2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Papewaio]

Bombing is higher risk to all levels involved except to US special forces servicemen.

Bombs tend to kill civilians, destroy intel and like the cave bombings you are never certain that your target is now vapourised or living it up with his wives at another location.

The risk with going into Pakistan was invading a sovereign nation... well to be precise running a military operation against a wanted terrorist but not informing the local chain of command... Risk was to political and social whilst minimizing flight or fight combat risks. Mind you the Pakistan government may have know but they way it was spun gave them plausible deniability with their hardline elements. Bombing however would have created a larger backlash.

Intel could be confirmed that they got their man. Even if he shoulder camera did just happen to fail on entry to the room, and that capture and parading him in front of the world would have been the gold star... It is still much better from an intel point of view to shoot, tag and bag him rather then bomb and pray.

Bombs have a habit of missing targets. You don't want to start bombing military base towns in a spray and pray mission. Great way to not just burn an alliance but to start a war.

So bombing really wasn't the least risk option when doing he total tally. Whilst executing OBL was certainly not the highest return on risk, it was at least a return. The problems with getting OBL back would have been much harder than getting in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally it just seems like the Republicans are crying foul because they don't have any sort of counter or spin. Usually when someone makes a claim, it's easy for the other to construct a spin and turn t around on the other guy. How can you spin this against Obama? Well, other than complaining about being unfair. But then again, Bush himself said that he honestly didn't care where OBL was after Tora Bora. Something along the lines of "He's not important."

Honestly, the Republican PR machine has been dropping the ball recently. They lost the War on Women, and now their defense with OBL is McCain saying, "Well, the thing about heros, is that they don't brag."

Uh huh, thanks John McCain, I'm sure you have followed that advice.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By most accounts there were two options put forward on the uncertain intel: Bomb or go in with a team. The safe option was to bomb. Do the math.

Chance of being sure we got osama with the bomb = 0?? That math?

(Of course, the far-right blog post you credulously repost entire probably says differently (I take it wingnut, unsourced conspiracy theories are part of your fireside chat ethos?).

This blog interview with an alleged insider has plenty of "details"

But obviously the question is whether they are accurate details that tell the whole story, or whether, for example, someone distorted things or made them up whole sale to credit/discredit obama.

I don't think it's a far right blog post, I think it's fake. To make a point about not dropping links with the praise that they are "detailed". Since that post was very detailed.

I'm going with mainstream accounts. And yes, a joint op with Pakistan was considered, and I hope laughed out of the room.)

I'll take "mainstream" over "detailed", but only marginally. But this is basically the same story from a year ago lemur.

Thank you for articulating my entire worldview! I can rest easy now, much less hard thinking to do.

Needs citation, as the Wikipedia folks say.

Hopefully constructive criticism. Think we had the same talk in the trayvon thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...pe#post2367161

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...pe#post2365220

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...pe#post2037954

A "rope-a-dope" search gets these three, but really I don't see why you try to deny it. I pointed out that you focus on the campaign fodder instead of just looking at things in terms of good or bad and a few lines later you are saying I should change my rhetoric because romney changed his, then in replying to pj you say that obama's ad was "pretty basic stuff, poltically". I even asked you "What "intriguing, substantive, and legitimate" questions does the ad raise?" and you cut that part out of the same reply in which you ask for evidence that you ignore stuff like that in favor of political campaign chatter.

I'd suggest that speaking for the Org as a whole is a dicey bit of business, which you'll probably want to retract or "clarify," not to mention the unintentional comedy factor of telling me my own motives. You do, in fact, appear to be rending your garments.

I'm describing the org in complimentary terms not speaking for them as a whole???

P.S.: Romney has updated his rhetoric, recognizing a losing fight for what is is. Might want to adjust yours as well.

Why would I change what I'm saying because a political candidate did?

Mitt Romney today praised President Obama for giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, a day after saying "even Jimmy Carter" would have done so.

"I commend all those who planned and conducted the bin Laden raid, and I applaud President Obama for giving the go-ahead for the mission," Romney said in a statement to mark the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death.

Yeah, everyone is happy to applaud Obama for giving the go ahead. The argument comes about when he is trying to contrast himself. That argument is in the past now and he's hardly going to complain about it in his statement to mark the anniversary.

