Iowa Caucuses '08

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

thats one way to look at it, or it could potentially allow Iraqi's to govern themselves void of our presence. The later is a win win for the U.S. the alternative is status quo, you have a 160 billion every quarter for supplemental pentagon spending?

---

The problem is that if we leave now, Iraq stands a good chance of turning into a Shiite Theocracy. That is a win-win scenario for Iran, but hardly for us

Quote:

---

Perhaps it wont, but it will force them to chose there own path. I am an advocate of free will, and wars of conquest if needed. Not exporting ideology, thats what Mr Bush claims the terrorists want to do. The hypocrit he is, he ended up taking the same approach, I've had enough.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

wasnt it Chirac that said if Iran uses nukes they will be wiped off the map in 20 minutes? Also the U.S. has spent billions on a military doctrine called force projection. The carrier groups in hormuz are capable of plenty of damage, we dont need another invasion 2 is plenty.

---

I would not count on Europeans to be swift and decisive. I am not singling out the French here by any means. Europe in general has grown soft, decadent and weak. If anyone will stop Iran it will be us. The reason to keep boots nearby is merely to avoid the conflict from becoming a nuclear one. Convention war == bad, but Nuclear war == 1000 times worse.

Quote:

---

Fair enough, but my point is I think its in our best intrest to move along and get out. Iraq is smelling more and more like a new cold war way station circa south korea.

---

I will go ahead and disagree with you on this one: I see our presence there now (barring the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place) as a long term investment into our security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The problem is that if we leave now, Iraq stands a good chance of turning into a Shiite Theocracy. That is a win-win scenario for Iran, but hardly for us

---

Possibly yes, given the Sunni opposition to Iran influence by way of Saudi and Jordan Im not completely sold that Iraq will become an exclusive Shiite theocracy. Its a fair point though...

Quote:

---

I would not count on Europeans to be swift and decisive. I am not singling out the French here by any means. Europe in general has grown soft, decadent and weak. If anyone will stop Iran it will be us. The reason to keep boots nearby is merely to avoid the conflict from becoming a nuclear one. Convention war == bad, but Nuclear war == 1000 times worse.

---

I dont count on Europe for anything militarily. By citing Chirac my point was simply to illustrate that Iran would be destroyed if it used nukes. Israel, the U.S. dosent matter the source. I dont want any more war to be honest, but keeping a mistake going and going dosent help anyone. At some point there has to be a draw down I'll take sooner then later.

Quote:

---

I will go ahead and disagree with you on this one: I see our presence there now (barring the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place) as a long term investment into our security.

---

Then we will have to agree to disagree then.

:medievalcheers:

Perhaps I could advise that the Iraq discussion could go to a new thread - Iran already has a topical thread going - and allow those who wish to discuss the nominations to develop this one.

I know policy on Iraq is important, and I'm not saying don't discuss the candidates' views, but further debate on the rights, wrongs or repercussions of the invasion/occupation probably diverts this thread a tad too far.

:bow:

Back to that whole primary thing:

Leftist Democrats have a new angle on why everyone should hate Obama: he's too bipartisan.

We do not need Obama to heal the rift between good and evil, or to bind up the nation's wounds with Bush's venom still in her bloodstream. Obama's balms of civility and bipartisanship may lull Americans into complacency, but they seem ill-equipped to end the outrages and injustices of the current administration's policies and restore America to moral solvency. Obama has given us no indication that he will exercise the bold, far-reaching, and, yes, partisan leadership that will be necessary to undo the travesties of the past seven years.

Uh, yeah, what we really need is more hyper-partisan politics. Sounds great to me. Whee.

Looks like everybody's looking for ways to dent the two new frontrunners. Anonymous flyers are being spread about Huckabee.

A mysterious group calling itself Iowans for Some Semblance of Christian Decency has begun waging a campaign against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, insinuating that not only is the Republican presidential candidate not a true conservative, he's not a real Christian.

In fliers put under the doors of reporters at the Marriott in Des Moines, where Huckabee was staying Monday night, the organization, whose members are unknown, lays out its interpretation of how the former Baptist minister's views run contrary to the Bible.

