On his current trip, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama seems to be doing a good job of persuading the world and - perhaps more importantly America - that he is, indeed, presidential material.
In his various stops so far he has succeeded in making his opinions known without stepping on the toes of the current U.S. president.
He has called for an increasing troop presence in Afghanistan and his position on Iraq - a substantial pullout in 16 months - seems to be in line with that of Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, the opinion of a majority of Iraqis and possibly even that of the Bush administration, all of which leaves McCain, at least for the moment, apparently standing alone out in the cold.
He has persuasively assured Israelis and - perhaps more importantly - Jewish Americans, that he is concerned about the security of Israel, that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran and that he will not dictate to Israel what the terms of its negotiations with the Palestinians should be. And, at the same time, he has emphasized that he would work from day one to facilitate a lasting peace agreement.
He also had dinner in Amman, yesterday, with King Abdullah of Jordan and, today, met with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
On Thursday Obama will journey to Europe where the enthusiasm for his candidacy will be more than apparent. Given the beating that America's reputation in the world has taken over the past seven years it should be very heartwarming for the voters in the United States to see the outpouring of support that will be accorded to this American.
His speech in Berlin, tomorrow, is expected to be particularly well received.
From there it's anticipated that he'll visit an equally enthusiastic France on Friday and Great Britain on Saturday.
Of course, controversy has not been entirely left out of the itinerary. The principal complaint, of several, from the McCain camp seems to involve the accusation that the press is favoring Obama.
This is more than a little strange considering the flack Obama has taken in the media over his relationship with Reverend Wright and nearly every other controversial person he has ever known, not to mention the recent criticism over his lack of support for the surge.
Meanwhile, it may actually be McCain that keeps getting a pass from the press. Little is made of his gaffes, such as his references to "Czechoslovakia" (which disappeared from the map 15 years ago) and "the Iraq/Pakistan border."
In a recent interview with Katie Couric, McCain's comments that the surge had brought an improved situation to Al Anbar province were edited out of the interview because the improvement there occurred well before the surge was implemented.
Yet Couric pressed Obama, in another interview, with question after question over whether the surge, which he opposed, was responsible for the improved situation in Iraq.
The McCain camp also took umbrage at the fact that the New York Times sent back the senator's op-ed article because it was too vague. There was no definition offered, for example, as to what the candidate would consider to be the circumstances that would justify a pullout.
Well, three cheers for at least one newspaper in the country. It's about time someone tried to pin down the Bush/McCain strategy which, in the past, has seemed to justify our continued involvement in Iraq regardless of what the conditions have been on the ground.
So, while serious national problems seem to be AWOL from McCain‘s rhetoric lately, his litany of complaints about Obama's trip and the alleged media bias have perhaps best been characterized by U.S. News & World Report's description that the presumed Republican nominee has just been "howling in the wind."
Meanwhile, the presumed Democratic nominee appears to be riding high, but it should be noted that the campaign has a long way yet to go.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Friday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will often appear on another day of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of an eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development.
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 147
Good Article Dave.
Blessings ~
Rene
To say that Obama scored that much on his wonder whirl trip in the Middle East does no credit to your past efforts. What Obama did do was draw much attention to himself and that was his political victory.
I wish doubtful people could see beyond Obama's mixed race to the very intelligent and capable man he is.
The New York Times refused to publish the McCain Op-Ed unless he provided additional information including "timelines." They also directed him to include more specificity. First, how can the man re-write the article to include a position he does not believe in. Secondly, his Op-Ed was very specific compared to the one written by Obama (NOTE: Full text available on Drudge Report.) Finally, an Op-Ed is just that - an OPINION EDITORIAL. I thought "Freedom of Speech" included the right to express an opinion.
In the past four (4) months, McCain had taken three (3) trips abroad including the Middle East, Canada, Colombia, and Mexico. No anchors tagged along. In fact some broadcast and cable networksincluding CNN did not even send a correspondent on some of these trips.
Obama has been on the cover of "Newsweek" and "Time" magazines a dozen times in the last three (3) years which is twice as often as McCain was featured.
Simply, Obama gets more coverage. Agreed not all of the coverage has not been favorable but the sheer volume of the coverage keeps him out front.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reported that news executives and journalists have told him that one of the reasons Obama is on all those magazine covers, entertainment shows, and get more air time is that Obama is good for ratings and circulation. Obama sells!
