OH PLEASE!! You think they are giving her money just to tell the world "the truth"?! They are giving her cash because they are counting on her to run for President in 2012.

I don't get to do this with you very often (heck, might be the first time) but ...

+1

Would that right situation be the second coming of Christ and a personal endorsement of Palin as he descends from the skies? If so, then I agree.

We'll never know. With the Palin selection, he alienated more people than he ever delivered on the religious right.

They ALL think she's going to run. She's probably been less noncommital than Romney has been.

Mods: Someone is posting as MBBF. This can't possibly be the same person that spent weeks saying Palin was a great choice.

I think Palin gets exposed in the primary debates, but I don't think Romney can get past his Mormonism. Regardless of who wins, that primary should be chock full of crazy.

Welcome to the club! We started it in August 2008.

I haven't seen any shirts that have the duo is reverse order ;)


fivethirtyeight.com, which seems to have a decent to good reputation thus far, seem to be very much on the same line of thought that Steve has. That if she wins Iowa (which is quite possible) then she's just an upset in New Hampshire away from becoming the clear front-runner. The article notes a recent (June) Pew poll that shows Palin with the highest net approval rating among GOP members (+56), well ahead of an improving Romney (+39) and Gingrich (+33).

In the scenario where the economy has recovered, I don't see how Romney has a shot in hell. He won't have a campaign to run. I think Palin easily beats him in that scenario.

I gotta give it up for that one. It was funny :D

SI

I was in favor of this and then some. I wanted them bought up and then smashed to smaller, non ologopolistic bits using the anti-trust stick before being spun back off. But no one has the political will to step up against large businesses these days.

SI

serious question here for those more familiar with internal-GOP politics - how does Romney's Mormonism play within the religious right of the party? I just don't see how they can ever seriously back him...

I always thought it was odd that Romney's Mormonism was an issue for the religious right. Mormons are very socially conservative, moreso than the average member of most Christian denominations.

I'd have to say the fact that he's seriously in the mix in spite of it says something about the desperation to find the right candidate. I did not/have not gotten any feeling that the evangelicals have totally ruled him out but I do think they're hoping something (anything) better comes along. It really feels like the 500 pound elephant in the refrigerator, hardly anybody seems to want to talk about it for fear of having to make a decision that might be avoided altogether (or saying something that'd be regretted later) if the right candidate comes along.

Actually, they just hire lobbyists and get government money either in a bailout or subsidy.

Seriously, tho, I'm pretty sure we're going to get some inflation soon that's going to hit us like a truck. In 2008, commodities were already starting to go up quite a bit and the only thing that slowed it down was the recession. If we don't get energy costs under control soon, it's going to make the 80s look like a picnic.

That said, if you can't spend a little extra money on a "rainy day" (i.e. recession) then when can you do it? Sure, we're playing with crazy numbers, but spending went from 3.1 (2009) to 3.6T (2010 projected) for a budget. $500B is a ton of money but percentage-wise, it's not crazy considering the economic situation. You cut back your government spending in good times and pay off debt while increasing it during the bad.

But, at the end of the day, none of us will have all that much to worry about. Because we didn't spend prudently and wasted a lot of our investing dollars, it won't help stave off the massive inflation that's coming. However, a $15T national debt isn't nearly so bad when it takes $2 to buy what $1 did 10 years ago, so that's like cutting the debt in half, right? :(


SI

It's all about doctrine. When I lived in MS many of my more religious conservative friends thought of Mormonism as a dangerous cult. I think that's tempering a little as there are a lot of issues where the religious right and Mormons can work together, but Mormons have very different beliefs about salvation and the afterlife that are hard to stomach for evangelicals.

To be fair, that's true of almost every primary that doesn't have an obvious front-runner.

SI

I don't think she gets exposed in the debates. What is there to expose? She will have the lowest expectations of any candidate. Her "gee-golly-shucks I don't have to answer that because it's a trick question, I just want to talk to the people" debate style will certainly suffice for a primary debate.

