going to be honest about them.
It almost makes me angry. ;) I like the guys that I disagree with politically to be blind schills for their candidate. That way, I can simply dismiss them and move on. When someone actually has the background information that gave them their beliefs - no matter how "in bed" with the party/candidate they may be - I can't do that. I have to listen and try to see where those conclusions could have come from. I may not agree, I may not come to the same realizations, but I must understand that it's much more than sellin' what the candidate is preachin'. And I do.
Just saying the party line over and over isn't a discussion; it's what talking heads do. I put my feelings out there as much to have them kicked around as anything else; anything worth believing is worth having tested. If you can't question the things that you "know," they aren't really any good to you. ;)
I am perfectly comfortable with the middle and lower class demanding more contributions to society from its most wealthy members.
Tax evasion is another issue entirely. This is an enforcement concern that rarely gets discussed. It should be more in spotlight.
PS: Can I have some of your money. I need to pay off my student loans. About 200,000 dollars should cover it. We can even arrange it so that it is a charitable contribution of some kind.
Well it ain't evasion per-se. It all perfectly legal. That's the hell of it. My accountant calls it tax avoidance, FWIW. (She was once an IRS agent herself.) See the thing is, the more money you make, the more money you can spare to throw at an accountant to protect that money. Incredibly, my total tax burden (in $$'s not %) has gone down slightly as I have made more. I can't imagine how little a Fortune 500 company pays relative to its actual income. Strangely enough, this really makes me advocate a VAT - although it would likely hurt my bottom line. But politically speaking that's not gonna happen.
As for the donation, sorry, its all going to make sure my two girls don't have to get student loans. I will add, I am not that far away from being where you are. At all. My advice - marry a smart person.
Treasury Department Gross Tax Collections: Amount Collected by Quarter and Fiscal Year, 1987-2007:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab18.xls
Tax Stats at a Glance:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
Tax evasion is another issue entirely. This is an enforcement concern that rarely gets discussed. It should be more in spotlight.
While honest taxpayers deal with their growing burden, the independent IRS Oversight Board reported that tax fraud is $311 billion dollars per year – more than federal spending on Medicare in 2003 and greater than the gross revenues of either Walmart or General Electric. The Board continually requests funding to strengthen resources for IRS enforcement, but because some of the biggest campaign contributors may be the country’s worst tax cheaters, the incentives for auditing tax cheats is nil. As a result, audits are focused on those at the bottom of the income scale. -Who Really Pays Taxes in America? by Cheryl Woodard
That'll show 'em who's boss.
Tax info
Treasury Department Gross Tax Collections: Amount Collected by Quarter and Fiscal Year, 1987-2007:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab18.xls
Tax Stats at a Glance:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
Wow those stats are insane. I mean, I knew there were shennanigans / juking the system. But I had NO idea of the scope.
It's a difficult calculus to be sure. If he hadn't had invaded Quwait and started rolling to Saudi Arabia, things would be much, much different. The trouble was that Saddam himself proved anything BUT stable and he had made defying the UN into an art form.
Im going to comment on this. Hussein had reason to invade Kuwait. The Kuwaitis were drilling into Iraqi oil fields, he told them to stop and they did not. Also as bad as he was I would have let him wipe Saudia Arabia from the map, at least Iraq was a little better about womens rights, and even human rights the only time saddahm used excessive force and admittedly it was way excessive was when people rebeled against him
Im not saying he was a good leader but he was better than the saudi royal family is.
Im going to comment on this. Hussein had reason to invade Kuwait. The Kuwaitis were drilling into Iraqi oil fields, he told them to stop and they did not. Also as bad as he was I would have let him wipe Saudia Arabia from the map, at least Iraq was a little better about womens rights, and even human rights the only time saddahm used excessive force and admittedly it was way excessive was when people rebeled against him
Im not saying he was a good leader but he was better than the saudi royal family is.
So you would allow a major middle east country to be wiped off the map because it doesn't share your attitude on women's rights?
I don't think Saddam was better than the Saudi Family at all. I don't think we should have taken him out. But to suggest that being governed by saddam was in any way better than being governed by the Saudis is rather ridiculous. Saddam was a secular dictator. The saudis are theocratic monarchs. Both are equally bad in my view.
So you would allow a major middle east country to be wiped off the map because it doesn't share your attitude on women's rights?
Why not? That was one of the justifications for going into Afghanistan, if I recall correctly.
Personally though, I think we should consider the possibility that if Saudi women want things changed, they should be the first to speak up. Similarly, if the Saudi government is so bad, the Saudi people need to speak up. I have no problems if the US aids in a revolution, but that first shot needs to come from the Saudi people, not from a US soldier.
My feelings are the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. If they don't want us there, why are we?
Why not? That was one of the justifications for going into Afghanistan, if I recall correctly.
Personally though, I think we should consider the possibility that if Saudi women want things changed, they should be the first to speak up. Similarly, if the Saudi government is so bad, the Saudi people need to speak up. I have no problems if the US aids in a revolution, but that first shot needs to come from the Saudi people, not from a US soldier.
My feelings are the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. If they don't want us there, why are we?
We went into Afghanistan because they were giving Bin Laden a haven. We shouldn't invade countries because they have different cultural practices from us.
We went into Afghanistan because they were giving Bin Laden a haven. We shouldn't invade countries because they have different cultural practices from us.
