Pangloss

I empathize with this sentiment, but I gotta ask the question: Would you continue to sell them arms? If you answer "yes", then they could possibly continue to exist under those circumstances, but the Osama types would still be just as angry with us as they are right now. If you answer "no", then Israel dies, and it dies specifically due to your decision not to support them. Congratulations, says The World, you've selected one race over another. Nice job. As far as US domestic politics are concerned (the subject of the OP), conservatives typically choose options like the former, and liberals typically choose options like the latter. The problem in both cases is that these simple, partisan responses are short-sighted and narrow-minded and simply lead to a continuance, if not a worsening, of the underlying problem. But that's okay as far as the partisans are concerned, because when their suggestion fails it's not THEIR fault, it's the other guy's fault. What's not to like?

Come on bascule. You asked me a question and I responded to it on point. Bascule: Pangloss: Bascule: I answered your question. Have the decency to do the same, please.

Ah ok. Makes sense to me. I see the article touches on that a bit as well. I thought it was interesting.

Gosh. If only we had, say, 162,000 troops in an adjacent nation supported by a Turkish-hating local populace. I'm curious about the use of the word "Islamicist" above. Is the basic idea that the individual in question is not necessarily a Muslim, but one who supports Muslim religious goals?

I think this is already the case, isn't it? Some of the more recent agreements have hinged upon that very point, and there's even been "progress" in the form of Israeli withdrawl from Gaza. Of course the idiots immediately started shelling Israel from within Gaza, which just proves the point that the last thing Hamas wants is to get what it asks for. Which begs the question of why we should give it to them in the first place. My personal position on the occupied territories, by the way, is that they should never have been permanently occupied in the first place, and giving them back should have been a matter of course. But I have little sympathy for the palestinian cause. But getting back to the point, you could well make a case for more stringent tying of this requirement to future support for Israel. It's accurate to say that the US could have held a harder line on this, but remember, in the end the only ammunition we have is the withdrawl of support, which has DIRE consequences. We don't have a lot of cards to play here. That's the point I've been trying to get at in the last several posts -- there are no easy answers. (But of course that doesn't mean we should stop speculating, discussing, asking, answering, etc.) Well stated. And, I would say, consistent with the current US policy. If we were to ask a State Department official to stop by, I'm sure he would say something similar.

Therefore we can't assume they're right, which is what you were doing. Hasty generalization, perhaps? Biased sample, perhaps? Half-truths? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Logical fallacies can be a fickle beast. Be careful what you wish for. Do you really think the Masters of Spin in Washington aren't WELL AWARE that all they have to do is throw out a few juicy tidbits, and people out on the Internet will leap to all the hasty generalizations that they can't afford to make on camera? Do you really want to PARTICIPATE in that detrimental, pointless nonsense? Because that's what you're doing at the moment. Ask instead why they can't afford to make those hasty generalizations themselves, or why they're so clever to couch them so behind fancy rhetoric and carefully chosen verbiage. Could it be because they know full well that further evidence could appear later and prove them wrong? Could it be that they're well aware that every iota of "testimony" in Washington comes with the taint of bias? Could it be that, unlike yourself, when a political leader takes a stand like you're taking, and is later proven wrong, there can be significant consequences to their careers? I didn't call them liars, I questioned whether they might be. I questioned their bias. For most of us there is a clear difference -- unless you're predisposed to conclusions. And I have valid reason for questioning their bias, based on plenty of news stories describing outrage in the FBI community over Mueller's fued with Gonzales, allegations that Mueller specifically set Gonzales up, and more. Mueller actually went to Ashcroft in that SAME SICKBED right after Gonzales left and took notes about his interview with Gonzales -- doesn't that make him "guilty" of exactly the same "crime"? And doesn't that suggest that Mueller had an agenda of his own? These people build loyalty alliances and fight turf wars all day long. The very idea that you could possibly draw a valid conclusion about a single incident like this is ludicrous. My analogy with the divorced couple each telling stories about how evil the other one is is an apt one. That's Washington to a T. Here's a story you might not want people to read: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/07/30/2007-07-30_freeze_dc_lawmen_feud_over_gonzo_.html Please don't ever call someone "ignorant" on this board. Thanks.

