I'm sorry, but there is no way Thompson will become President. A) He has no real platform, no real policies, except for some pro-war comments. B) The only way anybody is going to win the Presidency is going to be against the war. There is no doubt about it. And Hilary, while not entirely against the war, can make it appear that she is anti-war. So can Obama.
I know you like your war, but the people don't, the soldiers don't, and the winning candidate can't.
So unless Fred comes out with a plan to end the war, he will lose. And the only Republican who has a chance at winning, is Ron Paul. He has a chance at the GOP nomination, and a chance at the Office. His supports are passionate, he is eloquent, and he believes what he is saying, as well as being straight out honest. All of that goes a long way.
Now, I'm not saying he is going to win anything-but he has a chance. And the only way to get the country back on track and save it is Paul. He may not be able to fix everything over night, but it is a start.
I disagree. First of all, while I think Hillary will destroy Romney, I don't think she would beat Giuliani. Too many people on the left would vote for Rudy over Hillary. She is not as well liked on her side. Moderates and independants have a very negative view of Hillary and a very positive view of Rudy, being the 9-11 hero and all. True, many conservatives might stay home for a Rudy ticket but there are so many people all over the map that would vote for him over Hillary. I would be one of them.
Thompson, at present, just doesn't seem to have the head of steam that everyone thought he would. He needs to take Iowa or New Hamphire in the primaries, the first of which is probably more easily done, and then he could get somewhere. Because of his seeming lack of support amongst Republicans, I think Hillary would win fairly comfortably in a match-up with Fred.
Of course, all of this goes out the window if Hillary teams up with Obama. If this happens, the election is over. And I think the Democrats will have the White House for the next 16 years.
"So unless Fred comes out with a plan to end the war, he will lose. And the only Republican who has a chance at winning, is Ron Paul."
No way. Ron Paul blamed the US for 9/11, during a televised debate. Passionate his supporters may be, but a nightly ad featuring that statement, running throughout October 2008 leaves a large chunk of Republicans at home and Paul's ass stomped in the general election.
A Ron Paul nomination = President Hillary.
It would be a good thing, at this point, to recall that much of the country's "anti-war" sentiment is people wistfully wishing that we hadn't gone into Iraq - a typical polling question is something like, "Do you think the decision to invade Iraq was a good one?". Most of that will not translate in any meaningful way into support for abandonment of Iraq in the present, which RP advocates. And that goes double for the soldiers currently serving in Iraq.
Ron Paul's campaign has stirred the pot more than most people ever thought it would, up until this point, but there have been exactly zero actual primaries so far. I could be wrong, but I think that, 6 months hence, even his supporters will wonder why they ever thought he had a realistic chance.
We have gotten so used to speaking of the President of the United States "running the country" that most of us no longer notice how unrealistic and unAmerican that expression is. The whole point of the American Revolution was to establish a country without anyone to run it.
Even my own wife makes the mistake from time to time of talking about a President "having to run the country." And if she's talking to someone other than me I can't jump in to correct her without causing a four-talking-head pileup.
Actually, what he said makes sense when you think about it. Believe me, I am not saying that we deserved what we got or America is evil or any of that crap. We poked around in a hornet's nest and pissed off a bunch of psychos, whose hatred for us has really been brewing since the land lease deal that FDR signed with Saudi Arabia.
And wouldn't we do the same? I know that if thousands of members of radical Islamist factions starting running Candian oil, I'd be up for a fight...pissing that close to our pool.
After all, wasn't it President Carter who said that any attack on ANY US Gulf Oil interests would be considered an attack on the US itself?
I find it hard to believe that any American politician within the last century would be able to advocate taking out a country for a lawful business transaction. If I remember correctly, the point of the whole "Cold War" thing was that not even Stalinists would start a war over buying or selling things to another government.
The sorta psychology you're messing with, Markadelphia, is at best blaming a murder victim for going into the wrong neighborhood when someone standing nearby was cussing.
The War in Iraq isn't polling well today, but Thompson or Romney won't be trying to run against instant retreat from Iraq. They'll be running against Hillary or Obama, both of which will have to quickly manipulate their stances toward reality as they approach November 2008.
As to "running the country", I'll admit I'm not the best student at civics, but the President does dictate the whole Executive branch, and that ain't that far from keeping the government running, although he or she does have to answer much more immediately to the 'stockholders'.
"Actually, what he said makes sense when you think about it."
