U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[jbg]

If you think they aren’t discussing how it would be paid for, you’re not paying attention. That’s what the discussion of m-a-n-d-a-t-e-s is about.

But you think McCain is so naïve that he is unaware that taking action on climate change might cost money? I think he’s been around the block enough to have figured that one out already.

You've got a Senate that went 95-2 against Kyoto. Kyoto ain't happening down here.

[BubberMiley]

You've got a Senate that went 95-2 against Kyoto. Kyoto ain't happening down here.

Has McCain said he's in favour of Kyoto?

[bush_cheney2004]

Has McCain said he's in favour of Kyoto?

No, he is in favor of a follow up treaty more favorable to developed nations. See McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (also failed in the US Senate).

http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/an...139_summary.cfm

[BubberMiley]

No, he is in favor of a follow up treaty more favorable to developed nations. See McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (also failed in the US Senate).

So according to jbg's theory, if a democrat comes up with a plan to deal with climate change, they're being academic and elitist. If a Republican does, they're being dishonest and will assuredly go back on their word. Therefore, he's voting Republican, even though he's a leftist.

Somehow that doesn't add up.

[bush_cheney2004]

So according to jbg's theory, if a democrat comes up with a plan to deal with climate change, they're being academic and elitist....

No, if a Democrat or Republican comes up with a climate change plan, they are being a politician. The buck (and any plan) stops at the US Senate (for treaty ratification).

[jbg]

No, if a Democrat or Republican comes up with a climate change plan, they are being a politician. The buck (and any plan) stops at the US Senate (for treaty ratification).

You got that right. And the US Senate will check the President's inevitable herding instinct, i.e. wanting bonhommie with PM's and Presidents of other countries.

[August1991]

It's kind of obvious where this campaign is going to go.

Obama:

"George Bush called this the ownership society, but what he really meant was 'you're-on-your-own' society," Obama told a town hall meeting here, tying McCain to a president whose popularity is low. "John McCain apparently wants to continue this."

McCain:

Tuesday, McCain warned that some proposals for government intervention in the housing crisis would rescue banks and borrowers who acted irresponsibly.

Campaigning in California on Wednesday, McCain told reporters "we may have to do more" to help homeowners. "But raise taxes as Sen. Obama wants to do, or some kind of massive bailout that is a needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars, is obviously something that I don't support," he said.

Link

Obama's going to look like a tax-and-spend Democrat because that's what he is.

Edited March 27, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

Obama's going to look like a tax-and-spend Democrat because that's what he is.

But people prefer it when you spend to save your domestic economy than when you spend to save face in a needless war.

[jbg]

But people prefer it when you spend to save your domestic economy than when you spend to save face in a needless war.

That mentality applied well to Viet Nam. I think most Americans understand that radical Islam presents a greater risk of largely unprovoked attacks and with oil and Israel we have legitimate stakes in that part of the world.

[Guest American Woman]

I still call myself a left-winger and a liberal Democrat because I refuse to abandon the field to people more concerned wtih "global warming" (really transfers of credits to autocrats elsewhere) and the rights of animals such as radical Islam. These are the people more concerned with the rights of inmates at Gitmo (by and large not a nice group of people) and the rights of people detained overnight for trying to disrupt the Republican convention in New York City (calling the place they were kept "Gitmo on the Hudson") than the rights of people on the 60th floor of a twin set of office towers in Lower Manhattan. I will never abandon the liberal field to that crew. Never.

Really? Demonstrating against an administration you don't agree with is synonymous with "disrupting" to your way of thinking?-- Are you saying you don't believe in the right to demonstrate?

Furthermore, unless you can cite a source that backs up your claim that the people who refer to "Gitmo on the Hudson" are more concerned with the rights of the detainees at Gitmo than they are with those who died on 9-11, ie: interviews where they say what you accuse them of, your statement is nothing but a vicious lie.

