My Thoughts on The Democratic Convention: Where the Democrats Have the Advantage

Share:
Don Gibson at some point will come down from the moon and hopefully describe what it was like to be part of history. If there is perhaps an inkling of disappointment in the convention, and really inkling may be too strong a word, it is that the Democrats ran from any notion of race as though it were a hand grenade. Here the first black man stood before this nation and accepted a major party’s nomination and there were was hardly a direct reference to it from the dais. Hillary Clinton gave us all chills when she talked about the glass ceiling and the 18 million cracks that were exploded into it. Heck the reference gives me chills while writing it.

The pundits will tell you all about the rift between the Clintons and Obama and how personal it is. What they will forget to mention to you is that the Clintons are professionals first and people at best a distant third. But I do not want to talk about that either. To me the turning point in this convention came before Hillary Clinton ever uttered a word, a it came with some of the early speakers on Tuesday and continued through the keynote address by Mark Warner.

Reviews on Mark Warner’s speech were rather mixed, some liked it, some didn’t. For me, it was a great speech and it was followed up with an even better one by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. The Montana Governor presented an image that has been missing from recent conventions–he came looking like a rancher. No airs, nothing complex. And yet there he was with a strong populist message. Here this rancher-looking-guy stood up an talked about economic opportunity, attacked the Bush administration, and talked about energy efficiency. Who’d have guessed it. Both speakers were outstanding, they showed off new blood for the Democrats, and they returned us to the Democratic party’s blue collar roots.

Yet in the coming months, I think a key is a theme that has been building on the homefront for a long time with very little discussion at times from official Washington. The notion of energy efficiency and green technology as the wave of the future. This is a theme that could have been right out of the Davis City Council election and yet could be the key to the White House come this fall.

Back to Warner, there was a moment in his speech when he gave me chills. He said:

“in just four months, we will have an administration that actually believes in science. And we can again lead the world in live-saving and life-changing cures.”

How true this is. He is of course referencing stem-cell research, but really we could be talking about global warming, evolution, and most profoundly, science education. How can we compete with the rest of the world in science education, teaching our young people, if we have leaders who do not believe in it. Think about how profound that statement is. Bush does not believe in science. He does not believe the scientific data about global warming, does not want science to explore stem cell research, he does not believe in evolution even. What kind of country in this world has leadership who do not accept the basic tenets of science? No wonder we are falling behind the world not only education but in new technologies.

Speaking of which, that leads me to my main theme and the key advantage I think Democrats have in the fall, if they are willing to utilize it. Let us go back to 1994. In and really following 1994, the Republicans were the party of new ideas. They were innovators as they looked for new ways to do things in order to devolve away from a reliance on government. You can disagree with their ultimate solutions but there is no doubt that really from 1994 until 2004, the Republicans in the war of ideas had Democrats on the defense. Democrats were defending and trying to conserve past programs, many of which frankly had failed. And it was a fatal mistake to defend poorly constructed and failing programs. When Democrats did head off impending doom it was by mimicking the Republicans, for example President Clinton’s belated support of welfare reform that really didn’t so much reform welfare as it made it hard for people to get any sort of public assistance.

However, emerging from the threat of global warming, you see a new innovation on the part of liberals. And I say liberal rather than Democrat here because it is really coming out of local governance the notion of energy efficiency and green technology.

It was great on Tuesday to hear this become a theme of the convention, because one does not hear it enough on the national front. But this is a savior not only for our planet but for liberals and Democrats everywhere. You see, the environment was often a concern for the public, but it was a dangerous issue for Democrats. They could easily be painted as anti-business for pushing strong environmental agendas that were forward thinking to encompass issues like global warming. You can play on people’s fears if you can make them believe that regulations means losses in jobs. And sometimes they did mean losses in jobs. Sometimes it was necessary to lose jobs such as cutbacks in the clear cutting of old growth redwood forests in Northwest California.

However, the great thing about the new wave of environmentalism is that if you do it right it creates jobs–good high paying, high tech jobs. Good innovative jobs. And it creates them at a number of levels. Smart building design means jobs for contractors, engineers, and archetects, plus more construction jobs. More fuel efficiency means innovative jobs at developing new technologies. Green technology means research and development, construction, and other sorts of jobs.

The other great linkage was between green technology and American jobs. Linking environmentalism to the movement against the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs overseas. And also against the loss of research and development to other countries. This is crucial because once again you can tie the smart green revolution to populist and blue collar themes. Now environmentalism is not just for liberal college educated elites, it means new manufacturing jobs for the working class.

The best part is that it is difficult to assail the position. One cannot assail the green technology development by arguing that it losses jobs or hurts the economy. It is not a nebulus term like carbon credits that the average voter cannot understand. Instead it is a concrete concept that everyone can understand–the building of new and more efficient cars, homes, and electronics–is something everyone can understand and everyone can support.

How hard can the Democrats push this as a way to create new American jobs that will improve the economy? That is a key question. But a crucial one. Republicans took some of the gas debate away from the Democrats by pushing for the simplistic off-shore drilling as a solution.

I do not think the Democrats argued the point well enough, though it was mentioned. Off-shore drilling is a poor solution. First, it will make zero immediate impact on gas prices. It will take a long time to re-develop the supply from off-shore drilling. It will not add a large amount of new oil into the market and will not do it quickly. Finally from a longterm standpoint, it is the opposite of what we need to do. We need to move away from oil as the chief energy source. In short, Democrats have somewhat ceded a debate on a policy that has no upside in the immediate term view or the long term view.

What the green technology wave shows us is the really for the first time in a well over a decade the innovators, the party with new ideas, are the Democrats. It may take time for Democrats to fully exploit this advantage, but it is a sign of things to come.

How this race plays out is anyone’s guess. The Democrats have the issues in this election to win, they ran a very good if not altogether perfect convention, but the McCain campaign seems more nimble and more dogged. Who will win–stay tuned and we will find out.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

164 thoughts on “My Thoughts on The Democratic Convention: Where the Democrats Have the Advantage”

  1. Anonymous

    No mention of race?

    Perhaps it wasn’t so explicit, but I heard references to it through it from mentions of the 45th anniversary of MLK’s speech, and plenty of references from news commentators about Obama’s historic place in politics.

    I thought Bill Clinton’s speech was particularly effective in making the case for the Democrats. The former Republican voters who spoke before Obama last night was also very impressive.

  2. Anonymous

    No mention of race?

    Perhaps it wasn’t so explicit, but I heard references to it through it from mentions of the 45th anniversary of MLK’s speech, and plenty of references from news commentators about Obama’s historic place in politics.

    I thought Bill Clinton’s speech was particularly effective in making the case for the Democrats. The former Republican voters who spoke before Obama last night was also very impressive.

  3. Anonymous

    No mention of race?

    Perhaps it wasn’t so explicit, but I heard references to it through it from mentions of the 45th anniversary of MLK’s speech, and plenty of references from news commentators about Obama’s historic place in politics.

    I thought Bill Clinton’s speech was particularly effective in making the case for the Democrats. The former Republican voters who spoke before Obama last night was also very impressive.

  4. Anonymous

    No mention of race?

    Perhaps it wasn’t so explicit, but I heard references to it through it from mentions of the 45th anniversary of MLK’s speech, and plenty of references from news commentators about Obama’s historic place in politics.

    I thought Bill Clinton’s speech was particularly effective in making the case for the Democrats. The former Republican voters who spoke before Obama last night was also very impressive.

  5. Patricia

    Ok, I can’t speak for Don Gibson -although we hugged and did see each other on and off at the convention.

    For me, this was a lifelong dream come true to be there for the actual roll call vote and nomination by acclamation. I must admit as I sat “in the nosebleed” seats at the moment Hillary Clinton took the mike and stopped the roll call vote, I cried with emotion and elation – hugging a woman from New York who sat next to me. I moved down to the California section just minutes later and the energy was amazing.

    Last nite, I was blessed to have been given a delegate pass and I sat on the floor of Invesco. The excitement built minute by minute through the warm up to Obama’s speech. It was exciting to be there and feel not only the excitement of any convention acceptace speech (the veteran delegates near me at times said this was a night in many ways like other nights) but then to watch even them tear up as Obama arrived on stage was amazing. There was not doubt this was history in the making and every one of us there knew it.

    The atmosphere was thick with themes of “Hope” and of “Change.” I really felt like the belief in Camelot of the 60s was back. It is a thrilling time to be involved in politics!

    As an aside, it is interesting that McCain took a swing for the fences by picking staunch conservative Sarah Palin as his VP choice.

    Pat Lenzi

  6. Patricia

    Ok, I can’t speak for Don Gibson -although we hugged and did see each other on and off at the convention.

    For me, this was a lifelong dream come true to be there for the actual roll call vote and nomination by acclamation. I must admit as I sat “in the nosebleed” seats at the moment Hillary Clinton took the mike and stopped the roll call vote, I cried with emotion and elation – hugging a woman from New York who sat next to me. I moved down to the California section just minutes later and the energy was amazing.

    Last nite, I was blessed to have been given a delegate pass and I sat on the floor of Invesco. The excitement built minute by minute through the warm up to Obama’s speech. It was exciting to be there and feel not only the excitement of any convention acceptace speech (the veteran delegates near me at times said this was a night in many ways like other nights) but then to watch even them tear up as Obama arrived on stage was amazing. There was not doubt this was history in the making and every one of us there knew it.

    The atmosphere was thick with themes of “Hope” and of “Change.” I really felt like the belief in Camelot of the 60s was back. It is a thrilling time to be involved in politics!

    As an aside, it is interesting that McCain took a swing for the fences by picking staunch conservative Sarah Palin as his VP choice.

    Pat Lenzi

  7. Patricia

    Ok, I can’t speak for Don Gibson -although we hugged and did see each other on and off at the convention.

    For me, this was a lifelong dream come true to be there for the actual roll call vote and nomination by acclamation. I must admit as I sat “in the nosebleed” seats at the moment Hillary Clinton took the mike and stopped the roll call vote, I cried with emotion and elation – hugging a woman from New York who sat next to me. I moved down to the California section just minutes later and the energy was amazing.

    Last nite, I was blessed to have been given a delegate pass and I sat on the floor of Invesco. The excitement built minute by minute through the warm up to Obama’s speech. It was exciting to be there and feel not only the excitement of any convention acceptace speech (the veteran delegates near me at times said this was a night in many ways like other nights) but then to watch even them tear up as Obama arrived on stage was amazing. There was not doubt this was history in the making and every one of us there knew it.

    The atmosphere was thick with themes of “Hope” and of “Change.” I really felt like the belief in Camelot of the 60s was back. It is a thrilling time to be involved in politics!

    As an aside, it is interesting that McCain took a swing for the fences by picking staunch conservative Sarah Palin as his VP choice.

    Pat Lenzi

  8. Patricia

    Ok, I can’t speak for Don Gibson -although we hugged and did see each other on and off at the convention.

    For me, this was a lifelong dream come true to be there for the actual roll call vote and nomination by acclamation. I must admit as I sat “in the nosebleed” seats at the moment Hillary Clinton took the mike and stopped the roll call vote, I cried with emotion and elation – hugging a woman from New York who sat next to me. I moved down to the California section just minutes later and the energy was amazing.

    Last nite, I was blessed to have been given a delegate pass and I sat on the floor of Invesco. The excitement built minute by minute through the warm up to Obama’s speech. It was exciting to be there and feel not only the excitement of any convention acceptace speech (the veteran delegates near me at times said this was a night in many ways like other nights) but then to watch even them tear up as Obama arrived on stage was amazing. There was not doubt this was history in the making and every one of us there knew it.

    The atmosphere was thick with themes of “Hope” and of “Change.” I really felt like the belief in Camelot of the 60s was back. It is a thrilling time to be involved in politics!

    As an aside, it is interesting that McCain took a swing for the fences by picking staunch conservative Sarah Palin as his VP choice.

    Pat Lenzi

  9. Doug Paul Davis

    Thanks for sharing that Pat.

    7:44:

    My main point was:

    “Here the first black man stood before this nation and accepted a major party’s nomination and there were was hardly a direct reference to it from the dais.”

    Compare that to Hillary’s speech and strong and overt feminist themes.

  10. Doug Paul Davis

    Thanks for sharing that Pat.

    7:44:

    My main point was:

    “Here the first black man stood before this nation and accepted a major party’s nomination and there were was hardly a direct reference to it from the dais.”

    Compare that to Hillary’s speech and strong and overt feminist themes.

  11. Doug Paul Davis

    Thanks for sharing that Pat.

    7:44:

    My main point was:

    “Here the first black man stood before this nation and accepted a major party’s nomination and there were was hardly a direct reference to it from the dais.”

    Compare that to Hillary’s speech and strong and overt feminist themes.

  12. Doug Paul Davis

    Thanks for sharing that Pat.

    7:44:

    My main point was:

    “Here the first black man stood before this nation and accepted a major party’s nomination and there were was hardly a direct reference to it from the dais.”

    Compare that to Hillary’s speech and strong and overt feminist themes.

  13. Sharla

    Thank you, Pat. I’m happy that you were able to be there.

    I thought that references to race were intertwined throughout the convention as a matter of fact. How could anyone not notice it when people were talking about achieving part of “The Dream” with Obama’s nomination, repeated references to his African-American father who immigrated from Nigeria, pictures of Obama growing up looking like the typical black child, afro and all.

    I think that MLKJr’s daughter said it best when she declared that we have finally reached a point in America where a man is nominated for president who was not judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I think that is what is being stressed.

  14. Sharla

    Thank you, Pat. I’m happy that you were able to be there.

    I thought that references to race were intertwined throughout the convention as a matter of fact. How could anyone not notice it when people were talking about achieving part of “The Dream” with Obama’s nomination, repeated references to his African-American father who immigrated from Nigeria, pictures of Obama growing up looking like the typical black child, afro and all.

    I think that MLKJr’s daughter said it best when she declared that we have finally reached a point in America where a man is nominated for president who was not judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I think that is what is being stressed.

  15. Sharla

    Thank you, Pat. I’m happy that you were able to be there.

    I thought that references to race were intertwined throughout the convention as a matter of fact. How could anyone not notice it when people were talking about achieving part of “The Dream” with Obama’s nomination, repeated references to his African-American father who immigrated from Nigeria, pictures of Obama growing up looking like the typical black child, afro and all.

    I think that MLKJr’s daughter said it best when she declared that we have finally reached a point in America where a man is nominated for president who was not judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I think that is what is being stressed.

  16. Sharla

    Thank you, Pat. I’m happy that you were able to be there.

    I thought that references to race were intertwined throughout the convention as a matter of fact. How could anyone not notice it when people were talking about achieving part of “The Dream” with Obama’s nomination, repeated references to his African-American father who immigrated from Nigeria, pictures of Obama growing up looking like the typical black child, afro and all.

    I think that MLKJr’s daughter said it best when she declared that we have finally reached a point in America where a man is nominated for president who was not judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I think that is what is being stressed.

  17. darnell

    Sharla –

    I don’t think you meant any harm but I wondered what you thought a “typical black child” looked like? I don’t think you can generalize like that.

    Barack’s father was from Kenya, not Nigeria. They are two different countries you know.

  18. darnell

    Sharla –

    I don’t think you meant any harm but I wondered what you thought a “typical black child” looked like? I don’t think you can generalize like that.

    Barack’s father was from Kenya, not Nigeria. They are two different countries you know.

  19. darnell

    Sharla –

    I don’t think you meant any harm but I wondered what you thought a “typical black child” looked like? I don’t think you can generalize like that.

    Barack’s father was from Kenya, not Nigeria. They are two different countries you know.

  20. darnell

    Sharla –

    I don’t think you meant any harm but I wondered what you thought a “typical black child” looked like? I don’t think you can generalize like that.

    Barack’s father was from Kenya, not Nigeria. They are two different countries you know.

  21. Mike Hart

    I don’t see green technology as an option for the democratic party. As a group, they have done great damage to promising green technologies (I speak from many years of personal experience dealing with this nonsense).

    An example is their steadfast opposition to hybrid cars for many years. Legislation here in CA led by democrats tried to force auto manufacturers to create zero polluting cars that no one wanted and didn’t work when hybrid technology would work fine. The Toyota Prius could have been the car of choice many years ago but for democratic policy makers who let the ideal get in the way of the practical. Same thing with waste to energy, Byron Sher is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the environment with his intolerant lobbyist driven limitations on any type of conversion of waste that happens at temperatures that exceed body temperature.

    If what you propose is to have the democrats reshape themselves to embrace green technology I applaud you. But the first step will be to take several busloads of environmental zealots and push them off a cliff… it would be the best thing that ever happened to the environment.

    The Bush administration is a mess, they embrace the wrong things, ignore good science and have not moved the ball forward. To a large extent its mostly been a reactionary response to democratic excesses in regulation and misdirected policy. Rather than having a frank discussion with the American people about the problems of overly enthusiastic legislation and try to refocus our efforts toward practical solutions, they have gone to the opposite extreme. Foolish. They also do a terrible job of explaining themselves. For example, not signing Kyoto was a sound decision for the environment- but they never took the time to explain it to the hysterical who thought it was all some evil plot to darken the skies… Kyoto was nothing more than an invitation to India and China to blacken the skies and that is exactly what it has accomplished. The democrats will need to do a lot more than hug a tree and say that they are not Bush if they want to become a truly “green” party…

  22. Mike Hart

    I don’t see green technology as an option for the democratic party. As a group, they have done great damage to promising green technologies (I speak from many years of personal experience dealing with this nonsense).

