OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[XXXIV]

Russia?... ...Like they do any better...Remember them not being able to stabilize afghanistan?......Look around now.

[matthewk]

If McCain had a plan that would get us completely off foreign oil ahead of Obama and wasn't so war crazy, I would vote across party lines.

I recall Obama stating that he would get us 100% off foreign oil in ten years. Any idea how he would go about that? I think it's ludicrous to think we can do that in 10 years, if at all in my lifetime.

To be fair, people probably thought Kennedy was insane in 1961 when he said the U.S. would put a man on the Moon within 10 years, and we did it.

The technical complexity of putting a man on the Moon -- especially with 1960s technology -- exceeds that of the U.S. developing homegrown energy sources, I think.

But the desire to shed foreign energy has logistical and political hurdles to clear that the Moon program did not. NASA had to worry about three vehicles -- the Saturn V, Command Module and Lunar Module -- while there are millions of vehicles on American roads that now have engines based on gasoline consumption. Plus there's the huge political clout of Big Oil that will do anything to slow alternative energy development unless it can get a piece of the pie.

We shall see ... we shall see.

Take care,
PK

I thought I was being very fair. You should've seen my first draft

I've heard the comparison to Kennedy's putting a man on the Moon a number of times. I don't think it's the same. I think getting us to convert our energy in ten years is impossible, for some of the reasons you gave. There is no way everyone is going to switch over all their cars, home furnaces, etc... in ten years. At this point we don't even have a clear answer to how we would even go about this monumental task, so it's not like we'll even be well on our way come January 1, 2009.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and find alternative energy sources, but to make a promise like the one he made was just pandering to those who want to hear that kind of crazy talk.

[matthewk]

I am glad "The Surge" has reduced the violence, but again I ask the same question that you never hear an answer for.... what happens when we leave?

No on knows for sure, but it depends greatly on WHEN we leave. Had we left months ago, the area would be a disaster. If we leave next year, who knows? The plan is to have Iraq stable enough that it can continue on it's own without deteriorating into a warzone.

And by leaving I do not mean every US soldier is gone, but that we have stopped actively fighting and go into "keeping a presence" mode.

[matthewk]

T. Boone Pickens has talked about increasing electricity generation from wind power to 20% of all electricity generation in 10 years and then converting a number of cars to natural gas.

He also says we should drill more as the other technologies develop.

[Feanor]

We need a President who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Clinton increased taxes when he came to power and the economy did just fine for the next eight years.

[matthewk]

He never said that we would be off foreign oil in 10 years in his speech. He specifically stated that we would be off Middle Eastern Oil in 10 years.

Thanks for clarifying it. I know I heard "off oil" and "10 years" in the same sentence

That makes things a bit more realistic, but the big question is still how he plans on accomlplishing it. To get off Middle East oil in 10 years still means a lot more drilling domestically along with weening ourselves off some of it and onto other forms of energy.

Edit: I think I also blended Obama's plan in with Gore's challenge, which is to get off oil completely in ten years.

[Jackdog]

Interesting stuff.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/ar ... ng-Cheaply

[Feanor]

The change in the Iraq situation is a result of a number of factors:
- Iraqi citizens finally realizing who their real enemy was (but the surge lifting the threat of al-qaida intimidation).
- Sunni sheiks realizing "if you can't beat them, join them" (but the surge convincing them that despite the Democrats' rhetoric and rise to power, America wasn't leaving until Iraq was more stable)
- al-Sadr being scared shitless (mostly because of trained Iraqi troops finally coming online, but also because of the added U.S. troops, most of which went to pacify the Baghdad slums where al-Sadr's operation was the strongest).

A factor you left out is the barbaric ethnic cleansing that has gone on in Iraq since the country was left basically lawless following the invasion. So many Iraqis have died or fled from the assassins, kidnappings and death squads that it's now, perversely, a more peaceful place.

[XXXIV]

A factor you left out is the barbaric ethnic cleansing that has gone on in Iraq since the country was left basically lawless following the invasion.

Ummm.... ethnic cleansing? That was going on before.

[Feanor]

No it wasn't, not to the same degree.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78937.html

Check out Richard Engel's book if you you want to read more about it, but only if you have a strong stomach.

[fsquid]

nothing wrong with a little ethnic cleansing to get the county under control

[Feanor]

Nothing wrong with innocent people being hacked to death or blown to pieces by Shia and Sunni Militias? Nothing wrong with a man's wife & daughter being kidnapped, he pays the ransom, and then they rape & murder them anyway?

