Reform the Supreme Court?

[Red Harvest]

Says you.

But dont you think your exagerating things a bit here?

No, not at all. This country was in severe crisis when FDR took charge. When everything looks bleak, people are starving, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel...that is when revolutions happen my friend. If you look at what was happening in other parts of the world in the decades leading up to this you can appreciate why this is quite plausible.

I say just like those who say anyone would have dona as good a job as Bush on 911 that any president could have gotten us out of the depression and probabaly faster than FDR and any president would have won WW2 if put in his position. In fact it was the war that got us out of the deperession and gave him the presidency for four terms.

Anyone could have done as much as Bush did--it is not that impressive of a record. McCain would have done much better on 911 and thereafter. We would have gotten Osama in the first year, and quite possibly Omar too. Economically, he would not have busted the budget. If he had decided to go into Iraq he would not have done it under false pretences, nor would he have fouled up the occupation with an understrength force. He wouldn't have left Afghanistan is a state of suspended animation. More importantly, he wouldn't have divided this nation like the "Great Polarizer" has.

I don't think "any president" could have won WW2. FDR did what he could to put a reluctant nation in some preparedness for war against its own will. He managed to keep the UK in the show while we had stagefright.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But dont you think your exagerating things a bit here?


No, not at all. This country was in severe crisis when FDR took charge. When everything looks bleak, people are starving, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel...that is when revolutions happen my friend. If you look at what was happening in other parts of the world in the decades leading up to this you can appreciate why this is quite plausible.

I was speaking of this

There is the bizarre desire to regress by many conservatives. They want to go back to the "barefoot and pregnant", Jim Crowe South (and some perhaps slavery), with an anti-Catholic protestant run govt., no birth control, no safety net, no women's suffrage, limited education, zero pollution control, no FDA, and the big industry trusts in charge of the economy. Or perhaps they want to live under a christian equivalent of Shariah law. Whatever, the case, I don't want to go backward.

Anyone could have done as much as Bush did--it is not that impressive of a record. McCain would have done much better on 911 and thereafter

You have nothing to back this up other than your own opinion.

I don't think "any president" could have won WW2.

Maybe a better president could have kept us out of it.

[Red Harvest]

On the regressive stance of the current conservative movement: The most common conservative refrain is to undo many of the changes of the past 60 or 70 years. In that context, my remarks were right on target. I won't withdraw them. I actually prefer to call them regressives. You can't call them progressive, because it is completely counter to their desire to return to a former time that they idealize. There is also the fundamental connotation: regression and progression carry some time references. I have chosen the label carefully...more so than "compassionate conservative" was chosen for example.

You have nothing to back this up other than your own opinion.

Oh, really?
1. McCain warned before the Iraq war started and many times since that the plans were not realistic for the occupation. He has been proven right.
2. What are the chances that McCain would have let Osama get away once found? Remember Tora-bora? That was a high order bungle.
3. What are the chances that McCain would not have followed through on Afghanistan? The efforts to rebuild never did take off as needed. Dubya failed to sieze the post-war initiative while he could. Instead, he was moving on, leaving unfinished business.
4. McCain has not been in favor of Dubya's budget wrecking. There are clear facts and numbers to show what damage Dubya has done. He can't say he wasn't warned--and the effect of unforseen crises like 9/11 was also a common state concern in opposing his plan! Instead he claims the problem doesn't exist, or he couldn't have known, and that this giant shortfall is not his fault...yeah, right.
5. McCain has opposed the religious extremism that is dividing the country. It cost him the primaries and effectively ended his candidacy. Dubya embraced it and uses it to divide the nation rather than unite it.
6. McCain's lack of religious fervor would have served us well in maintaining the focus on terrorism, and not on religion. There is no doubt that comments about "Axis of Evil" and calling our war against terror a "crusade" (Dubya's own words, and addressing Muslim's no less--literally it translates as "followers of the cross" if memory serves) have hurt our ability to fight this world cancer. Dubya squandered our moral capital.
7. It is hard to imagine that McCain or anyone else could do such a poor job on the diplomatic scene as Dubya has done.
8. I also doubt McCain would have had the absent, run-away, run-away approach that Dubya had in the early hours of 9/11. (Yes, I noticed that at the time, it was one of the poorest showings of emergency leadership I've witnessed.)

