Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 24 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 >  Last ›
   2301. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4769676)
Of course you did. In no logical world does someone bring up "pro choice" and then claim they didn't bring up abortion.

I didn't use the phrase "pro choice" a single time in the discussion you referenced. (See #2068 and #2103.)
   2302. Srul Itza Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4769680)
If things go badly in Iraq/Syria,


If? IF!!??

In Syria, we have had to pivot from trying to depose a brutal dictator, to holding our nose, and our breath, as he fights off an even more odious group -- the same group that just grabbed around 1/3 of Iraq, and has only been slowed down by our air campaign, as the Pentagon hints that only our boots on the ground will actually stop them -- while the former head of the rump state of Shiite Iraq looks to be ginning up a civil war of his own.

I don't know that arming the "moderates" would have done any good; in these cases, the most brutal, vicious and willing to fight and die seem to gain the upper hand, and that was always going to be the jihadists, just like the most effective fighters in Afghanistan were the mujahedeen who became the Taliban.

I don't know that any policy could have prevented the Syria/Iraq shitstorm that has developed, but as far as opportunities for second-guessing go, this is a truly target-rich environment.
   2303. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4769681)
I didn't use the phrase "pro choice" a single time in the discussion you referenced.


No, you used the phrase "party of choice." As if that makes any difference.
   2304. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4769684)
Since there has been some discussion of rate shock, it's perhaps interesting to note that it isn't going to happen.

Premiums on ObamaCare's health insurance exchanges will rise by an average of 7.5 percent next year, according to a new analysis.


PWC did an analysis across the country. It's also worth noting that these are the *proposed* rate increases, so the likely change will be smaller than 7.5%. So no rate shock, no death spiral.

"The average individual monthly premium for next year, before any subsidies are applied, is $384," Connolly wrote. "And insurance commissioners get a chance to weigh in on rates before fall enrollment."

   2305. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4769686)
Jim Carrey's career kind of reminds of Williams, where his comedy is super shticky and was very popular for a short time and got old really fast, but since then has some good but inconsistent success in dramatic roles. He's also had a history depression, but as others have said, that seems to be the standard with comedians.


Saw a show recently on the making of Caddyshack, it was Rodney Dangerfield's first film, a couple of the cast members noted how Dangerfield was always asking people (other actors, cameramen, passerbys you name it), how he (Dangerfield) was doing, was he funny? should he change something? Also those acting in scenes with him had to ad lib- not because Dangerfield was ad libbing* but because if the scene had another actor giving the punchline, Dangerfield would steal it and deliver it as a one liner just before the other actor was set to give it. Massively, almost frantically insecure man.

*Lots of ad libbing in that movie, especially Chase and Murray, but not Rodney, he didn't ad lib on stage he certainly wasn't going to do it in the movies
   2306. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4769688)
I don't know if I've seen Carrey in anything at all. At the very least, I need to check out The Truman Show. I think that was Carrey, anyway.


He was sporadically good in In Living Color (which kind of describes the show itself)
   2307. zonk Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4769689)
I said it before, I'll say it again...

I find it truly heartbreaking that the Chris McDaniel sideshow is soon to end.

Among the "questionable voters" the McDaniel campaign has compiled include the attorney who's actually handling the McDaniel primary results challenge.
   2308. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4769695)
just like the most effective fighters in Afghanistan were the mujahedeen who became the Taliban.


That's not true, the Taliban's foot soldiers were mostly composed of young men who spent the Soviet/Afghan War rotting in refugee camps in Pakistan.

The Taliban got their shot through a combination of Pakistani backing and the fact that the mujahedeen who actually fought the Soviets, spent the immediate post-Soviet years fighting eachother.
   2309. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4769696)
I find it truly heartbreaking that the Chris McDaniel sideshow is soon to end.

really?
(the soon to end part)

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pear Harbor?


   2310. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4769697)
No, you used the phrase "party of choice." As if that makes any difference.

David already explained this in #2251.
   2311. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4769704)
David already explained this in #2251.


No he didn't. To the extent that Democrats hold themselves out as the party of choice, it's clear that it is limited to the discussion of abortion. No Democrat holds his party out as supporting choice wherever and whenever a choice can be made. No matter how many times those on the right want to make a mockery of this, and cartoonize the position, it still won't be true. The party of choice means the party that supports the right to choose abortion if one so wishes. Period. End of discussion.
   2312. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4769707)
No he didn't. To the extent that Democrats hold themselves out as the party of choice, it's clear that it is limited to the discussion of abortion. No Democrat holds his party out as supporting choice wherever and whenever a choice can be made. No matter how many times those on the right want to make a mockery of this, and cartoonize the position, it still won't be true. The party of choice means the party that supports the right to choose abortion if one so wishes. Period. End of discussion.

LOL.
   2313. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4769708)
No he didn't. To the extent that Democrats hold themselves out as the party of choice, it's clear that it is limited to the discussion of abortion. No Democrat holds his party out as supporting choice wherever and whenever a choice can be made. No matter how many times those on the right want to make a mockery of this, and cartoonize the position, it still won't be true. The party of choice means the party that supports the right to choose abortion if one so wishes. Period. End of discussion.