The UN HCR estimate that 2 million Iraqis and fled to other countries, while another 2 million have moved to other parts of the country where they feel safer, although that includes movement from before the invasion. It's not a political argument to say this mass movement of people away from danger has helped reduce violence in Iraq.

[Jared]

Jared and others,


Ooops So it seems that Sarah Palin wasn't a member of the AIP.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian ... the-a.html

Good to know. The confusion is understandable (with her husband as a member). Though a question. If, say, Obama gave a taped speech to a left-wing group that advocates a vote on the secession of Hawaii from the United States, with no denunciation of their views, and his wife was a member of said group, that wouldn't be an issue?

[FatPitcher]

Jared and others,


Ooops So it seems that Sarah Palin wasn't a member of the AIP.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian ... the-a.html

Good to know. The confusion is understandable (with her husband as a member). Though a question. If, say, Obama gave a taped speech to a left-wing group that advocates a vote on the secession of Hawaii from the United States, with no denunciation of their views, and his wife was a member of said group, that wouldn't be an issue?

Of course. But in that case, all records would have been scoured long ago and the new york times et al. would be decrying the "swiftboat" tactics of people who brought it up.

[Teal]

Media objectivity at it's finest...




Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.

[XXXIV]

Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.

They arent exacly where people turn for their candidate endorsements.

[FatPitcher]

We need a President who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Clinton increased taxes when he came to power and the economy did just fine for the next eight years.

Oh, is Obama also going to give us cheap energy and a new technology on par with the (commercialized) internet? Perhaps cut spending with sensible reform of a major entitlement program? Work with a Congress that was swept into power with a small-government, business-friendly mandate?

If only we could get back to 5.6% unemployment like we had under Clinton instead of suffering under the 5.7% unemployment we have now!

[FatPitcher]

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and find alternative energy sources, but to make a promise like the one he made was just pandering to those who want to hear that kind of crazy talk.

Smoke blown up many asses. Some enjoyed the experience.

[Brando70]

Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.

They arent exacly where people turn for their candidate endorsements.

If it's any consolation, Teal, I believe Tiger Beat is staunchly Republican.

[pk500]

Looks like US Weekly has already made their choice.

They arent exacly where people turn for their candidate endorsements.

You'd be surprised ... Never overestimate the American electorate, circa 2008.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

We need a President who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Clinton increased taxes when he came to power and the economy did just fine for the next eight years.

Oh, is Obama also going to give us cheap energy and a new technology on par with the (commercialized) internet? Perhaps cut spending with sensible reform of a major entitlement program? Work with a Congress that was swept into power with a small-government, business-friendly mandate?

If only we could get back to 5.6% unemployment like we had under Clinton instead of suffering under the 5.7% unemployment we have now!

The point is that the a large tax increase and an economic upturn can go hand in hand. It's funny to me that you act like you already know Obama can't manage the economy or simply be president while technological improvements raise productivity.

And if you think the unemployment rate is the only way to measure the poor economic performance of the US under Bush, you haven't got a clue. The economy under Clinton added 22 million jobs, but for Bush, it'll only be about five million.

[RobVarak]

Good to know. The confusion is understandable (with her husband as a member). Though a question. If, say, Obama gave a taped speech to a left-wing group that advocates a vote on the secession of Hawaii from the United States, with no denunciation of their views, and his wife was a member of said group, that wouldn't be an issue?

Would it be an issue? Probably, and more so for Obama than for Palin. He's running for President and trying to appease DNC-centrists and independents despite being far more liberal than they. Anything which would interfere with that message would certainly result in "activating" the e-mail list and a coordinated effort to discredit the publisher of the information.

But that's probably not what you meant...

I'm amused today by the ferocious attacks on Lieberman from the same people who were claiming that one of Obama's strengths is the ability to be "post-partisan." Obama's done basically nothing to back up that claim, yet his supporters are trashing someone who is redefining what it means to put partisanship in the past (where the Obamanistas claim it belongs).

[FatPitcher]

And if you think the unemployment rate is the only way to measure the poor economic performance of the US under Bush, you haven't got a clue.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I think you've been reading the wrong magazines.

[matthewk]

Oh, is Obama also going to give us cheap energy and a new technology on par with the (commercialized) internet?

Gore gave us the internet, so why can't Obama give us free energy

[Brando70]

I'm amused today by the ferocious attacks on Lieberman from the same people who were claiming that one of Obama's strengths is the ability to be "post-partisan." Obama's done basically nothing to back up that claim, yet his supporters are trashing someone who is redefining what it means to put partisanship in the past (where the Obamanistas claim it belongs).

I am impressed that he was so gracious to McCain after he dumped Lieberman for someone younger and hotter.