I disagree, Sharia is an utter abomination that should be stamped out. Any country that practices it desreves to be invaded.
All I was saying is that Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait we had no buisness being involved in that war, much less defending countries that do not value human life at all.
A secular government is always better than a religious one.
The reason Im supporting Obama is because of his stance on energy, mainly limiting or eliminating oil dependence, if we were not so reliant on their oil we could embargo saudia arbia until they change their practices.
Well that and at this point Id prefer a pack of kobolds to the busch clone.
I disagree, Sharia is an utter abomination that should be stamped out. Any country that practices it desreves to be invaded.
If that's the case then the next person that tries to justify a law based on his religion in the US needs to be executed for trying to force his religion on the rest of us. Can't have it both ways, can you?
If that's the case then the next person that tries to justify a law based on his religion in the US needs to be executed for trying to force his religion on the rest of us.
The only thing I disagree with here is the severity of the punishment.
I'd prefer a flogging or perhaps spending the day in public stocks, and the removal of any ability to ever lobby for legislation again. Otherwise, spot on.
The only thing I disagree with here is the severity of the punishment.
I was exaggerating the severity of it to prove a point. Invading Afghanistan because you don't agree with their theology isn't any more right than the abuses they carry out in the name of their religion. If you want to change the way a people think and believe, you do that by showing them a better way, not by pointing a gun at them. With a gun all you create is hostility and resentment.
I was exaggerating the severity of it to prove a point.
Yeah, I get that. I was just stating my distaste with theologically motivated lawmaking.
Invading Afghanistan because you don't agree with their theology isn't any more right than the abuses they carry out in the name of their religion. If you want to change the way a people think and believe, you do that by showing them a better way, not by pointing a gun at them. With a gun all you create is hostility and resentment.
I agree with this 100%. Not only do we have absolutely no right to try and convert other nations to our way of doing things at gunpoint, it wouldn't even work if we did.
I was exaggerating the severity of it to prove a point. Invading Afghanistan because you don't agree with their theology isn't any more right than the abuses they carry out in the name of their religion. If you want to change the way a people think and believe, you do that by showing them a better way, not by pointing a gun at them. With a gun all you create is hostility and resentment.
Except we tried that. 9-11 every hijacker saudi arabian the man who ordered the attack (Osama Bin Laden) Saudi with ties to the royal family. Funding for the attack came from rich Saudi buisness men funneled through fronts and various aid orginizations. Any number of which also had ties to the Saudi Royal family. Now if you think that all that is a coicidence then your smoking something.
Live and let live only works if the other guy is also willing to do the same.
Also to quote someone much greater than I "Tyranny and Opression anywhere threaten freedom and democracy everywhere"
Now policing the world should not be the job of the US alone we cannot handle it, but I find it very sad that the UN is unwilling to do its job.
The next president is going to have to find a way to get the UN to actually do something, because unless international pressure is brought to bear these problems will continue to exist. Unfortunatley I do not see that happening anytime soon.
I was exaggerating the severity of it to prove a point.
But you did prove a point.
The schadenfreude reaches a truly sublime level of irony when the culturally sensitive pacifists inevitably reveal just how much more violent they are deep down than the jingoistic militants.
If you want the really bad ones, they are all on "your" side of the political spectrum.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/10/ftn/main4336134.shtml
"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."
Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"
He's a ****bag, but nobody else does unintentional hilarity quite like Karl Rove. He should get his own show in Vegas with stuff like this.
But you did prove a point.
The schadenfreude reaches a truly sublime level of irony when the culturally sensitive pacifists inevitably reveal just how much more violent they are deep down than the jingoistic militants.
If you want the really bad ones, they are all on "your" side of the political spectrum.
No Im a realist. The fact is Saudia Arabia is not a moderate country, it is run by one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet. The fact that we sell them weapons and buy products from them is a betrayal of the values this country should stand for.
Some of us take the lines that all men are created equal seriously, and that we have a duty to ensure that all men everywhere get treated equally.
That just because they rule a country does not mean their crimes should go unpunished. No one should be above the law.
Then again Im also one of those who thinks Dick Chenney should have been exacuted for treason after the Valorie Palm case.
If you want the really bad ones, they are all on "your" side of the political spectrum.
I don't have a side. I still believe that every vote counts and every man* has to vote his conscience. I know the former gets lost in the machinery, but I dread the day the latter dies.
*not being sexist, but when you make sweeping statements, it's best not to bog them down by including every possible gender or ethnic reference you can think of. Context should tell you when I say Man, I mean all of mankind, not just the ones with dangling bits in their shorts.
I don't have a side. I still believe that every vote counts and every man* has to vote his conscience. I know the former gets lost in the machinery, but I dread the day the latter dies.
Everyone has a side. If you want to be all alone as a side that is still a choice.
* And I understand the use of that as a gender neutral noun.
Then again Im also one of those who thinks Dick Chenney should have been exacuted for treason after the Valorie Palm case.
Valerie Plame. If you're going to hang a man for treason, at least get the name right. Not to belittle your point, I agree with it as well. Although time will tell what other crimes we'll be screaming for his blood over. I think moving his corporation to a foreign country to avoid paying federal taxes when they make the bulk of their money from the federal government should tell you a bit about the nature of that thing's character.
