Axxon, libertarian principles and policies would be all over the spectrum - with some positions further right than the Rep. I can understand how one can equate libertarians with conservatism since one of the key points is anti-socialism (i.e., smaller government, oppose government bureacracy and taxes). But I try to balance that in advocating personal responsibilites and promoting private charity. I have always been anti-union and do support freer trade, so I guess that can be a conservative position, but I also have taken a stand against the Patriot Act and against nation-building (i.e., stupid govt. misappropriations and incompetence), apart from me talking in historical perspectives.

I can see why those that are left-leaning would lump libertarians into the conservative broad-brush but I think that is unfortunate since everyone has come to identify conservatism with Bush2, Rush and their ilk. Those that are right-leaning accuse libertarians of being irrelevant and anti-patriots while we fight for security and strong defense build-ups. They are hypocrites in that they employ the same tactics used in other War on [stuff] but pretend that what they do is better government. I do support fighting terrorism but also believe in an nonintervention foreign policy (and removing many troops from foreign soils). That is also at odds with some groups that believe we should be the world's enforcers.

However, you mentioned my thread from a while back on libertarianism and I have to revisit that to better frame my arguments. I can understand now why anti-socialistic positions can be construed as conservative in the age of oppositional/black&white politics but there's more to it than that and I need to emphasize the positive differences more.

As far as the short-term (i.e., the upcoming election), I can certainly understand the need to change away from what we are doing - I have mentioned that numerous times as in history repeating itself. But I have an idea of what Congress is waiting to do and that bothers me. Obama with a better foreign policy and working more with other leaders will be a good thing, or at least interesting to see. However, whatever mandates the Dems will feel they have, or what bi-partisanships will do, can only mean more of the things that libertarians will be against.

I'm glad that we can agree on the fact that few educated people from either party are taking the cover for more than it is. I just think it's a mistake to categorize the cover as showcasing stereotypes or beliefs of the entire right wing all at once. Sure, no liberal is going to even think those things of Obama and of course it's a jab at alleged right wing stereotypes.

I just take issue with the implication, at least in this thread, that all right wingers stereotype Obama (if you're going to disagree with him, do it over the issues, not stereotypes) and think any and all of those stereotypes on the cover are actually true.

I'm not saying you said that, Axxon, but it seems to be the general sentiment here and elsewhere in the media. It's always wrong to paint a party or political philosophy in such broad strokes.

It can be useful though to do so. It can tend to keep a group of people honest and marginalize their own fringe. If enough right leaners condemn this sort of thing so they're not "guilty by association" maybe they can begin to educate their fringe into thinking about the candidates and the issues. We can only hope.

This is really an extremely important election and it behooves everyone who's going to bother to vote to really consider who they're voting for and why and not give up that responsibility to others.

I would guess that 80% of the voters do not meet this criteria.

Bucc,

I had never really equated libertarian with republican until the time of that conversation. I don't know where the idea came from and it probably wasn't you but I didn't know very much about the party before then and took some time to get to know it and that concept came from that activity.

It seemed to me that ( very roughly speaking ) the libertarians were spun out of the republican party because the core ideals of that party ( smaller government, personal responsibility ect ) were only given lip service by that party.

I found this on the wiki under left libertarianism and I found it interesting.


I don't believe this but I believe precisely that since we allow private ownership of resources that we owe it as a society to see that the resources needed for survival, specifically food, shelter and clothing are available to those that need them so no citizen needs for these basic necessities they no longer can freely get due to the principle of ownership.

I don't know what that view makes me but I had a great time defending the position on usenet many many moons ago.

It seems that the europeans agreed with me and the americans hated it. No one called it socialist though but we weren't that label minded then. It'd be interesting if that view fit somehow into the libertarian ideal though because I do agree with quite a few of their positions as shown on the wiki but I strongly believe that it's a governmental responsibility, if they defend private ownership to ensure the most needed resources are available to those who don't own them and I'm not willing to give those specific responsibilities to private charity.