Maybe so, but your point is ultimately irrelevant. Ron Paul has cozied up way too close to the Truther camp and nuts like Kucinich to ever have a chance at inspiring massive right-wing support. Support without which he goes down in flames.
Additionally, too many of the people whose votes he needs have a festering sore spot from what was allowed to happen to Vietnam. I was 2 at the time, but I am nearly moved to tears when I read the Cambodian Prince's final letter to the US after we made the decision to leave them to their fates. I don't know if we were right to invade Iraq in 2003, but I'll be damned if I stand by and allow the cowards in Washington to abandon the Iraqi people - those people who we asked to believe in us - the way we abandoned the South Vietnamese and Cambodians. That will not happen again, if I can help it, and MoveOn.org can go fuck themselves. Unfortunately, Ron Paul comes down on the wrong side of that issue.
If Ron Paul is our best chance to beat Hillary, then folks, go buy your guns now, cause come 2009, we'll be saying, "Heil Hitlary."
No actually, there are many right wingers who agree with Paul. They agree that all of our interventions in the Middle East caused blowback, which resulted in 9/11. Was it justified? No, of course not. They killed thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with the interventions. The perpetrators and planners should be caught, tried and, executed. But just because it was not justified, does not mean we can't look at the motivations of the attackers. If our original actions were in the wrong (and they were), then even if their actions were also wrong, that means we must stop our original actions (the interventions).
"Markadelphia, is at best blaming a murder victim for going into the wrong neighborhood when someone standing nearby was cussing."
What if the murder victim in your scenario was going to buy drugs in the wrong neighborhood? Or to steal something? Your analogy basically assumes that our country is completely innocent in our dealings in the Middle East. We are not. What would you do if Al Qaeda brokered a deal with Canada for oil rights? Remember we get around 15 percent of our oil from them.
"manipulate their stances toward reality as they approach November 2008"
Manipulate into what? The Democrats won in 2006, the only poll that really counts btw, because most Americans (thankfully) understand that Iraq and fighting Al Qaeda are not inseparable. That is, in fact, reality.
"Ron Paul has cozied up way too close to the Truther camp"
You mean, like, the 50 percent that think the government is hiding something about 9-11 or the additional 30 that thinks they are outright lying? Sounds to me like a lot of people would vote for him because of this...
" allow the cowards in Washington to abandon the Iraqi people. those people who we asked to believe in us - the way we abandoned the South Vietnamese and Cambodians"
Please. I think I am going to throw up. First of all, take the time to read the various plans that your "cowards" have for Iraq. Save Dennis K or Ron Paul, none of them involve completely abandoning Iraq.
Second, President Bush's recent comments regarding "abandonment" are silly and show a complete lack of understanding of history. The Khmer Rouge would not have gained as much power as it did if the US was not involved in the region. It was the the US bombing campaign combined with the suspension of aid by Congress in 1973 that helped the Khmer Rouge to gain the power that it did.
Third, many of the Iraqi people simply don't want us there anymore. And who exactly would be abandoning? The Shi'a who firmly are in control? Or the Sunnis, who we are now cutting deals with? The Kurds, who are firmly ensconsed in the North?
No the "abandon the people and they will die" argument falls flat on its face although a comparison to Cambodia is warranted-just not in the way you all would like. Just as our activies in Cambodia increased membership in the Khmer Rouge so do our activities in Iraq increase Al Qaeda's membership.
"The perpetrators and planners should be caught, tried and, executed"
Agree completely with you on this one, Matt, and that's why I advocate a more extensive policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, we need a major policy shift in the Middle East to insure this does not happen again.
"You mean, like, the 50 percent that think the government is hiding something about 9-11 or the additional 30 that thinks they are outright lying?"
None of the above. I mean the people that think the government perpetuated 9/11, framing the Saudis in the process, in order to get revenge for Saddam trying to assassinate Bush 41. RP has gone on their radio shows and provided Hillary's camp with all the rope they need to hang him. Nice try on playing them as some under the radar majority; they are anything but.
"No actually, there are many right wingers who agree with Paul."
"Many" won't be enough. I respect where you are coming from, but if you are trying to sell that people won't vote for Thompson because he isn't a slick improptu speaker, or Giuliani/Romney/McCain because they are too socially leftish, BUT will turn out in droves to vote for a guy who just might be a full-blown Truther (and most certainly will be portrayed as such by the Clinton-syncophant media in the run-up), then I'm not buying. He can't win.