These have sort of been my impressions of it, and I'm just wondering how he can seriously be considered to be the nominee. Because you know at some point during the primary season if he starts to pull ahead and separate from the pack that it's going to get put out there, even if it's out of desperation, by one of the other candidates.

For that matter Palin's wacky "speaking in tongues" Pentacostalism probably would be too. Although I guess that somehow that'd be less of a problem.

One also could have made the bolded sentence arguement for McCain in 2007, right?

Not too big an issue in the South really. It's not mainstream by any stretch but as long as she doesn't start handling snakes in public it's not going to be a big deal here at all.

I don't even think Palin runs. She'll realize she has no shot. Will instead make millions writing books, giving speeches, and doing other political stuff.

Romney has too many skeletons in his closet from when he was Governor. The guy was more liberal than Obama.

Huckabee is likeable but too fringe to grab the newer and expanding voter blocks.

It's a numbers game. A GOP candidate can't win without cutting into the Dems lead in black and hispanic voters. Those are two growing demographics that go heavily in favor of the Democrats. They are also getting hammered on young voters and women. None of the candidates being mentioned in this thread do particularly well with those voters.

It's going to take a new name and voice to win in 2012. None of the names being floated stand a chance.

I actually think it'll be either Romney or someone who isn't even in the conversation right now who'll win the nomination in 2012 (and I think far more on the later than the former).

That's true long-term, but not for 2012. There's a certain logic to Buchanan's white resentment strategy and I expect that's what we'll see.

FWIW, I don't think there's anything wacky about speaking in tongues.

I bought in for a few weeks, but I was soured by some of her rhetoric. After the election, she just went off the deep end. I don't think she's handled the spotlight well at all. Quitting her job to do book deals, speaking, etc. was a good move if that was the motivation. If it was done to prep for a presidential run, it was a baffling and horribly inept move. You don't win anything by quitting.

:Rolleyes:

Not really true.

You just need turnout in those demos to go back down, which I believe is inevitable as Obama fails to put pot in every chicken & build a two-car garage for every free home.

Yeah, I think those that believe Palin has any legitimate shot at the GOP primary for 2012 really don't understand conservatives on the whole. Sort of the same mentality it takes to claim people are "clinging to their guns & religion". It just fundamentally misunderstands a gigantic block of people who are not like yourself.

It would be like saying Dennis Kucinich had any shot in hell of winning the 2004 or 2008 Dem primary. Or trying to figure out how Dems could vote for Hillary when she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

It's also telling that those who do believe that are in no way the types that would ever vote GOP in the 1st place. I guess this is why we have "sides" in this world.

Come on, your comparisons are just horrible here. Kucinich doesn't even have close to the same profile as Palin. You reached so far for that one, I'm not even sure Reed Richards could've gotten there. As for Hillary, she wasn't the nominee for one reason: Obama ran. If he stayed out of the race, then she wins in a humongous landslide and Dems are proudly carrying her banner all across the country.

Ahem.

You can't find apples-to-apples anywhere in politics that gets everybody in agreement.

Kucinich was widely viewed as a nutbag by conservatives in the 2004 primaries and the poster-child of anti-Iraq (aside from non-political figures)...while liberals felt he was just too far left (these are generalizations). But both Kucinich and Palin have fundamentally flawed ideologies that won't appeal en masse...and non-supporters from their sides know this and wont vote for them. That's the similarity. I think Palin is more unelectable than Kucinich. You disagree?

Regarding Hillary...that was the point. Please re-read.

Noted...maybe I should have re-phrased to "votes up for grabs".

Hell yeah, I disagree. Palin has alot more charisma than Kucinich. Hell, anyone with the slightest bit of charisma has more than Kucinich. Kucinich has run twice and barely made a blip, not even winning a single state and only picking up a handful of delegates. You're crazy if you don't think Palin would do better than that if she ran.

marketing. Palin > Kucinich

Would you vote for her? Would you vote for any GOP candidate that basically didn't scorn the religious right and adopt the Dem platform as his/her campaign? If your honest answer is 'no' to both of these...then I don't think you'd believe that.