Try to wrap your brain around the fact that one can be concerned about the detainees' rights/treament AND those who lost their lives on 911. And while you're doing that, I'll be waiting for you to cite your source.

Edited March 27, 2008 by American Woman

[HisSelf]

That mentality applied well to Viet Nam. I think most Americans understand that radical Islam presents a greater risk of largely unprovoked attacks and with oil and Israel we have legitimate stakes in that part of the world.

How so? Because you need oil? What exactly is your legitimate stake?

And what exactly is the threat that radical Islam presents? TVO's (who would've thunk) Steve Paikin has featured a guy who managed to interview some 50 Talibans in Afghanistan and their biggest issues were: you killed my poppies and source of livelihood, you killed my family, and oh yeah, that Mohammed thing...

So let's say we had a foreign invader who bombed the auto, mining and forestry inducstries and then crucified a religious figure and said it was all his fault....

[jbg]

Really? Demonstrating against an administration you don't agree with is synonymous with "disrupting" to your way of thinking?-- Are you saying you don't believe in the right to demonstrate?

It's the time, place and manner of demonstrations that are relevant. A demonstration elsewhere in the City would have attracted plenty of media attention and be seen by plenty of people; tieing up traffic and making life difficult for convention visitors not familiar with New York is not necessary to free expression. Why were there demonstrators brought in from another country, for example?

Furthermore, unless you can cite a source that backs up your claim that the people who refer to "Gitmo on the Hudson" are more concerned with the rights of the detainees at Gitmo than they are with those who died on 9-11, ie: interviews where they say what you accuse them of, your statement is nothing but a vicious lie.

Honestly I don't have a source; it's just my opinion and speculation, based on the way people of that mind post and talk.

Try to wrap your brain around the fact that one can be concerned about the detainees' rights/treament AND those who lost their lives on 911. And while you're doing that, I'll be waiting for you to cite your source.

You are frankly rather exceptional in showing a balanced concern for both sides of the coin. It is rare and praiseworthy.

[jbg]

So let's say we had a foreign invader who bombed the auto, mining and forestry inducstries and then crucified a religious figure and said it was all his fault....

The difference is that we have done nothing deliberately to terminate constructive activity in those countries. Preparation for jihad does not fall in that category.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is America a great country...or what? Clinton tax returns are revealed to all, and let's just say they have done quite well during Dubya's presidency.....$109 million!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080404/clinton_taxes.html?.v=1

[BubberMiley]

Preparation for jihad does not fall in that category.

There was no preparation for jihad happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. That happened after, as did the creation of al Qaeda in Iraq.

[jbg]

There was no preparation for jihad happening in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Payment of $25-$50,000 to the families of suicide bombers doesn't qualify?

[guyser]

Is America a great country...or what? Clinton tax returns are revealed to all, and let's just say they have done quite well during Dubya's presidency.....$109 million!

Well of course. Hillary and Bill were selling books on how to be a real president , and Bill was giving speeches on what it takes.

Bingo, you have $91,800,000.

Her Book Income: $10,457,083

His Book Income: $29,580,525

His Speech Income: $51,855,599

Time will tell, but lets see if Dubya beats that. I seriously doubt the speech income will be matched.

And $33M in taxes. Good for them.

[August1991]

Is America a great country...or what? Clinton tax returns are revealed to all, and let's just say they have done quite well during Dubya's presidency.....$109 million!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080404/clinton_taxes.html?.v=1

As Mark Steyn likes to say, the Clinton presidency may or may not have been good for the Democratic Party or for America, but it was certainly good for the Clintons.

[BubberMiley]

Payment of $25-$50,000 to the families of suicide bombers doesn't qualify?

You've heard about where those bags of American cash are going too. They're being offered as a last-ditch effort to keep the peace until the next president can clean up the mess. Apparently al-Qaeda has never been wealthier since the U.S. invaded.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/07/news/money.php

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._alqaida20.html

[jbg]

As Mark Steyn likes to say, the Clinton presidency may or may not have been good for the Democratic Party or for America, but it was certainly good for the Clintons.