No Im a realist. The fact is Saudia Arabia is not a moderate country, it is run by one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet. The fact that we sell them weapons and buy products from them is a betrayal of the values this country should stand for.
We still take #1 on corruption.
We still take #1 on corruption.
Especially since so many people from corruption land #2 (Saudis) own so much of our country. We suck.
We still take #1 on corruption.
WOOHOO, WE'RE NUMBER ONE, WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!!!!
Sorry, with as crappy as we've gotten in everything else, we gotta celebrate being first in something. Although nobody else waves a flag as well as we do, do they?
Especially since so many people from corruption land #2 (Saudis) own so much of our country. We suck.
Because we let them...We win!
No Im a realist. The fact is Saudia Arabia is not a moderate country, it is run by one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet. The fact that we sell them weapons and buy products from them is a betrayal of the values this country should stand for.
And so for their internal decisions you want to exterminate them.
For this you feel you are superior to anyone who might want to go to war with them because of a direct threat they pose to the country.
Sure.
Some of us take the lines that all men are created equal seriously, and that we have a duty to ensure that all men everywhere get treated equally.
Except when you are justifying Hussein in Iraq for not being as bad, and saying we should have let him annex both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Right.
That just because they rule a country does not mean their crimes should go unpunished. No one should be above the law.
Unless they are unleashing the smackdown on someone you like even less.
I understand.
Then again Im also one of those who thinks Dick Chenney should have been exacuted for treason after the Valorie Palm case.
Do you extend that consideration to Jane Fonda as well?
What about every politician eager to take cheap fuel oil from Hugo Chavez?
How about just all those Democrats refusing to do anything about the problems with tainted Chinese products?
Can we get rid of everyone who refuses to secure the borders?
However, what exactly do you people want the US to do in Saudi Arabia? CIA missions to track Obama or other cell leaders are one thing, but there are reasons why the radicals are supported, and if one wants effects, they must be addressed calmly without any sloganizing or ideological BS. These people will not forget over a millenium of religion and tradition just because, and some of them have reasons to dislike their current regime and Israel (and thus, by proxy, the USA for its support) that they perceive as valid. Chances are, certain members of the Saudi Royal family (which from what I understand is a more convoluted and backstabbing organization than most parliaments) support them, other oppose them. Yet at present, the Saudi Arabian government owes its relative stability to the Wahabi radicals, so any attempt to pressure the government to act against them is unlikely to succeed, to put it mildly. External intervention might not be any more effective, and might end up making things even worse most countries, even when they are not doing well at all, resent others' forcing their will on them.
Iraq should have been a stinging reminder that you can't change a country's general culture for a year or two, even if you conquer it. Sometimes the slower and more circumspect way to change is better. imo.
Anyway... Biden. It is interesting how he would do in comparison, and the outright debate, to McCain's VP pick.
I disagree, Sharia is an utter abomination that should be stamped out. Any country that practices it desreves to be invaded..
Why? Lots of countries, that are not Muslim, have religious basis for their laws. It isn't really our business. Since the vast majority of people in Saudi Arabia are Muslim, it probably works fine for them. You force them to be secular, you are going to have a bucket load of terrorists spring up in response.
All I was saying is that Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait we had no buisness being involved in that war, much less defending countries that do not value human life at all. ..
Hope you like paying it through the nose for oil, because that is what would have happened.
A secular government is always better than a religious one.
.
Yes, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were so much better to their subjects than the Saudis.
Why? Lots of countries, that are not Muslim, have religious basis for their laws. It isn't really our business. Since the vast majority of people in Saudi Arabia are Muslim, it probably works fine for them. You force them to be secular, you are going to have a bucket load of terrorists spring up in response.
So because a majority of them agree then what they do is okay? Riiight, sorry stonning people to death for minor infractions will never be right.
Hope you like paying it through the nose for oil, because that is what would have happened.
Alternate sources of power, we should have been developing alternate fuel sources for the past 20 years. We need to complete cut oil out of the equation. That should be the number one concern of the next president.
Yes, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were so much better to their subjects than the Saudis.
Yep all were better than the saudis. Especially Mao who was way better then the so called democratic government he replaced, whose officers were selling munitions to the Japanese during a war in which they were being attacked by the Japanese. Sorry no any country that has Sharia as a basis for its laws needs to be taken over and transformed to a more rational form of government. Unfortunatley we do not have the troops to do it.
Yes Sahdam was bad, however he was better than the chaos that has been going on since we attacked, he is better than Muquada Al Sahdr who still has a significant power base in Iraq.
So because a majority of them agree then what they do is okay? Riiight, sorry stonning people to death for minor infractions will never be right..
I didn't say it was right. I said it was common.
Alternate sources of power, we should have been developing alternate fuel sources for the past 20 years. We need to complete cut oil out of the equation. That should be the number one concern of the next president...
I agree that this is important. But it isn't yet a reality.
Yep all were better than the saudis. Especially Mao who was way better then the so called democratic government he replaced, whose officers were selling munitions to the Japanese during a war in which they were being attacked by the Japanese. Sorry no any country that has Sharia as a basis for its laws needs to be taken over and transformed to a more rational form of government. Unfortunatley we do not have the troops to do it. ...
Either you know nothing of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and the Kmer Rouge or you choose to ignore their atrocities because they didn't believe in God.
