Feanor wrote:Maybe this is unfair, but Rahm Emanuel has always struck me as being really slimy.
He's a partisan hitman par excellance. I actually respect the hell out of him, despite feeling that he's wrong about damn near everything. As I said during Pelosi's aboninable performance on the Treasury bill, I think he's be a much more effective Speaker than she has been.
The Chief of Staff's primary duty is to gatekeep for the Oval Office, and I think he'll excel at that part of the job. OTOH, he's a notorious slash and burn maniac when it comes to personal relationships, so this pick may end up exacerbating the inate tension and infighting that exists in every administration.
If Obama has him act as consigliere and minimizes his day-to-day interaction with staff it may work out ok.
As I said earlier, with the chance of a John Kerry-led State Department out there, anything else looks reasonable by comparison LOL.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
wco81 wrote:I can see it now. Obama decides not to push for Missile Defense, which is the biggest weapons system in the DoD budget, despite it being a crock, and the conservatives will HOWL about how he's not protecting us, how he's caving into terrorists and Putin.
Putting the anti-missile batteries in the Russians face is needlessly provocative. But it's obviously more important to fund a weapons system which can't work.
My wife works for the missile defense industry, and it works just fine. Your point has no point. It does everything it's supposed to do-intercept missiles and make people think twice. What you see on the news isn't what's going on. They only report the failures.
GTHobbes wrote:
You're right...he had an awful lot of help from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, etc. Fortunately, their days are either over or just about to be a part of the horrible past, too.
And congress. The White House can't do a damned thing by itself.
Not true. Bush used the excuse of being "at war" to pass through legislation without needed any else's approval.
People make a mountain out of a molehill with this particular little argument, and have for quite some time. It's nonsensical. Congress approved almost all of what has gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they had to. The president can only make war for 90 days without congressional consent, and even at that...Bush didn't do it. Hell, he didn't even go in without lengthy negotiations with the stinking UN.
RobVarak wrote:
He raised the payroll tax rates. He cut defense spending precipitously at a time when the military needed just the opposite. He granted a universal pardon to draft dodgers. He let Congress go ape-s*** with pork bills because he was a weak president fromt the get-go. He initiated a foreign policy based on an idealistic lark which made human rights the pre-eminent consideration. He initiated the grain embargo against the USSR. He finalized the process of giving away the Panama Canal. He misread the mood of the Iranian "revolutionaries" and granted the Shah asylum. He tried to remove the US military presence in Korea. Hell, if you want to take the long view he also initiated the support for the Afghan reisistance that ultimatel led to bin Laden (although obviously this was a bi-partisan move that Reagan continued).
Hmm, I wonder why he only got one term?
Despite that litany, his administration wasn't a complete disaster by historical standards, but it is a vivid demonstration of my main point: A President who is not ideologically aligned with the electorate has a very narrow margin for error. The only thing worse is a President that loses personal credibility with the public.
As I said in my first post, Carter did have an additional handicap in that his own party basically hated him from right out of the gate. He garnered more animosity from his own party in Congress than anyone since LBJ, but he lacked LBJ's political skills and experience.
Tangentially, I don't think a full-scale war with Iran was anywhere near the issue that separated Carter and conservatives. His mishandling of the crisis certainly was an issue, but it wasn't so much his unwillingness to go to war as much as it was his neglect of the military and foreign policy which left the US impotent in the face of the mullahs.
He was one-term because of gas prices/inflation, the hostages.
Things like the Panama Canal and draft dodgers, I doubt anyone but conservatives care about those issues. What's happened as a consequence of those actions? Not a hell of a lot.
I don't know about the budgets in those years but I'm pretty sure we didn't have big deficits until the second term of Reagan. I also recall hearing that social security was reformed in the early '80s, so I'm not sure what the long-term effects of the payroll taxes were. I do know that there were some big job creation numbers in some years (was surprised to see that).
Human rights? Hmm, is that really more quixotic than democracy in the ME? Yeah I wouldn't have supported granting the Shah asylum either but not surprising given that we installed him and made him what he was (an autocrat who brutally oppressed dissent -- sound familiar?). But that's odd the idea of cutting off old loyalties. Conservatives are gung-ho about defending Taiwan, for instance.