What you're saying is that we should invite a second Holocaust because supporting Israel is unpopular with a certain group of people. Are you sure that's really going to make us more popular in the long run? Even if you're right (and I don't think you are), I don't think that's an "in crowd" that I want to be popular with.

LOL! Well I readily admit it's certainly *my* immediate, gut reaction when people don't agree with me. I usually assume they have been influenced by some crazy left-wing or right-wing host. After all, they don't call it "Listen Radio"! (grin) But then I usually calm down and remind myself that that's just the elitist snob in me clammoring for attention. But getting back to the subject, I agree with part of what you're saying and I think the overall question about money influence is perfectly valid. Are you familiar with this web site? I've used it in arguments here and elsewhere before, and you might find it helpful in analyzing the situation. http://www.opensecrets.org/ It's kinda the premiere money-tracking political site. There are all sorts of wonderful surprises in there from time to time, though it certainly supports your premise far more often than not. You know what might form a better discussion point on this? Focusing more on the subject of money influence on less-well-known election races. I assume you've voted before judging from your posts, so I'm sure you're familiar with the... well, "familiarity issue". You go to the poll knowing full well whom you're going to vote for in the major elections, but what about the lesser ones? Judges, county and state officials, state legislature, sometimes even congress -- nobody knows who these people are or Fact One about their backgrounds! ALL you have going into the booth is the name on the ballot! How can anyone possibly make an informed decision? And yet these decisions are incredibly important! Arguably far more so than the presidential race! So these races really are determined by money, and it happens so often that it's almost not even a debatable statistic. The winner is the man or woman whose name most sticks in the voters head at the voting booth. It's almost like a true/false test -- do you recognize this name? How 'bout this one? No? Well try this one. Good, well done voter! Have a lollipop and an "I Was a Sucker Today, Were You?" sticker! Oh well. Enough cynicism for one day. BTW, if you go through that site, one thing to look at might be the number of Republicans who lost in the 2006 mid-term election, in spite of much higher expenditures in many cases (e.g. E. Clay Shaw of Florida). That's the sort of thing I was referring to earlier; I know that's not a presidential race, though. But even if you just look at presidential data, the money doesn't always seem to be completely indicative of the way the country will go. The left is so fond of telling us that Al Gore won the 2000 election, and yet Bush outspent him by something like 30%. Shouldn't he have gotten 30% more votes? But it doesn't seem to really work out that way. Still, the predominence of the data does support the contention that most elections go to the candidate who spends the most money, yes.

First of all, the people of the Middle East are wrong to target their animosity on the United States. They're just flat-out wrong. Note I didn't say they don't have more than a few valid reasons. But they're still wrong. And the fact that they haven't figured out just how wrong they are is the ultimate cause of unrest in that region. Not the actions of the United States. And we would be wrong to do what we're told even when it's morally and logically the wrong thing to do, just because they're angry. Should we support the government of Sudan because it's mad at us, and help them wipe out their enemies? Of course not. But what do you think would happen to the citizens of Israel if we were to renounce our support? Not that your question wasn't a good one. It should be asked, often and loudly. But the answer should also be heard, and right now it is not.

LOL!

