??

This is insane. What role did the Governor of Alaska play in Cold War Strategy during the Cold War? Was he consulted on National Security matters? Was he just a governor? Or was he a poser who was earmarking building bridges to nowhere so they could fake opposition to the idea later? McCain drills into Obama for taking no time to go meet all these people overseas as senator, and Palin just got her passport last year. This is the biggest straw (wo)man candidate of our generation, for sure. She makes Quayle look positively seasoned.

Nothing, I’m not saying a word.

I thought you might find this interesting, though. It is a more charitable position than mine on this whole Palin Debacle (at least towards her anyway):

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_we_are_not_that_different_you_and_i.php

Fair enough on the earmarking process. However, my problem is not Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience or her pushing for the “Bridge to Nowhere”, it’s rather her lying about wanting the bridge and attempting to create foreign policy experience where none exists. Senator Obama has at the very least dealt with foreign policy legislation.

And I’m well aware of McCain’s foreign policy experience, but to hear him talk about how he’d apply it as president, I do not welcome the “us against them” mentality that has gotten us into this mess. Sen. Obama is not perfect, but his approach is different from the current approach being applied, and I believe that is what we need. We are America, yes, but we are also massively in debt and every other thing in our stores is imported from China. Even if I thought it was our job to enforce democracy on every country we want oil from, we aren’t in a financial or moral position to do it right now.

I don’t deny Senator McCain’s foreign policy credentials . . . I disagree with his foreign policy strategy.

And Obama went to Iraq because McCain (whose groupies on HIS visit included 100 American soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache gunships on his stroll through a Baghdad market that he later said Paris Hilton could walk through with just a bikini and be safe . . . and this was BEFORE the surge) goaded him into it then criticized him for it in much the same way you are. I used to respect John McCain, but somewhere along the way he decided he wanted to be president more than he wanted to be a maverick or stand by his ideals (of course those ideals include the Keating 5, but that’s another story).

Bottom line . . . I was writing about Palin, who shouldn’t claim foreign policy experience based on her proximity to Russia’s least populated area. She could learn more about foreign policy reading books that she hints about banning from the Wasalia library.

Michael,

If you want me to concede that Palin’s foreign policy experience is minimal compared to McCain’s, I am happy to. But you want us to believe it is less than Obama’s? Well that would require more evidence supporting the assertion. Obama was negligent in his committeeship on Afghanistan, and neglected to visit Iraq once since the troop surge was put into effect. He was also wrong on his prediction of the effects of the troop surge. I am sure you’ll point to Obama being “right” on being against the war. Of course this is easy to do when Obama never had to cast a vote for the war and never was availed of the detailed intelligence reports available to sitting members of the Senate.

You also neglected to address the point I made about all governs turned presidents. What foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton, Ronald Regan or Richard Nixon really have? How about Governor Carter? I will submit to you that on balance, any governor, no matter what state, comes to office with one distinct advantage in the area of foreign policy.

That advantage is executive experience. Foreign policy more often made on executive decisions, not on legislation, as is the case for economic measures. Everything from State Department doctrine to face to face relationships with other word leaders is done at the discretion of the president, who must have the ability to make informed and quick decisions. Senators (and I include McCain in this gripe) lack this experience.

As for your assertion that McCain belongs to the “us vs. them” crowd, I will point to the fact that his suggestion for dealing with Iran is to build a league of democracies. I have seen many liberal commenters mock this suggestion in the last 48 hours, which I find odd.

For after all, such a group of countries would be in essence what the UN is today, minus the membership of dozens of despotic nation states, and without the veto power of fake democracies like Russia and China. This can hardly be called an us vs. them approach, neither can the approach to involve Europe and China in multi-lateral talks with Iran and N. Korea respectively over the past several years. This has been Bush policy, contra the advice of democrats who want us to engage these two countries on unilateral grounds.

As for Obama’s trip to Iraq, he was rightfully mocked for it by McCain. McCain and conservatives as well as Obama’s critics in general don’t fault him for finally making the trip. They fault his handling of the media during the trip (blacking them out) and they fault the general accreditation to him in response to his trip. It is great that he went, but to now suggest he has all the sudden shored up great understanding of foreign policy is simply naive.