    An example is their steadfast opposition to hybrid cars for many years. Legislation here in CA led by democrats tried to force auto manufacturers to create zero polluting cars that no one wanted and didn’t work when hybrid technology would work fine. The Toyota Prius could have been the car of choice many years ago but for democratic policy makers who let the ideal get in the way of the practical. Same thing with waste to energy, Byron Sher is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the environment with his intolerant lobbyist driven limitations on any type of conversion of waste that happens at temperatures that exceed body temperature.

    If what you propose is to have the democrats reshape themselves to embrace green technology I applaud you. But the first step will be to take several busloads of environmental zealots and push them off a cliff… it would be the best thing that ever happened to the environment.

    The Bush administration is a mess, they embrace the wrong things, ignore good science and have not moved the ball forward. To a large extent its mostly been a reactionary response to democratic excesses in regulation and misdirected policy. Rather than having a frank discussion with the American people about the problems of overly enthusiastic legislation and try to refocus our efforts toward practical solutions, they have gone to the opposite extreme. Foolish. They also do a terrible job of explaining themselves. For example, not signing Kyoto was a sound decision for the environment- but they never took the time to explain it to the hysterical who thought it was all some evil plot to darken the skies… Kyoto was nothing more than an invitation to India and China to blacken the skies and that is exactly what it has accomplished. The democrats will need to do a lot more than hug a tree and say that they are not Bush if they want to become a truly “green” party…

  23. Mike Hart

    I don’t see green technology as an option for the democratic party. As a group, they have done great damage to promising green technologies (I speak from many years of personal experience dealing with this nonsense).

    An example is their steadfast opposition to hybrid cars for many years. Legislation here in CA led by democrats tried to force auto manufacturers to create zero polluting cars that no one wanted and didn’t work when hybrid technology would work fine. The Toyota Prius could have been the car of choice many years ago but for democratic policy makers who let the ideal get in the way of the practical. Same thing with waste to energy, Byron Sher is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the environment with his intolerant lobbyist driven limitations on any type of conversion of waste that happens at temperatures that exceed body temperature.

    If what you propose is to have the democrats reshape themselves to embrace green technology I applaud you. But the first step will be to take several busloads of environmental zealots and push them off a cliff… it would be the best thing that ever happened to the environment.

    The Bush administration is a mess, they embrace the wrong things, ignore good science and have not moved the ball forward. To a large extent its mostly been a reactionary response to democratic excesses in regulation and misdirected policy. Rather than having a frank discussion with the American people about the problems of overly enthusiastic legislation and try to refocus our efforts toward practical solutions, they have gone to the opposite extreme. Foolish. They also do a terrible job of explaining themselves. For example, not signing Kyoto was a sound decision for the environment- but they never took the time to explain it to the hysterical who thought it was all some evil plot to darken the skies… Kyoto was nothing more than an invitation to India and China to blacken the skies and that is exactly what it has accomplished. The democrats will need to do a lot more than hug a tree and say that they are not Bush if they want to become a truly “green” party…

  24. Mike Hart

    I don’t see green technology as an option for the democratic party. As a group, they have done great damage to promising green technologies (I speak from many years of personal experience dealing with this nonsense).

    An example is their steadfast opposition to hybrid cars for many years. Legislation here in CA led by democrats tried to force auto manufacturers to create zero polluting cars that no one wanted and didn’t work when hybrid technology would work fine. The Toyota Prius could have been the car of choice many years ago but for democratic policy makers who let the ideal get in the way of the practical. Same thing with waste to energy, Byron Sher is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the environment with his intolerant lobbyist driven limitations on any type of conversion of waste that happens at temperatures that exceed body temperature.

    If what you propose is to have the democrats reshape themselves to embrace green technology I applaud you. But the first step will be to take several busloads of environmental zealots and push them off a cliff… it would be the best thing that ever happened to the environment.

    The Bush administration is a mess, they embrace the wrong things, ignore good science and have not moved the ball forward. To a large extent its mostly been a reactionary response to democratic excesses in regulation and misdirected policy. Rather than having a frank discussion with the American people about the problems of overly enthusiastic legislation and try to refocus our efforts toward practical solutions, they have gone to the opposite extreme. Foolish. They also do a terrible job of explaining themselves. For example, not signing Kyoto was a sound decision for the environment- but they never took the time to explain it to the hysterical who thought it was all some evil plot to darken the skies… Kyoto was nothing more than an invitation to India and China to blacken the skies and that is exactly what it has accomplished. The democrats will need to do a lot more than hug a tree and say that they are not Bush if they want to become a truly “green” party…

  25. Richard

    actually, the worst aspect of the convention was the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest being especially inane (going back to the Cold War because of the turmoil in the Caucasus isn’t change, it is falling back upon the past as if the future is a replication of it)

    following close behind is the now official repudiation of any influence for organized labor other than as volunteers and donors, Obama’s reliance upon Wall Street connected, neoliberal foreign economic advisors has been well documented in recent weeks, especially his recent hiring of a pro-Wal Mart one, and Biden has always been a corporate friendly Senator

    last would be the abandonment of any commitment to civil liberties, if the absurdity of the overblown, paramilitary police presence at the convention to deter protest weren’t enough (always conveniently justified by the threat of terrorism), then one need only look at Biden’s consistent record of supporting intrusive measures, in effect, supporting Patriot Act type methods before 9/11 had occurred

  26. Richard

    actually, the worst aspect of the convention was the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest being especially inane (going back to the Cold War because of the turmoil in the Caucasus isn’t change, it is falling back upon the past as if the future is a replication of it)

    following close behind is the now official repudiation of any influence for organized labor other than as volunteers and donors, Obama’s reliance upon Wall Street connected, neoliberal foreign economic advisors has been well documented in recent weeks, especially his recent hiring of a pro-Wal Mart one, and Biden has always been a corporate friendly Senator

    last would be the abandonment of any commitment to civil liberties, if the absurdity of the overblown, paramilitary police presence at the convention to deter protest weren’t enough (always conveniently justified by the threat of terrorism), then one need only look at Biden’s consistent record of supporting intrusive measures, in effect, supporting Patriot Act type methods before 9/11 had occurred

  27. Richard

    actually, the worst aspect of the convention was the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest being especially inane (going back to the Cold War because of the turmoil in the Caucasus isn’t change, it is falling back upon the past as if the future is a replication of it)

    following close behind is the now official repudiation of any influence for organized labor other than as volunteers and donors, Obama’s reliance upon Wall Street connected, neoliberal foreign economic advisors has been well documented in recent weeks, especially his recent hiring of a pro-Wal Mart one, and Biden has always been a corporate friendly Senator

    last would be the abandonment of any commitment to civil liberties, if the absurdity of the overblown, paramilitary police presence at the convention to deter protest weren’t enough (always conveniently justified by the threat of terrorism), then one need only look at Biden’s consistent record of supporting intrusive measures, in effect, supporting Patriot Act type methods before 9/11 had occurred

  28. Richard

    actually, the worst aspect of the convention was the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest being especially inane (going back to the Cold War because of the turmoil in the Caucasus isn’t change, it is falling back upon the past as if the future is a replication of it)

    following close behind is the now official repudiation of any influence for organized labor other than as volunteers and donors, Obama’s reliance upon Wall Street connected, neoliberal foreign economic advisors has been well documented in recent weeks, especially his recent hiring of a pro-Wal Mart one, and Biden has always been a corporate friendly Senator

    last would be the abandonment of any commitment to civil liberties, if the absurdity of the overblown, paramilitary police presence at the convention to deter protest weren’t enough (always conveniently justified by the threat of terrorism), then one need only look at Biden’s consistent record of supporting intrusive measures, in effect, supporting Patriot Act type methods before 9/11 had occurred

  29. Sharla

    Darnell,
    OK, Kenya. I knew that it was somewhere in Africa. To me it is not important.

    Typical black American child. His childhood school pictures look like any other school pictures of a child growing up in America, but easily identified as African American by his skin color, features and hairstyle. I think it is a safe generalization.

    David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly. The point I was making is that we can all see and we don’t need people to point out Obama’s racial heritage for us. I am not voting for Obama because of it. I just don’t care what he looks like. It is not a factor in my support. I do like the content of his character based on his life experiences.

  30. Sharla

    Darnell,
    OK, Kenya. I knew that it was somewhere in Africa. To me it is not important.

    Typical black American child. His childhood school pictures look like any other school pictures of a child growing up in America, but easily identified as African American by his skin color, features and hairstyle. I think it is a safe generalization.

    David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly. The point I was making is that we can all see and we don’t need people to point out Obama’s racial heritage for us. I am not voting for Obama because of it. I just don’t care what he looks like. It is not a factor in my support. I do like the content of his character based on his life experiences.

  31. Sharla

    Darnell,
    OK, Kenya. I knew that it was somewhere in Africa. To me it is not important.

    Typical black American child. His childhood school pictures look like any other school pictures of a child growing up in America, but easily identified as African American by his skin color, features and hairstyle. I think it is a safe generalization.

    David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly. The point I was making is that we can all see and we don’t need people to point out Obama’s racial heritage for us. I am not voting for Obama because of it. I just don’t care what he looks like. It is not a factor in my support. I do like the content of his character based on his life experiences.

  32. Sharla

    Darnell,
    OK, Kenya. I knew that it was somewhere in Africa. To me it is not important.

    Typical black American child. His childhood school pictures look like any other school pictures of a child growing up in America, but easily identified as African American by his skin color, features and hairstyle. I think it is a safe generalization.

    David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly. The point I was making is that we can all see and we don’t need people to point out Obama’s racial heritage for us. I am not voting for Obama because of it. I just don’t care what he looks like. It is not a factor in my support. I do like the content of his character based on his life experiences.

  33. Fan of Putin

    “the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest.”

    It’s good to see someone on this website having the courage to stand up on behalf of Russian fascism. We need more people who are willing to speak out in favor of KGB agents arming citizens in democratic countries so they can kill their neighbors and then, when the democracy stands up to defend itself, the Russian army can invade, murder the locals, drive out innocents from their homes and declare the territory for Mother Russia.

    Back when Adolph Hitler did this exact same thing in the Sudetenland, where Germans were a minority, not enough Americans had the courage, like Richard, to stand up on behalf of Hitler. It’s good to see that Richard is in favor of Vlad Putin’s tactics.

    While Putin has done a great job in Chechnya, killing or displacing 1/2 of the native population, he’s just begun his adventure in Georgia. God willing, he will succeed there, so he can go on to overthrow democracy in Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova.

  34. Fan of Putin

    “the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest.”

    It’s good to see someone on this website having the courage to stand up on behalf of Russian fascism. We need more people who are willing to speak out in favor of KGB agents arming citizens in democratic countries so they can kill their neighbors and then, when the democracy stands up to defend itself, the Russian army can invade, murder the locals, drive out innocents from their homes and declare the territory for Mother Russia.

    Back when Adolph Hitler did this exact same thing in the Sudetenland, where Germans were a minority, not enough Americans had the courage, like Richard, to stand up on behalf of Hitler. It’s good to see that Richard is in favor of Vlad Putin’s tactics.

    While Putin has done a great job in Chechnya, killing or displacing 1/2 of the native population, he’s just begun his adventure in Georgia. God willing, he will succeed there, so he can go on to overthrow democracy in Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova.

  35. Fan of Putin

    “the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest.”

    It’s good to see someone on this website having the courage to stand up on behalf of Russian fascism. We need more people who are willing to speak out in favor of KGB agents arming citizens in democratic countries so they can kill their neighbors and then, when the democracy stands up to defend itself, the Russian army can invade, murder the locals, drive out innocents from their homes and declare the territory for Mother Russia.

    Back when Adolph Hitler did this exact same thing in the Sudetenland, where Germans were a minority, not enough Americans had the courage, like Richard, to stand up on behalf of Hitler. It’s good to see that Richard is in favor of Vlad Putin’s tactics.

    While Putin has done a great job in Chechnya, killing or displacing 1/2 of the native population, he’s just begun his adventure in Georgia. God willing, he will succeed there, so he can go on to overthrow democracy in Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova.

  36. Fan of Putin

    “the embrace of the Democrats of a foreign policy approach only marginally different from that of the Republicans, with the race to see which one can ostracize the Russians the fastest.”

    It’s good to see someone on this website having the courage to stand up on behalf of Russian fascism. We need more people who are willing to speak out in favor of KGB agents arming citizens in democratic countries so they can kill their neighbors and then, when the democracy stands up to defend itself, the Russian army can invade, murder the locals, drive out innocents from their homes and declare the territory for Mother Russia.

    Back when Adolph Hitler did this exact same thing in the Sudetenland, where Germans were a minority, not enough Americans had the courage, like Richard, to stand up on behalf of Hitler. It’s good to see that Richard is in favor of Vlad Putin’s tactics.

    While Putin has done a great job in Chechnya, killing or displacing 1/2 of the native population, he’s just begun his adventure in Georgia. God willing, he will succeed there, so he can go on to overthrow democracy in Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova.

  37. Mike Hart

    I LOVE THIS TOWN!!! You guys are just hilarious…

    Here is a serious thought about a serious issue, and in true Davis Democrat fashion it instantly degenerates into an insane quest for the most racially sensitive poster of all.

    The thread neatly summarizes why the democrats can never take a leadership position about green technology, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

    It gives the impression that at a democratic “feast for the hungry” the democratic leadership would bar the hungry from the meal as they run around uselessly counting and recounting the silverware at each place in an obsessive fear that somehow, somewhere, someone might be short a salad fork.

    The republicans really don’t have to do anything to “beat” the democrats, they just let them destroy themselves in a pantsuit-wearing slogan chanting mob…

  38. Mike Hart

    I LOVE THIS TOWN!!! You guys are just hilarious…

    Here is a serious thought about a serious issue, and in true Davis Democrat fashion it instantly degenerates into an insane quest for the most racially sensitive poster of all.

    The thread neatly summarizes why the democrats can never take a leadership position about green technology, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

    It gives the impression that at a democratic “feast for the hungry” the democratic leadership would bar the hungry from the meal as they run around uselessly counting and recounting the silverware at each place in an obsessive fear that somehow, somewhere, someone might be short a salad fork.

    The republicans really don’t have to do anything to “beat” the democrats, they just let them destroy themselves in a pantsuit-wearing slogan chanting mob…

  39. Mike Hart

    I LOVE THIS TOWN!!! You guys are just hilarious…

    Here is a serious thought about a serious issue, and in true Davis Democrat fashion it instantly degenerates into an insane quest for the most racially sensitive poster of all.

    The thread neatly summarizes why the democrats can never take a leadership position about green technology, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

    It gives the impression that at a democratic “feast for the hungry” the democratic leadership would bar the hungry from the meal as they run around uselessly counting and recounting the silverware at each place in an obsessive fear that somehow, somewhere, someone might be short a salad fork.

    The republicans really don’t have to do anything to “beat” the democrats, they just let them destroy themselves in a pantsuit-wearing slogan chanting mob…

  40. Mike Hart

    I LOVE THIS TOWN!!! You guys are just hilarious…

    Here is a serious thought about a serious issue, and in true Davis Democrat fashion it instantly degenerates into an insane quest for the most racially sensitive poster of all.

    The thread neatly summarizes why the democrats can never take a leadership position about green technology, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

    It gives the impression that at a democratic “feast for the hungry” the democratic leadership would bar the hungry from the meal as they run around uselessly counting and recounting the silverware at each place in an obsessive fear that somehow, somewhere, someone might be short a salad fork.

    The republicans really don’t have to do anything to “beat” the democrats, they just let them destroy themselves in a pantsuit-wearing slogan chanting mob…

  41. Oil and Alternatives can co-exist

    “Off-shore drilling is a poor solution. First, it will make zero immediate impact on gas prices. It will take a long time to re-develop the supply from off-shore drilling.”

    Alternatives will make no immediate effect on gas prices either. It will take a long time to develop those also.

    “It will not add a large amount of new oil into the market and will not do it quickly. Finally from a longterm standpoint, it is the opposite of what we need to do.”

    We don’t know that that is true. There may be tons of oil. We drill to find out. If we start drilling, OPEC gets scared into cutting the gas prices even though there may not be enough oil. So, we pretend that there is, scare OPEC into cutting prices while we work on the alternatives. But there may be enough oil yet. Let’s find out. A two pronged solution is better than limiting options.

    ” We need to move away from oil as the chief energy source. In short, Democrats have somewhat ceded a debate on a policy that has no upside in the immediate term view or the long term view.”

    Yes, they have. I agree with an approach that develops all of our resources, oil, coal, wind, hydro.
    Alternatives are still a long way off, and so is the oil drilling, so you develop both.

    I do not believe in limiting our options. And for that matter neither does a majority of Americans.

  42. Oil and Alternatives can co-ex

    “Off-shore drilling is a poor solution. First, it will make zero immediate impact on gas prices. It will take a long time to re-develop the supply from off-shore drilling.”

    Alternatives will make no immediate effect on gas prices either. It will take a long time to develop those also.

    “It will not add a large amount of new oil into the market and will not do it quickly. Finally from a longterm standpoint, it is the opposite of what we need to do.”

    We don’t know that that is true. There may be tons of oil. We drill to find out. If we start drilling, OPEC gets scared into cutting the gas prices even though there may not be enough oil. So, we pretend that there is, scare OPEC into cutting prices while we work on the alternatives. But there may be enough oil yet. Let’s find out. A two pronged solution is better than limiting options.

    ” We need to move away from oil as the chief energy source. In short, Democrats have somewhat ceded a debate on a policy that has no upside in the immediate term view or the long term view.”

    Yes, they have. I agree with an approach that develops all of our resources, oil, coal, wind, hydro.
    Alternatives are still a long way off, and so is the oil drilling, so you develop both.

    I do not believe in limiting our options. And for that matter neither does a majority of Americans.

  43. Oil and Alternatives can co-ex

    “Off-shore drilling is a poor solution. First, it will make zero immediate impact on gas prices. It will take a long time to re-develop the supply from off-shore drilling.”

    Alternatives will make no immediate effect on gas prices either. It will take a long time to develop those also.

    “It will not add a large amount of new oil into the market and will not do it quickly. Finally from a longterm standpoint, it is the opposite of what we need to do.”

    We don’t know that that is true. There may be tons of oil. We drill to find out. If we start drilling, OPEC gets scared into cutting the gas prices even though there may not be enough oil. So, we pretend that there is, scare OPEC into cutting prices while we work on the alternatives. But there may be enough oil yet. Let’s find out. A two pronged solution is better than limiting options.

    ” We need to move away from oil as the chief energy source. In short, Democrats have somewhat ceded a debate on a policy that has no upside in the immediate term view or the long term view.”

    Yes, they have. I agree with an approach that develops all of our resources, oil, coal, wind, hydro.
    Alternatives are still a long way off, and so is the oil drilling, so you develop both.

    I do not believe in limiting our options. And for that matter neither does a majority of Americans.

  44. Oil and Alternatives can co-ex

    “Off-shore drilling is a poor solution. First, it will make zero immediate impact on gas prices. It will take a long time to re-develop the supply from off-shore drilling.”

    Alternatives will make no immediate effect on gas prices either. It will take a long time to develop those also.

    “It will not add a large amount of new oil into the market and will not do it quickly. Finally from a longterm standpoint, it is the opposite of what we need to do.”

    We don’t know that that is true. There may be tons of oil. We drill to find out. If we start drilling, OPEC gets scared into cutting the gas prices even though there may not be enough oil. So, we pretend that there is, scare OPEC into cutting prices while we work on the alternatives. But there may be enough oil yet. Let’s find out. A two pronged solution is better than limiting options.

    ” We need to move away from oil as the chief energy source. In short, Democrats have somewhat ceded a debate on a policy that has no upside in the immediate term view or the long term view.”

    Yes, they have. I agree with an approach that develops all of our resources, oil, coal, wind, hydro.
    Alternatives are still a long way off, and so is the oil drilling, so you develop both.

    I do not believe in limiting our options. And for that matter neither does a majority of Americans.

  45. Richard

    fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us

    I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus, both care about power and economic influence, but the notion of pushing NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation and then arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?

    or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?

    or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?

    an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech

    by the way, you are correct, Putin’s invasion of Chechnya was and remains an atrocity (and I said so at the time) and it’s primary historical significance for the US lies in the fact that it foreshadowed what the US would do to the people of Iraq

    Putin did, however, take action to prevent Saaskhvili from doing to the people of South Ossetia precisely what he did to the people of Chechnya, it’s hard to condemn him for that, especially when the US and NATO were going to do nothing to stop the Georgians from finishing the job

    of course, Putin, like any good imperialist, is taking maximum advantage, and that should be condemned, but the notion that the solution is further militarization of the region with US troops and weapons, transforming everyone into either an imperial possession of the US and USSR is not very credible

    we should be deescalating there, not escalating, unless, of course, you want to stick Obama with a big military bill that will make his domestic agenda even more financially implausible

    –Richard Estes

  46. Richard

    fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us

    I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus, both care about power and economic influence, but the notion of pushing NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation and then arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?

    or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?

    or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?

    an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech

    by the way, you are correct, Putin’s invasion of Chechnya was and remains an atrocity (and I said so at the time) and it’s primary historical significance for the US lies in the fact that it foreshadowed what the US would do to the people of Iraq

    Putin did, however, take action to prevent Saaskhvili from doing to the people of South Ossetia precisely what he did to the people of Chechnya, it’s hard to condemn him for that, especially when the US and NATO were going to do nothing to stop the Georgians from finishing the job

    of course, Putin, like any good imperialist, is taking maximum advantage, and that should be condemned, but the notion that the solution is further militarization of the region with US troops and weapons, transforming everyone into either an imperial possession of the US and USSR is not very credible

    we should be deescalating there, not escalating, unless, of course, you want to stick Obama with a big military bill that will make his domestic agenda even more financially implausible

    –Richard Estes

  47. Richard

    fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us

    I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus, both care about power and economic influence, but the notion of pushing NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation and then arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?

    or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?

    or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?

    an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech

    by the way, you are correct, Putin’s invasion of Chechnya was and remains an atrocity (and I said so at the time) and it’s primary historical significance for the US lies in the fact that it foreshadowed what the US would do to the people of Iraq

    Putin did, however, take action to prevent Saaskhvili from doing to the people of South Ossetia precisely what he did to the people of Chechnya, it’s hard to condemn him for that, especially when the US and NATO were going to do nothing to stop the Georgians from finishing the job

    of course, Putin, like any good imperialist, is taking maximum advantage, and that should be condemned, but the notion that the solution is further militarization of the region with US troops and weapons, transforming everyone into either an imperial possession of the US and USSR is not very credible

    we should be deescalating there, not escalating, unless, of course, you want to stick Obama with a big military bill that will make his domestic agenda even more financially implausible

    –Richard Estes

  48. Richard

    fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us

    I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus, both care about power and economic influence, but the notion of pushing NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation and then arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?

    or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?

    or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?

    an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech

    by the way, you are correct, Putin’s invasion of Chechnya was and remains an atrocity (and I said so at the time) and it’s primary historical significance for the US lies in the fact that it foreshadowed what the US would do to the people of Iraq

    Putin did, however, take action to prevent Saaskhvili from doing to the people of South Ossetia precisely what he did to the people of Chechnya, it’s hard to condemn him for that, especially when the US and NATO were going to do nothing to stop the Georgians from finishing the job

    of course, Putin, like any good imperialist, is taking maximum advantage, and that should be condemned, but the notion that the solution is further militarization of the region with US troops and weapons, transforming everyone into either an imperial possession of the US and USSR is not very credible

    we should be deescalating there, not escalating, unless, of course, you want to stick Obama with a big military bill that will make his domestic agenda even more financially implausible

    –Richard Estes

  49. Agrees with fan of Putin..

    fan of Putin: I agree. Putin is a slimy character if there ever was one. There was no reason for Putin to do what he did to Georgia. The Russians had just recently sent their bombers into Danish and English airspace to intimidate them. The Russians have been a thorn in our side for awhile.

    During WWII, Russia/Germany had become brief allies to take over Poland and carve it up for themselves. Russia was perfectly willing to roll over the poles and “inferior peoples” just as much as Germany did as long as they got their land. Then Hitler double crossed them.

    Never turn your back on Russia. They are a decietful, slimy, entity.

    Putin is a former KGB agent, which is the USSR equivalent of the Gestapo.

  50. Agrees with fan of Putin..

    fan of Putin: I agree. Putin is a slimy character if there ever was one. There was no reason for Putin to do what he did to Georgia. The Russians had just recently sent their bombers into Danish and English airspace to intimidate them. The Russians have been a thorn in our side for awhile.

    During WWII, Russia/Germany had become brief allies to take over Poland and carve it up for themselves. Russia was perfectly willing to roll over the poles and “inferior peoples” just as much as Germany did as long as they got their land. Then Hitler double crossed them.

    Never turn your back on Russia. They are a decietful, slimy, entity.

    Putin is a former KGB agent, which is the USSR equivalent of the Gestapo.

  51. Agrees with fan of Putin..

    fan of Putin: I agree. Putin is a slimy character if there ever was one. There was no reason for Putin to do what he did to Georgia. The Russians had just recently sent their bombers into Danish and English airspace to intimidate them. The Russians have been a thorn in our side for awhile.

    During WWII, Russia/Germany had become brief allies to take over Poland and carve it up for themselves. Russia was perfectly willing to roll over the poles and “inferior peoples” just as much as Germany did as long as they got their land. Then Hitler double crossed them.

    Never turn your back on Russia. They are a decietful, slimy, entity.

    Putin is a former KGB agent, which is the USSR equivalent of the Gestapo.

  52. Agrees with fan of Putin..

    fan of Putin: I agree. Putin is a slimy character if there ever was one. There was no reason for Putin to do what he did to Georgia. The Russians had just recently sent their bombers into Danish and English airspace to intimidate them. The Russians have been a thorn in our side for awhile.

    During WWII, Russia/Germany had become brief allies to take over Poland and carve it up for themselves. Russia was perfectly willing to roll over the poles and “inferior peoples” just as much as Germany did as long as they got their land. Then Hitler double crossed them.

    Never turn your back on Russia. They are a decietful, slimy, entity.

    Putin is a former KGB agent, which is the USSR equivalent of the Gestapo.

  53. Rich Rifkin

    “David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly.”

    If the Democrats win big in the U.S. House of Reps and in the U.S. Senate, but Obama loses, I think racial fears will be a factor.*

    My sense is that many non-partisan whites (and other non-black Americans), mostly from the lower-middle income groups on down, are insecure economically and perhaps insecure in other senses. They want to feel in charge of their lives and they don’t want to feel like they are at the bottom of the heap.**

    Insofar as others are worse off, they feel better about their own fate. Insofar as those others are black, they feel better about being white or Latino, etc. But if we elect a black president, they won’t have that crutch to hold themselves up anymore. They will feel worse about themselves.

    If I’m right about how these lower income non-blacks feel, it will be a big hurdle for Obama in November. In the most important battleground states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Missouri, these folks will tip the balance to one side or the other. Despite great enthusiasm in the primaries for Obama in the South, I don’t think Obama has any chance in the old Confederacy. In order to win, he needs to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and take Ohio.

    * I don’t think race will be the only factor if Obama loses, even if his party wins otherwise. We have a long tradition of electing a Congress of one party and a president of the other. Further, Americans have been familiar with John McCain for a long time, while most had never heard of Obama only a year ago. Despite his bizarre choice for VP, the experience factor will work for McCain. And finally, despite the efforts at the DNC to paint McCain as another GW Bush, he rightly is different. He’s a Republican who most activist Republicans have hated for 20 years. They hate the fact that he has successfully joined with Democrats to pass legislation that the Republican base opposed. That doesn’t make McCain a moderate or a non-partisan. But he naturally has an appeal to middle of the road independents come November.

    ** My theory is that in towns like Davis, where most folks are not living on the edge economically, there is much less racism. That is not to say there is no racism, but I believe much less. The people of Davis don’t hold themselves up by holding down others.

  54. Rich Rifkin

    “David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly.”

    If the Democrats win big in the U.S. House of Reps and in the U.S. Senate, but Obama loses, I think racial fears will be a factor.*

    My sense is that many non-partisan whites (and other non-black Americans), mostly from the lower-middle income groups on down, are insecure economically and perhaps insecure in other senses. They want to feel in charge of their lives and they don’t want to feel like they are at the bottom of the heap.**

    Insofar as others are worse off, they feel better about their own fate. Insofar as those others are black, they feel better about being white or Latino, etc. But if we elect a black president, they won’t have that crutch to hold themselves up anymore. They will feel worse about themselves.

    If I’m right about how these lower income non-blacks feel, it will be a big hurdle for Obama in November. In the most important battleground states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Missouri, these folks will tip the balance to one side or the other. Despite great enthusiasm in the primaries for Obama in the South, I don’t think Obama has any chance in the old Confederacy. In order to win, he needs to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and take Ohio.

    * I don’t think race will be the only factor if Obama loses, even if his party wins otherwise. We have a long tradition of electing a Congress of one party and a president of the other. Further, Americans have been familiar with John McCain for a long time, while most had never heard of Obama only a year ago. Despite his bizarre choice for VP, the experience factor will work for McCain. And finally, despite the efforts at the DNC to paint McCain as another GW Bush, he rightly is different. He’s a Republican who most activist Republicans have hated for 20 years. They hate the fact that he has successfully joined with Democrats to pass legislation that the Republican base opposed. That doesn’t make McCain a moderate or a non-partisan. But he naturally has an appeal to middle of the road independents come November.

    ** My theory is that in towns like Davis, where most folks are not living on the edge economically, there is much less racism. That is not to say there is no racism, but I believe much less. The people of Davis don’t hold themselves up by holding down others.

  55. Rich Rifkin

    “David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly.”

    If the Democrats win big in the U.S. House of Reps and in the U.S. Senate, but Obama loses, I think racial fears will be a factor.*

    My sense is that many non-partisan whites (and other non-black Americans), mostly from the lower-middle income groups on down, are insecure economically and perhaps insecure in other senses. They want to feel in charge of their lives and they don’t want to feel like they are at the bottom of the heap.**

    Insofar as others are worse off, they feel better about their own fate. Insofar as those others are black, they feel better about being white or Latino, etc. But if we elect a black president, they won’t have that crutch to hold themselves up anymore. They will feel worse about themselves.

    If I’m right about how these lower income non-blacks feel, it will be a big hurdle for Obama in November. In the most important battleground states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Missouri, these folks will tip the balance to one side or the other. Despite great enthusiasm in the primaries for Obama in the South, I don’t think Obama has any chance in the old Confederacy. In order to win, he needs to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and take Ohio.

    * I don’t think race will be the only factor if Obama loses, even if his party wins otherwise. We have a long tradition of electing a Congress of one party and a president of the other. Further, Americans have been familiar with John McCain for a long time, while most had never heard of Obama only a year ago. Despite his bizarre choice for VP, the experience factor will work for McCain. And finally, despite the efforts at the DNC to paint McCain as another GW Bush, he rightly is different. He’s a Republican who most activist Republicans have hated for 20 years. They hate the fact that he has successfully joined with Democrats to pass legislation that the Republican base opposed. That doesn’t make McCain a moderate or a non-partisan. But he naturally has an appeal to middle of the road independents come November.

    ** My theory is that in towns like Davis, where most folks are not living on the edge economically, there is much less racism. That is not to say there is no racism, but I believe much less. The people of Davis don’t hold themselves up by holding down others.

  56. Rich Rifkin

    “David was complaining that race as a factor wasn’t mention explicitly.”

    If the Democrats win big in the U.S. House of Reps and in the U.S. Senate, but Obama loses, I think racial fears will be a factor.*

    My sense is that many non-partisan whites (and other non-black Americans), mostly from the lower-middle income groups on down, are insecure economically and perhaps insecure in other senses. They want to feel in charge of their lives and they don’t want to feel like they are at the bottom of the heap.**

    Insofar as others are worse off, they feel better about their own fate. Insofar as those others are black, they feel better about being white or Latino, etc. But if we elect a black president, they won’t have that crutch to hold themselves up anymore. They will feel worse about themselves.

    If I’m right about how these lower income non-blacks feel, it will be a big hurdle for Obama in November. In the most important battleground states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Missouri, these folks will tip the balance to one side or the other. Despite great enthusiasm in the primaries for Obama in the South, I don’t think Obama has any chance in the old Confederacy. In order to win, he needs to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and take Ohio.

    * I don’t think race will be the only factor if Obama loses, even if his party wins otherwise. We have a long tradition of electing a Congress of one party and a president of the other. Further, Americans have been familiar with John McCain for a long time, while most had never heard of Obama only a year ago. Despite his bizarre choice for VP, the experience factor will work for McCain. And finally, despite the efforts at the DNC to paint McCain as another GW Bush, he rightly is different. He’s a Republican who most activist Republicans have hated for 20 years. They hate the fact that he has successfully joined with Democrats to pass legislation that the Republican base opposed. That doesn’t make McCain a moderate or a non-partisan. But he naturally has an appeal to middle of the road independents come November.

    ** My theory is that in towns like Davis, where most folks are not living on the edge economically, there is much less racism. That is not to say there is no racism, but I believe much less. The people of Davis don’t hold themselves up by holding down others.

  57. Fan of Putin

    “fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us”

    They are not the same. Even though I was against our invasion, Iraq was ruled by a hated murderous dictator. Georgia is a democracy.

    “I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus”

    We have allied ourselves with all the democracies in the former Soviet Union. Russia has tried to overthrow the democracies. They even poisoned the democratic president of Ukraine.

    “Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy”

    Georgia’s president is not an autocrat.

    Second, Russian KGB officers have for the last 15 years been stirring up the local Russian minority populations in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. These minorities have used Russian weapons to murder the Georgian majority and drive the Georgians out of their homes. When the government of Georgia responded belatedly, you accuse Georgia of “starting a war.” It has been Russia’s policy for a decade to force Georgia to defend its people from Russian interference.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    This “conflict” began when Putin, while Yeltsin was in office, sent in the KGB to stir up the Russian minority groups. He did this in Ukraine, too.

    “or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?”

    The Georgian “attack” came after the Russian population, armed by Putin, was busy murdering the Georgian majority and driving them into exile.

    “or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?”

    We did the same in Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine. Like Georgia, these are democracies threatened by Russian imperialism.

    “an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech”

    Russia is hated by all of its neighbors. Russia, not the US, is the imperial bully in Eastern Europe.

  58. Fan of Putin

    “fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us”

    They are not the same. Even though I was against our invasion, Iraq was ruled by a hated murderous dictator. Georgia is a democracy.

    “I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus”

    We have allied ourselves with all the democracies in the former Soviet Union. Russia has tried to overthrow the democracies. They even poisoned the democratic president of Ukraine.

    “Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy”

    Georgia’s president is not an autocrat.

    Second, Russian KGB officers have for the last 15 years been stirring up the local Russian minority populations in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. These minorities have used Russian weapons to murder the Georgian majority and drive the Georgians out of their homes. When the government of Georgia responded belatedly, you accuse Georgia of “starting a war.” It has been Russia’s policy for a decade to force Georgia to defend its people from Russian interference.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    This “conflict” began when Putin, while Yeltsin was in office, sent in the KGB to stir up the Russian minority groups. He did this in Ukraine, too.

    “or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?”

    The Georgian “attack” came after the Russian population, armed by Putin, was busy murdering the Georgian majority and driving them into exile.

    “or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?”

    We did the same in Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine. Like Georgia, these are democracies threatened by Russian imperialism.

    “an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech”

    Russia is hated by all of its neighbors. Russia, not the US, is the imperial bully in Eastern Europe.

  59. Fan of Putin

    “fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us”

    They are not the same. Even though I was against our invasion, Iraq was ruled by a hated murderous dictator. Georgia is a democracy.

    “I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus”

    We have allied ourselves with all the democracies in the former Soviet Union. Russia has tried to overthrow the democracies. They even poisoned the democratic president of Ukraine.

    “Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy”

    Georgia’s president is not an autocrat.

    Second, Russian KGB officers have for the last 15 years been stirring up the local Russian minority populations in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. These minorities have used Russian weapons to murder the Georgian majority and drive the Georgians out of their homes. When the government of Georgia responded belatedly, you accuse Georgia of “starting a war.” It has been Russia’s policy for a decade to force Georgia to defend its people from Russian interference.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    This “conflict” began when Putin, while Yeltsin was in office, sent in the KGB to stir up the Russian minority groups. He did this in Ukraine, too.

    “or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?”

    The Georgian “attack” came after the Russian population, armed by Putin, was busy murdering the Georgian majority and driving them into exile.

    “or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?”

    We did the same in Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine. Like Georgia, these are democracies threatened by Russian imperialism.

    “an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech”

    Russia is hated by all of its neighbors. Russia, not the US, is the imperial bully in Eastern Europe.

  60. Fan of Putin

    “fan of putin: ever hear anything about the invasion of Iraq, lots of people have died there, many of them because of us”

    They are not the same. Even though I was against our invasion, Iraq was ruled by a hated murderous dictator. Georgia is a democracy.

    “I mention it because, neither the US nor the Russian Federation cares about democracy in the Caucasus”

    We have allied ourselves with all the democracies in the former Soviet Union. Russia has tried to overthrow the democracies. They even poisoned the democratic president of Ukraine.

    “Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy”

    Georgia’s president is not an autocrat.

    Second, Russian KGB officers have for the last 15 years been stirring up the local Russian minority populations in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. These minorities have used Russian weapons to murder the Georgian majority and drive the Georgians out of their homes. When the government of Georgia responded belatedly, you accuse Georgia of “starting a war.” It has been Russia’s policy for a decade to force Georgia to defend its people from Russian interference.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    This “conflict” began when Putin, while Yeltsin was in office, sent in the KGB to stir up the Russian minority groups. He did this in Ukraine, too.

    “or, did you not know that the US and NATO sat on their hands while Georgia attacked South Ossetia and refugees poured across the border into Russia?”

    The Georgian “attack” came after the Russian population, armed by Putin, was busy murdering the Georgian majority and driving them into exile.

    “or, did you not know that the US armed and trained the Georgian military?”

    We did the same in Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine. Like Georgia, these are democracies threatened by Russian imperialism.

    “an imperial competition between the Russians and the US is the last thing that the people of the Caucasus need, and yet this is precisely what Joe Biden proposed in his VP acceptance speech”

    Russia is hated by all of its neighbors. Russia, not the US, is the imperial bully in Eastern Europe.

  61. Different View

    Democrats leading the charge for a better energy technology? You’ve got to be kidding?! This country has not had an energy policy as far back as 1976, when there were gas lines. Both sides of the aisle have failed miserably when it comes to a good energy policy. The only reason we are finally getting some traction on alternative energy possibilities is because the price of gas has gone through the roof.

    Ironic, no? Some good is actually coming from high gas prices – and is about the only thing that has moved politicians (Republican and Democrats) in the right direction, including a push for nuclear energy of all things. It used to be taboo.

    Now let’s get realistic – many politicians, especially Al Gore, are making mega-bucks off the global warming theory. (Not to mention Al Gore is an energy pig with mega mansions, trips on fuel guzzling private jets, his own fleet of SUVs.) I am all for cutting down on pollution just from a logical point of view, but sometimes it can be a case of diminishing returns.

    If you have to spend billions to decrease polution infinitesmally, maybe it is not worth it. A perfect example of that is the water problem we are facing right now. The feds years ago insisted on a ridiculously high standard for clean water that may break the piggy bank of most cities. And it probably was unnecessarily stringent. Why not develop better water softeners that don’t pollute, for instance? Might be a cheaper and more efficient way to go.

    Furthermore, I can’t agree that “trashing Bush” is a good political maneuver. People are sick of the mudslinging in politics, which seems to be a substitute for intelligence, hard work, and creativity. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of hateful namecalling and character ASSassination, and need to knock it off. Frankly, it is insulting to the voting public.

    As for off-shore drilling, if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now! We need to explore every avenue, and I mean EVERY avenue of gaining more energy. The country that has the most energy wins, IMHO. Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.

    Never underestimate the power of energy – it is literally the driving force behind everything. Why do you think Russia stirred up trouble in Georgia? The oil pipelines. Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.

    Let’s develop alternatives to oil, drill here for oil, so we can continue to improve everyone’s life with modern technologies like ipods, vaccines, cable television, great movies, etc. The average poor person in this country lives like a king compared to those in third world countries who die from simple colds.

    This is a great nation with many innovative ideas that get stymied by the poisoned political climate. It happens at all levels of gov’t. The news is now no longer newsworthy, but rather tries to make news rather than report on it. Our politicos are more interested in getting elected than in doing a good job once there. They are devoid of good ideas, trot out the same old worn out concepts, instead of listening to what the people want.

    Right now, folks want oil independence, a better economy (including better regulation of the banking industry), and to live in peace and harmony if possible. They will not stand still for being attacked as on 9-11. Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration. We would do well to remember we are militarily stretched very thin. Most Americans also realize terrorism is a very real threat, and cannot be ignored. We do so at our peril.

  62. Different View

    Democrats leading the charge for a better energy technology? You’ve got to be kidding?! This country has not had an energy policy as far back as 1976, when there were gas lines. Both sides of the aisle have failed miserably when it comes to a good energy policy. The only reason we are finally getting some traction on alternative energy possibilities is because the price of gas has gone through the roof.

    Ironic, no? Some good is actually coming from high gas prices – and is about the only thing that has moved politicians (Republican and Democrats) in the right direction, including a push for nuclear energy of all things. It used to be taboo.

    Now let’s get realistic – many politicians, especially Al Gore, are making mega-bucks off the global warming theory. (Not to mention Al Gore is an energy pig with mega mansions, trips on fuel guzzling private jets, his own fleet of SUVs.) I am all for cutting down on pollution just from a logical point of view, but sometimes it can be a case of diminishing returns.

    If you have to spend billions to decrease polution infinitesmally, maybe it is not worth it. A perfect example of that is the water problem we are facing right now. The feds years ago insisted on a ridiculously high standard for clean water that may break the piggy bank of most cities. And it probably was unnecessarily stringent. Why not develop better water softeners that don’t pollute, for instance? Might be a cheaper and more efficient way to go.

    Furthermore, I can’t agree that “trashing Bush” is a good political maneuver. People are sick of the mudslinging in politics, which seems to be a substitute for intelligence, hard work, and creativity. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of hateful namecalling and character ASSassination, and need to knock it off. Frankly, it is insulting to the voting public.

    As for off-shore drilling, if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now! We need to explore every avenue, and I mean EVERY avenue of gaining more energy. The country that has the most energy wins, IMHO. Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.

    Never underestimate the power of energy – it is literally the driving force behind everything. Why do you think Russia stirred up trouble in Georgia? The oil pipelines. Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.

    Let’s develop alternatives to oil, drill here for oil, so we can continue to improve everyone’s life with modern technologies like ipods, vaccines, cable television, great movies, etc. The average poor person in this country lives like a king compared to those in third world countries who die from simple colds.

    This is a great nation with many innovative ideas that get stymied by the poisoned political climate. It happens at all levels of gov’t. The news is now no longer newsworthy, but rather tries to make news rather than report on it. Our politicos are more interested in getting elected than in doing a good job once there. They are devoid of good ideas, trot out the same old worn out concepts, instead of listening to what the people want.

    Right now, folks want oil independence, a better economy (including better regulation of the banking industry), and to live in peace and harmony if possible. They will not stand still for being attacked as on 9-11. Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration. We would do well to remember we are militarily stretched very thin. Most Americans also realize terrorism is a very real threat, and cannot be ignored. We do so at our peril.

  63. Different View

    Democrats leading the charge for a better energy technology? You’ve got to be kidding?! This country has not had an energy policy as far back as 1976, when there were gas lines. Both sides of the aisle have failed miserably when it comes to a good energy policy. The only reason we are finally getting some traction on alternative energy possibilities is because the price of gas has gone through the roof.

    Ironic, no? Some good is actually coming from high gas prices – and is about the only thing that has moved politicians (Republican and Democrats) in the right direction, including a push for nuclear energy of all things. It used to be taboo.

    Now let’s get realistic – many politicians, especially Al Gore, are making mega-bucks off the global warming theory. (Not to mention Al Gore is an energy pig with mega mansions, trips on fuel guzzling private jets, his own fleet of SUVs.) I am all for cutting down on pollution just from a logical point of view, but sometimes it can be a case of diminishing returns.

    If you have to spend billions to decrease polution infinitesmally, maybe it is not worth it. A perfect example of that is the water problem we are facing right now. The feds years ago insisted on a ridiculously high standard for clean water that may break the piggy bank of most cities. And it probably was unnecessarily stringent. Why not develop better water softeners that don’t pollute, for instance? Might be a cheaper and more efficient way to go.

    Furthermore, I can’t agree that “trashing Bush” is a good political maneuver. People are sick of the mudslinging in politics, which seems to be a substitute for intelligence, hard work, and creativity. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of hateful namecalling and character ASSassination, and need to knock it off. Frankly, it is insulting to the voting public.

    As for off-shore drilling, if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now! We need to explore every avenue, and I mean EVERY avenue of gaining more energy. The country that has the most energy wins, IMHO. Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.

    Never underestimate the power of energy – it is literally the driving force behind everything. Why do you think Russia stirred up trouble in Georgia? The oil pipelines. Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.

    Let’s develop alternatives to oil, drill here for oil, so we can continue to improve everyone’s life with modern technologies like ipods, vaccines, cable television, great movies, etc. The average poor person in this country lives like a king compared to those in third world countries who die from simple colds.

    This is a great nation with many innovative ideas that get stymied by the poisoned political climate. It happens at all levels of gov’t. The news is now no longer newsworthy, but rather tries to make news rather than report on it. Our politicos are more interested in getting elected than in doing a good job once there. They are devoid of good ideas, trot out the same old worn out concepts, instead of listening to what the people want.

    Right now, folks want oil independence, a better economy (including better regulation of the banking industry), and to live in peace and harmony if possible. They will not stand still for being attacked as on 9-11. Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration. We would do well to remember we are militarily stretched very thin. Most Americans also realize terrorism is a very real threat, and cannot be ignored. We do so at our peril.

  64. Different View

    Democrats leading the charge for a better energy technology? You’ve got to be kidding?! This country has not had an energy policy as far back as 1976, when there were gas lines. Both sides of the aisle have failed miserably when it comes to a good energy policy. The only reason we are finally getting some traction on alternative energy possibilities is because the price of gas has gone through the roof.

    Ironic, no? Some good is actually coming from high gas prices – and is about the only thing that has moved politicians (Republican and Democrats) in the right direction, including a push for nuclear energy of all things. It used to be taboo.

    Now let’s get realistic – many politicians, especially Al Gore, are making mega-bucks off the global warming theory. (Not to mention Al Gore is an energy pig with mega mansions, trips on fuel guzzling private jets, his own fleet of SUVs.) I am all for cutting down on pollution just from a logical point of view, but sometimes it can be a case of diminishing returns.

    If you have to spend billions to decrease polution infinitesmally, maybe it is not worth it. A perfect example of that is the water problem we are facing right now. The feds years ago insisted on a ridiculously high standard for clean water that may break the piggy bank of most cities. And it probably was unnecessarily stringent. Why not develop better water softeners that don’t pollute, for instance? Might be a cheaper and more efficient way to go.

    Furthermore, I can’t agree that “trashing Bush” is a good political maneuver. People are sick of the mudslinging in politics, which seems to be a substitute for intelligence, hard work, and creativity. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of hateful namecalling and character ASSassination, and need to knock it off. Frankly, it is insulting to the voting public.

    As for off-shore drilling, if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now! We need to explore every avenue, and I mean EVERY avenue of gaining more energy. The country that has the most energy wins, IMHO. Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.

    Never underestimate the power of energy – it is literally the driving force behind everything. Why do you think Russia stirred up trouble in Georgia? The oil pipelines. Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.

    Let’s develop alternatives to oil, drill here for oil, so we can continue to improve everyone’s life with modern technologies like ipods, vaccines, cable television, great movies, etc. The average poor person in this country lives like a king compared to those in third world countries who die from simple colds.

    This is a great nation with many innovative ideas that get stymied by the poisoned political climate. It happens at all levels of gov’t. The news is now no longer newsworthy, but rather tries to make news rather than report on it. Our politicos are more interested in getting elected than in doing a good job once there. They are devoid of good ideas, trot out the same old worn out concepts, instead of listening to what the people want.

    Right now, folks want oil independence, a better economy (including better regulation of the banking industry), and to live in peace and harmony if possible. They will not stand still for being attacked as on 9-11. Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration. We would do well to remember we are militarily stretched very thin. Most Americans also realize terrorism is a very real threat, and cannot be ignored. We do so at our peril.

  65. Richard

    Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.

    Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan?

    Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.

    –Richard Estes

  66. Richard

    Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.

    Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan?

    Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.

    –Richard Estes

  67. Richard

    Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.

    Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan?

    Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.

    –Richard Estes

  68. Richard

    Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.

    Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan?

    Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.

    –Richard Estes

  69. Don Shor

    Richard wrote: “…arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    I would urge that anyone who believes Georgia “started” the conflict with Russia read Michael Totten’s blog:
    http://www.michaeltotten.com/

  70. Don Shor

    Richard wrote: “…arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    I would urge that anyone who believes Georgia “started” the conflict with Russia read Michael Totten’s blog:
    http://www.michaeltotten.com/

  71. Don Shor

    Richard wrote: “…arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    I would urge that anyone who believes Georgia “started” the conflict with Russia read Michael Totten’s blog:
    http://www.michaeltotten.com/

  72. Don Shor

    Richard wrote: “…arming a Georgian autocrat like Saaskhvili so that could try to run the Russians and Ossetians out of South Ossetia by shelling them out of their towns and villages was lunacy

    or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    I would urge that anyone who believes Georgia “started” the conflict with Russia read Michael Totten’s blog:
    http://www.michaeltotten.com/

  73. darnell

    Sharla –
    I agree with you, I don’t care where his father comes from. I just get a little testy when people say a person is from Africa like that defines anything. Africa is a very diverse place. It’s a continent. South Africans can be a lot different from Egytians. It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.

  74. darnell

    Sharla –
    I agree with you, I don’t care where his father comes from. I just get a little testy when people say a person is from Africa like that defines anything. Africa is a very diverse place. It’s a continent. South Africans can be a lot different from Egytians. It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.

  75. darnell

    Sharla –
    I agree with you, I don’t care where his father comes from. I just get a little testy when people say a person is from Africa like that defines anything. Africa is a very diverse place. It’s a continent. South Africans can be a lot different from Egytians. It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.

  76. darnell

    Sharla –
    I agree with you, I don’t care where his father comes from. I just get a little testy when people say a person is from Africa like that defines anything. Africa is a very diverse place. It’s a continent. South Africans can be a lot different from Egytians. It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.

