It is looking increasingly likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, and according to recent LA Times polls, he would beat John McCain by 8 percentage points if the election were held today. (Hillary Clinton was projected to have a slightly larger margin of victory.)
So, my next question is: Whom will he select for his Veep, and whom will he appoint to his Cabinet? His choices are crucial to the future of the nation. There are some urgent problems that must be addressed NOW. Bush and his boys have steered us in the wrong direction on many things. It's past time for a course correction!
I'll give you my choices, leave a blank where I am uncertain, and give a brief review of the issues facing each incoming member of the Obama cabinet.
I challenge you to second-guess my choices and fill in the blanks.
Vice President - Despite the bad blood that has passed between them, I still think Clinton would be an excellent choice. They are in close agreement on most issues, and she has proven that she is an indefatigable campaigner. Furthermore, her presence on the ticket may help Obama retain parts of her constituency...women and blue-collar workers...who favor her over Obama.
Secretary of State - Two choices here: First is Colin Powell, if he will take the job. He is respected internationally, even though he parroted the Bush line on WMD's before the UN. (He claims he was led astray.) I think he would restore a level of integrity to our government that has been sadly lacking for the past eight years. Bill Clinton would also be a good choice. He is also respected internationally, knows most of the players personally, and is a shrewd and competent pro in those circles.
Secretary of Interior - Again there is a clear choice, if he will take the job: Al Gore. He is THE person to address the looming problems of global warming, pollution of the ecosphere, depletion of resources and despoilment of our dwindling wilderness.
Secretary of the Treasury - ???
Secretary of Labor - The knotty problems of Free Trade and exportation of jobs must be addressed. Free trade isn't working...except to line the pockets of Wal Mart and similar megacorporations who are operating in a profoundly unpatriotic fashion. If corporations are "people" for tax purposes, able to give millions in campaign "contributions" to politicians, then they should be held accountable as citizens and be prohibited from taking actions that are not in the nation's best interest.
Secretary of Agriculture - The horrendous waste of money on multibillion dollar subsidies to agribusiness must be eliminated. Growing corn for energy is a lousy policy. Subsidizing it is insanely self-destructive.
Secretary of Commerce - ???
Secretary of Defense - The first order of business has to be extricating ourselves from Iraq and getting back to the fundamental problem: terrorism. Afghanistan is suffering from neglect, and the Taliban are winning back what they lost. We need to address that...hopefully with UN help. If Clinton gets State, maybe Colin Powell would take this job.
Secretary of Education - "No Child Left Behind" is a colossal failure. We need some new thinking here.
Attorney General - We need a politically independent AG who will (with the President's help, hopefully) rein in the Imperial Presidency, curtailing the abuse of powers and undermining of the Constitution that started before Bush's "reign" but he clearly carried this to new unprecedented extremes. "Signing statements" are an egregious abuse of Presidential power. They should be outlawed!
Secretary of Energy - This is a crucial post that desperately needs a person who is well-versed in alternative energy technologies and is a strong advocate of energy conservation. This must be a strong, unbiased person who is not in the thrall of Big Oil, the Nuke Pushers, or the corn-ethanol lobby.
Secretary of Health and Human Services - The big issue here is universal health care. Its time has come. Fifty million people without any insurance is a national disgrace.
Secretary of Transportation - This office needs to start a national effort to promote mass transportation in all our larger cities. And subsidies for high-efficiency vehicles regardless of the technology. Crucial technologies, like batteries, should be encouraged with grants and/or subisidies. Private business is not stepping up to this task. Government must help. We cannot wait on this.
Secretary of Homeland Security - ???
Secretary of Veteran's Affairs - ???
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 202
I like Colin Powel as Sec'y of State. I certainly hope he will have the help of Al Gore as a senior adviser.
Colin is a Repub. I doubt he would torpedo his role in a future Repub Admin by adhering to a liberal Dem.
Att. Gen: John Edwards. He is of the proper ideological bent and well aware of the Bush era corruption.
Sec State: Richardson or Biden. Both have wide international credit.
Sec Def: Jim Webb. Senate history and military hero.
VP: My vote is for Webb again.
Charles...Would you like to elaborate on why you are scared?
Linda...RIchardson is the choice of many people.
Kacie...Yup, it's my wish list. What Mr. Obama does remains to be seen. Your "homeboy" reference is usually applied to people of a particular race, but maybe you didn't mean it that way. I don't think most people agree with your characterization of Colin Powell.
Sam...I like your suggestions of Edwards for AG and Webb for Defense. Powell was very uncomfortable working for Bush, and was eventually isolated and ignored. I am not so sure he wouldn't work for a Democrat. Obama has talked about hiring Republicans for his Cabinet. As you say, he is very astute, and I think he will pick the best people he can work with.
Right, Verie. Bush surrounded himself with cronies. Powell was an exception, and he didn't fit in...so he left...with a "don't let the door hit you in the ass."
Secretary of State - Jesse Jackson................hey, he's been to Libya!
Interior - Al Gore.............this is a slam dunk, no?
