If they had actionable intel and Pakistan wouldn't act, I might be okay with a covert op to attack. I'd have to know more details, but on paper it sounds okay at the moment. I'm glad Obama touched on loose nukes, it's a serious concern attached to smuggling of nuclear arms. Richardson sounded a little naive on the Pakistan issue, which is surprising since he would theoretically have the most experience on the issue. I don't mind diplomacy first, in fact I support it, but ask Musharraf to step down? Hah. Ask the Ayatollah and Kim Jong Il to do the same! I'm surprised they're spending so much time talking about nukes and Pakistan in the Democratic debate. It seemed in the Republican debate that they stuck to mainlike Republican issues and never really put the screws to them on issues they don't traditionally comment on a lot (education, alternative energy, etc), but seems that might be different for the Democratic side. However, I think it's better this way, it gives them a chance to hit issues they often are attacked on. Heh, whoops to Richardson on referring to Russia as the Soviet Union, but I guess I see his point. It's the stockpile of nukes in former Soviet states that are most at risk. Interesting that foreign policy for the Republicans was Iraq, for Democrats it was nukes and Pakistan. Not bad, just interesting.
Domestically...
Now you know that Clinton has to go after Obama a bit, she needs to claw back into first place somehow. But despite that, I still thought the candidates are generally being more friendly with each other than the Republicans were. Though, just as I say that, Hillary's little "deliver change" rant came pretty close to sounding shrill.
What I'd like to see, in general, is in addition to pointing out differences in voting records (which is fair) is an actual debate on the issue itself. They aren't arguing over their differences in policy, they are arguing over changes in voting records. It's hard to know who to vote for when they won't discuss the differences in their ideas, you don't know who is right, necessarily. I blame the moderator for that though as much as I blame the candidates.
I'm glad they asked them what they think about the surge (not sure how it is a domestic issue), since Bush and the Republicans like to say so often that the Democrats actually WANT us to lose, sorry, when I say that I mostly mean OSC, but you hear it from the national figures too. None of them say that the military battle is going badly, not really, they are saying that the military battle though important, is immaterial to the fact that there is still NO POLITICAL PROGRESS. We can win fights until the sun goes down (and up again, and down again etc), but it's all useless if there is no political solution to give them longterm stability. The surge was supposed to give them that chance, and they aren't taking it. I think they should have paid more lip service to saying that the surge works militarily, but, good points. Obama was interesting on putting the reduction in violence into perspective, though according to factcheck.org, he's a bit off on the specifics. Also an interesting take on the situation in al-Anbar, I haven't heard that one before. I think the moderator was being too critical of them, what is he, a Republican schill? Where was that kind of interaction in the Republican debate? I'm not sure about what Edwards says about reduced violence in British areas. I heard that when they left, locals lamented the fact that they were leaving, and the situation got worse. Richardson is wrong when he says get them all out in a year. Experts predict the fastest they could be pulled out is 15 months.
Part II
Richardson goes on and on about his credentials, then finally gets to something good in energy policy, which leads me to believe he'd again make a good Energy Secretary, or a pointperson on Energy for the country of some kind. And I don't know, I sort of have to agree with (I think Icarus) whoever said that it seems like Edwards is running for VP again. I liked his plea for representation for the common man. Hillary's attacks on Edwards and Obama didn't seem fair. It looked like she felt she was losing control to a populist message and wanted to slap them down. She's trying to say "look at me I can get stuff done," but it comes off to me as "I'm Washington, and you two can't get any of your idealistic dreams made into reality." I think it hurts her.
Interesting comment from the moderator on change. I don't tell if he was being thankful, ironic, or sarcastic.
Edwards won some points from me by invoking TR. But that's just because I love TR. Good response from Obama about Hillary's "words don't matter" spiel.
All good stuff, pretty much all in agreement on a Green economy, efficiency, creating jobs with renewable energy.
In summary, I don't think the Democrats really quarreled that much, and I don't think any of them came out looking especially good or especially bad. Hillary and Edwards might have done a teeny bit better, but not by much at all. I'd say that the moderator was a bit partisan at times, but I'll leave him out. Hillary tried again to make her experience matter most, but I don't know if it took or not. I think this debate will have no effect on the vote, but the Republican side was much more interesting.
quote: Romney claimed that the 47 million Americans who lack health care are not covered because they say "I'm not going to play. I'm just going to get free care paid for by everybody else." Experts say that very few who are offered insurance turn it down and that the uninsured get worse care.
Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that occurred in large part under President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He said that “the Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.” That’s true, but it was down to 572,423 by the time Clinton took office.
McCain recalled that he "strongly disagreed" with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and had "no confidence" in his Iraq strategy "at the time." But he didn't say publicly that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld until December 2004, after Bush was reelected and well after the war began. . Romney falsely denied that an attack ad called McCain’s immigration bill "amnesty," though it does. One of his Web ads also attacks McCain for supporting "amnesty." He conceded during the debate that McCain’s bill "technically" isn’t amnesty. Giuliani claimed that "economists" say health insurance rates would fall by up to 50 percent if millions more shopped for policies individually. Once again, his campaign was unable to produce a single economist who supports that figure.
Romney claimed his Massachusetts state insurance program had reduced the number of uninsured in Massachusetts by 300,000. That’s the number who have gained coverage under the system, but many were covered previously through other means. There were other false and misleading
quote:Obama claimed we are "back where we started two years ago" in Iraq. Actually, all indicators of violence show dramatic improvement compared with two years ago.
Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was "larded with all kinds of special interest breaks" for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Obama stated that U.S. medical care costs "twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation," which is incorrect. U.S. spending is double the average, but not double that of all others.
Clinton said there is no reason that U.S. troops should be in Iraq "beyond today," but she has also conceded that she might keep combat troops fighting there for years.
Richardson said the price of gasoline in New Hampshire is at a record high. It's close, but lower than he said, and lower than it was a few weeks ago.
In the analysis section we note further misstatements and twisted facts, and we find that Clinton was close to the mark when she criticized Obama for shifting positions on the USA Patriot Act.
posted
One thing that confuses me: When did changing positions become such a negative thing? Has the phrase "flip-flop" always been used as an attack? Is there higher value in always sticking to your principles than keeping an open mind?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with people changing their minds. But when people change their minds, they have a record of espousing one position, and then they change, and they have a consistent position of espousing the new position. For instance, Clinton on the original authorization of force in Iraq. I don't see it as a flip-flop, but as an admission of having been wrong initially. The line is fuzzy, but I think flip-flopping is more about repeatedly changing your alleged position based on whom you are talking to. Or when the change in position seems motivated by nothing but political expedience. I guess if you change your mind, I want to know exactly how that happened. If you duck the issue, and if you changed your stance from an unpopular stance to a popular one, then I suspect that you're poll-watching and flip-flopping. For instance, Clinton on driver licenses for illegal aliens. First she was for them, and later she was against them, but she never really explained the change of heart.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd heard so much about Paul, mostly from here, and I was eager to see him in the debates. Let me tell you, I was not impressed at all in the debates, and today I got to hear him on a local ultraconservative AM radio show, and I found him even more ridiculous. All he's got going for him is he's the main Republican opposing the war. Aside from that, though, he's a lousy candidate. Yeah, the neocon machine may be keeping him down, but that doesn't automagically make him a good president.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think many here actually considered Paul a serious candidate. He does, however, stick to his guns and present his views clearly and honestly, and many of us find that quite refreshing.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Icarus 100% on the issue of flipflopping. I'd never heard the term used the way it is now before Kerry was attacked with it on a daily basis by the Republican attack machine. The person I hear most associated with the word this time around has been Romney thus far.
As for Paul, I don't think he's viable as a candidate, I don't think he has a shot, I wouldn't vote for him (though earlier I said I was tempted to, it was an emotional response, and only in the primaries), and I really don't agree with him on most things. But, when it comes to 9/11 and jihadists, he was making extremely good points and not only was he railroaded by the other candidates, they LAUGHED at him. That's what pissed me off the most, was the smug, derisive way they just shot him down.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: One thing that confuses me: When did changing positions become such a negative thing? Has the phrase "flip-flop" always been used as an attack? Is there higher value in always sticking to your principles than keeping an open mind?
I vaguely remember "flip-flopping" used as political term in the Clinton years. But in 2004 Kerry became synonymous with it, both because he did it a lot ("I voted for the war before I voted against it") and because the Republicans and the Bush re-election campaign specifically brilliantly used it against him.