I know, but since who ever wins is going to claim a mandate I'd like it to at least be a well thought out one.

It's kinda a seque but here's one of my favorite examples of people not thinking their positions through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

Axxon, I think the left libertarian and right libertarian thing is interesting. I am still learning more about but overall I think it points to a different way/mindset than what is promoted by the traditional parties. I think both tenets have some great ideas and all we need are: 1) grassroots efforts to get like-minded individuals in the various legislative branches and 2) a charismatic, likeable leader promoting such values. I have always believe that is doesn't have to be a third-party for either party can take up these values if they can shake their niche special interests. Sen. Proxmire did this to some extent within the Dem party and Ron Paul with the Rep party. It's the caucasing and oppositional politics that tends to kill any alternate thinkings and marginlizes such different approaches to policies, since they do not conform to compartmentalization we like to place everything in.

Interesting. I certainly think that if there's room for my ideas within a framework that I already more or less agree with that this is a party I should learn more about.

Of course, what your last point was that 80% of the voters wouldn't get it. ;)

That's part of the 80% and there's still a lot of single-issue voters, from all points of the political spectrum. Anti-abortionists are no different than the abolitionists of old, or the "most important issue" environmental, terrorism, race, military, union voters of today. Like I started off in my earlier post, the choice is either A or B or neither, not A or B with qualifiers.

It's interesting because Ron Paul is someone who resonated with me and in some ways I'm glad he didn't win the nomination because my desire not to vote republican this time would have been severely tested had he been the nominee and I wouldn't like to have to make the decision ( if his positions held up to scrutiny ) between him and Obama but it would have been a time when I wouldn't have minded losing so much either way. I don't think there's been an election in my lifetime, including those I was too young to understand at the time, that I could say that.

I could say it about Kennedy Nixon though but I wasn't born yet.

Time: Never Underestimate McCain, But...

Excerpt:


New Polls:

Alaska: Obama=40% McCain=45% Rasmussen
Georgia Obama=39% McCain=48% Rasmussen
Michigan Obama=43% McCain=41% EPIC-MRA
New Hampshire Obama=46% McCain=43% U. of New Hampshire

Mostly good news for McCain. While it's not good for McCain that Obama's within 5 in Alaska, he's certainly keeping it close in Michigan & New Hampshire, which were two Kerry states.

We continue to see Georgia polled a lot, I think because pollsters think it would be fun to see Bob Barr play spoiler.

I have to think that's an overstated hope, since a large number of those who might have been Barr supporters at some time in the past have pretty much reached the conclusion that he's flipped his lid in the past couple of years. And that's just the one's who had any idea who he was/is in the first place.
I just can't see him being enough of a factor to be a difference maker even in his home state.

McCain refers to Czechoslovakia again (a country that ceased to exist in 1993). He's done this repeatedly since 1994, even to the point that George W. Bush pointed it out in debates in 2000.

Then there's this:


Iraq & Pakistan do not share a border.

As previously noted, he continues to mix up Shiites and Sunnis.


In conclusion, McCain's not doing his "foreign policy credentials" a lot of good.

It will be interesting to see if McCain and Obama will actually have a legitimate debate (where they can actually question one another, rather than tee up on softballs from moderators).

McCain has stuck to his guns about the surge working and "winning" in Iraq (equating Obama's pull out plans to "losing"). I would like to hear some substance on these two issues from McCain. For example, on a surge, is it really that surprising that adding unlimited supplies/dollars/manpower would improve things? And, what exactly does "winning" in Iraq entail?

Forget about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP. It looks like she's going to be under investigation for pressuring the police commissioner to fire a trooper who was divorcing Palin's sister at the time.

Apparently the local GOP and right-wing radio are even calling for investigations.

The Alaska GOP now has problems with Governor Sarah Palin, Senator Ted "FBI Investigation, Internet Tubes & Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens and Rep. Don "I take bribes" Young, so maybe the state will be in play anyway. It looks like Stevens' Senate seat and Young's Congressional seat (Alaska's only one) are good Democratic targets, at least.