The article you link to mentions Howard Dean. That is interesting to me because I see a lot of similarities between Dean's 2004 campaign and Ron Paul's current one. A purist, who is very successful in getting the true believers whipped into a fury, but later implodes when the rest of the potential voters see what he's all about. I'm actually hoping to be right about this. I suspect that Ron Paul is actually more like Ralph Nader, and will end up pulling so many of the purist right vote away from the Republicans that we end up with Hillary.
And understand, Ron Paul appeals to me a great deal as a candidate. I would love to vote for him. But I can't. If it were 2000, and 9/11 had not happened, I would be the ultimate Paulite. Not now.
"Please. I think I am going to throw up. First of all, take the time to read the various plans that your "cowards" have for Iraq. Save Dennis K or Ron Paul, none of them involve completely abandoning Iraq."
Spare me the theatrics. In case you missed it, Ron Paul and his preferred policies are the current topic of conversation.
"Just as our activies in Cambodia increased membership in the Khmer Rouge so do our activities in Iraq increase Al Qaeda's membership."
Perhaps. There. As opposed to here. After 9/11, the decision of whether to fight this war was forever taken from us. We made the last choice they left us - where the fighting would be. Afghanistan was too remote for such a staging ground. That was always one of the reasons for going into Iraq, even if it was one that could not be publically (i.e. politically) stated. It is also the biggest reason for staying.
OtherWhiteMatt: They agree that all of our interventions in the Middle East caused blowback, which resulted in 9/11.
What is your solution to their anger over Andalusia?
And for why Paul has best chance, read this:
(Mark: Do you see why we tried to tell you that sources and facts are important?)
Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination.
OtherWhiteMatt: This is why I'm not supporting Paul. This "fact" isn't a "fact". It's a guess. Possibility. Not a Fact.
(Personally, I'm still suspecting Gore will be the nominee. We've got a year left to go.)
Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters.
That's actually 2 "facts", neither of them true. The first is again, a guess, or a prediction, the second is an incredibly spun stance on the facts that even the Democrats shy away from. Furthermore, the "support" for the war has been growing as the surge demanded by the Democrats prior to the 06 election, and put into place by Bush afterward is showing massive success.
Those polls also show that well over 60% do not want us to "cut and run" from Iraq as we did Vietnam, leaving our allies to be slaughtered by tyrants. Funny how Paul's adherents miss that. Or that people aren't being told about Paul's plan to yank US troops out of everywhere.
(It's a plan I'm not totally against, either. But I say that, knowing the world would go to utter shit in a matter of years, and millions or billions would die as a result.)
You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.
(Mark: again, see how shitty sources and backing demonstrate fallacious thought?)
Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club.
Ad Hom. The gun-grabbing is the only problem there. The drag and divorce slanders are more proof that the Paulites leave a lot to be desired in thinking this through.
Slam dunk, Hillary wins.
Point of fact: Guilani was polling about even with Clinton across New York, excepting NYC when he was running for the Senate. NY is decently "Red State", outside NYC. Plus, the nomination of HRC would energize voters.
You can't have it both ways, OtherWhiteMatt - either Hillary's the demon, and Must Be Defeated, or nobody will care and they'll stay home.
Pick A Side.
The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either.
I know of no one who credibly believes this. It's more slander and gossip.
Holy Crap, OtherWhiteMatt, Rudy and Mitt have so many real issues, and all you can do is slander them?
Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously.
And more with the slander. Fred's done a pretty damn good job so far that I've seen of doing exactly that. Better than Paul.
Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance.
He's managed to get my attention and respect on several cases where he's done the exact opposite of your assertion.
When you look at it objectively,
Since when have you been doing that?
there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head.
Actually, assuming it's HRC and Fred Thompson, Fred will win in a stunning landslide. Paul would lose in one.
If our original actions were in the wrong (and they were), then even if their actions were also wrong, that means we must stop our original actions (the interventions).
But, OtherWhiteMatt: according to you the "interventions" already occurred, incurring their wrath. You can't stop what's already occurred.
So, errr, what's your new plan, since the old one is already fatally flawed?
Agree completely with you on this one, Matt, and that's why I advocate a more extensive policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, we need a major policy shift in the Middle East to insure this does not happen again.
*Boggle*
Look, you... (wait a sec, excuse me,) What?
Yeah, I know, but... That's so...
Yeah, you're right... It's not...
Well, yeah. Yeah, we have. Time and again. No, I guess not.
Brick wall? I.. guess that's fair. I mean, well, yeah, I guess so. Ok, you're right.