Going back to your response to Team Romney being the guiding light in the Detroit bailout:

Everyone agreed that GM and Chrysler needed restructuring; the question was how. Obama believed that the feds needed to be involved, Romney did not, and writes about finding private investors. Economists then and now pointed out that private investors were running scared, and that delaying everything to find them would result in an unstructured bankruptcy for two of the big three American automakers. Details:

The major questions here are (1) whether it was feasible for the companies to find private financing to restructure and (2) whether the associated job loss and economic ripple effects would have been acceptable. While Romney is correct that the restructuring was what he suggested, his idea at the time was hardly unique; there was a consensus that the companies needed to be significantly reshaped. The question was how to do it, and he said the answer was without federal funds.

Yeah, that's similar to what I read. And the other article I read was about the non-union employees getting shafted as a result of the plan which supposedly benefited the unions too much, which I assume is Romney's objection. Not seeing the "flip-flopping on every major issue" G-cube.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Personally it just seems like the Republicans are crying foul because they don't have any sort of counter or spin. Usually when someone makes a claim, it's easy for the other to construct a spin and turn t around on the other guy. How can you spin this against Obama? Well, other than complaining about being unfair. But then again, Bush himself said that he honestly didn't care where OBL was after Tora Bora. Something along the lines of "He's not important."

Honestly, the Republican PR machine has been dropping the ball recently. They lost the War on Women, and now their defense with OBL is McCain saying, "Well, the thing about heros, is that they don't brag."

Uh huh, thanks John McCain, I'm sure you have followed that advice.

Maybe you can explain it too me.

The ad overdramatizes the obama decision, and then dishonestly quotes romney out of context to claim that he wouldn't have made the call. It's obviously a bad ad, there's little to say about the ad. About obama, we could talk about how good he's been at anti-terror during his presidency, how willing to use the drone strikes. About romney, we could speculate about what his overall strategy would have been/will be. We could talk about many substantial things, so why would we ever talk about either parties PR machine? I thought generally how it went was "campaign ad gets posted, orgahs criticize whatever it is that the ad distorts, talk about something substantial".

eh, nevermind. It's not like I don't comprehend being partisan and "fighting the good fight" or whatever, so really I'm just complaining about it in overly-large posts. I'd be better off reading up on unions and the detroit bailout.

Its not like anyone votes on the issues anyway. Even on these hallowed forums, most of you have decided which side of the fence you want to be on and focus more on attempting to discredit the other side than build up any kind of meaningful platform. We should all be swing voters, but the truth is that most of you aren't and never will be. You've made your choice.

None of it is worth taking seriously until voters are willing to abandon both parties for alternatives that actually stick to their guns and support issues with conviction.

Its a joke. Just don't vote.

overly cynical

I read the other day that some of the wikileaks information could have let al quaida know that we were on to osama's hideout if it had been noticed. I also saw a bit of a speech by Paul where he called manning a patriot and a true american hero. He's not being marginalized unfairly, you guys just need a better libertarian candidate. Although I really think libertarianism is not a good stand alone political philosophy, it's too cut and dry which is the only reason libertarians tend to have such conviction.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

-meant to be an edit of the above-

[Lemur]

Chance of being sure we got osama with the bomb = 0?? That math?

Feh. Everyone seems very positive post facto that the call made was the obvious call. At absolute minimum, this is convenient.

Hopefully constructive criticism. Think we had the same talk in the trayvon thread.

Your "constructive criticism" doesn't seem terribly constructive from this end. Do I talk about politics in terms of gamesmanship and mechanics? Sure. It's one perspective, one way of looking at the contest. Does that necessarily mean that I do not, as you imply, understand right and wrong, or see some things as inherently better than others? Your criticism amounts to "you talk about the mechanics, not right and wrong," and you posit this as some great insight. As is your custom, you constellate yourself as somehow outside and above the discussion, meta-commenting on the comments, passing judgment, offering your unique brand of "constructive criticism." If someone positioned themselves in such a lofty manner, then told you that the way you discuss is wrong, do you think you would find it "constructive"? 'Cause it reads more as "mind-numbingly pompous" from here.