Labor - Jimmy Hoffa Jr.............hey, Big Labor was already in Obama's back pocket, why not make it official?
Agriculture - Ben Nelson.............OK, he's a Moderate, but we couldn't find anyone else from the MidWest who wasn't a Republican.....LOL
Defense - Al Sharpton...............I know we'll all sleep better at night knowing that the good Reverend is on-watch for all foreign enemies. He won't start any wars, that's for sure! And he'll have the troops home January 25th!
Education - Donna Shalala..............true, she's a Clintonista, but the education budget is unlimited now. She can be bribed to come out of retirement.
Energy - This will be merged into the Interior Ministry because Al Gore has such a good handle on these sorts of things. Besides, who needs oil anyways? It's just a bunch of greedy oil companies, right? LOL
Health & Human Services - Faye Wattleton..............she's the former Planned Parenthood president, so she's already in keeping with Obama's agenda.
Homeland Security - Bill Richardson...............we're cross-training him, since he's done almost every other position. And if Edwards says too many "pro-Clinton" things, we have a great second-stringer.
Veteran's Affairs - Charlie Rangel...............after all, he really knows what's going on down at Walter Reed.
Commerce - Abolished. There will be no commerce allowed under an Obama administration.
If not, I do like McCain.
Not worried about the cabinet yet. I would like to know the VP first. That person will bring in key people as well.
Republicans in an Obama cabinet? Naw! The Leftist constituency would go crazy.
Maybe as ambassadors, or some minor functionaries, but not anyone important.............unless of course, no Democrat at all could be found to fill a certain position.
I realize that if McCain is elected, there won't be a Democrat within ten miles of the White House, but that is to be expected from Republicans and their rigid ideology. Democrats tend to think a little more "liberally" and you will be surprised, I bet at Obama's choices.
After he picks his cabinet, I will republish this article and if you dare to come back to this discussion, we will see who was right.
If you like McCain, then it doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is.
How about Ayers for Sec of Defense. He already knows about bombs.
Farrakhan for Sec. of State. He has ties to MUSLIM countries.
Wright, hmmmm, not sure about him, he's kinda wacko, but he fits right in with the rest of Obama's associates.
Go ahead, play your political games. Most people understand Obama's relationship with Wright, Ayers, and Farrakhan. I am sure we will hear a lot more of this crap during the coming campaign. McCain has a ton of attack money he plans to spend on "Swift Boat" ads. It worked against Kerry. Don't count on people being fooled by it again.
I could easily see McCain nominating Hillary for a cabinet level position. They're friends and they respect each other. Plus, it would open up a Senate seat in NY.
And Bert, McCain won't be doing any "SwiftBoating" of anyone. The 527's will be trying to "SwiftBoat" him. Doubtful that will work this time.
Republicans in an Obama cabinet? Naw! The Leftist constituency would go crazy."
I don't think he would care at that point. He would be thinking 4 more years. There is no better way to do it than to bring a coalition. The leftist will back an incumbent democrat anyways. At that point (when forming a government) the far left would be the least of his worries.
Obama is not known as a "Uniter", Alan, despite all the rheotic.
He has shown almost no propensity to bring Republicans to his side in the Senate. The very few times he's attracted Republicans were on his own pet projects. He has no long term bipartisan record, like say, a member of the Gang of 14.
Oh wait, John McCain started that, didn't he? Ooooops!
So why wasn't Obama part of the Gang of 14? They were reasonable, and came together to push bipartisanship on a number of issues.
The reason : Obama was too busy pushing an extremist Left Wing agenda...............one that earned him the liberal National Journal's #1 most Liberal Senator in Congress rating. Not good. And not good for the country, Alan.
We'll see no Republicans in an Obama administration.
His constituency simply won't allow such use of logic, reason, and bipartisanship.
It's really interesting how each side caricaturizes the other. I view McCain as an extreme neocon who will have us in two or three more wars, will load the Supreme Court with friends of James Dobson and Pat Robertson, and who will seek federal anti-abortion laws. I think that would be very bad for the country.
You call Obama a far-left radical liberal who will put Jesse Jackson in his cabinet, and...well, what DO you think his agenda is, and why would it be "bad for the country," as you say? Why would it be worse than my "McCain scenario?"
Oh...on the Gang of 14...Democrats were sold a bill of goods on that...it allowed Bush to push two right-wing judges onto the Supreme Court. One more, and we might as well turn the clocks back to the 19th Century as far as women's rights and separation of church and state are concerned. The Gang of 14 was no exercise in bipartisanship. It was a panicked response by Democrats to the Republican threat to exercise the "nuclear option," and change House rules to allow a simple majority vote to stop filibustering. Now that Democrats are in the majority, the Republicans have threatened and executed filibusters repeatedly to stonewall the Democratic agenda, but you don't hear any Dems screaming for the "nuclear option." The difference in the approach to government is stark. One side believes in a "take no prisoners" approach to politics. The other side believes in a respect for American traditions of fairness and inclusion.
Even Extremist Neocons hate McCain. Does that tell you that your impression might just be a little misguided? LOL
McCain is no Conservative - he just plays one on TV.