Markadelphia - I just re-read my comments and I think I was too harsh towards you. There was no call for that tone, and I apologize.
This election scares me. The best words I've seen to describe Hillary are Tams: "The most amoral, power-hungry weathervane to wear a skirt in Washington since J. Edgar Hoover." I mean, she is so far gone that she scared her college professors (!!). Many will acknowledge that, but how many have truly given thought to the consequences of a person like that running things - especially since you know the media will whitewash absolutely everything she does.
I don't see us beating her unless we are totally unified. My real fear is that Ron Paul supporters, as passionate as they are about his candidacy, may not be able to accept it if he doesn't get the nomination. Then they sit at home on election day.
Satanam, in no way were you harsh. Actually, I think I may have been out of line with a comment or two of my own. In fact, your comments were quite kind compared to some others :) made towards me over the last few weeks.
I agree with your assessment of Hillary but I disagree with your assesment of the media. Remember 1998? It was Monica 24-7...while all the awhile someone was planning to crash planes into buildings. The media's goal is to sell and ripping Hillary is going to be a big marketing tool.
Sure, the first female president thing will be unique for a little bit but within a few months that will wear off and there will be a scandal or two...or three...or four...conservatives will scream for her head and we will basically have the same crap we have had in the last two administrations.
This election doesn't scare me, Kevin, our whole country at every moment scares me.
"This election doesn't scare me, Kevin, our whole country at every moment scares me."
Indeed. I want to vote for Ron Paul but doubt he'll survive the inertia of the Republicrat/Demopublican juggernaut. Instead, I'll either un-register to vote to indicate in an individual yet rather feeble way that I no longer give my consent to be governed. Hell, I might even vote for that socialist bitch since that which is about to topple deserved to be pushed.
Why? I'm tired of it all and am prepared to be a spectator for the continuing train wreck that started so long ago (see http://www.fredoneverything.net/Hiatus.shtml ) for descriptive text so much better than mine. In the end, when I just can't abide by it any longer I'll push lead in the direction of my proximate/immediate tormentor crossing that line and be done with it.
Mark, the most vocal socialists (especially the ones who won't come out and say it) are the ones who believe that THEY should be in charge of all that Central Planning they think government is for.
Chavez for sure, no doubt. I don't know if that is strong for Castro. He was the subject of a recent documentary on PBS, The American Experience. While he didn't participate in mass exterminations, the doc showed several frightening film clips and pictures of the various executions and imprisonments over his tenure.
I kept thinking of how similar his speeches were to Hitler's and the doc had several ex-Cubans discuss how they really felt it was fascism more than communism. Interesting, too, was Castro's manipulation of Che Guevera into an icon of revolution. The doc also painted Che in a pretty pathetic light.
"I kept thinking of how similar his speeches were to Hitler's...."
Castro hell. Put transcripts of Hitler's campaign speeches next to Hillary's and see if you can pick out who said what.
That said, I am always wary of putting Hitler on a pedestal, even of the "Behold the evil one" type. If we dehumanize him too much, we lose the lesson. Hitler was a rare mix of genius, insanity, ambition, charisma and pure, remorseless evil, but he was human. And the ability to become him exists in all of us.
I like Castro, though. He's like a lighthouse in a storm. Whenever part of me thinks the left has a point, or isn't as wrong as I thought, I remember that they turn a massive blind eye to how Cuba has rotted under his inept and corrupt tenure. Then I am reminded that they are as full of shit as ever.
Seredipity...I just left a post in the Imperial thread about Hillary...check it out...
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/10/quote-of-day.html (31 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I'm sorry, but there is no way Thompson will become President. A) He has no real platform, no real policies, except for some pro-war comments. B) The only way anybody is going to win the Presidency is going to be against the war. There is no doubt about it. And Hilary, while not entirely against the war, can make it appear that she is anti-war. So can Obama.
I know you like your war, but the people don't, the soldiers don't, and the winning candidate can't.
So unless Fred comes out with a plan to end the war, he will lose. And the only Republican who has a chance at winning, is Ron Paul. He has a chance at the GOP nomination, and a chance at the Office. His supports are passionate, he is eloquent, and he believes what he is saying, as well as being straight out honest. All of that goes a long way.
Now, I'm not saying he is going to win anything-but he has a chance. And the only way to get the country back on track and save it is Paul. He may not be able to fix everything over night, but it is a start.