When Kerry said "I voted for the war before I voted against it", the Bush team had it in their commercials/websites within 24-48 hours, and they flogged that quote forever to nail Kerry as a flip-flopper.
Also, they even brought literal flip-flops to rallys, speeches and their national convention. A perfect prop.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Between that out-of-context tidbit and the whole Swiftboat thing, 2004 was about the worst example of ugly campaigning I can recall. I hope 2008 will be better, but maybe that's not realistic.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I think anyone who expects any candidate who has gotten this far to bring about a change in the way we do politics is mistaken. The only way any candidate has gotten this far, even Ron Paul, is by adapting and using the political process to get ahead. Most of them have years of history acting like normal politicians, including Obama and Edwards. And while the President has a big bully pulpit, he still has to practice politics with a lot of other people to get anything done.
Certainly Obama might mildly change the tone, but the substance? No, only a few priorities.
quote: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
I mostly agree Russell. Except modern fundraising has broadened the base of contributers, so a president might not be as beholden to vested interests as he or she was once guaranteed to be. Howard Dean's very successful use of the internet for fundraising in 2004 has been followed this year by Paul's amazing and Obama's respectable net fundraising efforts.
Also, the ever-accelerating rate of technological change will have a large impact on everything, including politics, eventually.
Therefore, the status quo is not as static as it once was. This creates opportunity for a bold leader to seek real change. Whether Obama or anyone else can carry it off is debatable. I doubt it, but I'm still voting for him. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clear it up, "I voted for the war before I voted against it," wasn't a flip flop, at least not in the correct sense that Icarus defined it. He voted for it in committee, didn't like the bill at the end, and voted against it. It's not flip flopping, it's the US Senate. I agree with Icarus, that was a sick year for negative campaigning. I don't think that it was at all an honest campaign. It was word twisting (not even pointing out differences in voting records, it was outright lying to attack the other person) and character assasination.
I don't know that Paul HAS adopted the traditional political mold. I think he's doing well at 10% despite the fact that he isn't doing the things he should be doing. It's his grassroots soldiers, the grassroots fundraising, the clamor from the masses that is getting his name in the air. All he does is bumble around spouting off somewhat unclearly at times, his philosophy of government. He says the same things everywhere he goes, in the same tone, in the same way. Near as I can tell, he hasn't pandered, I haven't seen an attack ad, and he hasn't changed his message. Everything that got him where he is? The effect of his message on a small but extremely motivated people to get him there.
How did Obama get started? A rousing speech that might as well have been an announcement for office in 2004. I didn't know who he was before that speech. But I remember thinking to myself on the night of the convention when he spoke, I remember thinking "damn, I wish I could vote for HIM right now and not Kerry." And that didn't go away in the last 3 years. I don't think he's torn down Hillary in the last couple months because he attacked her enough to knock her off her perch, I don't think he tore her down at all. I think he built himself up that high through sheer hope and optimism, from his message. I don't know how much that comes as politics as usual, but it's the first time in a long time that I've felt this hopeful about a candidate for ANY office. There's something a little special there. Thus far I haven't seen any character assasinations coming from him, I haven't seen anything I'd personally consider out of bounds or unfair.
You want examples of politics as usual, look at the leaders of the Republican field. Whew, I'm having 04 flashbacks, I'm having a token few 2000 flashbacks (I was 16 then, gimme a break). I don't think we know yet what kind of politics Obama will play, though from his Illinois legislature days, I think he stands out again as an agent of positive change from the status quo we tend to deride. We'll see what he does if he gets the nod, which I think by the end of the day today will look a lot more certain (but that's just a guess, but I think he's different.
I don't expect him to change the entire political process overnight. I can't even concieve of what that type of change could possibly even look like. Does anyone here? Can he change partisan bickering? Yes I think he can. Do I think ANY of the other candidates running for office can? No, I don't. Can he make us feel better about government? I think he can. Will he bring more honesty to the presidency than we've seen in the last 20 years? Yes, I think he could.
Also that fundraising thing that Morbo said.