  77. Richard

    Don, after a quick read, there are a number of things about which I could quibble with, such as the Russian withdrawal from the OSCE (the US and Europeans failed to comply with a number of force reductions, apparently, so the Russians finally said, why bother?), but it’s a decent summary, although I am sure that the Russians, Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians would argue vehemently over who was the most aggressive in terms of violence and ethnic cleansing, each side probably has their own “analysts” capable of presenting them most effectively as victims, with maintaining a facade of balance

    Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion

    some regions of the Caucasus have been able to remain relatively peaceful and preserve a stable multiethnic society, while others have not, check of Derluguian’s recent book, Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus, for some insight as to why this was true for some places and not others

    but, for the US to address the region through the worst kind of reductionism based upon stereotypes of the Russian and the Russian Federation isn’t going to help anyone, and militarization will only make things worse, possibly much worse, with real fears that the Ukraine could fragment into a gruesome killing ground of ethnic unrest between Russians and Ukrainians

    this time around, the Georgian reaction to guerrilla activity in South Ossetia was to shell the major towns and villages

    to shell them indiscriminately, allegedly against the advice of their US military advisors, although, rather strangely, such advice didn’t extend to telling the Russians about the imminent attack (how could the advisors not have known?)

    overall, this should sound familiar to you

    it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?

    well, no, not exactly, I seem to recall a 78 day campaign of US/NATO airstrikes on Serbia, and it is the outcome of that intervention and the dismemberment of Serbia that now haunts Georgia, and will most likely result in its fragmentation as well

    the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well, and suffer from an imperial power, much like Central and South America have suffered from the dominance of the US

    but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them

    it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan

    or, sadly, maybe neither of us will, and keep fighting these dirty imperial conflicts for the next 300 years

    –Richard Estes

  78. Richard

    Don, after a quick read, there are a number of things about which I could quibble with, such as the Russian withdrawal from the OSCE (the US and Europeans failed to comply with a number of force reductions, apparently, so the Russians finally said, why bother?), but it’s a decent summary, although I am sure that the Russians, Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians would argue vehemently over who was the most aggressive in terms of violence and ethnic cleansing, each side probably has their own “analysts” capable of presenting them most effectively as victims, with maintaining a facade of balance

    Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion

    some regions of the Caucasus have been able to remain relatively peaceful and preserve a stable multiethnic society, while others have not, check of Derluguian’s recent book, Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus, for some insight as to why this was true for some places and not others

    but, for the US to address the region through the worst kind of reductionism based upon stereotypes of the Russian and the Russian Federation isn’t going to help anyone, and militarization will only make things worse, possibly much worse, with real fears that the Ukraine could fragment into a gruesome killing ground of ethnic unrest between Russians and Ukrainians

    this time around, the Georgian reaction to guerrilla activity in South Ossetia was to shell the major towns and villages

    to shell them indiscriminately, allegedly against the advice of their US military advisors, although, rather strangely, such advice didn’t extend to telling the Russians about the imminent attack (how could the advisors not have known?)

    overall, this should sound familiar to you

    it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?

    well, no, not exactly, I seem to recall a 78 day campaign of US/NATO airstrikes on Serbia, and it is the outcome of that intervention and the dismemberment of Serbia that now haunts Georgia, and will most likely result in its fragmentation as well

    the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well, and suffer from an imperial power, much like Central and South America have suffered from the dominance of the US

    but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them

    it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan

    or, sadly, maybe neither of us will, and keep fighting these dirty imperial conflicts for the next 300 years

    –Richard Estes

  79. Richard

    Don, after a quick read, there are a number of things about which I could quibble with, such as the Russian withdrawal from the OSCE (the US and Europeans failed to comply with a number of force reductions, apparently, so the Russians finally said, why bother?), but it’s a decent summary, although I am sure that the Russians, Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians would argue vehemently over who was the most aggressive in terms of violence and ethnic cleansing, each side probably has their own “analysts” capable of presenting them most effectively as victims, with maintaining a facade of balance

    Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion

    some regions of the Caucasus have been able to remain relatively peaceful and preserve a stable multiethnic society, while others have not, check of Derluguian’s recent book, Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus, for some insight as to why this was true for some places and not others

    but, for the US to address the region through the worst kind of reductionism based upon stereotypes of the Russian and the Russian Federation isn’t going to help anyone, and militarization will only make things worse, possibly much worse, with real fears that the Ukraine could fragment into a gruesome killing ground of ethnic unrest between Russians and Ukrainians

    this time around, the Georgian reaction to guerrilla activity in South Ossetia was to shell the major towns and villages

    to shell them indiscriminately, allegedly against the advice of their US military advisors, although, rather strangely, such advice didn’t extend to telling the Russians about the imminent attack (how could the advisors not have known?)

    overall, this should sound familiar to you

    it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?

    well, no, not exactly, I seem to recall a 78 day campaign of US/NATO airstrikes on Serbia, and it is the outcome of that intervention and the dismemberment of Serbia that now haunts Georgia, and will most likely result in its fragmentation as well

    the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well, and suffer from an imperial power, much like Central and South America have suffered from the dominance of the US

    but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them

    it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan

    or, sadly, maybe neither of us will, and keep fighting these dirty imperial conflicts for the next 300 years

    –Richard Estes

  80. Richard

    Don, after a quick read, there are a number of things about which I could quibble with, such as the Russian withdrawal from the OSCE (the US and Europeans failed to comply with a number of force reductions, apparently, so the Russians finally said, why bother?), but it’s a decent summary, although I am sure that the Russians, Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians would argue vehemently over who was the most aggressive in terms of violence and ethnic cleansing, each side probably has their own “analysts” capable of presenting them most effectively as victims, with maintaining a facade of balance

    Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion

    some regions of the Caucasus have been able to remain relatively peaceful and preserve a stable multiethnic society, while others have not, check of Derluguian’s recent book, Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus, for some insight as to why this was true for some places and not others

    but, for the US to address the region through the worst kind of reductionism based upon stereotypes of the Russian and the Russian Federation isn’t going to help anyone, and militarization will only make things worse, possibly much worse, with real fears that the Ukraine could fragment into a gruesome killing ground of ethnic unrest between Russians and Ukrainians

    this time around, the Georgian reaction to guerrilla activity in South Ossetia was to shell the major towns and villages

    to shell them indiscriminately, allegedly against the advice of their US military advisors, although, rather strangely, such advice didn’t extend to telling the Russians about the imminent attack (how could the advisors not have known?)

    overall, this should sound familiar to you

    it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?

    well, no, not exactly, I seem to recall a 78 day campaign of US/NATO airstrikes on Serbia, and it is the outcome of that intervention and the dismemberment of Serbia that now haunts Georgia, and will most likely result in its fragmentation as well

    the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well, and suffer from an imperial power, much like Central and South America have suffered from the dominance of the US

    but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them

    it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan

    or, sadly, maybe neither of us will, and keep fighting these dirty imperial conflicts for the next 300 years

    –Richard Estes

  81. Rich Rifkin

    DIFF VIEW: “Now let’s get realistic – if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now!”

    We have been drilling oil, on-shore and off-shore, for far longer than 20 years. The problem has been for about the last 50 years that our demand for petrol has exceeded the amount we can competitively supply. This won’t change even if we begin drilling in ANWR and open up more areas of our coastline for oil drilling.

    As I see it, there are two advantages to greater domestic drilling: less of our weakening currency will be sent overseas once the fields are productive; and a few oil-patch jobs will be created. More drilling in the U.S. will not make us independent of foreign production.

    If we don’t increase domestic drilling, we will have THE EXACT SAME amount of oil available for consumption in the United States.

    If we don’t increase drilling, we will be more likely to favor the development of cleaner energy technologies, which may have the chance to replace oil consumption down the road. We cannot produce enough to reduce the price of world oil. In fact, as more Chinese drive cars, the global demand will continue to drive up the price.

    “Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.”

    We were “energy independent” up until the early-1950s and got involved in many wars nonetheless. Since then, we have been involved in wars which had nothing to do with oil. When you are a superpower, your position in the world forces you to take responsibilities that little countries can avoid easily.

    “Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.”

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil. We have not become more energy independent due to the Iraq War. If we had never invaded, our oil position would be no worse, and probably would be better (as world oil prices would likely be lower).

    I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine. But otherwise, Iraqi oil did not drive us to that mistaken policy — our drive came from generalized American hubris and specific neocon foolishness.

    My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)

  82. Rich Rifkin

    DIFF VIEW: “Now let’s get realistic – if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now!”

    We have been drilling oil, on-shore and off-shore, for far longer than 20 years. The problem has been for about the last 50 years that our demand for petrol has exceeded the amount we can competitively supply. This won’t change even if we begin drilling in ANWR and open up more areas of our coastline for oil drilling.

    As I see it, there are two advantages to greater domestic drilling: less of our weakening currency will be sent overseas once the fields are productive; and a few oil-patch jobs will be created. More drilling in the U.S. will not make us independent of foreign production.

    If we don’t increase domestic drilling, we will have THE EXACT SAME amount of oil available for consumption in the United States.

    If we don’t increase drilling, we will be more likely to favor the development of cleaner energy technologies, which may have the chance to replace oil consumption down the road. We cannot produce enough to reduce the price of world oil. In fact, as more Chinese drive cars, the global demand will continue to drive up the price.

    “Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.”

    We were “energy independent” up until the early-1950s and got involved in many wars nonetheless. Since then, we have been involved in wars which had nothing to do with oil. When you are a superpower, your position in the world forces you to take responsibilities that little countries can avoid easily.

    “Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.”

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil. We have not become more energy independent due to the Iraq War. If we had never invaded, our oil position would be no worse, and probably would be better (as world oil prices would likely be lower).

    I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine. But otherwise, Iraqi oil did not drive us to that mistaken policy — our drive came from generalized American hubris and specific neocon foolishness.

    My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)

  83. Rich Rifkin

    DIFF VIEW: “Now let’s get realistic – if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now!”

    We have been drilling oil, on-shore and off-shore, for far longer than 20 years. The problem has been for about the last 50 years that our demand for petrol has exceeded the amount we can competitively supply. This won’t change even if we begin drilling in ANWR and open up more areas of our coastline for oil drilling.

    As I see it, there are two advantages to greater domestic drilling: less of our weakening currency will be sent overseas once the fields are productive; and a few oil-patch jobs will be created. More drilling in the U.S. will not make us independent of foreign production.

    If we don’t increase domestic drilling, we will have THE EXACT SAME amount of oil available for consumption in the United States.

    If we don’t increase drilling, we will be more likely to favor the development of cleaner energy technologies, which may have the chance to replace oil consumption down the road. We cannot produce enough to reduce the price of world oil. In fact, as more Chinese drive cars, the global demand will continue to drive up the price.

    “Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.”

    We were “energy independent” up until the early-1950s and got involved in many wars nonetheless. Since then, we have been involved in wars which had nothing to do with oil. When you are a superpower, your position in the world forces you to take responsibilities that little countries can avoid easily.

    “Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.”

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil. We have not become more energy independent due to the Iraq War. If we had never invaded, our oil position would be no worse, and probably would be better (as world oil prices would likely be lower).

    I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine. But otherwise, Iraqi oil did not drive us to that mistaken policy — our drive came from generalized American hubris and specific neocon foolishness.

    My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)

  84. Rich Rifkin

    DIFF VIEW: “Now let’s get realistic – if we had started drilling twenty years ago, maybe we would not be importing foreign oil now!”

    We have been drilling oil, on-shore and off-shore, for far longer than 20 years. The problem has been for about the last 50 years that our demand for petrol has exceeded the amount we can competitively supply. This won’t change even if we begin drilling in ANWR and open up more areas of our coastline for oil drilling.

    As I see it, there are two advantages to greater domestic drilling: less of our weakening currency will be sent overseas once the fields are productive; and a few oil-patch jobs will be created. More drilling in the U.S. will not make us independent of foreign production.

    If we don’t increase domestic drilling, we will have THE EXACT SAME amount of oil available for consumption in the United States.

    If we don’t increase drilling, we will be more likely to favor the development of cleaner energy technologies, which may have the chance to replace oil consumption down the road. We cannot produce enough to reduce the price of world oil. In fact, as more Chinese drive cars, the global demand will continue to drive up the price.

    “Energy is key to our future integrity as a nation. If we can become truly energy independent, it won’t be necessary to involve ourselves in wars, because we hold all the cards.”

    We were “energy independent” up until the early-1950s and got involved in many wars nonetheless. Since then, we have been involved in wars which had nothing to do with oil. When you are a superpower, your position in the world forces you to take responsibilities that little countries can avoid easily.

    “Why are we in Iraq? Oil again. What was the fight about in the Persian Gulf War? Oil.”

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil. We have not become more energy independent due to the Iraq War. If we had never invaded, our oil position would be no worse, and probably would be better (as world oil prices would likely be lower).

    I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine. But otherwise, Iraqi oil did not drive us to that mistaken policy — our drive came from generalized American hubris and specific neocon foolishness.

    My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)

  85. Rich Rifkin

    “It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.”

    Sen. John McCain was not born in the U.S. He was born in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone. His father, John McCain Jr. was born in Iowa. John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).

  86. Rich Rifkin

    “It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.”

    Sen. John McCain was not born in the U.S. He was born in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone. His father, John McCain Jr. was born in Iowa. John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).

  87. Rich Rifkin

    “It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.”

    Sen. John McCain was not born in the U.S. He was born in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone. His father, John McCain Jr. was born in Iowa. John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).

  88. Rich Rifkin

    “It makes as much sense as saying McCain’s father is from Mexico when we know he is from the US.”

    Sen. John McCain was not born in the U.S. He was born in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone. His father, John McCain Jr. was born in Iowa. John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).

  89. Mike

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil.

    China so far is the winner of the Iraq War. Here is what the New York Times is reporting:

    BAGHDAD — In the first major oil deal Iraq has made with a foreign country since 2003, the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Corporation have signed a contract in Beijing that could be worth up to $3 billion, Iraqi officials said Thursday.

    Under the new contract, which must still be approved by Iraq’s cabinet, the Chinese company will provide technical advisers, oil workers and equipment to help develop the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad, according to Assim Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq’s Oil Ministry. If the deal is approved, work could begin on the oil field within a few months, Mr. Jihad said.

  90. Mike

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil.

    China so far is the winner of the Iraq War. Here is what the New York Times is reporting:

    BAGHDAD — In the first major oil deal Iraq has made with a foreign country since 2003, the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Corporation have signed a contract in Beijing that could be worth up to $3 billion, Iraqi officials said Thursday.

    Under the new contract, which must still be approved by Iraq’s cabinet, the Chinese company will provide technical advisers, oil workers and equipment to help develop the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad, according to Assim Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq’s Oil Ministry. If the deal is approved, work could begin on the oil field within a few months, Mr. Jihad said.

  91. Mike

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil.

    China so far is the winner of the Iraq War. Here is what the New York Times is reporting:

    BAGHDAD — In the first major oil deal Iraq has made with a foreign country since 2003, the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Corporation have signed a contract in Beijing that could be worth up to $3 billion, Iraqi officials said Thursday.

    Under the new contract, which must still be approved by Iraq’s cabinet, the Chinese company will provide technical advisers, oil workers and equipment to help develop the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad, according to Assim Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq’s Oil Ministry. If the deal is approved, work could begin on the oil field within a few months, Mr. Jihad said.

  92. Mike

    Since we invaded Iraq, we have not taken over one oil field. We have not confiscated a drop of Iraqi oil.

    China so far is the winner of the Iraq War. Here is what the New York Times is reporting:

    BAGHDAD — In the first major oil deal Iraq has made with a foreign country since 2003, the Iraqi government and the China National Petroleum Corporation have signed a contract in Beijing that could be worth up to $3 billion, Iraqi officials said Thursday.

    Under the new contract, which must still be approved by Iraq’s cabinet, the Chinese company will provide technical advisers, oil workers and equipment to help develop the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad, according to Assim Jihad, a spokesman for Iraq’s Oil Ministry. If the deal is approved, work could begin on the oil field within a few months, Mr. Jihad said.

  93. wdf

    Back to DPD’s original comment about the lack of explicit mention of race in Obama’s speech. There was an interesting interview on this topic (discussion of race in the Obama campaign) by Mark Sawyer on NPR’s Fresh Air. Link here.

    Sawyer suggests that Obama loses broader support when he talks about race.

  94. wdf

    Back to DPD’s original comment about the lack of explicit mention of race in Obama’s speech. There was an interesting interview on this topic (discussion of race in the Obama campaign) by Mark Sawyer on NPR’s Fresh Air. Link here.

    Sawyer suggests that Obama loses broader support when he talks about race.

  95. wdf

    Back to DPD’s original comment about the lack of explicit mention of race in Obama’s speech. There was an interesting interview on this topic (discussion of race in the Obama campaign) by Mark Sawyer on NPR’s Fresh Air. Link here.

    Sawyer suggests that Obama loses broader support when he talks about race.

  96. wdf

    Back to DPD’s original comment about the lack of explicit mention of race in Obama’s speech. There was an interesting interview on this topic (discussion of race in the Obama campaign) by Mark Sawyer on NPR’s Fresh Air. Link here.

