Pangloss

So you would never pick a candidate who disagrees with you on any issue? Is that even possible? And does that mean you would pick a candidate you know to be corrupt because they agree with you ideologically? People may laugh at that last question, but bear in mind that this happens all the time. William Jefferson of Louisiana was re-elected even after $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer. Alcee Hastings, who represents the district right next door to mine, was impeached for bribery by a *Democratically-controlled* congress (his own party), 413-3, and then convicted in the Senate (later overturned on a technicality), but went on to be elected NINE TIMES in spite of the fact that he was never cleared of wrongdoing! People I work with actually suggested recently that we have him come and speak at our commencement ceremony -- AGAIN!!!!!! (AUGH!) So poor has people's trust of government become that this sort of thing isn't even rare anymore. Often corruption indictments don't even make the headlines. And yet here we are, deciding who is going to run this country, and saying it's best to just focus on the issues.

Well that's fine, but in the end what you're saying is that you would abandon Iraq after we caused its problems. There's just no real good way to whitewash that. You can howl at the moon all you like, saying it's not about perception, or that it's not your fault, but the reality is what it is. And incidentally, the ONLY reason the liberals on this board aren't lining up to blast you for what you're saying is that they WANT us to pull out prematurely so that they can proceed to demonize us for doing so.

Next week's episode of PBS Frontline looks interesting enough to merit a heads-up here at SFN. They're going to tackle the subject of children and the Internet. The promo piece was interesting, but what really caught my attention is the fact that this is, I think, the first time I've seen major news reporting tackle this subject and NOT take the position that censorship is necessary. The entire episode will be available online starting on the 22nd, or check your local listings for broadcast times. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

Even if I agreed with you about the 2000 election, Bombus, two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody can criticize unless they're perfect? Fine, name a perfect country, please. I need a good laugh. It's good to admit your bias. Get it out in the open, show people that you're aware of it. Good for you. All of that is true, including the sentiment behind it. What's really gonna knock your socks off, Bombus, is when you realize that the opposite is also true, and that it's really the playing off of these two favorings that makes this country work as well as it does.

As much as I admire the sentiment there, I can't agree. I think the long, tiring race and the conflict between candidates is valuable, showing us how they behave under stress. As stressful as the campaign is, actually holding the office (any office) is even worse, and we don't get a whole lot of insight through any other means. And it can be extremely informative. I feel like I've learned a lot about Rudy Giuliani from his campaign (and all of it bad). I've learned practically everything I know about Barrack Obama from watching his campaign (almost all of it good). Ditto Fred Thompson -- what a joke that campaign has turned out to be -- but if you'd asked me a few months ago I'd have said he seemed like a promising candidate! Also I think you're right about chosing a candidate to represent me best, but what does that actually mean? Does that mean I should choose a candidate who agrees with me on the issues? I'm not sure that's a really great idea, for two reasons: (1) My opinions on the issues CHANGE, and (2) I would much rather vote for a good person who doesn't agree with me on everything (or anything!), than a corrupt, dangerous person who technically shares all of my stances on the issues. So the issues themselves aren't really adequate for me to make my choice. (shrug) My two bits, for what it's worth.

Ok, I see both of your points there. Thanks.

Of course not. This is Bush's war, remember? Again, we're talking about perceptions here. Economic realities aren't all that relevent in the international public arena. We're the big bad filthy-rich American bastards who messed up the Middle East (never mind, never mind!), and we have to pay. It's not a lot of fun, but that's the game that exists, and we have to play that game or we're not going to be able to maintain our position. The problem isn't Chinese debt, but what happens when the debt-holders decide their investment is no longer worth having.

The only surprise in the Michigan primary is that the majority of Republican voters were Republicans. I thought that would be the opposite, because (1) it was the other way around last time, and (2) the Democratic primary didn't count (so they might figure that they might as well vote in the Republican one). But for whatever reason it didn't play out that way. (That's one of the states that got screwed by the national party, like Florida, because it moved up its primary date. Michigan Democrats don't count, even though in the end, as you can see, it still came after New Hampshire.)