Is there a single person in the entire Milky Way galaxy that could be nominated for any post in this administration that the left would agree has "credibility"? They're not interested in "progress or achievement", they want the president's head to roll. The want, as Bascule put it, for the ship to sink. They want that *perception* victory, and they do not care what the cost is in achieving it. They would gleefully accept the sacrifice of female suffrage, abortion, and the Everglades paved over just to see him fry. Whatever that cost is, it CANNOT be as important as convincing every man, woman and child in this universe that George Bush is the greatest evil to walk the planet since the dawn of mankind. I simply do not understand how these questions of yours (which normally I would agree are perfectly reasonable) even enter into the debate. We aren't capable of having that discussion in this country anymore. Isn't this what you've been trying to tell us? You know what that story reminds me of? A couple of friends of mine who got a divorce a few years back. I thought everything was fine, but then all I hear about is how the other one is the most despicable person in the history of the world. He said, she said. Who knows what really happened, because nobody with an independent mind seems to be able to tell me. Put another way, you're drawing that conclusion based on testimony from people with known and stated bias. Would you believe those same people if they told you George Bush reads 90 books per year, as another administration official recently claimed? Of course you would not. You're cherry-picking your facts to suit your predisposed belief.

You made two seemingly contradictory statements, and I chose to answer the latter. The above was one of them, and the other one was the one I quoted in my post. But if you've clarified your position to be the former, I have no problem with that. Consider my response more of an hypothetical, if you prefer. To answer your confusion, the money issue is frequently used by the left as an excuse for their own bad behavior, which they feel is necessary under the old logical fallacy that two wrongs must make a right. Conservatives put too much money into politics? Guess we need to make Hollywood more vocal. This sort of thing happens all the time in politics. Conservative talk radio producing the response of Air America, for example. The money issue is also sometimes used as a crutch by intellectuals for dismissing the behavior of people they don't agree with. The idea being that if somebody doesn't agree with you, they must not be as smart as you. Therefore they have to be told how to vote properly (i.e. my way). That takes money. Let me know if you're still confused about any of this. I'll produce an infomercial for you. Just kidding, of course. And like I said, there's nothing wrong with the question (or your opinion on it). I just think these points are a relevent aspect of the problem.

I agree with this. iNow posted above that he voted against Bush both times, and I can understand his frustration at being lumped in, but actually I think that's part of the problem -- people refusing to actually make a decision at the polls, but rather continuing to vote following predispositions without pausing to reflect on the current situation (I'm sure that's not the case with iNow, but I think it's the case with most people who vote like that; put another way, saying you voted against Bush twice is no defense against this accusation). I voted for Bush in 2000, and I voted for Kerry in 2004. How many people here can say that? How many people do you even KNOW who can say that? I ACTUALLY CHANGED MY MIND. Why? Because I talked to people, I kept an open mind. And most importantly, I didn't bang a podium and insist that nobody was hearing me. In short, I asked questions, and when those questions were answered.... I LISTENED! How many people come in here and post their ideological nonsense without ever bothering to read another word that anybody else here has to say? WHAT VALUE IS THERE IN THIS? What is the freaking point? If your mind is closed, what exactly are you doing, either in here OR AT THE VOTING BOOTH? How can you possibly feel your vote has any value at all if there was never a chance that you would ever vote another way? Of course, this goes absolutely TWO WAYS. I doubt most people here actually realize this. Most of you reading this now probably think "yeah sure, he's right, but I'm still voting Democrat". You're not part of the solution, reader, you're part of the problem. Just as every-freaking-bit as the guy who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Every freaking bit. So yeah I agree with geoguy on this. I don't think it's appropriate when he castigates all Americans for their collective behavior, no, but I absolutely agree when he talks about the need for people to step up and start paying attention.

Well the way Democrats talk the Bush ship has been sinking since the man was elected. By now it'd have to be 10,000 leagues under the sea. Anyway, the Gonzales thing really seems to me like a bad joke and a perfect example of why so many Americans have lost faith in their government. Gonzales was in office a little over two years, and during that time he's supposed to have done great harm to the Justice Department? I suspect this is nothing more than impeachment by proxy. Can't get Bush, go after the little guys instead. Warrentless wiretapping? They castigate Gozales, and then go and pass a bill that does the same thing! Lying to congress? Please, I could find a federal employee to swear under oath that Bascule has voted Republican in every election since Eisenhower. (grin) But seriously, I mean, to think he actually had the temerity to lose a paper clip behind the "top secret" copy machine, and lied about it! The gall of the man! Congress is the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, and I've heard this one before.