    Sawyer suggests that Obama loses broader support when he talks about race.

  97. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf: That’s what I was getting at a bit–Hillary very overtly talking about women and breaking the glass ceiling, even echoed today by Palin, Obama very few references. For those who are paying attention, that’s very telling to me about where we stand.

  98. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf: That’s what I was getting at a bit–Hillary very overtly talking about women and breaking the glass ceiling, even echoed today by Palin, Obama very few references. For those who are paying attention, that’s very telling to me about where we stand.

  99. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf: That’s what I was getting at a bit–Hillary very overtly talking about women and breaking the glass ceiling, even echoed today by Palin, Obama very few references. For those who are paying attention, that’s very telling to me about where we stand.

  100. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf: That’s what I was getting at a bit–Hillary very overtly talking about women and breaking the glass ceiling, even echoed today by Palin, Obama very few references. For those who are paying attention, that’s very telling to me about where we stand.

  101. Anonymous

    “John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).”

    Rich,

    Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:

    The family’s storied military history stretches back to Carroll County, Miss., where McCain’s great-great grandfather William Alexander McCain owned a plantation, and later died during the Civil War as a soldier for the Mississippi cavalry.

    This documentation includes slave schedules from Sept. 8, 1860, which list as the slave owner, “W.A. McCain.” The schedules list the McCain family’s slaves in the customary manner of the day — including their age, gender and “color,” labelling each either “black” or “mulatto.” The slaves ranged in age from 6 months to 60 years.

  102. Anonymous

    “John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).”

    Rich,

    Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:

    The family’s storied military history stretches back to Carroll County, Miss., where McCain’s great-great grandfather William Alexander McCain owned a plantation, and later died during the Civil War as a soldier for the Mississippi cavalry.

    This documentation includes slave schedules from Sept. 8, 1860, which list as the slave owner, “W.A. McCain.” The schedules list the McCain family’s slaves in the customary manner of the day — including their age, gender and “color,” labelling each either “black” or “mulatto.” The slaves ranged in age from 6 months to 60 years.

  103. Anonymous

    “John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).”

    Rich,

    Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:

    The family’s storied military history stretches back to Carroll County, Miss., where McCain’s great-great grandfather William Alexander McCain owned a plantation, and later died during the Civil War as a soldier for the Mississippi cavalry.

    This documentation includes slave schedules from Sept. 8, 1860, which list as the slave owner, “W.A. McCain.” The schedules list the McCain family’s slaves in the customary manner of the day — including their age, gender and “color,” labelling each either “black” or “mulatto.” The slaves ranged in age from 6 months to 60 years.

  104. Anonymous

    “John McCain Sr. was born in Mississippi, the scion of plantation owners (who I presume owned slaves).”

    Rich,

    Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:

    The family’s storied military history stretches back to Carroll County, Miss., where McCain’s great-great grandfather William Alexander McCain owned a plantation, and later died during the Civil War as a soldier for the Mississippi cavalry.

    This documentation includes slave schedules from Sept. 8, 1860, which list as the slave owner, “W.A. McCain.” The schedules list the McCain family’s slaves in the customary manner of the day — including their age, gender and “color,” labelling each either “black” or “mulatto.” The slaves ranged in age from 6 months to 60 years.

  105. Don Shor

    Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….

    “…the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well…”
    That is an understatement!

    Thanks for the book referral, Richard, I’ll check it out.
    What’s interesting as you read about conflicts in that region is how you keep learning about more and more areas with active or “frozen” conflicts, forgotten wars like the Armenian-Azeri ethnic cleansing in the 1990’s. It has always been a tinderbox, and oversimplifications will lead to strategic blunders, as has been the pattern throughout the Bush presidency. I see little difference in how McCain would approach things.

    It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.

    It has been bizarre watching John McCain’s comments on the Georgian conflict. Condi Rice has said some really ironic things. Worse, I saw Fred Kagan on the News Hour nearly foaming at the mouth about it, ready apparently to arm Georgians and everyone else in the region. He has considerable influence with the current administration as well as with McCain.

  106. Don Shor

    Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….

    “…the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well…”
    That is an understatement!

    Thanks for the book referral, Richard, I’ll check it out.
    What’s interesting as you read about conflicts in that region is how you keep learning about more and more areas with active or “frozen” conflicts, forgotten wars like the Armenian-Azeri ethnic cleansing in the 1990’s. It has always been a tinderbox, and oversimplifications will lead to strategic blunders, as has been the pattern throughout the Bush presidency. I see little difference in how McCain would approach things.

    It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.

    It has been bizarre watching John McCain’s comments on the Georgian conflict. Condi Rice has said some really ironic things. Worse, I saw Fred Kagan on the News Hour nearly foaming at the mouth about it, ready apparently to arm Georgians and everyone else in the region. He has considerable influence with the current administration as well as with McCain.

  107. Don Shor

    Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….

    “…the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well…”
    That is an understatement!

    Thanks for the book referral, Richard, I’ll check it out.
    What’s interesting as you read about conflicts in that region is how you keep learning about more and more areas with active or “frozen” conflicts, forgotten wars like the Armenian-Azeri ethnic cleansing in the 1990’s. It has always been a tinderbox, and oversimplifications will lead to strategic blunders, as has been the pattern throughout the Bush presidency. I see little difference in how McCain would approach things.

    It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.

    It has been bizarre watching John McCain’s comments on the Georgian conflict. Condi Rice has said some really ironic things. Worse, I saw Fred Kagan on the News Hour nearly foaming at the mouth about it, ready apparently to arm Georgians and everyone else in the region. He has considerable influence with the current administration as well as with McCain.

  108. Don Shor

    Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….

    “…the people of the Caucasus live in tragic circumstances, and don’t get along with each other very well…”
    That is an understatement!

    Thanks for the book referral, Richard, I’ll check it out.
    What’s interesting as you read about conflicts in that region is how you keep learning about more and more areas with active or “frozen” conflicts, forgotten wars like the Armenian-Azeri ethnic cleansing in the 1990’s. It has always been a tinderbox, and oversimplifications will lead to strategic blunders, as has been the pattern throughout the Bush presidency. I see little difference in how McCain would approach things.

    It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.

    It has been bizarre watching John McCain’s comments on the Georgian conflict. Condi Rice has said some really ironic things. Worse, I saw Fred Kagan on the News Hour nearly foaming at the mouth about it, ready apparently to arm Georgians and everyone else in the region. He has considerable influence with the current administration as well as with McCain.

  109. amateur genealogist

    in reference to anon 1:50 above:

    In a odd way, it’s so handy and convenient to have journalists go out and do free genealogy research for you. Some of that information could be tough to come by for a complete beginner.

    I wish some journalists would come around and help me out.

  110. amateur genealogist

    in reference to anon 1:50 above:

    In a odd way, it’s so handy and convenient to have journalists go out and do free genealogy research for you. Some of that information could be tough to come by for a complete beginner.

    I wish some journalists would come around and help me out.

  111. amateur genealogist

    in reference to anon 1:50 above:

    In a odd way, it’s so handy and convenient to have journalists go out and do free genealogy research for you. Some of that information could be tough to come by for a complete beginner.

    I wish some journalists would come around and help me out.

  112. amateur genealogist

    in reference to anon 1:50 above:

    In a odd way, it’s so handy and convenient to have journalists go out and do free genealogy research for you. Some of that information could be tough to come by for a complete beginner.

    I wish some journalists would come around and help me out.

  113. black bart

    US foreign policy in the Middle East has been about oil since FDR gave up Eastern Europe and brought Saudi Arabia into our sphere of influence near the end of WWII. To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years. Additionally, on this drill and kill our way to independence nonsense why has there not been more discussion of Hibbert’s peak? Hibbert was a petroleum geologist who correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the 1960’s.

    After some typical racial projection Rifkin writes “In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.” Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily. This is why McCain passing over Romney is a gift to Obama. The Morman vote in Colorado and Nevada might have tipped it to McCain if he held Ohio. My guess is that Romney’s primary campaign was so poisonous that McCain just couldn’t stomach putting him on the ticket, or possibly it was so poisonous that the internal polling told them that Romney had spoiled his own chance with the voters nationally.

    As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.

  114. black bart

    US foreign policy in the Middle East has been about oil since FDR gave up Eastern Europe and brought Saudi Arabia into our sphere of influence near the end of WWII. To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years. Additionally, on this drill and kill our way to independence nonsense why has there not been more discussion of Hibbert’s peak? Hibbert was a petroleum geologist who correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the 1960’s.

    After some typical racial projection Rifkin writes “In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.” Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily. This is why McCain passing over Romney is a gift to Obama. The Morman vote in Colorado and Nevada might have tipped it to McCain if he held Ohio. My guess is that Romney’s primary campaign was so poisonous that McCain just couldn’t stomach putting him on the ticket, or possibly it was so poisonous that the internal polling told them that Romney had spoiled his own chance with the voters nationally.

    As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.

  115. black bart

    US foreign policy in the Middle East has been about oil since FDR gave up Eastern Europe and brought Saudi Arabia into our sphere of influence near the end of WWII. To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years. Additionally, on this drill and kill our way to independence nonsense why has there not been more discussion of Hibbert’s peak? Hibbert was a petroleum geologist who correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the 1960’s.

    After some typical racial projection Rifkin writes “In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.” Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily. This is why McCain passing over Romney is a gift to Obama. The Morman vote in Colorado and Nevada might have tipped it to McCain if he held Ohio. My guess is that Romney’s primary campaign was so poisonous that McCain just couldn’t stomach putting him on the ticket, or possibly it was so poisonous that the internal polling told them that Romney had spoiled his own chance with the voters nationally.

    As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.

  116. black bart

    US foreign policy in the Middle East has been about oil since FDR gave up Eastern Europe and brought Saudi Arabia into our sphere of influence near the end of WWII. To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years. Additionally, on this drill and kill our way to independence nonsense why has there not been more discussion of Hibbert’s peak? Hibbert was a petroleum geologist who correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the 1960’s.

    After some typical racial projection Rifkin writes “In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.” Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily. This is why McCain passing over Romney is a gift to Obama. The Morman vote in Colorado and Nevada might have tipped it to McCain if he held Ohio. My guess is that Romney’s primary campaign was so poisonous that McCain just couldn’t stomach putting him on the ticket, or possibly it was so poisonous that the internal polling told them that Romney had spoiled his own chance with the voters nationally.

    As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.

  117. wrongwaypeachfuzz

    Rich Rifkin’s insight about the need for the Democrats to win Ohio shows his great political understanding about the election. If he is right and the Dems can carry Ohio the country is sure to have a huge change in direction beginning on Jan 20 when John Kerry is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States.

  118. wrongwaypeachfuzz

    Rich Rifkin’s insight about the need for the Democrats to win Ohio shows his great political understanding about the election. If he is right and the Dems can carry Ohio the country is sure to have a huge change in direction beginning on Jan 20 when John Kerry is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States.

  119. wrongwaypeachfuzz

    Rich Rifkin’s insight about the need for the Democrats to win Ohio shows his great political understanding about the election. If he is right and the Dems can carry Ohio the country is sure to have a huge change in direction beginning on Jan 20 when John Kerry is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States.

  120. wrongwaypeachfuzz

    Rich Rifkin’s insight about the need for the Democrats to win Ohio shows his great political understanding about the election. If he is right and the Dems can carry Ohio the country is sure to have a huge change in direction beginning on Jan 20 when John Kerry is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States.

  121. Rich Rifkin

    BB: “To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years.”

    We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory.

    In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.

    BB: “Rifkin writes ‘In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.’ Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily.”

    If you start with the 2004 results, Red leads Blue 286-252. If you then keep Ohio Red, but turn Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico Blue (Kerry won NH), Obama will win a squeaker, 271-267. So you are correct that there is a way Obama can win the EC without Ohio.

    However, I think turning one close state with 20 electoral college votes would be easier than flipping 3 states which together have 19 EC votes.

    In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.

    BB: “As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.”

    Thanks!

  122. Rich Rifkin

    BB: “To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years.”

    We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory.

    In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.

    BB: “Rifkin writes ‘In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.’ Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily.”

    If you start with the 2004 results, Red leads Blue 286-252. If you then keep Ohio Red, but turn Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico Blue (Kerry won NH), Obama will win a squeaker, 271-267. So you are correct that there is a way Obama can win the EC without Ohio.

    However, I think turning one close state with 20 electoral college votes would be easier than flipping 3 states which together have 19 EC votes.

    In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.

    BB: “As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.”

    Thanks!

  123. Rich Rifkin

    BB: “To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years.”

    We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory.

    In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.

    BB: “Rifkin writes ‘In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.’ Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily.”

    If you start with the 2004 results, Red leads Blue 286-252. If you then keep Ohio Red, but turn Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico Blue (Kerry won NH), Obama will win a squeaker, 271-267. So you are correct that there is a way Obama can win the EC without Ohio.

    However, I think turning one close state with 20 electoral college votes would be easier than flipping 3 states which together have 19 EC votes.

    In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.

    BB: “As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.”

    Thanks!

  124. Rich Rifkin

    BB: “To argue Iraq isn’t about the control of the oil resources of the region demonstrates a profound ignorance of American history and foreign policy of the last 60 years. That the US has gotten less oil, since our invasion, out of Iraq isn’t a policy choice but a consequence of losing the war for the last six years.”

    We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory.

    In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.

    BB: “Rifkin writes ‘In order to win, he (Obama)needs to hold Pennsylvainia and Michigan and take Ohio.’ Of course this would work but there are other paths to the White House for Obama that don’t include Ohio, winning Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico and New Hampshire while holding the Kerry states does it easily.”

    If you start with the 2004 results, Red leads Blue 286-252. If you then keep Ohio Red, but turn Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico Blue (Kerry won NH), Obama will win a squeaker, 271-267. So you are correct that there is a way Obama can win the EC without Ohio.

    However, I think turning one close state with 20 electoral college votes would be easier than flipping 3 states which together have 19 EC votes.

    In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.

    BB: “As usual Rifkins analysis is deeply flawed.”

    Thanks!

  125. Mike

    RR: “I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine.”

    I agree with this. Saddam Hussein was dangerous because he had oil and used the money to buy weapons to kill people in Iraq, in Iran and in Kuwait. The guy in Zimbabwe is just as bad as Saddam probably, but because he doesn’t have oil he can’t afford the weapons to attack other countries. The problem in Iraq was OIL + SADDAM. Qatar has oil and we don’t worry about them. Syria has a terrible dictator but we don’t care. When a country has a terrible dictator with oil money and is killing millions of people with that money, that’s a problem we care about.

  126. Mike

    RR: “I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine.”

    I agree with this. Saddam Hussein was dangerous because he had oil and used the money to buy weapons to kill people in Iraq, in Iran and in Kuwait. The guy in Zimbabwe is just as bad as Saddam probably, but because he doesn’t have oil he can’t afford the weapons to attack other countries. The problem in Iraq was OIL + SADDAM. Qatar has oil and we don’t worry about them. Syria has a terrible dictator but we don’t care. When a country has a terrible dictator with oil money and is killing millions of people with that money, that’s a problem we care about.

  127. Mike

    RR: “I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine.”

    I agree with this. Saddam Hussein was dangerous because he had oil and used the money to buy weapons to kill people in Iraq, in Iran and in Kuwait. The guy in Zimbabwe is just as bad as Saddam probably, but because he doesn’t have oil he can’t afford the weapons to attack other countries. The problem in Iraq was OIL + SADDAM. Qatar has oil and we don’t worry about them. Syria has a terrible dictator but we don’t care. When a country has a terrible dictator with oil money and is killing millions of people with that money, that’s a problem we care about.

  128. Mike

    RR: “I am not saying that oil was not a factor in Iraq — of course it was; it was the source of wealth for Saddam’s military machine.”

    I agree with this. Saddam Hussein was dangerous because he had oil and used the money to buy weapons to kill people in Iraq, in Iran and in Kuwait. The guy in Zimbabwe is just as bad as Saddam probably, but because he doesn’t have oil he can’t afford the weapons to attack other countries. The problem in Iraq was OIL + SADDAM. Qatar has oil and we don’t worry about them. Syria has a terrible dictator but we don’t care. When a country has a terrible dictator with oil money and is killing millions of people with that money, that’s a problem we care about.

  129. BB

    Really Rifkin are you that dumb as to really argue our benevolence about not confiscating oil?

    How about all the tyrants we support as long as the oil flows. Look at Nigeria, Burma, Indonesia under Suharto, Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam before he turned on us, or Mexico. Look at how our relations with Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq changed when those countries showed any independence.

    The way it works is as long as you do it our way by selling to the big multinationals we keep you in power, buy your oil, sell you guns and allow you to shelter your wealth by investing in our stocks and bonds.

    Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.

    What are we waiting for to get out of Iraq the oil contracts that give Exxon, Chevron and BP rights to a percentage of the oil production. I know you will come back with the contracts that were recently negotiated but they were service contracts not royalty contracts. I guess you think it isn’t confiscation if there is a contract allowing the multinationals a piece of the action.

    I know I have this nomme de plume that I hide behind that allows me to be generally sarcastic, but really, this time you have shown an embarrassing level of ignorance of how it all works.

