McCain or Obama?

[replicant]

... just woke up, getting my first jolt of java and politics, and my eyes, still blurry, fix on this:



"No doubt"? None?

Ok, ya got me, maybe a little. But the absolute source of a rumor is almost impossible to prove. And even if the source isn't Karl, I would bet money he keeps it going.

Also the real highlight of why she has foreign politics qualifications in her own words:

"You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska".

Yeah, I love that one myself. Like I said, it's like me saying I can run a police crash unit because I've got gangs down my street.

Actually I wouldn't be that preoccupied by McCain getting elected as president if Palin wasn't, as Democrats put it, "one heartbeat away" from having to take the Oval Office...

One busted up old man's heartbeat away. It's one thing to vote directly for relative inexperience and itellectualism, it's another to have total inexperience and ignorance thrust upon us sooner than we might think.

Before I get yelled at again, I know I am ignorant of a lot of things as well, but then, I am not in her position am I?

As far as the "executive experience" goes, remember, W. had more executive experience of a far more populated and diverse state.

The interview was great. I loved the whole "Charlie" thing. She kept trying to endear herself when all she did was come across as cranky and desperate. No wonder they have been hiding her, and just repeating her "out of the park" scripted performance. Remember, any actor can come across as awesome with the right script and coaching for a stage performance.

The answer on the bridge was great, and to think I have been called an equivocator.

Same thing on the "task of God thing" Her actual quote to her students was "Our National leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God" Sounds to me like she knows what tasks are from God from that. Then she says "I don't know what a task from God is Charlie" That sounds downright like backpeddaling or flip-flopping to me.

The best was the Bush doctrine though. Even with my theocratic rants rants aside, this whole election will come down to CHANGE. If that wasn't the case, McCain and his camp would not have spent three days saying they are different. Even the hurricane Gustav thing was kind of "Look, we are so different from Bush"

How can you sell yourself as the "Agents of change", when you don't even know what it is you are supposedly changing? :rofl:

I think I am going to go play my little space simulator now and laugh myself sick. :lol:


-----Posted Added-----

Finally, though, the emotional premise of your point, that the last eight years has been some kind of unmitigated disaster for the United States, is one I don't share. I honestly think you've got at least mild case of BDS going there ... but it's been a pretty widespread epidemic.

It must be, because McCain spent a great deal of his speech saying the same thing, without directly saying it.


-----Posted Added-----


This great too, when posed the question if he thinks Palin is qualified to step in as the President, Lieberman sidesteps the question for a long while and says "Assume the best" Translation : "Pray to God McCain doesn't die." :rofl:

 

[eveningsky339]

rly:

Check your sources on this one...she never banned a single book.

Yes, but as urwumpe pointed out, she's made an effort.

I would take Palin over Obama at this point, but I don't really like her all that much either.

 

[pattersoncr]

This great too, when posed the question if he thinks Palin is qualified to step in as the President, Lieberman sidesteps the question for a long while and says "Assume the best" Translation : "Pray to God McCain doesn't die." :rofl:

I'm not sure if you realize this but John McCain is one tough son of a *****. I for one am not worried about him being around until January 2013.

 

[replicant]

I'm not sure if you realize this but John McCain is one tough son of a *****. I for one am not worried about him being around until January 2013.

I am aware of that, and as I have said, I have great respect for what McCain has been through. If he wins, trust me, I pray from the bottom of my heart that you are right.

 

[OWSweather]

Ron Paul 2008

 

[David]

Her actual quote to her students was "Our National leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God"

I think that her actual quote was, "Pray that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

I have great respect for what McCain has been through. If he wins, trust me, I pray from the bottom of my heart that you are right.

I recognize that the meaning that you intend, here, is different from an assertion that: "You are right."

 

[Star explorer]

i got an email last night that said amabo when i flipped it around it said obama NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOL just kidding don't know who i would vote for if i was old enough to vote i mean we got two bulls of !@#$ and the only difference is the smell. wish i was old enough to vote though

 

[replicant]

I think that her actual quote was, "Pray that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

That is hardly better, in fact, it's worse. That statement implies that the war may or may not be a task from God, but Ms. palin desires it to be one, and tells others to desire it to be one.

