The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[AGDee]

I hope that nobody believes that we just up and leave Iraq, but it does seem like there should be a PLAN for us to get out. A timeline of some sort. It doesn't have to carved in stone, but at least some goals with tenative dates on when we should accomplish it. How many times are we going to send some of these guys back over there? Some are on their THIRD deployment there. Young men are going to be more wary of joining the military as long as the stop loss deal is extending on and on and on. We've depleted our own country of National Guard resources to the point that some states would be in very serious trouble if something monumental occured (like the Detroit riots of '67). There has to be some sort of timeline like.. "We will get them to point A by X/X/0X so that we can get them to point B by ... and get out of there by ... ". Don't people ever wonder if the insurgents would mellow out if we were gone because they are acting against US primarily? We've created a monster. I sure wouldn't want to inherit that mess...

On a totally different note, the Detroit Free Press reported today that the Democratic National Committee may encourage Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses which would actually count since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama, both are swing states in the national election and our primaries didn't count. What a joke this has become in some ways.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I hope that nobody believes that we just up and leave Iraq, but it does seem like there should be a PLAN for us to get out. A timeline of some sort. It doesn't have to carved in stone, but at least some goals with tenative dates on when we should accomplish it. How many times are we going to send some of these guys back over there? Some are on their THIRD deployment there. Young men are going to be more wary of joining the military as long as the stop loss deal is extending on and on and on. We've depleted our own country of National Guard resources to the point that some states would be in very serious trouble if something monumental occured (like the Detroit riots of '67). There has to be some sort of timeline like.. "We will get them to point A by X/X/0X so that we can get them to point B by ... and get out of there by ... ". Don't people ever wonder if the insurgents would mellow out if we were gone because they are acting against US primarily? We've created a monster. I sure wouldn't want to inherit that mess...

On a totally different note, the Detroit Free Press reported today that the Democratic National Committee may encourage Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses which would actually count since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama, both are swing states in the national election and our primaries didn't count. What a joke this has become in some ways.

Agree-on all counts.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I hope that nobody believes that we just up and leave Iraq, but it does seem like there should be a PLAN for us to get out. A timeline of some sort. It doesn't have to carved in stone, but at least some goals with tenative dates on when we should accomplish it. How many times are we going to send some of these guys back over there? Some are on their THIRD deployment there. Young men are going to be more wary of joining the military as long as the stop loss deal is extending on and on and on. We've depleted our own country of National Guard resources to the point that some states would be in very serious trouble if something monumental occured (like the Detroit riots of '67). There has to be some sort of timeline like.. "We will get them to point A by X/X/0X so that we can get them to point B by ... and get out of there by ... ". Don't people ever wonder if the insurgents would mellow out if we were gone because they are acting against US primarily? We've created a monster. I sure wouldn't want to inherit that mess...

On a totally different note, the Detroit Free Press reported today that the Democratic National Committee may encourage Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses which would actually count since the race is so close between Clinton and Obama, both are swing states in the national election and our primaries didn't count. What a joke this has become in some ways.

Agreed. Part of me has to wonder if this continues on much longer, how long before drafting has to start up again? One of my co-workers who's in the National Guard and is in his early 50s has done two tours. My sorority sister who was stationed in Germany for a few years went to Iraq so many times I quit counting.

Interesting how adament the DNC was that moving your primary would make it so that you "wouldn't count." And now, they're rethinking that....
I'm caucusing tomorrow here in Nebraska.

[UGAalum94]

How do you implement a time line without telegraphing the same time line to the people you are fighting? And although we don't generally occupy countries, we did stay in Western Europe a mighty long time.

I would like us to get out too, but I think the positions that the Democratic candidates for President are advancing are delusional about how quickly we can really get out and about how committed we need to be to fixing what we screwed up in Iraq.

I don't think that withdrawing would produce fewer terrorists. As a matter of fact, I think leaving sends the message that they can expect to win and accomplish their goals with similar efforts elsewhere.

As far as the President, you're kind of nuts if you think that the President has the kind of power to single handedly addressed the issues listed in Skylark's post, exception of foreign policy, which I agree Bush has been especially bad at.

But global warming and hurricane Katrina? No. Were his FEMA appointments an issue, no doubt, were they the single most important element? No.

CEO pay? Really now.