Personally...Kucinich is a much more accomplished candidate. I almost used Al Sharpton for the example and thought Kucinich would be giving her too much credit as a politician.

Could she win Alaska? Yeah...probably. But no, she is not nearly the political force you think if you think she will pick off multiple states. Rush Limbaugh would have a difficult time doing that...and he can actually hold a legitimate debate.

Are you talking about the primary or the general election? Hell, either way it doesn't matter.

She'd beat Romney head to head in most, if not all, the Southern states if the primary was today.

Her electoral base for the nomination starts with every state Huckabee carried.

edit to add: You are grossly underestimating how popular she is with the base; i.e. voters who will show up for the primaries. Her approval rating is 80% among white evangelicals Reps. & 66% among white non-evangelical Reps. Not only could she be competitive with Romney for the nomination, if nothing changed between today & the primary (i.e. neither candidate had a huge gaffe nor a huge blunder), she might actually end up burying him.
Who's Your Favorite Republican? - Pew Research Center

The key to the nomination might well turn out to be which candidate can seem the least like McCain. And in spite of her running mate status, I'd say she's got a better chance of doing that than Romney does.

No, I wouldn't vote for Palin, but I'm a crazy liberal, so why does it matter what I'd do? We're talking about the primaries, not the general election. I wouldn't vote for Romney, Huckabee, or Jindahl either. As for Kucinich, I had two chances to vote for him and declined both times.

If Huckabee isn't running, then Palin almost certainly wins Iowa. Romney has almost no chance to beat her there. He might not even contest it and instead get an early start on NH. I'm not saying Palin will win, but I think it's absurd to say she doesn't have a shot and just plain crazy to say she doesn't have a better shot than Kucinich.

I doubt Kucinich would ever have sniffed the VP slot for that matter.

slot? Isnt his wife hot?

Yes, and she got more face time than he did during the debates.

I could see Palin really standing out on stage in those early 10 person debates.

I also think that she could maximize her income/power by becoming a media celebrity and kingmaker for the GOP. If she does not run, she probably has the power to decide who gets the nomination.

what about non-white republicans? does she win 7 out of the 12 of them?

I think this was my only point. ;)

Seriously though...my point was that Kucinich could (as crazy as he is) stand there and debate the more moderate candidates legitimately. Get loud applause from the more liberal leaning in the crowd...and was still not a legitimate threat to win the primary.

Palin as a VP candidate had a platform to direct her one-liners and not-very-well-formulated opinions against in debates. What is she going to do when a Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or likely an unknown-today candidate takes her to task while being in agreement?

Don't forget...a good portion of the people unaffected by her joining the McCain ticket weren't all voting "for" her as VP...many were voting for McCain or against Obama. She has to stand on her own when it comes to a primary...and she does not have the discipline to become well-researched enough.

Well, the same June poll (in the middle of the Letterman flap) put her at 49% favorable overall (not GOP, just in general), so given the number of non-GOP primary voters in that, I'd say she has to hold up reasonably well with whatever non-white Republicans were surveyed. And maybe more notably, reasonably well versus what Romney is doing with his 40% favorable rating overall.

i think Steve's got a point here. there's a difference between her as a "gee shucks" #2 who can play up her outsider-nature and as a #1 candidate who is expected to be able to coherently debate nuances of policies and be pretty much a policy wonk. and i agree, i don't think she has the discipline or study habits to become that person.

lol - you realize i was just poking fun of you because both of the numbers you posted were specifically for white voters (evangelical or not). i wasn't necessarily asking for a serious answer.

I understand her popularity among Repubs but don't think popularity trumps electability to many GOP primary voters. How many? Hard to say and we wont know for sure unless (until) she were to run.

It isn't so much her views...and she certainly has charisma...but it's the serious test that I don't think she passes with conservatives at the end of the day. The same test she failed on behalf of McCain.

Hard to blame someone for not being able to drag that much dead weight.

Yeah...I don't really think she cost McCain the election as much as McCain didn't capitalize on opportunities...but I still think she could have helped him more if she had been taken more seriously.