Missile defense works only for the contractors building the boondoggle.
It can't stop the MIRVs Don Draper learned about in the early '60s.
Amazing, people believe in a system which has to essentially shoot down bullets with bullets but they're skeptical about global climate change, the possibilities of stem cell research or sustainable energy.
wco81 wrote:Missile defense works only for the contractors building the boondoggle.
It can't stop the MIRVs Don Draper learned about in the early '60s.
Amazing, people believe in a system which has to essentially shoot down bullets with bullets but they're skeptical about global climate change, the possibilities of stem cell research or sustainable energy.
How about something that prevents airplanes from being hijacked and flown into our tallest buildings in our largest cities?
wco81 wrote:Missile defense works only for the contractors building the boondoggle.
It can't stop the MIRVs Don Draper learned about in the early '60s.
Amazing, people believe in a system which has to essentially shoot down bullets with bullets but they're skeptical about global climate change, the possibilities of stem cell research or sustainable energy.
It's because I've seen verifiable proof of a bullet hitting a bullet...and that was 8-9 years ago. Watched it happen. Seen it work in the field with the soldiers, who weren't 'building the boondoggle'. This is a fact. Your little climate change crap is a religion, such as it is. And lumping those other two in here with missile defense, not to mention the aforementioned religion, makes about as much sense as...
wco81 wrote:Missile defense works only for the contractors building the boondoggle.
It can't stop the MIRVs Don Draper learned about in the early '60s.
Amazing, people believe in a system which has to essentially shoot down bullets with bullets but they're skeptical about global climate change, the possibilities of stem cell research or sustainable energy.
How about something that prevents airplanes from being hijacked and flown into our tallest buildings in our largest cities?
We have that. It's called profiling, but oh, we can't do that!!! We must do an anal probe on an old white lady in a wheelchair...
DivotMaker wrote:
McCain's biggest failure as I see it is that he could never shake the stigma of his association with the Bush Administration and the Democratic Party's insistence that it would be 4 more years just like the past 8.
I disagree. While the focus on our sinking economy shifted focus away from McCain's strength (War)....Sarah Palin's ineptitude and inability to prove she belonged at McCain's side swayed many of the undecided voters that the Rep ticket needed to win over. I think Katie Couric's interviews may have done more to insure Obama's victory than people realize.
Completely disagree with your statements unilaterally. And Katie Couric is ....well, let your imagination wander....
wco81 wrote:Missile defense works only for the contractors building the boondoggle.
It can't stop the MIRVs Don Draper learned about in the early '60s.
Amazing, people believe in a system which has to essentially shoot down bullets with bullets but they're skeptical about global climate change, the possibilities of stem cell research or sustainable energy.
How about something that prevents airplanes from being hijacked and flown into our tallest buildings in our largest cities?
We have that. It's called profiling, but oh, we can't do that!!! We must do an anal probe on an old white lady in a wheelchair...
I'm with ya on that one! It's how Israel does it and they know a thing or two about fighting terrorism.
JackB1 wrote:
Just keeping most of our military in Irag indefinitely, to "fight terrorists" doesn't cut it anymore. There are more effective ways to fight terrorism and Bush/McCain don't understand that.
What ways would that be?
JackB1 wrote:There are way more people dieing of cancer, disease and poverty in this country than from terrorists.
How about focusing on all the reccomendations made by the 9/11 Commission? How about securing our borders, ports and airports?
The costs of this war and impact on our economy have been far too great to justify it by simply saying "we are winning the fight against terrorists by being there".
First off brother,we are winning the fight by killing terrorist. Our soldiers have done a incredible job in Iraq since the surge. The soldiers aren't just "There". They have a mission and it's just about complete.
Secondly I do not want goverment involved im my families healthcare. I won't use the DMV as an example I'll use VA. I wouldn't trust VA with my wife or son at all. It's a catastro-f***. My wife has BCBS coverage from the goverment. The same as the members of congress have. It costs us 175.00 a month for full medical,dental and vision. We pick our doctors.
It's great coverage and it cost about what most of you guys spend on gaming a month. Or buying pizza,beer and smokes every month. If that was made open to the public that would be better than the universal bullshit some of you want.I don't want to pay for a drug dealers baby to be born with my taxes.