 

[David]

That is hardly better, in fact, it's worse. That statement implies that the war may or may not be a task from God, but Ms. palin desires it to be one, and tells others to desire it to be one.

No; it implies that she had a conscientious concern about whether proceeding to war was the right thing to do, and that she hoped that it was, and that others should hope that it was. Her intended meaning seems to be the exact opposite of what you allege - instead of asserting that the war was God's will (as has been your interpretation), she proposed that people should seek to know whether it was God's will. That is how she describes her understanding of "Christian prayer."

I apologize for having misused, as an analogy, your use of the word "pray," which I recognize to mean "ask God to do what one wishes to be done." It seems to be meant, by Christians, "ask to know what God wishes to be done" (i.e. - pray to God: "Thy will be done," as Jesus taught his followers to pray). In secular terms, this would seem to be equivalent to a proposition that one should be carefully (and perhaps meditatively) thoughtful, in deciding what one should do, and this was Palin's attitude toward the idea of proceeding to war against Saddam Hussein.

At this point, I surmise that it is Palin's hope that God's will is that the Iraq War be concluded successfully, and that her son (along with other soldiers) return home safely and victoriously. My hope is that you would not regard that as her personal conceit.

 

[replicant]

Hmmmm.....so let me make sure I understand correctly, what all that breaks down to is that she is saying "Let's ask God if this war is his task"?

I don't buy that, and even if I did, there is still a huge fundamental issue with it. As a Christian, Ms. Palin should have read and understood the NEW covenant and the two commandments of Christ

"Love Thy Neighbor as thyself"
"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart"

(I am paraprasing, but that is their meaning)

Nowhere in the red letters does it say anything about pre-emptive invasions based upon us THINKING someone is the bad guy is the "right" thing to do. I don't recall Jesus ever saying that being his friend included maintaining order or imposing will by arms and victorious soldiers of a particilar country. What you have to realize first and foremost is that Jesus couldn't care less about your country. Nations and whether or not they are victorious mean nothing to him.

As I have said before, I have never had a problem with killing the right enemy for the right reason. But I shall NEVER think that I am right with Jesus after killing another person. I will never pull the trigger and think, maybe Jesus wanted that, for me to vanquish America's enemies. No, that is as wrong as wrong can be. It is a waste of time to even ask if War is a task that Jesus wants, because I am certain he does not. Therefore, even suggesting, or asking, or hoping that any war is a task from the Lord, disturbs me and makes me want to recoil in disgust. Too much blood has been shed throughout history from those who thought God was on their side and wanted THEM to be victorious.


-----Posted Added-----


On another note, the interview she conducted was ridiculous, especially the whole blank stare about the Bush doctrine. Going beyond religion or faith, that should have been enough to scare a lot of people. I mean, think about it, She should know the Bush Doctrine cold, especially considering the position she is applying for. I was amazed how many people made excuses for her though. I can just about imagine if an interviewer at the airline asked me how a wing works and I just looked at them and had to be prompted two or three times and then reminded about the principle. I don't think I would get a job offer. Or if I evaded questions that looked into my integrity or my claims that I could do the job, which is what she did on the bridge thing. Amazing.

The sad fact is that I had better know my stuff cold if I want that job, and I am nothing, less than nothing, just a low level machine operating functionary. What makes this fact sad is that now we seem to be OK with incompetence and even make excuses for it at the highest levels. Unbelievable.

After having been an instructor, a check airman, and having been a student and grilled many times in oral exams and interviews, I have two words for Ms. Palin's first interview:

Totally unsat.

 

[Urwumpe]

The bridge thing is one category worse I'd say, as she clearly lies in that context. First she lobbied massively for it, then she says that she was always against it. Not even John Kerry managed to do such a sharp turn.

Forget the Bush doctrine, I had to admit, when I heard that she did not know the term, I did not know what was meant either. I thought they meant being at home 80% of the time, they should be in office (Which Palin also did as governor).

If Palin would be a man, we would be kicking his butt already and say he is a corrupt, lazy powermonger. But when a woman does just the same, it is OK? Do we have our women in such low esteem that we don't expect better from them?