I think you need to read more about the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pots reign was arguably more bloody, brutal and caused more deaths than the Saudis.
Again, why? Why should we go in and tell people how to govern and live. Sharia law is popular in such places. Should we go against the majority sentiment and force them to be secular because we think it is better?
Yes Sahdam was bad, however he was better than the chaos that has been going on since we attacked, he is better than Muquada Al Sahdr who still has a significant power base in Iraq.
I don't disagree. This same chaos would exist in Saudi Arabia if we invaded them.
So because a majority of them agree then what they do is okay? Riiight, sorry stonning people to death for minor infractions will never be right.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't majority rule the whole bleedin' point behind that "Democracy" that everyone seems to think the whole world wants (just doesn't know). You can't have it both ways, if you want to force democracy down their throats, don't whine when they choose to be an Islamic theocracy.
Anyway... Biden. It is interesting how he would do in comparison, and the outright debate, to McCain's VP pick.
Biden vs Palin in a debate? That's going to be like watching a train wreck. The stepford candidate against a man that went toe-to-toe with some of the greatest senators of the last century? I think a snowball has a better chance...
"We Democrats support womens' rights, so long as those women know their proper place."
Rampant and blatant mysogyny for both Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin.
Biden vs Palin in a debate? That's going to be like watching a train wreck. The stepford candidate against a man that went toe-to-toe with some of the greatest senators of the last century? I think a snowball has a better chance...
I don't really see any way of it being a contest at all. Biden's going to wipe the floor with her. The only upside for the Republicans is that some of the folks watching may feel bad enough for her after the thrashing to sway their vote.
Not that Biden wouldn't have owned Mittens or Pawlenty if they were the VP, but 4 years in public service and a self-admitted lack of research into the issues of the day aren't going to serve Gov. Palin particularly well across the stage from Biden.
Gotta thank our so-called liberals in here for putting it better than any conservative could have.
"We Democrats support womens' rights, so long as those women know their proper place."
Rampant and blatant mysogyny for both Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin.
Indeed.
Yet another area in which Obama, his flunkies, and Howard Dean have set themselves up to play the fools this whole election.
It is as though they are desperate to prove that a political party can fail tp elect a President despite the departing one from the opposing party having a 25% approval rating. They want to have a matched set with proving that a political party can fail to elect a President when the departing President from the same party has a 70% approval rating.
Gotta thank our so-called liberals in here for putting it better than any conservative could have.
"We Democrats support womens' rights, so long as those women know their proper place."
Rampant and blatant mysogyny for both Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin.
There was a fine bit of misogyny towards Clinton (though it would be a mite unfair to say it was in any way limited to "liberals"), but so far apart from the "Hot MILF" there hasn't been that much about Palin yet. Where did you think of that quote? It certainly doesn't mesh with my personal experience, so forgive me if I ask for proof ;)
@Batshido, goblin_pride: eh, we'll see. So far I have not found any of her debates, she might be pretty articulate. She hasn't set the bar very high though, not with that "what does a VP actually do" moment of hers.
Indeed.
Yet another area in which Obama, his flunkies, and Howard Dean have set themselves up to play the fools this whole election.
It is as though they are desperate to prove that a political party can fail tp elect a President despite the departing one from the opposing party having a 25% approval rating. They want to have a matched set with proving that a political party can fail to elect a President when the departing President from the same party has a 70% approval rating.
What misogny? Just because he did not appoint her? Personally Im not sure that she would make a good vp, a good president yes but not a good vp I really do not think that she could take a back seat role, that said hers speach at the DNC was amazingly gracious.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't majority rule the whole bleedin' point behind that "Democracy" that everyone seems to think the whole world wants (just doesn't know). You can't have it both ways, if you want to force democracy down their throats, don't whine when they choose to be an Islamic theocracy.
A lot of Saudis hate the Saudi royal family, and islamic law is evil and needs to be stamped out, Hitler was elected, but the fact that he was a monster is not in doubt.
Even with what they did a secular government is better than a religious one, look what happened in Europe when the Catholic church meddled with politics.
A lot of Saudis hate the Saudi royal family, and islamic law is evil and needs to be stamped out, Hitler was elected, but the fact that he was a monster is not in doubt.
Hitler was a Saudi? No offense, mate, but I'm getting terribly sick of people resorting to Hitler just to add fire to every little thing they say. You've fallen into the group of people that aren't ever going to seem credible to me because of that. Just because "Hitler was elected" can cause a knee-jerk reaction doesn't mean you should toss it around willy-nilly. Hitler being elected hasn't got a bloody thing to do with Saudi Arabia. First, the Saudi government is a monarchy, so the "elected" bit is pointless. Second, Hitler wasn't a Saudi and he certainly wasn't an Arab. Sure, I can agree with your view that Hitler was evil, But I wasn't aware he was Islamic.
Sorry, I must have missed it, did you have a point?
A lot of Saudis hate the Saudi royal family, and islamic law is evil and needs to be stamped out. Hitler was elected, but the fact that he was a monster is not in doubt.
Change the comma to a period to get a better handle on the thoughts presented by williamhm75.
Change the comma to a period to get a better handle on the thoughts presented by williamhm75.
I caught what he meant. I still want to know what Hitler has to do with Saudi Arabia.