Per Kurtz " journalists are not supposed to have their thumb on that scale (of fairness)." Mr. McGill, NEWS CORRESPONDENT, would be well to heed the words of an experienced journalist.
Is this site about "democracy" or "Democraticism?"
So which is it, that the press are favoring Obama by following him all over the middle east and Europe on this trip, giving him way too much press (according to McCain's campaign and others), etc. OR Obama hasn't brought too much attention to himself?
It helps credibilty not to make contradictions in fact and your own logic.
That's because Obama is doing more. McCain is simply parroting his same whining platitudes over and over. If he has something important to say the press would cover him more.
"The New York Times refused to publish the McCain Op-Ed unless he provided additional information including "timelines.""
The NYT simply asked him to write something more than a campaign rant against Obama. They have published McCain many times in the past and even endorsed him for the Republican nomination. They will publish this one if it has substance (I read the piece, and my opinion is that it was campaign whining; the NYT would have asked Obama to rewrite his piece if it was this low in substance). And no one is asking McCain to write what he doesn't believe in. At least be honest with the facts.
"Simply, Obama gets more coverage. Agreed not all of the coverage has not been favorable but the sheer volume of the coverage keeps him out front."
So all the negative coverage that Obama has been getting is good for his campaign? Like the coverage of McCain mangling so many names and concepts is good for McCain's campaign? That's just silly.
"Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reported that news executives and journalists have told him that one of the reasons Obama is on all those magazine covers, entertainment shows, and get more air time is that Obama is good for ratings and circulation. Obama sells!"
I would agree that this is true. Magazines and newspapers and TV programs live by ratings, which allow them to charge higher advertizing fees. Which is why people like most of Fox News' primetime line up and Lou Dobbs on CNN are as vociferous and controversial as they are - it sells.
So why does Obama sell better than McCain? Well, perhaps because Obama has the ability to inspire people. Perhaps because he has ideas that excite people. Perhaps because people think that McCain is just more of the same policies that obviously people want to get away from. Perhaps because Obama is actually doing more to prepare us for the future, rather than simply parroting the same old tired platitudes and whining about media coverage.
The job of a President is to lead, to guide, to inspire. That's why people want to see Obama on the cover of Time. Because the time is now and the place is the future. Obama is the future. McCain is merely a retread of the past. It's as simple as that. This is what the majority of Americans believe.
My sincere feeling is that Barack Obama would be a great President, and perhaps more importantly, exactly the kind of President we need now. I think John McCain is best suited to continuing his work in the Senate. In fact, I think an Obama presidency will enable people like McCain, Clinton, and the cast of still-fresh faces in Congress to shine, to follow their ideals, to help make this country great again.
I have modified this position because of what this idea of his to retreat from Iraq and charge into Afghanistan. I think Obama is starting to misstep in his strategy planning over the war and it makes me wonder if he is really a clear on priorities as he should be.
The world does not care about America, they care about some of the negative effects Bush's policies on them. As long as Bush was gone they would not care if we were gone either.
Well, the world has needed us to save it twice in the last hundred years, so I think, they had better do a better analysis on us/US.
I will not switch my vote because as important as the war is, domestic policy is even more so. I have changed my evaluation of Obama somewhat ... I think he says things intelligently, even if they are not that intelligent. He plays word games and it has gotten him to this point pretty close to leader of the free world, but if he does not start leading intelligently, and stop just trying to look like a intelligent leader I would not be unhappy if at the Democratic convention they want to back and drafted Hillary.
> Walter Cronkite is turning over in his grave.
He would be if he was in his grave ... since he is still living.
> My sincere feeling is that Barack Obama would be a great
> President, and perhaps more importantly, exactly the
> kind of President we need now.
I hope so but I can only say I can just wish that Obama
will rise to the occasion should he be elected. I see signs
of bad decision making and compromised.
I wrote an article about Obama and ethanol, where I think
he either does not understand the issue or is pandering
the corn farmers.
As I mentioned the leave Iraq go to Afghanistan strategy
really leaves me cold ... not that there are any good alternatives,
but that seems actually bad.
So I am stuck voting for someone based on hoping that he
is not just making political noises to get elected and will
eventually do the intelligent thing as a leader.
What I hear is intelligence. I hear a deeper understanding of the roots behind the issues, not just the surficial stuff we hear from McCain. I hear the potential to make things happen.