Proof you say? How about McCain-Feingold? How about the Immigration bill last Summer? How about McCain's environmentalism?
No, you'll have to come up with real issues this time, Bert. This guy is far different than a Bush or a Dole old-school Republican. And that's why he has massive appeal to the Independent/Centrist vote that hates extremism on either end.
Bert, I was only kidding about half of those buffoons on my fake cabinet list............it was pure humor, for the most part.
However, I do think Obama's agenda is well spelled-out on barackobama.com. I go there frequently to see what new pet project he's in favor of - and he adds to it daily. I worry that such an agenda................or even 30% of it, is absolutely impossible to do. He'd bust the budget. I wrote about the economics of an Obama Presidency back in February in this article :
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=
281474977259383&nav=Namespace
Two Wall Street Journal economics writers dissect every Obama plan and platform and really tell it like it is. Check it out - it's enlightening when hearing Obamanomics from those who know a charlatan when they hear one.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." -- Michelle Obama
In other words, ignore the consitution and liberty and steal from some to give to those who want handouts.
The rich have been stealing from the rest of us for some time now in case you hadn't noticed. The Constitution has only been ignored by Bush and his neocon buddies to undermine our civil rights and tear down the wall between church and state that wes erected by some people back in the 1790's...people like Tom Jefferson, one of my heroes.
Michelle Obama has it exactly right. The people who are going to have to give up their "piece of pie" are the top 10%, our economic "elite" who have paid for Bush's tax cuts with campaign "contributions" (legalized bribery).
It's time for the rest of the American people to share the wealth. That's what Michelle is saying.
The top 10% of this country's taxpayers pays 70% of the tax bill.
The only ones getting a free ride are the poor.
You are misguided, but well intentioned. Those you call the "elite" already pay more in taxes than anyone else. They have not stole anything from anyone. They have wanted the very thing the founders promised a freedom to suceed and they have. Now a group of people believe we should punish the very people who have achieved the American Dream. It is just a shift in our Country away from personal responsibility to a handout culture. We should not "share" wealth that is not what our culture was founded on. If you want to share go to China or go back in time to USSR. America was founded so that people could be responsible for their own actions.
On another note. If Jefferson was such a hero you would note that his seperation of Church and state quote is dramaticized by some. In reality Jefferson himself did not want a total seperation he actually attended non-denominational services in the house chamber as President.
Here's an income and income tax breakdown for our country. The first percentage is the proportion of total income. The second is the percentage of income tax paid.
Top 1% Over $364,657 21% 39%
Top 5% Over $145,283 36% 60%
Top 10% Over $103,912 46% 70%
Top 25% Over $62,068 68% 86%
Top 50% Over $30,881 87% 97%
Bottom 50% Under $30,882 13% 3%
Let's construct an imaginary country of 100 individuals, each representing 1% of the population, and let's say the TOTAL income for all of them is $100.
So the top guy gets $21
The next four get a total of $15...$3.75 each.
The next five get a total of $10...two bucks each
The next fifteen get $22...or $1.47 each.
The next 25 get $19...or 76 cents each.
The bottom 50 get $13 total...exactly 26 cents each.
Now, I realize this is an oversimplification. The income figure for each category is an average number, and not every person gets the same amount. But bear with me for a moment, and I think you will see my point.
If the top 10 people, whose total income is $46, almost half of the $100, gave $13 to the bottom 50, it would double the income of each of those 50 people! And the top 10% would STILL have a third ($33) of the total. Would the loss of less than a third of their income disincentivise them, cause them to quit striving to make even more money? I don't think so. And just think what a vast improvement that would be for half the people in my little imaginary country!
Getting straight to the point. The democratic party has tried too many new things too fast. I am going to pass on the PC and get to the issue. Still to this day Obama is Black, he is not mixed, blended w/e. That is not the factual case but that is perception. And Clinton beyond my personal issues with her 'legitimate residency' in New York to attain her position in the Senate is a woman. You are going to have large segments of the population who will not vote for either of them because of those two rather insignificant 'perceived' facts Black and Woman. In my opinion they need a standard candidate for VP who 'centrists' can feel safe with voting for like they've done since the first time they voted.
Universal health care costs less per capita in developed countries than privatized health care like the US. Perhaps a few billion less per day on a war could alleviate the concern for how to cover the costs of universal health care.
As per education, I lean towards the German model of thirds. 1/3 of the population goes through what would be HS, 1/3 goes through most of HS and then a vocational training, and 1/3 college-paid for 4 years in full. This classification of people into thirds based on capacity is obviously a murky pool. The simple fact is that their literacy rates are far higher. I know this is not the only judge of education but when I presented the opportunity to fill out voter registration for a group of seniors, about half of them drew a map to where they lived when the box the map was drawn in specifically said if you are homeless draw a map to where you usually sleep at night. I do not doubt they could read the words - they had homes because above the box they had filled out the addresses of their homes - because afterwards I had them read the individual words, they just had no comprehension. Basically it's me being pragmatic. If people are struggling with the most basic concepts of reading and math, what is the point of forcing them to engage in higher forms and abstractions thereof? Unequal gifts/talents can not be expected to be addressed by dragging the slowest up and putting breaks on the fastest.
