The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Oh, god, Huckabee's on Colbert Report, trying to be funny and glib about how McCain shouldn't be assumed the party nominee. I love how this guy keeps trying to come off as "normal". He has a sense of humor, I'll give him that. But his views are way outside the "normal" mainstream, IMO.


ETA: they're playing air hockey with a cut-out puck that looks like Texas... what a guy's guy

I can't watch anything that has Huckabee speaking. His voice reminds me of the tele-evangelists my grandmother used to force me to watch on Sunday mornings when I would visit her. She was convinced I was going to hell and thought that watching these people would convert me.

And Huckabee sounds just like them. So I hear Huckabee and I have flashbacks to toxic grandma. 4 years of his voice might just be enough to put me in therapy!

[Tom Earp]

With Mitt, it made me wonder to much about the money out of pocket to attain this position and scared the heck out of me.

He looks good and is very presentable but, there is/was a big but in my mind and evidently others as well.

Stiil on the list:

Demos:Hill and O

Repubs: Mac and Huck.

God where are we going to end up after this election finally gets over.

I also noticed in the posters link how the polls came out for both Bush and the legislature. Doesn't look good at any end of the spectrum.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

If only presidents could serve three consecutive terms...

... then we'd have a chance at alienating the last three countries that give a bleep about America anymore?

... then we could ensure that global warming plus paralyizing national emergency services turns more major cities into disaster areas like New Orleans?

... then we could line the pockets of energy CEOs with additional tax cuts that our grandchildren will have to pay for while they're already contributing half their paychecks because we depleted our social security funds and had shitty health care and so aren't well enough to work?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jon1856

And just who was it who said that we will be in Iraq for 100 years???

War on terror was NOT, as most people understand now, in Iraq.
Now it is.

Right, McCain supports staying in Iraq. C and B do not, as near as I can tell based on what they seem to be saying right now.

And the war on terror including Iraq now isn't some Republican rhetorical trope; it's reality.

Do you imagine that the insurgents are legitimate combatants in a recognized civil war? Who wins if we leave Iraq today? I don't think it's the Iraqi people.

No doubt, we'd all decide not to go into Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But just pulling our forces out doesn't leave Iraq in the same situation it was in before we went in. I think we can all agree on that.

The GOP candidates all seem to hold that we've got an obligation to stay and more to lose if the terror networks presently in Iraq are allowed to win and continue to undermine the democratically elected government.

As near as I can tell the US Democratic position seems to be something like let's cut our losses; it was a mistake; let's quit spending good money after bad.

It's hard for me to not also see that the Democratic position either includes a little element of "It was W's bad, so it's not our problem, so f the Iraqis if it comes to that" or a denial that the newly elected pres. will in fact have to leave more forces in Iraq than the candidates want to admit.

ETA: the Democratic position also, of course, holds that war is bad. And it is, unless you're fighting something worse which is a much harder call to make e.g. most people's attitudes about Darfur where people seem to want military intervention, so they'll just go with war is bad and hope that Iraq isn't so destabilized that there's genocide if we pull out.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by skylark

... then we'd have a chance at alienating the last three countries that give a bleep about America anymore?

... then we could ensure that global warming plus paralyizing national emergency services turns more major cities into disaster areas like New Orleans?

... then we could line the pockets of energy CEOs with additional tax cuts that our grandchildren will have to pay for while they're already contributing half their paychecks because we depleted our social security funds and had shitty health care and so aren't well enough to work?

I'm not a Bush fan, but please, do you even understand how government in the US works? Only one of the three things you've listed really has anything to do with the executive branch. (ETA: Well, I guess they have something to do with the executive branch, but it's hard to see why they wouldn't really be something congress ought to address, seeing as Congress makes laws and all. )

One the other hand, surely SECDomination was joking, right?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Right, McCain supports staying in Iraq. C and B do not, as near as I can tell based on what they seem to be saying right now.

And the war on terror including Iraq now isn't some Republican rhetorical trope; it's reality.

Do you imagine that the insurgents are legitimate combatants in a recognized civil war? Who wins if we leave Iraq today? I don't think it's the Iraqi people.

No doubt, we'd all decide not to go into Iraq if we knew then what we know now. But just pulling our forces out doesn't leave Iraq in the same situation it was in before we went in. I think we can all agree on that.

The GOP candidates all seem to hold that we've got an obligation to stay and more to lose if the terror networks presently in Iraq are allowed to win and continue to undermine the democratically elected government.

As near as I can tell the US Democratic position seems to be something like let's cut our losses; it was a mistake; let's quit spending good money after bad.