@Batshido, goblin_pride: eh, we'll see. So far I have not found any of her debates, she might be pretty articulate. She hasn't set the bar very high though, not with that "what does a VP actually do" moment of hers.
Whether or not she's articulate really isn't at issue. She's got a self-professed lack of knowledge on the pertinent issues in this election; the economy, foreign policy, health care, the duties of a vice president, etc. She could be the most articulate person in the world, but if you have a basic background on what exactly it is you're articulating, you're going to fail.
She can try to verbally tapdance around her shortcomings, but Biden's too good for her to get away with it. She'll dodge and he'll put her back squarely in the sights.
I don't know which debate is going to be harder to watch (from a purely "empathy for the other guy" standpoint); Obama/McCain or Biden/Palin. Either way, I'll have my popcorn ready.
She can try to verbally tapdance around her shortcomings, but Biden's too good for her to get away with it. She'll dodge and he'll put her back squarely in the sights.
Again, Lloyd Bentsen made Dan Qualye look like a bigger fool than Dukakis. Which one was elected?
Four years after that, the best individual to have had his name on the ballot for President or Vice President for at least the past 40 years, James Stockdale, had a problem with his hearing aid and came off looking worse than Dan Quayle and that absolute paragon of personality in public speaking, Al Gore.
Right now, before she has had time with the staff that will be prepping her, it does indeed seem likely that Biden will easily roll over her. Well, provided Biden can get over being in love with his own voice and actually manage to answer more than one question during the entire debate. (Depending on the format.) It still remains how irrelevant such generally is, and it could always backfire if he comes off as too mean-spirited.
A lot of Saudis hate the Saudi royal family, and islamic law is evil and needs to be stamped out, Hitler was elected, but the fact that he was a monster is not in doubt.
Even with what they did a secular government is better than a religious one, look what happened in Europe when the Catholic church meddled with politics.
But those Saudi's who hate the Saudi Family hate them because they feel they appease the west and are not Islamic enough. Bin Laden got his start hating the Saudi's. So did many of the hijackers.
I don't disagree that a secular government is preferable to a religious one. But from this it doesn't follow that we should invade religious governments, and it doesn't mean that religious governments are more violent than non-religious ones. Many of the worst atrocities committed in the 20th century were done by secular states and rulers. Secular governments can be just as bad as religious ones, sometimes more.
A point on the Catholic Church. During the Witch Trials, the closer you were to Rome, and the hand of the Catholic Church, the more likely you were to get a fair and equitable trial and not be executed. Another point, Europe was incredibly violent before the arrival of Catholicism. What you had in Medieval Europe was a strange mixture of the Christian Religion and pre-Christian warring tribal culture. I am not saying the Church never did anything bad (the Crusades certainly led to many uneeded atrocities), but even something like that has to be understood in the context of its time.
But those Saudi's who hate the Saudi Family hate them because they feel they appease the west and are not Islamic enough. Bin Laden got his start hating the Saudi's. So did many of the hijackers.
I don't disagree that a secular government is preferable to a religious one. But from this it doesn't follow that we should invade religious governments, and it doesn't mean that religious governments are more violent than non-religious ones. Many of the worst atrocities committed in the 20th century were done by secular states and rulers. Secular governments can be just as bad as religious ones, sometimes more.
A point on the Catholic Church. During the Witch Trials, the closer you were to Rome, and the hand of the Catholic Church, the more likely you were to get a fair and equitable trial and not be executed. Another point, Europe was incredibly violent before the arrival of Catholicism. What you had in Medieval Europe was a strange mixture of the Christian Religion and pre-Christian warring tribal culture. I am not saying the Church never did anything bad (the Crusades certainly led to many uneeded atrocities), but even something like that has to be understood in the context of its time.
Im talking about the 30 years war, which was the fault of catholic monarchies not accepting that protestantism was their to stay, or the church saying it was okay to kill Queen Elizabeth.
Id say we have a duty as a civilized country to ensure that certain standards are set, at least as far as our allies are concerned. We should at least immediatley stop supporting the saudi government. Stop selling them weapons, buy oil from somewhere else until they get rid of sharia.
Im talking about the 30 years war, which was the fault of catholic monarchies not accepting that protestantism was their to stay, or the church saying it was okay to kill Queen Elizabeth.
Id say we have a duty as a civilized country to ensure that certain standards are set, at least as far as our allies are concerned. We should at least immediatley stop supporting the saudi government. Stop selling them weapons, buy oil from somewhere else until they get rid of sharia.
So the church saying it was okay to assasinate one leader is on the same scale as the millions of people killed by Stalin? Also, I don't think that this is an example of religious thinking leading to violence and war, but an example of institutions trying to protect and maintain their power. If anything they were clearly deviating from the tenets of the Catholic Faith.
But why should they have to get rid of Sharia if the majority of the population wants it? I don't think you understand how popular it is there? The Saudis maintain Sharia, not to oppress the population, but to cultivate popular support. If they ended Sharia tomorrow, the Saudi's would be overthrown, or you would at least have massive uprisings throughout the Kingdom. The groups that Threaten Saudi control are not secularists who want to be free, but fundamentalists who think they are not Muslim enough. How is it just for us to go in, go against the will of the majority, and force them to stop having Sharia law? You can't force American culture on them. If anything that will breed more extremism against the west.
