David Broder's recent column, run in the Seattle Times, opines a bit on the prospects of John McCain capturing the Republican nomination for President. Broder has a couple odd hypotheses worth examining.
He says,
After years of cozying up to the man in the White House, and emerging (for better or worse) as the most eloquent defender of Bush's present strategy in Iraq, McCain this week reverted suddenly and dramatically to his 1999-2000 role as the leading Republican critic of politics as usual.
Why? According to Broder,
It is a big gamble on McCain's part, but a necessary one. The closer his ties to Bush have become, the more his standing in the polls has slumped. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll this week found more Republicans believe McCain would follow Bush's policies closely than would Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney....
So McCain, recognizing that neither Giuliani nor Romney is likely to challenge him from the right, is risking the ire of Bush fans in order to position himself to compete against a Democrat in an election where independents will cast the decisive votes.
It's difficult to buy the point about neither Giuliani nor Romney being able to outflank McCain to the right. Maybe on a strict ideological checklist that's possible, but it's no secret McCain has some problems with the Republican faithful who will play a huge role in the Presidential primary process. He may be ideologically the most conservative of the big three Republican candidates currently running, but does he really capture the hearts and minds of Republican primary voters?
Take a look at an interesting stat from the same NBC/Wall St. Journal poll Border cites:
Among those "very closely" following the GOP primary (again, a quarter of the sample), Giuliani's lead shrinks to almost nothing, but the second place candidate is Thompson. In fact, among these voters, Giuliani nabs 30%, Thompson gets 28%, Romney gets 20% and -- here's the shocker -- McCain is in single digits at 9%.
I'm on record saying national polls have minimal value at this stage in a competitive Presidential primary contest. The poll in question uses the dubious method of sampling "adults" rather than "registered voters," or better yet "likely voters." As such, it's overall results really tell us nothing given the small fraction of "adults" who actually participate in Presidential primaries, let alone the most meaningful voting in the earliest states.
Nonetheless, the results of the smaller sample of those following the Presidential race "very closely" is fascinating. These are people likely to vote in the primaries and caucuses that will decide in the nominations. True, the smaller sample size means the margin of error is high for this subgroup, but even considering that factor McCain's poor performance is undeniable.
Arguably, McCain is the candidate voters know the most about, especially those politically active individuals following the '08 Presidential race in April of 2007. Voters might know America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but they still have some things to learn about him as a Presidential candidate. Mitt Romney, and especially Fred Thompson, remain very blank slates even to many who will end up casting ballots in primary contests. McCain has no such impression gap.
Maybe Broder is right that McCain's renewed "candor"will right the ship. We're months away from knowing a winner after all. But isn't it that same "candor" which drives Republican primary voters bonkers? Meanwhile, allegiance to Bush policies, particularly regarding Iraq, seem only to send the independents on which McCain relied heavily in 2000 scurrying for the exits.
So how again does he win the nomination?
Posted by Eric Earling at April 29, 2007 08:40 PM | Email ThisThis is the best thing I've heard from McCain ever. Unfortunately he repudiated it almost at once.
Posted by: Bill K. on April 29, 2007 08:58 PMHe simply will not win the nomination of the Republican party. His window of opportunity closed about 10 years ago.
He should retire from the Senate. But alas, he like many others will simply miss the opportunity to retire and just keep on keeping on.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 29, 2007 09:49 PMThat aside, there are a multitude of reasons and "formulations" that make McCain the best choice of the field. Find out what they are by scrolling through the hundred or so posts at Blogs for McCain.
If you want the short version with bold headings, visit McCain's website page devoted to "Why McCain."
A few of my own personal reasons for backing McCain:
1) McCain has THE best state network of any of the candidates, and has THE political experience to win against Hillary, or whomever the Democrat nominee will be. When this nation needs a little "Straight Talk" he'll be there to give it.
2) McCain has never ducked a fight -- he says what he means, and means what he says. Contrary to what Bill K. says above, he DID NOT back away from his "joke" about bombing Iran. He told Harry Reid to get a life, and a sense of humor. Which brings me to my next point...
3) McCain has a well developed sense of humor, and has the character and all the traits of a born leader. He endured the Hanoi Hilton for God's sake -- I think he can make it in the White House. Finally, he is probably one of the most determined and courageous men in politics today.
Posted by: Patrick on April 29, 2007 11:30 PMMcCain is good at being the guy taking potshots from the outside.
Inside...he wouldn't know what to do.