It's hard for me to not also see that the Democratic position either includes a little element of "It was W's bad, so it's not our problem, so f the Iraqis if it comes to that" or a denial that the newly elected pres. will in fact have to leave more forces in Iraq than the candidates want to admit.

ETA: the Democratic position also, of course, holds that war is bad. And it is, unless you're fighting something worse which is a much harder call to make e.g. most people's attitudes about Darfur where people seem to want military intervention, so they'll just go with war is bad and hope that Iraq isn't so destabilized that there's genocide if we pull out.

100 more years in Iraq?????
Us being there is just one of the causes that the terrorist use in recruiting.
Perhaps it is NOW time for the people and Government of Iraq to step up to the plate and take over the running on their own country.
Name any other country that we have bases in that we are running the country.
Us being there just delays them from facing and doing something about the very hard chooses and decisions that they have to make.
They just put it off on us.
And as I pointed out, us being there just helps the criminals.
And as I pointed out, the war on terror was not in Iraq. They had very little if anything to do with it.
The political decisions made by our politicians caused the war to expand into Iraq. Thus, as you pointed out, it is now a reality.

Should we just pack out bags and leave in February? NO.
And IMVHO no one really believes or thinks that can or will happen.

[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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm not a Bush fan, but please, do you even understand how government in the US works? Only one of the three things you've listed really has anything to do with the executive branch. (ETA: Well, I guess they have something to do with the executive branch, but it's hard to see why they wouldn't really be something congress ought to address, seeing as Congress makes laws and all. )

I don't think she's the one who doesn't understand how the US government works.

The President is the focal point of foreign relations and (unfortunately, in Bush's case) the "mouthpiece" of the US that other nations hear. The President's "interests" (big oil, the gun lobby, anti-everything groups) have, through him, unparalleled levels of access to power brokers around DC.

The President also appoints the head of each federal agency (so, the head of FEMA, for instance -- that would have a direct impact on that agency, its direction and its functioning)

Anyone who doesn't think (or doesn't know) that the bureaucracy creates and puts into play as many, if not more, policies than the Congress is believing what they're told and feeding the blindness most have about the system. Google books related to the bureaucracy and policy- or law-making to learn about what's sometimes referred to as the "4th branch of government." THAT, to me, is the most powerful part of who gets the top office. Sure, Supreme Court appointments are big, but they're out in the open. Everyone can follow Congress on C-Span all day. But who really tracks what's happening in the bowels of the Departments of Energy, Education, Labor, everyday? The # of political appointments in these organizations is astounding. And the effect these political appointments have on US policy is staggering. And for the most part, goes unnoticed and unchecked.

The Executive Branch is not just a 2-person + White House staff turnover. The tentacles go much, much deeper in the system. And this current bunch in DC definitely need their roots dug up and their tainted soil needs much tilling, IMO.

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I don't think she's the one who doesn't understand how the US government works.

The President is the focal point of foreign relations and (unfortunately, in Bush's case) the "mouthpiece" of the US that other nations hear. The President's "interests" (big oil, the gun lobby, anti-everything groups) have, through him, unparalleled levels of access to power brokers around DC.

The President also appoints the head of each federal agency (so, the head of FEMA, for instance -- that would have a direct impact on that agency, its direction and its functioning)

Anyone who doesn't think (or doesn't know) that the bureaucracy creates and puts into play as many, if not more, policies than the Congress is believing what they're told and feeding the blindness most have about the system. Google books related to the bureaucracy and policy- or law-making to learn about what's sometimes referred to as the "4th branch of government." THAT, to me, is the most powerful part of who gets the top office. Sure, Supreme Court appointments are big, but they're out in the open. Everyone can follow Congress on C-Span all day. But who really tracks what's happening in the bowels of the Departments of Energy, Education, Labor, everyday? The # of political appointments in these organizations is astounding. And the effect these political appointments have on US policy is staggering. And for the most part, goes unnoticed and unchecked.

The Executive Branch is not just a 2-person + White House staff turnover. The tentacles go much, much deeper in the system. And this current bunch in DC definitely need their roots dug up and their tainted soil needs much tilling, IMO.

Right, but bureaucracy isn't limited to the executive branch and the problems you bring up didn't start with Bush.

Does the Federal Government stink? Absolutely.

But you can't in any way absolve Congress or Presidents before Bush for the issues you bring up, nor can you reasonably expect that these issues are going to dry up and go away with the election of anyone still in the race (or anyone in the race at any point, really).

Do you really think that if we elect Clinton or Obama the issues you describe will go away? Really? You think government agencies were squeaky clean under Clinton? Really?

As I said before, I'm not even a Bush fan; I think he's one of least effective Presidents in a long time, but don't go nuts assigning blame to him for things that were only marginally within his control. He was President, not God.

[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.

[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.