McCain must be tired of losing all this week's airtime to Obama, so he's decided to agree with Obama & Iraq's prime minister Al-Maliki about withdrawing troops from Iraq:

A blow to her. I thought she has some real qualities, and in a way, is the anti-Hillary. Now, regardless of the outcome, she will take a hit.

The other side of the Palin story can be found here:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/127543

This part, I'm assuming, is about the trooper divorcing Palin's sister.


It also sounds like the local GOP and talk radio might be calling for investigations to clear Palin's name, not because they believe the fired DPS chief.

Good news for McCain

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Today's Polls, 7/22

This isn't that much of a surprise, is it? From what I've gathered, the trend was expected to be a big early lead for Obama with that lead shrinking, then getting a boost from the Dem. convention, followed by another McCain surge during the Repub. convention.

I don't know if it was generally expected or not. I figured that it was inevitable. I actually think that during at least one point between now and November McCain will have a better than even chance of winning (even if it is right after the GOP convention).

I keep coming back to the 2004 election. The closeness of Ohio masked the fact that Bush won solidly across the board. A lot of this country either wants to vote Republican or wants to vote anti-Democrat. It will be hard for Obama to overcome that.

It's very hard to know where Ohio stands. In two days their were two polls, one Obama +8 and one McCain +10, both from reputable polling firms.

IMO, you can take those result and basically understand that it's a toss-up state, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

If you go over to the KTVA website (a local TV station, apparently), it's a much different story. Do we have anyone from Alaska on FOFC?

Anyway, must have been one heck of a messy divorce....

Wow. Probably depends on how the questions are phrased or the mix of demographics they chose to sample?

I have always said it was going to be close. Yes, there will be a lot of Rep and anit-Dem voters, just liike a lot of Dem and tons of anti-Rep voters. Both candidates have some big negatives going against to the general population and as usual, it will come down to turnout. For those on the left and right, there will be a lot of "hold your nose" and vote, just like in 2004, because they just don't want the other guy to win. However, independents may play a bigger role this time, if they can get excited about either one.

Over at 538 there's a post about the demographics, but his analysis of the internals didn't find enough difference to explain an 18 point spread. This far out it doesn't really matter, but at least one of these polling firms is completely out to lunch.

In theory, couldn't this ultimately be a case of where the "truth" is about halfway between the two points and that both ended up with somewhat fluky swings in their results? Basically that they both missed the mark in opposite directions by the maximum amount. I didn't look at it all that closely, what's the combined margin for error of the two differing polls?

Point being, maybe neither are completely out to lunch but rather both just headed out the door toward lunch?

McCain's chummy relationship with the press might be fading (as it's replaced by the media's collective swoon over Obama). From NEWSWEEK:

And after all of that, there will likely be another wildcard on election day (as we saw in the Democratic primaries). That's when the person goes into the privacy of the election booth and casts their ballot, instead of verbally responding to a pollster.

New Polls:

Florida Obama=46% McCain=45% Rasmussen
Minnesota Obama=49% McCain=37% Rasmussen
New Jersey Obama=50% McCain=36% Monmouth U

No surprise in MN or NJ. Florida's a statistical dead heat.

Poll

Pronunciation:

\ˈpōl\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English pol, polle, from Middle Low German

Date:

14th century

5 a: a questioning or canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain information or opinions to be analyzed

Perhaps I should have explained further, as I was referring to the fairly consistent trend of Obama's actual vote numbers underperforming his poll numbers during the primary. It appears that some people are willing to say that they'll vote for him if polled, but not when they actually cast their ballot in the privacy of the election booth.

I think he's saying that people are less likely to vote for a black guy than they are to say they'll vote for one over the telephone.

In what's been an absolutely terrible week for McCain, his foreign policy gaffes continued with his complete blunder on the history of the "Surge".

In a CBS interview on Tuesday:


Unfortunately, there's plenty of historical evidence to show that the Anbar Awakening started well before the surge. In fact, the Colonel MacFarland that McCain refers to is on record as describing the Anbar Awakening as early as September, 2006, which is months before the Surge was announced or Petraeus was even in-country to lead the Surge.