 

[David]

As a Christian, Ms. Palin should have read and understood the NEW covenant and the two commandments of Christ

Well, I have no willingness (or competence) to argue Christian doctrine, but I would make a few pertinent comments:

1) Keep in mind who was Jesus' audience. As I recall, he had nothing whatsoever to say about what should be governmental policy (something perhaps worthy of being kept in mind, I daresay, by so many who would argue that "Christian compassion" and What-Would-Jesus-Do, is properly exemplified by the advocacy and implementation of governmental social programs), while American citizens do.

2) Jesus paid perhaps his highest compliment, to a soldier - a man who, when asking Jesus to heal his servant, stated that, as a soldier, he was quite experienced in the giving and receiving of commands, and he was confident that Jesus could efficaciously command the restoration of health, to his servant. Jesus praised him for such faith and directed the attention of his disciples, to it. He never criticized or condemned the man for being a soldier.

3) It's a complicated world, for Christians too. Making decisions about going to war, is perhaps not easily accomplished by merely supposing that one should manifest love toward others. As an individual, one can suppose that he should "turn the other cheek;" but when a political official has responsibility for securing the safety of citizens, he will perhaps not suppose that his professional obligations are best satisfied by following that advice. Even so, he may be concerned to make his decision conscientiously, perhaps to pray about it, and to attend to it according to his own best, overall understanding - religious or otherwise. If you think that war is a task that God or Jesus would oppose, then that is your religious understanding, isn't it? So, are you criticizing Sarah Palin with a religious argument? Or are you proposing that religious opinions should be kept out of politics? Or are you simply proposing that her religious opinions should be kept out of her politics, or your politics?

On another note, the interview she conducted was ridiculous, especially the whole blank stare about the Bush doctrine. Going beyond religion or faith, that should have been enough to scare a lot of people. I mean, think about it, She should know the Bush Doctrine cold, especially considering the position she is applying for.

Nonsense. It has been widely reported that there is no such thing as "The Bush Doctrine." Such a phrase has been used at different times, in different circumstances, by different journalists, to refer to several different political policies of the Bush administration. I have regarded it, in several journalistic pieces, as a general allusion to such a policy as President Bush was generally pursuing, that was pertinent to the subject of the particular journalistic piece; such a term-of-art as being comprehensively "The Bush Doctrine," is as meaningless to me (and, I expect, to you before having considered this current criticism about Palin) as it was to her.

More significantly, interviewer Charlie Gibson's approach to the matter, was contemptible. He asked her what she thought of "The Bush Doctrine" and, when she asked him to clarify his question, he decided that he would, instead, seek to humiliate her for ignorance, rather than to pursue a useful, journalistic purpose of extracting from her, some information about her political philosophy. After she addressed what she regarded as the import of his question, he then superciliously notified her of what (to his peculiar understanding) "The Bush Doctrine" is.

I would add that an article on CBS's website, for example, even in similarly criticizing Palin's alleged ignorance about "The Bush Doctrine," nevertheless presents a definition, for it, that is quite different from Gibson's.

The sad fact is that I had better know my stuff cold if I want that job[...]

Yeah; perhaps, then, you can provide me with your opinion about The Flight Rule. Anyway, there was similar condemnation of Palin's reportedly having made a statement, at some point, that she didn't know what a Vice-President does: "How ignorant of her!" But I thought that it was funny (and honest) since, in fact, nobody knows what a Vice-President does. Its specified Constitutional functions are being substitute President, if necessary, and being "President of the Senate" (which, in practice, is a function performed by the President-Pro-Tempore or that person's deputy-for-a-day), casting tie-breaking votes, if necessary. Otherwise, what a U.S. Vice-President actually does, is unspecified and varies from administration to administration (allegedly, the current function is practicing a vocal impression of James Earl Jones, saying "Luke, I am your faaather," while testing SCUBA equipment and plotting to destroy planets).

 

[Urwumpe]

Nonsense. It has been widely reported that there is no such thing as "The Bush Doctrine." Such a phrase has been used at different times, in different circumstances, by different journalists, to refer to several different political policies of the Bush administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Note the very important distinction between Bush Doctrine and Reagan Doctrine - Even though Reagan never named his politics the Reagan Doctrine, it is still a valid term in political sciences. Just like the major differences Bush introduced, which justify calling it a new doctrine.