Of course, this requires us all to be engaged...to take seriously our own responsibility in the management of this country. Obama understands that and encourages it. And means it.
If you want credibility for your candidate David, you at least have to be honest in your writing.
Also, the author fails to mention that Obama will not bring troops home from Iraq, he will leave them "in the area" you know, just in case. Well, where, for how long? I mean his Mideast policy is a muddled mess. He claimed yesterday emphatically that Iran can't have a nuclear bomb. What is going to do about it?
The author really needs to sort out his own candidate's positions before attacking the other side.
In fact, he does this with the Iranian and the Iraqi issue's, as well. You are RIGHT, Kay; what is he going to do IF he is elected??? Bomb Iran, and leave the Troops "somewhere nearby? I do not see him as a "flopper;" he actually plays BOTH sides of the fence. We'll see who buy's this garbage...
What McCain can't get around is that the decision to go into Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in the history of the country. And to top it off, it was poorly planned, poorly executed and has been a nightmare for everyone except the FOGs. The surge may have worked, but it was just putting a bandaid on an open wound. The damage had already been done.
Mark, you don't have to use an apostrophe with buys. In any case, McCain doesn't offer anything that Bush didn't, and that's why he's not getting any press, except for his daily screwup. He's old news.
And while we are on the subject of proper grammatical structure, band-aid and screw-up are either hyphenated or two words, not one.
It's either Bush's surge, or just the surge. It's not McCain's surge, since he wasn't in a position to authorize it, despite his readiness to take credit. His tap dance around the issue yesterday was a classic: all he needed was a hat, a cane and some tinkly piano music in the background.
As for where the troops will go, my bets would be Kurdistan and Kuwait. But I don't know: and that's for Obama and his advisors to determine.
Regarding the surge, you may of forgotten the grilling he gave Rumsfeld on troop levels; he was pounding the table for more troops since the beginning, so I believe it is fair to call it the McCain surge. I do however, understand your reticence as an Obama supporter to give McCain credit for anything.
Very well written and the entire article just flowed together in the way that only you can do it!
I've been following Obama's trip and you touched on an important point that has somewhat eased my mind regarding his presence over there. He IS getting the respect due a presidential candidate. It's been a long time since I've seen anyone representing America get much respect out there in the world.
I think he has already done a lot toward smoothing all the ruffled feathers from the Bush camp even though he has a long, rough road ahead of him.
Perhaps to you he is "saying nothing and doing it so well"
Maybe you just cannot hear him.
I remember Bush's trips to the Middle East and the throngs of protesters with death threats screaming him sillier than he was when he landed.
I stand behind my comment and add that it is refreshing to see our future president being treated so respectfully after the Bush debacle. Bush can't leave office fast enough for me!
Kay K. what world are you living in? perhaps you've been asleep the last 8 years or your just such a partisan that you can't seem to even do what your boy McCain says in his own commercials....put country first.
I wouldn't be surprised if your John John wouldn't take his own advice and vote for Obama.
1. George Bush was re-elected in the midst of a very unpopular war.
2. For the last seven years we have enjoyed the most growth with the lowest
unemployment rate.
3. Had it not been for this war, which I was against, we would all be classifying Bush as a
good, not great president. His main flaw was delegating too much responsibility to others, hence his presidency was at times uneven and lacked a clear cohesive message.
I do not support either candidate, I do however support fairness and honesty.
Second, I am glad Spencer that you are in agreement with John McCain that more troops were needed in Iraq from the very beginning.
I find it silly that anyone thinks the media is giving Obama a pass. I watch mostly MSNBC and everyday they seem to come up with another take on why Obama ISN"T doing as well as apparently "they" think he should be doing. Chris Mathews asked NBC Political Chief Chuck Todd why Obama was doing so well in many state polls, but only led McCain by an average of 6 percentage points in the national polls of that day. Todd quickly shut down the notion stating that a 6 point win in a general election would amount to an electoral blow out. But Mathews acted like he didn't even hear Todd's answer and continued asking the question of every pundit he had on his show that day. Today they pounding away on a poll that shows more Americans see Obama as a riskier choice than McCain.
So, the media may be spending more time covering Obama, but I'm no so sure that automatically a good thing.
"1. George Bush was re-elected in the midst of a very unpopular war."
George Bush "STOLE" both elections and did so right underneath our very noses. If not for our VERY Republican friendly U.S. Supreme Court, Al Gore would be our president right now and their would be 4000+ American soldiers alive right now instead of dead.