Here is the problem with Romney, Palin, and Newt. They are all conservatives (or pretend to be) and split that vote amongst Republicans. It's why a John McCain was able to sneak in and win the primary.

If Republicans truly want a conservative candidate, they have to get together and pick one of those to stand behind. Splitting up the vote between those 3 would just allow a more moderate candidate to take their nomination.

This was Romney's contention and why he was angry with Huckabee for staying in the race for as long as he did.

Part of me tends to agree with this...though it still may not have been enough to get people past Romney's lack of charisma.

I certainly took my medicine on Palin. I had read a great deal about her by fairly reputable people and the impression I got was that she was much more like Hillary Clinton (except from the right). Instead, she was a disaster down the stretch on numerous issues/interviews. It's a shame as the republican party could really use a strong "non white old man" candidate, but she certainly isn't that person.

Michelle Bachmann?? :)

I think Huckabee has a good shot. He appeals to the religious right but also has a real likeable personality. I remember him doing well with young people in the primaries. He can also out-Jesus Obama to grab the religious minorities.

I could easily see him winning the nomination. Much easier than Palin doing it.

SI

Sure, but if they're both running, then Romney wins in a walk.

Yes...I can see that as well. When I heard pundits commenting on Palin's "Reaganesque" charisma...I thought to myself...she has charisma, no doubt; but it isn't anything like the appeal Reagan had. Huckabee, on the other hand, was the candidate who actually reminded me of Reagan in many ways. I think his biggest issue in 2008 was name recognition...add in a TV show, plenty of guest appearances, and I think 2012 is a different story for him.

Huckabee is actually quite progressive (in the traditional sense of the word) in terms of overhauling the tax code and depending on how the economy seems to be fairing by 2012, could have a highly relevant campaign to mount. I don't think the economy being in the toilet helps him beat Romney (though Romney may help him beat Romney), and certainly a prosperous economic condition doesn't help him beat Obama...but I think right in the middle of those 2 is where he could have a shot.

Basically, his campaign would need to be about reducing the size and scope of government, reducing the tax burden to encourage job creation, while increasing or maintaining tax revenue by overhauling the tax code.

To go a little off topic, I see Germany, France, and Britain want to cap bank bonuses:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...uses-cap-brown

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...onus-sanctions

so Tom Ridge just said in an interview that he believed at the time that Iraq had WMD's and would have given them to Iraq!!

so here you've got a guy...who is ostensibly in charge of "Homeland Security" and he's so unintelligent and misinformed that he believed something that I could have told you at the time as a college student was 100% not going to happen (Saddam giving WMD's to Al Qaeda).

wonderful. fucking idiots.

and he just said "quite obviously the people who made the decision to invade iraq knew more than you and i did. at that time, given what they knew, and they knew more than you and i did, it seemed to be the right thing to do, and the decision was made in the best interests of our country."

LMAO. are you fucking kidding me??

I think the main problem we are making are thinking in terms of the last primary. There is a very good chance that a new crop of candidates will arise in the next few years that'll make Palin or Huckabee or Romney (or 2 of the 3) look to be a silly hope in the aftermath of Obama's victory. One or two of these candidates may be serious contenders, but not all of them. No chance.

Wow, this Ridge interview with Maddow is brutal. I can't believe this guy was in charge of Homeland Security. He's backtracking, saying contradictory things over and over again, and doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about.

yeah - i posted a couple nuggets from it above. she absolutely kills him and he ends up looking like the biggest idiot.

I was trying to follow some of the stuff with him. He wrote in the book that the Bush administration pressured him to raise the terror alert levels. But now he says that he lied in his book? I'm confused on that controversy.

I don't know if Huckabee's tax proposal is progressive. It's actually a regressive model that hurts poor people much more. The Fair Tax has a lot of issues with it and would reduce many of the wealthiest Americans income tax rates to single digits. Now many will say the rich pay a lot anyway which is true, but I don't know how you pass a tax system that will tax the poorest people 20%+. I'd much rather get behind a candidate with a flat tax.

