Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[ISiddiqui]

So basically, you are stuck with putting words in his mouth which is what Obama and Clinton have been doing ever since the 100 year quote.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think talking about the positive aspects of the mafia is always a bad idea for a presidential candidate.

So if the local mob builds a shelter for the homeless, a candidate couldn't call it a good thing? Saying the mafia is bad but they sometimes do good things sounds very accurate to me.

As for the 100 years thing, the entire problem is that it will never be like Germany or Japan. So we're left with the idea that we'll stay in Iraq as long as it takes to stop taking casualties so that we can stay in Iraq without taking casualties. The question McCain is going to face in a general election debate is how long is he willing to take casualties on his way to a hundred years without casualties. My guess is the answer is basically one hundred years.

But the context of the 100 years was in terms of Germany or Japan. You don't believe Iraq can be like Germany so that automatically means that McCain wants to fight for 100 years? I see a disconnect there.

[JPhillips]

I think the point is that there isn't anything the mafia does that isn't tied to illegal/immoral activities.

As to McCain, the whole point is that saying he'd like it to be like Germany doesn't make it so. How do we get to "like Germany"? There are so many differences that it's almost impossible to ever see Iraq as like Germany. That being true, how long is he willing to stay with conditions as they are before it becomes "like Germany"? Would it be acceptable for Obama or Clinton to say we should withdraw immediately so Iraq can be like Canada?

[st.cronin]

He is comparing Iraq to Germany in terms of their strategic importance. It was vital for the advancement of US interests post WW2 for troops to be stationed in Germany, and it is vital for the advancement of US interests today for troops to be stationed in Iraq.

You can challenge that argument without twisting it into something its not.

Edit: It is important for the troop presence to appear permanent; hence the 100 years argument. That's how I have understood his argument, at any rate.

[JPhillips]

But in terms of troop casualties the differences are enormous. Germany agreed to continue to host troops afterWW2 because of the Soviet threat. The U.S. troops were welcomed as a buffer from aggression. This isn't true in Iraq. The only external threat they see is Israel. The threat we see, Iran, is a fairly close ally of the Iraqi government and will continue to be.

We could go through difference after difference, but I thin the point i clear. Saying he wants Iraq to be like Germany doesn't mean anything when the differences are so stark. Saying that he'd like us to stay in Iraq for 100 years, like in Germany, doesn't mean anything when he's unable to formulate how a peaceful presence will happen and has stated that we can't leave as long as Iraq is a violent place.

[st.cronin]

In terms of weather the differences are enormous, also. But until you are actually able to address what his argument is, your rebuttals are beside the point (imo).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the point is that there isn't anything the mafia does that isn't tied to illegal/immoral activities.

As to McCain, the whole point is that saying he'd like it to be like Germany doesn't make it so. How do we get to "like Germany"? There are so many differences that it's almost impossible to ever see Iraq as like Germany. That being true, how long is he willing to stay with conditions as they are before it becomes "like Germany"? Would it be acceptable for Obama or Clinton to say we should withdraw immediately so Iraq can be like Canada?

You know just as well as I do what's going to be the reality regarding our involvements. It doesn't matter if the candidates say we'll be there for 100 years or 10 days, once they get into office, they'll know what the consequences will be. It is sad to think that so many are deluded into believing that they'll be an immediate withdrawal (by Clinton or Obama) when there's no way that'll happen. McCain could do something different, unless he goes all maverick just to prove a point. The reason why the Bush admin won't is because of arrogance and stubborness. I fully believe that no matter who becomes president, the situation in Iraq will be too big to hold to something silly as campaign promises.

[Groundhog]

Hang on a second... wasn't the whole invasion to secure the WoMDs?!? When did it become about removing an unfriendly leader in order to gain a foothold in a key strategic location?!? Clearly I have been misinformed.