Huckabee's support of educational opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants is portrayed, for instance, as "justification for violating the 8th commandment (stealing from U.S. citizens)." A lighthearted video clip where he pretends to talk to the Lord is portrayed as "sacrilegious mocking of God for political gain."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks like everybody's looking for ways to dent the two new frontrunners. Anonymous flyers are being spread about Huckabee...

---

Being more on the liberal side, I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Huckabee by any stretch, I have to admit at least that the guy is more or less clean, and this mudflinging that he receives from the ultracons is truly sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Being more on the liberal side, I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Huckabee by any stretch, I have to admit at least that the guy is more or less clean, and this mudflinging that he receives from the ultracons is truly sickening.

---

I don't think we can be positive it's "ultracons". This morning on the radio, I heard one of our local libs going on about how Huckabee isn't a real Christian. Maybe they're scared of him. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't think we can be positive it's "ultracons". This morning on the radio, I heard one of our local libs going on about how Huckabee isn't a real Christian. Maybe they're scared of him. :laugh4:

---

I doubt it. He is the Republican equivalent of Kucinich: direct, straightforward, and completely unelectable.

rvg, Kucinich can't even break out of single digits in polling, whereas Huckabee is now leading in Iowa, despite spending a fraction of the money the other top candidates have. I think Huckabee is for real, contendorship-wise.

Also, I suspect Xiahou is just having a bit of fun suggesting that Dems are actively attempting to sabotage Huckabee's new status. Who has more reason to get dirty right now, the other guys in the Republican primary, or the Dems who are wrestling with their own can of worms? Of course anything's possible. I could with equal validity suggest that the aliens from the Crab Nebula are distributing slanderous flyers.

It will be interesting to see if Huckabee can handle the Swiftboating. I think he can, personally.

Here's a really paranoid thought—Rove made his name in the dirty tricks business by distributing attack leaflets against his own candidate. They were deliberately written to be so offensive that voters would react against them. It worked. Could the Huckster be that tricky? I doubt it.

-edit-

I see we're encouraged to discuss our choices in a little bit of depth. Here's my thinking: I'm not going to support someone who has no realistic chance of winning, so no Richardson or Hunter or such for the purposes of this exercise. Anybody I name must have at least double-digit support, or good chances of gaining it. (A strong upward trend in polling would qualify.)

#1 McCain. I think he would be an outstanding choice for the next four years. I disagree with many of his views, but I think the man is mature, thoughtful, and has appeal beyond his party. Independents can kindle to him, and to a limited extent so can Democrats. Having a uniting figure would be very good for America at this juncture. Also, on the most important issues I think he's dead right. He would end all traces of torture, close Guantanamo, re-affirm the Geneva Conventions, etc. And since the Democrats are likely to expand their hold on the legislative branches, it would be good to have a non-crazy Republican to counterbalance the government. I think the first six years of the Bush administration demonstrated clearly why letting one party get a lock on government is bad.

#2 Obama. Another person who would probably function as a uniting figure. Strong appeal to independents, demonstrated ability to get along and work constructively with people who disagree with him. As for the experience canard, all I can say is that good judgment trumps experience nine times out of ten. Dick Cheney has loads of experience, so does Donald Rumsfeld; and yet both men have been wrong on just about every major point of policy. My major reservation is about handing one party both the legislative and administrative branches. With luck, Obama would be a moderating influence on the more extreme depredations of the Democrats. Note that he has been willing to say some very unpopular things to Democratic audiences, which bodes well.

#3 Ron Paul. Long shot, I know, but he's trending upward fast. A return to Constitutional governance? Yes please! As for some of his nuttier economic ideas, never fear, he'd have a Democratic Congress to hold him in check. Again, it's nice to have two parties (at least) splitting up the active governance.

#4 Mitt Romney. Sure he's a fake, but he's a competent fake. Good record of management in MA, good record of working with Democratic legislators. Might turn out to be a uniting figure, which is kinda what I want after the nasty divisiveness of the Bush admin.

This is kinda hilarious. Clinton campaign staffers feel Obama is an uppity negro.

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

#1 McCain...