On Saturday the Democratic National Committee reacted to the State of Florida's decision to move its primary up to the end of January. They voted to tell Florida that if they proceed with the early primary, any results from that election will not be recognized for the purpose of electing that candidate. In short, Florida will not be allowed to send its delegates to the convention, and it won't be counted in determining who the candidate is. That all sounds very serious, but the interesting thing here is that Florida may very well ignore the DNC. After all, it's not as if the candidates are going to ignore Florida -- those votes are going to be far too important in the general election to risk annoying those key voters. And perhaps more to the point, Florida's position may be that if it complies with the DNC request it's votes won't count anyway. That has been the contention of the individual states for some time now, and the whole reason for these shufflings. Underlying all of this is a decrease in the authority of the national committees and an increase in the authority of the individual state committeees. Another interesting twist in this story is that the date of the Florida Democratic Primary was determined by -- Republicans. That's because the date was set by the state legislature, which is supposed to make this decision based on what's best for the state (a state that's very focused on the tourism dollars that come from national exposure). The state legislature is controlled by Republicans (but it should be understood that the Florida Democratic Party is very much in favor of the move and has been strongly opposed to changing it back). (Note the interesting back-and-forth at the end of the NY Times article linked below.) Two articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/politics/26calendar.html?em&ex=1188273600&en=786933bc52e9c2f2&ei=5087%0A http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3523711

Money doesn't determine who gets to win office in the US, any more than Hollywood, the "elite media", "conservative talk radio", Jon Stewart, Christian Conservatives, or special interest groups do. If any of these things were the single ultimate factor, quite a few recent elections would have gone a different direction. It's still up to the people, and the people are still capable of surprising analysts. That's why they still hold 'em. This also touches on a personal pet peeve of mine, though I readily admit it wasn't stated in the OP so I don't mean to suggest a hidden agenda there -- this is just something related that often comes up when that statement is made. Saying that money shouldn't be a factor is often another way of saying that people need to be told how to vote by a different group of people -- a group which feels it doesn't have as much money (another perception that doesn't always match reality -- just ask Geoge Soros). But I do agree with the OP that it's reasonable to wonder about the influence of money on politics -- I don't have any problem with the question. Drawing that conclusion, though -- I stop short of that.

Yeah I don't know about that Vice President stuff -- the symbolism is pretty raw. I can already see the jokes and caricatures of Obama fetching lemonade for the rich white lady in the Oval Office. It could happen, but I think it'd be a tough sell.

Actually I think that he made a valid point there and made it in a fair manner (he said "if"). Let's cut him a little slack; he's clearly making an effort to be more respectful in that area. I also feel a bit humbled for not making that point myself. I came off a bit partisan-right in post #2 above. It's pretty valid, I must admit, to state that this is equally a PR move on the White House's part. This is all about public opinion.

It's all just typical ABB haymaking, IMO. Fodder for the simpleton talking heads of the media and the nation's important late-night comedy industry.

There's a lot of personal thought and feedback in this thread, which I think is great, but I wouldn't mind seeing more analysis in answer to the OP. Why is it that she continues to be perceived as the front runner? Bear in mind that this is more than just media opinion. She's got the support of key party people and specific polls, and she's got the money. That answers some of the technical aspect of the question, but I'm really more interested in the perception issue. She has a lot of detractors, certainly, but she also has a lot of support. Why? Jackson33 had an interesting comment above about Bill Clinton's detractors during his first term. I would also point out George Bush's increase in voter support for his second term. Is this just a matter of 51% of a two-entry vote being a winner? People having to pick between two sorry choices? Or is there more to it than that? Just to toss one more point out there, a lot of hay has been made in recent weeks (especially following the most recent Democratic debate last Sunday) about special interest groups. Hillary has a lot more support in this area than Obama, but that is rapidly becoming a negative. What will the long-term impact be here? What happens when Obama starts to win support from special interest groups? What happens if he doesn't?