"Would the loss of less than a third of their income disincentivise them, cause them to quit striving to make even more money? I don't think so. And just think what a vast improvement that would be for half the people in my little imaginary country!"
Bert, I already pay 28% on the first $33k of my income, with a 5% surcharge up to $169k. So essentially what you're describing is what I already do. Your hypothesis doesn't seem to be helping anyone at the lower levels of society, any more than Mr. Bush's current taxation program. In fact, the 2 ideas are almost identical.
During the Clinton years, my marginal rate was even higher...............and yet there were more people in poverty, per capita, than today. How do you explain that, Bert? The marginal tax rate went down in the past 8 years, more people became wealthier, and fewer percent of the population are now in poverty. No standards have changed, Bert. And as your own figures show, you now have to make $103k to be in the top 10% of US taxpayers. That same figure was $78k during the Clinton years. Nope, don't blame inflation.............that has been a fairly low number (less than 2% on average).
There is exactly the problem. The tope should not have to give more because they would feel it less. That is what is wrong. When the income tax started it was simply a tax of 1-7% on the richest one percent. Then government grew out of control. Everyone should pay the same to enjoy the same benefits. Yes, that does mean reducing government. It is not the federal governments job to do many of the things it does.
What you leave out of your equation is personal responsibility. People are resposnsible for thier own actions. In America we have a opportunity to have sucess or fail on our own merits. That is a great opportunity that most people do not get. You dont get the upside opportunity if you just take it away to give it to those that just want the handout. That is how you destroy the America Dream.
All his major bills are co-sponsored with republicans. Obama/Lugar, Obama/Coburn. His first foreign trip in the senate, he was invited by Hagel. Those are facts.
You make my point for me, Alan.
Obama is showing no leadership here. He has his own pet projects, and when he finds a like-minded Republican, he gloms onto him. However, he has never compromised anything. In the minimal amount of legislation he's been a part of, he never moves away from his Liberal base to reach across the aisle in a show of bipartisanship. He always makes the other person come to him...............on the Left Wing.
Obama won't stretch to see the other person's point of view - you have to see it Obama's way, or he won't do a damn thing for you. I heard Lindsay Graham say something to that effect last week while chatting it up on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. Truly enlightening stuff, I thought.
You just can't say the same for McCain. He reaches across the aisle in a bipartisan manner almost daily.
Looks like you started something here. Got a bit off topic, but lively.
I believe Wes Clark should have a place in an Obama cabinet, & believe he'd take Defense in a minute. And do a damn good job at it. Rhodes Scholar & 4-star general makes a good resume.
If Publius comes back I'd like to hear a few examples of the kind of things our government is doing that it shouldn't be. I'd like him to explain how the rebuilding of New Orleans should be done if not by the Fed Gov.
My list of things would be topped by this disaster in Iraq.
As for taxes, why shouldn't the people who control the wealth and make the income pay the taxes? The national infrastructure supported their wealth accumulation - despite their shrieking that they earned it all through hard work alone. A public education system gave them clerks, firemen, bank tellers, engineers, etc; a public highway system gave them a means to transport whatever their companies produce (if anything). The wealthy owe the opportunities they had to, yes hard work and intelligence, but if there's an honest bone in their body, they'll have to admit that they owe a huge debt to the United States as a country (crumbling infrastructure and all). And if they're honest, they'll quit their whining, pay their taxes and be thankful they're making enough money to OWE taxes.
The Cons above are wrong about McCain. Yes he's STATED some reasonable positions (McCain-Feingold) on issues such as the selling of our government, but shown he's willing to sell out for the screeching preacher support.
On the 1st $128,450 of taxable income everyone pays exactly the same amount, $24,972.50, which is 19%. Even if a taxpayer makes $350,000 in a year, his total income tax is $94,706, or 27%.
Modern,
You have just stated what I consider the "Republican Mantra." Basically, it goes like this:
Rich is Good
Poor is Bad
I am rich, therefore I am honest , hard working and of good character.
You are poor, therefore you are dishonest, lazy and of bad character.
It's YOUR fault you are poor. You could correct that if you really wanted to.
I wrote a piece that analyzed and debunked this arrogant, selfish (and often racist) notion.
Here is the link.
I will leave the debunking of Bret's many fallacies in the competent hands of Gary.
I like your suggestion of Wes Clark. I think he would be an excellent choice to figure out what to do about Iraq...and Afghanistan.
I would like to see John Edwards somewhere (almost anywhere) - Vice President, Secretary of Labor, and Attorney General all sound good to me.
I agree with you about Edwards. He was higher on my "preferred president" list than either Obama or Clinton...and so was Kucinich.
"As for taxes, why shouldn't the people who control the wealth and make the income pay the taxes? The national infrastructure supported their wealth accumulation - despite their shrieking that they earned it all through hard work alone."
