McCain's strategy is excellent

[airdvr 210]

"..because the realities are...ya know...as a black man Barack can get shot goin' to the gas station."

Why would someone say this? it's more than mentioning...she thinks it's reality.

"Did I mention I'm black."

Did we need for him to confirm that? Did you know he was black? Whoodathunkit?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[AWL71 0]

Negative campaign strategy? What do you call the smear campaign the Obama camp is waging against Palin? Positive?

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Negative campaign strategy? What do you call the smear campaign the Obama camp is waging against Palin? Positive?

I haven't seen it yet. The only negatives I've seen about her have been here.

Edit to add: In any case, I expected the level of discourse to take a downturn as soon as the Biden pick was announced. That's a big part of why it disappointed me.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,156]

Quote

Negative campaign strategy? What do you call the smear campaign the Obama camp is waging against Palin? Positive?

At last count there were 20 smears, known to be FALSE, about Obama listed on Snopes. The stories you call "smears" about Palin all appear to be factual. The McCain camp is way in the lead in the bogus smearing race.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I think Palin was a good pickup

Yeah, but she's married now, so that's out.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What has McCain said he'd change?

Uhm, exactly what needs to be changed?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

1 - I've yet to see Obama play the race card.

20 years of Rev. Wright?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...as a black man Barack can get shot goin' to the gas station.

...I hate to say this, but more than likely, he'd be shot by another black man.

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,156]

Quote

Quote

What has McCain said he'd change?

Uhm, exactly what needs to be changed?

Government spending.
The Patriot Act.
Phone taps without a warrant.
The deficit.

"The Republican Party we've seen for the past several years is very clearly a party that believes in big government, big budgets, and big deficits, not individual liberty. " Bob Barr - former GOP congressman, now Libertarian candidate for president.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Can you say RINO?

Quote

Government spending.

How is Obama going to change this?

Quote

The Patriot Act.

I have mixed feelings on this.

Quote

Phone taps without a warrant.

Another set of mixed feelings. I keep wanting to have a conversation over a cell phone where I mention Osama and nuclear weapons in the same paragraph. None of my friends want to have anything to do with it. What's your cell number?

Quote

The deficit.

How is Obama going to change this?

Geez, we've actually agreed on somethings.
I'm going to take a shower now.

We are all engines of karma

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Did we need for him to confirm that? Did you know he was black? Whoodathunkit?

Of course, we all know. Bill Clinton reminded everyone during the primaries... repeatedly.

In the Carolinas, "Umm... he's black..."

In Mississippi, "...did I mention he's black?"

Hillary, "Shut up, dummy."

[livendive 8]

Quote

This vetting controversy is a faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States

So now McCain is playing the gender card, right?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

1 - I've yet to see Obama play the race card.

20 years of Rev. Wright?

Rev. Wright is now running for President? Or the whole Rev Wright thing was a calculated move on Obama's part because it benefitted his campaign?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

20 years of Rev. Wright?

Obama is a racist. That's my point.

We are all engines of karma

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

1 - I've yet to see Obama play the race card.

20 years of Rev. Wright?

Rev. Wright is now running for President? Or the whole Rev Wright thing was a calculated move on Obama's part because it benefitted his campaign?

Blues,
Dave

I could never run for President because not all my friends are perfect. In fact, very few.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

What has McCain said he'd change?

Uhm, exactly what needs to be changed?

Earning the respect of the international community

Paying as we go, as opposed to the government's current dependence on credit (punishing our children for our lavish lifestyle)

Statesmanship and diplomacy rather than a "bring it on!" mentality

Absolute respect for the right to privacy

An expectation of individual and corporate responsibliity with fewer bailouts for both

Constant favor for individual liberty, free of government intrusion

An understanding that the principle of religous freedom on which this county was founded includes allowing ALL consenting adults to marry. It's between them and their god and none of the government's business.

Many, many other things, most of which can't be accomplished by even a two-term President...but one could at least get a good start on them. Alternately, we could spend another 4 or 8 years backpedalling.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

1 - I've yet to see Obama play the race card.

20 years of Rev. Wright?

Rev. Wright is now running for President? Or the whole Rev Wright thing was a calculated move on Obama's part because it benefitted his campaign?

Blues,
Dave

I could never run for President because not all my friends are perfect. In fact, very few.

There's a difference in having an imperfect friend and being preached to, married by, and spritually led by a raging racist who's most famous quote is "God damn America".

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[StreetScooby 5]

All of these sound reasonable to me.

Quote

Earning the respect of the international community

As long as they pay their own way.

Quote

Paying as we go, as opposed to the government's current dependence on credit (punishing our children for our lavish lifestyle)

Yes, this is out of whack. RINO comes to mind. Obama is not going to change this. It'll only get worse.