[JPhillips]

I don't expect an immediate withdrawal, but if Obama is elected I fully expect we'll have a significantly lower presence by the 2012 election. I don't really know what Clinton would do, but I'd expect a situation fairly close to what we have now. I'm obviously more for withdrawal as I don't think it's benefiting us to occupy Iraq and will be more in our long term interests to be less of an imperial power.

Cronin: McCain is making two arguments. I agree with that he's making the strategic importance argument as a reason we can't withdraw. However, he is absolutely making the argument that the situation on the ground can become analogous to post WW2 Germany which would eliminate casualties. That's the part of the argument I think is dishonest because there is no reasonable means to turn Iraq into post WW2 Germany.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cronin: McCain is making two arguments. I agree with that he's making the strategic importance argument as a reason we can't withdraw. However, he is absolutely making the argument that the situation on the ground can become analogous to post WW2 Germany which would eliminate casualties. That's the part of the argument I think is dishonest because there is no reasonable means to turn Iraq into post WW2 Germany.

I don't think he is arguing that that will happen the day after he is sworn in. His argument is, I think, that in the short term Iraq is likely to be an ugly and difficult problem, but that in the long run we will view it as just another place American troops are stationed, like South Korea, Japan, etc. I think it is perfectly obvious that if it really does become a situation like Vietnam, where our strategic goals became not-worth-it, that the towel will be tossed in. His argument is that we're not there yet, and not close to that point. You may disagree, but I think you're misrepresenting his point of view.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, the basis for my argument is that the pressure will be enormous for Iraq (and other strategic places) to be the buffer between Israel and Iran, however difficult an occupation army and stupidly costly it may be. To have a semi-cold war will be the most expedient and likely solution. You may want to believe that Obama will force a lower presence, but once the political capital wears off, it'll be back up by 2012. Wanting to do one thing for political gain will come smack against worldly realities. As much as we like to, we can't go back in time to un-do situations, no more than what the US and UK did in allying with USSR prior to the massive Cold War. I see the Middle East being as big of a deal as the Cold War.

[JPhillips]

That's why I think he should answer the question, how long are you willing to suffer casualties in Iraq before it becomes like Germany? You say it's obvious that he'd throw in the towel if it becomes not worth it, but he's made no statements that I have seen that he believes that. What he has said is that we can't leave because Iraq is dangerous and that we can stay for a hundred years because it will be like Germany. What he hasn't addressed is how we get from today to a peaceful presence.

[st.cronin]

You can't seriously expect anybody to answer a question like that. How much is a soldier's life worth?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You can't seriously expect anybody to answer a question like that. How much is a soldier's life worth?

Apparently a whole lot more than they used to be considering that Vietnam wasted 60,000 US troops for no reasons whatsoever, while Iraq is up to 3,000+ for some arguable reasons.

[JPhillips]

Buc: That's where we won't agree. I don't think the ME is like the Cold War at all. One, Israel doesn't need us to be a buffer. We can support Israel just as closely without 100000 troops in Iraq. They currently have a few dozen nukes and nuke subs that provide exactly the same level of deterrence as our arsenal. A troop presence in Iraq only limits our strategic options in Iran due to the targets they present to Iranian forces and supported militias.

You also have to believe that our presence in Iraq is lessening tensions between Iran and Israel and I just don't see that. The Iraq invasion, if anything has brought Iraq into Iran's circle of influence. It's hard to argue that Iran isn't in a better strategic position now than they were pre-Iraq. Our exit won't lessen the ties between Iraq and Iran, but our staying doesn't change that either.

I don't think a permanent presence will benefit us or lessen a threat to Israel. What it will do is alienate the Muslim populace creating further enemies, cost us trillions of dollars and limit our military capabilities when the next threat arises. My personal motivation to get out of Iraq is because I think it makes us demonstrably weaker at a time when asymmetric threats will rise and challenge our military capabilities.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the point is that there isn't anything the mafia does that isn't tied to illegal/immoral activities.