So the church saying it was okay to assasinate one leader is on the same scale as the millions of people killed by Stalin? Also, I don't think that this is an example of religious thinking leading to violence and war, but an example of institutions trying to protect and maintain their power. If anything they were clearly deviating from the tenets of the Catholic Faith.
But why should they have to get rid of Sharia if the majority of the population wants it? I don't think you understand how popular it is there? The Saudis maintain Sharia, not to oppress the population, but to cultivate popular support. If they ended Sharia tomorrow, the Saudi's would be overthrown, or you would at least have massive uprisings throughout the Kingdom. The groups that Threaten Saudi control are not secularists who want to be free, but fundamentalists who think they are not Muslim enough. How is it just for us to go in, go against the will of the majority, and force them to stop having Sharia law? You can't force American culture on them. If anything that will breed more extremism against the west.
Okay, and the nazis supported hitler so what? That just proves that we need to reeducate those people. Just because the majority of people in a country agrees with something does not make it morally right. Laws should be there to protect people not stone a woman to death simply for having sex outside of marriage.
Im saying we as Americans should uphold the values and ideals that our country was based on and not support this kind of crap.
Okay, and the nazis supported hitler so what? That just proves that we need to reeducate those people. Just because the majority of people in a country agrees with something does not make it morally right. Laws should be there to protect people not stone a woman to death simply for having sex outside of marriage.
Im saying we as Americans should uphold the values and ideals that our country was based on and not support this kind of crap.
But the women want to be governed by sharia law too. The people consider this an appropriate punishment for a woman who commits adultery. Even if the government doesn't enforce Sharia law, the people will.
We are not supporting this kind of crap. We have a real politik alliance with the Saudi's right now. We have for some time. I have been a vocal opponent of this alliance for some time. But you have to realize that if we cut ties with them, gas prices will go up. One of the reasons we don't pay European prices for gas is our political influence in the middle east.
But the women want to be governed by sharia law too. The people consider this an appropriate punishment for a woman who commits adultery. Even if the government doesn't enforce Sharia law, the people will.
We are not supporting this kind of crap. We have a real politik alliance with the Saudi's right now. We have for some time. I have been a vocal opponent of this alliance for some time. But you have to realize that if we cut ties with them, gas prices will go up. One of the reasons we don't pay European prices for gas is our political influence in the middle east.
Id rather negotiate with Chavez to get oil than the Saudis. And not all the women want to be governed that way the ones who do not end up dead. Besides we need to be developing alternate sources of power, as I said earlier weaning our country off of oil should be the number one job of the next president.
Okay, and the nazis supported hitler so what? That just proves that we need to reeducate those people. Just because the majority of people in a country agrees with something does not make it morally right. Laws should be there to protect people not stone a woman to death simply for having sex outside of marriage.
Im saying we as Americans should uphold the values and ideals that our country was based on and not support this kind of crap.
Re-educate? Like the Nazis re-educated people?
No offense, but the thought that we need to "re-educate those people" is anathema to the whole "live and let live" that the Constitution seems to espouse.
Id rather negotiate with Chavez to get oil than the Saudis. And not all the women want to be governed that way the ones who do not end up dead. Besides we need to be developing alternate sources of power, as I said earlier weaning our country off of oil should be the number one job of the next president.
So what do you want to do about it? I have already said we shouldn't have such a close relationship with the Saudi's, though my reasons are less idealistic than yours. But beyond that, what are you suggesting? That we invade people who do things we consider immoral. In dire human rights conditions I am for bringing the military in to stop things like genocide.
Not all the women want it, but most of them do. If you talk to Saudi Arabian women you realize that they feel they are protected by Sharia law and the strict seperation of sexes in their country. Besides, who are we to tell anyone they shouldn't execute criminals. We still have capital punishment in our own country.
So what do you want to do about it? I have already said we shouldn't have such a close relationship with the Saudi's, though my reasons are less idealistic than yours. But beyond that, what are you suggesting? That we invade people who do things we consider immoral. In dire human rights conditions I am for bringing the military in to stop things like genocide.
Not all the women want it, but most of them do. If you talk to Saudi Arabian women you realize that they feel they are protected by Sharia law and the strict seperation of sexes in their country. Besides, who are we to tell anyone they shouldn't execute criminals. We still have capital punishment in our own country.
QFT
You cannot force ideological change with a sword, regardless of whether the population in question wants it or not. They need to stand up and take their freedoms like our great-grandmothers did.
Perhaps spreading the word through leaflet drops, describing how women have gained equal rights in other countries over the years. A soft-revolution primer, if you will.
As much as we would love to help, there is no military solution. And unfortunately, that seems to be all we are good for lately.
Biden vs Palin in a debate? That's going to be like watching a train wreck. The stepford candidate against a man that went toe-to-toe with some of the greatest senators of the last century? I think a snowball has a better chance...
That depends. If you put in a no plagurism requirement and force Biden to use his own words Palin has an advantage. If you remove teleprompters Palin wins hands down. (Note that the ability to adlib without having to read notes means one can look you in the eye and speak at the same time.)
That depends. If you put in a no plagurism requirement and force Biden to use his own words Palin has an advantage. If you remove teleprompters Palin wins hands down. (Note that the ability to adlib without having to read notes means one can look you in the eye and speak at the same time.)