"2. For the last seven years we have enjoyed the most growth with the lowest
unemployment rate."
Now that is what I call historical revisionism at it's worst. Compared to the Clinton administration, Bush's economic legacy will be compared with the likes of Herbert Hoover. My God Lady, our economy is worse condition than it's been in over 50 years. Get a grip.
"3. Had it not been for this war, which I was against, we would all be classifying Bush as a
good, not great president."
Bush has seen the lowest approval ratings of any president since such measurements have been taken. And not just the lowest, but the longest sustained lowest ratings. And when you take into consideration that polls show 80% of Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction, and the issues most important being the economy around 50%, energy around 25% and the Iraq war at 10%, you realize there is nothing that would make anyone believe Bush was anything but a VERY bad president.
Unfortunately, the job description for the Presidency does not mention "looking presidential", but we have just experienced 8 years of what happens when a President is not an effective communicator (unless there is time to prepare a script and get a TelePrompTer). It appears Obama favorite word is "Uhhhhhh" in his unscripted appearances.
I wonder if the media will reevaluate their enthusiasm for Obama after this trip. Between the campaign's "fake interviews" charge (Andrea Mitchell-NBC), and Obama's poor extemporaneous performances, reporters may be nervous about appearing to be "in the tank" for Obama. IMHO
Bush "stole" both elections. Based on what facts, Devin? Mindless conspiracy theories have no place in an intelligent conversation.
You say I have "revised" economic history. Again based on what facts. Our employment rate hit a record 5.2 percent, an all time low. You wish for me to "get a grip" and that our economy has been the worst in 50 years. Again, please list facts. When the lines for the latest I-Phone and Nintendo video game among other unnecessary electronic toys disappear, then I will entertain your point. The truth is that the consumer up until this year was buying, buying, buying.
As I stated in my comment, were it not for the war, Bush would be considered, a good, not great president. Nothing in your muddled and confused response changes the facts of my statement.
"Bush stole both elections!" =)
And, some VERY telling empirical evidence...lowest un-employment rate, as Kay has already mentioned...and most consecutive quarters of PRODUCTIVITY!!!
No "revised" economic History, there!
So, to continue this peace, as McCain suggests, then all we need to do is bankrupt our own country and continue supporting another country, indiscrimately handing out cash.
I like Obama's plan better.
Also, please include your supporting facts for the widespread graft.
Just kidding (sort of.) I'll take a warrior over a preacher any day.
You are in rare form here Kay, lots of good points. I still do not want McCain as President though.
Second, be jealous of Obama's media machine, or make your own. The press isn't following Obama to see if he does something -- they follow that campaign because it has promised to do something and has not disappointed.
Third, part of the US population will vote for flash, part for party, and part for substance. Sen. McCain, do what you need to do in each of this areas with policies that are right for this country, and the press will follow you, too.
This same things burns me about the Leftists’ “Reagan rhetoric.” He inherited a decimated Military, thanks to Carter. Yes, the Left is correct, he did spend more than most…but he had a choice: re-tool our Military and be vilified, or give this Great Country away. His spending on the Military, along with his brilliant Foreign Policy demeanor, and some brilliant Tax cuts, won us the “Cold war,” and salvaged this Nation.
I like his decision.
Nonsense. They feel a "thing going up their leg..."
Calling a balanced budget in the hole makes about as much sense as the rest of what you say mj. Reagan did not increase spending, he cut taxes on corporations and the rich and made bonds available so instead of paying taxes they lent the money to the rest of us which we then have to pay back ... don't like high taxes, you know who to blame ... once your come out of your dream world that is.
That is nonsense. Dana Perino, who is happy to give her boss George credit for almost anything, declined to give him credit for that. The real reason for the sagging oil price is that those evil speculators finally decided that the world economy is entering a rocky stretch of highway and demand for oil is going to sag. It's about DEMAND, not SUPPLY.
Really what is the freakin' difference between Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic??? Get a grip and get a real issue morons. The only difference in those names connotes freedom under the second, though the "people's republic of china" doesn't really conform to that measure does it ???
Obama didn't have to prove anything to me, I've been predicting this type of reception of him over seas for months now, and one of the many reasons Obama is the man to vote for in November.
The man is a born leader, and anyone unable to see this probably has a hidden agenda.