I see the news every day, and I read side by side stories of another Christian Right Wing Gun Toting Conservative that blew up an abortion clinic and the Al Qaeda insurgent that just blew up another IED in Iraq. And usually there's also a story about John McCain somewhere on the same day, so I can see how you found this thread a relevant place to post your comment.
You are so right, why even bother with these Al Qaeda / Muslim terrorist types. The real target is the Christian Conservatives. In fact maybe we should just go after everyone from Texas and Alabama right? Most of them are probably just wingnut Christians anyway. And Arizona too right?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 30, 2007 12:07 AMUmm, no, actually, he didn't. He told people who criticized him to "get a life."
Posted by: Cliff on April 30, 2007 12:44 AMI think he's managed to alienate just about his whole 2000 support base since that election. It's possible he can come back from that, I suppose, but I can't see how.
> Bomb, bomb, bomb Bomb, bomb Iran This is the best thing I've heard from McCain ever. Unfortunately he repudiated it almost at once.
Neocons and terrorists have a lot in common: They both love to blow things up and kill people.
America's Christian fundamentalists nutjobs are just as violent as the Muslim jihadists. The only difference is that America's terrorists really do own 10,000 nuclear weapons and therefore can bring about nuclear armageddon with their bloodthirsty extremism.
HEY DUFUS, GET A LOBOTOMY!!!!!
Posted by: REBEL on April 30, 2007 06:36 AMMcCain lost me when he put together the Gang of 14 (for reasons that are still unclear).
While straight talk is always welcome, I tend to evaluate people by their actions more than their words.
Posted by: Ken on April 30, 2007 07:08 AMMcCain is hated by too many Republicans.
Giuliani is way too gar to the left on two important issues, *either one of which* is enough to sink his chances: abortion and guns.
Romney (whom I voted for in Massachusetts) is a good guy, but he is already viewed almost entirely by his "faults" (flip-flopping, unprincipled, and Mormon), and it's hard to see how he can overcome that.
I just don't see a way for any of the three to beat Thompson.
Without McCain we might not even have Sam Alito on the bench today, and we certainly would have several fewer conservative judges on the circuit court. And even if somehow we managed to get those judges confirmed, it would have come at the cost of a move (the so-called "nuclear option") which would have significantly (further) damaged the public perception of the GOP.
So instead, McCain gets 7 Democrat justices to agree that impeachment is wrong and should only be done for "extreme" candidates. That immediately puts the default position at an up-or-down vote and any filibuster has to go on the defensive, trying to defend a particular justice as "extreme."
I agree with anyone who thinks judicial filibusters are contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution (though I'd stop short of calling them unconstitutional). But there is no doubt in my mind that McCain won a big victory for the party and for conservatives with the Gang of 14.
> They've blown up thousands of nuclear bombs, killing millions of people.
You are mistaken, Rebel. America's Christian fundamentalists have blown up two nuclear bombs and thereby killed over 100,000 civilians.
Remember Hiroshima?
Remember Nagasaki?
These two acts alone render the United States the world's greatest terrorist nation.
If flying planes into buildings is evil, dropping nuclear bombs on cities is evil.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 07:54 AMValid points on McCain. A reasonable case can be made in the abstract. I just don't see how he puts all the pieces together to make it happen in reality. Nor am I personally confident of his chances in the general.
Pudge -
I'd say if Fred Thompson is interested he should get in the race now. His new contract with ABC makes it look like he won't get in the race until the fall. That's awfully late, especially when strategically one would think getting in now when excitement is about as good as its going to get would be a good move.
Lastly, I still believe people like the idea of Fred Thompson more than they'll like him on the campaign trail, especially in the early states. Maybe I'm wrong, but we won't know until he actually gets in the game.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 30, 2007 07:57 AMVery important news. The full IPCC report -- all 1000 pages -- is now available as a PDF online:
Those who examine the report will see that the science is substantial and conclusive.
Those who read will gain knowledge and correct their misconceptions about climate science.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 08:19 AMYeah dave, if it comes from the corrupt UN we really should pay attention.
How's that UN & Saddam's oil pay out going.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 30, 2007 08:50 AMYou are mistaken, Rebel. America's Christian fundamentalists have blown up two nuclear bombs and thereby killed over 100,000 civilians.
Remember Hiroshima?
Remember Nagasaki?
How stupid of me. I should have known. Yah, I remember reading about how the Christian coalition lobbied the U S government to use the nuke, even though they had never heard of it before.
Of course the evil Americans didn't learn anything from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in your view, America is alway the evil doer isn't it? You would have preferred that Nazi Germany had developed the nuclear bomb first? Any other country that developed technology like that would have handled it much better, right?
Now let's hear how your heros in the Soviet Union never used the bomb.
Yah, I remember reading about how the Christian coalition lobbied the U S government to use the nuke, even though they had never heard of it before.
Your obvious prejudice is disgusting. Your words enbolden those that hate America (your friends).
I call again for a ban of your traitorous ass from this site.
Posted by: REBEL on April 30, 2007 08:51 AMGiuliani: Could win nomination, with effort. Could win election, with ease.
Romney: Could win nomination, easily. Not sure about election -- I mean, he did win in the most liberal state in the world, Massachusetts.
I call again for a ban of your traitorous ass from this site.
____________________________________________
I'm with you Rebel.
But me thinks Stefan enjoys this fool. LOL
> Yeah dave, if it comes from the corrupt UN we really should pay attention.
Are you unwilling to read a thousand-page scientific report?
Why? Are you afraid of encountering facts which might contradict your own misconceptions about science?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 08:59 AMAre you unwilling to read a thousand-page UN-scientific report?
Yep. As I said the UN.
Thanks.
> Of course the evil Americans didn't learn anything from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in your view, America is alway the evil doer isn't it?
The United States of America was evil in its decision to build a nuclear bomb. The United States of America was an evil, terrorist nation in its use of the nuclear bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States of America remains evil today in its possession of WMDs and the threat to use these against the civilians of other nations, including Iran.
Evil is as Evil does.
Dropping a nuclear bomb is a terrorist act several order of magnitude more terrible than Osama's terrorism.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 09:04 AMPersonally I think McCain would lose an election for several other reasons, but I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2007 09:04 AMHas anyone checked to see which mental institution David Mathews resides in?
______________________________________
LOL, great one... (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 30, 2007 09:05 AM> Yep. As I said the UN.
So you are proud of your ignorance, then, Army Medic?
No wonder why so many conservatives are creationists.
Do you at least read your Bible, Army Medic?
Personally I think McCain would lose an election for several other reasons,
____________________________________________
McCain is just to wishy-washie.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 30, 2007 09:08 AMYour borning dude.
For once in your life try a real thought.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 30, 2007 09:11 AMYou would have had America sit back and do nothing about OTHER COUNTRIES THAT WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP THE NUKE. You arrogant, ignorant fool. Do you think for a moment that if any of the other countries that were trying to develop the nuke had been first that they would have hesitated to use them on their enemies? Oh, that would have been us.
I'm curious, is there anything you can say about America that is not a critisism? Does your hatred for a country that allows you to blather all of the half thought drivel you spew run so deep that you cannot see any redeeming qualities? It seems that by your way of thinking this is a dangerous place to live. I would personally rather live here, as messed up by the leftists as it has become, than most anywhere else.
Posted by: REBEL on April 30, 2007 09:26 AMWhat Daivd doesn't say. Japan along with Germany WAS working on a nuke.
But I have to admit, trying to talk or argue with him. WE are just wasting our time with this fool.
Following the deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980s, savings and loan associations (also known as thrifts) were given the flexibility to invest their depositors' funds in commercial real estate. (Previously, they had been restricted to investing in residential real estate.) Many savings and loan associations began making risky investments. As a result, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the federal agency that regulates the industry, tried to clamp down on the trend. In so doing, however, the FHLBB clashed with the Reagan administration, whose policy was deregulation of many industries, including the thrift industry. The administration declined to submit budgets to Congress that would request more funding for the FHLBB's regulatory efforts.
In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him. Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating.
This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan MacG. Cranston (D-Calif.); Dennis W. DeConcini (D-Ariz.); John H. Glenn Jr. (D-Ohio); John McCain (R-Ariz.); and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich), who became known as the Keating Five.
After months of testimony revealed that all five senators acted improperly to differing degrees, the senators continually said they were following the status quo of campaign funding practices. In August 1991, the committee concluded that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle's conduct constituted substantial interference with the FHLBB's enforcement efforts and that they had done so at the behest of Charles Keating. The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."
As it happened, Cranston, who was nearly 80 years of age, had already decided not to run for re-election in 1992. DeConcini and Riegle continued to serve in the Senate until their terms expired, but they did not seek re-election in 1994.