I disagree. First of all, while I think Hillary will destroy Romney, I don't think she would beat Giuliani. Too many people on the left would vote for Rudy over Hillary. She is not as well liked on her side. Moderates and independants have a very negative view of Hillary and a very positive view of Rudy, being the 9-11 hero and all. True, many conservatives might stay home for a Rudy ticket but there are so many people all over the map that would vote for him over Hillary. I would be one of them.
Thompson, at present, just doesn't seem to have the head of steam that everyone thought he would. He needs to take Iowa or New Hamphire in the primaries, the first of which is probably more easily done, and then he could get somewhere. Because of his seeming lack of support amongst Republicans, I think Hillary would win fairly comfortably in a match-up with Fred.
Of course, all of this goes out the window if Hillary teams up with Obama. If this happens, the election is over. And I think the Democrats will have the White House for the next 16 years.
Hey, Matt beat me to the punch. Just so we are clear, I disagree with Tam's comments, not Matt's.
I agree completely with Matt's assesment of Thompson.
"So unless Fred comes out with a plan to end the war, he will lose. And the only Republican who has a chance at winning, is Ron Paul."
No way. Ron Paul blamed the US for 9/11, during a televised debate. Passionate his supporters may be, but a nightly ad featuring that statement, running throughout October 2008 leaves a large chunk of Republicans at home and Paul's ass stomped in the general election.
A Ron Paul nomination = President Hillary.
It would be a good thing, at this point, to recall that much of the country's "anti-war" sentiment is people wistfully wishing that we hadn't gone into Iraq - a typical polling question is something like, "Do you think the decision to invade Iraq was a good one?". Most of that will not translate in any meaningful way into support for abandonment of Iraq in the present, which RP advocates. And that goes double for the soldiers currently serving in Iraq.
Ron Paul's campaign has stirred the pot more than most people ever thought it would, up until this point, but there have been exactly zero actual primaries so far. I could be wrong, but I think that, 6 months hence, even his supporters will wonder why they ever thought he had a realistic chance.
On topic:
We have gotten so used to speaking of the President of the United States "running the country" that most of us no longer notice how unrealistic and unAmerican that expression is. The whole point of the American Revolution was to establish a country without anyone to run it.
Even my own wife makes the mistake from time to time of talking about a President "having to run the country." And if she's talking to someone other than me I can't jump in to correct her without causing a four-talking-head pileup.
"Ron Paul blamed the US for 9/11"
Actually, what he said makes sense when you think about it. Believe me, I am not saying that we deserved what we got or America is evil or any of that crap. We poked around in a hornet's nest and pissed off a bunch of psychos, whose hatred for us has really been brewing since the land lease deal that FDR signed with Saudi Arabia.
And wouldn't we do the same? I know that if thousands of members of radical Islamist factions starting running Candian oil, I'd be up for a fight...pissing that close to our pool.
After all, wasn't it President Carter who said that any attack on ANY US Gulf Oil interests would be considered an attack on the US itself?
Ooops...lend lease, not land lease
I find it hard to believe that any American politician within the last century would be able to advocate taking out a country for a lawful business transaction. If I remember correctly, the point of the whole "Cold War" thing was that not even Stalinists would start a war over buying or selling things to another government.
The sorta psychology you're messing with, Markadelphia, is at best blaming a murder victim for going into the wrong neighborhood when someone standing nearby was cussing.
The War in Iraq isn't polling well today, but Thompson or Romney won't be trying to run against instant retreat from Iraq. They'll be running against Hillary or Obama, both of which will have to quickly manipulate their stances toward reality as they approach November 2008.
As to "running the country", I'll admit I'm not the best student at civics, but the President does dictate the whole Executive branch, and that ain't that far from keeping the government running, although he or she does have to answer much more immediately to the 'stockholders'.
And the only Republican who has a chance at winning, is Ron Paul.
This would be proven by... what exactly?
"Actually, what he said makes sense when you think about it."
Maybe so, but your point is ultimately irrelevant. Ron Paul has cozied up way too close to the Truther camp and nuts like Kucinich to ever have a chance at inspiring massive right-wing support. Support without which he goes down in flames.
Additionally, too many of the people whose votes he needs have a festering sore spot from what was allowed to happen to Vietnam. I was 2 at the time, but I am nearly moved to tears when I read the Cambodian Prince's final letter to the US after we made the decision to leave them to their fates. I don't know if we were right to invade Iraq in 2003, but I'll be damned if I stand by and allow the cowards in Washington to abandon the Iraqi people - those people who we asked to believe in us - the way we abandoned the South Vietnamese and Cambodians. That will not happen again, if I can help it, and MoveOn.org can go fuck themselves. Unfortunately, Ron Paul comes down on the wrong side of that issue.