I also don't know how progressive you can be when you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and evolution isn't real. I don't want to make it about religion, but it takes a special kind of stupid to look at the massive amounts of scientific evidence and say "I just don't see it". Religion is fine with me as long as it doesn't infringe on your ability to make intelligent decisions. His stance on the issue is no different than someone coming out and saying I don't believe we move around the Sun. No one would vote for the guy period.

For the life of me, I can't see Palin as the GOP candidate in 2012; political parties do not try and commit hara-kiri. That being said, her odds are still higher than that of Huckabee, who just lost his entire evangelical base to her and then some. My gut on the GOP nominee in 2012 like Imran is Romney, then someone who isn't on the radar (a John Thune?). Its also worth noting that there will be no Dem primary in 2012 to speak of, so the independents and people looking to vote will be over at the GOP side; something that does not bode well for Palin.

At 5000 posts/one year from the election/one year from inauguration I think it'd be interesting if a new thread with a new poll were created. Or this thread could be kept going for the discussion but I would like to see if FOFC's overall sentiment has changed much in the time since this poll's creation.

Yeah, I'm not even sure you can even take his comments concerning intentionally raising terror levels at face value. He seems to be all over the place. Seems like he's fluffed a lot of his information just to sell a book.

As much as Obama blasted military contractors during the election, you'd think he'd be leery of using them. Yet he continues to increase their numbers in Afghanistan. It's a way for him to increase the fighting force by 14,000 troops without showing any increase since the number of U.S. troops is unchanged. He's just backfilling the support job with contractors. This is a pretty good indication that the administration is concerned that any reported increase in troop numbers would send his approval rating into the tank. Either way, this move isn't going to make the liberal base very happy.

U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan -- latimes.com

I'd really like someone in charge to clarify what victory means in Afghanistan.

Without starting a tax debate (which is a good debate to have)...in theory, it is progressive in that it is based on consumption. Those who have more wealth tend to consume more. But the marginal rate of taxation tends to bother some because it is lower than the current rolled up rate for the wealthy. But the idea is that you are able to make this tax work (or...fair if you will) because you would be getting markedly higher tax revenues from people who do not currently pay income taxes and encourage more jobs to come back to the states due to low (or no) corporate taxes.

I'm not trying to sell you on it...just pointing out that the assertion it is regressive for poor people isn't overly accurate as it has a tax rebate advancement for those qualifying up to the poverty level. I think a better argument is that it could raise the tax liability on the middle class...which is why I'm not 100% sold myself...but I think it is on the right track, in principle.

I'm definitely for simplifying the tax code and adding revenue from people who manage to escape their share when they have the means to pay it...as I'm sure most are.

It would be easy enough to have a progressive consumption tax.

Tax income.
Don't make any distinctions between types of income (capital gains, wages, etc.)
Set your marginal tax rates like you have today (0% on the first $X, A% on the next $Y, B% on the next $Z, etc.)
Get rid of all current deductions.
Set up accounts like IRAs for people. These accounts have no limits. Any money that you put into that account that year (i.e. that you did not spend) is tax exempt. These accounts could be very sophisticated investment vehicles. The only thing that they need to be is separate from your "spending" money.

Therefore, you are only taxing the money that people spend--not the money that they save. A consumption tax.

And, by changing the variables in the marginal rates listed above, you can make this as progressive or regressive as you like.

I know that this would never fly politically. And it might even be bad policy. But it is easy enough to set up and see how a progressive consumption tax is doable in theory. (And, when people say that some level of regression is necessary in a consumption tax, they are probably much more personally motivated by the regressive aspects of the tax than the consumption aspects.)

A simplification (w/o a flat tax) is long overdue, I think.

Well...I mean that is how the current tax system started. But the deductions are all added because (a) it isn't fair to hard working parents with kids (b) we need to encourage homeownership investment (c) we need to encourage green investment (d) the list goes on and on...

Dola,

hit post accidentally...meant to add that a progressive consumption tax makes the most sense. But I'd like to see everything we tax on the front or back to be in plain view.

Yeah, I know. The use of the tax code for social engineering. Sigh.

Tax to raise money. Use other laws to encourage/discourage behavior. Seems so simple . . .