I pointed out that you focus on the campaign fodder instead of just looking at things in terms of good or bad

And I would point out that your choice of subject matter follows predictably partisan trends. But hey, by all means, tell me I shouldn't be talking for another three pages. It goes well with my morning cup of joe. (An interesting double-bind you propose: If I talk about mechanics, I'm ignoring right and wrong. If I come down in favor of someone, I'm being a horrible partisan. So by your cul-de-sac of thinking, I suppose I should just be silent and let my betters talk? Again, feh.)

I'm describing the org in complimentary terms not speaking for them as a whole???

Read your own words, friend. You positioned yourself as spokesman for the Org, all so that you can tell me how inappropriate you think my posts are. It was a big stretch for a small poke.

Why would I change what I'm saying because a political candidate did?

Because wittingly or not, you have been repeating the party line, and the party line has changed.

-edit-

Bombing is higher risk to all levels involved except to US special forces servicemen.

Claro que si, but risk to servicemen is typically at the top of the list for concerns. Violating sovereignty is another biggie. Hence the fact that the majority of our GWOT (outside of certain countries such as Afghanistan) appears to be fielded by drones. Everyone can tell me that the operation to take out OBL was pedestrian, obvious and unremarkable all they like, but it doesn't smack of truth.

Meanwhile, here's the latest SuperPAC ad. (Oh noes! I'm not saying if it's right or wrong! I must have no moral center! But wait, if I do comment, then I'm being a partisan attack dog! Oh, if only there were some meta-conversational referee to tell me how to type!)

[HopAlongBunny]

Its not like anyone votes on the issues anyway.

Mainly because issues are absent from political discourse at election time. Personal attacks and fear mongering seem to have become the norm for electioneering in North America.

[Lemur]

Personal attacks and fear mongering seem to have become the norm for electioneering in North America.

Don't forget the well-established trend of people voting against their own economic self-interest, as well. So even when policy issues are raised, the voters' reactions to them are unpredictable. That's why politics seems more art than science to this lemur.

[HopAlongBunny]

That's why politics seems more art than science to this lemur.

And that art would be? Marketing? It seems the baser the instinct you can appeal to the more likely you are to motivate someone...Maslow's hierarchy perhaps? And of course "branding", never lose sight of the brand.

[Strike For The South]

Turned around dozens of companies LOLZ

[Lemur]

And that art would be? Marketing?

I don't mean "art" as in a comparison to Mozart or Picasso; rather, in the same sense that war is sometimes referred to as "art," since it cannot be boiled down into a science (with predictable, repeatable hypotheses and testing). While there are some truisms in politics, seems to me that a lot of it is unpredictable and difficult to quantify. Hence the obscenely high wages paid to the consultants who claim they can boil it down to numbers. And just as predictably, how often those consultants are proven wrong (but still want to get paid). So yeah, on an art/science axis, I think politics falls into the touchy-feely realm more than STEM.

[drone]

How much of our GDP is spent on elections/campaign funding? The only thing I can find says slightly greater than 0.01% for the 2008 presidential election, no details on if this includes primaries and such. I'm curious how much of our total economic output is wasted switching between the puppet on the left and puppet on the right.

[Lemur]

How much of our GDP is spent on elections/campaign funding?

I seem to recall reading that the aggregate cost of a presidential election is equivalent to half the amount spent nationally on chewing gum in one year.

Same book estimates total cost of all federal elections at roughly $1b.

-edit-

This might be helpful ... he even tries to factor in lobbying costs ...

[gaelic cowboy]

Turned around dozens of companies LOLZ

Sure he is only telling the truth Strike didnt he turn them right round into the scrap heap.

[gaelic cowboy]

How much of our GDP is spent on elections/campaign funding? The only thing I can find says slightly greater than 0.01% for the 2008 presidential election, no details on if this includes primaries and such. I'm curious how much of our total economic output is wasted switching between the puppet on the left and puppet on the right.

I wouldnt say it's a lot or even significant at all in fact I would be more inclined to think it's a slight boost to certain local economies.

since elections cant be outsourced at least not yet

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe you can explain it too me.

Sure!

Eh, nevermind.

...ok. :'(

[PanzerJaeger]

The unfortunate reality of being a gay conservative in America has manifested once again.