If Ron Paul is our best chance to beat Hillary, then folks, go buy your guns now, cause come 2009, we'll be saying, "Heil Hitlary."
No actually, there are many right wingers who agree with Paul. They agree that all of our interventions in the Middle East caused blowback, which resulted in 9/11. Was it justified? No, of course not. They killed thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with the interventions. The perpetrators and planners should be caught, tried and, executed. But just because it was not justified, does not mean we can't look at the motivations of the attackers. If our original actions were in the wrong (and they were), then even if their actions were also wrong, that means we must stop our original actions (the interventions).
And for why Paul has best chance, read this:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_114454.asp
"Markadelphia, is at best blaming a murder victim for going into the wrong neighborhood when someone standing nearby was cussing."
What if the murder victim in your scenario was going to buy drugs in the wrong neighborhood? Or to steal something? Your analogy basically assumes that our country is completely innocent in our dealings in the Middle East. We are not. What would you do if Al Qaeda brokered a deal with Canada for oil rights? Remember we get around 15 percent of our oil from them.
"manipulate their stances toward reality as they approach November 2008"
Manipulate into what? The Democrats won in 2006, the only poll that really counts btw, because most Americans (thankfully) understand that Iraq and fighting Al Qaeda are not inseparable. That is, in fact, reality.
"Ron Paul has cozied up way too close to the Truther camp"
You mean, like, the 50 percent that think the government is hiding something about 9-11 or the additional 30 that thinks they are outright lying? Sounds to me like a lot of people would vote for him because of this...
" allow the cowards in Washington to abandon the Iraqi people. those people who we asked to believe in us - the way we abandoned the South Vietnamese and Cambodians"
Please. I think I am going to throw up. First of all, take the time to read the various plans that your "cowards" have for Iraq. Save Dennis K or Ron Paul, none of them involve completely abandoning Iraq.
Second, President Bush's recent comments regarding "abandonment" are silly and show a complete lack of understanding of history. The Khmer Rouge would not have gained as much power as it did if the US was not involved in the region. It was the the US bombing campaign combined with the suspension of aid by Congress in 1973 that helped the Khmer Rouge to gain the power that it did.
Third, many of the Iraqi people simply don't want us there anymore. And who exactly would be abandoning? The Shi'a who firmly are in control? Or the Sunnis, who we are now cutting deals with? The Kurds, who are firmly ensconsed in the North?
No the "abandon the people and they will die" argument falls flat on its face although a comparison to Cambodia is warranted-just not in the way you all would like. Just as our activies in Cambodia increased membership in the Khmer Rouge so do our activities in Iraq increase Al Qaeda's membership.
"The perpetrators and planners should be caught, tried and, executed"
Agree completely with you on this one, Matt, and that's why I advocate a more extensive policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, we need a major policy shift in the Middle East to insure this does not happen again.
"You mean, like, the 50 percent that think the government is hiding something about 9-11 or the additional 30 that thinks they are outright lying?"
None of the above. I mean the people that think the government perpetuated 9/11, framing the Saudis in the process, in order to get revenge for Saddam trying to assassinate Bush 41. RP has gone on their radio shows and provided Hillary's camp with all the rope they need to hang him. Nice try on playing them as some under the radar majority; they are anything but.
"No actually, there are many right wingers who agree with Paul."
"Many" won't be enough. I respect where you are coming from, but if you are trying to sell that people won't vote for Thompson because he isn't a slick improptu speaker, or Giuliani/Romney/McCain because they are too socially leftish, BUT will turn out in droves to vote for a guy who just might be a full-blown Truther (and most certainly will be portrayed as such by the Clinton-syncophant media in the run-up), then I'm not buying. He can't win.
The article you link to mentions Howard Dean. That is interesting to me because I see a lot of similarities between Dean's 2004 campaign and Ron Paul's current one. A purist, who is very successful in getting the true believers whipped into a fury, but later implodes when the rest of the potential voters see what he's all about. I'm actually hoping to be right about this. I suspect that Ron Paul is actually more like Ralph Nader, and will end up pulling so many of the purist right vote away from the Republicans that we end up with Hillary.
And understand, Ron Paul appeals to me a great deal as a candidate. I would love to vote for him. But I can't. If it were 2000, and 9/11 had not happened, I would be the ultimate Paulite. Not now.