"In the Hole" referred to the 9/11 attack early in his Presidency, fool. He spent more than anyone to date, and to bring back a decimated Military. By God, man, wake up...
COMPREHENSION...
Who wouldn't be able to predict this type of reception in Europe...I knew the Commies, Socialists and Muslims would eat him up, over there. What in hell do you think he WENT THERE for?
To win the USA election in 2008.....
if you've been watching the news, he seems to be accomplishing that goal....
\\\\and some brilliant Tax cuts, won us the “Cold war,” and salvaged this Nation.//////
Tax cuts won us the cold war? Who are you kidding? And Regan's "tax cuts" actually raised my own personal taxes. I'm just not rich enough for it to have been a cut for me.
I have no problem with not getting a tax cut. If the leaders of this country, Bush or whoever, want to be honest about it there should never have been a tax cut. We are not getting sufficient revenues to cover our annual expenses and pay something on the national debt, as we should be to have sound fiscal policies.
borrow and spend is not the way to go! I object to financing a war of choice by charging and palming it off on my great grandkids.
We didn't "win" the cold war, the USSR failed from within as virtually everyone predicted it would! Regan just happened to be president at the time. Had they stuck it out until Clinton was in office I doubt seriously that you'd have given Clinton Credit for that.
We may have a sort of low unemployment rate but we have millions under employed. Workers to day are earning less in actual purchasing power than they were during the Clinton administration. Just talk to a few business men in your community, the economy is not in good shape. I suppose that is Clinton's fault also?
You're an intelligent man, so think about reality for a bit if you can clear your mind of its radical right wing indoctrination. But if you think things through you'll see that St. Regan did not accomplish much as president. But he had the stage presence to look good and impress the people. Talk about not handling unscripted press conferences! Regan gave up on them as he was so bad.
Obama is using Regan's play book knowing that the people want someone they like regardless of what he wants to do. They all claim to have the same goals, peace, prosperity and a chicken in every pot! Regan proved that not having clear laid out plans worked, he was elected. Obama is simply following that same plan. Tell them nothing but phrase it nicely and deliver it with great emotion. It works!
My hope is that Obama wins, and that he grows into the job. No one is "qualified" until he has lived in the oval office for a time. but good men will grow to meet the demands of the job. That is what Grant, Lincoln, Truman and several others did.
Kay, this is an interesting phrasing; giving more credit to McCain than even McCain does to himself. But how is this "McCain's surge?" Did McCain actually lobby for a surge? Didn't he stand up with the rest of the Cheney crowd and parrot the idea that we would be greeted as liberators, that the war would be a quick one, etc.? [Actually, he did say these things because the videos exist, though I'm too busy at the moment to dig them up for you.]
In any case, McCain was a proponent both of the war and the belief of a quick resolution. He was wrong. When things started going badly he was one of the first to start second-guessing and saying that we should have put more troops in in the first place. On this hindsight he was correct. And he advocated escalating the war with more troops when most Americans wanted us to get out. It appears that the escalation (I'm sorry, surge) had a positive impact on reducing the violence. He should get credit for that.
But that doesn't mean he was right about the war or that he is the right person for the job of being our next President. The fact that he mindlessly says "surge" in every breath shows how simplistic his view of the situation really is (remember the ridicule that Rudy Guliani got for saying 9/11 in every breath?). But of course, the situation isn't that simple. For example, the Anbar Awakening, which began long before the surge, has as much to do with the reductions in violence as did the extra troops on the ground. [The synergy between the two led to better success than either of the two independently would have ever achieved.] Also, the change in tactics instituted by General Petreaus - the focus on supporting regional leaders instead of emphasis on the central government (i.e., a bottom up approach instead of a top down approach) - was probably the single most effective strategy employed that led to the benefits seen on the ground. This change in emphasis is absolutely counter to the original Bush plan (if he had a plan). But even this plan is fraught with danger, since it actually diminished the authority of the central government in some ways. It will take some finesse and skillful handling to balance the regional gains with the need for a federal-level authority structure. It will take someone who is capable of seeing the complexity of the issues and is adept at handling varied viewpoints.
McCain clearly is not that person.
"1. George Bush was re-elected in the midst of a very unpopular war."