(shrug) I don't have a problem with continuing to help them for another ten years. I don't think that's going to cost another trillion dollars, either. Billions, certainly, but maybe not even a hundred billion. But it will cost what it costs. And frankly I'd rather spend that money on the chance for Iraqi peace and democratic prosperity than to throw it away on American hairdressers who thought they could afford $350,000 mortgages on $9/hr, or giving "free" medical care to those "living below the poverty line" who, according to the Census, have two cars, a house, a job, a Playstation 3, a big-screen TV, a DVD player, etc etc etc.

How does that phrase bring the race/gender issue into play? It sounds like a comment about his popularity. I also didn't understand why you felt her earlier comment was a mis-step (putting her foot in her mouth). It seemed like an accurate statement to me. If it wasn't then why did we renew the voting rights act?

I don't think we'll be bashed for leaving in the time frame you suggested, e.g. 11 months plus a smaller-sized engagement over the next few years, at the pleasure of the Iraqi government, which is what moderates on both sides of the aisle, and the Iraqis, seem to agree on. What I think we would be bashed for would be if we were to walk away right now (pulling out this month, for example), and the country were to immediately descend into violence once again. Surely the logic here is obvious. I agree that with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sentiment, meaning that if we pull most of the troops out a year from now and the region THEN descends into violence, we'll get blamed for that as well, but at least then we'll have the ability to say it was stable and had was given a real chance to succeed when we left it (we didn't just abruptly pull out the moment it stabilized). The media is perfectly capable of selling this distinction to people. All it takes is a few more "Fox News Contributors" to provide their expert analysis (and sell their books, of course).

I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more than trade and advice. Make no mistake about it, the Europeans would bash us severely on moral grounds for departing early. Who do you think reaps most of the reward for improving the most important moral ground of all: Increased Iraqi oil production! After all, we can't let Americans buy Iraqi oil -- that would just prove that we're only there for the oil in the first place, don't you know. (No, Europeans really aren't any less hypocritical than Americans.) If I were certain a other forum member this is where I would inject the phrase "Thank god I'm not a European." But of course that wouldn't be very politically correct, and I don't share that sentiment anyway.

I share your resentment for having to deal with issues I don't approve of in the first place, but I don't think your argument that we're not responsible for their decline if we pull out prematurely and refuse to help them economically afterwards will hold water with the international community. The perception will be that we made a mess, then made it worse. And THAT one WOULD be on your head.

It's an interesting idea. I like the accessibility aspect of it when compared with an open-source project site such as Codeplex, where code is checked in and out by registered users, which has drawbacks revolving mainly around time and ease-of-use. Snippets are very simple objects and it would be relatively easy to see if someone has broken the code. You'd probably want to have a restriction on the total number of lines, and it would also help if you had some sort of built-in function that "baselines" the code, marking it as functional at a certain point in time, so the users can automatically roll it back to that baseline if someone does tamper with it and screws something up. Also a function that lets the user easily break the snippet off onto a different page if they want to add their own functionality would be kinda cool.

Cute, I loved the literary references. John5746 on the Presidential Race -- an Opera in 3 Acts!

You might have misread my post, ecoli. I wasn't proposing "continuing the war" beyond the time frame iNow was talking about. I was pointing out that we need to continue to financially support Iraq during its reconstruction, which if all goes well will continue peacefully even after we've ceased major combat operations and pulled out the majority of the troops. Anyway, the answer to your question regarding financial commitment is "because it's the right thing to do". We're in the boat together, so to speak. Regarding your moral responsibility question, ducking out of our long-term responsibilities is part of why America is so poorly perceived around the world. Regardless of what or who caused it, doing the right thing by Iraq will help to repair that damage. You are, of course, welcome to disagree, and I respect your opinion on it.

I agree with that completely, though I would say that anything we can do to bolster that success short of extending major engagement should be done, and that includes monetary commitment over time. We stuck our foot into it, and we owe the Iraqi people long-term financial support, for as long as they want it and need it, and with zero obligations in return (esp wrt oil). I really want to see the far left eat crow on this. They were wrong in demanding immediate pullout all last year, and they need to stand up and admit it. This is a perfect example of how finding the middle ground can be a resounding success and how extremism is wrong and dangerous. The moderate left was right about a lot of things on Iraq, and I think the country has recognized that fact, and applauded them for it. But I think this particular event is a victory for "staying the course now that we're there", and that needs to be recognized as well. The General did not Betray-Us. If I want to see one political thing in my life before I die, it's to see MoveOn.org recognized by all as a traitorous, cancerous organization, unworthy of support or respect.