"Please. I think I am going to throw up. First of all, take the time to read the various plans that your "cowards" have for Iraq. Save Dennis K or Ron Paul, none of them involve completely abandoning Iraq."
Spare me the theatrics. In case you missed it, Ron Paul and his preferred policies are the current topic of conversation.
"Just as our activies in Cambodia increased membership in the Khmer Rouge so do our activities in Iraq increase Al Qaeda's membership."
Perhaps. There. As opposed to here. After 9/11, the decision of whether to fight this war was forever taken from us. We made the last choice they left us - where the fighting would be. Afghanistan was too remote for such a staging ground. That was always one of the reasons for going into Iraq, even if it was one that could not be publically (i.e. politically) stated. It is also the biggest reason for staying.
I also don't buy your tired "originally our fault" mantra, either. "Their actual demand was that all traces of influence by us be removed from contact with their culture...". The difference is telling. Paulite isolationism, at this point in history, would be catastrophic. Not to mention a virtual guarantee that our kids have to refight this war on terms much less friendly to the US.
OtherWhiteMatt:
They agree that all of our interventions in the Middle East caused blowback, which resulted in 9/11.
What is your solution to their anger over Andalusia?
And for why Paul has best chance, read this:
(Mark: Do you see why we tried to tell you that sources and facts are important?)
Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination.
OtherWhiteMatt: This is why I'm not supporting Paul. This "fact" isn't a "fact". It's a guess. Possibility. Not a Fact.
(Personally, I'm still suspecting Gore will be the nominee. We've got a year left to go.)
Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters.
That's actually 2 "facts", neither of them true. The first is again, a guess, or a prediction, the second is an incredibly spun stance on the facts that even the Democrats shy away from. Furthermore, the "support" for the war has been growing as the surge demanded by the Democrats prior to the 06 election, and put into place by Bush afterward is showing massive success.
Those polls also show that well over 60% do not want us to "cut and run" from Iraq as we did Vietnam, leaving our allies to be slaughtered by tyrants. Funny how Paul's adherents miss that. Or that people aren't being told about Paul's plan to yank US troops out of everywhere.
(It's a plan I'm not totally against, either. But I say that, knowing the world would go to utter shit in a matter of years, and millions or billions would die as a result.)
You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.
(Mark: again, see how shitty sources and backing demonstrate fallacious thought?)
Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club.
Ad Hom. The gun-grabbing is the only problem there. The drag and divorce slanders are more proof that the Paulites leave a lot to be desired in thinking this through.
Slam dunk, Hillary wins.
Point of fact: Guilani was polling about even with Clinton across New York, excepting NYC when he was running for the Senate. NY is decently "Red State", outside NYC. Plus, the nomination of HRC would energize voters.
You can't have it both ways, OtherWhiteMatt - either Hillary's the demon, and Must Be Defeated, or nobody will care and they'll stay home.
Pick A Side.
The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either.
I know of no one who credibly believes this. It's more slander and gossip.
Holy Crap, OtherWhiteMatt, Rudy and Mitt have so many real issues, and all you can do is slander them?
Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously.
And more with the slander. Fred's done a pretty damn good job so far that I've seen of doing exactly that. Better than Paul.
Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance.
He's managed to get my attention and respect on several cases where he's done the exact opposite of your assertion.
When you look at it objectively,
Since when have you been doing that?
there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head.
Actually, assuming it's HRC and Fred Thompson, Fred will win in a stunning landslide. Paul would lose in one.
If our original actions were in the wrong (and they were), then even if their actions were also wrong, that means we must stop our original actions (the interventions).
But, OtherWhiteMatt: according to you the "interventions" already occurred, incurring their wrath. You can't stop what's already occurred.
So, errr, what's your new plan, since the old one is already fatally flawed?
Agree completely with you on this one, Matt, and that's why I advocate a more extensive policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, we need a major policy shift in the Middle East to insure this does not happen again.
*Boggle*
Look, you... (wait a sec, excuse me,) What?
Yeah, I know, but... That's so...
Yeah, you're right... It's not...
Well, yeah. Yeah, we have. Time and again. No, I guess not.
Brick wall? I.. guess that's fair. I mean, well, yeah, I guess so. Ok, you're right.
"I mean the people that think the government perpetuated 9/11, framing the Saudis in the proc"
Agreed. I don't think the government perpetrated 9-11.
