Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[GrayMouser]

1)Buchanan
2)Andrew Johnson

For bungling, respectively, the lead-up to, and the aftermath of, the Civil War.

3)Harding- general corruption

Time will tell, but I'd rank Bush anywhere from fourth down to seventh or eighth.

Better than the above, but certainly worse than Nixon or Hoover.

Time will tell though- look what happened to Harry Truman's rep.

[GrayMouser]

Encouraging news for Dems; 53%-47% in Denny Hastert's district:

Democrat Bill Foster has won the special election in IL-14, and by a stunning margin.

This is a red district. Former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert represented this district since 1987, winning reelection by huge margins.

This district includes the city of Dixon, which is the birthplace of Ronald Reagan.

This is a district that President Bush won twice, and in 2004 he received 56% of the vote.

The NRCC poured over $1 million here to hold onto this seat -- nearly a third of its cash on hand.

John McCain actually took time from his presidential campaign to come to Illinois and hold a fundraiser for Oberweis and formally endorse him.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And GWB is only regarded as the worst by leftists. Sure, most righties would agree he isn't the greatest, but certainly not the worst.

I don't know. Government-spending-wise, he was terrible, and that's not just war spending. Of course, so was Reagan.

But I'd say the pre-emptive war thing trumps everything else. We could at least make a fair case for the moral high ground on that prior to Iraq, mainly in the name of fighting communism and/or assisting governments that were under attack. GWB took that away. The USA will never again be seen by the world as a "nobel" superpower, which is probably more realistic, but a huge cost in terms of global capital.

[hectorberlioz]

What does the Nobel have anything to do with it?

[hectorberlioz]

This is disturbing...
http://snarkybastards.com/index.php/...itics-revised/

()

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't know. Government-spending-wise, he was terrible, and that's not just war spending. Of course, so was Reagan.

I'm a general admirer of Reagan...but as far as I'm concerned, GHWB did just as much good for the world as he did.

My Favorite Republican Presidents are: Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower.

But I'd say the pre-emptive war thing trumps everything else. We could at least make a fair case for the moral high ground on that prior to Iraq, mainly in the name of fighting communism and/or assisting governments that were under attack. GWB took that away. The USA will never again be seen by the world as a "nobel" superpower, which is probably more realistic, but a huge cost in terms of global capital.

That really depends...on whether we succeed in stabilizing Iraq. One could say Reagan had ruined our reputation in the world, by playing that chess game with the Soviet Union...but the end result was that the SU fell, and our reputation was OK after that.

If the Iraq mission fails, it'll be one of the most disturbing and deep failures by America..."paper tiger" will be our nickname in the Middle-east again.

Ok, here's a piece on Condi as McCain's VP. I like Condi, and I would be fine with her as a pick...except I feel her efforts on the Palestinian/Israeli front is very much a failure. Would we want her as a President with that record? On the other hand, the P/I front has hardly been a success PERIOD. So maybe this is just a drop in the bucket of her experience.

What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by The New Yorker

Her nomination to a constitutional executive office would cost McCain the votes of his party’s hardened racists and incorrigible misogynists.

You gotta laugh at their matter-of-fact assertion that Republicans own the "racist vote".
I really don't know what to make of these New Yorker writers...one has to wonder, do they wander outside of the NY-media, mentally?

How long has it been since a New Yorker has actually been down in the South?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That really depends...on whether we succeed in stabilizing Iraq. One could say Reagan had ruined our reputation in the world, by playing that chess game with the Soviet Union...but the end result was that the SU fell, and our reputation was OK after that.

If the Iraq mission fails, it'll be one of the most disturbing and deep failures by America..."paper tiger" will be our nickname in the Middle-east again.

Personally I don't think salvaging the Iraq-situation will be enough to restore your foreign reputation. The whole deal with the 'with us or against us' rethoric after 9/11, the way the invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq was planned and executed, the patriot act, the fact that Bush got elected twice... and I remember people here looked on in amazement how badly Katrina was handled by the big powerful United States. On the whole the reputation of the USA got several big bites in mind of other countries. One decent act isn't going to restore it, if you ask me. If you can do so, hey all the better for your country, but me, I wouldn't be putting my money on it.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

This is disturbing...
http://snarkybastards.com/index.php/...itics-revised/

()

Bwahaha!! Greatness.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That really depends...on whether we succeed in stabilizing Iraq. One could say Reagan had ruined our reputation in the world, by playing that chess game with the Soviet Union...but the end result was that the SU fell, and our reputation was OK after that.

If the Iraq mission fails, it'll be one of the most disturbing and deep failures by America..."paper tiger" will be our nickname in the Middle-east again.

Despite the invasion, I think Iraq's going to be okay. It won't be the woman-friendly place it was for a awhile, but they will rebuild. Regardless of the mission's outcome, the damage has already been done. No one will ever forget Abu Ghraib or the loss of $9 billion in cash, among numerous other things.

As far as American foreign policy is concerned, Iraq is a complete and total disaster. Disasters have happened to many countries before and you can rebuild your reputation, but the mission in Iraq will never be seen in a positive light.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ok, here's a piece on Condi as McCain's VP. I like Condi, and I would be fine with her as a pick...except I feel her efforts on the Palestinian/Israeli front is very much a failure. Would we want her as a President with that record? On the other hand, the P/I front has hardly been a success PERIOD. So maybe this is just a drop in the bucket of her experience.

What do you guys think?

Maybe Rice would be a good choice for the Republicans though - she could attract the votes of people who would vote Republican, but feel McCain is too soft/liberal/a backstabber. (I like McCain too, but I get the impression that Republicans on the farther right end of the political spectrum aren't so fond of him.)

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You gotta laugh at their matter-of-fact assertion that Republicans own the "racist vote".
I really don't know what to make of these New Yorker writers...one has to wonder, do they wander outside of the NY-media, mentally?

You probably can't predict where those crazy racists are going to vote. I think it's less likely they'd vote for the Democrats, at least this time around, given the candidates they're running. Not that McCain would appeal to racists, but can you imagine some bigot voting for Obama or Clinton?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How long has it been since a New Yorker has actually been down in the South?

It is the sad fate of one region to be misunderstood by another. I'm from BC and everyone thinks we're a bunch of pot-smoking hippies. Only some of us are pot-smoking hippies.

Note: the links I posted are work and school-safe, even the one about Abu Ghraib.

[hectorberlioz]

It doesn't mean we should lose the war on purpose. Frankly, at this point, it doesn't matter what the world thinks of us. Winning in Iraq is more important than world opinion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Despite the invasion, I think Iraq's going to be okay. It won't be the woman-friendly place it was for a awhile, but they will rebuild. Regardless of the mission's outcome, the damage has already been done. No one will ever forget Abu Ghraib or the loss of $9 billion in cash, among numerous other things.

Iraq wasn't worth it because of Abu Ghraib?! I beg to differ...Abu Ghraib was horrible, but it isn't the biggest blot in America's history. It's hardly fair to judge the entire effort on Abu Ghraib.

9 Billion is very much worth it, if it's to make the world better, wouldn't you agree? People complain that America takes money from third-world countries...why would spending it be bad?

It's kinda funny: rich people who spend their money are reviled, even though they're circulating the currency...but if you're a rich AND thrify person...

As far as American foreign policy is concerned, Iraq is a complete and total disaster. Disasters have happened to many countries before and you can rebuild your reputation, but the mission in Iraq will never be seen in a positive light.

Again, I think this is very premature. Think about other efforts in history to change something that were messy: slavery and the American Civil War. We could just have left it alone, maybe slavery would have died out as a practice, and all those lives wouldn't have been lost...maybe.

(and don't give me "the Civil War had more to do with secession", because slavery was one of the reasons that the South wanted to secede!)

Maybe Rice would be a good choice for the Republicans though - she could attract the votes of people who would vote Republican, but feel McCain is too soft/liberal/a backstabber. (I like McCain too, but I get the impression that Republicans on the farther right end of the political spectrum aren't so fond of him.)

I think a lot of people like her, and I think there are just as many who are wary of her as they are of McCain. She's not quite as unifying...or at least, she isn't MORE unifying than McCain. Except among male Republicans who think she's sexy.

You probably can't predict where those crazy racists are going to vote. I think it's less likely they'd vote for the Democrats, at least this time around, given the candidates they're running. Not that McCain would appeal to racists, but can you imagine some bigot voting for Obama or Clinton?

Ah, I see how this goes. It's the "who would a racist rather vote for" scenario. Much like the Republican's question: "who would a terrorist rather vote for?"

It is the sad fate of one region to be misunderstood by another. I'm from BC and everyone thinks we're a bunch of pot-smoking hippies. Only some of us are pot-smoking hippies.

You didn't include the information where you deny beinig a pot-smoking hippie, Nurv.

[The Gaffer]

IIRC, the $9bn in question is money that has been unaccounted for, i.e. vanished in the mercenary klondike. The total cost of the Iraq war is far, far higher.

For me, the significance of Abu Ghraib is relatively minor. It's a war: what did you expect? The main issue I have is the total disregard for the chaos, destruction and inevitable loss of hundreds of thousands of lives as a result of starting a "pre-emptive" war. Factor in the incompetence and questionable motives and you have a major step backwards for civilisation.

[hectorberlioz]

The only part I don't understand is the "questionable motives" part. Why do Bush's reasons for going to war have to be malicious and evil? Whatever happened to the argument that good people do bad things because they think they are doing good?

Lefties...

Anyways, this is an enjoyable column: http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtP...s,_and_peanuts

It was many years ago that I discovered that I liked the smell of skunks. I hasten to explain that I’ve never been doused by the animal, never had to burn my clothes or bathe in tomato juice. But every so often when I’ve been driving down the road, I’ll get a whiff of skunk scent, and while everyone else in the car is trying not to inhale, I’m wondering what their problem is. I’m not at all sure what it means, but I have a similar reaction when it comes to John McCain. While nearly all the other conservatives I know are frantically waving their hands in front of their noses, I’m thinking McCain may not be Chanel Number 5, but, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he’s not exactly the equivalent of mustard gas.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The only part I don't understand is the "questionable motives" part. Why do Bush's reasons for going to war have to be malicious and evil? Whatever happened to the argument that good people do bad things because they think they are doing good?

Hell is paved with good intentions!

I think anyone who looks objectively at the whole Iraq runup will realize that GWB wanted that war and intentionally twisted facts to make it seem like a good idea.

His motives were very self-serving, which most would define as questionable. He may have thought he was doing good, but I don't even believe that was the case. I think he did it mainly to clean up his father's legacy and as a profitable business enterprise for his friends and allies (i.e. Halliburton).

[hectorberlioz]

Do you have a contracting company of choice that you would have preferred be in Iraq, BJ?

I do think we/he/they/whatever wanted to be in Iraq for reasons other than Saddam/WMD: namely, to create another U.S.-friendly middle-eastern country. I don't think that's a bad mission.

And I don't buy the "he did it to clean up after his father's legacy". The middle-east is not only GHWB's legacy, it's also Reagan's, and Carter's. I think it was about cleaning up the middle-east in general, which is what Presidents have been trying to do.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I do think we/he/they/whatever wanted to be in Iraq for reasons other than Saddam/WMD: namely, to create another U.S.-friendly middle-eastern country. I don't think that's a bad mission.

Maybe not, hector. But here's the thing. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution requires an Act of Congress to declare war. The President lied about both the mission and the reasons for invasion to trick Congress (and the American People, and the international community) in order to do something he knew they wouldn't go for.

If you came to me and asked to borrow my car to go to the dentist, and, instead, took it out drinking and crashed it, I would say to myself "Hector lied about why he wanted my car. I don't want to pay for his damage."

That is how many people feel about the Iraq war. And that is why many people feel President Bush is irresponsible and untrustworthy.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Maybe not, hector. But here's the thing. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution requires an Act of Congress to declare war. The President lied about both the mission and the reasons for invasion to trick Congress (and the American People, and the international community) in order to do something he knew they wouldn't go for.