Quote

Statesmanship and diplomacy rather than a "bring it on!" mentality

Uhm, how's the EU making out with Russia and Iran? Not to mention North Korea. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating war, but there has to be credible deterrence. Neither Obama nor Biden will have that.

Quote

An expectation of individual and corporate responsibliity with fewer bailouts for both

Agreed.

Quote

An understanding that the principle of religous freedom on which this county was founded includes allowing ALL consenting adults to marry. It's between them and their god and none of the government's business.

Yep, as long as they're consenting adults. I believe the "jury" is still out regarding raising children, unless they conceived them personally.

We are all engines of karma

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Statesmanship and diplomacy rather than a "bring it on!" mentality

Uhm, how's the EU making out with Russia and Iran? Not to mention North Korea. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating war, but there has to be credible deterrence. Neither Obama nor Biden will have that.

Or how about other examples:

Libya abandoned and dismantled their offensive nuclear and chemical weapons programs after prolonged diplomactic interactions, sanctions, and incentives to rejoin the international community.

Sec of State Rice departed today for a trip that will take her to Libya. She is the first US Sec of State since Dulles (1953) to go to Libya. (The last high ranking US official to go to Libya was VP Nixon in 1957.)

Sen Obama and Sen Biden are more likely to be able to exert diplomatic 'soft' power. Foreign policy and diplomacy is not an "on-off" switch/binary function where the only two possible positions are appeasement or military intervention. (Have we forgotten the lesson of winning the Cold War? How did the first Pres Bush respond to the fall of the Berlin wall?) As the metaphor goes, if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if the only foreign policy response is (threat of) hard power/military intervention the only foreign policy option looks like invasion. Soft power does not mean disregard the importance of hard power capabilities.

Iran is a big issue. A very big issue. It is my opinion that they are pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program in addition to a more overt (when they're forced to be) nuclear energy program. Keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state, imo, should be among the top foreign policy goal for the US because it is a strategic threat to the US & our allies.

What part of the current policy is not working? Everytime US policy makes the issue about Ahmadinejad, he benefits as he is perceived as the maverick fighting the goliath (), which enables Ahmadinejad to isubstantiate his base and to not address Iran's domestic problems, which are many.

We will never know what may have been the outcome had the US responded to the May 2003 overture from the Iranian Foreign Ministry (their version of the State Dept) sent via the Swiss. It was rebuked (to put it diplomatically). We didn’t even respond.

Here’s a copy of what was sent to the State Dept’s Near East desk. An additional account from the Jerusalem Post "US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003" & another from the Jewish Daily Forward. (I intentionally chose to cite 2 sources that would not have any perceivable pro-Iran bias.)

The conservative American Prospect commented that “Iran’s historic proposal for a broad diplomatic agreement should have prompted high-level discussions over the details of an American response.”

Amb Richard Haass (a realist), who advised SecState Colin Powell (a realist) as Director of Policy Planning and who was Special Assistant to Pres. GHW Bush (a hardcore realist) and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on National Security Council, has publicly stated that the Iranian overture was rejected because in the current administration “the bias was toward a policy of regime change” (the neo-conservative position).

Dr. Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, counterterrorism expert on State Policy Planning Staff, & CIA senior analyst, called the May 2003 entrée a “respectable effort” to start negotiations with the US.

COL Larry Wilkerson, USA (ret) and former Chief of Staff for SecState Powell, said that it was a significant proposal for beginning “meaningful talks” between the US and Iran but that it “was a non-starter so long as Cheney was Vice President and the principal influence on Bush.” His version of events is that State supported the offer, however, “as soon as it got to the Vice President’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil‘… reasserted itself” and Cheney’s office rejected it."

Former SecState Powell has commented publically:

“My position in the remaining year and a half [of his tenure as SecState] was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran. But there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do that.” [W/r/t/ subsequent characterization of efforts by him and his deputies to deal with Tehran and Damascus as failures, Powell notes] “I don't like the administration saying, ‘Powell went, Armitage went ... and [they] got nothing.’ We got plenty.”

“You can't negotiate when you tell the other side, ‘Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start’.”

Days later after that attempt was rejected, Iran proposed a more limited exchange of al-Qaeda prisoners for MEK prisoners, which was rejected too.

To be explicit, Iran’s behavior is not motivated because they want to be an upstanding member of the international community, imo. They’re driven by competition for (scarce) resources in a struggle for power among competitors and struggle for regional influence. We are one of the competitors. They’re also driven by history and religious fundamentalism.

And the point is not to be an apologist for Iran (hell, no!), but to illustrate with enough credible conservative realist voices (as opposed to neoconservative) how much isn’t in the dialogue. And how far conservative realist foreign policy differs from neoconservative. Sen McCain's chief foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, is part of the PNAC foreign policy team; he is not a traditional realist Republican.

The critical issues is maximizing the likelihood of accomplishing US foreign policy goals.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 210]

Libya abandoned and dismantled their offensive nuclear and chemical weapons programs after prolonged diplomactic interactions, sanctions, and incentives to rejoin the international community.