Gary, its gotten past the point of just The Rich paying "their fair share". They're paying 70% of all taxes paid............as Bert pointed out above.
At what point is the government completely owned by The Rich?
At what point do The Poor have no claim at all on any Equity in this government?
The lowest 50% of all US taxpayers contributed only 3% of the country's taxes. That's getting pretty darn bad. Soon I expect to hear they paid nothing..........
those are not Pet projects. You know what Pet refers to? Not your canine ok :)
He shows no leadership in those bills that he's involved in.
He also shows no bipartisanship in those bills you mentioned. Now if he had reached a compromise on Iraq War funding, for example, or something he had to cross the aisle on...............THEN you'd have something to talk about. Meanwhile, Obama stays in his comfy, warm Liberal corner, rarely venturing out to see what's actually going on outside the Liberal world. Like most Libs we all know. Insulated. Safe. Dumb and happy about it.
Why hasn't this guy gone to Iraq, so that he at least looks somewhat knowledgeable on this subject that he seems so passionate against? He looks like a rube with his head buried deep in the sand here on the Iraq issue, Alan.
Is he afraid of seeing and hearing the truth over there (i.e. that we're actually winning)?
The only people who think that are the neocons...including McCain.
Everybody else knows better.
Ah yes, Bret, but what YOU failed to point out is that that top 10% that paid 70% of the tax had HALF OF THE TOTAL INCOME! Puhleeze do not quote me out of context.
Again, you failed to tell the whole story. The bottom 50% of the people earned only 13% of the income. You know damn well that most of those people are living well below the poverty line, and yet you are complaining that they should pay more taxes.
Even Bush, who likes to call himself a "compassionate conservative" would not advocate that!
Publius is making a classical libertarian argument. It is an issue that the Libertarian camp is beginning to question as some of it's more advanced thinkers Disagree - specifically James P. Sterba and Tibor R. Machan. Your argument, as theirs, boils down to have the poor exploited all the opportunities available to them to lift themselves out of poverty. Sterba and Machan disagree and their arguments are extremely interesting and come to a "conflict of liberties."
Secondly, I can not fault Publius for sticking to his ideology of libertarianism with the notion of decreased federal goverment. But I do question as Gary does what roles should the Fed play? Technically under strict libertarianism the only role the Fed Gov should play is National Defense.
3rdly I ask Publius to defend the grounding for his ideology. I see many common sense ideas in Libertarianism however I have never found a sufficient argument in defense.
To make a second point, its and association test, it does not mean you are a racist or sexist, it just means you have been exposed to a stereotype that acts subconsciously.
Bret W. : "Is he afraid of seeing and hearing the truth over there (i.e. that we're actually winning)?
Bert : The only people who think that are the neocons...including McCain.
Everybody else knows better."
Talk to Jack Murtha about it. He changed his mind quickly after a fast trip over there to see what was going on. His Marine buddies quickly schooled him :
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07334/837990-84.stm
The title of the article is : "Murtha : Surge is Working"
Bert, Murtha's not a NeoCon, is he? If not, then how could your assessment be true? In fact, Murtha is a Liberal, isn't he? So how can HE be saying this? Hmmmmmm, it must be true then...........
I guess the heat got too intense, so he's flipflopped again.
Murtha is a Democrat in name only, and is no credit to the party. But he is old, and some say, senile. If you want to use him to make your case, you are really desperate.
You and I are in total agreement on Murtha - he's a scumbag.
However, after visiting Iraq and seeing for herself that The Surge was working, Hillary came back and declared it too :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtw_qlzi-jg&feature=related
In addition, most of the 47 Blue Dog Democrats that have ventured to Iraq have also had similar "revelations" when they returned home.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/01/usnews/
whispers/main3123989.shtml
The only ones denying it, Bert, seems to be you and Obama....LOL
(Incidentally, why has Obama not gone to Iraq? I mean, he's pretty sure of his opinion on Iraq, isn't he? What would be the political fall-out if he were wrong?)
The vast majority of experts who have followed the situation there are in agreement that there will be no "victory" there. What will eventually happen is that whoever follows Bush...McCain or Obama or Clinton...will declare victory and pull out. McCain will just take longer to come to that conclusion, and will waste a few more hundred billion dollars and a few thousand more American kids before the pullout happens.
When the pullout is complete, what will remain is a Shiite-dominated theocracy that will be virulently anti-American, and just as oppressive as Saddam's regime.
You can call that "victory" if you want, but the truth is, we cannot impose our democratic capitalism on other countries. That is the lesson of Iraq.
"When the politicians go to Iraq, they stay in the Green Zone and are fed a line of BS...what the Pentagon wants them to hear."
Apparently Murtha went with his Marine buddies to Al-Anbar Province as well as Sadr City. Hillary went to Diyala Province.
Now I'm sure neither went into hostile areas, but at least they got to talk to more than just "the generals in charge".
"The vast majority of experts who have followed the situation there are in agreement that there will be no "victory" there."
No one is claiming total victory in Iraq. They're just saying that The Surge has worked...............in some cases, far better than they thought possible.