The recent departure of an openly gay foreign policy adviser and communications hand from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has left many in political circles scratching their heads, but one conservative radio host is praising the move as a win for American families.

Ric Grenell, who served as foreign policy spokesman in President George W. Bush's administration, was recently hired by Romney and according to the campaign, was officially scheduled to begin work May 1. But when Tuesday came, Grenell voluntarily stepped down from his position.

According to a statement released to the Washington Post, it was because he felt the pushback from conservative groups regarding his sexual orientation and his advocacy for gay marriage rendered him ineffective.

...

Bryan Fischer, issue director at the American Family Association, a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage, bragged about his role in the episode.

"It's very clear from the Washington Post that he resigned because of pressure that was put on the Romney campaign by the pro-family community," he said on his radio show, Focal Point. "So ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge win, and it's a huge win for us in regard to Mitt Romney, because Mitt Romney has been forced to say, 'Look, I overstepped my bounds here, I went outside my parameters here, I went off the reservation with this hire, the pro-family community has called me back to the table here, called me back inside the borders of the reservation.'"

Fischer then boasted, "There is no way in the world that Mitt Romney is going to put a homosexual activist in any position of importance in his campaign."

It would have been nice to see Romney stand up and defend this guy, especially since he bothered to hire him. It would have shown leadership and independence from the far Right as he moves into the general and, coincidentally, it would have been the right thing to do. Romney is no gay hater, but he apparently feels the need to keep the gay haters appeased - which is another unfortunate reality of contemporary GOP politics.

[Kralizec]

It would have been nice to see Romney stand up and defend this guy, especially since he bothered to hire him. It would have shown leadership and independence from the far Right as he moves into the general and, coincidentally, it would have been the right thing to do. Romney is no gay hater, but he apparently feels the need to keep the gay haters appeased - which is another unfortunate reality of contemporary GOP politics.

Wouldn't the right thing be talking him into staying on the team? That is, if his sexuality was the main reason behind his resignation.

The only thing I've read about it (in Dutch sources) say that he resigned because he made some nasty remarks about several people he later regretted. Link

[Lemur]

It would have been nice to see Romney stand up and defend this guy, especially since he bothered to hire him. It would have shown leadership and independence from the far Right as he moves into the general and, coincidentally, it would have been the right thing to do.

At first I thought he was sidelined because of his Twitter feed, but it looks as though you are correct, and his gayness (specifically, his advocacy for gay marriage) was the issue.

Early reporting suggests that Team Romney thought they could just lay low, keep Grenell quiet, and it would blow over.

As the critiques from conservatives intensified, Mr. Grenell pressed senior aides to allow him to speak about national security issues, arguing that the best way to soothe the ire over his appointment would be to let him do his job: defend his boss and take swipes at President Obama.

But Mr. Romney’s advisers balked at the idea of his taking a public role, saying that the best way to get beyond the controversy was for Mr. Grenell to lower his profile until it blew over. A big worry: that reporters would ask Mr. Grenell about his Twitter feed or sexuality, turning him rather than Mr. Romney’s foreign policy into the story. [...]

[T]he final straw, for Mr. Grenell, was the conference call on April 26. After being told not to speak, he felt deeply undermined, worrying it would erode his credibility with journalists who had expected to hear from him, friends said. [...]

The day after the call, complaints from the religious right picked up steam. In the National Review on April 27, Matthew J. Franck wrote: “Whatever fine record he compiled in the Bush administration, Grenell is more passionate about same-sex marriage than anything else.”

“So here’s a thought experiment,” he continued. “Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?”

Over the past weekend, Mr. Grenell sent word to Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fehrnstrom that his position was untenable. He planned to resign.

[Lemur]

All this says is that the Republican nominee and his advisors have decided that gay rights have no place in their would-be administration.

Well, it's a little bit unusual. Reagan and both Bushes had prominent gays in their administrations. (Not sure who was out at the time, though.)

I think it speaks to the rightwing's lack of sureness about Romney. GWB could have as many gay people as he liked, because he had born-again cred.

[PanzerJaeger]

At first I thought he was sidelined because of his Twitter feed, but it looks as though you are correct, and his gayness (specifically, his advocacy for gay marriage) was the issue.