Well then perhaps they should call themselves the Party of Abortion rather than the party of choice, if, as you say, they're not really invested in "choice" at all outside of one, narrow area.
   2314. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4769713)
Well then perhaps they should call themselves the Party of Abortion rather than the party of choice, if, as you say, they're not really invested in "choice" at all outside of one, narrow area.


Well, the next time we take advice from the other side on how to brand our message will be the first. Maybe the Republicans should call themselves the party of the rich and ignorant.
   2315. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4769716)
Maybe the Republicans should call themselves the party of the rich and ignorant.


"Party of Palin" would work nicely.
   2316. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:14 PM (#4769719)
I don't know that any policy could have prevented the Syria/Iraq shitstorm that has developed, but as far as opportunities for second-guessing go, this is a truly target-rich environment.


If no policy could have prevented the crackup of the region - and none could have - then second-guessing any of them is really just a game of self righteousness. Once we started blowing up the tyrants, the pressure cooker was going to explode.
   2317. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4769722)
Well then perhaps they should call themselves the Party of Abortion rather than the party of choice, if, as you say, they're not really invested in "choice" at all outside of one, narrow area.

Well, the next time we take advice from the other side on how to brand our message will be the first. Maybe the Republicans should call themselves the party of the rich and ignorant.


Or, you could stop whining when people poke fun at the Dems on their "Party of Choice" branding, since you've already acknowledged it's just a crock of bullshit. Can't have it both ways; if the "Party of Choice" is just branding happytalk, expect it to be mocked as such. If it's a real statement of values, expect people to point it out when those values aren't lived up to.
   2318. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4769726)
If no policy could have prevented the crackup of the region - and none could have - then second-guessing any of them is really just a game of self righteousness. Once we started blowing up the tyrants, the pressure cooker was going to explode.


I don't think you can point to Syria having very much to do with us at all. To the extent that you might, it would be that Syrians thought that since NATO helped Libyans, they would help them too.

I don't think Iraq/Afghanistan had anything to do with Syria. Mostly just demographics.
   2319. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4769727)
Or, you could stop whining when people poke fun at the Dems on their "Party of Choice" branding, since you've already acknowledged it's just a crock of bullshit. Can't have it both ways; if the "Party of Choice" is just branding happytalk, expect it to be mocked as such. If it's a real statement of values, expect people to point it out when those values aren't lived up to.


Once again, your spin, not ours.
   2320. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4769729)
Or, you could stop whining when people poke fun at the Dems on their "Party of Choice" branding


Can you point to the Democratic party referring to themselves as that? I've heard, "Party of Pro-Choice," which has a clear abortion context, but not the more general term.
   2321. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4769730)
He was sporadically good in In Living Color (which kind of describes the show itself)

"Fire Marshal Bill" had shades of Robin Williams, but was way funnier.
   2322. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4769731)
Once again, your spin, not ours


You're the guy who had a sad when Joe started poking fun at the whole "party of choice" nonsense. I'm just the guy explaining how the world works.
   2323. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4769745)
Among the "questionable voters" the McDaniel campaign has compiled include the attorney who's actually handling the McDaniel primary results challenge.
Well, who would be in a better position to know? Huh?
   2324. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:47 PM (#4769752)
Well then perhaps they should call themselves the Party of Abortion rather than the party of choice

We could have have a duel between The Party of (Legal) Abortion vs The Republican Coathanger Caucus. That should make for an interesting campaign.
   2325. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4769753)
Can you point to the Democratic party referring to themselves as that? I've heard, "Party of Pro-Choice," which has a clear abortion context, but not the more general term.


Forget it, he's on a roll.
   2326. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:54 PM (#4769755)
Finally, the truth is known. When the Democrats promote "choice," choice sometimes means abortion, but it just as easily might mean the choice to decertify a union, or the choice of Coke vs. Pepsi.

Can we deconstruct the words "freedom" or "economy" next? And why do so many liars claim to love America without owning copies of "Muskrat Love" and "A Horse with No Name"?
   2327. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4769756)
You're the guy who had a sad when Joe started poking fun at the whole "party of choice" nonsense. I'm just the guy explaining how the world works.


You know, one would think that in a forum like this, where literally nothing is at stake, parties with different points of view could have a lively debate without the ridiculous rhetorical tricks that pervade real politics. I understand why people lie, exaggerate, use extreme hyperbole in characterizing the other POV while not conceding a millimeter even when it is obvious, in the real world. But here? I make a tiny gesture in conceding "to the extent it (the Democratic party being the party of choice) is true, it is limited to the abortion issue", and all of a sudden, I support the notion that the democratic party is "the party of choice" and am expected to argue from that premise. Well I won't. Every once in a while I hope an adult conversation can take place, but I suppose it will once again have to wait until the children go to bed.
   2328. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 12, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4769760)
It's almost impossible to figure out what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind when she gave that Atlantic interview. In one incredibly stupid move, she's pre-emptively sapped a huge amount of the energy she's going to need from her party's base, while in apparent hot pursuit of a hawkish faction of voters who are practically non-existent in her own party, and not likely to vote for her if they're Republicans. Add to that the whole stab-in-the-back bit, and the inconvenient fact that much of what she's criticizing took place while she was Secretary of State, and it's as insane an interview as I've seen this side of John Rocker.

Hillary is certainly aware that Obama's foreign policy rating is even lower than his overall job rating, and she probably thinks it will be even worse by 2016. Her calculation is that running as Obama's 3rd term is not her best option, she'd rather be the Goldilocks Candidate - not too hot (Bush), not too cold (Obama), just right (Hillary?). It's not going to be easy to thread that needle, and Andy's post and the NYT comments he alludes to later show how much anguish this causes the hardcore Obama backers, but do they have any good options? Biden has run for President twice without attracting any support. Warren? If Obama is unpopular, why would the voters go for another far-left and inexperienced Senator? Not saying she couldn't cause some trouble in the primaries, but she won't have the minority support that put Obama over the top, and she's a poor general election candidate. Martin O''Malley? See the Maryland Prison Scandal - he'd be my choice for the weakest major party candidate in my lifetime.

It won't be easy for Hillary to distance herself from Obama, even on foreign policy - she was his Secretary of State - but her response was truthful. She, along with the Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, favored arming the Syrian moderates. She went a bit out of her way to poke Obama - "Not doing stupid stuff isn't a foreign policy" - but there may well be more centrist voters to be gained in the 2016 general election than far left voters to be lost, considering their options. Of course, it may be that she needs both, and won't be able to cobble together enough in either camp to put her over the top.
   2329. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 12, 2014 at 06:07 PM (#4769762)
She, along with the Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, favored arming the Syrian moderates.

But when they tried phoning him, he wasn't home.
   2330. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 06:08 PM (#4769763)
And why do so many liars claim to love America without owning copies of "Muskrat Love" and "A Horse with No Name"?


I'm pretty sure that anyone who would actually admit to liking that band really did own those singles at one time or another.

Ok I'll damn America with faint praise, they were actually good relative to their genre (which generally sucked monkey balls)
   2331. Steve Treder Posted: August 12, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4769768)
It's not going to be easy to thread that needle

Certainly not, but on the other hand, assuming she gets the nomination, she'll be running against a candidate nominated by Republican voters.
   2332. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4769771)
I'd also like to point out that I continue to be unimpressed by this idea that we should have armed the Syrian moderates.

Again, Libya was the best case scenario for how "arming the moderates" might have worked, and look at Libya now. And Libya is probably far too optimistic of a scenario for Syria, given that the rebel groups are more fractured, Assad is better supported, and ISIS is much more powerful than any comparable group in Syria.

The best case scenario for "arming the moderates" is civil war. The current scenario is ... civil war. The only policy advocates who might be able to present a credible counterfactual would be someone who advocated propping up Assad in exchange for concessions.
   2333. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4769827)
I'm surprised that someone else hasn't already linked to this - given how much weight some give to Generic Congressional Ballot Polls - but the McClatchy/Marist GCB Poll has the GOP +5, 43% - 38%.
   2334. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4769831)
The podcast linked in [2161] is very much worth a listen.
   2335. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:43 PM (#4769843)
The best case scenario for "arming the moderates" is civil war. The current scenario is ... civil war. The only policy advocates who might be able to present a credible counterfactual would be someone who advocated propping up Assad in exchange for concessions.

Wait, what? Obama didn't arm the Syrian moderates and still got a civil war, and a particularly hellish one at that. The carnage has found its way into Iraq and threatens Lebanon and Jordan. Turkey has accepted up to one million refugees. If the administration had wanted to limit the destruction, we would have sent the rebels weapons and advisors practically from day one.

As for Libya, we declared victory once Gadhafi was overthrown -- not quite sure why we had to remove him from power since he was no longer a threat to any other country -- and then walked away without knowing or caring who would be in charge afterward. Today, Libya is a catastrophe and Mali is close behind.
   2336. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:54 PM (#4769850)
   2337. steagles Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4769851)
If the administration had wanted to limit the destruction, we would have sent the rebels weapons and advisors practically from day one.
it's interesting how you think that would make a difference. and by interesting, i mean naive.

iraq's military had our weapons and they had access to our advisors. they also had ISIS outnumbered. and they still lost. or rather, deserted.


but you're free to keep talking about how we need to send more and more advanced weapons to more insurgent groups in more landlocked asian countries. because history has proved that never turns out poorly.
   2338. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4769859)
it's interesting how you think that would make a difference. and by interesting, i mean naive.

Our advisors left Iraq at the end of 2011. And ISIS is the force it is today because of the never-ending civil war in Syria.

Anything else you wish to add, genius?
   2339. The District Attorney Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:21 PM (#4769862)
RIP Lauren Bacall, 89
This is confirmed by @HumphreyBogart, which cracks me up that Humphrey Bogart has a verified Twitter account.
   2340. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4769863)
Obama's Standing Among Voters Is Hurting Democrats:
President Barack Obama is dragging down his party and hurting the prospects of fellow Democrats as they head into midterm elections that will determine who controls Congress, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll. Obama is beset by problems at home and abroad. Just 40 percent of voters approve of the way he’s doing his job, tying his worst mark in three years and the second worst of his presidency.

Just 39 percent approve of the way he’s dealing with the economy and only 33 percent approve of how he’s dealing with foreign policy, the worst of his years in office. By 42-32 percent, voters say their opinions of Obama make them more likely to vote this fall for a Republican than for a Democrat. And for the first time this election cycle, more people said they’d vote for a Republican than a Democrat for Congress, by 43 percent to 38 percent.
. . .
Independents break for Republicans over Democrats by 40-26, with 12 percent picking neither party and 22 percent undecided. Independents disapprove of Obama’s job performance by 53-35 percent. They turn thumbs down on his handling of the economy by 58-39 percent, the same as the national result. They disapprove of his work on foreign policy by 64-31.

Republicans have the edge overall heading into the elections in all parts of the country, the poll found. One surprising source of support: Latino voters give only the edge to Democrats by 40-38 percent. Whites support Republicans by 48-34 percent; African-Americans support Democrats by 64-19 percent.

Just 30 percent approve of the way he’s handling the conflict between Israel and Hamas, while 55 percent disapprove. The numbers are worse among independents: 24-60 percent. Also, just 32 percent approve the way he’s handling the turmoil in Ukraine, while 51 percent disapprove. Independents approve by 24-54 percent.

Lots of info there, none of it good for Democrats, IMHO.
   2341. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4769865)
U.S. Underestimated Urgency of Islamic State Threat in Iraq:
The inability of U.S. spy agencies to provide details about the timing of Islamic State offensives or their likelihood of success has touched off debate among U.S. national-security officials about whether intelligence on the group has been adequate.

The struggle to understand the capabilities of the group reflects the difficulty of collecting detailed intelligence on its internal planning. “Collection is tough,” one senior U.S. official acknowledged. ...

A decline in U.S. spy resources after the U.S. military pulled out of Iraq in 2011 has limited American intelligence capability in the region. In some cases, intelligence officials have been frustrated by the Obama administration's reluctance to get more involved in Iraq and Syria, current and former U.S. officials said.
   2342. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4769866)
Our advisors left Iraq at the end of 2011.

How long were they there? How long was it going to take to make this whole advising thing work?

And ISIS is the force it is today because of the never-ending civil war in Syria.

Yes, the extended deadline gave the alleged moderates an extra couple of years to join ISIS, and they definitely took advantage of it.
   2343. GordonShumway Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:37 PM (#4769870)
I don't know if this is accurate, but it was the first link I got on Google for the 2016 POTUS primary calendar:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html

Very interesting. The first 5 out of 6 primaries are caucuses, and they are spread out over 3 weeks. Also, Super Tuesday doesn't happen until 6 weeks after the Iowa caucuses, and even then only 8 states are participating in that.

The 2016 primary calendar will favor well organized insurgent candidates much, much more than in years past.
   2344. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:44 PM (#4769871)
RIP Lauren Bacall, 89


She was smokin' in Dark Passage. Great movie.
   2345. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:46 PM (#4769873)
Wait, what? Obama didn't arm the Syrian moderates and still got a civil war, and a particularly hellish one at that. The carnage has found its way into Iraq and threatens Lebanon and Jordan. Turkey has accepted up to one million refugees. If the administration had wanted to limit the destruction, we would have sent the rebels weapons and advisors practically from day one.

As for Libya, we declared victory once Gadhafi was overthrown -- not quite sure why we had to remove him from power since he was no longer a threat to any other country -- and then walked away without knowing or caring who would be in charge afterward. Today, Libya is a catastrophe and Mali is close behind.


So, just to be clear, it was a mistake for Obama to arm the rebels in Libya ... and it was a mistake for Obama to NOT arm the rebels in Syria. Doesn't the failure of the first lead you to believe that the second opportunity for the same policy might not be a resounding success?
   2346. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:47 PM (#4769874)
Yes, the extended deadline gave the alleged moderates an extra couple of years to join ISIS, and they definitely took advantage of it.

So you're saying all Syrians look alike?

Back in the real world, Assad frequently targeted the moderates for elimination while giving jihadis safe passage.

How long were they there? How long was it going to take to make this whole advising thing work?

For the umteenth time, Iraq wasn't in a state of chaos when we bugged out at the end of 2011.
   2347. Howie Menckel Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:49 PM (#4769877)

"she'd rather be the Goldilocks Candidate - not too hot (Bush),"

I think Hillary's good to go on that one...
   2348. BDC Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:51 PM (#4769878)
Bacall singing "And Her Tears Flowed Like Wine" in The Big Sleep is one of the great gratuitous movie episodes. RIP.
   2349. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:55 PM (#4769879)
I was going to make a joke about how neo-con foreign policy cannot fail, it can only be failed, but my shyster lawyer warned me that it could be considered anti-semitic.
   2350. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:55 PM (#4769880)
So, just to be clear, it was a mistake for Obama to arm the rebels in Libya ... and it was a mistake for Obama to NOT arm the rebels in Syria. Doesn't the failure of the first lead you to believe that the second opportunity for the same policy might not be a resounding success?

A resounding success? No. Better than the alternative? Absolutely. Once we had determined that Assad should go, it looked nothing short of stupid not to take the steps needed to ensure his departure. Instead, we've watched from the sidelines as the radicals squeezed out the more moderate groups, then took their brutality on the road back to Iraq.

Again, the problem with Libya is that, after we went in there, no effort was made to manage the aftermath. What did Powell say about owning what you break? Why was that sage-like advice for Iraq but not Libya?
   2351. BDC Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:56 PM (#4769881)
And to tie that sentiment to politics, this still being OTP, Bacall & Bogart were one of the great Hollywood liberal couples. Perhaps they could have done more against HUAC et al, but they were the focus of much common sense and decency in those times.
   2352. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:03 PM (#4769884)
Instead, we've watched from the sidelines as the radicals squeezed out the more moderate groups, then took their brutality on the road back to Iraq.


Of the many weak parts of the counterfactual, this is among the weakest. The radicals were *always* the more popular and successful group. That's why arming the "moderates" in the middle-east is so often fraught with peril. The difference between moderates and radicals is not that large and the US is *really bad* at knowing who is who in the region.

Did you read the piece in the New Yorker about Maliki? The Bush Admin didn't know anything about him. He lied to their faces and they believed him.

We are bad at understanding the ME. Really, really bad at it. Declining to intervene in Syria was a resounding success. There is no way that ISIS would not have continued to crowd out the "moderates."
   2353. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:03 PM (#4769885)
One more thing re: Greenback's comment in #2342:

More than one-half of the jihadis fighting Assad and the moderates are foreigners and didn't start arriving in Syria in appreciable numbers until 2013.
   2354. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:10 PM (#4769887)
Did you read the piece in the New Yorker about Maliki? The Bush Admin didn't know anything about him. He lied to their faces and they believed him.

We are bad at understanding the ME. Really, really bad at it. Declining to intervene in Syria was a resounding success. There is no way that ISIS would not have continued to crowd out the "moderates."

Not only did I read the Dexter Filkins piece, I posted it here. As you may have noticed, the article paints a pretty dismal view of how Obama handled the SOFA renewal issue in 2011. As for the prior administration, Maliki remained controllable under their watch.

"Declining to intervene in Syria was a resounding success," huh? So how do you explain why our former Secretary of State just #####-slapped POTUS on this very issue?

"There is no way that ISIS would not have continued to crowd out the 'moderates?'" Um, ISIS didn't even EXIST until 2013. Didn't even exist.
   2355. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:19 PM (#4769895)
Declining to intervene in Syria was a resounding success.
What would a failure look like? The Russian Army occupying Washington DC?
   2356. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:23 PM (#4769896)
"There is no way that ISIS would not have continued to crowd out the 'moderates?'" Um, ISIS didn't even EXIST until 2013. Didn't even exist.


Uh, okay.

The group, in its original form, was composed of and supported by a variety of Sunni insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) (2003–2006), Mujahideen Shura Council (2006–2006) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) (2006–2013), other insurgent groups such as Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba and Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah, and a number of Iraqi tribes that profess Sunni Islam.


Just because they called themselves something else, doesn't mean the dudes involved weren't around.

What would a failure look like?


Iraq, from 2003-2011.
   2357. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4769900)
Uh, okay.

Yeah, okay.

The predecessor group was in Iraq, not Syria. The current force, ISIS, was formed in 2013. (That would explain the second "S," which stands for "Syria.") The civil war in Syria broke out in 2011.
   2358. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:31 PM (#4769901)
For the umteenth time, Iraq wasn't in a state of chaos when we bugged out at the end of 2011.


The predecessor group was in Iraq, not Syria. The current force, ISIS, was formed in 2013.


Things change fast in the middle east, but in just 7 posts?
   2359. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM (#4769903)
Things change fast in the middle east, but in just 7 posts?

They existed but obviously not fermenting much trouble. Even your savior, Barack Obama, said that Iraq was stable when he yanked the troops and advisors out at the end of 2011.
   2360. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:43 PM (#4769906)
Good night, Shipman. Maybe tomorrow or the next day you'll be good enough to conjure up a reason why Hillary would risk the wrath of the base by going off on Obama for not providing arms to the more moderate Syrian rebels in 2011-12.
   2361. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4769907)
why Hillary would risk the wrath of the base by going off on Obama for not providing arms to the more moderate Syrian rebels in 2011-12.


Huh? It's been answered above.

1. She's an actual hawk.
2. It allows her to differentiate her campaign from Obama.
3. She's stupid enough to believe it would have worked (see 1).
   2362. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:49 PM (#4769909)
So how do you explain why our former Secretary of State just #####-slapped POTUS on this very issue?

I think some conservatives on this very board have some opinions on that. Strangely enough, "Hillary believes what she says, and is spot-on" was not given as one of those reasons. In fact, that reason was mocked.
   2363. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:55 PM (#4769911)
No he didn't. To the extent that Democrats hold themselves out as the party of choice, it's clear that it is limited to the discussion of abortion. No Democrat holds his party out as supporting choice wherever and whenever a choice can be made. No matter how many times those on the right want to make a mockery of this, and cartoonize the position, it still won't be true. The party of choice means the party that supports the right to choose abortion if one so wishes. Period. End of discussion.


Where to begin with how ridiculous this is? Do you realize how self-unaware you sound? If you're "for choice" on mainly one issue, then it's incredibly silly and disingenuous to "hold yourselves out" as "the party of choice." The phrase "party of choice" connotes that "choice" is a core principle of the party, not a whim.

This is not a "mockery from the right"; it's a mockery of logic.
   2364. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4769912)
Huh? It's been answered above.

1. She's an actual hawk.
2. It allows her to differentiate her campaign from Obama.
3. She's stupid enough to believe it would have worked (see 1).

Seriously, dude? If not getting involved had worked so beautifully like you claimed above, she wouldn't have brought up the topic. Period. (Jeez Louise, even Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell aren't buying this stuff anymore.)

OK, now I'm shutting down the laptop.

   2365. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:00 PM (#4769913)
Or, you could stop whining when people poke fun at the Dems on their "Party of Choice" branding

Can you point to the Democratic party referring to themselves as that?


Post 2311, for starters. Misirlou concedes the point there.
   2366. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4769917)
Post 2311, for starters. Misirlou concedes the point there.

Try a search on google for "democrats party of choice" or "party of choice democrats" or "party of choice" and see what you come up with.

How about this? The website for the Party of Choice?

That you, Joe, and GF have actually managed to find something even stupider to plant your flag on than BITTER MOUSE WRONG HOUSE is utterly astounding.
   2367. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM (#4769918)
That you, Joe, and GF have actually managed to find something even stupider to plant your flag on than BITTER MOUSE WRONG HOUSE is utterly astounding.


Yeah, it's everyone else's fault when you guys have a logic fail. Like the ratio thing.
   2368. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:41 PM (#4769925)
Try a search on google for "democrats party of choice" or "party of choice democrats" or "party of choice" and see what you come up with.

How about this? The website for the Party of Choice?


I saw that too, Lassus. Before I made the post, I searched for the term, because I didn't think that I had ever heard it, but didn't trust my memory. I laughed when I got to that website.
   2369. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:53 PM (#4769927)
Yeah, it's everyone else's fault when you guys have a logic fail. Like the ratio thing.

Ray, find where the Democrats are referred to as the Party of Choice and then get back to me about the mockery of logic you referred to in #2363.
   2370. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:55 PM (#4769928)
Even your savior, Barack Obama, said that Iraq was stable when he yanked the troops and advisors out at the end of 2011.

Exactly. I'm not going to bother posting them right now, but there are tons of quotes from Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and other Administration officials patting themselves on the back for what great shape they left Iraq in. It won't be that easy for Obama to blame others if it becomes a fiasco on his watch.
   2371. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 12:16 AM (#4769934)
Ray, find where the Democrats are referred to as the Party of Choice and then get back to me about the mockery of logic you referred to in #2363.


Why don't you ask Misirlou to find it? It was his assertion, not mine. In any event, he didn't say it was a verbatim slogan of the party -- I see what you did there above by calling it "Party of Choice" with caps, but that's disingenuous on your part -- he was talking about the concept.

But it's rather hilarious that you guys are now running from the proposition that Democrats believe in allowing people choice as a rule. I guess as far as Democrats are concerned choice only applies to abortion and sex. You guys are doing a terrific job of proving the original point.
   2372. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 13, 2014 at 12:32 AM (#4769937)
Jeez Louise, even Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell aren't buying this stuff anymore.

And as Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Chuck "It's not a reporter's job to correct misinformation" Todd and Mrs. Alan Greenspan, then I've lost all of the logrolling triangulation hacks."
   2373. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 13, 2014 at 04:22 AM (#4769960)
Ray, find where the Democrats are referred to as the Party of Choice and then get back to me about the mockery of logic you referred to in #2363.

That one is easy: #2103.

Why don't you ask Misirlou to find it? It was his assertion, not mine.

Actually it was noted liberal thinker and Democratic party leader Joe Kehoskie's assertion.

Misirlou's mistake was responding to him with the assumption that anything he said was even tangentially based on reality.
   2374. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 07:27 AM (#4769965)
Iraq, from 2003-2011.
So, a place that did not have a jihadist insurgency on the verge of overrunning the entire country? That's worse than what happened?

I guess that's the same logic by which you conclude that the Oklahoma pre-K program was a success.
   2375. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 13, 2014 at 07:54 AM (#4769970)
So, a place that did not have a jihadist insurgency on the verge of overrunning the entire country? That's worse than what happened?

Well if you consider the hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the trillions of dollars spent, to prop up a region that was going to destabilize the second the US pulled out a success... But hey, always nice to see a libertarian agitate for expanding massive government programs.
   2376. Howie Menckel Posted: August 13, 2014 at 08:33 AM (#4769980)

David Axelrod wants in on the Clinton v Obama pillow fight

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/12/david-axelrod-smack-tweets-hillary-clinton/

He tweeted: "Just to clarify: "Don't do stupid stuff" means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision."

meow!


   2377. steagles Posted: August 13, 2014 at 08:44 AM (#4769984)
i can't help but think this might be a problem that's better solved by a hit squad than a lawyer.
   2378. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:06 AM (#4769994)
I think some conservatives on this very board have some opinions on that. Strangely enough, "Hillary believes what she says, and is spot-on" was not given as one of those reasons. In fact, that reason was mocked.

I'll say it, she believes it, and is right.

I'd much, much, much rather have Hillary as C-in-C than Obama; not even close. She has some guts.
   2379. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4769996)
Iraq, from 2003-2011.

There is no worse outcome than ISIS. The Nazis or Stalinists or Khmer Rouge would be equally bad, but not particularly worse. ISIS at the level of evil. They are genocidal fanatics.

If the choice is Assad or ISIS, we should back Assad to the hilt.
   2380. zonk Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4769998)
Exactly. I'm not going to bother posting them right now, but there are tons of quotes from Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry and other Administration officials patting themselves on the back for what great shape they left Iraq in. It won't be that easy for Obama to blame others if it becomes a fiasco on his watch.


I don't think they patting themselves on the back for leaving Iraq in great shape at much as they were patting themselves on the back for finally extricating the US from perhaps the dumbest US foreign policy decision of the last century.

We spent a decade, trillions of BORROWED dollars, 10s of thousands injured, thousands killed...

Exactly how long do the neocons among us think we should have continued throwing blood and treasure down that sinkhole?
   2381. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4770000)
There is no worse outcome than ISIS. The Nazis or Stalinists or Khmer Rouge would be equally bad, but not particularly worse. ISIS at the level of evil. They are genocidal fanatics.

If the choice is Assad or ISIS, we should back Assad to the hilt.


If ISIS grew out of the tottering Syrian state, how would making the Syrian state more tottering by arming the "moderates" be a good idea? That makes no sense. The way to stop ISIS would have been to back Assad.
   2382. JE (Jason) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4770001)
Exactly how long do the neocons among us think we should have continued throwing blood and treasure down that sinkhole?

For the umteenth time, the outgoing Bush administration signed a SOFA in 2008 because, as a consequence of the surge, the situation had stabilized.
   2383. JE (Jason) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4770002)
If ISIS grew out of the tottering Syrian state, how would making the Syrian state more tottering by arming the "moderates" be a good idea? That makes no sense. The way to stop ISIS would have been to back Assad.

Except ISIS didn't grow out of the "tottering Syrian state." It was a result of a full-blown civil war in Syria that had been taking place for nearly two years.
   2384. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4770003)
If ISIS grew out of the tottering Syrian state, how would making the Syrian state more tottering by arming the "moderates" be a good idea? That makes no sense. The way to stop ISIS would have been to back Assad.

I didn't say anything about arming the moderates. I was talking about Hillary's statements about needing to act based on a set of principles.

However, nothing really could have made things any worse than they are now.

And, we still are only giving the Kurds small arms, while ISIS has large amounts of US made heavy weapons (tanks, APCs, artillery) they captured from the Iraqi "Army".
   2385. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4770004)
Well if you consider the hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the trillions of dollars spent, to prop up a region that was going to destabilize the second the US pulled out a success... But hey, always nice to see a libertarian agitate for expanding massive government programs.
Government, like any other organization, has core competences. Running an economy, not so much. Blowing #### up, much better.

Of course, I didn't set anything about success; tshipman did. (Reading is fundamental.)
   2386. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:27 AM (#4770006)
Except ISIS didn't grow out of the "tottering Syrian state." It was a result of a full-blown civil war in Syria that had been taking place for nearly two years.

A state in the midst of a civil war isn't "tottering"? Syria sure seemed tottering to me two years ago, but maybe we have different definitions of the term.
   2387. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4770009)
A state in the midst of a civil war isn't "tottering"? Syria sure seemed tottering to me two years ago, but maybe we have different definitions of the term.

And, one could argue, that toppling Assad sooner would have denied the extremists time to dominate the opposition. I'm not sure that's true, but you can make the argument.
   2388. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4770010)
I didn't say anything about arming the moderates. I was talking about Hillary's statements about needing to act based on a set of principles.

She has no principles.

Obama's blunders were (1) completely bailing on Iraq; and (2) appeasing the Russians. Hillary was all-in on both of those blunders. She even presented the Russian FM with the Bozo-the-Clownish "reset" button.
   2389. Lassus Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4770011)
However, nothing really could have made things any worse than they are now.

It is a very bad idea to mock Destruction with such conceits.
   2390. JE (Jason) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:33 AM (#4770013)
A state in the midst of a civil war isn't "tottering"? Syria sure seemed tottering to me two years ago, but maybe we have different definitions of the term.

I guess so. The moderates* in Syria needed our help in 2011-12 and none came. As 2013 wore on, ISIS increasingly sucked up the oxygen in the room.

* It's a relative term, of course, and not to be confused with Jeffersonian Democrats.

And, one could argue, that toppling Assad sooner would have denied the extremists time to dominate the opposition. I'm not sure that's true, but you can make the argument.

So I did! :)
   2391. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:33 AM (#4770014)
It is a very bad idea to mock Destruction with such conceits.

We're going to engage in mindless superstition now? Do you want me to knock on wood, or throw salt over my shoulder to ward off the bad juju?
   2392. Lassus Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4770015)
Jesus, lighten up. First off, saying things couldn't be worse is always incorrect and I have no problem saying so. Second, it was also a specific reference to a particular recent mythology.
   2393. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4770016)
I guess so. The moderates* in Syria needed our help in 2011-12 and none came. As 2013 wore on, ISIS increasingly sucked up the oxygen in the room.

* It's a relative term, of course, and not to be confused with Jeffersonian Democrats.


That's just a way too cute and fussy counterfactual. The quest for Middle Eastern "moderates" has been the bane of our foreign policy since the days of Jimmy Carter.

Eyes on the ball: Obama's blunders were Iraq and Russia, and those were real. The rest are mostly just criticism for criticism's sake.
   2394. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4770018)
First off, saying things couldn't be worse is always incorrect and I have no problem saying so.

OK, I'll lighten up. I also have no idea what you were referencing.

What regime could be worse than ISIS? Assad certainly isn't worse than ISIS.

ISIS is engaging in genocide.
   2395. JE (Jason) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4770020)
That's just a way too cute and fussy counterfactual. The quest for Middle Eastern "moderates" has been the bane of our foreign policy since the days of Jimmy Carter.

The issue was searching for a reasonable replacement for Assad, Iran's proxy and Lebanon's destabilizer-in-chief, not looking for democrats. And believe it or not, SBB, more moderate entities do exist in the Middle East. How else do you explain today's de facto alliance between Saudi (not to mention the UAE, Bahrain, and of course Jordan and Egypt) and Israel?
   2396. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4770028)
The issue was searching for a reasonable replacement for Assad, Iran's proxy and Lebanon's destabilizer-in-chief, not looking for democrats.

Yes, all you needed was to find a better dictator.
   2397. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4770031)
The issue was searching for a reasonable replacement for Assad, Iran's proxy and Lebanon's destabilizer-in-chief, not looking for democrats.

I thought the issue was arming a "moderate" group that would depose Assad, and gain and hold Syrian state power. Who was that going to be and how were they going to win and hold state power?
   2398. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4770036)
It is a very bad idea to mock Destruction with such conceits.

We're going to engage in mindless superstition now?


What is this, parody?
   2399. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4770040)
I thought the issue was arming a "moderate" group that would depose Assad, and gain and hold Syrian state power. Who was that going to be and how were they going to win and hold state power?

Sure, but why couldn't the moderate be someone akin to Gen. Sisi in Egypt? Sisi is a moderate in ME terms.
   2400. JE (Jason) Posted: August 13, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4770041)
Flip.
Page 24 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2537 - 9:28am, Oct 20)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogHow long of a season does it take before talent beats chance? - Beyond the Box Score
(34 - 9:28am, Oct 20)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogBernie Miklasz on Twitter: Matheny, when asked about not using closer T. Rosenthal in 9th
(126 - 9:27am, Oct 20)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-20-2014
(1 - 9:26am, Oct 20)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogWhy Royals great Frank White no longer associates with the team whose stadium he built - Yahoo Sports
(3 - 9:25am, Oct 20)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(825 - 9:24am, Oct 20)
Last: The Marksist

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(3 - 9:21am, Oct 20)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogJAVIER prospect comparison system, now with speed! - Beyond the Box Score
(2 - 9:08am, Oct 20)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(3 - 9:07am, Oct 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(101 - 9:04am, Oct 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(14 - 9:02am, Oct 20)
Last: Jeltzandini

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(1 - 8:56am, Oct 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(34 - 8:54am, Oct 20)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogESPN: Brian Roberts retires
(21 - 6:18am, Oct 20)
Last: vivaelpujols

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(56 - 4:13am, Oct 20)
Last: Sunday silence

Page rendered in 0.5818 seconds
53 querie(s) executed