As for book banning, I wonder if you share the same concern over the Obama campaigns recent attempts to silent critics in Missouri by using the State Attourney Generals as well as sherifs, and threatening his detractors with prosecution of criminal offenses? I challenge you to address this major threat to American free speech in the face of the facts.

After all, if you are concerned about Palin merely asking a librarian about her policy on book bans, then you should surely have a level of outrage that is several orders of magnitude higher on this particular assault on free speech by the Obama campaign. I wait with bated breath.

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement:
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

CJ

Wee-Hoo!

This is fun. Ok, let’s do this point by point, then I resign, unfairly, from the conversation, mostly because

nobody’s going to convince anybody here, but maybe we can give people backing both sides something to think about:

CJ: “Obama was negligent in his committeeship on Afghanistan, and neglected to visit Iraq once since the troop surge was put into effect.”

The former is (perhaps justifiable) opinion, the latter does not address the point in question, which is whether Sarah Palin has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama. She does not. When her name is on even ONE of these:

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hrg080408a.html

then perhaps she will. She has NO foreign policy experience as the governor of a state and mayor of a small town.

——————-

CJ: “He was also wrong on his prediction of the effects of the troop surge.”

Perhaps he was. Or perhaps his prediction was taken out of context:

“My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that’s going to quell some of the violence, short term. I don’t think that there’s ever been any doubt about that. And I don’t think that there’s any doubt that as long as US troops are present, that, you know, they are going to be doing outstanding work.

“It doesn’t change the underlying assessment, which is that there’s not a military solution to the problem in Iraq, and that the political dynamic in Iraq has not changed. The only thing that the Iraqi legislature appears to have agreed to, as the surge took place, was a motion to adjourn and go on vacation.

“And the ongoing question is how can we trigger a serious conversation and a responsible conversation between the Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds that will reduce the sectarian conflict. That is not happening, and until it does, we are going to continue to see long-term problems, there, and it’s my assessment that until we begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, we’re not going to get the sort of serious talks within Iraq and in the region, that are required.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/21/325917.aspx

——————-

CJ: “You also neglected to address the point I made about all governs turned presidents. What foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton, Ronald Regan or Richard Nixon really have? How about Governor Carter? I will submit to you that on balance, any governor, no matter what state, comes to office with one distinct advantage in the area of foreign policy. That advantage is executive experience. Foreign policy more often made on executive decisions, not on legislation, as is the case for economic measures. Everything from State Department doctrine to face to face relationships with other word leaders is done at the discretion of the president, who must have the ability to make informed and quick decisions.”

Did you make this point? When in this thread did you make this point? How can I neglect to address a point you have not made? Oh, hell, I’ll address it anyway. Read my previous post, namely:

“Palin … shouldn’t claim foreign policy experience based on her proximity to Russia’s least populated area.” (this is the argument she is making, not the executive experience argument)

and

“I disagree with (McCain’s) foreign policy strategy.”

——————-

CJ: “As for your assertion that McCain belongs to the “us vs. them” crowd, I will point to the fact that his suggestion for dealing with Iran is to build a league of democracies. I have seen many liberal commenters mock this suggestion in the last 48 hours, which I find odd. For after all, such a group of countries would be in essence what the UN is today, minus the membership of dozens of despotic nation states, and without the veto power of fake democracies like Russia and China. This can hardly be called an us vs. them approach, neither can the approach to involve Europe and China in multi-lateral talks with Iran and N. Korea respectively over the past several years. This has been Bush policy, contra the advice of democrats who want us to engage these two countries on unilateral grounds.”

A “league of democracies”? When we have to lose 4,000 lives to create ONE unsteady and arguably corrupt democracy in the region (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/60minutes/main4009328.shtml)? When a majority of the world’s other democracies oppose the invasion to begin with? Can a democracy even exist in an Arab state?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/10/25/Democracy_has_slim_chance_in_Arab_states/UPI-74451035572293/

And who decides what a “despot nation” is? How? Some of China’s Human Rights issues can be levied at us, and some of Russia’s interference in a sovreign nation that posed no threat could arguably also be levied at us. Eliminating the input or consideration of states, despotic or simply disagreeable, is by very DEFINITION an “us against them” policy!!!!!!