So that's pretty bad - McCain can't even remember what's happened in Iraq in the past two years.

It gets worse, though. That sheik the surge "protected", mentioned by McCain above? Well, he was killed by Al-Qaeda during the surge.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:



So... yeah....

Makes Jindal removing his name from VP contention and McCain cancelling an oil rig photo op due to an oil spill on the Mississippi (all this week!) look like small potatoes.

You can take a look at the average margin of error for all of the different pollsters and decide for yourself which polls to trust. The reason a poll is off doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Pollster Ratings, v3.1.1

Somewhat rhetorically I wonder ... could even 1 of 10 Americans put say half of 10 significant events in Iraq in the proper timeline? Could 1 of 10 Congressmen?

My bet would be no, which means this might be more talking point for the already convinced than influential on anyone who might change their mind.

I think what Vic was talking about is the so-called Bradley effect where people are less likely to vote for the opposite race than they claim. However, some recent studies on that have shown the gap between polled and actual has shrunk to be statistically insignificant over the past twenty years.

Of course we've never had such a high profile minority candidate, so who knows what will happen this year.

However most people aren't running for president on the credentials that they know how to handle Iraq.

god forbid we hold people in office to a higher standard than the average person. (shrug)

You guys are missing JIMGA's point. You are saying that McCain's gaffe operates as a negative that should cause people to consider voting against him. And you are right. It does. This kind of misunderstanding, by someone who has every incentive to know this stuff backwards and forwards, demonstrates that McCain lacks the basic skill set to deal with Iraq.

But that isn't Jon's point. Jon is pointing out that that to the average American, this will seem like an easy mistake. Something that they need explained to them in depth before they can even see why McCain was wrong. People (who we should not overestimate) won't ever get to the "Wait, just because I don't know about this does not mean that McCain should not know about this." Their brains will shut off as soon as people start talking about timelines of events about which they never knew.

It lacks the punch of "John McCain can't find Iraq on a map" or some other such gaffe that would resonnate (sp?) with folks.

(I note, of course, that the average American can't find Iraq on a map, either. But s/he thinks that s/he can. And it makes an easy soundbite that is hard to spin away. That would make the difference.)

This--just noise and wonk.

we ought to do something about the border between Iraq and Afghanistan, LOL

The question is when does a "Gaffe" become something that's actually relevant to the campaign. I don't care about McCain referencing Checkoslvakia or getting his events mixed up.

Just like I'm not concerned about Obama's claim that he's "visited 57 states", or that he referred to the Senate Banking Committee as "his Committee" (when he's not actually on that committee), or when he referenced the "President of Canada", or that the Burma typhoon "may have killed 100 million people" (closer to 100,000).

Barack Obama not so sure what Senate committee he's on | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

These guys say lots of shit every day, some of it is bound to be wrong - McCain will be judged far more harshly than Obama though, because of his age.

All I know, is that the last time a "Messiah" ran for president, we ended up with Jimmy Carter. Don't care to repeat that one. Holding my nose and voting for McCain...if I vote, that is.

albionmoonlight - thanks for taking a stab at trying to explain what I was getting at. You did about as good a job as I could have & I'm the guy who said it in the first place.

Obama's speech in Berlin. Worth watching.

I have managed to avoid this thread so far, but I feel it is my patriotic duty to throw in a vote for trout. One of those singing fish that you can put on the wall, leave alone for awhile, and it is still singing when you come back.

Can't open it now. Was President Putin of Germany there?

He did talk about Russia's shadow a bit.

No, not thatPutin, this one.

Well hell, if we're playing this game. From The Campaign Spot on National Review Online:

Never let the facts interfere with a good speech. C'mon.

Maybe he was talking in, uh, metaphors!

Actually, I found the 57 states gaffe a little disturbing. That's pretty basic, especially for a presidential candidate.

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone like Dan Quayle had said something like that?