No, the point is the mafia is tied in with construction contracting. They still build something worthwhile, they just skim extra money off the top and collect kickbacks. Doesn't mean the mafia is good, but it doesn't tarnish what they built.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, let's say I buy your specific points about Iraq. So instead of a large presence in Iraq, let's distribute them out more to Afghanistan, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, or wherever we can place troops, air and naval forces. Those on the hard left to those on the hard right agree that it is important to be fighting terrorism and its proliferation. The key is to have a strong presence in the Middle East for several reasons, particularly multi-laterally. If being in Iraq is too problematic, then shift them elsewhere in the region. I believe it would accomplish the same thing. If by drawing troops in Iraq in order to shift them in the region is what was meant by Obama, then I would go along with that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You can't seriously expect anybody to answer a question like that. How much is a soldier's life worth?

If we can ask a candidate why it is that he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, I'd argue we can ask another candidate how many U.S. casualties he's willing to suffer in pursuit of this Iraq misadventure.

Not to mention McCain's flip-flopped on this topic several times already. I mean, doesn't that concern you a little?

[JPhillips]

Buc: I don't think we need 100k troops in the Middle East. The bases we have in Kuwait are Qatar and UAE are plenty for force projection. A massive ground presence in the ME is only going to cause us problems while not accomplishing much at all.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not to mention McCain's flip-flopped on this topic several times already. I mean, doesn't that concern you a little?

It shouldn't as anything said by politicians, esp. on the campaign trail, should be taken with a grain of salt. It's the resulting actions that count.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It shouldn't as anything said by politicians, esp. on the campaign trail, should be taken with a grain of salt. It's the resulting actions that count.

I couldn't agree more.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem with McCain's "100 years" answer, aside from the flippancy with which he delivers it, is that it's intellectually dishonest. McCain states that we can be in Iraq "as long as there are no U.S. casualties." Of course, the facile answer to that is that we ought to pull out now because there are plenty of U.S. casualties now.

Obviously that's not McCain's point. So what, in fact, is his point? Well, he won't elaborate. But he should. At what point should this "no U.S. casualties" litmus test come into effect? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? McCain gives us no answer.

In the absence of any answer, any roadmap, any anything, one has to reasonably conclude that McCain is simply content to continue business as usual in Iraq, muddling along in the hope that eventually there will be peace and we'll be able to pull out.

That's like the Chairman of GM saying "we're going to keep doing what we're doing and hope that eventually we'll stop losing billions of dollars per quarter."

It's unacceptable.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I couldn't agree more.

That was clever but I'll recall your phrasing when you tout something the Dems will say on the campaign.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Apparently a whole lot more than they used to be considering that Vietnam wasted 60,000 US troops for no reasons whatsoever, while Iraq is up to 3,000+ for some arguable reasons.

U.S. suffered nearly 6,000 casualties in one 24 hour period during fighting on D-Day in WWII. And, damnit, I don't even know why we were fighting Germany...after all it was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor.

[JPhillips]

There is that whole pesky declared war thing.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If we can ask a candidate why it is that he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, I'd argue we can ask another candidate how many U.S. casualties he's willing to suffer in pursuit of this Iraq misadventure.

Certainly, you can ask him whatever you want. Expecting a reasonable answer is another thing entirely.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, to bring back our discussion. On a personal level, which I have not speaking from here (only as a partially-objective observor fascinated with the process), I deplore that amount of wastes (in lives and taxpayer monies) that have gone into nation-building, as any libertarian would.

My point was that what people desire and hope for don't usually match geopolitical and internal political realities. Look at the how the Dems captured Congress in 2006 and how they couldn't affect Iraq, despite their loud promises to the contrary. I recall Clinton saying that there will be an immediate withdrawal (forgot the numbers). She can say that, can get elected by saying that but if she assumes the office, she won't be doing that. Saying that Obama will have a significant draw-down by 2012 is probably more realisitic, but that's not what all of the anti-war Dems were screaming about before the economy became, by far, the more important issue.

However, I still believe that Afghanistan will be brought back up again since we do have a coalition there. Whether that will be temporary or semi-permanent, I don't know.

