j44

Yes, it is. The label might not stick but that doesn't mean his looks had anything to so with it.

Saying that Ryan can't be portrayed as extreme because he looks like a boyscout is silly.

By sacking the army brass Morsi makes his base a little happy and even gets some liberals on his side. I am hoping these moves will give him the maneuverability to continue cooperation with Israel on some issues. Such as the Sinai. I think Egypt, Israel and even Hamas could and should work together to get that area stabilized.

It begins http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-campaign-launches-medicare-attack-against-romneyryan-131911.html

But that's just one poll. And a poll I saw today showed an Obama/Romney tie. But that's just one poll too.

I think most of the higher ups in the military are more concerned with their financial interests than anything. If Morsi can make them happy he can pull a little political power from them and still survive. I can't say I was expecting Tantawi being turfed though. We will see how smart Morsi is. He appears to be fairly shrewd.

I don't dislike Ryan and in a way I respect him and his Plan since he is one of the few that seems to be willing to tackle the fiscal problem in a serious, albeit somewhat extreme, way. However, I do think that it will be too easy for Chicago to paint Ryan as an extreme budget hawk that will slash and burn Medicare etc at the expense of the middle class. And as much as I think most Americans want the budget problems tackled I think most people don't want their benefits touched. They want the books balanced but they want other people to pay the price. I think most people would rather the rich pay more to solve the problem and that is why I think Obama will win and I think Ryan being picked makes the Obama camp's job a little easier not harder. So, I think it diminishes Romney's chances. PS. I'm not sure what Krugman has to do with any of this. He brings up some interesting points at times but he is one of those 'everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and evil.' Liberal, conservative or whatever else. I hate those types. Hate. Also, by continuing to push for additional stimulus he shows how out of touch he is with the politics today. He comes across as too ideological and impractical.

I thought he worked two jobs to put himself through school?

I dont think this will be much of an issue. It might not get parts of the GOP base excited but they aren't voting for Obama anyway. I think most people will go out in November thinking about the economy and not Mormonism and Catholicism.

I've heard a few people say similar things. I don't see it. Isn't he the opposite Romney in that sense? I would move it from my 'little surprising' category to 'bold' if Romney came out strongly in favor of Ryan's plan. Romney has put out next to no policies this campaign so I'm not surprised really. But I thought if he pushed the Ryan plan it could get parts of his base going. By not doing that they open themselves up to the gutting Medicare/social security attacks without the boldness.

Strategy http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/10/advice_to_the_us_on_syria Losers and possible winners http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/08/winners_and_losers_of_syrias_civil_war

Running in Mass. is different than running nationwide.

I agree that it isn't running smoothly but I hardly think he is stupid. And I don't think he'd throw in the towel w almost 3 months to go. And I don't think he'd pick a running mate strictly on that premise.

Its not over yet. And I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons he choose Ryan. He's not stupid.

I just don't think that someone who puts in all that work and has wanted to be president for so long would think that he should pick a VP to blame for a loss instead of one that could help him win.

I seriously doubt that this crossed any of the minds of anyone in Romney's camp.

It was a poor decision but he made it because he was down and needed a boost. Obama had momentum, money and 8 yrs of Bush to attack. Palin made McCain look bad but he was going to lose w or w/o her. She didn't change the outcome.

This is more or less a list of 3 things since 10 of the items are the Ryan Plan. As usual, it is kind of a double edged sword. This will energize the left.

Smart? Probably. Maybe not the safest VP choice but it isn't bold. Christie or Rubio would have been bold. Ryan is somewhere in the middle. I find it odd that the Romney camp came out pretty quick w talking points saying Romney would have his own plan and not follow The Ryan Plan. Even in that sense they are splitting the difference. I think Romney needed to mix it up a little. Ryan might do that. He might not though. I think this might be a signal that he wants to make it clear his focus will be on the economy/budget since I don't think anyone has ever heard Ryan say anything about anything else (This will make the VP debates interesting. I bet staffers are jamming foreign policy stuff down Ryan's throat at this very moment). But, like I said, they distanced themselves from the Ryan plan so go figure. In the end I don't know how much VP choices make a difference. If they do at all.

I have no doubt that the US is at least helping get the arms to the rebels. Through Qatar or Turkey or others. They probably have special forces and intel officers on the ground too. And are sharing intel with the fighters.

Good question. It is obviously in trouble economically but keep in mind it doesn't have to match the west and the Saudis weapons to weapon. Small arms and IEDs could be enough to make things complicated. Iraw is a good example. As much as the US policy toward Iran is criticized it seems to be working. Iran is in a terrible position....even if they are close to getting the bomb.

Syria is arguably more complicated than Iraq and NATO or whoever getting involved on the ground (or even just in the air via no-fly zones etc) would probably be even bloodier. Personally I don’t think Obama would get involved (other than sending arms and intelligence) unless things started to spill over and even then I don’t think it would happen until after November. But that is the big problem. It could get much worse and spill over into other countries in the region. On the other hand getting involved could inflame the whole thing. Just look at that map and the countries on Syria’s borders. Turkey has turned against Assad and is increasingly playing a bigger role in the world. It would love to see a friendlier Sunni gov. in Damascus. Assad has already started to pay Turkey back for it meddling in Syria by increasing its support to Turkey’s Kurdish rebels. But Turkey knows that escalating with Syria could throw its neighbour into chaos (hence Turkey not retaliating when its jet was shot down). Iraq has strong ties with Syria and if Assad goes and Sunnis take over it will only have one ally and it would be and ever more isolated Iran. And despite its pretty much total disappearance from the news Iraq is still very much unstable and violent. Nothing would get the Sunnis in Iraq more excited and violent than Sunnis taking over Syria. Would they take the initiative and try to topple Maliki? With most of the US gone he doesn’t have much help to hold on to power. He could unleash his Shia militia men and we could have another repeat of the mess/civil war that erupted after the US stormed in. Iran CAN’T let Syria go. They would lose their closet ally and their channel to funnel arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Speaking of which....Lebanon’s civil war last for what? Like 15 years. Syria is much, much bigger and could....errr, WILL draw in the big boys (Saudi Arabia etc) to fight a proxy war to try to bleed each other dry. None of this even takes into account Israel’s concerns and what all of this means for the Iranian nuclear program and the US policy toward the whole region. With Hezbollah cut off from its biggest supplier that is one less threat the US and Israel have to deal with in the event there is a strike against Iran’s facilities. What about the role of Gulf countries like Qatar in Libya and Syria? I recently read a piece that argued that the massacres and attacks by Assad’s forces weren’t random at all and are attempts at carving out Alawite enclaves in the event of the country disintegrating. The author pointed out that this area (the red government held area on the above map) would have deep sea ports, an international airport, rich arable lands, fresh water and would be easier to defend if it was made up of next to no Sunnis. What is that saying? In the middle east things usually get worse before they get much worse?

This is only a hunch and maybe not likely but Is it possible Harper is letting McKay dig is own grave? I would bet Harper doesn't want Peter as leader and as long as he has these high profile screw ups he gets further and further from being Harper's replacement.

I think it is more or less just politics than some deep dark secret. McKay being from the MAritimes, he is liked by the soldiers, PC, etc. I don't think he will either but I doubt for that reason. It isn't like Harper cares what the left of the NDP thinks.

That could be argued but you could also say it was a demotion. And to me, Fantino being named associate minister was undercutting McKay.