Umm...I think you're fogetting this

1986: US launches air strikes on Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3975000/3975455.stm

They only did those things out of fear that we were ready to kick their asses.

mutual simultaneous statements “we have always been ready for direct and authoritative talks with the US/with Iran in good faith and with the aim of discussing – in mutual respect – our common interests and our mutual concerns based on merits and objective realities, but we have always made it clear that, such talks can only be held, if genuine progress for a solution of our own concerns can be achieved.”

They wanted to negotiate with us alone. Funny how that's OK when they want something from us, but when Iraq ignores the UN and the world it doesn't matter. You really think Iran wouldn't do the same? Then what would we be left to do?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Libya abandoned and dismantled their offensive nuclear and chemical weapons programs after prolonged diplomactic interactions, sanctions, and incentives to rejoin the international community.

Umm...I think you're fogetting this

1986: US launches air strikes on Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3975000/3975455.stm

They only did those things out of fear that we were ready to kick their asses.

No. It actually further strengthens my argument.- thanks! That strike was largely counterproductive. (We've already discussed the strike.)

What was the result of the 1986 airstrikes? Libya withdrew, increased tacit & financial support of terrorists, increased illicit arms sales, and accelerated their offensive nuclear and chemical programs. Was that productive toward US interests? (No.)

It took almost ten years before Libya was willing to re-engage. Soft power combined with sanctions gave us what may be the single most successful foreign policy endeavor of the GW Bush administration and that's fabulous! Give them credit!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 210]

That was completely counterproductive. (We've actually already disabused that notion.)


One way of looking at it. You thought it would be a good idea to sit back and do nothing about a blatant attack on US soldiers? Or how about "let's talk to them". Maybe you disabused it, I still think it was the right move at the time.

The April 1986 U.S. air strikes on Libya annoyed almost all the parties involved. For the Libyans, they were a shocking humiliation. In the aftermath of the attacks, Qaddafi had to struggle hard against the danger of being overthrown by a military coup or popular unrest. The Soviet Union was angry at its unreliable and presumptuous Arab partner, resistant to reasonable advice and supposedly undeserving of Soviet military technology.
http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/coll_libya/intro_schaefer.cfm?navinfo=15709

You're abviously an extremely intelligent person. But I think you're revisionist history is off the mark.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

That was completely counterproductive. (We've actually already disabused that notion.)


One way of looking at it. You thought it would be a good idea to sit back and do nothing about a blatant attack on US soldiers?

red herring flag>

Quote

"The April 1986 U.S. air strikes on Libya annoyed almost all the parties involved. For the Libyans, they were a shocking humiliation. In the aftermath of the attacks, Qaddafi had to struggle hard against the danger of being overthrown by a military coup or popular unrest. The Soviet Union was angry at its unreliable and presumptuous Arab partner, resistant to reasonable advice and supposedly undeserving of Soviet military technology."
http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/coll_libya/intro_schaefer.cfm?navinfo=15709

You're abviously an extremely intelligent person. But I think you're revisionist history is off the mark.

No revisionist history. Just realist. And putting US strategic interests and security first.

What benefit to US strategic interest was Q'addafi accelerating his covert nuclear and chemical weapons programs? Attempting to get an offensive biological program going? Increasing state sponsorship of terrorism: admittedly to the bombing of Pan Flight 103 (Lockerbie), allegedly supporting the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 by Abu Nidal? Increasing illict arms deals (sales to other non-state actors)? Being complicit in the kidnapping and execution of at least half-dozen American and British nationals in the Middle East immediately after the strike? And trying to pay (~$2.5M. iirc) inner city American gangs to commit terror against US citizens?

The air strikes may have annoyed and frustrated Libya -- that's not the point of a US foreign policy that I would advocate. Would you?

Again, the 1986 airstrike did not induce Libya to abandon its nuclear and chemical weaposn programs or to renounce support of international terrorism.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Again, the 1986 airstrike did not induce Libya to abandon its nuclear and chemical weaposn programs or to renounce support of international terrorism.

Maybe not, but the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did. ...and when he came in from the cold, Qaddafi didn't go to the UN, he did so through channels to CIA and MI6.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Again, the 1986 airstrike did not induce Libya to abandon its nuclear and chemical weaposn programs or to renounce support of international terrorism.

Maybe not, but the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did. ...and when he came in from the cold, Qaddafi didn't go to the UN, he did so through channels to CIA and MI6.

You are correct that it was through the intelligence community ... and through diplomatic channels (aka State Dept).

Discussions/negotiations began during the 2nd half of the Clinton adminstration, however. There are speculations regarding the role that preparations for OIF in 2002 may have played -- more that preparations and focused interest on Iraq enabled career civil serveants to execute administration policy with limited ideological interference from early political appointees.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying