Well, I am, as Esoteric called Obama, a "unity pony." It would make me feel better to call you "a fellow citizen and baseball fan with whom I disagree about politics." I figure you are less likely to shoot me at any future meet-ups that way.

:-)

You'd probably be suprised to find that us "gun nuts" are about the least violent people you'll ever meet.

It really is amazing that the election was close.

Not really, Carter was a breathtakingly inept campaigner, he had zero political instincts- how he was elected dog catcher, let alone Governor of a State and later President, would be beyond comprehension- except I saw it happen.

Carter's nomination in 1976 was like Kerry's in 2004- the election was the Dem's to lose and they somehow managed to pick the worst possible candidate- Carter won (narrowly0 whereas Kerry lost (narrowly) was really only due to the fact that Ford wasn't such a great campaigner himself, and was actually a decent enough fellow, Bush by contrast had Karl Rove and the Swift Boat Veterans for the [un]Truth.

The only times I can think of in my lifetime that the Dem ran a better campaign than the Repub were Clinton's.

Nixon ran rings around McGovern

Ford ran a better campaign than Carter- by all rights a generic Dem should have won 60-40 that year.

Reagan ran a better campaign than Carter {people today have no idea how radical and scary the thought of Reagan as President seemed to the Majority of Americans prior to his initial election- it took a combination of Carter's ineptitude, the Iran Hostage Crisis- which amplified Carter's ineptitude, and fianlly a brilliant debate performance for Reagan to pull it out)

Reagan ran a better campaign than Mondale- not that it mattered- Mondale was inept, and the feminist wing of the party basically sabotaged any chance Mondale had at the convention.

Bush I ran a better campaign than Dukakis, a much better campaign, Dukakis was comically inept as a candidate.

Clinton ran a better campaign than Bush I and then ran a better campaign than Dole. Clinton was also unintentionally helped a bit by Perot and Buchanan.

Bush II ran a better campaign than Gore- not by a huge margin.

Bush II ran a better campaign than Kerry, hell Dukakis in 1988 may have run a better campaign than Kerry.

What should Obama do?
I think he should do specifically what both Dukakis and Kerry* refused to do- just go for it- don't wait to respond to attacks- respond immediately and counterattack- throw everything including the kitchen sink at McCain.


* Tons of lefties were chanting stuff like "Bush Lied and People Died"- Kerry himself, personally, should have said that after the Swift Boat crap started- when your adversary has absolutely no sense of shame why should you?. Kerry's strongest moment of the debate was when he got Bush to rather defensively whine "of course I know Sadaam wasn't behind 9-11"- (I know some Fox News viewers who were absolutely stunned when Bush said that- it's amazing how many Bush supporters believe we invaded Iraq as retaliation for 9-11) but there was no follow up- Kerry should have just hammered away on that topic no matter which direction the toothless moderator tried to steer things- it was the only time he had Bush visibly flustered-and he let him off.

"You'd probably be suprised to find that us "gun nuts" are about the least violent people you'll ever meet."

Naw. Two of my uncles and one of my colleagues all own several guns (the colleague has about 40 guns, I think--pretty extensive collection). They are very even-tempered, calm guys who never fight with anyone about much of anything.

You'd probably be suprised to find that us "gun nuts" are about the least violent people you'll ever meet.

There are gun nuts and then there are Gun Nuts- if by gun nut you mean guy who collects firearms, Guns and Ammo and American Rifleman, just as some here undoubtedly collect baseball cards and SI swim suit issues, well then sure...

if by Gun Nut you mean the borderline paranoid schizophrenics who collect assault weapons, survivalist literature and who secretly anticipate the complete collapse of modern day society...

I guess it's gun nuts or Nuts with Guns.

I'm hardly a Democrat, but your argument doesn't hold water. Time and again Americans, polled, agree slightly more with Democratic than Republican positions.

The problem is that this isn't accurate. Krugman always makes the argument, but all he's demonstrating is that he should stick to economics rather than venture into the realm of politics, where he's out of his depth.

Americans agree with Democratic positions in the abstract. Democrats want the government to actively assist people / improve the country in many ways. So Americans say they support those ideas. Who could be against assisting people? So you ask a poll question, "Do you think we should provide health care/college scholarships/housing/etc. to those who need it?" "Do you think we should protect endangered species/clean up polluted rivers?" Who would be against those things? So liberals take away from these sorts of questions the notion that their ideas are more popular. But poll answers are cost-free. In a poll, there are no tradeoffs. (*) If someone is asking you whether you want free X, go ahead and say yes.

But in real life, there are always tradeoffs. Higher taxes. More regulation. More bureaucrats. Slower economic growth. Restrictions on how one can use one's property. Etc. Not all of these costs in every situation, of course. And I'm not saying that the costs are never worth it. I'm just saying that costs exist. So when actually faced with making a non cost-free choice, Americans suddenly are far less enthusiastic about the Democratic policies.

So Democrats say, "Want to protect cute and fuzzy animals from extinction?" And Americans say, "Yes." And Democrats pat themselves on the back and say, "See? Our ideas are popular." Then Republicans come along and say, "But if you do that, people will lose their jobs. And it won't be over bunny rabbits, but over slimy toads that are virtually indistinguishable from some other species of toad." And then Americans say, "Hey, wait a minute! Not so fast on that whole endangered species thing." And Democrats chalk up this backtracking to Republican shenanigans or Democratic incompetence, rather than realizing that they were asking the wrong question and getting a misleading picture of the American electorate.


(*) This goes back to my comments about the steroid issue in baseball. When asked whether you approve of steroids, it's easy to say "No" because it costs you exactly the same amount -- $0 -- as saying "Yes." But in real life, we see that people don't boycott baseball over steroids, despite their willingness to be orally vehement about the topic. Why? Because the boycott has a cost.

You act as if no such candidate(s) can be found among 250 million Americans. If only that were the case.

At this point in time? Who?

The point is simply this: If you're a feminist who sees freedom of choice as a fundmental right, you'd have to be incredibly stupid to think that this right wouldn't be severely compromised by any new McCain court appointee(s). Not to mention other rights or values that self-described feminists claim to hold dear. But that's for another thread.

I agree that it makes little sense for someone whose world revolves around legal abortion to support McCain. I'm just saying that I think the fear is overblown. I've been hearing wolf-crying about abortion for 25 years.

intellectual elite

When did this become an insult? It is shocking to me that people seem to want a "regular guy" in office as opposed to someone who is exceptional and smart.

Time and again Americans, polled, agree slightly more with Democratic than Republican positions.

What people say is very different from what they do. You need only look at baseball and steroids to see this in action. Polls show a lot of steroid-based anger... attendance and TV ratings show that it isn't hurting the sport.

And, of course, the right is always suggesting that Liberals are hopeless wimps--unpatriotic, gutless, unmanly (the only manly one among us is Hillary)(as well as arrogant,not to mention elitist and arrogant and as you yourself said in this thread "self-righteous")--even when the lefty in question actually served in-country and the Repub candidate did not.

I think the wimp meme is a more recent phenomenon centered around the post 9/11 foreign policy landscape. It's a more specific charge that really doesn't have any applicability to one's beliefs about, say, abortion or marginal tax rates. Besides, I recall George H.W. Bush being derided as a "wimp" constantly by the media, complete with navel gazing columns about his ability to overcome the "wimp factor". Of course, then the Democrats had to go put Dukakis in a tank and squandered THAT advantage. Carter was perceived as weak and indecisive because he actually was.

In any event, pointing out that the republicans engage in name calling too may be accurate, but doesn't help the perception that liberals/leftists think people who disagree with them are cretinous morons. Also, it's the difference between mutable and immutable traits. An unpatriotic, gutless, sissified lefty could someday see the light and become a REAL 'merkcan through an infusion of flag juice, gun cleaner and bitterness, or something. Can't fix stupid though.

Can't fix stupid though.

Perlstein hits on this, but with a different take--that of "reading the literature" and suggests the problem is that liberals DO think they can "fix" "those people." The Obama-as-Messiah trope--which Joey and you have both used--demonstrates this. And, Ann Coulter is actually playing the disagree with us=stupid card as much or more than any Demo pundits and, really, "Liberals are dumb" is pretty much 90% of what Limbaugh says when I have heard him. I assume this is one reason he appeals so much to some people on the American right.

Also, it's the difference between mutable and immutable traits. An unpatriotic, gutless, sissified lefty could someday see the light and become a REAL 'merkcan through an infusion of flag juice, gun cleaner and bitterness, or something.

Clever rhetoric, but I don't see this as a meaningful distinction assuming there is something there beyond the joke. Gutless is as "immutable" as stupid.

I think the wimp meme is a more recent phenomenon centered around the post 9/11 foreign policy landscape.

Naw. It goes back to at least the Nixon era and likely pre-dates that.

And, of course, the right is always suggesting that Liberals are hopeless wimps--unpatriotic, gutless, unmanly (the only manly one among us is Hillary)

Geez, robin, I said my ear was better and I feel fine. No need to make it this easy.

It is, of course, entirely possible that when they wrote "Congress can make no law", they really meant "Congress", as in the federal government, and wrote it that way on purpose.

I am 100% confident that Jefferson meant it that way. See for instance the way he attacked the seditious libel laws. (Didn't even mention the first amendment in his attacks)

However there's an interesting quote from Ben Franklin on the matter, "few of us" [have any] "distinct Ideas of its Nature and Extent"

And its worth noting that Jefferson lost a lot of arguments on what could be fairly called framer's intent. Most fundamentally, the notion of the Supreme Court having final say.

Geez, robin, I said my ear was better and I feel fine. No need to make it this easy

.

I lack the brainpower to try to say what I want to say while also protecting my rhetorical flanks from bunyon's next mom joke. Me and mom will have to take our chances.

And, of course, ending with "no need to make it this easy" isn't exactly slamming the door.

You act as if no such [stealth anti-Roe] candidate(s) can be found among 250 million Americans. If only that were the case.

At this point in time? Who?

Beats me, but that's irrelevant. And the point is that we won't know until it's too late. Do you think that even in 2009, a "moderate" nominee like Roberts would be derailed? He got all of 22 votes against him a few years ago. And that's exactly the sort of justice that McCain has vowed to appoint.

When did this become an insult? It is shocking to me that people seem to want a "regular guy" in office as opposed to someone who is exceptional and smart.

I think the term is often used in a sarcastic or ironic sense, when employed as an insult. Think of the absent-minded professor or ivory-tower egghead stereotypes; these have been around for generations.

People don't want someone stupid as president. But they also don't want someone who comes across as disconnected from their concerns, in a way that academics are often (and often unfairly) stereotyped as. They want someone who's smart without feeling the need to show off his intelligence, someone who's bright while still demonstrating that he understands and is a part of their way of life.

Don't think of it as an intelligence thing -- it's really not; it's strictly a cultural thing, no different from British unease about the Hanoverian kings.

Naw. It goes back to at least the Nixon era and likely pre-dates that.

Before George McGovern, the American people trusted the Democrats implicitly on foreign policy issues. You knew where the party of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ stood when it came to its belief in a robust and strong America. McGovern was obviously the turning point. Clinton to his credit never bought into the pacifist bunk, a big reason for his enduring popularity to this day.

Henry Wallace of course was McGovern before McGovern, but even most Democrats rightly saw him as a joke and dismissed him back in those days.

the guy with the best personality almost always seems to win

Tallest gets the most votes ~2/3 of the time.

Beats me, but that's irrelevant. And the point is that we won't know until it's too late. Do you think that even in 2009, a "moderate" nominee like Roberts would be derailed? He got all of 22 votes against him a few years ago. And that's exactly the sort of justice that McCain has vowed to appoint.

I repeat: he got 22 votes against him in a Republican Senate, in a situation where his vote didn't affect the Roe calculus because he was replacing Rehnquist. And Roberts was perhaps the most overwhelmingly qualified person in the U.S. for the job. He had the perfect resume and no scandals of any sort. And yet he only was confirmed 78-22, when, in a reasonable world, it would have been more like 95-5.

Look at Alito, who was also extremely well-qualified and had no scandals (although the Borking-attack-machine tried to gin a few up). He was replacing O'Connor, costing Roe a vote, and thus was barely elected, 58-42. If Democrats controlled the Senate, he might well not have gotten out of committee.

I lack the brainpower to try to say what I want to say while also protecting my rhetorical flanks from bunyon's next mom joke. Me and mom will have to take our chances.

My road to the White House begins with your Mom.



And, of course, ending with "no need to make it this easy" isn't exactly slamming the door.

I'm a uniter.

DMN - one thing to keep in mind is that if the departing justice is one of the four solidly "liberal" justices, McCain won't necessarily need to put a new justice on the Court. If the Senate wants to play hardball he can sit back and nominate very "conservative" justices, let the Court work as a 4-3-1 body and get a large number of the Republican's preferred results that way. It will also set a good precedent for subsequent Republican vetoes of justices as well as allowing the Republicans to run (and most importantly raise money) on the "judicial obstruction" issue.

Moreover, specifically with respect to Roe/Casey, a departing Ginsburg or Stevens leaves the abortion question 4-4, with one of the "liberal" 4 being Kennedy. A justice who made clear in Stenberg (and to a lesser extent in Hill) that (a) he was willing to allow a great deal more restrictions on abortion than the Democrats would allow and that (b) he felt that Casey (and the compromise therein which he was a key part of) was not being honored. As such, the Democrats position on judicial continuation of Roe/Casey will be very difficult.

Granted, approving any McCain nominee is unlikely to improve the Democrat's position, but I think that the Republicans ability to sit back and do nothing if necessary is something that should be considered.

Granted, approving any McCain nominee is unlikely to improve the Democrat's position, but I think that the Republicans ability to sit back and do nothing if necessary is something that should be considered.

Also, if the Democrats ever intend on holding the Presidency, they don't want to set up a situation where the Senate refuses any reasonable nominee. If a Democratic majority can do it to McCain, a Republican majority, or even a minority, can and will do it to a future Democrat.

Exactly snapper- a McCain election is almost Checkmate for Republicans as far as SCOTUS is concerned. The Democrats will be forced by their donor base to employ the nuclear option and even doing so is unlikely to improve their position.

I suspect like Bush I, McCain will still #### it up, but that's hardly a comfortable position for people who passionately defend Roe/Casey.

Also, if the Democrats ever intend on holding the Presidency, they don't want to set up a situation where the Senate refuses any reasonable nominee. If a Democratic majority can do it to McCain, a Republican majority, or even a minority, can and will do it to a future Democrat.

Doesn't matter, really, unless you actually think Republicans in the Senate will play fair if the Democrats do. They don't, which is why they win stuff more often than you'd think they would.

And, Ann Coulter is actually playing the disagree with us=stupid card as much or more than any Demo pundits and, really, "Liberals are dumb" is pretty much 90% of what Limbaugh says when I have heard him. I assume this is one reason he appeals so much to some people on the American right.

Coulter and Limbaugh are popular liberal bugbears, but they're not candidates or government officials. They're not even in the same category of "respected journalist" as guys like Frank Rich or Paul Krugman, who are no strangers to vitriol. Nevertheless, I'll concede that Limbaugh/Coulter probably do more harm than good to their cause by depicting people they disagree with as evil or stupid to the extent they do so. I don't listen to Limbaugh and have no idea how much of that he engages in. Coulter is a given. In any event, the old saying that conservatives think liberals are wrong, liberals think conservatives are evil/stupid, is illustrative here, and I believe that the more liberals/leftists do to make that statement false, the more they benefit themselves.

Gutless is as "immutable" as stupid.

That's just plain wrong. The coward finding courage is a time honored literary trope covered in high school english. The Red Badge of Courage, Lord Jim, etc.

Before George McGovern, the American people trusted the Democrats implicitly on foreign policy issues. You knew where the party of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ stood when it came to its belief in a robust and strong America.

Really?

I guess you've never read what amounts to an entire library devoted to FDR's "selling us down the river" to Stalin at the Yalta Conference. Or the mockery of Truman when he made a passing reference (while the war was still on) to "good old Joe."

I guess you've never heard of one of the primary Republican slogans in 1952: "20 Years of Treason." Or "Dean Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment." Or the cries for impeachment of Truman when he fired MacArthur.

I guess you never heard all the howls that surrounded the disaster at the Bay of Pigs, and before that, the Nixon charge that Kennedy didn't have the proper experience to be President---specifically directed at his knowledge of Foreign Affairs.

And I guess you never heard what Goldwater had to say about LBJ during the 1964 campaign.

I'll grant that except in the case of Truman, none of those charges really resonated for long with "the American people," but the Republican attempt to paint the Democrats as effete "appeasers" goes back nearly three decades before McGovern.

But of course before Pearl Harbor, FDR was called a "warmonger" by many of these same Republicans because he favored Lend-Lease to Britain and an extension of the military draft. After a while, you begin to recognize the tune.

That's just plain wrong. The coward finding courage is a time honored literary trope covered in high school english. The Red Badge of Courage, Lord Jim, etc.

As is the uninformed finding "enlightenment", the insensitive finding tolerance , the racist seeing the error of his ways, etc. Perlstein's take on this subterannean issue, biased as it is, is more objective than yours, as your overblown word choice "cretinous morons"--shows. Indeed, one of the complaints is that liberals "talk down" to "regular Americans" and try to "change them", which ties in with the idea of the "academics" trying to "teach" the rubes.

That may be a scare quotes record.

Really?

Mmmmm, yes, really!

And I guess you never heard what Goldwater had to say about LBJ during the 1964 campaign.

I consider Barry Goldwater to be an icon, but he got his ass kicked.

In fact, practically everything you said in your post serves to prove my point. The Democrats ceased being the undisputed majority party in America when the McGovern wing became the dominant wing, and no McGovernite has ever been elected President in our history.

And I guess you never heard what Goldwater had to say about LBJ during the 1964 campaign.

But LBJ got Goldwater back in spades

And if Obama is the worst candidate, as you say, who on earth - other than your choice of Hillary - would be BETTER and more likely to win? Are you serious? The worst?

Russ Feingold.

Think of him as Barack Obama ++. (Or think of Obama as Feingold lite.) He has already walked Obama's talk.

And I guess you never heard what Goldwater had to say about LBJ during the 1964 campaign.

But LBJ got Goldwater back in spades

Goldwater had the best line on this. A few years after the election, he said that a friend of his told him that he'd been warned that if he voted for Goldwater, within a few years we'd have half a million troops in Vietnam.

And of course as Goldwater noted, this was correct: His friend voted for him, and a few years later we had half a million troops in Vietnam!

Indeed, one of the complaints is that liberals "talk down" to "regular Americans" and try to "change them", which ties in with the idea of the "academics" trying to "teach" the rubes.

They should probably stop doing it then, it might make more people like them. Bill Clinton, although every bit the member of the liberal elite establishment as Dukakis/Kerry/Obama, didn't do it. Seemed to work out pretty good for him.

Obviously nothing can be done about guys posting on lefty blogs while they sip fair trade lattes in Whole Foods, but every little bit helps. Republicans painting everybody who disagreed with them about Iraq as girly sissyboys who hate America didn't do themselves much good either. It's hard to build a national coalition when half the country is convinced you hold them in contempt.

Bill Clinton, although every bit the member of the liberal elite establishment as Dukakis/Kerry/Obama, didn't do it. Seemed to work out pretty good for him.

This was precisely Andy's point. And mine. Clinton had the Populist touch and charisma, as did Reagan.

Obviously nothing can be done about guys posting on lefty blogs while they sip fair trade lattes in Whole Foods,

Hey, one of the other times we had one of these exchanges, you told me Whole Foods was not an insult and I was being a sisified hypersensitive Liberal for taking it as such, even though Jonah Goldbeg uses it as such. A blast from the past. I think bunyon says he shops there, and he's a mom-jokin', hard-chargin', rootin'-tootin' libertarian (and so's his mom). And HRC doesn't like latte drinkers either.

It's hard to build a national coalition when half the country is convinced you hold them in contempt

.

Indeed.

BTW, is there also "a conservative elite?" I have always wondered...

I think bunyon says he shops there, and he's a mom-jokin', hard-chargin', rootin'-tootin' libertarian (and so's his mom).

To be fair, I shop where ever my wife tells me to.

And my mom made me read Atlas Shrugged, including John Galt's rant, in its entirety, when I was 12. Explains a lot, really. I could've used a latte.

And my mom made me read Atlas Shrugged, including John Galt's rant, in its entirety, when I was 12.

Seriously? Made you? I read it by choice in college. That is kind of interesting if true.

That's just plain wrong. The coward finding courage is a time honored literary trope covered in high school english. The Red Badge of Courage, Lord Jim, etc.


As is the uninformed finding "enlightenment", the insensitive finding tolerance , the racist seeing the error of his ways, etc.

But, with the exception of Charly, not the stupid finding intelligence.

I shop at Whole Foods sometimes, but only for steaks, because my local grocery store has a lousy meat section. Does that make me an elitist?

I shop at Whole Foods all the time, though largely due to convenience (it's in the same office park my wife works in, and only a couple of blocks down the street from mine).

But then, I am an elitist. I'm comfortable with that.

As long as you're buying red meat at the place, I think you're safe, though I wouldn't do it myself. If you come out of there with tofu and soy milk, then get out of here.

And my mom made me read Atlas Shrugged, including John Galt's rant, in its entirety, when I was 12.



Seriously? Made you? I read it by choice in college. That is kind of interesting if true.

Made me is too strong. It was summer, she suggested books to read. It was one of many, but it made for a good line to follow yours. Besides, wouldn't making someone read Atlas Shrugged be kind of ironic?

BTW, is there also "a conservative elite?" I have always wondered...

Of course there is. They are the rich and greedy white men who are responsible for everything wrong with the world, smoking cigars and drinking toasts to "Pure evil."

Of course there is. They are the rich and greedy white men who are responsible for everything wrong with the world, smoking cigars and drinking toasts to "Pure evil."

I knew you were a member of Majestic-12!

Speaking of 941, what is the book or books that have had the most influence on each of you? Mine's The Wisdom of Insecurity.

JP makes an important point regarding Obama strategy -- don't think you can figure "the electorate' out and pick one strategy, but throw the sink at them, and in an intelligent manner. The Republicans have done a great job in national campaigns because they realize there are lots of subgroups that add up to a winning margin, and they take advice from guys like Frank Luntz and base their strategies on actual human behavior and not smart-boy theory.

As for stupidity, nobody likes to be condescended to. And if you don't realize that fact, doesn't that make you stupid?

Ironically, just picked up a book from the library by Avital Ronell entitled "Stupidity". Not light reading, at least for someone as stupid as me. But two little secondhand bits on the subject:

The highbrow version: There is something about stupidity that is untrackable; it evades our cognitive scanners and turns up as the uncanny double of mastery or intelligence.

The simple version: Since I am not capable of fully understanding anything, the only possible ethical position may be: "I am stupid before the other."

Alan Watts is my Ayn Rand -- read most of his work but not since my early youth.

Most influential -- Tropic of Capricorn and everything else he's written on The Air-Conditioned Nightmare.

As for stupidity, nobody likes to be condescended to. And if you don't realize that fact, doesn't that make you stupid?

Don't be stupid.

To be serious, if I refer to the electorate, generally, as "stupid", how is that being condescending? And, if I realize that some stupid ("low information" on msnbc) voters may not like being called stupid voters, how is that, itself, stupid? Would you prefer it if I used "ignorant"?

sisified hypersensitive Liberal

Is there any other kind?

Is there any other kind?

You take that back, you gun-hoarding, tax evading, libertarian nut-case!

tax evading

I wish.

I wish.

We know.

sisified hypersensitive Liberal



Is there any other kind?

Actually, this pejorative applies to most loyalists of both parties/wings. Pretty much everyone who identifies strongly with one party or the other is in need of a pair.

clipped balls

Putin says the US orchestrated the Georgian War to benefit McCain.

That Putin is one tough cookie.

Putin says the US orchestrated the Georgian War to benefit McCain.

That Putin is one tough cookie.

I'm of the belief that this is a pretty dangerous time and to hear the instigator of the danger uttering such irrationalities makes me more confident than I'd like to be in my belief.

What is it about August?

SugarBear, I agree with you. I think we (the US and Europe in general) is being unbelievably naive about Russia.

What is it about August?

World leaders start getting sad that the season is drawing to a close.

Pretty much everyone who identifies strongly with one party or the other is in need of a pair.

So's your mom.

I guess Dayn decided to ratchet down the civility a bit after his previous post on that. But at least his insults are bipartisan. ;-

What is it about August?

World leaders start getting sad that the season is drawing to a close.

And they're worried about whether they'll be eligible for the postseason rosters?

Actually, this pejorative applies to most loyalists of both parties/wings. Pretty much everyone who identifies strongly with one party or the other is in need of a pair.

That's complete BS.

I 1) believe that abortion is absolutely wrong 2) am a firm believer in the right to keep and bear arms 3) believe that small government and low taxes are better for the country.

How could I NOT identify strongly with one party?

Even though I disagree with the Republicans on a number of issues, the ones I agree on are absolutes. I could never, in good conscience, vote for the Democratic nominee (as the party is currently constituted).

Actually, snapper, on point 3:

believe that small government and low taxes are better for the country.

I don't think the reps are any better than the dems these days. The USA PATRIOT sure as hell doesn't speak to a smaller government. On the other two, it makes sense. But there is no mainstream party that supports a smaller government. They just disagree on how to use a big government.

...to hear the instigator of the danger uttering such irrationalities.

I guess you were distracted by the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and missed Georgia's military attack on the cap of S. Ossetia.

Forgetting McCain for a moment, it's not irrational to think the US may have had some hand in encouraging Saakashvili in his aggression, perhaps something like April Glaspie's comments to Saddam Hussein prior to his invastion of Kuwait. Also, let's not forget that there are serious energy-related concerns in this region.

Putting aside this specific dispute, no one except David had any comment on the Guatemala exchange back five or six pages ago. Is denial at work when considering all of the blood that's been shed by the United States since its inception up to the present day, or is it merely acceptance that the United States must necessarily use nasty means to achieve 'our' national ends more often than not?

Just wondering, because the line between the rational and the irrational does not seem as easy to disern as many seem to suppose when analyzing international relations.

I don't think the reps are any better than the dems these days. The USA PATRIOT sure as hell doesn't speak to a smaller government. On the other two, it makes sense. But there is no mainstream party that supports a smaller government. They just disagree on how to use a big government.

Well, their spending spree in Congress is one of the main thing I disagree with the Republicans, along with their blatant favoritism towards corporate interests. However, there is at least a wing of the Republican party that wants to cut spending. No such animal exists among the Democrats.

Putin says the US orchestrated the Georgian War to benefit McCain.

That Putin is one tough cookie.

This tells me Putin is licking his chops at the thought of an Obama presidency.

However, there is at least a wing of the Republican party that wants to cut spending. No such animal exists among the Democrats.

There is a wing of the Democratic party that most definitely wants to cut defense spending.

This tells me Putin is licking his chops at the thought of an Obama presidency.

What do you think Obama would do if Russia invaded the Ukraine? A strongly worded note, perhaps?

I'm not even sure Obama would defend Poland actively, despite our NATO obligations.

it's not irrational to think the US may have had some hand in encouraging Saakashvili in his aggression

Just say it was Bush's fault. You know you want to...

guess you were distracted by the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and missed Georgia's military attack on the cap of S. Ossetia.

Forgetting McCain for a moment, it's not irrational to think the US may have had some hand in encouraging Saakashvili in his aggression, perhaps something like April Glaspie's comments to Saddam Hussein prior to his invastion of Kuwait. Also, let's not forget that there are serious energy-related concerns in this region.

Even if true and not self-evidently absurd, this line of thought would not change one iota that fact that Russian belligerance is the "instigator of the danger" we now face -- the words I used. They're self-evidently not satisfied with their illegal annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and have moved to threats against other sovereign and democratic nations including Poland and the Baltics, as well as shipping in the Black Sea.

Not to mention illegally occupying Georgia itself.

When an authoritarian aggressor starts mouthing irrational and belligerant babble while still drunk on the ill-gotten spoils of previous belligerance, it's hard to miss the danger.

What do you think Obama would do if Russia invaded the Ukraine? A strongly worded note, perhaps?

Text message at 3am Moscow time. See how Putin responds.

I take the point you gents are making, but what exactly do you think Bush, McCain or Reagan would do in this situation? If Russia "invades Ukraine" which I don't see happening, there's not a whole lot we could do, is there?

What should he do?

a) nuke them
b) draft a 15 million man army and counter attack
c) fly air missions / cyberwarfare / send money
d) refuse to buy russian oil/gas
e) boycott russian porn
f) tell the EU to do something

Do we even sell grain to Russia any more?

I take the point you gents are making, but what exactly do you think Bush, McCain or Reagan would do in this situation? If Russia "invades Ukraine" which I don't see happening, there's not a whole lot we could do, is there?

Provide arms and air support. What we should do is just sign a treaty with Ukraine now.

The Russian military is a paper tiger. They have a few decent divisions and a lot of crap. Their total army is maybe 800,000 men. They would never risk an armed confrontation with the U.S.; they know they would lose badly.

An agressive U.S. arms and training program could allow even the Georgians to be able to defend themselves. With modern U.S. anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and good training, in that mountainous terrain, a Georgian Army of say 100,000 (their existing 30,000 regulars and another 70,000 reserves) could kick the crap out of the two divisions the Russians invaded with.

Once the invasion of Ukraine happens it's too late. The test is whether you'll do what's necessary to deter it knowing that, if you do, you willl hear the squeals of tens of millions of people and news outlets that you're to blame for being overly "provocative." Look how quickly people blamed Georgia for getting itself invaded and the US for somehow egging them on.

If Russia "invades Ukraine" which I don't see happening, there's not a whole lot we could do, is there?

Ukraine, is completely different than Georgia or Poland in my mind. The U.S. should have sent troops into Georgia proper, at the first sign of Russia extending signifigantly past the seperatist enclaves. Troops should have been moved from Iraq, Afganastan, or domesticly as needed.


Georgia was the U.S. closest alley in former Soviet block AND wanted our help. You help your friends. More importantly your defend the sovereignty of them.

If a staring match wouldn't have balked the troops advance you defend as needed, though I would hope it wouldn't come to it.

Hell, there not being U.S. troops there now is nearly unforgivable.

Ukraine, is completely different than Georgia or Poland in my mind. The U.S. should have sent troops into Georgia proper, at the first sign of Russia extending signifigantly past the seperatist enclaves. Troops should have been moved from Iraq, Afganastan, or domesticly as needed.

They may yet be sent. American and Soviet troops eyeballed each other warily in Berlin for decades, essentially without incident. Maybe Georgia will be the new Checkpoint Charlie.

Ukraine, is completely different than Georgia or Poland in my mind. The U.S. should have sent troops into Georgia proper, at the first sign of Russia extending signifigantly past the seperatist enclaves. Troops should have been moved from Iraq, Afganastan, or domesticly as needed.


Georgia was the U.S. closest alley in former Soviet block AND wanted our help. You help your friends. More importantly your defend the sovereignty of them.

If a staring match wouldn't have balked the troops advance you defend as needed, though I would hope it wouldn't come to it.

Hell, there not being U.S. troops there now is nearly unforgivable.

Ukraine is the most important country in Europe from a balance of power standpoint. Keep them in the Western orbit, and Russia can never really threaten Europe. It is MUCH more important than Georgia.

That said, I would support Georgia also. They don't need U.S. troops. Weapons and airpower would do it.
One concerted U.S. air campaign against that main road through S. Ossetia, and the Russians are done. Without resupply they're paralyzed. Give the Georgians some Javelin and TOW ATGMs, and not too many Russian make it back home.

Yeah, it's too bad the president is a gutless flower-power pansy who is afraid to use military force.

Hopefully, the one we elect will have some balls.

One concerted U.S. air campaign against that main road through S. Ossetia, and the Russians are done. Without resupply they're paralyzed. Give the Georgians some Javelin and TOW ATGMs, and not too many Russian make it back home.

In other words, what Clinton would have done.

What do you think Obama would do if Russia invaded the Ukraine? A strongly worded note, perhaps?

"Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"

What do you think Obama would do if Russia invaded the Ukraine?

Look to see if the teleprompter was there, think a few moments, realize how deep in over his head he is, and stammer a lot.

What do you think Obama would do if Russia invaded the Ukraine? A strongly worded note, perhaps?

"Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"

And what do you think either Bush or McCain would do, beyond what they might do in conjunction with NATO?

Bomb Kiev?

Invade Moscow?

Start dragnet sweeps in South Brooklyn?

Start claiming that Obama is secretly part Russian?

McCain may deal with it well (so, I think, may Obama - judging what a president will do with foreigh policy is tricky before they have the job).

Bush, on the other hand, would no doubt respond to an invasion of Ukraine by enlisting the Soviets help in invading Mongolia.

And BTW, what was the reaction of a certain Republican administration when Soviet troops crushed the Hungarian Revolution?

I do recall that before that happened, the Voice of America did give some hellified broadcasts promising that we'd have the Hungarians' backs. Those broadcasts made for a nice book anthology.

McCain may deal with it well (so, I think, may Obama - judging what a president will do with foreigh policy is tricky before they have the job).

Don't ever be breathing such heresies to our armchair BTF generals, bunyon.

Bush, on the other hand, would no doubt respond to an invasion of Ukraine by enlisting the Soviets help in invading Mongolia.

And probably say something along the lines of "we are all Ukrainians."

Yeah, it's too bad the president is a gutless flower-power pansy who is afraid to use military force.

No just stupid, corrupt and greedy and overly obsessed with his own agenda.

Srul Itza talked a lot about the differences between Ukraine and Georgia in the last thread about this and made some very good specific points, about geography, history and NATO agreements/implications.

Another leftist circlejerk on BTF, huh, Andy?

think, may Obama - judging what a president will do with foreigh policy is tricky before they have the job).

My guess is that if Obama actually gets elected that he will have to go with some traditional tough-guy foreign policy moves/talk to prove he is a "real American" in spite of, and in part because of, the taunts from the right.

My guess is that if Obama actually gets elected that he will have to go with some traditional tough-guy foreign policy moves/talk to prove he is a "real American" in spite of, and in part because of, the taunts from the right.

Sure, just like Truman, Kennedy and Johnson had to be hawkish against the Communists, while Eisenhower and Nixon could cut bait and get out of wars that were going nowhere.

Gotta love the Keyboard Kommandos. So easily distracted. Two minutes ago it was absolutely essential that we pull resources out of Iraq and Afghanistan, even though those resources had already been badly depleted by all traditional measures of military readiness, so we could launch a war with Iran. Absolutely essential.

Then someone waves a shiny Cold War: The Sequel bauble in front of their eyes, and they forget completely about Iran and start salivating about war with Russia.

"Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"

And what do you think either Bush or McCain would do, beyond what they might do in conjunction with NATO?

"Stop! Or else!"
"Or else what?"
"Or else you won't!"

See the difference?

Wait, there are Americans out there who seriously want the U.S. to get involved in that ########### in the former Soviet Union?

Wait, there are Americans out there who seriously want the U.S. to get involved in that ########### in the former Soviet Union?

So if your country was once imprisoned within the Soviet Union, Russia can take it back by force any time it wants?

My guess is that if Obama actually gets elected that he will have to go with some traditional tough-guy foreign policy moves/talk to prove he is a "real American" in spite of, and in part because of, the taunts from the right.

Sing, Muse, the machismo of Obama's son Obama, articulate, change seeking, that cost the Americans countless losses...

So if your country was once imprisoned within the Soviet Union, Russia can take it back by force any time it wants?

What does that have to do with the United States?

The Russian military is a paper tiger. They have a few decent divisions and a lot of crap. Their total army is maybe 800,000 men. They would never risk an armed confrontation with the U.S.; they know they would lose badly.

That's a very good reason to get very, very nervous if the Russians start throwing their weight around. The Russians aren't stupid: they have to be pretty confident in the same thing that we're pretty confident in, that they'd get their ### kicked in a conventional war. That, to me, says some pretty unsettling things when we're talking about a confrontation with a country that really does have nukes.

Sing, Muse, the machismo of Obama's son Obama, articulate, change seeking, that cost the Americans countless losses...

Sorry, whenever I see the word "machismo" it reminds me of John Facenda, the venerable voice of NFL Films intoning and narrating gravely, "Black men call it soul; Spaniards call it machismo. Whatever it's called, Gino Marchetti had it in spades."

Carry on.

What does that have to do with the United States?

Nothing, unless you think the United States should stand firmly with the institutions of human progress and the peoples who want to progress through them.

Nothing, unless you think the United States should stand firmly with the institutions of human progress and the peoples who want to progress through them.

Turning a regional conflict in Georgia/South Ossetia into a global conflict is "progress"?

People who think that there are good guys and bad guys in that war are naive.

That's a very good reason to get very, very nervous if the Russians start throwing their weight around. The Russians aren't stupid: they have to be pretty confident in the same thing that we're pretty confident in, that they'd get their ### kicked in a conventional war. That, to me, says some pretty unsettling things when we're talking about a confrontation with a country that really does have nukes.

It says they knew we couldn't do anything militarily in Georgia, even if we wanted to, which we don't. We don't have the military assets available for quick deployment and we don't have the logistics tail to support them adequately in that part of the world. The geographic difficulties inherent to Georgia seriously limit US options, but that is not a problem in Ukraine. More importantly, Russia knew there was no support domestically (or internationally) for a US/Russia shooting war. Not over Georgia anyway.

John Facenda rules.

that cost the Americans countless losses...

Cheer up, my non-Republican friend. Maybe he'll lose and then you can explain to me why I and most Americans will be better off with McCain in the White House. I am ready to hear that case any time.

Cheer up, my non-Republican friend. Maybe he'll lose and then you can explain to me why I and most Americans will be better off with McCain in the White House.

47% more cranky old man jokes?

47% more cranky old man jokes

?

That'll help Leno and Letterman.

The geographic difficulties inherent to Georgia seriously limit US options, but that is not a problem in Ukraine

.

Indeed. I knew very little about that before this, but read up on it after Itza's posts, so I know a few basics now.

And probably say something along the lines of "we are all Ukrainians."

Ich bin ein golumpki?