Glenn did choose to run for re-election in 1992 and it was anticipated that he would have some difficulty winning a fourth term in the Senate. However, Glenn handily defeated U.S. Rep. R. Michael DeWine for one more term in the Senate before retiring in 1999.
McCain also remained in the Senate and he made campaign finance reform a key legislative interest. The scandal was followed by a number of attempts to adopt campaign finance reform -- spearheaded by U.S. Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.) -- but most attempts died in committee. A weakened reform was passed in the first year of President Bill Clinton's first term of office. Substantial campaign finance reform was not passed until the adoption of the McCain-Feingold Act.
He probably doesn't know. Which means it didn't happen, because if "his arrogance" doesn't have something to teach the world, it isn't worth knowing. How many times has he told us that we are woefully uneducated scientifically? Beyond count, so ergo, our history is also inadequate. I wish he would look up the definition of arrogance. Just being called that is an insult. But then that calls into question my grammar education, it's incomplete also, I'm sure.
Posted by: REBEL on April 30, 2007 09:55 AM"Ken, I'll never understand many conservatives. By working on the Gang of 14, McCain's WON a HUGE victory for the Republicans and a conservative judiciary"
The arrangement was agreed to by the Democrats from a position of weakness. The nuclear option would certinly been employed and won with the resulting rule change.
Not only would we have Roberts and Alito, but several other prominent conservative jurists who have since anguished.
You seem to believe that the nuclear option would not have passed. I think otherwise. In any case, McCain eliminated the option.
Posted by: Ken on April 30, 2007 09:55 AM"So if McCain is really too much like a Democrat"
Well, it comes down to perception, reality.
The perception of any candidate to the Party and to the electorate are too different things. And then there's the reality of what the person actually does and stands for, not so much what he says he stands for.
With McCain, I think he has very good insider connections in the party...he is also a very pronounced Hawk (up until late). I don't think anyone knows his social values or domestic stands at all.
He could get elected because he seems like a nice likeable Republican gentleman with no family issues (Giuliani; divorces; children) or scandal issues. Romney has the difficulty of being Mormon which works great if you're a Mormon, but other Christians would be suspicious they'd be excluded. So that's the benefits to McCain in the party.
Outside the party, I think that if you're going to present yourself as a pro-war Republican (Giuliani; McCain), you have to come up with lots of "butter" (domestic agenda) to compensate for the fusillade the Democrats are going to unleash about 8 years of neglect and so on.
Of the three (and I think these three are the only real contenders), Giuliani, as a NYC Mayor would have the best armament against those issues. McCain, as a "rotten borough" senator, would seem tired. Romney as a Republican governor of a Liberal state would shine as well.
I do agree he needs to get in sooner than later. Frankly, if he does not get in before this week's debate, it is going to be extremely difficult for him to get in the race later.
I also agree that Giuliani probably has the best chance of the Republican candidates. Which isn't saying much.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2007 10:28 AMThe Gang of 14 made it so we not only got the conservative judges, but won the political fight too. And not only was the political fight won for the present (avoiding the politically costly "nuclear option" showdown, which I do believe may have resulted in Alito not get confirmed, along with several other judges who were confirmed immediately subsequent to the Gang of 14 agreement), but it was won for the future: if the Democrats bailed on the Gang of 14 and filibustered someone, then the "nuclear option" was still available, and the next time, it would get far more public support, since it would be the result of Democrats breaking their word.
I see nothing bad to come out of the Gang of 14 (except for the obvious, not removing all judicial filibusters ... until the next rule change!), but practically speaking, everything that happened was good for the GOP.
Not only would we have Roberts and Alito, but several other prominent conservative jurists who have since anguished.
Who has languished since the Gang of 14?
And I am not convinced of that re Alito anyway. I think there may have been some Republicans (other than Chafee) who would have voted against Alito, because of the change in politics brought out by the nuclear option.
In any case, McCain eliminated the option.
Thankfully, yes, he did. We got all of our judges and avoided a political disaster.
I am no McCain fanboy. I favored him over Bush, but favor Romney and Thompson and Huckabee and several others over McCain. But I just don't get this criticism at all: we WON because of McCain's efforts on the Gang of 14. The Democrats LOST.
"I am no McCain fanboy."
Then why the lengthly defense?
Posted by: Ken on April 30, 2007 11:18 AMUm, because I think truth and honesty with ourselves is important, and your criticism of him is unfair and shortsighted?
I only mentioned that I am no fanboy because many people -- apparently, including you -- believe it is only possible to defend someone you like, or attack someone you dislike.