I will say I voted for Bill. I will also say that he sold the White House, at whatever rate he rented the Lincoln Bedroom. He was, as is often the case, the best of bad choices for the White House. That doesn't make him great though.

[WIP]

How so? Because you need oil? What exactly is your legitimate stake?

If anything, the Bush Administration has given the Muslim World a windfall because they chose to use the military to secure foreign oil supplies rather than use that money to finance conservation and the development of alternative fuels. An aggressive policy of reducing oil-dependence would have been much cheaper than the estimated three trillion dollars that the Iraq venture will cost, even if the troops can be brought home within four years.

It's ironic that before Bin Laden gave the go-ahead for the 2nd attack on the WTC, he demanded U.S. troops leave the Holy Land (Arabia, of all places!), and that the Muslims were being ripped off and should be charging at least $100.00 per barrel of oil......................looks like Osama has got pretty much everything he wanted, regardless of the B.S. being pumped out by the Republican spin machine!

[bush_cheney2004]

It's ironic that before Bin Laden gave the go-ahead for the 2nd attack on the WTC, he demanded U.S. troops leave the Holy Land (Arabia, of all places!), and that the Muslims were being ripped off and should be charging at least $100.00 per barrel of oil......................looks like Osama has got pretty much everything he wanted, regardless of the B.S. being pumped out by the Republican spin machine!

Yea...the Americans never cared much about oil before the Republican "spin machine" took over....and that's why the price was lower! [/sarcasm]

[August1991]

Good article.

A lot of coverage of the Clinton campaign supposes them to be in kitchen-sink mode — hurling every pot and pan, no matter the damage this might do to Obama as the likely Democratic nominee in the fall.

In fact, the Democratic race has not been especially rough by historical standards. What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: that if Obama is the nominee, a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.

Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).

Link

This is my feeling too. Obama will be a far bigger disaster for the Democrats than Clinton would be. The activist Dems (those that vote in caucuses and who have turned Obama into the Dem's candidate) are too naive, genteel, idealistic and out to lunch. They're the same gang that turfed Lieberman in the Connecticut primary only to see him run as an independent and win in November.

McGovern won Massachusetts and DC in 1972. Obama will be lucky to get that.

[sharkman]

If anything, the Bush Administration has given the Muslim World a windfall because they chose to use the military to secure foreign oil supplies rather than use that money to finance conservation and the development of alternative fuels. An aggressive policy of reducing oil-dependence would have been much cheaper than the estimated three trillion dollars that the Iraq venture will cost, even if the troops can be brought home within four years.

It's ironic that before Bin Laden gave the go-ahead for the 2nd attack on the WTC, he demanded U.S. troops leave the Holy Land (Arabia, of all places!), and that the Muslims were being ripped off and should be charging at least $100.00 per barrel of oil......................looks like Osama has got pretty much everything he wanted, regardless of the B.S. being pumped out by the Republican spin machine!

1) Your first paragraph shows beyond a doubt America's willingness to deal honestly and fairly with the, as you put it, the Muslim world. They are handing out billions for oil and not invading Saudi Arabia, for instance to get Saudi oil for free.

What you don't seem aware of is the development of alternative fuels in the American marketplace. Do a google search on flex fuels. You might also note the rise of the hybrid car and the electric car.

2) Your second paragraph misses out on one ginormous fact on Osama's demands. Not only are there troops in Arabia, now they are in Iraq! And they don't live under Muslim law, they are free. He must be wishing he never started this whole thing off. That's when he's not looking for toilet paper in the cave.

[WIP]

1) Your first paragraph shows beyond a doubt America's willingness to deal honestly and fairly with the, as you put it, the Muslim world. They are handing out billions for oil and not invading Saudi Arabia, for instance to get Saudi oil for free.