You're seeing my point, and thank you for that. I should also add that I don't think Bush was lying about his belief that there were WMD. It's kinda hard to be the sole perpetrator of a lie like that when most of the foreign intelligence thought the same as he did.

And if the majority of congress voted for the war, is that not in essence legitimizing the President? Only congress can declare war, but only the president can wage war. Congress voted for the war. Seems like a perfectly legal war to me.

Hindsight is 20/20, but just to back that up, Saddam wasn't exactly trying to pretend he didn't have WMD...up till the moment he learned the US would invade and topple him. He was very much trying to pretend he had WMD.

If you came to me and asked to borrow my car to go to the dentist, and, instead, took it out drinking and crashed it, I would say to myself "Hector lied about why he wanted my car. I don't want to pay for his damage."

You should know better than to believe someone who says he's going to the dentist.

Mom: Where are you going sweetie?

Son: Oh I'm just going to the dentist mom, I'll be home for dinner.

Mom: [thinking] Oh my son is going to the dentist of his own accord! I've raised such good kids.

I do understand how people see GWB, but I don't think they are correct.

That is how many people feel about the Iraq war. And that is why many people feel President Bush is irresponsible and untrustworthy.

What I said above.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You're seeing my point, and thank you for that. I should also add that I don't think Bush was lying about his belief that there were WMD. It's kinda hard to be the sole perpetrator of a lie like that when most of the foreign intelligence thought the same as he did.

Hindsight is 20/20, but just to back that up, Saddam wasn't exactly trying to pretend he didn't have WMD...up till the moment he learned the US would invade and topple him. He was very much trying to pretend he had WMD.


You should know better than to believe someone who says he's going to the dentist.

Mom: Where are you going sweetie?

Son: Oh I'm just going to the dentist mom, I'll be home for dinner.

Mom: [thinking] Oh my son is going to the dentist of his own accord! I've raised such good kids.

I do understand how people see GWB, but I don't think they are correct.

I'd like to think that if I'd raised GWB, I'd have done a better job.

Since I didn't, I expect him to behave like a grown-up, at least, if not like the Leader of the Free World.

We have differing impressions of what he knew, or, more importantly, what he was responsible for knowing before getting the nation into war. But that's what makes horseraces.

I haven't said recently how much I enjoy chatting with you here about this stuff. It's always interesting, and I value it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I haven't said recently how much I enjoy chatting with you here about this stuff. It's always interesting, and I value it.

You liked the dentist bit that much?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Do you have a contracting company of choice that you would have preferred be in Iraq, BJ?

Maybe an Iraqi one? It would do wonders for the economy we are supposedly trying to rebuild.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I do think we/he/they/whatever wanted to be in Iraq for reasons other than Saddam/WMD: namely, to create another U.S.-friendly middle-eastern country. I don't think that's a bad mission.

I don't think that even GWB is stupid enough to think that any kind of invasion would lead to that... then again, maybe.

In then end, perception is reality. Most of the world, and most of the US, think the invasion was a bad idea. Thus, it is.

There are still a small group of diehards that think we could have won in Vietnam, but them thinking so doesn't make it reality for anyone but them.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe an Iraqi one? It would do wonders for the economy we are supposedly trying to rebuild.

Impossible. There's no such thing, and never was. The middle-east's economy depends on two things: exporting oil, and importing goods. And that, my friends (to quote John McCain), is about all there is to it.

I do have a shawl made in Pakistan though.

I don't think that even GWB is stupid enough to think that any kind of invasion would lead to that... then again, maybe.

Confusing invasion with occupation are we?

In then end, perception is reality.

You sound like you just finished the newest issue of Rolling Stone magazine

There are still a small group of diehards that think we could have won in Vietnam, but them thinking so doesn't make it reality for anyone but them.

Of course we could have won Vietnam. History didn't bear the Vietnam situation with defeating America specifically in mind...but we weren't really trying all that hard. From what I've read in Nixon's conversations, public perception and opinion was very much a driving force in the President's policy.

It was a war half-hearedly waged. We lost because we didn't care about winning to begin with.