Of course, the federal government would not have the Constitutional authority to get involved in every aspect of our lives if not through the tax code, so I can see why it does that.

I would not mind at all a wholesale return to states rights, personally. And I say that a guy who's party currently controls the White House and the Congress.

We need to get the fuck out of the two-bit dictatorship that is Afghanistan (the Karzai government is corrupt as shit), and we need to get the fuck out of Iraq at this point too.

I might go so far as to say I need to see significant progress on those if I'm going to vote for Obama again.

That being said, it's hardly fair to place the blame onto him as MBBF is trying to do. The guy has had 7 months so far to try to devise a solution to a conflict that Bush had 7 years to get us embroiled in. I'm not ready to say that Obama is at fault at all...but that being said I want us the fuck out of those shithole countries.

Oh, and without reading the article - how many of those contractors are in non-combat jobs versus combat jobs? Cuz i'm totally fine with contractors in non-combat jobs being used to augment soldiers numbers.

1. Going into Afghanistan was a bipartisan decision and, unlike Iraq, there was little question as to the reason for doing it from either side. It's ridiculous to toss this on one party or another.

2. Most of the Blackwater contractors in Iraq weren't on the battlefield either. They were considered 'support' as well. How'd that work out? It's bad if Bush is doing it, but OK if Obama is doing it? C'mon now. I'm against it no matter who is in charge and much of the liberal voting base would be in agreement with my opinion on that matter.

I don't follow all the "promises and pledges", but my impression from hearing Obama in the campaign was that he intended to increase forces in Afghanistan. I thought he ran on a stance of "get us out of Iraq and get back to winning the war in Afghanistan." So, myself I'm not surprised to see him doing this (ignoring the contractor part of it).

I'd agree with that. I have a problem with him using contractors as a way to avoid hits to his approval rating, but I have no issue with him moving more troops in to do another surge. This was something that needed to be done once the Iraq situation was under better control.

Well, maybe if the Bush administration hadn't lied to everyone about Iraq and hadn't poured a bunch of resources and energy into that wasteful endeavor things might have been going better in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the "forgotten war" for a very, very long time thanks to the whole Iraq clusterfuck. This point was raised time and time again as an argument against the Iraq war and, shockingly, like pretty much every other argument against that war, turned out to be correct.

Much of the blame for the lack of progress in Afghanistan rests squarely on the Bush Administration's shoulders. While there are no guarantees, one would have to imagine that Afghanistan would be much better off today if the Iraq war had never happened.

I wonder if Obama can get through two whole terms with his supporters just blaming the previous administrations for any of his own struggles and problems.

I don't think the campaign rhetoric was along the lines of - "change we can believe in - except for stuff involving other countries. That will still suck but it will be Bush's fault, not mine."

That's an excellent retort without addressing a single point of his, which wasn't about Obama at all.

worked for Bush vis a vie Clinton

You're such a ridiculous party flag waver. It's kind of nauseating. Have you ever disagreed with a Democrat in your life? Is there ONE broken Obama campaign promise that bothers you AT ALL (because there's already several)

OK yes, Bush sucks too, not sure where I made the point that he was awesome.

The Obama administration sometimes isn't even about Obama. That was my point.

To his credit, I've never heard Obama himself play that card. It just sounds ridiculous though, for a supporter to buy into "change", but then excuse the lack of it because Bush ruined things too much.

He does say every once in a while that he is very central and NOT a democrat. Of course there has never been a hint of that in any of his posts.

Afghanistan was bipartisan yes. But the fact that we muddled about and fucked around and still aren't out has to fall on the administration that had us in there for 7 years...just as it did with Vietnam. Failure to finish what they started, or prosecute the war effectively.

I'm not a big fan of Blackwater (or whatever they've rebranded as now). My point was only that it depends on what jobs these contractors are doing - whether they're in combat or whether it's non-combat roles. Maybe it's part of Obama's plan for withdrawl - add contractors to noncombat roles in order to free up soldiers for combat missions in order to get us out. Do I think that's unlikely...yeah. But I didn't get a chance to read the article yet, so I'm not sure of the details.

I would be in favor of increasing compensation/benefits of being in the military to the point where we don't need things like Blackwater. Everyone loves to pay lip services to the troops, but we need to treat the troops well enough that good people actually WANT to be in the military.

That's not at all what I said and wasn't the point I was adressing. Go back, read the post I quoted and read what I wrote.

As for your point, it's been 7 months since Obama took over. The war in Afhanistan has been going on for what, 7 years? Given everything that's going on in this country economically and with this whole health care debate, I'm not surprised that "change" hasn't quite happened yet in Afghanistan. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will do something to effect change there, but the fact that shit didn't turn into gold the moment Obama got elected isn't at all surprising nor was it at all expected.

These things take time. Hopefully Obama can right the ship. If things don't turn around over the next year or two, then, yes, I think it will be time to look at what Obama has or has not done and be critical of it.

:+1:

I think Obama is getting some guilt by association. He's having to deal with two totally inept leaders in Congress who appear to have no idea how to run their party when it sits in the majority position. They were good at offering opposition in the minority position, but have no clue how to call the shots.

look back a few pages.

Against writing checks to individuals on stimulus.
Pro-bank bailout.
Against keeping Gitmo open.
Against rendition continuing.
for increasing benefits and pay to the military
for legalizing Marijuana (which is new for me in this stance)
Pro-Death Penalty
Pro-Gay Rights (marriage)
Pro-Palestinian statehood
Pro-Surge in Iraq (and Afghanistan since it worked for Bush in Iraq)
Anti-CNN

I think that that is fairly balanced....so now, after you said what you said, and I posted that, where do we go from there? There is nothing wrong about being wrong IMO and Im wrong often.

FWIW Obama is the first Democrat I've ever voted for for President. So far, he's been very disappointing. He hasn't been progressive enough where I would want him to be progressive (gay rights, drug policy, torture) and he hasn't been moderate enough where I would want him to be moderate (everywhere else). However, I can understand that his first term is about 15% over and will not be drawn into making grandiose claims about his presidency as a whole just yet.

While Obama isn't the first democrat I've voted for, my feelings on him, so far, are pretty much on parr with Ronald Dobbs The Second. I also agree that it's early yet and given what he inherited (not all of which is Bush's fault, but simply a matter of timing).

All that being said, I still don't feel like I made the wrong choice last November. Not at all.

If I had a dollar for every person that felt that way...

A) I would have close to $70,000,000
B) There would be a Libertarian president

Of course the argument is always that by voting for Libertarian you will waste your vote and if they did somehow become elected they will become just as corrupt. So feel free to continually be disappointed by your vote and have politicians (on both sides) that have already proven they are corrupt.

I have voted Libertarian, but only locally (and in Mass., it's certainly a case of voting my heart even though it is a "wasted vote"). I'm not sure I want Libertarian Party leadership on a national level, though. I disagree with both the extent of several positions, as well as the concept of non-interventionism as a whole.

Removing forces from Afghanistan before the country was secure in order to fight a war in Iraq was not a bipartisan decision, however. This is important because it was that decision, not the original decision to invade Afghanistan, that has led directly to the situation the country finds itself in now.


The battlefield was everywhere in Iraq. Just because someone wasn't technically assigned to combat doesn't mean they weren't "on the battlefield" by any reasonable definition of the term as it applied to Iraq.


Anyway, I would imagine a big part of the reason for the uptick in contractors in Afghanistan is the continuing manpower problem in U.S. Forces, with a huge force still in Iraq, a huge force in turnover from multiple deployments, and no way to quickly get large amounts of force into Afghanistan until the real drawdown from Iraq really happens (which it hasn't yet). All common sense though I, too, would prefer the use of actual U.S. soldiers for these jobs as opposed to contractors.

Didn't Obama know this when he was running for office? Didn't the voters? What's changed here?

I'm pretty sure Obama ran on a platform of "winning" in Afghanistan which I assumed would mean the addition of more troops once he pulled them out of Iraq (can't remember if he ever said that explicitly). So I'm not seeing the disconnect, here.