[Young Drachma]

McCain-Jindal in '08?

Bobby Jindal probably won't get selected now, since Bill Kristol has exposed it as an idea and he's never right about anything, but I didn't realize he was only 36. Geez. That'd be a contrast. Jindal has no name recognition nationally though.

Maybe that’s why, in separate conversations last week, no fewer than four McCain staffers and advisers mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick the 36-year-old Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak.

It might also be a way to confront the issue of McCain’s age (71), which private polls and focus groups suggest could be a real problem. A Jindal pick would implicitly acknowledge the questions and raise the ante. The message would be: “You want generational change? You can get it with McCain-Jindal — without risking a liberal and inexperienced Obama as commander in chief.” I would add that it was after McCain spent considerable time with Jindal in New Orleans recently, and reportedly found him, as he has before, personally engaging and intellectually impressive, that the campaign’s informal name-dropping of Jindal began.

He sounds...southern. He's telling his life story. Seems like he's grooming himself to get picked. Wow, Bill Kristol might be right?

[ISiddiqui]

The Republican Obama?

[st.cronin]

Jindal would be an awesome selection. I'm a big fan of the man.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Republican Obama?

Piyush "Bobby" Jindal sure would counteract Obama. He's more substantive and he's more experienced. I think the difference is, he wouldn't bring in millions of new voters. Of course, if Obama's kiddies don't vote in November, he's torpedoed no matter what happens. I do think this is probably the safest pick McCain can make though, depending on who is the nominee. I don't think he'll pick someone based on that, though. I mean, letting the other party's nominee determine your running mate is like letting your parents pick your wife.

[st.cronin]

Jindal would help in the South, particularly the Gulf Coast area, would help with conservatives, would be a credible voice on immigration (a possible area of weakness for McCain), and would partly neutralize whatever weakness he may have among minority voters.

[Young Drachma]

Bobby Jindal isn't going to convince minorities to vote GOP that weren't going to already in any sizable numbers. But it'll help convince independent whites who think the GOP is racist to do it.

[st.cronin]

Dola: The downside would be that my girlfriend would insist on renting more Bollywood movies.

[ISiddiqui]

One thing that MAY hurt him (though not with conservatives) is that he is 100% against abortion, even in cases of rape. I think that that position is way outside the mainstream. There are a lot of people who are anti-abortion, but would carve out an exception for rape.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

would be a credible voice on immigration (a possible area of weakness for McCain)

I think that would hurt him among subcontinental immigrants, who would probably have otherwise voted for the ticket since he's of Indian descent.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that would hurt him among subcontinental immigrants, who would probably have otherwise voted for the ticket since he's of Indian descent.

I'm not clear what you mean here?

[Buccaneer]

I had posted very early on that McCain would need to pick a young, (non-social) conservative Southerner and the responses were that such a thing would be rare. I think Jindal would fit nicely and had jumped on that choice once he appeared on Leno.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I had posted very early on that McCain would need to pick a young, (non-social) conservative Southerner and the responses were that such a thing would be rare. I think Jindal would fit nicely and had jumped on that choice once he appeared on Leno.

If he's against abortion even in cases of rape I think he misses on that (non-social) conservative point, but otherwise that does look like the type of person McCain needs to help offset the age issue.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm not clear what you mean here?

All the people of subcontinental descent I've known (including myself, I guess) have been very open on immigration.

[JPhillips]

It's awfully high risk for Jindal. Lots of trends point against McCain winning in November. If he losses will Jindal be able to regain a national stature? If I were Jindal I'd accept if asked, but I surely wouldn't push for it. McCain also has to worry that such a large age difference might only only accentuate his age problem. Of course if they pick a 36 year old, first term governor the inexperience argument would be a little difficult to throw at Obama.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I had posted very early on that McCain would need to pick a young, (non-social) conservative Southerner and the responses were that such a thing would be rare. I think Jindal would fit nicely and had jumped on that choice once he appeared on Leno.