David Matthews so reminds me of the Swedish Chef on the Muppets: incapable of understandable communication....yet amusing..
Posted by: Hank on April 30, 2007 12:06 PM"I only mentioned that I am no fanboy because many people -- apparently, including you -- believe it is only possible to defend someone you like, or attack someone you dislike."
I'll leave the attacks to you. I just don't vote for people that do stupid things.
Posted by: Ken on April 30, 2007 12:48 PM"I'll leave the attacks to you."
It is an attack to point out the fact that you think I am a McCain fanboy just because I am pointing out the fact that what he did was GOOD for the GOP? How is that an attack?
"I just don't vote for people that do stupid things."
Fine. But the example you gave -- the Gang of 14 -- was self-evidently a brilliant stroke that severely hurt the Democrats, while getting the Republicans everything they wanted.
It is nonsense to call it stupid, and only calls your own judgment into question.
Maybe that last bit was an attack. You be the judge.
I like Fred Thompson, don't get me wrong. In fact I wouldn't mind if he waited until the fall to get into the race. That's about the same time Newt says he's going to make up his mind.
Imagine a Rudy-Newt ticket vs. McCain-Thompson. Two first names pitted against two last names. Sure, the primary doesn't work that way -- it's winner take all followed by runningmate selection. But still, if we can have "draft" XYZ campaigns, why not make dream-teams in the run up to the primary too?!
Posted by: Patrick on April 30, 2007 06:00 PM> You would have had America sit back and do nothing about OTHER COUNTRIES THAT WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP THE NUKE. You arrogant, ignorant fool. Do you think for a moment that if any of the other countries that were trying to develop the nuke had been first that they would have hesitated to use them on their enemies? Oh, that would have been us.
Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was an immoral, terroristic act. You should at the very least agree with this much.
Can we agree about this much?
> I'm curious, is there anything you can say about America that is not a critisism? Does your hatred for a country that allows you to blather all of the half thought drivel you spew run so deep that you cannot see any redeeming qualities? It seems that by your way of thinking this is a dangerous place to live. I would personally rather live here, as messed up by the leftists as it has become, than most anywhere else.
Questioning the morality of American culture and American military actions is patriotism. Acknowledging that America can commit sins and crimes is the beginning of wisdom.
The United States of America can, has and continues to commit crimes against humanity.
Patriotic Americans have an obligation to struggle against the evil habits of our country.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 07:55 PMDavid Matthews, your Depends are full.....
A stunning tribute to the state of public education in the USA-----abysmal is a polite compliment.
On second thought, a fine Democrat lucidly pouting the party line.....
Posted by: Hank on April 30, 2007 08:04 PMNo David, not even your healthy Ego agrees it was immoral. What was immoral is the sneak attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. The Japenese torture of prisoners and unwillingness to quit a battle they started.
David, it appears your date with Joel Connelly has really propelled you into La-La Land. Did Joel let you run your hands thru his back hair???
Let me get this straight ...
Are you suggesting that it is not immoral to drop nuclear bombs on civilians?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 08:31 PMAre you suggesting that it is not immoral to drop nuclear bombs on civilians?
I am saying that, yes. It may be immoral, depending on the circumstances. Certainly, however, the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not immoral, at least, no more than any other act of war is.
David, if you are incapable of understanding that people can believe it is not immoral to kill many people in order to save many more ... then that's kinda sad for you, I guess.
And please give us your world review...
This should be a jem.
By the way david I know it's history quite well.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 30, 2007 09:25 PMTo a pacificist, such as yourself, the United States is the primary source of evil in the world. Our wealth and our freedoms are intolerable to the dedicated altruist/socialist/communist axis no matter where they live. In your Marxist zero sum universe you cannot imagine that wealth can be created. It must have been plundered from some dirt poor third world country you moan. This is why you imagine America is hated and deserves to be attacked.
As pacificists you demand that America lay down it's arms and suffer the attacks of the Islamists or other enemies evading the fact that totalitarian dictatorships are the ones that start wars. Nazi Germany, Communist China, Soviet Russia, North Korea, North Vietnam and on and on. The Black Book Of Communism by Courtois, Werth et al estimates that the various communist dictatorships have killed at least 100 million people. This is the evil that pacificism would deliver us to.
If Iran ever gets nuclear weapons you can be assured that they will use them on Israel and ourselves. This might be fine with you but it is not most Americans. A totalitarian state has no right to exist. Iran is a totalitarian theocratic state and the source and inspiration of Islamic terrorism. The mullahs must be deposed and Islam as a state religion eradicated.