——————-

CJ: “It is great that (Obama) went, but to now suggest he has all the sudden shored up great understanding of foreign policy is simply naive.”

The press might have given him such kudos, but but I did not, in this thread or anywhere else. I HAVE stated in this thread, however:

“(Obama’s) approach is different from the current approach being applied, and I believe that is what we need”

Nothing more, nothing less.

——————-

CJ: “As for book banning, I wonder if you share the same concern over the Obama campaigns recent attempts to silent critics in Missouri by using the State Attourney Generals as well as sherifs, and threatening his detractors with prosecution of criminal offenses? I challenge you to address this major threat to American free speech in the face of the facts.”

Well, let’s start with this link you provided.

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement:
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem

Blunt? MATT BLUNT? THE Matt Blunt? THIS guy?

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/9370

Oh, I’m sure HE’s speaking from a sound moral footing.

Actually, I am not sure I can comment on this yet. I want to see what shakes loose over the next few days. If it’s a simple as Obama saying “Let’s throw all the conservative Missouri bloggers in jail, now how do we do that?” then of course it is despicable. But it’s a little late in the game for him to get so thin-skinned. He could have tried this “truth squad” business before, seeing as how 10% of all voters still think he’s a Muslim. And McCain’s nowhere near as tough to handle as Hillary was. I don’t see how this helps him, and that’s why I think it’s at LEAST within the realm of possibility that this is wrongheaded Missourians, misinterpreted Missourians, or misinterpreted Obama. If it’s wrongheaded Obama, then obviously I have to revisit that.

Sterling work Michael.

I admire the way you don’t lose your head, even in the face of CJ’s mocking arrogance, “I wait with bated breath,” “Read it and weep.” Etc.

Why are you a Republican CJ? What turned you? These back and forths are entertaining, but they go nowhere. Can’t you give us some clue as to why you believe what you believe? Was it a gradual process, like Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars (but then he massacred a bunch of kids and there was no going back), or was it a sudden (d)epiphany sparked by a particular event or book you read. I really do wait with baited breath for an answer to this. Though I doubt I am going to get one.

Thanks, but in all fairness, Cretin, I should point ut that I myself am not a Democrat, and in fact lean a little right of center on many issues. I just don’t believe I have to agree with a candidate on every issue, and I try to judge the individual person for each election. For better or worse, I believe this country needs to be inspired, to rise above this malaise of economic problems, fear, and sabre-using. We need a leader who fits the time in history and our place in the world. There have been liberals and conservatives that have achieved this in the past — Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan — who despite whatever flaws they had (plenty) or how many things they did that history has not or will not judge kindly were, for their time, leaders and inspirational personages. Barack Obama is, in my opinion, such a man. Although I do not believe he is a saint, I believe he is a step forward and a better person to lead America especially now. Now here’s my dirty little secret: I was actually pulling form McCain the last time he ran for president. He seemed to be able to work with Democrats AND Republicans, had his own mind about things, and was better qualified to be President than W., who should have held out for Baseball Commissioner. But this is not the same McCain I was pulling for, or possibly I woefully mis-judged him due to lack of scrutiny at the time.

At any rate, I’m not voting AGAINST McCain, but rather FOR Obama.

Before this election process, I didn’t think of myself as a democrat so much. I too lean right of center on many issues. McCain has gone too far though. Selecting Palin as a VP candidate was such an insanely reckless, cynical ploy that I am very much voting AGAINST him. Almost as much as I am voting FOR Obama.

Michael,

Thank you for the link, however unless I’m blind, the article headline states that McCain has a truth squad too, but fails to talk about it in any detail within the body of the link.

There is nothing wrong with having a team of people ready to correct mistruths from the opposing candidate. The problem with Obama’s Missouri truth squad is not just that its made up of law enforcement professionals, but thir comments are purposefully designed to intimidate people from criticizing Obama.

The news report clearly shows one of the members of this truth squad threatening the use of Missouri ethics laws, and links the use of those laws to ads that are misleading, regardless of the source. The problem here is twofold. One is that the Missouri laws, whatever they are, should be carried out by the elected and appointed law enforcement *regardless* of whom the violating ads are targeted at. The fact that law enforcement is publicly airing their intent to uphold these laws with explicit reference to Obama, and as Obama supporters, leaves the impression that they intend to single out critics of Obama.