Except that Jindal's very, very socially conservative.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Piyush "Bobby" Jindal sure would counteract Obama. He's more substantive and he's more experienced.

How do you figure? He took office in January. Other than that, he's got a couple terms as a Congressman, and a bunch more as an appointed civil servant. Obama's served more terms in government, if you count his time in State Government, and Obama has a longer resume overall. Am I missing something?

[Buccaneer]

I would guess that Jindal would play a little better with the voters nationwide than Huckabee? I didn't know to the extent that Jindal was socially conservative but abortion is not the only issue to judge.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How do you figure? He took office in January. Other than that, he's got a couple terms as a Congressman, and a bunch more as an appointed civil servant. Obama's served more terms in government, if you count his time in State Government, and Obama has a longer resume overall. Am I missing something?

No, but those are the talking points you're going to hear. Jindal is a conventional politician. Obama doesn't sell himself as one, as a result, he looks like the neophyte. Their resumes are similar, both are Ivy grads and while Jindal is a Rhodes Scholar, Obama was President of Harvard Law Review.

Their basically spitting images of each other's career trajectories, all the way down to making sure they didn't marry white women.

But the media will treat Jindal like he's more experienced and younger than Obama. Just watch...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would guess that Jindal would play a little better with the voters nationwide than Huckabee? I didn't know to the extent that Jindal was socially conservative but abortion is not the only issue to judge.

From a social standpoint, besides the hard line on abortion, he's also complete anti stem cell research (which I guess is close to the same thing, in social conservative terms). He also wants Creationism (oh sorry, Intelligent Design) taught in public schools. And he supports a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

If anything, he'd be a choice to shore up McCain's conservative support. Rush Limbaugh, by the way, loves him. Calls him "The Next Reagan".

[SackAttack]

Statement by John McCain on Cinco de Mayo and Announcement of New Spanish Website

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on Cinco de Mayo as his campaign announced several new Spanish efforts:

"Cinco de Mayo commemorates an important moment in the history of Mexico's path to freedom. On this day in 1862, a small group of Mexican troops overcame overwhelming force to win the Battle of Puebla. Today, we join together to remember the sacrifice that these Mexican patriots endured, as well as the struggles of all those around the world striving for freedom. We recognize as well the important friendship that exists between our country and Mexico, and celebrate the many contributions Mexican-Americans have made to our society, culture, security and economy."

The Cinco de Mayo statement can now also be found on the Spanish section of the official campaign website at http://espanol.johnmccain.com, which the campaign launched today. This part of the website will feature regular updates in Spanish throughout the election.

Finally, as part of his commitment to talking with all Americans during this presidential campaign, the McCain presidential campaign announced that John McCain will attend the La Raza Annual Convention in San Diego on July 14, 2008.

So Jindal as VP, say, coupled with McCain meeting with La Raza...which has more impact on the conservative vote?

[sabotai]

Considering McCain's age, there is a real, even if small, chance that he could die in office from natural causes (Yeah he's only 72, but it isn't like he's led a stress-free, medical-issue-free life and if he's a 2-termer, he'll be 80 before he leaves office), Jindal being his running mate could be a deal-breaker for me. There is no way in hell I would want Jindal to be President.

[chesapeake]

I've spent a lot of time in hearings before committees and subcommittees upon which Jindal had a seat when he was in the House. He almost never showed up. On those rare occasions when he did make an appearance, his questions were generally softballs for the Administration witnesses -- even about Hurricane Katrina.

I'm sure there are more horses under the hood than he showed in hearings, but it always worries me when a Member of Congress doesn't make much of an effort to do his/her job.

[Buccaneer]

Regarding Jindal, I was focusing on these statements

The new governor said, "He pledged to fight corruption and rid the state of those "feeding at the public trough," revisiting a campaign theme.
"They can either go quietly or they can go loudly, but either way, they will go," he said, adding that he would call the Legislature into special session to address ethics reform."

Those resonates with me in a big way (as far as talking the talk goes). I had not dug deeper into anything else.