Posted by: Bill K. on April 30, 2007 11:14 PM> I am saying that, yes. It may be immoral, depending on the circumstances. Certainly, however, the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not immoral, at least, no more than any other act of war is.
Okay, Pudge, there are morally acceptable circumstances in which is it ok to murder 100,000 civilians with a WMD.
Now, Pudge, your morality is much more evil than that of the terrorists.
Christianity failed. Christian morality is absolutely worthless. Jesus wept.
> Our wealth and our freedoms are intolerable to the dedicated altruist/socialist/communist axis no matter where they live. In your Marxist zero sum universe you cannot imagine that wealth can be created. It must have been plundered from some dirt poor third world country you moan.
Our wealth is plundered from the impoverished: The poor people of Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and the Middle East sell us their oil for less than the price of bottled water and they are left to fester in their hopeless perpetual impoverishment.
> ... evading the fact that totalitarian dictatorships are the ones that start wars.
What an absurd claim. George W. Bush started a war: Remember Iraq?
> If Iran ever gets nuclear weapons you can be assured that they will use them on Israel and ourselves.
Pudge has proven that it is morally acceptable for a nation to use nuclear weapons as an act of war. Why shouldn't Iran enjoy this freedom?
> A totalitarian state has no right to exist. Iran is a totalitarian theocratic state ...
The United States of America has functioned as a totalitarian theocratic empire all across the globe. Do you suppose that our form of totalitarianism is better than their's?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 01:27 AMBeing unable to stay on topic is a typical teenager problem. Bedwetting is a typical toddler problem. Constant whining interruption is a jerk problem. Detachment from fact, history and reality is a delusion problem.
Insanity is a typical problem that used to be treated with a lobotomy. Stefan, will you open up a tip jar labelled DMLF? The David Matthews Lobotomy Fund?
Or how about automatically shooting DM posts to the One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest/babbling idiot/strait jacket/joke of the day thread?
Posted by: Hank on May 1, 2007 06:02 AMYour ward in the mental institution is run by an unyielding tyrant, Nurse Ratched....or is it George Bush??
So Randle Patrick Murphy...I send greetings from the real world.
Come on now CHOP-CHOP
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2007 06:43 AMI am glad we agree!
Now, Pudge, your morality is much more evil than that of the terrorists.
Nope. Try again!
Christianity failed. Christian morality is absolutely worthless. Jesus wept.
Nope. Try again!
Meaningless equivocation is the mark of a deranged mind, David Matthews.
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2007 08:07 AMLately I admit, it is getting harder to say things good when you talk about the current situation.
The original idea was great, too bad self serving scum have taken it and turned it into something selfish for themselves. The original idea was righteous. It was also meant to be all inclusive. Please don't start going on about slavery or the american indian. The original documents, if they had been taken literally would have indeed made this the greatest country on earth without a blemish, instead we are the greatest country with blemishes, but that is still due to self serving scum.
Your problem is you cannot separate the acts of individuals from the ideals. Certainly there have been moments that we are not proud of. But the overall idea was still righteous. Any nation in the world today that allows freedoms like we enjoy has America to thank, WE SHOWED THEM THE WAY. It is okay for you to point out things that need fixing, in your opinion, in America. But you are hardly a patriot in the way that you always attack America. There is still some good here. Granted, there are those that abuse the freedom that we have, but that is not to say that the whole idea is wrong. If you throw away what America did, then you set in its place dictatorship, the rule of a few with all of the corruption that will breed.
George Washington was the greatest president, in my opinion, because when they wanted to make him king, or president for life, he refused. He knew that would have been a disaster. We would be like a bannana republic today if that had happened. I don't think many men of that time would have followed suit. I am most certain that most people from today would not.
So Dave, sit back and relax. Allow yourself to see other sides. Compare our history to the history of other nations. There is a reason we have prevailed so often in history. If we were so corrupt, I don't think we would have survived for over 200 years.
Posted by: REBEL on May 1, 2007 09:45 AMI dunno, it worked for the British ...
Regarding the matter of the nuclear bomb, I happened to read several pages from a book by Richard Feynman today and he mentioned that the scientists at Los Alamos celebrated the atomic bombing of Hiroshima just as the Palestinians celebrated 9/11. They had parties and danced and got drunk because of the success of their WMD.