If you have stats on the number of Americans dropping dead because of real poverity I'd like to see them. I'm not talking about durg addicted poverity or self inflected poverity. I am talking third world country poverity. Please post a link on that.
Saw this in the local paper (online). Got a chuckle from me, even if ultimately it didn't happen.
Last Monday on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
JackDog wrote:Secondly I do not want goverment involved im my families healthcare. I won't use the DMV as an example I'll use VA. I wouldn't trust VA with my wife or son at all. It's a catastro-f***. My wife has BCBS coverage from the goverment. The same as the members of congress have. It costs us 175.00 a month for full medical,dental and vision. We pick our doctors.
It's great coverage and it cost about what most of you guys spend on gaming a month. Or buying pizza,beer and smokes every month. If that was made open to the public that would be better than the universal bullshit some of you want.I don't want to pay for a drug dealers baby to be born with my taxes.
That's great for your family, but the millions of uninsured Americans who are either unemployed or work for employers that don't offer health coverage can't get full BCBS coverage for $175 a month. (I agree that opening up that type of scheme to the public would probably work better than national health care reform that would involve massive transaction costs and bitter opposition from special interests.) In 2001, the average cost of group insurance for family COBRA coverage was approximately $7,000 a year.
I saw some "media analyst" being interviewed on Fox News this morning claiming that only 8 - 15 million Americans were uninsured, which is odd given that the 47 million figure that is often quoted comes from the US Census Bureau. Of course, the Fox News anchor let the lie pass without question or comment.
matthewk wrote:
Their logic is flawed, or they are just in denial. No matter the reasons for being in Iraq, all signs point to us winning the fight there against terrorists. So they say they like McCain because he'll continue to fight them.
Just keeping most of our military in Irag indefinitely, to "fight terrorists" doesn't cut it anymore. There are more effective ways to fight terrorism and Bush/McCain don't understand that. There are way more people dieing of cancer, disease and poverty in this country than from terrorists.
How about focusing on all the reccomendations made by the 9/11 Commission? How about securing our borders, ports and airports?
The costs of this war and impact on our economy have been far too great to justify it by simply saying "we are winning the fight against terrorists by being there".
I'm not sure why you quoted me with this. You're going way off what my point was. This is a seperate discussion, and has nothing to do with what I posted. I was simply pointing out the odd reasoning for the terrorists support for one candidate over another.
matthewk wrote:
I still beleivve the private sector is better suited for health care than our government. Have you visited your local DMV lately?
So that's your logic? You find one federal agency that isn't run well and
then you dismiss everything else that you don't approve of? Funny how you blindly trust the govt to fight terrorism efficiently, but you don't trust them with a health care system. Yeah, you are right. Our health care system is fine "as is". Hopefully you or your loved ones won't ever experience what's it's like to have your HMO insurance company deny you coverage of a life saving procedure.
To sart with can you not see the smiley? And quit making general assumptions.
Care to post a link that shows that I personally blindly trust the govt to fight terrorism?
I also never said our helth care system was fine as is. Did you even bother to read my reply to WCO? I assume not based on your completely incorrect assesment of me.
You also know my families medical history too now? I happen to have a son who was born with a birth defect. Thankfully, we live in a country were we have access to the kind of care that has been able to correct the problem, although he's still facing many more surgeries and other procedures. And you think I don't care about health care!?!
DivotMaker wrote:
McCain's biggest failure as I see it is that he could never shake the stigma of his association with the Bush Administration and the Democratic Party's insistence that it would be 4 more years just like the past 8.
I disagree. While the focus on our sinking economy shifted focus away from McCain's strength (War)....Sarah Palin's ineptitude and inability to prove she belonged at McCain's side swayed many of the undecided voters that the Rep ticket needed to win over. I think Katie Couric's interviews may have done more to insure Obama's victory than people realize.
Palin made have scared off a few, but without here McCain would never have been as close as he was. When she showed up for rallies, tens out thousands of people showed up. When McCain was on his own is was in the hundreds.
wco81 wrote:Amazing, people believe in a system which has to essentially shoot down bullets with bullets but they're skeptical about global climate change, the possibilities of stem cell research or sustainable energy.