Back on the topic of Thompson...check this out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/us/politics/03cnd-thompson.html
And Unix, if you have a question for me...ask away :)
If this is true, it sounds pathetic.
Oop...my post was out of order in wording...it should read..
I mean the people that think the government perpetuated 9/11, framing the Saudis in the proc"
Agreed. I don't think the government perpetrated 9-11.
Back on the topic of Thompson...check this out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/0...d- thompson.html
If this is true, it sounds pathetic.
And Unix, if you have a question for me...ask away
Oy. The first nytimes link works the second one doesn't as I cut and pasted badly...
Markadelphia - I just re-read my comments and I think I was too harsh towards you. There was no call for that tone, and I apologize.
This election scares me. The best words I've seen to describe Hillary are Tams: "The most amoral, power-hungry weathervane to wear a skirt in Washington since J. Edgar Hoover." I mean, she is so far gone that she scared her college professors (!!). Many will acknowledge that, but how many have truly given thought to the consequences of a person like that running things - especially since you know the media will whitewash absolutely everything she does.
I don't see us beating her unless we are totally unified. My real fear is that Ron Paul supporters, as passionate as they are about his candidacy, may not be able to accept it if he doesn't get the nomination. Then they sit at home on election day.
This election scares me.
Amen.
Satanam, in no way were you harsh. Actually, I think I may have been out of line with a comment or two of my own. In fact, your comments were quite kind compared to some others :) made towards me over the last few weeks.
I agree with your assessment of Hillary but I disagree with your assesment of the media. Remember 1998? It was Monica 24-7...while all the awhile someone was planning to crash planes into buildings. The media's goal is to sell and ripping Hillary is going to be a big marketing tool.
Sure, the first female president thing will be unique for a little bit but within a few months that will wear off and there will be a scandal or two...or three...or four...conservatives will scream for her head and we will basically have the same crap we have had in the last two administrations.
This election doesn't scare me, Kevin, our whole country at every moment scares me.
Markadelphia sez:
"This election doesn't scare me, Kevin, our whole country at every moment scares me."
Indeed. I want to vote for Ron Paul but doubt he'll survive the inertia of the Republicrat/Demopublican juggernaut. Instead, I'll either un-register to vote to indicate in an individual yet rather feeble way that I no longer give my consent to be governed. Hell, I might even vote for that socialist bitch since that which is about to topple deserved to be pushed.
Why? I'm tired of it all and am prepared to be a spectator for the continuing train wreck that started so long ago (see http://www.fredoneverything.net/Hiatus.shtml ) for descriptive text so much better than mine. In the end, when I just can't abide by it any longer I'll push lead in the direction of my proximate/immediate tormentor crossing that line and be done with it.
--MuzzleBlast
"Hell, I might even vote for that socialist bitch"
Funny, she strikes me as more of a dictator type.
Mark, the most vocal socialists (especially the ones who won't come out and say it) are the ones who believe that THEY should be in charge of all that Central Planning they think government is for.
Would that be like Fidal Castro then? A man who said he was "for the people" and then turned into Hitler?
Or Hugo Chavez?
"Hitler" is a bit strong for Castro. Don't diminish the evil that was Hitler by comparing the two.
Chavez for sure, no doubt. I don't know if that is strong for Castro. He was the subject of a recent documentary on PBS, The American Experience. While he didn't participate in mass exterminations, the doc showed several frightening film clips and pictures of the various executions and imprisonments over his tenure.
I kept thinking of how similar his speeches were to Hitler's and the doc had several ex-Cubans discuss how they really felt it was fascism more than communism. Interesting, too, was Castro's manipulation of Che Guevera into an icon of revolution. The doc also painted Che in a pretty pathetic light.
"I kept thinking of how similar his speeches were to Hitler's...."
Castro hell. Put transcripts of Hitler's campaign speeches next to Hillary's and see if you can pick out who said what.
That said, I am always wary of putting Hitler on a pedestal, even of the "Behold the evil one" type. If we dehumanize him too much, we lose the lesson. Hitler was a rare mix of genius, insanity, ambition, charisma and pure, remorseless evil, but he was human. And the ability to become him exists in all of us.
I like Castro, though. He's like a lighthouse in a storm. Whenever part of me thinks the left has a point, or isn't as wrong as I thought, I remember that they turn a massive blind eye to how Cuba has rotted under his inept and corrupt tenure. Then I am reminded that they are as full of shit as ever.
Case in point: A nice quiz.
Seredipity...I just left a post in the Imperial thread about Hillary...check it out...
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>