  130. BB

    Really Rifkin are you that dumb as to really argue our benevolence about not confiscating oil?

    How about all the tyrants we support as long as the oil flows. Look at Nigeria, Burma, Indonesia under Suharto, Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam before he turned on us, or Mexico. Look at how our relations with Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq changed when those countries showed any independence.

    The way it works is as long as you do it our way by selling to the big multinationals we keep you in power, buy your oil, sell you guns and allow you to shelter your wealth by investing in our stocks and bonds.

    Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.

    What are we waiting for to get out of Iraq the oil contracts that give Exxon, Chevron and BP rights to a percentage of the oil production. I know you will come back with the contracts that were recently negotiated but they were service contracts not royalty contracts. I guess you think it isn’t confiscation if there is a contract allowing the multinationals a piece of the action.

    I know I have this nomme de plume that I hide behind that allows me to be generally sarcastic, but really, this time you have shown an embarrassing level of ignorance of how it all works.

  131. BB

    Really Rifkin are you that dumb as to really argue our benevolence about not confiscating oil?

    How about all the tyrants we support as long as the oil flows. Look at Nigeria, Burma, Indonesia under Suharto, Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam before he turned on us, or Mexico. Look at how our relations with Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq changed when those countries showed any independence.

    The way it works is as long as you do it our way by selling to the big multinationals we keep you in power, buy your oil, sell you guns and allow you to shelter your wealth by investing in our stocks and bonds.

    Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.

    What are we waiting for to get out of Iraq the oil contracts that give Exxon, Chevron and BP rights to a percentage of the oil production. I know you will come back with the contracts that were recently negotiated but they were service contracts not royalty contracts. I guess you think it isn’t confiscation if there is a contract allowing the multinationals a piece of the action.

    I know I have this nomme de plume that I hide behind that allows me to be generally sarcastic, but really, this time you have shown an embarrassing level of ignorance of how it all works.

  132. BB

    Really Rifkin are you that dumb as to really argue our benevolence about not confiscating oil?

    How about all the tyrants we support as long as the oil flows. Look at Nigeria, Burma, Indonesia under Suharto, Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam before he turned on us, or Mexico. Look at how our relations with Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq changed when those countries showed any independence.

    The way it works is as long as you do it our way by selling to the big multinationals we keep you in power, buy your oil, sell you guns and allow you to shelter your wealth by investing in our stocks and bonds.

    Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.

    What are we waiting for to get out of Iraq the oil contracts that give Exxon, Chevron and BP rights to a percentage of the oil production. I know you will come back with the contracts that were recently negotiated but they were service contracts not royalty contracts. I guess you think it isn’t confiscation if there is a contract allowing the multinationals a piece of the action.

    I know I have this nomme de plume that I hide behind that allows me to be generally sarcastic, but really, this time you have shown an embarrassing level of ignorance of how it all works.

  133. Different View

    “Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.”

    Richard’s response: “Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan? Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.”

    Yes, you missed my point. What I was saying is that because USSR put all their efforts toward military spending, it ultimately resulted in the breakup of the USSR. Russia didn’t take care of its people. Well, they are back at it again in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia. If they are not careful, it could be the death of Russia. But we would do well to remember the same thing. We also are stretched very thin militarily, and could end up destroying ourselves in the same way. Hence my push for energy independence, so we don’t feel obliged to involve ourselves in wars overseas. If oil is not such a desired commodity, bc alternative fuels are more efficient and cost effective, guess what? The Middle East doesn’t get the big bucks for oil anymore, devolves back to a third world country w little in the way of desirable resources. The potentates won’t be able to wield the power they once did – which will hopefully result in the ascendency of small private enterprise. I am ever optimistic when it comes to the true “power of the people”.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    The name of the game with respect to Communist gov’ts is to stir up trouble wherever there is dissension of any kind. Let’s face it, Russia injected unrest into the region of Ossetian, stirring up anti-Georgia sentiment. Why? Control of the oil pipelines. “Georgia started it” my foot! Russia was the instigator, and for good reason – control of the oil pipeline.

    “Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion”

    This is laughable. What, Putin was/is not connected to the Russian mob? Come off your high horse and live in the real world here. More often than not, there are no saints in politics. Even our own politicians are often connected to organized crime – Clinton, Obama come immediately to mind. The Bushies are connected to the “oil mafia”. Politicians are politicians, but Putin (who is now pulling the strings of the current Russian ruler) is one of the most ruthless!

    “it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?”

    It’s all about the oil pipeline – a power grab for it. Russia wants complete control of it.

    “but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them”

    To paint Russia as being manipulated to disempower them is beyond absurd. Russia still resents the fact that they are not still part of the USSR and a powerful force in the world. Putin will not leave office in any meaningful sense – bc the Russian mob won’t allow it. Russia has great potential, if its leaders would stop the military adventurism and take care of its own people. The absolute dumbest thing we ever did as a nation was give the Russians wheat, to bail them out of mass hunger. As a result, the Russian leaders were able to get out from under their responsibility to take care of their own people, and continued to spend money on military adventurism. We caught them red-handed in Iraq, giving out night goggles and military advice via military advisors just before we invaded. Nice! Putin was propping up a nasty dictator (Hussein) at the expense of its (Russian’s) own people.

    “it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan”

    The best way to fight the “war on terror” is to become energy independent, period.

    “My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)”

    Bullhockey! The Chinese are drilling 70 miles off the Florida coast, while we sit on our collective hands, and whine about the environment. I SAY DO IT ALL. Right now, Canada is drilling for oil in the Antartic. If we hit a gusher in Alaska or somewhere offshore, but don’t use it ourselves, WE CAN SELL IT OVERSEAS. We could be doing that right now had we started drilling more aggressively thirty years ago when gas lines started. Funny, 70% of Americans have come over to my way of thinking – bc the cost of gas has hit $4 a gallon. An oil gusher coming in could be a “gold mine”! Meanwhile the politicians have done virtually nothing in the way of a comprehensive energy policy.

    “Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:”

    Now this gets into the theater of the absurd. I am sure everyone can be connected in some way to something bad – the whole Kevin Bacon/seven degrees of separation thing. I am a descendent of Jefferson Davis, the president of the CSA, but I don’t agree with slavery, nor did my parents/grandparents. But are we to be tarred and feathered for this remote connection? Reminds me of the French Revolution, in which maids of aristocrats were guillotined because of their vague connection with those in power.

    “Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….”

    Yeah, and how many houses does Ted Kennedy own, or John Kerry? How many SUVs does Al Gore own or drive around in, not to mention the number of McMansions he owns, the private jets he takes – all the while telling us ordinary people to conserve. This is the height of hypocrisy. There is plenty to criticize McCain about – can’t you do better? This is why the Democrats are not doing as well as they were expected to.

    “It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.”

    And how well have “nuanced views of the world” and “diplomacy” worked in the past? Example: the 12 years we tried to get Hussein to disarm. No, what truly worked was one well placed bomb on the house of Mumar Kaddafi. We are still reaping the benefits of that little maneuver by Reagan (and he was no saint either). Terrorists are not defanged with “nuanced views” or diplomacy. Getting involved in wars is probably not the answer either. Promoting democracy isn’t a bad start, but it is a difficult solution to implement. I’m inclined to promote free enterprise at the micro level, and knock off the foreign aid. I read a wonderful article in the Nat’l Geographic some time ago. Some African nation, poor as dirt, was thriving at the local level. Why? Because the leaders were not getting any foreign aid for a while, were not really able to staff any military to kill its own people as it had in the past. Instead, little private farms were flourishing – capitalism at the micro level. What is the saying, “Give someone a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime”.

    ” Old Skool Davis said…
    I particularly liked John Edwards contribution to the convention, and his mentor Bill Clinton brought tears of laughter to my eyes.
    Anonymous said…
    In other words, you’re a right winger, Old Skool. That explains a lot.”

    NO, it just points out the hypocrisy of some of the left wing commenters on this blog. Neither Bill Clinton nor John Edwards are pillars of decency – and have severe credibility problems. As does Joe Biden, who has been mired in ethics violations. But so has McCain (been mired in ethics violations). When living in a glass house, it is dangerous to throw rocks, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. Better to follow the issues, as subjectively as possible, then vote for the “evil of two lessers” as Jay Leno of the Tonight Show once said.

    “We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory. In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.”

    Perhaps that is bc we were in the war for well intentioned reasons – to protect the oil supply from being taken over by other rogue nations? Now one could argue the way to hell is paved with good intentions! But nevertheless, our recent wars have, in fact, been all about oil.

    “In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.”

    Yes, and opinion polls put Howard Dean as the front runner in the primaries, and he ultimately came in at a distant third. Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate. Especially depends on who is conducting the poll, how the questions are asked. Time is known to be left-leaning news organization.

    “Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.”

    Oh, for crying out loud! Hussein gassed, tortured, killed hundreds of thousands of his people. Dogs were treated better than women in his country. The idea that somehow the U.S. has greater responsibility in killing Iraqis than Hussein is just plain silly. I’ll bet the Iraquis wouldn’t agree with you – especially the ones who stood over mass graves containing their relatives slaughtered by the thousands under the Hussein regime. However, I agree that Haliburton and Exxon have definitely benefitted from the War in Iraq and our motives have not necessarily been pure, but don’t equate that to Hussein’s cruelty. It is comparing apples and oranges.

  134. Different View

    “Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.”

    Richard’s response: “Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan? Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.”

    Yes, you missed my point. What I was saying is that because USSR put all their efforts toward military spending, it ultimately resulted in the breakup of the USSR. Russia didn’t take care of its people. Well, they are back at it again in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia. If they are not careful, it could be the death of Russia. But we would do well to remember the same thing. We also are stretched very thin militarily, and could end up destroying ourselves in the same way. Hence my push for energy independence, so we don’t feel obliged to involve ourselves in wars overseas. If oil is not such a desired commodity, bc alternative fuels are more efficient and cost effective, guess what? The Middle East doesn’t get the big bucks for oil anymore, devolves back to a third world country w little in the way of desirable resources. The potentates won’t be able to wield the power they once did – which will hopefully result in the ascendency of small private enterprise. I am ever optimistic when it comes to the true “power of the people”.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    The name of the game with respect to Communist gov’ts is to stir up trouble wherever there is dissension of any kind. Let’s face it, Russia injected unrest into the region of Ossetian, stirring up anti-Georgia sentiment. Why? Control of the oil pipelines. “Georgia started it” my foot! Russia was the instigator, and for good reason – control of the oil pipeline.

    “Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion”

    This is laughable. What, Putin was/is not connected to the Russian mob? Come off your high horse and live in the real world here. More often than not, there are no saints in politics. Even our own politicians are often connected to organized crime – Clinton, Obama come immediately to mind. The Bushies are connected to the “oil mafia”. Politicians are politicians, but Putin (who is now pulling the strings of the current Russian ruler) is one of the most ruthless!

    “it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?”

    It’s all about the oil pipeline – a power grab for it. Russia wants complete control of it.

    “but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them”

    To paint Russia as being manipulated to disempower them is beyond absurd. Russia still resents the fact that they are not still part of the USSR and a powerful force in the world. Putin will not leave office in any meaningful sense – bc the Russian mob won’t allow it. Russia has great potential, if its leaders would stop the military adventurism and take care of its own people. The absolute dumbest thing we ever did as a nation was give the Russians wheat, to bail them out of mass hunger. As a result, the Russian leaders were able to get out from under their responsibility to take care of their own people, and continued to spend money on military adventurism. We caught them red-handed in Iraq, giving out night goggles and military advice via military advisors just before we invaded. Nice! Putin was propping up a nasty dictator (Hussein) at the expense of its (Russian’s) own people.

    “it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan”

    The best way to fight the “war on terror” is to become energy independent, period.

    “My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)”

    Bullhockey! The Chinese are drilling 70 miles off the Florida coast, while we sit on our collective hands, and whine about the environment. I SAY DO IT ALL. Right now, Canada is drilling for oil in the Antartic. If we hit a gusher in Alaska or somewhere offshore, but don’t use it ourselves, WE CAN SELL IT OVERSEAS. We could be doing that right now had we started drilling more aggressively thirty years ago when gas lines started. Funny, 70% of Americans have come over to my way of thinking – bc the cost of gas has hit $4 a gallon. An oil gusher coming in could be a “gold mine”! Meanwhile the politicians have done virtually nothing in the way of a comprehensive energy policy.

    “Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:”

    Now this gets into the theater of the absurd. I am sure everyone can be connected in some way to something bad – the whole Kevin Bacon/seven degrees of separation thing. I am a descendent of Jefferson Davis, the president of the CSA, but I don’t agree with slavery, nor did my parents/grandparents. But are we to be tarred and feathered for this remote connection? Reminds me of the French Revolution, in which maids of aristocrats were guillotined because of their vague connection with those in power.

    “Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….”

    Yeah, and how many houses does Ted Kennedy own, or John Kerry? How many SUVs does Al Gore own or drive around in, not to mention the number of McMansions he owns, the private jets he takes – all the while telling us ordinary people to conserve. This is the height of hypocrisy. There is plenty to criticize McCain about – can’t you do better? This is why the Democrats are not doing as well as they were expected to.

    “It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.”

    And how well have “nuanced views of the world” and “diplomacy” worked in the past? Example: the 12 years we tried to get Hussein to disarm. No, what truly worked was one well placed bomb on the house of Mumar Kaddafi. We are still reaping the benefits of that little maneuver by Reagan (and he was no saint either). Terrorists are not defanged with “nuanced views” or diplomacy. Getting involved in wars is probably not the answer either. Promoting democracy isn’t a bad start, but it is a difficult solution to implement. I’m inclined to promote free enterprise at the micro level, and knock off the foreign aid. I read a wonderful article in the Nat’l Geographic some time ago. Some African nation, poor as dirt, was thriving at the local level. Why? Because the leaders were not getting any foreign aid for a while, were not really able to staff any military to kill its own people as it had in the past. Instead, little private farms were flourishing – capitalism at the micro level. What is the saying, “Give someone a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime”.

    ” Old Skool Davis said…
    I particularly liked John Edwards contribution to the convention, and his mentor Bill Clinton brought tears of laughter to my eyes.
    Anonymous said…
    In other words, you’re a right winger, Old Skool. That explains a lot.”

    NO, it just points out the hypocrisy of some of the left wing commenters on this blog. Neither Bill Clinton nor John Edwards are pillars of decency – and have severe credibility problems. As does Joe Biden, who has been mired in ethics violations. But so has McCain (been mired in ethics violations). When living in a glass house, it is dangerous to throw rocks, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. Better to follow the issues, as subjectively as possible, then vote for the “evil of two lessers” as Jay Leno of the Tonight Show once said.

    “We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory. In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.”

    Perhaps that is bc we were in the war for well intentioned reasons – to protect the oil supply from being taken over by other rogue nations? Now one could argue the way to hell is paved with good intentions! But nevertheless, our recent wars have, in fact, been all about oil.

    “In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.”

    Yes, and opinion polls put Howard Dean as the front runner in the primaries, and he ultimately came in at a distant third. Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate. Especially depends on who is conducting the poll, how the questions are asked. Time is known to be left-leaning news organization.

    “Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.”

    Oh, for crying out loud! Hussein gassed, tortured, killed hundreds of thousands of his people. Dogs were treated better than women in his country. The idea that somehow the U.S. has greater responsibility in killing Iraqis than Hussein is just plain silly. I’ll bet the Iraquis wouldn’t agree with you – especially the ones who stood over mass graves containing their relatives slaughtered by the thousands under the Hussein regime. However, I agree that Haliburton and Exxon have definitely benefitted from the War in Iraq and our motives have not necessarily been pure, but don’t equate that to Hussein’s cruelty. It is comparing apples and oranges.

  135. Different View

    “Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.”

    Richard’s response: “Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan? Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.”

    Yes, you missed my point. What I was saying is that because USSR put all their efforts toward military spending, it ultimately resulted in the breakup of the USSR. Russia didn’t take care of its people. Well, they are back at it again in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia. If they are not careful, it could be the death of Russia. But we would do well to remember the same thing. We also are stretched very thin militarily, and could end up destroying ourselves in the same way. Hence my push for energy independence, so we don’t feel obliged to involve ourselves in wars overseas. If oil is not such a desired commodity, bc alternative fuels are more efficient and cost effective, guess what? The Middle East doesn’t get the big bucks for oil anymore, devolves back to a third world country w little in the way of desirable resources. The potentates won’t be able to wield the power they once did – which will hopefully result in the ascendency of small private enterprise. I am ever optimistic when it comes to the true “power of the people”.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    The name of the game with respect to Communist gov’ts is to stir up trouble wherever there is dissension of any kind. Let’s face it, Russia injected unrest into the region of Ossetian, stirring up anti-Georgia sentiment. Why? Control of the oil pipelines. “Georgia started it” my foot! Russia was the instigator, and for good reason – control of the oil pipeline.

    “Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion”

    This is laughable. What, Putin was/is not connected to the Russian mob? Come off your high horse and live in the real world here. More often than not, there are no saints in politics. Even our own politicians are often connected to organized crime – Clinton, Obama come immediately to mind. The Bushies are connected to the “oil mafia”. Politicians are politicians, but Putin (who is now pulling the strings of the current Russian ruler) is one of the most ruthless!