Already I consider those possibilities a big change. I guess it all depends on what you really are looking for in a change. I want someone in office I can trust, someone with integrity, someone who doesn't use fear to cow citizens into submission. That's a serious change from politics as usual in Washington, and I believe that's what he'd do. Politicians have to play politics, it's inherent to the job, and I don't see that EVER changing. It's how they do it that matters to me. I see a big change from the status quo from an Obama presidency.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know that Paul HAS adopted the traditional political mold. I think he's doing well at 10% despite the fact that he isn't doing the things he should be doing. It's his grassroots soldiers, the grassroots fundraising, the clamor from the masses that is getting his name in the air. All he does is bumble around spouting off somewhat unclearly at times, his philosophy of government. He says the same things everywhere he goes, in the same tone, in the same way. Near as I can tell, he hasn't pandered, I haven't seen an attack ad, and he hasn't changed his message. Everything that got him where he is? The effect of his message on a small but extremely motivated people to get him there.
I agree entirely with this.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: One thing that confuses me: When did changing positions become such a negative thing? Has the phrase "flip-flop" always been used as an attack? Is there higher value in always sticking to your principles than keeping an open mind?
I vaguely remember "flip-flopping" used as political term in the Clinton years. But in 2004 Kerry became synonymous with it, both because he did it a lot ("I voted for the war before I voted against it") and because the Republicans and the Bush re-election campaign specifically brilliantly used it against him.
When Kerry said "I voted for the war before I voted against it", the Bush team had it in their commercials/websites within 24-48 hours, and they flogged that quote forever to nail Kerry as a flip-flopper.
Also, they even brought literal flip-flops to rallys, speeches and their national convention. A perfect prop.
Hits the nail on the head. Accusations of "flip-flop" didn't really become a big part of our political culture until the 2004 election, where it was indeed used brilliantly by the Bush campaign. It seems that all of Romney's opponents have definitely learned the lesson from that election and and now are mercilessly applying that label to EVERY position Romney holds. Most of the time the charge is totally without merit, but it gets good press because it makes for good TV. For example, Huckabee regularly has these glib (and in my opinion, snide, petty and unChristian) one-liners prepared to attack Romney whenever he gets the chance. In the ABC debate, he said "I supported the surge when Romney didn't." This is demonstrably false. Not only did Huckabee waffle on whether he supported the surge last Jan. 24th, he forgot to mention that Romney had thrown his full support behind the surge with a January 10th press release. This is only one example where Huckabee and McCain either mis-state or downright lie about Romney's supposed flip-flops in order to score political points.
As I have said before, Romney's opponents have successfully defined him as a flip-flopper, even from the get-go, and Romney's entire campaign has been marred by that definition. It'll be up to the voters in New Hamshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida to determine whether the flip-flop label will succeed in bringing down Romney's campaign
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm...I was going to say the waffle with butter and syrup was Trudeau's Clinton. My memory doesn't always serve me well, though.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The really important question is this: Which is better, (1)thick, fluffy, Belgian-style waffles or (2)thin, flavorful, rich waffles?
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama defended his NH chair as being a state lobbyist not a federal one and his position is that he will not have or take money from people that would influence him on issues at the federal level; so no federal lobbyists need apply. That, to me, seems a bit of hair splitting.
No it isn't. The man won't try and influence him. And that's what he's saying, he will not be influenced by lobbyists or PAC's or big money. Just cause the man's involved in politics on the state level -- and that's what the vast majority of lobbyists are, simply involved in politics the only way they can be -- doesn't mean he'll influence Obama on the federal level. Or that he (the lobbyist) doesn't wanna change the system in which he works the same way we do.
If, like me, you believe that there is little difference between a professional lobbyist at the state level and one at the federal level other than who they talk to, then he is splitting hairs. A lobbyist is usually hired because they bring something that is needed by a company and that is contacts. He lobbies at the state level because that is where his contacts are. Well, now, he is developing contacts at the Federal level; you don't think his company will expect him to use them? You don't think he would use them? If you assign to him the most altruistic motives for being a lobbyist; that he truly believes that he is working for the greater good by lobbying for legislation that is favorable to his company and thus everyone, then how can he not, in good conscious, not try to influence Obama? And if he is not.....
I just think Obama made a mistake and the nuance of whether it is a state lobbyist or federal lobbyist is a way out. Edwards in particular and Obama have latched on to the idea that lobbyists are some kind of boogie man and by excluding them you somehow make yourself morally superior. If you want to paint yourself as Mr. Clean then you need to be very careful where you go or you will pick up contact dirt.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