Wow. Both McCain and Obama are looking rather clueless. I really want to find a reason to vote for one of these guys, but they are making it very difficult right now.

I haven't listened to it yet. Did he close with "Ich bin ein beginner" ?

eh, one could argue that the wall in belfast was defined by the people themselves in where they chose to live and whom they kept out.

You guys can pick and choose your gaffes, but there's a crucial difference:

Obama corrects his mistakes (it was a bill of his that went in front of the banking committee, there are actually 57 caucuses & primaries). Virtually all are simple verbal gaffes.

McCain, especially on important issues like the timeline of the surge or the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, takes a long time to correct his mistakes, if at all. They're clearly not just verbal gaffes, but a momentary (or prolonged) misunderstanding or misremembrance of basic facts.

Oh, I agree. It's all going to depend on whether or not the mainstream media pick it up.


Color me surprised that the folks at the NRO have no conception of how things have changed in Northern Ireland. They probably think the IRA is still bombing London.

McCain in June:


McCain in July:


So it's OK for McCain to go abroad and pretend he's President (and attack Obama while doing so), but it's not OK for Obama to do it.

I don't know if I can handle another 3 months of this "straight talk".

fixed.

Gotta be honest here flere, I believe you're grossly overestimating the amount of importance most voters put on either of those specific points.

Again (as albion tried to explain me earlier), while it might matter whether a President can get either of them right if it doesn't matter/isn't clear to the voters then I can't think it's going to have any significant impact on votes.

And personally, considering how much candidates go through, I'm surprised either one of them gets their own name right 10 times in a row.

Obama speaks in Germany to an estimated 200,000 people:



Earlier, he meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:



McCain does a photo op at a sausage house in Colombus, Ohio where he "addressed about a half dozen Ohio small business owners in the historic village":

Sorry, I don't mean to give that impression. I agree with you that most voters aren't going to care about those points. I'm more making the points that a) that's really unfortunate, b) they really should and c) this guy McCain, he really doesn't know what he's doing. :D

Haven't thought it through much but I think being involved in a campaign is not like being President. Almost like apples and oranges. I'm not talking about all the "promises" and double-talk that is expected to get elected and ignored when reality hit. I'm talking about the office of the presidency and mechanisms that have long been in place in being in the Executive Branch. There is a lot about that office that is rote, predictable and expected (in a handler type of way). You have the power of the federal govt behind you, which if far, far greater and more influential than any campaign staff and organization.

I doubt there's any job that really compares.

I think the point is that talking and pandering for votes (or the inability to do that well) has little bearing on the effectiveness of being President. The latter is a controlled situation while the former is salesmanship. There maybe a closer relationship to that of a Congressperson (since much of the job is pandering for votes, behind the scenes deal-making and the ever-present job of being re-elected), but not for a largely pre-defined role as president. Perhaps the one thing we can get a sense of during a campaign (apart from how telegenic a person is), is whether a candidate is over-rehearsed (thus, being more of a puppet) or stubborn (thus, my way or highway). I think Bush2falls in the former, while Clinton as the latter.

My bad, I really did think that was along the lines of the point you were looking to make. Tired, I don't read as well (between the lines or on the lines) as I do on the odd occasions when I can actually get a reasonable amount of sleep.

Good to see someone call McCain on this... A bit odd that it was Hagel, but I hope it gets some attention: Hagel Chides Candidates on Iraq - TIME

I agree about small gains came at a high price but if Hagel said is can't be measured, how would he know if it were small gains? Would the gains be greater or would the gains be there without a surge or something totally different?

I am still haunted by my readings on Cold Harbor in the Civil War. One has to place yourself in that moment without the benefit of hindsight. It seems it was a case of no gains coming at a very high price (about 12,000 Union casualties). But was it really? While it gave rise to intense anti-war feelings, it did serve a purpose (cornering Lee and the ANV). But they didn't have a clear idea that Lee was trapped at the time, only in hindsight.

And the punchline is that McCain actually spoke to more people who will be voting in November than Obama did.