Yes, it is kind of sad. The Romney people stood firmly behind Grenell and pushed back hard against the Twitter mini-scandal, pretty much keeping in the lefty blogosphere and out of the papers (WaPo being the exception). When the gay haters got wind of the hire, though, he was immediately sidelined.

[Lemur]

Maybe it's also that times are changing. In the days of Reagan and the Bushes, prominent gay advisers were expected to be (and agreed to be) closeted, at least until they left the WH. In this day and age, it's hard to imagine top-flight talent (that happens to be gay) putting up with that.

Law of unintended consequences: More out gays means less opportunity to serve in prominent GOP positions? Or something. I haven't given this a whole load of thought.

And you're right, I remember reading that the guy had a long Twitter trail, which he erased, and that was about it. None of it made major news.

[Strike For The South]

Ah yes pushing the homosexual agenda from the forigen policy circles

[PanzerJaeger]

And the just-as-inevitable response re: the OBL ad.



It's pretty standard partisan stuff, but it did highlight one thing in the Clinton ad that I completely missed at 35 seconds in. "Suppose the Navy Seals had gone in there... suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him."

In passing it just sounds like they are spiking the football. When you really think about the mindset behind that statement, though, it is pretty galling even for election year politics and reveals a kind of selfish arrogance that has characterized this presidency.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The clipping "I..." quotes doesn't jive with the tone of my memory of that speech. iirc there's some idea that obama uses "I" more than other presidents, but I read a debunking of it. The "for him" statement is just the ad script, it doesn't say that obama cares more about the politics than the lives of the seals. The one thing I heard that did concern me was that the white house has been leaking way more details about how the seal teams operate than the military would like.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So uh....apparently the Ron Paul machine is working hard on getting its followers to take the majority of delegate spots in Nevada and Maine. Which they did. The plan apparently is that there is precedent for bound delegates to abstain, so if they get enough of Romney's delegates, they can abstain, force a brokered convention and then on the second voting round many of them are open to vote for who they please.

For the sake of the comedy that will pour out from late night comedians, I hope this actually happens even though I know it won't.

[Lemur]

And now to the gloating: one of the primary figures on the far-right who pushed for Grenell's firing/resignation is now declaring, "If Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, coopted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin? How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me? I don’t think Romney is realizing the doubts that this begins to raise about his leadership."

Lovely. So Romney gives this buffoon what he wants, and the ungrateful little homunculous turns around and makes it into an argument for why Romney can't be President. Someone explain the logic of this to me, 'cause it looks insane from where I'm standing.

[Tellos Athenaios]

On the contrary, I think this is actually sane. Just because it may or may not have been wrapped up in a saga made of assorted right wing drivel/nonsense/rants/insanity/take-your-pick doesn't mean the basic point still stands:

Mitt Romney doesn't have $0.02 worth of intellectual effort put into coming up with an actual real policy "line". So if you are Republican and looking to further presumed Republican values, what use is electing a pushover who will be bullied into bending over backwards by pretty much anyone?

The concern isn't the Chinese (or shouldn't be), in the sense that he isn't going to be bullied into doing the Chinese bidding (his past suggests he is actually going to believe it's all for the best to let the Chinese do their thing, you know free markets and stuff, and maybe he could be right on that issue to boot). The concern is what will be left of Romney promises to the Republican voter base after the first slaughterhouse round against actual politicians (not merely power brokers) who know how to play the media?

Mitt Romney would make a fine Congressional aide, but he lacks the sharp cutting edge of a campaigner politician -- even by boring Dutch standards.

[Lemur]

I don't agree with this article, but am reposting a bit for the most epic use of Bangkok in an analogy ever.

But this campaign, relatively speaking, will not be fierce or hotly contested. Instead it'll be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like a hand job in a Bangkok bathhouse. And everybody knows it. It's just impossible to take Mitt Romney seriously as a presidential candidate. Even the news reporters who are paid to drum up dramatic undertones are having a hard time selling Romney as half of a titanic title bout.

[Lemur]

And now there's Bullygate. We're going back to high school for scandals? Really? Why stop there? Why not scrutinize their pre-K and Kindergarten records? Let's see if there are any fetal scandals they might have had in utero!

Maybe this will, in fact, be the most boring election in the history of mankind.