I agree, although I think there is marginal value in the fact that neither party stands out as "better" in the big picture.

It's a perfectly reasonable question, and contributes to the board, so don't feel bad about asking. Wearing my moderator hat for a moment, I'll just inject a couple of talking points without answering the question, leaving that up to the others: - There are almost as many Jews in the US as there are in Israel (6.5 million versus 7.1 million) - Israel has frequently been an ally to the United States in a region that is frequently opposed to US policy (but our goals are certainly not always in alignment) (Edit: I cross-posted with YT above, but he has an interesting talking point there as well.)

So.. does that mean it includes some good news, which you questioned earlier whether existed at all? But yes, I agree, and I was about to post something about this as well -- you beat me to the punch! One summary in a news story I read said that while there is some security progress in specific neighborhoods, the overall violence is pretty much where it has been. Not that I think this confirms that we're proceeding incorrectly or that it couldn't work if the world pulled the other arm out from behind its back, but I agree that it will likely mean withdrawl in April. About six months after my prediction following the 2006 election. Oh well.

No, I was suggesting that bailing everyone out 100% is, in effect, is the sort of thing that might push us into socialism. But I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just expressing what my larger concern is. If you say you don't favor bailing out every individual, I believe you. I'll check out the Jim Cramer article you linked above. I saw in a story on the news last night that one of the ideas being floated around at the moment is a federal home loan refinance corporation. This would seem to be in keeping with your second set of bullet points in post #10 above (the points that I thought were quite reasonable). I think the idea is that the (presumably very low IQ) holder of one of these high-rate ARMs would go get a loan from this company at a more reasonable interest rate, and the government would buy out the high-rate loan from the "predatory" company and you and I would eat the loss, supposedly because it will save us money in the long run. I suppose that's a reasonable solution, and it's in keeping with what I said above about putting the right money in the right place at the right time, but it galls me to hell and back to have to do it. I'm sick and tired of footing the bill not only for your "predatory lenders" but also for the foolish idiots who want a piece of the pie but aren't willing to do what it takes to get it. This story, unsurprisingly, lead off with a straw man about Jane Doe, a single working mom with three kids AND A JOB AS A HAIRDRESSER who bought a $350,000 condo with no money down and a 10.5% variable interest rate. As far as I'm concerned, Jane Doe can rot and die, and the ONLY reason I'll bail her out is because it's good for ME.

I still don't see a link so how can I comment on these details? Did you take a job with the Federal Reserve Bank when I wasn't looking? The problem I have with bailing out the mortgage holders who took out the stupid ARM loans instead of corporations is that you're making the standard left-wing mistake of assuming that penalizing corporations is just penalizing corporations -- it doesn't hurt real people. In fact you're just talking about harming a different group of people -- in this case holders of long-term investments and retirement funds which are invested in this market. Of course the left will realize that once that group has been harmed by their action, and their solution will be -- surprise, surprise -- another bailout, no doubt at somebody else's expense -- probably mine. But hey, that's okay, right? Cuz I'm just The Worker. "I will work harder," said Boxer. You'll solve this problem when you stop idiots from taking out idiotic loans on vast scales. I'm amazed nobody has made the comparison between this situation and the Savings and Loan Crisis, which started over exatly the same thing -- questionable real estate loans made in a regulatory vacuum. That one ended up costing us billions, but it would have cost many times more if it wasn't for the fact that we put the right money in the right place at the right time, and combined it with the right kinds of rules changes to stop it from happening in the future. We DIDN'T bail out every individual. That's what SAVED us, turning a monstrous problem into a little bump in a very long and prosperous road. Rules changes. Not safety nets. MANAGED economy. Not socialism.