I don't deny President shape congressional policy, but to suggest that Bush is responsible for some of the crap on the list is ridiculous.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

As far as the President, you're kind of nuts if you think that the President has the kind of power to single handedly addressed the issues listed in Skylark's post, exception of foreign policy, which I agree Bush has been especially bad at.

I never said he "single handedly" addressed the issues, and hey, sister, I didn't call you names. If you re-read my post, my point is that saying that the Executive Branch has "nothing" to do with those things is patently incorrect. By structure, the appointments made from the Executive Branch into the bureaucratic branch absolutely have an impact on every area of policy.

But global warming and hurricane Katrina? No. Were his FEMA appointments an issue, no doubt, were they the single most important element? No.

But do his appointments and then their appointments within the EPA and FEMA shape and have an impact on US policy and progression toward or away from solutions or changes? YES.

CEO pay? Really now.

I have no idea what this is in reference to, I'm assuming you're responding to someone else.

I don't deny President shape congressional policy, but to suggest that Bush is responsible for some of the crap on the list is ridiculous.

Then my suggestion is that you are misinformed.

[UGAalum94]

I really didn't think I was calling you nuts as much as the position that Bush was single handedly responsible for the items of Skylarks list, but I apologize.

I don't really think Skylark is nuts either, but the list is.

And I think the suggestion that Bush serve another terms was either made in jest or reflects that SECDomination is nuts.

I don't deny that executive power could have been used better than Bush used it. But of the items on her list, with the original exception of foreign policy, most don't seem to me to be fundamentally issues that the executive controls, and the ones that were were not particularly better run pre-Bush, as near as I can tell.

I don't believe that had a hurricane like Katrina hit New Orleans during Clinton's term or had Gore been in office when it hit that the damage to New Orleans would have been significantly less and while I don't dispute the FEMA response was pathetic, I don't think it has been the critical factor in recovery.

But I sure hope I'm wrong. I'd love to look forward to years of no natural disasters, no government bureaucracy, economic prosperity and excellent health care for all as soon as Clinton or Obama is elected. I can, right?


ETA: In hindsight, Nittanyalum, I can see that I quoted you earlier when largely I'm still responding to Skylark's post. Read that post, and I think you'll see what I found over the top although I acknowledge that I overstated at first in my response to her, but you can see when the edit was made too.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But I sure hope I'm wrong. I'd love to look forward to years of no natural disasters, no government bureaucracy, economic prosperity and excellent health care for all as soon as Clinton or Obama is elected. I can, right?

Yes. So be sure to vote for one of them.

ETA: In hindsight, Nittanyalum, I can see that I quoted you earlier when largely I'm still responding to Skylark's post. Read that post, and I think you'll see what I found over the top although I acknowledge that I overstated at first in my response to her, but you can see when the edit was made too.

Got it, thanks.

[UGAalum94]

I really don't think it's in the best interest of any political candidate to set up the standard of everything bad that happens during a President's terms is his or her fault. We may have that expectation, but it's a childlike and delusional one and I don't think that good executives are served by it either.

Bush could have provided better leadership. I don't think anyone seriously wants to see him in office even a minute longer than his present term.

But two of the three groupings on Skylark's list are an overstatement of what Bush had any kind of exclusive control over. And the Katrina one seems particularly nutty. I suspect had it not been on the list, I wouldn't have flipped out, but my God, people it was a hurricane! W may be a powerful guy but he doesn't make the weather.

Congress is at least as much to blame for the social security issue that's been looming for a long time and I'm old enough to remember the first time Hillary tried to fix health care. It's fundamentally kind of goofy to lay it all on Bush. (And again, kind of fundamentally shortsighted of the Democrats to so since we all know he's out.)

[AGDee]

There is no way we are going to pull out of there without the insurgents knowing whether we publicize a timeline now or not. It's not like we can sneak out of there overnight and leave the Iraq military in charge. They are going to know. We aren't going to be able to rid the country of them. There are so many Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan that pretty soon, the majority of the population will be the insurgents. It makes sense to me that if the Iraqi's knew the timeline, then they would have to step up and do what they need to do to save their country instead of just being dependent on us. And, maybe the ones who are considering fleeing would stay because they would have hope that it would get better. The blogs I read of Iraqi's who have left for Syria and Jordan all say that they hope to go back home after we leave.