The Iraqi national congress has finally passed the law related to debaathification which allows former members of the Baath party to reapply for government jobs. This is important because they're mostly Sunnis, and the fact that they weren't allowed in government was seen as giving Shiites an advantage. This step was viewed with skepticism in some quarters because it doesn't guarantee those positions will go to Sunnis, but it is the first major benchmark that everyone's been looking for in the "political progress" front. The head of the largest Sunni contingent said today that it might be enough for them to come on board with the unity government. I expect that means he's going to have to wait and see how his people react over time. Nothing unusual there. I await the obligatory "you're wrong, things are actually quite awful, and we cannot possibly win" replies.

Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business. Rule of Acquisition #35: Peace is good for business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_acquisition

Well put.

Edwards weighed in on Obama's side today. http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/14/edwards-takes-sides-in-clinton-controversy/

Google News lists 513 articles on the subject. It's been the lead story for most major news outlets for several days in a row. I think it's a lesser swiftboating, but a swiftboating nontheless. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1126248145 Yeah that's exactly what Karl Rove used to say. Yup, that was the case with the Swiftboating campaigns as well. They worked because although they were twisted, they were twisted in just the right way to strike a nerve in certain quarters. That was the whole point. This is really a different subject, but I can say that her deterioration into mudslinging has had a very deliterious effect on my desire to vote for her. As you know I lean a bit to the right, and I've spoken in favor of Clinton on these forums. But I have to say right now that the only two candidates I can see myself voting for are John McCain and Barrack Obama. My desire to see "camelot" is strong, and his talk about change and middle ground is compelling -- that really had an impact on me going into Iowa. But IMO he should focus on the issues and continue to sell his idea of America, even when he's ahead in polls. Maybe BECAUSE he's ahead in polls. Tell me WHY I should move left on immigration, on taxation, on helping the poor. Like most of moderate America, I can be sold on new ideas. And I'm a firm believer in 90% of any success being motivation and hard work, not ideology. Obama may be a liberal, but he strikes me as a hard-working, motivated person, unhindered by ideology. I'll take that over a right-wing slacker in the pocket of special interest groups six times a week and twice on Sunday.

Not only do I not argue with those characterizations, I completely agree with them. And many of them can be blamed on politics. You weren't here for some of our best discussions on this subject -- I was actually one of the folks who had their ballot box "go missing" for several hours, only to mysteriously turn up in a warehouse, unattended (but my district was solidly for Gore, so I used to use this as a humorous counter-example). You also missed some of my best rants about Katherine "Taking Back the Country for Christ" Harris and her bid for the Senate in 2006. Ah well.

Let's not pawn off as "semantics" what is in fact a monstrous difference in meaning, nor obscure amidst cheap rhetoric what we really mean to say. If you want to sweep the conspiracy theorists up in your dragnet for support for the evils of Republicans, fine, but don't pretend like you're doing anybody a favor. And frankly if I tried to pull something like that on global warming you would be apoplectic.

The lesson here seems to be "two wrongs make a right". I.E. it's not okay when Democrats get swiftboated, but as long as we live in times when Democrats ARE being swiftboated, we had better make sure that black candidates get to participate in the swiftboating! Is that really the right message to send here? iNow, I think you're showing your partisanship a bit early. It's a bad idea to support Obama when he makes mistakes. We need to take these opportunities to show him the errors instead of surrounding him with "yes men" like George Bush did in '99-'00. I watched that happen in that election cycle, voted for him anyway (dismissing the criticism as partisanship), and I feel like I cheated myself out of the better candidate as a result. I am not about to make that mistake again. (And I say this as someone who is increasingly an Obama-over-Clinton guy, in spite of his moving away from substance during the New Hampshire run-up and in spite of these racism-based attacks on the Clintons.) This would seem to speak against the notion that Obama is the candidate of change, would it not? Remember, this is the guy who's supposed to be the one man who can bring people together. Do we really want ANOTHER president who tosses people out of the White House and then assaults them when they go on a book tour? Do we really want ANOTHER president who surrounds himself with ideologues and doesn't listen to important counter-arguments? That's what I've read as well. I hope that holds for the other primaries. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.