What they overlooked was:
"This was a blatant lie, although it's just barely concievable that Truman himself somehow believed Hiroshima was a base and not a city. In fact, more than 90% of the 150,000 plus people killed in the attack were civilians — the very women and children that Truman had indicated his concern for in his earlier diary entry."
Atomic Bomb
Now to your principle regarding nuclear warfare:
Okay, Pudge, there are morally acceptable circumstances in which is it ok to murder 100,000 civilians with a WMD.
What is your opinion of the corollary principle:
There are morally acceptable circumstances in which it is ok to murder 3,000 civilians with hijacked planes flying into buildings.
Do you agree or disagree with the above principle?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 11:19 AM> Compare our history to the history of other nations. There is a reason we have prevailed so often in history. If we were so corrupt, I don't think we would have survived for over 200 years.
Survival and righteousness are two entirely different animals, Rebel. the Roman Empire survived for a thousand years, the British empire survived for centuries, and both of these committed horrendous, immoral, genocidal acts on behalf of resources, land and wealth.
The United States of America is a country which has done some good and some evil, behaved in a benevolent and terroristic manner, sought to help and exploit the impoverished people of the world, suffered and committed acts of aggressive warfare.
Patriots must acknowledge the reality of America's sins before advocating their continuation. Perpetual war for perpetual peace is evil when thousands of civilians are killed on behalf of preserving America's prodigal lifestyle.
All those Muslims who have died in Iraq since the invasion did not have to die. They died in vain on America's behalf. The Iraqis are nearly invisible and their deaths are not mourned by Americans. We promised them freedom & democracy and have given them anarchy, civil war & death.
How shall America atone for its sin against Iraq?
Man your slow (Mr. Know it all)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2007 11:38 AMYou know, I sure remember you being all against it. Now what, THEY don't know anything either.
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2007 11:42 AMGood! They, of course, could see the difference between killing a lot of people as a direct means of ending a war as in Japan in WWII, and killing people merely for the sake of killing them as the Palestinians do in Israel.
Okay, Pudge, there are morally acceptable circumstances in which is it ok to murder 100,000 civilians with a WMD.
What is your opinion of the corollary principle:
There are morally acceptable circumstances in which it is ok to murder 3,000 civilians with hijacked planes flying into buildings.
My opinion is that, quite clearly, the circumstances of the former and the latter were dissimilar, and that it only shows you as foolish to continue to compare them as such.
Okay, Pudge, there are morally acceptable circumstances in which is it ok to murder 100,000 civilians with a WMD.
What is your opinion of the corollary principle:
There are morally acceptable circumstances in which it is ok to murder 3,000 civilians with hijacked planes flying into buildings.
My opinion is that, quite clearly, the circumstances of the former and the latter were dissimilar, and that it only shows you as foolish to continue to compare them as such.
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2007 11:46 AM> You know, I sure remember you being all against it.
Yes. I am still opposed to nuclear power. This is simply non-negotiable.
Try again.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 12:16 PM> Good! They, of course, could see the difference between killing a lot of people as a direct means of ending a war as in Japan in WWII, and killing people merely for the sake of killing them as the Palestinians do in Israel.
The terrorists did not kill 3,000 civilians for the sake of killing. They considered their action morally justified based upon the crimes which the United States of America has committed against the Muslims throughout the last century.
The terrorists and neocons have this much in common: They both can find moral justification for their atrocities against civilians.
Worthy of attention on this very significant day:
"In the months to follow, those two headlines would jostle for dominance, a struggle now long over. Before May 1, 2004 ever rolled around, "mission accomplished" would be a scarlet phrase of shame, useful only to critics of the administration. By that one-year anniversary, Fallujah had morphed into a resistant city that had withstood an assault by the Marines. In November 2004, it would be largely destroyed by American firepower without ever being subdued. Now, the already failed American method of turning largely destroyed Fallujah into a giant "gated" prison camp for its residents is being applied to the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, where huge walls are slated to rise around 10 or more recalcitrant neighborhoods as part of the President's Baghdad Security Plan, or "surge."
"Four years later, casualty figures are so terrible in Iraq that the government, locked inside the Green Zone in the capital, has, for the first time, refused to reveal the monthly figures to the United Nations, though figures do show a continuing epidemic of assassinations of Iraqi academics and of torture of prisoners, a steep rise in deaths among policemen, and a rise in "honor killings" of women by their own families. Four years later, those few "slightly injured" men of the 82nd Airborne Division have morphed into last week's 9 dead and 20 wounded from a double-truck-bomb suicide attack on one of that division's outposts in Diyala Province; over 100 Americans were killed in the month of April alone; 3,350 Americans in all (not including hundreds of "private security contractors").
"Four years later, the American military has claimed dramatic success in reducing a wave of sectarian killings in the capital -- but only by leaving out of its count the dead from Sunni car/truck/motorcycle-bomb and other suicide-bomb attacks; with over 100 car bombings last month, and similar figures for this one, Sunni militants are outsurging the U.S. surge in Baghdad, making "a mockery of the US and Iraqi security plan," according to BBC reporter Andrew North."
Bush's Texas Chainsaw Massacre
…Or The Clock Ticks for Thee (in Baghdad and Washington) By Tom Engelhardt
As everyone should know by now, Iraq is a bloody mess. The prospects of Iraq ever becoming anything else diminishes with each passing day of the occupation.
President Bush declared an end to this bloody war four years ago yet today insists that the occupation must last forever. What a travesty.
How many more soldiers & civilians have for die for George W. Bush's ego?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 01:17 PMIf you ever decide to run for office (in Florida, right?), please let us know here on SP. This Republican would gladly donate to your campaign. People deserve to know what the far Left ultimately wants and I would enjoy helping you get that message out. Every reasonable person would react to you the same way we do when we read your posts: mouths agape, stunned.
I wonder if you're drunk or under the influence of drugs when you write. For your sake, I hope so.
Posted by: AD on May 1, 2007 01:56 PMFor your sake, I hope that you finally figure out what really matters.
Who is more dangerous than a warmonger President and warmonger neocons thirsty for blood?
Look at all the people that George W. Bush has killed. Mouths are agape at the carnage the Republicans have caused.
And yet you are still demanding more war ...
When will you ever learn? When will conservatives wake up?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 02:15 PMOver your head, sorry. And I tire of trying to explain it to someone incapable of nuance.
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2007 02:48 PMYeah, nuance, right. Actually, what you have is American exceptionalism.
In other words:
The United States of America is allowed to commit terrorists acts, utilize WMDs and kill over 100,000 civilians just because we can.
Now, Pudge, if the Chinese were to drop a nuclear bomb on an American city in order to end a war, would that be a militarily & morally justifiable act?
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 03:34 PMNope. But I understand why you think so. And it doesn't speak well of your intellectual capacity.
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2007 04:06 PMNow, everyone treats the word neocon as if it's a swear word. But these are the people who still embrace American exceptionalism, even when it's now most difficult. Doing what's right when no one's with you? That's courage.
Posted by: AD on May 1, 2007 05:04 PM> Is there anything wrong with American exceptionalism? It is simply the belief that America is uniquely blessed in the world (in terms of both freedom and prosperity) and consequently has the unique responsibility to ensure that others do as well.
Ha! This is absolutely humorous. Neocons mythologize about America and completely overlook all of the millions that we have killed or otherwise oppressed for the sake of our own selfish interests as America attempts to guarantee its status as "uniquely blessed".
Posted by: David Mathews on May 1, 2007 06:42 PMYour assertion that the U.S. is wealthy because it has plundered the impoverished nations is as erroneous as your assertion that poverty in the third world is due to the price we pay for oil. Usually you've been gloating that the price of oil will go through the roof. Are you now claiming that we're getting cheap oil?
If wealth is a static value you still haven't explained how GNP of the entire planet has increased vastly in recorded history.
OK, George Bush did go to war with Iraq. This isn't where I would have started a war though. Iran is the source of Islamic terrorism and should have been the first target after 9/11. Saddam Hussein is small change compared with Iran. After Iran was deposed we could have dealt with Saddam at our leisure.
The operating principal here is that any free country has the right but not necessarily the obligation to attack any totalitarian state. Saddam was no immediate threat to us but Iran was and still is a threat.
It is morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons if situtation calls for them. To not have used the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been highly immoral. The alternative was an invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have resulted in tens of thousands American deaths.
Iran as a totalitarian state does not respect the rights of its people and is therefore a rogue state. It is a danger to its own people and to its neighbors. As such it does not have any rights. The United States, as a free state, has a right to terminate this rogue state and the danger it poses to us.
If you imagine that the United States is a totalitarian state I would suggest that you spend a year or two in North Korea or Iran so you could learn what a real totalitarian state is like.
Posted by: Bill K. on May 1, 2007 11:06 PM