Nice Try
That depends. If you put in a no plagurism requirement and force Biden to use his own words Palin has an advantage. If you remove teleprompters Palin wins hands down. (Note that the ability to adlib without having to read notes means one can look you in the eye and speak at the same time.)
Out of curiosity, what are you basing any of this on?
Out of curiosity, what are you basing any of this on?
Per Wiki (and cited therein):
In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.
It was also alleged that, during his time as a law student at Syracuse, Biden had plagiarized a law review article. Though the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden's former professor, downplayed the incident, they did find that Biden drew "chunks of heavy legal prose directly from" the article in question. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.
From the little I looked into it, it isn't exact plagiarization, but pretty damned close.
Just a note: I have no opinion on this whatsoever. I am simply posting evidence as requested because I was curious enough to look into it. Nothing more. I honestly doubted I'd find any.
But to suggest that this guy, who is considered a masterful debater by his senate colleagues and the media, will lose to Palin in a debate simply because he can't plagiarize or read a teleprompter is insulting to him, and also to Palin.
But to suggest that this guy, who is considered a masterful debater by his senate colleagues and the media, will lose to Palin in a debate simply because he can't plagiarize or read a teleprompter is insulting to him, and also to Palin.
A smear is a smear.
He's a 'party hack' who generally has gotten his way for years now because he's got incredible seniority (he's been senator longer than most of us here have bee ALIVE) and an extremely safe senate seat (note that neither he nor Obama have given UP their seats yet, though, granted, neither has McCain). There's honestly nothing to suggest a great 'middle of the road debater with magic debating powers and also debating powers' here.
So what do you want to do about it? I have already said we shouldn't have such a close relationship with the Saudi's, though my reasons are less idealistic than yours. But beyond that, what are you suggesting? That we invade people who do things we consider immoral. In dire human rights conditions I am for bringing the military in to stop things like genocide.
Not all the women want it, but most of them do. If you talk to Saudi Arabian women you realize that they feel they are protected by Sharia law and the strict seperation of sexes in their country. Besides, who are we to tell anyone they shouldn't execute criminals. We still have capital punishment in our own country.
Trade embargo and UN sanctions on any country that follows sharia.
Trade embargo and UN sanctions on any country that follows sharia.
Enjoy walking much?
Don't get me wrong. I am a crazy enough liberal moonbat that I think we should tell all these religious jerks to take a flying leap at a rolling donut, and just go all Ghandi with our gas-guzzlers. That would really shake the world up. And if any of my fellow patriots complained, I'd stick a red white and blue lapel-pin on 'em and point 'em to the closest public transportation.
But then again, I ride my bike to work. :D
Trade embargo and UN sanctions on any country that follows sharia.
So you want them not to follow their religion, or we will impose economic hardship on their people?
You realize that much of the Muslim fundamentalism you see today was a backlash against the percieved secularism of Middle East governments in the 40s, 50s and 60s? This would just create another such backlash. Sharia is coming from the ground up in the Middle East, not the top down.
But then again, I ride my bike to work. :D
I hate you. I really, really, really, hate you. Do you wear a "One Less Car on the Road" T-Shirt as well. Get out of the middle of the road!
So you want them not to follow their religion, or we will impose economic hardship on their people?
You realize that much of the Muslim fundamentalism you see today was a backlash against the percieved secularism of Middle East governments in the 40s, 50s and 60s? This would just create another such backlash. Sharia is coming from the ground up in the Middle East, not the top down.
Religion should never enter politics ever. Im even against the senate praying before it meets. Why because everytime religion enters politics bad things happen. I dont mind if they practice their religion, however I do mind that they stone people to death because their religion says so. That I find abominable and how anyone can say its right I dont know, if their religion is so bad maybe it does need to be stamped out.
Religion should never enter politics ever. Im even against the senate praying before it meets. Why because everytime religion enters politics bad things happen. I dont mind if they practice their religion, however I do mind that they stone people to death because their religion says so. That I find abominable and how anyone can say its right I dont know, if their religion is so bad maybe it does need to be stamped out.
Why shouldn't it? We have natural law as a foundation for our constitution, and that is certainly loaded with religious assumptions. You keep saying every time religion enters politics that bad things happen, but this is demonstrably untrue. Many governments have managed their people fairly and equitabely because of, not despite, religion. What you have observed, particularly with your examples from the middle ages, are men putting their own interests above the commands of their religion. Catholicism is pretty clear about war and killing people. If anything, Catholicism helped reign in much of the violence was part of the still somewhat tribal European culture at the time.
I prefer living in a secular society, but not everyone does. And they should be able to fashion whatever government works for them. The thing that makes the west better than other places isn't our secularism. It is our belief in democracy. Democracy, not secularism, is what we should be promoting globally. You are missing the fundamental right of all people to govern themselves and establish their own laws.
You say it is abominable to stone people to death because your religion says so, but we routinely execute people because our secular legal system says so (even though many Catholics find it abominable).
I think you are mixing up a few concepts. First, not all religions would be bad foundations for laws. What about peaceful faiths? Haven't heard of too many Buddhist stonings lately. Catholics are against the death penalty, torture, and respect all life. That doesn't seem to bad either (before you mention the crusades or the witch trials, I would refer you to my previous point about Medieval Europe in the first paragraph). Second, what you really seem to be opposed to is religions that promote "abominable" things. And not all relgiions do. I agree with you that there is much to be concerned about in Islam. But, like I said, this is a problem form the ground up. Even if it isn't enforced by the government, the people in these countries are still muslim and still want Sharia law in many instances. They will continue to enforce it themselves. I say, leave them the hell alone. People all over the world are doing all kinds of terrible things to each other, for all kinds of reasons, and it isn't our responsibility to police the world.
