|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Feb 29, 2008 20:46:39 GMT -4
According to Bush the Elder, it's because they couldn't work out an exit strategy that would have actually succeeded; they figured it would be another Vietnam. Guess what... His advisers must have been smarter then junior's. The Brits started printing handbooks for the future Military Government of occupied German before D-day. It pays to think ahead. "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president." - Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 29, 2008 20:54:24 GMT -4
I get it now. Apparently, those preachers have been calling the RC church a whole bunch of bad names.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Mar 2, 2008 13:04:39 GMT -4
Of course, we wouldn't want Obama to fight Hamas or Hizb by killing babies and injuring them like is happening in Gaza now under the blessing of Bush the war criminal. Him having helped us in some ways have also blessed killings of many Arabs and Lebanese. It is really disgusting what we are seeing on TV. One feels sick and handscuffed, eveen guilty for not being able to help these poor people whose children die infront of their eyes. Meanwhile, other opinion surface about Obama regarding ME policies. www.yassardimocrati.com/article.php3?id_article=4854&lang=enseems that the guy prefers dialogue with Syria after nothing has worked with it?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 3, 2008 1:17:19 GMT -4
No one in the U.S. can stop Arabs and Lebanese from killing each other if that's what they want to do, but no one in the U.S. will bless people for killing babies. And Obama thinking that Syria will be our friend if we just talk to them is one of his sillier ideas.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 23, 2008 13:26:04 GMT -4
May I just say, viewing the Pennsylvania primary results from last night: Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!
Somewhere John McCain is smiling.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 23, 2008 14:12:05 GMT -4
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 23, 2008 14:36:09 GMT -4
Can someone explain to me why it's supposed to be so disastrous to the party if it takes a while to choose a nominee? It's hardly as though it'd be the first time--even for a party that wins the election.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 23, 2008 15:00:47 GMT -4
It's bad for the Democrats for several reasons: 1) It means they continue to spend money and effort in destroying each other rather than in attacking Sen. McCain, their eventual opponent. McCain is continuing to climb in the polls while both Democrats are losing ground against him. 2) A vicious and drawn-out contest tends to alienate the supporters of the eventual loser, who may then decide not to vote at all come Election day, or even to protest-vote for McCain (currently polls show that approximately 1/7th of the supporters of either side are unwilling to vote for the other candidate - that's enough to lose the election). If the nominee isn't selected until the August convention it means there will only be a few months before November to try to heal the rift in the party. Republicans have generally smoothed over any hurt feelings that occurred in their primaries already. 3) McCain's campaign can sit back and watch which tactics between the two seem to show results, then use the most effective ones in his own campaign against the eventual nominee. He effectively has giant focus groups working in the polls to help him identify weak and strong spots in his opponent, and if a serious wound is dealt to one candidate, McCain may be able to pick it up and exploit it into a mortal blow. 4) The possibility of the un-elected super delegates resolving the nomination is becoming stronger and stronger, with a strong possibility of alienating large numbers of voters if they chose Clinton over Obama (the candidate who has won more delegates and states, but not a majority). 5) The crises over how to handle Florida and Michigan's banned delegates becomes more acute, again alienating voters who's votes aren't being counted.
In short, there is very little good it can do the Democrats. An earlier end might have resulted in a candidate "tested by the fires of the forge," and made stronger by it. If we have to wait until August it will more likely be a candidate who has been seriously damaged without time to recover.
Advantage: McCain.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 23, 2008 17:04:15 GMT -4
This is what happens when elections are fought on a cult of personality rather then policy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 23, 2008 17:57:02 GMT -4
This is what happens when elections are fought on a cult of personality rather then policy. That's actually another problem. The Democratic primary has been almost entirely personality vs. personality. When the actual election begins McCain may completely blindside whoever is the nominee by arguing policy.
|
|
|
Post by The Third Man on Apr 23, 2008 18:44:03 GMT -4
The Brits started printing handbooks for the future Military Government of occupied German before D-day. It pays to think ahead. They would have looked really silly if Germany ended up occupying the united kingdom "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president." - Theodore Roosevelt And that's the great thing about patriotism. It can mean whatever you want it to mean Can someone explain to me why it's supposed to be so disastrous to the party if it takes a while to choose a nominee? It's hardly as though it'd be the first time--even for a party that wins the election. "disasterous" is a strong word, but I've got to think it's a disadvantage. Another reason, although it might be considered a special case of one of Jason's reasons, is that the positions that maximize their chances of winning the primary could be different than the positions that maximize their chances of winning the general. A contested primary forces them to commit to positions that may prove disadvantageous later.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 23, 2008 18:50:23 GMT -4
He could win every debate based on policy, but when people vote they will base their decision on the personalities of their choices.
Was Bush better than Gore at arguing policy during the 2000 election? It seems to me that he owes as much to his personality as Obama and Clinton do. I believe he won mostly because voters thought of him as someone they'd like to sit on a porch and drink beer with, whereas Gore lost because people considered him boring due to the way he talks.
The lack of a personality also hurt John Kerry.
Personality shouldn't matter as much as it does, but in November McCain doesn't stand a chance because he comes across as more boring than Obama and Clinton. It's just like the high school elections for class president... it's a popularity contest.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 23, 2008 19:12:43 GMT -4
Was Bush better than Gore at arguing policy during the 2000 election? It seems to me that he owes as much to his personality as Obama and Clinton do. I believe he won mostly because voters thought of him as someone they'd like to sit on a porch and drink beer with, whereas Gore lost because people considered him boring due to the way he talks.Believe it or not - I would rather sit around on a porch and drink beer with George W. I can just imagine Gore preaching to me - a multimillionaire telling me to reduce energy consumption in my 900 sq. ft. house. Whereas with George, I think he would laugh at my jokes, give my wife compliments, and tell me that Guinness doesn't actually taste that bad. He might even buy one of my paintings.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 23, 2008 19:21:20 GMT -4
The way I see it is like having two boxers fighting it out, and knowing that whoever wins will meet the Heavyweight Champion. The only thing is, whoever wins is so beat up that they aren't in shape come match time.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 23, 2008 19:36:03 GMT -4
Believe it or not - I would rather sit around on a porch and drink beer with George W. I can just imagine Gore preaching to me - a multimillionaire telling me to reduce energy consumption in my 900 sq. ft. house. Whereas with George, I think he would laugh at my jokes, give my wife compliments, and tell me that Guinness doesn't actually taste that bad. He might even buy one of my paintings. I'm sure a lot of people would rather Bush had spent the last eight years sitting on a porch drinking beer and let someone else run the country. The problem is that they were choosing their President, not someone to be their buddy. A good personality is a bonus, but it shouldn't be the primary factor when deciding who to vote for. Here in Canada I like the Liberal party, but their current leader (Stéphane Dion) barely speaks English and when he tries he comes across as simple minded (it was hard to find a polite way to say that) and timid. He makes Jean Chretien look like and expert linguist. But I'm sure he's actually very intelligent and a nice guy. Should I vote based on the Liberal party policies (which I mostly agree with) and possibly elect a leader that I don't like, or should I vote for a different party just because they have a more charismatic leader?
|
|