See also how doctrines of US presidents are defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_doctrines

And why Slick Willie never really had his own.

But my favorite doctrine is the Powell Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

It explains well, what the USA have done wrong in Iraq. No doctrine which is based on Clausewitz's teachings can be really bad.

 

[David]

@Urwumpe

The Wikipedia article basically makes my point - which is not that the phrase has not been used, but that it has no specifically defined, consistent meaning.

According to the Wikipedia article, the "Bush Doctrine" has been used to denote at least these propositions:

1) Support for terrorism against the USA, is enmity toward the USA
2) Pre-emptive attacks against threats, may be justified
3) More worldwide spread of democracy, will tend to reduce the likelihood of (e.g. - terrorist) enmity toward the USA
4) Independent pursuit, by the USA, of its national interests, is justifiable

So, what exactly was Charlie Gibson expecting to be a response to his question to Palin, about her opinion wrt "The Bush Doctrine"? And is there another explanation for her request for clarification: "In what respect, Charlie?" other than a cynical supposition that she was simply too ignorant to provide a simple answer to a simple question?

Perhaps I used poor phrasing in stating that "there is no such thing," as meaning "it is not a clearly defined concept." Anyway, it seems to me that Gibson's question, requesting Palin's opinion of "The Bush Doctrine" would be analogous to his having asked her to describe her opinion of "American foreign policy;" if someone asked me such a question, I would certainly want some clarification, too - which does not mean that I am unaware that there are American foreign policies.


Besides that, thanks for the suggested info sources.

 

[Urwumpe]

The Wikipedia article basically makes my point - which is not that the phrase has not been used, but that it has no specifically defined, consistent meaning.

No, actually, that is what you interpret into the article, by ignoring the concept of a presidential doctrine - that's why I explicitly also posted the link to this article to make sure, we both can argue with the same level of information. When you know, that presidents define doctrines for their time in office, and what gets gathered under such a doctrine, the term Bush doctrine is a very clear term.

In matters of foreign policy, a doctrine, also known as dogma, is a body of axioms fundamental to the exercise of a nation's foreign policy. Hence, doctrine, in this sense, has come to suggest a broad consistency that holds true across a spectrum of acts and actions. Doctrines of this sort are almost always presented as the personal creations of one particular political leader, whom they are named after. Examples include the Monroe Doctrine, the Stimson Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Kirkpatrick doctrine, the Bush Doctrine.

You can defend her saying, that nobody who did not study political sciences or watches political discussions outside the election season, can know what such a term means. Still, that does not defend her inability to name the politics of Bush and explain her position towards them - after being explained the term. She did not know what Bush was standing for and what makes her political position different. Of course, the RR can now blame the interviewer for asking difficult or trick questions, but that is not the case: He just asked somebody a typical political question. Even if you don't know the term Bush doctrine, you should know what you are standing for and what your current president is standing for, when you prepare for becoming Vice President.

After all, you have not only representative duties, but also the risk of becoming president yourself. A VP candidate should thus have the same preparations for his role, as a president candidate, even if he/she will hopefully never require to execute the role of a president. Especially, as a VP is expected to also understand and comment the politics of his president.

 

[David]

When you know, that presidents define doctrines for their time in office, and what gets gathered under such a doctrine, the term Bush doctrine is a very clear term.

Well, it occurred to me, when reading your post #133, that perhaps some elapse of time and an historical-perspective review of the Bush Presidency and its context of World circumstances, might enable a synthesis of various generalizations about his policies, that could reasonably be characterized as an overall "Bush Doctrine." But at this point (and having read your suggested material), I cannot provide such a simple and cohesive generalization.

Perhaps the closest that I might attempt, in proposing a unique approach, by Bush, to his circumstances, would be that he initiated a recognition of international terrorism, as being acts of war rather than criminal acts - this being an axiom that would distinguish him from his predecessor.

Perhaps the various philosophical propositions that I itemized, in my previous post (and which have been alleged to be definitive of the "Bush Doctrine") could be regarded in some way as being implied by such an axiom, since they all describe aspects of an international, political approach to a terrorist threat. But I'm not sure that this would be more than stating a tautology, in alluding to "international terrorism" which, of course, has been the principal challenge faced by the Bush administration.