I suppose you say this to suggest that people think he is doing a good job. That wouldn't have been an accurate assessment even at the time and certainly wouldn't be now. Mostly Bush won his second term because 1) people are afraid to "change horses in the middle of a war," 2) most of what we know now about how Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz and others) misrepresented the data to mislead the people into thinking the war might be legitimate wasn't known until after the election, and 3) the poor campaign run by Kerry, made worse by his swiftboating, pretty much ensured even Bush would win. If we had known the extent of what we know now before the election the result could have been quite different.
"2. For the last seven years we have enjoyed the most growth with the lowest
unemployment rate."
I'll agree with those who say there is some revisionism in this statement. But I'll let others go into the detail and list some additional facts that might cause one to reconsider just what Bushes economic legacy should be:
- gas was around $1.50/gallon when he took office; it's well over $4/gallon now
- oil was around $35/barrel then; now its bouncing up to close to $150/barrel and will likely remain high and unstable for years
- unemployment has begun to climb again, though thankfully it is still low
- the stock market has fluctuated dramatically within a range as low as 10,900 and 14,200; this instability has hurt most Americans and is the result of Bush policies, both economic and military
- Bush inherited a surplus budget; which he immediately turned into annual deficits to the point where our national debt (which was starting to be reduced before he took office) has doubled during this time (and worse, most of our debt is owned by China - repeat after me, "owned by China")
- Palestine, Lebanon, and Russia were trending more toward democratic rule when Bush took office; now Hezbollah, Hamas, and Putin have much more influence
- Iraq had a dictator in power but also more or less stable electricity, water, and oil revenues to use for food and medicine when Bush took office; now they have a foreign country occupying them and more erratic electricity water and oil revenues than before
- Iran was essentially ostracised from the world community; now Iran has much more power and influence in the region
- all of these foreign policy issues directly affect our economy (negatively for most, though it has helped the oil companies make record profits)
- oh, and all those oil profits going to OPEC put tons of money into the coffers of the very terrorists you profess the surge and war has helped us "win"
"3. Had it not been for this war, which I was against, we would all be classifying Bush as a good, not great president. His main flaw was delegating too much responsibility to others, hence his presidency was at times uneven and lacked a clear cohesive message."
Who knows how we would have classified Bush in some hypothetical world in which he didn't invade a sovereign nation under pretense, or how he might be viewed 50 years from now. However, to suggest that his main "flaw" was delegation is to forget that it is the President's job to lead. That means delegation of tasks. It doesn't mean abrogation of his responsibilities. Also, it wasn't "gee, he delegated too much," it was the fact that he lied. He purposely misrepresented the facts to support going after a personal vendetta in Iraq, while completely ignoring the real threat we faced in Afghanistan. Meanwhile he guffawed his way through malapropism after malapropism and systematically denigrated the office of President. Worse, he destroyed any credibility the US had for world leadership and facilitated the acceleration of the international influence of China, the resurgence of Russia, the influence of Iran in the Middle East, and a host of other things that will be his legacy.
Also to suggest that he lacked a "clear cohesive message" is not giving him enough credit. His message are quite clear: 1) America is bigger than you and can do what we want, 2) we will use our control of the White House and the Congress to partisanize every facet of the government to our advantage, 3) we understand what is right and you're too stupid to understand, so just shut up and trust us. (or as Vice-President Cheney might phrase it - So?)
I suspect the Czech people think that it's more than just a name. Oh, and the Slovakian people too. You do realize that it's not just a matter of "freedom" or independence from the Soviet umbrella, that the former Czechoslovakia is actually two separate independent countries now. And in case you're unclear, Yugoslavia is also now split into several independent countries (and apparently still dividing itself).
It's a very big deal. These and others (including Iraq, by the way) are countries that were
cobbled together in large part by the colonial western powers. Hence why they don't get along so well. We better have an understanding of the importance of these countries and this trend or we're going to repeat the mistakes of the past. Since John McCain seems unable to extract himself from the old way of thinking, the choice becomes quite clear.
Aunt Boni
..
U
David K, lots of points to address. First, you try to psychoanalyze the voter in 2004, maybe your right, maybe not. Bottom line, the electorate had their chance to throw Bush out of Office in 2004, they didn't do it.
Second, you seem to hold Bush responsible for the oil crisis. You obviously forget that Bush was pressing for increased oil production after 9/11. To this day the democratic congress refuses to bring the matter to a vote. The stock market made an incredible recovery after 9/11 due to the Bush economic policies, the long bull market is now in a pause, due to the credit problems caused by greedy bankers and ignorant mortgagors who had no business buying a home.