The fascination with Obama's speeches and big crowds is getting really close to being creepy.

Where would Obama be in politics right now if he wasn't so eloquent?

True, I mean, if my mother had balls she'd have been my father.

I don't get the "European tour" in Germany, meeting with Iraq/Germany's PM, ect.

Last time I checked, he is NOT the President or any cabinet member. He's just a young senator from Illinois.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I think he lacks substance and is more of the same in his proposals), however I think he could turning voters off with the "rock star" approach. The use of the Broncos field for the convention is kind of creepy as well.

Sure, that never ever happens and McCain would never consider doing that.


I mean, he knows that this never happens.


hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/gordonbrown.labour



I'm sure senator Hagel ( R ) wouldn't consider doing this either.

The thought of senators meeting world leaders is absurd.


hxxp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGM2ZTE4Y2ExNDU3NGMyNmNhMWNkYjU3ZWNhYTk0NGQ=

Senator Bill Nelson, not a president or cabinet member would never meet a foreign leader either.


hxxp://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:kzbB6LMRP7EJ:vcrisis.com/index.php%3Fcontent%3Dletters/200501291926+senator+meeting+dictator&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Jeez, who's this Obama think he is? He's not the president or a cabinet member but he's doing things that are simply never done by senators and clearly his esteemed opponent is way too honorable to even consider such a tour. Man.

lets not let facts get in the way of a good talking point, right SFL?

The BBC spent quite a bit of time last night talking about Barack Obama acting as if he had already won the race.

As their correspondent said, nobody has ever won a US election because they were popular in Europe.

Oh yeah! But when I pointed it out some Obamaniacs, they thought I was just jealous of him! They said so its that everyone who wants to be there can be. Really? He can't speak at the convention floor like everyone else? It just seems so utterly egotistical, like I want more than merely 20,000 in attendance to bask at my glory!

Do you honestly believe McCain wouldn't do the same thing if he had the ability to draw the same kind of crowd?

Actually I do. I think the example I brought up is that I'm sure Reagan could have filled a stadium when he was running for reelection in 1984.

I really don't see McCain being as full of himself.

Unlikely. McCain spoke to 6 people, who we can assume were all registered voters. Out of 200,000 people in Berlin, I'm sure more than 6 were Americans (and not just the press, even).


Poor comparison. Reagan didn't need to do any such thing in 1984 because the election was almost from the start a foregone conclusion.


Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there.

You think Obama is doing that because he needs to show himself being the Messiah by getting Pope sized crowds?

Who originally tagged Obama as the Messiah? Was it the Left or the Right?

Let's be clear here:

Obama's done this trip for two major reasons: one, it's good press. Two, it makes him look Presidential, which is good given that one of his weaknesses with voters is the perception of whether or not he's up to the job.

Reagan didn't do it because he was already President and was facing a very easy re-election campaign. There's no comparison.

McCain's not doing it (although he did travel to both Canada and Colombia, before he started critizing foreign trips) because he can barely get a crowd for his U.S. events.

Or to put it another way - how many Democrats are more qualified to president than Obama. 500? But he talks pretty and thus has cult-like status.

Obama fans bragging about how many people he can get at a German rally is kind of disturbing. He has you all under his spell.

It also makes him look presumptious. With this trip (where people think he's getting ahead of himself in acting like a President rather than a candidate), the whole flap with an Oval Office like seal on a podium he was speaking at, and the Invesco thing, people are going to start thinking he believes this to be a coronation and not an election.


How many speeches did McCain give to the Canadian or Colombian people? Its not the trip he's criticizing, but the way it is being done... like Obama is running for President of the Mid East and Europe as well.

The not-exactly-left-leaning Economist:

It's funny, but I thought the whole point of campaigning was to convince the public that you can be President.


It's very plainly sour grapes. McCain's #1 argument was that he's good on foreign policy, and Obama's week has made McCain into a sausage-house sideshow. Of course, McCain hasn't helped himself, but there you go.