I think your assessment of what will happen in the future is slightly flawed for the following reasons :
1) The Iraqi government will need help maintaining order for a few more years, and they can't do it on their own.
2) Iran is not Iraq's friend, and al-Maliki knows that. He won't be dominated by them.
3) We have built up long-term relationships in Iraq that won't soon be forgotten.
4) We don't want a 'Taliban/Afghanistan' situation in the early 90's to occur in Iraq. We pulled out too early there in 1989, and it left the Afghan people vulnerable. Hopefully, we learned our lesson - that abandonment doesn't work out too well.
5) We want to look at Iraq as a success story in the Middle East for years to come. That may require long-term investment of time, money, and effort.
From what I have read, it seems unlikely that Iraq will survive as a nation. It was cobbled-together by the British, and has never made sense. Eventually it will become two or three small nations, and the problem will be to keep Iran from annexing the largest Shia portion.
What we have done is accelerate the breakup process which has destabilized the whole Middle East. There will never be a democratic nation of Iraq. Such thinking is neocon fantasy. We have to get over the idea that we can impose our political system on other nations. We cannot and should not. Only neocon/evangelical arrogance would even attempt such a thing.
1. As I noted earlier, he is one of 22 'scumbags' in Congress, 18 of whom are Republicans. He is no worse than most of them, playing the 'earmark game' for fun and profit.
2. The attacks on him by Bush and his buddies are yet another example of the 'take no prisoners' approach to the politics that they practice. As long as Murtha went along with their agenda, they slapped his back and treated him like a buddy. But once he 'crossed' them by changing his position on Iraq, they wasted no time going after him. It's all in the long tradition of people like Tom 'The Hammer' DeLay, thankfully now discredited and gone from Washington...but his basic fascist approach to politics has survived. Just ask Jack Murtha.
I think you're in a very small minority of folks that believes The Surge hasn't worked. Most of our party now falls in line with the well-founded opinion that it has turned this War around and sliced the violence into a small percentage of what it once was. Those facts really can't be argued, Bert. Go to icasualities.org and look at the numbers for yourself. It should be clear after you examine the empirical evidence.
I wrote an article about something I saw in the Atlantic magazine a while back about the possible "carve-up" of the Middle East that may occur in the coming years. You might like that one, Bert, as it has some interesting ideas on this subject :
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=
281474977258602&nav=Namespace
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't disagree that Murtha is a scumbag. His flip-flopping is legendary - and that was long before this War started. His involvement in AbScam is also infamous. The guy should be in jail, not in Congress.
While CREW is a lot less than ethical, or reliable, they occasionally get one right. This happens to be one of the few they got right.
Bret: "No one is claiming total victory in Iraq." The Administration has talked of nothing else for years. Then listen to McCain blast Dems for wanting to get out before we are victorious.
You are a piece of work. You bring new meaning to the term "spin doctor."
"Bret: "No one is claiming total victory in Iraq." The Administration has talked of nothing else for years. Then listen to McCain blast Dems for wanting to get out before we are victorious."
No, no one has claimed total victory. After that's done, the army packs up and leaves.
I support McCain's military contention that you don't leave before the job is done. Very, VERY few in the military want that.
"I love it, Bret, the way you cherry pick my comments. You like the fact that I criticize Murtha, but ignore all the other 'scumbags' in Congress doing the same thing...and then you call CREW unethical...except with regard to Murtha.
You are a piece of work. You bring new meaning to the term "spin doctor."
I can only comment on our own, Bert. I'm unconcerned with what the Republicans are doing. They do their own thing, and when we take our eye off our own ball, they crucify us. Let's just clean our own house, OK?
Murtha would be a great place to start. He's corrupt in so many ways, I can't even count them all.
CREW is less than ethical. Their tactics are shady, and they often accuse first - ask questions later. Not exactly a group I'd like to call "friends of the Democratic party".
He is no better than Murtha. Why don't you take on some Republican 'scumbags' while you are vilifying Murtha.
What is this about "only comment on our own" business? First of all that is silly, of course. Can't criticize members of the 'other' party? (Laughing) Come on, Bret. Your masquerade costume is slipping.
As you may have noticed lately in my writings, it is less about Republican vs. Democrat, and more about Conservative/Moderate vs. Liberal.
I was being honest. The Democratic party is no more pure than the Republican party. So I really don't care about that too much these days.
It's more about getting good Conservatives like Travis Childers (1st District Mississippi) elected to Congress. I'm sure he won't be good news to the likes of Nancy Pelosi.............but that makes me even happier....lol.
You claim to be a nonpartisan Conservative, and yet you support the neocon agenda...that is why I have trouble taking your claim to be a nonpartisan Conservative seriously.
I certainly agree with you that the Democratic party is no less 'pure' than the Republicans. But for most of the last eight years, the Republicans have been running the show, collecting most of the legalized bribery that our political system calls "campaign contributions." So at the moment, they are the 'pros' and the Dems are the 'amateurs' when it comes to corruption. (Murtha may be a rare exception to that.)