David you say: "Who knows how we would have classified Bush in some hypothetical world in which he didn't invade a sovereign nation under pretense, or how he might be viewed 50 years from now. However, to suggest that his main "flaw" was delegation is to forget that it is the President's job to lead." Well yes, David, that of course is my point, which is why I classify this trait as a flaw, duh. Your allegations that Bush "lied" have not been proven, however if you have documentary evidence, please produce it. I will not address the obvious editorializing in your final paragraph because it is based on subjective opinion, not fact.
Ultimately historians will judge President Bush. I am sure that the detractors of FDR had the same harsh judgements after Roosevelt "placed" innocent Japanese in concentration camps and gave eastern Europe away to Stalin at Yalta. Now the left consider him to be one of our finest presidents.
It's a very big deal." Yes David, because McCain made the gaffe, that is why it is a "big deal" to you. Obama voting for a domestic spy bill, continued funding for a war he is against, being affiliated with a racist anti American church for 20 years, an association with a known American terrorist, etc. I'm sure is no big deal for you.
Actually, I would be interested in hearing someone explain McCain's Mideast policy as well. Anyone?
I would expect you to be more genuine in your debate...nice job "taking me out of context," but this is what my ACTUAL statement was:
"His spending on the Military, along with his brilliant Foreign Policy demeanor, and some brilliant Tax cuts, won us the “Cold war,” and salvaged this Nation."
I'm sorry, James, we DID win the "Cold War." Of course we knew that the Commies would fail, eventually...they were going against Reagan, and Communism ALWAYS fails. It was Reagans toughness and resolve that brought us through...Reagan and Gorbachev engaged in a "staredown," and in June of 1987, Gorbachev blinked.
You are correct about this, though; if Reagan hadn't won the "Cold War," no, we certainly wouldn't be caught giving the credit to Clinton...he wouldn't have known what to do about the U.S.S.R. Perhaps he might have "talked" them to death...
I did David, no one wants to answer me.
"Oh, by the way, I also will not address your obvious editorializing because it is based on subjective opinion, not fact. "
Okay, we're even then. :)
No, not entirely. But why did oil go up so dramatically during his watch? Might his decision to invade Iraq and alienate most of the world have had an impact at all? Certainly there are many market factors as well, and I acknowledge those.
"You obviously forget that Bush was pressing for increased oil production after 9/11. To this day the democratic congress refuses to bring the matter to a vote."
No, I don't forget. Bush and Cheney and other pro-business Republicans (and oil men) have been pressing for increased oil production forever, both before and after 9/11 (so suggesting that it had anything to do with 9/11 is disingenuous). I actually don't mind at all putting the idea of increased domestic oil production on the table for discussion. I think all energy options need to be considered. At this I also fault the Congress for not delving into the issue. But the point is that increasing our domestic output will not significantly affect the cost of oil or the price at the pump. As a commodity product, prices are impacted most significantly by the supply and demand on the world market. With China, India, Russia and everywhere else increasing their demands for oil, the prices will remain high. Opening up more domestic drilling will not seriously benefit consumers, but it will benefit the oil companies, especially since still none of them is investing their profits in new refinery capacity. Of course, the real question is, what have Bush and the Congress done to stimulate development of sustainable energy resources?
"The stock market made an incredible recovery after 9/11 due to the Bush economic policies, the long bull market is now in a pause, due to the credit problems caused by greedy bankers and ignorant mortgagors who had no business buying a home."
I'll partially agree with you on this one. The stock market and economy tanked after 9/11, and in fact the economy was already weakening during the 2000 election year before Bush took office. So he shouldn't be blamed for a weak economy. On the other hand, I suspect you're overstating Bushes influence on the recovery. Much of the recovery was simply a natural correction to the steep dive the market took after 9/11 (it dropped irrationally low due to fear, and rose back to normal when that fear subsided). Either way, it has been his policies that put us in such a precarious position related to our over-reliance on oil, the wild erratic swings of the market following our invasion of Iraq, and even the conditions that led to the current housing and mortgage crisis. We did enjoy a streak of rising share prices during the housing bubble expansion, but again, this popped and became erratic again after the bubble burst because no one was watching the store. Part of the governments job is to keep "greedy lenders" and "ignorant borrowers" from doing exactly what they did, because these people take us all down when they do.