---

Ahh yes. Personally, I would love to see him in the White House.

Louis, Odin and drone pretty much explained why I like Ron Paul.

-Decentralized Power
-Smaller Government
-Honest
-etc

He isn't as crazy as he seems. Like I've also been saying, just because he advocates certain things doesn't mean he will be able to accomplish them.

A vast number of people, me included, are tired of the **** show that is our government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

-Decentralized Power
-Smaller Government
-Honest

---

You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

He isn't as crazy as he seems. Like I've also been saying, just because he advocates certain things doesn't mean he will be able to accomplish them.

---

Yikes! He will most certainly try and as president he might actually succeed in implementing those crazy things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.

---

There's a chance you'll be casting your vote away though. And when [insert tired metaphor about "situation when decision must be made" here] a protest vote is worth less than a victory vote, no matter how anyone spin it any other way.

Ron Paul's victory is far-fetched. I hate to say it, but when [insert same tired metaphor here], the "disgruntled" voter who cheers Mr. Paul's name right now will end up choosing the safe bet for the same reason I said above; and if you're not of the bandwagon, saying as you are with a principled mind that Change Has To Start Somewhere, then you better be prepared to see your second- or third-best choice lost because you threw your vote out on Nader in 2000. That is the sad story of any two-party system anywhere, stability and (unfortunately not too effective) defense against extremism comes at a precious cost.


As as a side note, I'm quite sick and tired of the overwhelming obsession on the election from all news fronts to be honest. The more this continues on dragging, the less it remains a political election and the more it becomes the new Reality Show, this time with Much Greater Stakes (and therefore Drama)! Vote with your cellphones today! :no:

It's like this Christmas thing. I don't need goddamn Christmas music on every goddamn store on goddamn December 1. It's sickening, and it makes me want to wage war on Christmas, nuclear winter style. If I'm more pretentious and cynical I'd say this American instant now-now-now culture is rather detrimental to our basic thought processes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

There's a chance you'll be casting your vote away though. And when [insert tired metaphor about "situation when decision must be made" here] a protest vote is worth less than a victory vote, no matter how anyone spin it any other way.

Ron Paul's victory is far-fetched. I hate to say it, but when [insert same tired metaphor here], the "disgruntled" voter who cheers Mr. Paul's name right now will end up choosing the safe bet for the same reason I said above; and if you're not of the bandwagon, saying as you are with a principled mind that Change Has To Start Somewhere, then you better be prepared to see your second- or third-best choice lost because you threw your vote out on Nader in 2000. That is the sad story of any two-party system anywhere, stability and (unfortunately not too effective) defense against extremism comes at a precious cost.

---

You are forgetting the best part of the primary/caucus segment of the election. You don't throw your vote away, there are no protest votes. You get to, in a way, influence your party's national platform. And if by some miracle Paul wins the nomination, odds are it still won't be a throwaway vote, if he's facing Hillary on the other side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My apologies to Arlo

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both ******* and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in voting for Ron Paul and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in voting for Ron Paul and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

---

It's all a pipe dream, but Divinus Arma used to always harp on changing the party from the inside, and this is the best way to go about that. Especially if you live in a state with open primaries. ~;)


Now I'm starting to sound like a standard Paul nut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

#4 Mitt Romney. Sure he's a fake, but he's a competent fake. Good record of management in MA, good record of working with Democratic legislators. Might turn out to be a uniting figure, which is kinda what I want after the nasty divisiveness of the Bush admin.

---

https://youtube.com/watch?v=32IO7tX9Co0&feature=related

"We can't be like Democrats"...

Umm, yeah...:sweatdrop:

EDIT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A5FGtR0bHkI

Yeah, we can really rely on what Romney tells us he believes.

EDIT2: "Republicans should act like Republicans."

Mitt, please, shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I doubt it. He is the Republican equivalent of Kucinich: direct, straightforward, and completely unelectable.

---

Sadly, your right. I really would like to see Kucinich in office, much more so than Edwards, but he's too good to be a politician. And besides, the public isn't ready for a FLILF.

I would like to see a major magaizine conduct a poll of who a person would vote for if "electability" was removed from the equation. I bet that Ron Paul would win hands down. Who would Paul choose as his VP? If him and McCain teamed up I think they would be unstoppable. Could someone tell me Paul's stance on Gay marriage and same sex partnerships in general?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Could someone tell me Paul's stance on Gay marriage and same sex partnerships in general?

---

I believe he is fairly conservative socially, I know he is against abortion (being a OB/GYN), being a libertarian type he probably cares less about gay marriage. I don't see any mention of it in his issues lists, he probably either doesn't care, or doesn't think it's the federal governments job to legislate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I believe he is fairly conservative socially, I know he is against abortion (being a OB/GYN), being a libertarian type he probably cares less about gay marriage. I don't see any mention of it in his issues lists, he probably either doesn't care, or doesn't think it's the federal governments job to legislate.

---

I believe he thinks it's an issue to be left to the states.

I can live with a socially conservative president that leaves that stuff up to the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louis

discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.

When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now?

---

Ron Paul is a loon who happens to talk sense on some issues. He has virtually no support outside of the internet which is obsessed with him for some reason. The wikipedia article is dripping with bias:

Quote:

---

Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[101] of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[102]

His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 has led experts like former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan to reconsider hard money policies such as those of Paul.

---

And his policy positions are wacky:

Quote:

---

He would eliminate most federal government agencies as "unnecessary bureaucracies", such as the U.S. Department of Education[22], the U.S. Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service

---

He appeals to people because he's pretty anti establishment which is popular among disillusioned people.

He's Ralph Nader for more cautious libertarians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

He's Ralph Nader for more cautious libertarians.

---

I hear a lot of this stuff, but I haven't seen much to back it up. Lot of blanket assertions that he's loony, but I gotta say the man sounds eminently sane when speaking. If he's going to pull a Ross Perot and go nutty, he's had plenty of chances.

What makes him a Ralph Nader, in your opinion?

Quote:

---

discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.

When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now?

---

Ice sums it up fairly nicely, its more the princeples then the actual ideas he's running on, and also the belife that this may lead to more congressional power then exuctive power, something we've lost the balance of reletivly recently.

Mcain wouldn't be bad rudy's just a little to conservatve for me. Huckabee's out since he seems like to much of the tool of the religous right, something which it would be nice to see less of. Gullani I could live with, but he seems to gun ho about the war on terror. Obama I could live with to and Edwards wouldn't kill me. I'm not a huge hillary fan though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I hear a lot of this stuff, but I haven't seen much to back it up. Lot of blanket assertions that he's loony, but I gotta say the man sounds eminently sane when speaking. If he's going to pull a Ross Perot and go nutty, he's had plenty of chances.

What makes him a Ralph Nader, in your opinion?

---

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/93/214/

Quote:

---

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast.

...

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

---

Note: the nafta superhighway is a myth.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...5slamsbush.htm

Quote:

---

"If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."

"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."

"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."

---

I get the same vibe from him that I get from kucinich. Their passion has a tendency to outweigh their rationality. Not acceptable in a president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I hear a lot of this stuff, but I haven't seen much to back it up. Lot of blanket assertions that he's loony, but I gotta say the man sounds eminently sane when speaking. If he's going to pull a Ross Perot and go nutty, he's had plenty of chances.

What makes him a Ralph Nader, in your opinion?

---

The viable outsider quality. They threaten what is politically acceptable, but on the tip of everyones tongue.

I am not suggesting that they are the same, just comparable and they appeal to similar general types of people (not the ideas, just the manner in which they are displayed.)

I liked both of them for different reasons. Nader for the one stated above, Paul for the same PLUS his policy suggestions.


I don't think he's actually crazy, but when I hear him in debate it seems like he tries to fill too much too fast into his minute. He comes off sounding like a nut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.

---

Smaller government??

Don't let the Dark Side tempt you, Lemur! Come, let Comrade Vladimir tell you about the world. After you drink your tox-uhm...glass of completely ordinary water....yes.

Vote Horetore. It's open to anyone. I want to see what an innacurate international (Us AND them) sample group thinks. I will check the results after the Iowa vote.