That is why I also find your willlingness to excoriate Murtha and ignore Republicans who are equally 'ethically challenged' inconsistent with your claim of political party neutrality.
Talk is talk and walk is walk, and you are walking like a Republican partisan duck. (grin)
None of that matters as far as what you have to say. It's a matter of being honest and not trying to misrepresent yourself. I think discussions like these are better if they stick to the issues and leave personal comments and attacks out of it, but in this case I will make an exception because I think you are trying to pretend that you are something you are not.
By the way, if you are the true nonpartisan you claim to be why did you say above:
It seems clear that you are trying to insinuate that you are, in fact, a Democrat, but so noble and self-critical that you wouldn't dare criticize a Republican. What hogwash!
Quit posturing, Bret, and just admit that your views are as biased as mine!
I think Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley are scumbags, and they got what was coming to them. There, do you feel better now, Bert? LOL
However, our party is so Far Left these days that when you see a Moderate, they look like a Fascist to the Lefties. They aren't a tolerant bunch.
Bert, I'm biased as hell. I admit that I'm against emotion-filled protesting and whining, but for logical, reasonable discourse. The former is the epitome of the Liberal mantra, the latter is the definition of a Conservative.
Bert, I am with your views all of the way ... right on!
Going back to the tax thing (I got here too late to mention it then), I thing it was Gary who hinted on what I am concerned about, those of the higher percentages of wealth that are WAY BEYOND the top mentioned figure of $376K (or whatever it was), where the wealth is so astronomical, that they have not only the ability to hide the truth of it, they have the ability to actually buy the changing of laws in their favour, both through K-Street and many other lesser known ways ... most, but surely not all, of which they have deemed legal, forgetting morality.
The point being, their wealth gives them the distinct ability to tilt the playing field in their favour, to the degree that those with lesser advantages have no chance really ... I think that Gary alluded to the fact that all of our highways and all other transportation infrastructure has been created just FOR THEM PRIMARILY ... sure, we get some trickle down benefits, but compared to what they get, we are just being pissed upon, especially the very poor, who are SO disadvantaged as to NEVER be able to get ahead ... it is rather sad, and very sick even, to any caring (read that "liberal") human being ... but to the likes of Bret and MDP ... it is all well and good because they are so brainwashed by the right-wing mantra that they even think they are a part of such as players ... rather than the pawns that they really are.
IMnsHO.
Why be envious of The Rich? Its such a gigantic waste of time.
There isn't anything you can do against them. Take away their money, and they'll be back in a year with a new fortune. Resistance is futile, Jerry. LOL
Bret,
It has taken me awhile. but I have finally figured you out.
You are not interested in serious discussion. You are playing games here.
Now, that is okay. People come here for various motives. Some, like me, try to promote their ideas, and get feedback from people who both agree and disagree...to learn from the process.
You, on the other hand, are here to be clever and score debating points. To be sure, you have an agenda, but you are willing to change your declared orientation to whatever you feel gives you an edge in the debate. Yesterday, you were a Democrat, unwilling to criticize Republican 'scumbags.' Today you are a nonpartisan Conservative. Tomorrow what? Libertarian?
This is okay. You can play games like this to your heart's content. It has just taken me awhile to 'calibrate' you, and to figure out if I should take you seriously.
It is clear that I should not.
I feel exactly the same, but reverse all that you said and place "The Poor" in place of "The Rich".
I'm not playing games here. I am seriously asking you how you could support this Obama fellow. He's just too green.
I think 'how green' will be exposed to just about everyone with a set of eyeballs, this Summer.
His tactical boffo today was just a mild precursor of hilarity to come, for Obama.
On the topic of visiting Iraq. The leader of Iran visited Iraq in broad daylight with thousands of his religious compatriots cheering him on in Iraq. While our leaders have all the different sects upset with them. We must accept we are outsiders and will always be viewed as such. I don't think there is a "win."
As to our leaders, I do not really see the common American in office anywhere. that is just not how our system runs. I have a slightly "classical Republican" idea that the best should lead us. However our system doesn't even allow for that. It forces the best speakers and those with the best connections to be the leaders. When public speaking and connections are not necessarily what are needed to execute efficiently a public service role.
a) photogenic
b) slick talkers
c) adept at fundraising
The last may be the most important, and is a deliberate and calculated feature of our system, because it gives the moneyed powers in the country a great deal of control over the choice of candidates, and ultimately, the office holders.
It has often been said that Abe Lincoln could never be elected under the current system.
I do enjoy riling up Libs.............especially you. The kooky statements that come out of such an exchange are priceless.
However, I never said I wasn't serious about what I say on Gather. It just "happens" to rile up Libs............which I already said I enjoy. It just happens to be right, in addition to riling you guys up. I think that has something to do with the excessive amount of emotion you Libs place on simple discussion about the issues. You get so worked up talking about mundane issues like Entitlements and World Peace, and stuff like that. Meanwhile, we Conservatives are conservative because we look at all this stuff "at arm's length", and much more pragmatically.
And that is why you guys lose so often.