    “it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?”

    It’s all about the oil pipeline – a power grab for it. Russia wants complete control of it.

    “but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them”

    To paint Russia as being manipulated to disempower them is beyond absurd. Russia still resents the fact that they are not still part of the USSR and a powerful force in the world. Putin will not leave office in any meaningful sense – bc the Russian mob won’t allow it. Russia has great potential, if its leaders would stop the military adventurism and take care of its own people. The absolute dumbest thing we ever did as a nation was give the Russians wheat, to bail them out of mass hunger. As a result, the Russian leaders were able to get out from under their responsibility to take care of their own people, and continued to spend money on military adventurism. We caught them red-handed in Iraq, giving out night goggles and military advice via military advisors just before we invaded. Nice! Putin was propping up a nasty dictator (Hussein) at the expense of its (Russian’s) own people.

    “it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan”

    The best way to fight the “war on terror” is to become energy independent, period.

    “My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)”

    Bullhockey! The Chinese are drilling 70 miles off the Florida coast, while we sit on our collective hands, and whine about the environment. I SAY DO IT ALL. Right now, Canada is drilling for oil in the Antartic. If we hit a gusher in Alaska or somewhere offshore, but don’t use it ourselves, WE CAN SELL IT OVERSEAS. We could be doing that right now had we started drilling more aggressively thirty years ago when gas lines started. Funny, 70% of Americans have come over to my way of thinking – bc the cost of gas has hit $4 a gallon. An oil gusher coming in could be a “gold mine”! Meanwhile the politicians have done virtually nothing in the way of a comprehensive energy policy.

    “Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:”

    Now this gets into the theater of the absurd. I am sure everyone can be connected in some way to something bad – the whole Kevin Bacon/seven degrees of separation thing. I am a descendent of Jefferson Davis, the president of the CSA, but I don’t agree with slavery, nor did my parents/grandparents. But are we to be tarred and feathered for this remote connection? Reminds me of the French Revolution, in which maids of aristocrats were guillotined because of their vague connection with those in power.

    “Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….”

    Yeah, and how many houses does Ted Kennedy own, or John Kerry? How many SUVs does Al Gore own or drive around in, not to mention the number of McMansions he owns, the private jets he takes – all the while telling us ordinary people to conserve. This is the height of hypocrisy. There is plenty to criticize McCain about – can’t you do better? This is why the Democrats are not doing as well as they were expected to.

    “It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.”

    And how well have “nuanced views of the world” and “diplomacy” worked in the past? Example: the 12 years we tried to get Hussein to disarm. No, what truly worked was one well placed bomb on the house of Mumar Kaddafi. We are still reaping the benefits of that little maneuver by Reagan (and he was no saint either). Terrorists are not defanged with “nuanced views” or diplomacy. Getting involved in wars is probably not the answer either. Promoting democracy isn’t a bad start, but it is a difficult solution to implement. I’m inclined to promote free enterprise at the micro level, and knock off the foreign aid. I read a wonderful article in the Nat’l Geographic some time ago. Some African nation, poor as dirt, was thriving at the local level. Why? Because the leaders were not getting any foreign aid for a while, were not really able to staff any military to kill its own people as it had in the past. Instead, little private farms were flourishing – capitalism at the micro level. What is the saying, “Give someone a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime”.

    ” Old Skool Davis said…
    I particularly liked John Edwards contribution to the convention, and his mentor Bill Clinton brought tears of laughter to my eyes.
    Anonymous said…
    In other words, you’re a right winger, Old Skool. That explains a lot.”

    NO, it just points out the hypocrisy of some of the left wing commenters on this blog. Neither Bill Clinton nor John Edwards are pillars of decency – and have severe credibility problems. As does Joe Biden, who has been mired in ethics violations. But so has McCain (been mired in ethics violations). When living in a glass house, it is dangerous to throw rocks, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. Better to follow the issues, as subjectively as possible, then vote for the “evil of two lessers” as Jay Leno of the Tonight Show once said.

    “We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory. In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.”

    Perhaps that is bc we were in the war for well intentioned reasons – to protect the oil supply from being taken over by other rogue nations? Now one could argue the way to hell is paved with good intentions! But nevertheless, our recent wars have, in fact, been all about oil.

    “In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.”

    Yes, and opinion polls put Howard Dean as the front runner in the primaries, and he ultimately came in at a distant third. Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate. Especially depends on who is conducting the poll, how the questions are asked. Time is known to be left-leaning news organization.

    “Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.”

    Oh, for crying out loud! Hussein gassed, tortured, killed hundreds of thousands of his people. Dogs were treated better than women in his country. The idea that somehow the U.S. has greater responsibility in killing Iraqis than Hussein is just plain silly. I’ll bet the Iraquis wouldn’t agree with you – especially the ones who stood over mass graves containing their relatives slaughtered by the thousands under the Hussein regime. However, I agree that Haliburton and Exxon have definitely benefitted from the War in Iraq and our motives have not necessarily been pure, but don’t equate that to Hussein’s cruelty. It is comparing apples and oranges.

  136. Different View

    “Russia would be advised their military adventurism is what destroyed them once before during the Reagan administration.”

    Richard’s response: “Americans say this kind of thing with a straight face after the invasion of Iraq and the seemingly indefinite occupation of Afghanistan? Or, maybe I missed something, and the post was meant to be humorous. If so, you got me.”

    Yes, you missed my point. What I was saying is that because USSR put all their efforts toward military spending, it ultimately resulted in the breakup of the USSR. Russia didn’t take care of its people. Well, they are back at it again in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia. If they are not careful, it could be the death of Russia. But we would do well to remember the same thing. We also are stretched very thin militarily, and could end up destroying ourselves in the same way. Hence my push for energy independence, so we don’t feel obliged to involve ourselves in wars overseas. If oil is not such a desired commodity, bc alternative fuels are more efficient and cost effective, guess what? The Middle East doesn’t get the big bucks for oil anymore, devolves back to a third world country w little in the way of desirable resources. The potentates won’t be able to wield the power they once did – which will hopefully result in the ascendency of small private enterprise. I am ever optimistic when it comes to the true “power of the people”.

    “or, did you not know that GEORGIA, not Russia, started the conflict?”

    The name of the game with respect to Communist gov’ts is to stir up trouble wherever there is dissension of any kind. Let’s face it, Russia injected unrest into the region of Ossetian, stirring up anti-Georgia sentiment. Why? Control of the oil pipelines. “Georgia started it” my foot! Russia was the instigator, and for good reason – control of the oil pipeline.

    “Georgia, as a society, has not been able to persuade non-Georgians that it is an open, pluralistic society with equal rights for all, and they are responsible for that, through a succession of rulers, with the worst being Gamsakhurdia (described far too mildly in the article, an outright racist nationalist, who relied upon thuggist gangs), who manipulated ethnic nationalist sentiments to empower themselves and enrich themselves in an almost Mafioso like fashion”

    This is laughable. What, Putin was/is not connected to the Russian mob? Come off your high horse and live in the real world here. More often than not, there are no saints in politics. Even our own politicians are often connected to organized crime – Clinton, Obama come immediately to mind. The Bushies are connected to the “oil mafia”. Politicians are politicians, but Putin (who is now pulling the strings of the current Russian ruler) is one of the most ruthless!

    “it is very similar to what Serbia did in Kosovo in 1996, after Kosovar guerillia activity, and what did the US and NATO do? did they support Serbia as they have Georgia here?”

    It’s all about the oil pipeline – a power grab for it. Russia wants complete control of it.

    “but the notion that the US, by militarily intervening in the region, is supporting anything like democracy is preposterous, all it will do is intensify the imperial conflict, kill more people, prop up more sleazy, thuggish rulers like Saakashvili, and put off the prospect that the Russians and the peoples of the Caucasus finally recognize that events are being manipulated by nationalists to disempower them”

    To paint Russia as being manipulated to disempower them is beyond absurd. Russia still resents the fact that they are not still part of the USSR and a powerful force in the world. Putin will not leave office in any meaningful sense – bc the Russian mob won’t allow it. Russia has great potential, if its leaders would stop the military adventurism and take care of its own people. The absolute dumbest thing we ever did as a nation was give the Russians wheat, to bail them out of mass hunger. As a result, the Russian leaders were able to get out from under their responsibility to take care of their own people, and continued to spend money on military adventurism. We caught them red-handed in Iraq, giving out night goggles and military advice via military advisors just before we invaded. Nice! Putin was propping up a nasty dictator (Hussein) at the expense of its (Russian’s) own people.

    “it is a fascinanting question as to whether they will perceive it first, or whether the US public perceives how we are subject to a similar manipulation in regard to the “war on terror”, Iraq and Afghanistan”

    The best way to fight the “war on terror” is to become energy independent, period.

    “My belief is that, rather than relying on added domestic oil drilling, we ought to be encouraging the purchase of PHEVs and electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. With solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, natural gas and maybe clean coal, we can domestically produce the electricity this new fleet of cars and trucks will need. (I would not oppose the use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, if those can work and we can create the liquid hydrogen cost effectively.)”

    Bullhockey! The Chinese are drilling 70 miles off the Florida coast, while we sit on our collective hands, and whine about the environment. I SAY DO IT ALL. Right now, Canada is drilling for oil in the Antartic. If we hit a gusher in Alaska or somewhere offshore, but don’t use it ourselves, WE CAN SELL IT OVERSEAS. We could be doing that right now had we started drilling more aggressively thirty years ago when gas lines started. Funny, 70% of Americans have come over to my way of thinking – bc the cost of gas has hit $4 a gallon. An oil gusher coming in could be a “gold mine”! Meanwhile the politicians have done virtually nothing in the way of a comprehensive energy policy.

    “Salon reported on the McCain slaves 8 years ago, when McCain said he didn’t know his family owned them:”

    Now this gets into the theater of the absurd. I am sure everyone can be connected in some way to something bad – the whole Kevin Bacon/seven degrees of separation thing. I am a descendent of Jefferson Davis, the president of the CSA, but I don’t agree with slavery, nor did my parents/grandparents. But are we to be tarred and feathered for this remote connection? Reminds me of the French Revolution, in which maids of aristocrats were guillotined because of their vague connection with those in power.

    “Didn’t know his family owned slaves, doesn’t know how many houses his wife owns, didn’t know what kind of car he was driving last year….”

    Yeah, and how many houses does Ted Kennedy own, or John Kerry? How many SUVs does Al Gore own or drive around in, not to mention the number of McMansions he owns, the private jets he takes – all the while telling us ordinary people to conserve. This is the height of hypocrisy. There is plenty to criticize McCain about – can’t you do better? This is why the Democrats are not doing as well as they were expected to.

    “It makes you realize how important it will be to have as our next president someone with a more nuanced view of world affairs, who will work to build regional alliances, use diplomacy, and hopefully try to restore some US credibility around the world.”

    And how well have “nuanced views of the world” and “diplomacy” worked in the past? Example: the 12 years we tried to get Hussein to disarm. No, what truly worked was one well placed bomb on the house of Mumar Kaddafi. We are still reaping the benefits of that little maneuver by Reagan (and he was no saint either). Terrorists are not defanged with “nuanced views” or diplomacy. Getting involved in wars is probably not the answer either. Promoting democracy isn’t a bad start, but it is a difficult solution to implement. I’m inclined to promote free enterprise at the micro level, and knock off the foreign aid. I read a wonderful article in the Nat’l Geographic some time ago. Some African nation, poor as dirt, was thriving at the local level. Why? Because the leaders were not getting any foreign aid for a while, were not really able to staff any military to kill its own people as it had in the past. Instead, little private farms were flourishing – capitalism at the micro level. What is the saying, “Give someone a fish, feed them for a day; teach them how to fish, feed them for a lifetime”.

    ” Old Skool Davis said…
    I particularly liked John Edwards contribution to the convention, and his mentor Bill Clinton brought tears of laughter to my eyes.
    Anonymous said…
    In other words, you’re a right winger, Old Skool. That explains a lot.”

    NO, it just points out the hypocrisy of some of the left wing commenters on this blog. Neither Bill Clinton nor John Edwards are pillars of decency – and have severe credibility problems. As does Joe Biden, who has been mired in ethics violations. But so has McCain (been mired in ethics violations). When living in a glass house, it is dangerous to throw rocks, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. Better to follow the issues, as subjectively as possible, then vote for the “evil of two lessers” as Jay Leno of the Tonight Show once said.

    “We won the Persian Gulf War after 6 weeks of air attacks and 4 days on the ground. We controlled all of the region where Kuwait’s oil is located and where most of the southeastern Iraq oil is. Yet we did not confiscate any oil after an easy victory. In the last 60 years, of which you speak, we have never followed a victory in battle with the confiscation of another country’s petroleum.”

    Perhaps that is bc we were in the war for well intentioned reasons – to protect the oil supply from being taken over by other rogue nations? Now one could argue the way to hell is paved with good intentions! But nevertheless, our recent wars have, in fact, been all about oil.

    “In the latest CNN/Time poll (8/28), McCain leads by a point in Colorado. Obama, though, is a point up in Ohio right now (Quinnipiac 8/26) and he’s up in Virginia by 2 points. I don’t know if these polls mean too much. But it seems like there are a lot of states which are very close.”

    Yes, and opinion polls put Howard Dean as the front runner in the primaries, and he ultimately came in at a distant third. Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate. Especially depends on who is conducting the poll, how the questions are asked. Time is known to be left-leaning news organization.

    “Who are the big winners from the Iraq war, Exxon and Haliburton, who are the big losers, the Iraqis with hundreds of thousands dead and millions living as displaced internal and external refugees.”

    Oh, for crying out loud! Hussein gassed, tortured, killed hundreds of thousands of his people. Dogs were treated better than women in his country. The idea that somehow the U.S. has greater responsibility in killing Iraqis than Hussein is just plain silly. I’ll bet the Iraquis wouldn’t agree with you – especially the ones who stood over mass graves containing their relatives slaughtered by the thousands under the Hussein regime. However, I agree that Haliburton and Exxon have definitely benefitted from the War in Iraq and our motives have not necessarily been pure, but don’t equate that to Hussein’s cruelty. It is comparing apples and oranges.

  137. BB

    Oh for crying out loud. Saddam was a son of a bitch but for a while he was our son of a bitch. After all we gave him the gas and even after desert storm we still bought his oil. Still Saddam is no excuse for the devestation we have brought to Iraq. If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.

  138. BB

    Oh for crying out loud. Saddam was a son of a bitch but for a while he was our son of a bitch. After all we gave him the gas and even after desert storm we still bought his oil. Still Saddam is no excuse for the devestation we have brought to Iraq. If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.

  139. BB

    Oh for crying out loud. Saddam was a son of a bitch but for a while he was our son of a bitch. After all we gave him the gas and even after desert storm we still bought his oil. Still Saddam is no excuse for the devestation we have brought to Iraq. If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.

  140. BB

    Oh for crying out loud. Saddam was a son of a bitch but for a while he was our son of a bitch. After all we gave him the gas and even after desert storm we still bought his oil. Still Saddam is no excuse for the devestation we have brought to Iraq. If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.

  141. Go America!

    “If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.”

    Baloney. If Bush had half a brain, or Rumsfeld, they would have known a permanent military presence will be needed in Iraq to keep it stable. We are the only thing between the Iraqi gov’t and Iran taking over.

    Are you telling me we are “occupying” Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, and the list goes on? We’re the only thing between gov’t sovereignty of smaller nations and Communistic elements taking over the world. If Putin were not kept in check, what then? Do you really believe all that drivel the Dems put out about evil America? What trash!

  142. Go America!

    “If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.”

    Baloney. If Bush had half a brain, or Rumsfeld, they would have known a permanent military presence will be needed in Iraq to keep it stable. We are the only thing between the Iraqi gov’t and Iran taking over.

    Are you telling me we are “occupying” Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, and the list goes on? We’re the only thing between gov’t sovereignty of smaller nations and Communistic elements taking over the world. If Putin were not kept in check, what then? Do you really believe all that drivel the Dems put out about evil America? What trash!

  143. Go America!

    “If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.”

    Baloney. If Bush had half a brain, or Rumsfeld, they would have known a permanent military presence will be needed in Iraq to keep it stable. We are the only thing between the Iraqi gov’t and Iran taking over.

    Are you telling me we are “occupying” Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, and the list goes on? We’re the only thing between gov’t sovereignty of smaller nations and Communistic elements taking over the world. If Putin were not kept in check, what then? Do you really believe all that drivel the Dems put out about evil America? What trash!

  144. Go America!

    “If we got in and got out under the Powell Doctrine your argument would be valid, but, by staying and occupying Iraq we became as bad as Saddam ever was at least in terms of the magntude of the human devestation.”

    Baloney. If Bush had half a brain, or Rumsfeld, they would have known a permanent military presence will be needed in Iraq to keep it stable. We are the only thing between the Iraqi gov’t and Iran taking over.

    Are you telling me we are “occupying” Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, and the list goes on? We’re the only thing between gov’t sovereignty of smaller nations and Communistic elements taking over the world. If Putin were not kept in check, what then? Do you really believe all that drivel the Dems put out about evil America? What trash!

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for