Otherwise, I don't know what idea could be called a singular "Bush Doctrine," and I have not observed anyone else's having presented one, either.

What would you propose, explicitly, to be represented by the "clear term" that is "The Bush Doctrine"?

 

[Urwumpe]

1. Preemptive protection: The right to attack countries openly supporting terrorism (Not really new for a president). Preemptive strikes against countries suspected of harming the national interest of the USA - even on vague evidence (like in Iraq).
2. Installing democracy in middle-eastern countries by force.
3. Unilateralism - "who is not for us, is against us." Called "New Multilateralism" in newspeak.
4. Military domination, even by breaking arms control treaties.
5. Human rights bigotry - Denial of justice and basic rights against suspected terrorists. Forceful extradiction of suspects from their countries. All under the veil of protecting these rights.

I think, this summarizes the doctrine pretty well. There are also some internal politics which could also be an extension of the neoconservative world view and worth be calling them a doctrine.

 

[David]

1. Preemptive protection: The right to attack countries openly supporting terrorism (Not really new for a president). Preemptive strikes against countries suspected of harming the national interest of the USA - even on vague evidence (like in Iraq).
2. Installing democracy in middle-eastern countries by force.
3. Unilateralism - "who is not for us, is against us." Called "New Multilateralism" in newspeak.
4. Military domination, even by breaking arms control treaties.
5. Human rights bigotry - Denial of justice and basic rights against suspected terrorists. Forceful extradiction of suspects from their countries. All under the veil of protecting these rights.

I think, this summarizes the doctrine pretty well. There are also some internal politics which could also be an extension of the neoconservative world view and worth be calling them a doctrine.

OK. Well, you have here described several definitions of "The Bush Doctrine," as I did (although not actually as Wikipedia described it, and certainly in more nasty terms than Bush would likely proclaim to be his "doctrine").

Anyway, you miss the point, which is that Charlie Gibson's definition of "The Bush Doctrine" was simply "pre-emption," and he apparently expected Palin to know that this was THE doctrine (notwithstanding that your "definition" is more expansive than his, as is Wikipedia's, and CBS's is completely different from his - being either simply "unilateralism," or simply "spreading democracy;" I don't recall which). If, when she asked for clarification, he had replied "I want to know your opinion of Bush's philosophy that pre-emptive attacks may be justified," then there would be no cause for complaint (including, by "RR") about his questioning.

And I have no doubt that Palin was aware that Bush regarded pre-emptive attacks as perhaps justifiable, since she - like everybody else - seems to be acquainted with the recent Iraq War. So, I guess that - from a Charlie Gibson's perspective - she knew quite well what "The Bush Doctrine" is, after all, even if she didn't know your preferred definition of it, or CBS's, or perhaps even Wikipedia's.

BTW, "unilateralism" does not mean "who is not for us, is against us." It means that the USA cannot reasonably expect that any alliances will necessarily be permanent, and it is not obliged to have international approval, in order to pursue its policies (item #4, in the list of definitions, that I presented in my post #134; your translation would more-or-less correspond to my item #1).

 

[GregBurch]

I'll be catching up on all the name-calling and high-toned rhetoric as time allows, but I thought I'd just stop by now that I have some juice running in the house to toss some gasoline on the fire:

With the financial sector in turmoil today, the media and the politicians have started throwing around blame with the same recklessness as lenders threw around credit to create the problem. Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier. McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (via Beltway Snark):

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
​

In this speech, McCain managed to predict the entire collapse that has forced the government to eat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns and AIG. He hammers the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom have worked as advisers to Barack Obama this year. McCain also noted the power of their lobbying efforts to forestall oversight over their business practices. He finishes with the warning that proved all too prescient over the past few days and weeks.
What was this bill? The act would have done the following:

(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
​

It never made it out of committee. Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis. Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money

 

[Yoda]

Why is there such a need to discuss politics on this forum ? Didn't we all decide in the last forum set-up that this was totally fruitless ?

In my opnion: stick to orbiter related matters and we'll all see what happens in November.