Either the political risks of invading Saudi Arabia are too great, or the Saudis have bought enough influence, especially in the Republican Party, to forestall any hostile actions against them. This could partly explain why the Bush Administration refuses to blame the Saudis for propagating jihadism abroad with their funding of madrassahs and mosques built around the world; not to mention the fact that the vast majority of jihad warriors are surplus young Saudis from poor families, who are sent to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the previous wars, so that they dont' overthrow the monarchy back home. The problems of Islamism all start with Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, or even Afghanistan!

What you don't seem aware of is the development of alternative fuels in the American marketplace. Do a google search on flex fuels. You might also note the rise of the hybrid car and the electric car.

As long as those alternative fuel ideas are coming from the present administration, then oil reigns supreme! At a previous State of the Union address.......I can't recall which one off hand.........the idiot in chief tossed up that longstanding utopian vision of a future hydrogen economy. Which is as meaningless as promises to send a manned mission to Mars, since the production of hydrogen would require a massive increase in electrical generation capacity. And as usual, there was no mention of how this would be accomplished.

And then there's ethanol. When the oil-based fertilizers are factored in to growing the corn for American ethanol, more oil is needed to produce a gallon of ethanol than if it was used directly for making gasoline. If U.S. politicians were serious about ethanol as an alternative fuel, they would allow free trade to function in this case and import cheaper ethanol from Brazil, where it is produced from the byproducts of sugarcane production. Instead, it is just a cynical, though highly successful strategy for driving up corn prices to the benefit of Iowa farmers!

Finally, the electric car. 40 years ago, I did a project I presented in front of my grade 6 class on electric cars and how we would all be driving electric cars by the time we grew up....................still waiting!

If there was a changeover to electrics, that would also demand the building of new power stations. But, as long as there's a highway lobby in Washington, it will never happen anyway. G.M. had a pilot project building electric cars, and when it became too popular, they killed it: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/who_killed_the_electric_car/

2) Your second paragraph misses out on one ginormous fact on Osama's demands. Not only are there troops in Arabia, now they are in Iraq! And they don't live under Muslim law, they are free. He must be wishing he never started this whole thing off. That's when he's not looking for toilet paper in the cave.

By Arabia, I mean the Arabian Peninsula, not the territories in North Africa and Mesopotamia that Arab tribesmen invaded and overran as they expanded the Muslim Caliphate. And this is what Bin Laden was referring to also. They apply different rules for what they consider "The Holy Land" that don't apply in conquered territories. One notable exception is that there is no accomodation for any other religions in Arabia. The expanding Muslim empire allowed Christians and Jews to practise their religions with varying degrees of tolerance. Dhimmitude status, which was supposed to only be for "people of the book" was somehow extended to cover Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other smaller religions in India by later Mogul emperors.

But Saudi Arabia is another matter. No other religions, not even Abrahamic religions are allowed. So the Saudi rulers had a hard time rationalizing the presence of thousands of American troops on their soil, even though they were still scared of Saddam after the Gulf War! A good friend of mine has an older brother who was a civil engineer working for the Canadian subsidiary of the Bechtel group during the 70's. When he was sent to Saudi Arabia to work on a project, one of the first things he was warned about was do not bring alcohol, bibles, crosses or any other non-Islamic religious literature with him. So the fanatically-religious could never abide having American bases on their territory, since as you said, they would have no power to stop them from practising their religions, not to mention drinking alcohol and having sex.

This is old news, but if it needs to be confirmed that the bases were closed, here's the story on Foxnews...........and if Fox News says it, it must be true! Right!

PRINCE SULTAN AIR BASE, Saudi Arabia — In a major shift in American focus in the Persian Gulf, the United States is all but ending its military presence in Saudi Arabia (search), abandoning this remote desert air base that was built in the 1990s and made the site of a high-tech air operations center in 2001.

Only about 400 U.S. troops will remain in the Muslim kingdom, most of them based near Riyadh to train Saudi forces, American officials said Tuesday.

Most of the 5,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia will leave by the end of the summer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85446,00.html