I am not knowledgeable about Missouri ethics laws, and what they could possibly be. But clearly ads that discuss policy and candidates express views and state as fact many things that the other side will reflexively call a lie. This happens on both sides of the isle.

As such this news report is chilling. Again, if you can point me to a McCain truth squad that is made up of state or local law enforcement and which has publicly made remarks that show intent to use their law enforcement powers against violators of any law (constitutional or not) specifically on behalf of McCain, I will issue a condemnation of McCain’s campaign with equal strength, and I will also contact his fund raising team and express my intent to withhold any further donations until said group of individuals has been brought under control. You have my word on that.

Absence any such evidence, I hope you will acknowledge that there is simply no comparison between having a truth squad and having a truth squad made up of powerful law enforcement officials who are publicly issuing comments that explicitly show a bias in their duty to uphold law. Now had those people come out and declared their intent to hold anyone accountable to the Missouri laws (whatever the hell they are), regardless of what side of the isle they are on, and had they done this without also showing their support for Obama in the same segment or set of quotes, this would be a remarkably different story that I would agree does not deserve quite the level of ire.

I will respond to your other comments after I enjoy my dinner, and indeed Cretin I will answer your calls to explain my reasoning for leaving the Democratic party. But I will point to a fallacy that you continue to (perhaps mistakenly) repeat. That I became a Republican. I never said as such. I said I left the Democratic party and I left my native city of NY.

More to come.

So changing the subject is your best response? So far I see no evidence that McCain had a truth squad that resembled anything similar to Obama’s. The comparisons made earlier in this thread now appear to be invalid.

It’s true, Cretin . . . CJ does seem to be enjoying an inordinately long dinner.

No, CJ, I’m done with this thread. Yes, truth squads made up of law enforcement officials are different than others . . . but I still fail to see any “chilling” implications. Obama didn’t make the law there, and if it’s being enforced more strongly on his behalf perhaps it’s because John McCain doesn’t have people insisting he’s a Muslim (10% of voters by some estimates) and a socialist who is related to Osama Bin Laden.

In many ways, I agree that these officials should not have been at the forefront of Obama’s truth squad, but I think it’s a PR mistake, not a sign of some villanous freedom-of-speech ploy. I can’t believe anybody thinks there will be an “arrest” in Missouri over this.

The reason I’m ready to change the subject is that I’m not going to convince you and and you’re not going to convince me, so we’re using up our precious web resources.

=+)

Perhaps you should look up the definition of “supporter”. It doesn’t usually contain the word “condemn”. And some of us see cult-like behavior in Hillary’s supporters refusing to accept their own party’s nominee, even if it means voting for someone who is opposed to them on virtually every issue.

I’m not blind. Obama’s no saint, nobody is. Per my earlier posting:

“For better or worse, I believe this country needs to be inspired, to rise above this malaise of economic problems, fear, and sabre-using. We need a leader who fits the time in history and our place in the world. There have been liberals and conservatives that have achieved this in the past — Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan — who despite whatever flaws they had (plenty) or how many things they did that history has not or will not judge kindly were, for their time, leaders and inspirational personages. Barack Obama is, in my opinion, such a man. Although I do not believe he is a saint, I believe he is a step forward and a better person to lead America especially now.”

It’s the difference between being inspired by someone who you think can do more good than harm, and voting for someone else wants to continue policies that have proven to be devastating to our economy and world reputation, and who, unable to generate inspiration himself, cynically attempts to manipulate inspiration by selecting a VP who is thoroughly unqualified, then pretending her shortcomings aren’t there.

I’ve given up some things in this thread, which is more than I’ve heard from the other side. I’ve admitted that, if further evidence of malicious intention comes to light that I will revisit my support of Obama. I’ve admitted that, PR-wise, the wrong people are probably heading up the Missouri truth squad. The fact is that all the politicians in this race are, in fact, politicions, and they both spin the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html

But that’s simply the way politicians have done it forever:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/18612

I’m not voting for a perfect man or woman, because they don’t exist. I’m supporting the one I think can do better than the other one, and I’m trying to describe why I don’t think the other one will do as good a job. I will change my mind if I become convinced otherwise.