I think many of us out here in America also share your desire for "the best and the brightest" to run the country. We want somebody superior to the common man, to be the President. But as you stated, that doesn't always happen.
Slick talkers often capture the national yearning for superior leadership. Obama is a prime example of what you observed : somebody who looks good, sounds good, and is a silver-tongued orator...............but not necessarily the best candidate.
Screw all those poor people. They are just lazy good-for-nothings, anyway.
Anybody with half a brain realizes that World Peace is a laughable Kumbaya-style concept. This is the real world we live in.
We Conservatives argue these concepts "at arm's length" in the same way that anyone would who is concerned with the facts. Excess emotion, as displayed my many on the Left (and few Conservatives) is the reason you guys get hot under the collar and start calling us names. Personally, I chuckle when that happens.................which seems to make you Libs even hotter.
Why get so worked up? We're looking for solutions and good discussion, right?
Obama doesn't appear to be the answer, as I elaborated on in Bent Lorentzen's article, Bert. Thanks for the link.
Your lack of "emotion" could be interpreted as a lack of concern for your fellow man.
Now that is certainly a "pragmatic" view, I concede. I don't view my concern for those things as "excess emotion," but I don't admire your lack of emotion either.
I think Obama represents a possibility of a changed worldview for our nation, and I think a lot of people share that optimistic view, rather than the cynical, "at arms length" view that you take.
Knowing the inherent nature of Man, World Peace as a concept may be a worthy, if unattainable goal.
Homelessness, poverty, and lack of medical care is exactly what LBJ's failed "War on Poverty" tried to correct. Look at the statistics, and you'll see that today we have more people per capita with homes, above the poverty line (its been dropping consistently since Reagan), and better quality medical care for more people.
My lack of emotion is not indicative of less concern. Most Conservatives realize these are endemic problems that will never go away, no matter what we do. It's just like malaria or herpes - you can never completely get rid of it............you can only treat the symptoms. Which is what we do today.
Obama's viewpoint is an "already tried and failed" viewpoint : that of Jimmy Carter. He proved back in the 70's that Socialism was not popular here in the US...............and it doesn't provide the results we wanted either. Obama simply dusted off Carter's failed policies, repackaged them with the "viral hook" of Bush's unpopularity, then sold them off to the American voter with his silver tongue.
Hopefully we'll see this charlatan for what he really is.
Over and out.
Quite the contrary, this discussion has moved along nicely................although not the way you might have wanted.
Obama's record has been exposed here like in very few other threads I've been on. You've delved in ideas and concepts that political hacks like Clark Kent would never have ventured into. So kudos to you!
But I think we're both seeing that Obama is not the well-vetted candidate we'd all like to see running for President. In stark contrast to that assessment, Obama seems to trip over the facts repeatedly. I'm curious how he's going to win the "key states" he needs to win. Any ideas how he'll win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and New Jersey? He lost all of those - some by as much as 41 points (WVa).
Of course you value such "realistic pragmatism", wouldn't want to get all sentimental over the plight of others who you step on ... they just have to be lazy undeserving Libs wanting only to bring you down to their level ... scorn them instead, make jokes about them and see just how riled up you think you can make them because they are so dumb as to want something better for the entire nation and world, even for the people like you ... hoping you might be nice to the less fortunate and try to appreciate them at least for their desire of improvement for all ... as ridiculous and silly as that seems to you, just wasted emotions better spent mowing your lawn and taking out your trash I guess ...
Anyway, I am with Bert (naturally) 100% as compared to the minuscule % I would give for your ideas Bret ... but one other thing, you don't REALLY rile me up, not anymore now that I understand you, you only disappoint me in spending so much effort conflicting here with the better ideas that could work if everyone got together and tried them ... those of you that really think you are upsetting us to the degree you prefer to believe, are only lying to yourselves to make yourselves feel some momentary sense of decency by denying that we have any, as if putting us down somehow raises you up ... NOT ! Sorry to inform you ... not that you would ever believe anyone to your Left anyway ... thus all a waste of time on my part ... but it is late and nothing better going on at the moment ... enjoy.
"Bret, you are typical of so many conservatives, keep the important things at arms length"
Correct!
That's the only way to be open-minded about them, Jerry.
That's why we Conservatives do what we do.
We leave the emotion-filled ranting to you Lefties.
"Of course you value such "realistic pragmatism", wouldn't want to get all sentimental over the plight of others who you step on"
Negative, Jerry. Being pragmatic is a major element in seeing the Big Picture. We love the input of everyone involved in an issue. Unfortunately, that's why it takes so long to get laws passed. But hey, there's a setback or two to every good thing in life. We accept that..................meanwhile, you guys picket and protest.
Which only serves your own selfish needs.
Not good, Jerry.
"I personally see little if any real value in picketing and mass protestation"
And yet it remains a staple of the Left, to this very day. Incidentally, anti-war folks were out picketing earlier this morning at the Thompson Center, in downtown Chicago.
"which usually ends up looking like some carnival of idiots"
No arguments from me. So why do you guys do that if you know you'll end up looking like "fringe elements"?