Also, any thoughts on McCain's fundraising on his trips, which is expressly forbidden by legislation that bears his name?

Why post an article which says the trip made him risk looking presumptuous, but other events happening may have saved him from that?

Lots of new polls (NOTE: most pollsters say we're probably a week away from seeing any impact from Obama's trip):


There's a lot of commentary about the Quinnipiac results, which are generally pretty different from recent polling, but there you go....

No huge surprises. MN looks closer than it has recently. ND continues to be much closer than anyone expected it would be. Wisconsin (if you can believe Quinnipiac) has gone from a potential McCain pickup to firm Obama territory (I can hear st.cronin's screams from here).

1. I thought the article was interesting.
2. It's the Economist, which is based in Europe, so offers a foreign perspective.
3. It's the Economist, which isn't pre-disposed to like someone like Obama.

Proving that you can be President and acting like you've already won the job before the Convention are two, vastly different things.


We'll see what happens in the upcoming months, but I believe that it will start to come out more and more that McCain was right on the surge.

As the not so right leaning NY Times pointed out:

NY Times Advertisement

Obama was, as he tends to be, quite vague on the actualities.


If he's violated the law, then go after him.

Though if I recall, the campaign, prior to the event, refunded the treasury for flights and expenses relating to overseas fundraising on his London trip.

This is so bizarre.

Obama has outshined McCain on foreign policy this week because he's in Germany yapping about bridges and playing basketball with the troops, and McCain's instead in America?

I don't get it....

What's the big selling point on Obama (compared to other Democrats, not McCain)? His "vision"?

Compared to other Democrats? That's somewhat irrelevant. He's running for the Presidency against John McCain. Let's stick to comparing him to McCain on foreign policy.


Sure. Hey, you're going to think of Obama's intentions what you want to think of Obama's intentions. I can't change that.


I'll leave that to Chuck Hagel:


Anyone even casually interested in Iraq knows that the "Surge" worked because:

1. The Anbar Awakening gave Al-Qaeda real problems.
2. Al-Sadr called a ceasefire during the middle of the "Surge".
3. Hagel's point above (which, frankly, refers further back to the "Powell Doctrine" which McCain initially opposed).

Without points #1 and #2, we're probably only marginally better off in Iraq today than we were when my brother served there.

You're forgetting the part where McCain can't remember how the "Surge" started, doesn't understand that Iraq and Afghanistan don't share a border, and confuses Somalia with the Sudan.

Heck, he can't even keep the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers straight! :D

I'm pretty confident that if you asked McCain, point blank, not on the campaign trail, do Iraq and Afghanistan share a border, or when and how the Surge started, he'd know the answer. (Just like Obama knows that Canada doesn't have a "president"). You're either confident in that or you're not - if you are, it's completely irrelevant, if you're not, then well, I guess I can understand why you wouldn't vote for McCain.

But if we're just looking for the candidate that commits the fewest gaffes, we can probably find someone better than either of these guys.

I also think the number of people in a crowd in a given week is irrelevent, and a pretty strange thing to brag about. Why aren't the poll ratios 200,000-6 in favor of Obama?

How do you account for McCain mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, while in Iraq, while giving a prepared speech?

Look, I understand I'm biased here, and I'm pretty sure you all think/know the same thing and read what I write with the correct grain of salt. But I honestly believe that a good number of McCain's gaffes are the result of an actual mental confusion or even lack of understanding on McCain's part, and I think people should find that worrying.

So you think he really doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? I guess I just don't buy that. I guess I'm also not concerned about him mixing them up - it's not like any serious US policy is going to be compromised or "backwards" because McCain got them mixed up. What's the practical effect of confusion like that if he was president?

And I'm not sure what Obama's European road show is supossed to tell us about his ability to handle foreign policy, except that young unemployed Germans apparently like him. His speeches are an event, no doubt. People in their 20s went in huge groups when he came to Boise, and then drank downtown afterwards. It was a party. I don't know how many of them are voting though.

This campaign is just starting to annoy me - hopefully the debates bring in some substance.