And, if we want to talk about the war on terror, then why is the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan and where the heck is Osamba Bin Laden? Why did Bhutto refer to someone in an interview as "the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" and NOBODY from any "reliable" news source picked up on her saying that at the time and investigated it further? Yet, the interview is on YouTube.

This world frightens me.

As for the power of the Executive branch and who takes the blame.. ultimately, the CEO of the company takes the blame for what happens with company. Bush is our CEO. His veto pen has been swift. His insane addendums to bills that state that they do not apply to him are shocking. His refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty and the fact that he is in the back pocket of the oil companies do affect global warming. I would love to see a President put together a cabinet made up of people who are qualified to do the jobs rather than from their good ole boys network. I'm not saying he's the first president to do that, but it would be nice if he were the last (I know, that would be a utopia).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

There is no way we are going to pull out of there without the insurgents knowing whether we publicize a timeline now or not. It's not like we can sneak out of there overnight and leave the Iraq military in charge. They are going to know. We aren't going to be able to rid the country of them. There are so many Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan that pretty soon, the majority of the population will be the insurgents. It makes sense to me that if the Iraqi's knew the timeline, then they would have to step up and do what they need to do to save their country instead of just being dependent on us. And, maybe the ones who are considering fleeing would stay because they would have hope that it would get better. The blogs I read of Iraqi's who have left for Syria and Jordan all say that they hope to go back home after we leave.

And, if we want to talk about the war on terror, then why is the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan and where the heck is Osamba Bin Laden? Why did Bhutto refer to someone in an interview as "the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" and NOBODY from any "reliable" news source picked up on her saying that at the time and investigated it further? Yet, the interview is on YouTube.

This world frightens me.

As for the power of the Executive branch and who takes the blame.. ultimately, the CEO of the company takes the blame for what happens with company. Bush is our CEO. His veto pen has been swift. His insane addendums to bills that state that they do not apply to him are shocking. His refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty and the fact that he is in the back pocket of the oil companies do affect global warming. I would love to see a President put together a cabinet made up of people who are qualified to do the jobs rather than from their good ole boys network. I'm not saying he's the first president to do that, but it would be nice if he were the last (I know, that would be a utopia).

I've got no well developed plan how to get us out of Iraq or to stop global terror, and I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be as easy as the political rhetoric in this campaign from either side make it out to be. I tend to think McCain's view is closer to reality although I sure hope it's not 100 years.

I'd love to see a better President too, and we're pretty much certain to get one if only because it's hard to imagine worse, and that's one thing that unites both ends of the political spectrum, albeit for different reasons.

But we're not going to get better government if we just allow scapegoating of lame ducks to carry the day. We have to try to hold all the elected officials, particularly the ones who can run again, presently influence policy, and most importantly control funding, responsible for the stuff they screw up and we have to press for better government, not just the "your guy sucks more than my guy" pep rally mentality we've got now.

To throw it all (the issues listed by Skylark, with the exception of other countries hating us) on Bush lets too many other people off the hook, in addition to being inaccurate in many cases and in regard to the complete vilification of Bush for Katrina, fundamentally unfair.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

To throw it all on Bush let's too many other people off the hook in addition to maybe being in many cases inaccurate and with complete vilification for Katrina fundamentally unfair.

Ok, I couldn't really decipher what this sentence actually says, but I think I've said all I can say on the matter for now. You keep making this a "you're just dumping on Bush" point and that's not the majority of the arguments I'm making or reading in other posts.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

CEO pay? Really now.

I don't deny President shape congressional policy, but to suggest that Bush is responsible for some of the crap on the list is ridiculous.

Do you mean Skylark's reference about Bush lining the pockets of energy CEOs? Um, do a google search for "Bush tax cut" and oil companies. Originally passed back in his first term.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

Do you mean Skylark's reference about Bush lining the pockets of energy CEOs? Um, do a google search for "Bush tax cut" and oil companies. Originally passed back in his first term.

Are you saying that had the tax cut not been passed we'd be all set with social security and health care?

Who was responsible for passing the tax cut into law? Who would have been responsible for making sure that the money in the federal coffers, had the tax cut not gone into effect, went to shoring up Social Security or God forbid, Federal health care benefits? What evidence can you point to of a willingness on the part of Congress to any of the things necessary to yield the results that Skylark wanted to see?

Certainly, a reasonable person can conclude that Bush provided bad leadership, but so much more than that went into it.