Why shouldn't it? We have natural law as a foundation for our constitution, and that is certainly loaded with religious assumptions. You keep saying every time religion enters politics that bad things happen, but this is demonstrably untrue. Many governments have managed their people fairly and equitabely because of, not despite, religion. What you have observed, particularly with your examples from the middle ages, are men putting their own interests above the commands of their religion. Catholicism is pretty clear about war and killing people. If anything, Catholicism helped reign in much of the violence was part of the still somewhat tribal European culture at the time.
I prefer living in a secular society, but not everyone does. And they should be able to fashion whatever government works for them. The thing that makes the west better than other places isn't our secularism. It is our belief in democracy. Democracy, not secularism, is what we should be promoting globally. You are missing the fundamental right of all people to govern themselves and establish their own laws.
You say it is abominable to stone people to death because your religion says so, but we routinely execute people because our secular legal system says so (even though many Catholics find it abominable).
I think you are mixing up a few concepts. First, not all religions would be bad foundations for laws. What about peaceful faiths? Haven't heard of too many Buddhist stonings lately. Catholics are against the death penalty, torture, and respect all life. That doesn't seem to bad either (before you mention the crusades or the witch trials, I would refer you to my previous point about Medieval Europe in the first paragraph). Second, what you really seem to be opposed to is religions that promote "abominable" things. And not all relgiions do. I agree with you that there is much to be concerned about in Islam. But, like I said, this is a problem form the ground up. Even if it isn't enforced by the government, the people in these countries are still muslim and still want Sharia law in many instances. They will continue to enforce it themselves. I say, leave them the hell alone. People all over the world are doing all kinds of terrible things to each other, for all kinds of reasons, and it isn't our responsibility to police the world.
Im just going to say that, no the catholic churh helped increase the dark ages by persacuting anyone who disagreed with it or who was intelligent. Galileo anyone? The catholic church of the middle ages was an opressive evil orginization the likes of which would not be seen until the nazis.
Someone needs to police the world. Ill quote a much better person than I "Tyranny and Opression anywhere threaten freedom and democracy anywhere."
I hate you. I really, really, really, hate you. Do you wear a "One Less Car on the Road" T-Shirt as well. Get out of the middle of the road!
Hey, I'm from Mass. I've got a wicked good grasp of the rules of the road.
Im just going to say that, no the catholic churh helped increase the dark ages by persacuting anyone who disagreed with it or who was intelligent. Galileo anyone? The catholic church of the middle ages was an opressive evil orginization the likes of which would not be seen until the nazis.."
Sure it was bad that they imprisoned Galileo for trying to argue that the Earth revolved around the sun. Bad things happened because the Church had so much power for sure. But lots of good things happened too. The church helped preserve a lot of classical thought, and was an important educating institution. It also helped to keep peace between many fueding European kingdoms. Additionally it gave Europe an important sense of identity and a moral foundation that, for its time, was fairly benevolent, if not always perfectly practiced. Was the church oppressive? At times. But think of what came before it. The people the church converted in Europe were pagans who practiced human sacrifice and insessant war. Though romanticizes by modern pagans and fantasy fans, there was nothing nice or fluffy about pre-Christian Europe. Christianity was in fact a moderating influence. It not only was a religion of peace (again not perfectly practiced), but it kept European culture united and carried it through the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Someone needs to police the world. Ill quote a much better person than I "Tyranny and Opression anywhere threaten freedom and democracy anywhere."
This is simply untrue. The simple fact is, it isn't in our interest to stop tyranny and oppression wherever it exists. I will go further. We have never made any attempt to stop it, when there hasn't been some important benefit for ourselves. It costs money, men and time to invade countries. These are limited resources, and spending them freely to topple every government that is Tyranous, is foolish in the extreme. Not only is it a waste. But as Iraq has shown us, the consequences for toppling a regime are manyfold and unpredictable.
Hey, I'm from Mass. I've got a wicked good grasp of the rules of the road.
I am from Mass too. And I dodge bikers every day, driving down the middle of Lynnshore drive like they are Lance Armstrong.
I am from Mass too...
Then we should just agree that our raw ability with our chosen modes of transportation far exceeds that of our less fortunate peers who reside outside of this great state.
BTW, Did you know that when someone refers to Boston as "The Hub", it is shorthand for "The Hub of the Universe"?
I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who first said it, and he meant it in jest. But still, what other state capital can make turn such a joke into a meme?
This is simply untrue. The simple fact is, it isn't in our interest to stop tyranny and oppression wherever it exists. I will go further. We have never made any attempt to stop it, when there hasn't been some important benefit for ourselves. It costs money, men and time to invade countries. These are limited resources, and spending them freely to topple every government that is Tyranous, is foolish in the extreme. Not only is it a waste. But as Iraq has shown us, the consequences for toppling a regime are manyfold and unpredictable.
Not to mention the fact that if we topple their government for being tyrannical, doesn't that make us a tyrant? What gives us the right to dictate to other people their form of governance? Who are we to judge what is in their best interest?