Being as McCain has a true military background, survived some badly broken bones, and a long stretch in a POW camp while Dubya was an AWOL draft dodger; I reckon the chances of Dubya outperforming McCain in the prosecution of a war are incredibly small. (Better to try for that winning $10,000 dollar scratch off ticket.)

Taking it further. Even Al Gore could have done no worse than Dubya (and perhaps better, for a few of the reasons already given.) 9/11 was a modern Pearl Harbor. It was a certainty we were going in, the only serious question that arose immediately was where, then whether we should use nukes to get Osama if needed because of the remote aspect and terrain.

Maybe a better president could have kept us out of it.

Doubtful unless we decided to let Europe and Asia fall and tried to acheive a separate peace. As in most European affairs we are too far removed geographically to prevent the wars from happening. History has repeatedly shown that if you can't pose an immediate direct military threat to an ultra-aggressor, then you cannot hope to contain them with diplomacy. Besides there was Japan to contend with, and they struck first.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, really?
1. McCain warned before the Iraq war started and many times since that the plans were not realistic for the occupation. He has been proven right.
2. What are the chances that McCain would have let Osama get away once found? Remember Tora-bora? That was a high order bungle.
3. What are the chances that McCain would not have followed through on Afghanistan? The efforts to rebuild never did take off as needed. Dubya failed to sieze the post-war initiative while he could. Instead, he was moving on, leaving unfinished business.
4. McCain has not been in favor of Dubya's budget wrecking. There are clear facts and numbers to show what damage Dubya has done. He can't say he wasn't warned--and the effect of unforseen crises like 9/11 was also a common state concern in opposing his plan! Instead he claims the problem doesn't exist, or he couldn't have known, and that this giant shortfall is not his fault...yeah, right.
5. McCain has opposed the religious extremism that is dividing the country. It cost him the primaries and effectively ended his candidacy. Dubya embraced it and uses it to divide the nation rather than unite it.
6. McCain's lack of religious fervor would have served us well in maintaining the focus on terrorism, and not on religion. There is no doubt that comments about "Axis of Evil" and calling our war against terror a "crusade" (Dubya's own words, and addressing Muslim's no less--literally it translates as "followers of the cross" if memory serves) have hurt our ability to fight this world cancer. Dubya squandered our moral capital.
7. It is hard to imagine that McCain or anyone else could do such a poor job on the diplomatic scene as Dubya has done.
8. I also doubt McCain would have had the absent, run-away, run-away approach that Dubya had in the early hours of 9/11. (Yes, I noticed that at the time, it was one of the poorest showings of emergency leadership I've witnessed.)

The most common conservative refrain is to undo many of the changes of the past 60 or 70 years. In that context, my remarks were right on target. I won't withdraw them.

Again says you. Yes we do want to remove all the unconstitutional laws passed by 50 years of Democratic rule in the congress. If going by the constitution is reggressive then conservatives are indeed guilty as charged.

Being as McCain has a true military background, survived some badly broken bones, and a long stretch in a POW camp while Dubya was an AWOL draft dodger; I reckon the chances of Dubya outperforming McCain in the prosecution of a war are incredibly small. (Better to try for that winning $10,000 dollar scratch off ticket.)

So now being a POW makes you a better leader of a country in war? By this reasoning shouldnt you have voted for Dole over that draft dodger Clinton. Also how much experience did Mc Cain have leading troops or making any kind of strategic desicons. How much military experience did your idol FDR have? Then of course theres Kerry the hero LOL.

Doubtful unless we decided to let Europe and Asia fall and tried to acheive a separate peace.

If Broitain knew there was no way we would join the war they would have made peace with germany. It then would have come down to a war between Russia and Germany. Then we should have gone over and kicked the butt of the winner. We may have avoided the cold war and the whole USSR debacle.

So now your Nostradomus? Again this is nothing more than conjecture on your part.