Gotta say

[detlef]

In terms of Friday's debate. For starters, I can't imagine anyone walking away from it thinking their guy didn't do better than the other and I can't imagine anyone who was on the fence thinking one guy absolutely won them over.

 

However, and this is the part that gives me comfort. Both guys actually sounded like intelligent people who had thought things through and were capable of doing more than simply spewing up what they were coached to say. When they were thrown a curve or attacked by the other, it truly seemed like they actually knew the details well enough to actually phrase a thoughtful rebuttal, not just make some indignant grunt.

 

I am happy to know that our next president will be orders of magnitude more mentally capable of running a country than our current one is. Well, assuming McCain doesn't die between being elected (provided that happens, of course) and being sworn in. Then all bets are off.

 

Which brings up...

 

That it is also comforting to see that McCain, while certainly old, doesn't look like a fragile man in the final few years of his life. So, provided he wins, it seems like it will be him and not Palin ruling the roost.

 

There you go. Some bi-partisan cheer for your Monday morning.

 

On another point. And this is an honest question for the GOPs out there.

 

When the topic of Iraq came up, Obama kept harping on the fact that it was a bad idea that McCain backed and he didn't. McCain's main deal is that the next president is not going to be confronted with whether we should go into Iraq but how best to see our decision through to a good conclusion. Both arguments have their merit, but honestly, I think McCain's speaks a pragmatic message, provided we're as close to being able to wrap things up well as he says we are.

 

My question is this. Would it do him good to admit that, in hindsight our reasons were not founded and, to date, the juice has not been worth the squeeze but that, at this point, we have realized gains and are too close to success to just throw it all away. I know that would resonate with me quite possibly more than simply cutting and running. To say that he learned from Dubya and Co's mistake and would not repeat them in the future but what's done is done and we're just better off now if we finish this thing up the right way. Mind you, to believe this, I would need to hear from people who actually knew what they were talking about, not just telling the prez what he wanted to hear that success was, in fact, reasonably in sight.

[DemonKnight]

Nice post and I agree wholeheartedly on the first and second points.

 

Lets see if this works:

 

 

I gotta say though, saying that gobbledygook about "The next president wont have to deal, blah blah blah" is an attempt to completely shrug off any accountability for approving to get us mired in a war with no clear end and an attempt to not give credit to Obama for his good vision to see what Iraq would become. Why has no one asked the people who approve of our police actions in Iraq what exactly victory means? He keeps saying "We need to win" but never tells us what constitutes victory. Can anyone please outline our measures for success over there? TIA

 

[detlef]

For the record, I also agree with your blacked out point. And, like you, I don't think it's too much to ask for a definition of what victory actually is and a realistic time-line and cost estimate for getting there. Not some cooked up number to sucker us into "staying the course" but a truly thought out figure.

 

Why I could be talked into this is simply because I have both inherited and created situations that, had I the ability to go back in time, I would have never done. However, while some need to just be tossed out all together, others are simply assets that came at too high a cost but are worth enough to warrant holding on to. Abandoning them would just compound the loss. I'm not saying which one Iraq is but a realistic cost/benefit analysis going forward (forget as a whole because it's too late for this to ever be worth nearly what it has already cost us) could go a long way to determining that.

[tonorator]

no politician wants to say he made a mistake. especially when voting for a war. given obama's sentiment already registering so well that we never should have went in, mccain doesn't want to bolster that anymore by admitting he was wrong. he is holding onto his take on the surge, which obama disagreed with, but yet seems to have had some success (although i don't know what success looks like in iraq anymore).

 

mccain is also already saying that washington has changed him and his party, which is a pretty bold thing to say given how so many are upset with washington. obama has furtile ground to plow here by representing a new, younger voice.

[tonorator]

agree on the quality of the debate. i thought it was outstanding compared to prior years.

 

now if mccain will just conjure up the ability to actually look at obama.

[Duchess Jack]

I think Obama missed a good chance to make a quality point...

 

McCain said something like... "If it were up to you we'd have left Iraq six months ago"

 

to which Obama could have answered "and we wouldn't have the war's drain on the economy for the last six months and with changed focus we might have been able to head off our economic problems earlier"

[moneymakers]

War was right thing to do. Obama was wrong.

 

Democracy takes time.

 

7 years is a second on Gods time clock

[WaterMan]

I wonder how long before God floods the world again.

[detlef]

In hopes that this thread lives long enough to spawn an interesting discussion on the topic, I ask that everyone so inclined just agree to disagree with our esteemed colleague moneymakers.

[moneymakers]

Not everyone thinks the war in Iraq was wrong.

That is liberal media shoving that garbage down your throat for the last 7 years.

ever wonder what things would be like if we didnt go?

[whomper]

agree on the quality of the debate. i thought it was outstanding compared to prior years.

 

now if mccain will just conjure up the ability to actually look at obama.

 

 

I have said it on here a few times. I dont know why that bothered me so much but it did. Even when they shook hands Mcain looked the other way. That annoyed the hell out of me

[Sugar Magnolia]

I agree with your statements about the debate. I actually thought McCain did better in the debate than I expected, and actually thought Obama did a lttle worse than I expected.

 

I do think both men are intelligent and are very aware having their state situated next to Canada and across the strait from Russia doesn't provide foreign policy experience, and is very aware we did not have TV and FDR was not our president in 1929.

[isleseeya]

Not everyone thinks the war in Iraq was wrong.

That is liberal media shoving that garbage down your throat for the last 7 years.

ever wonder what things would be like if we didnt go?

 

Yes ..one or two obvious ones jump out

 

Perhaps we could have used more resources , military , and effort to actually catch Obama and try to crush Al Qaeda in a much better way than we have so far

 

Iraq has more terrorists within their borders today then they did before war began

[tonorator]

Perhaps we could have used more resources , military , and effort to actually catch Obama

 

[SEC=UGA]

I have said it on here a few times. I dont know why that bothered me so much but it did. Even when they shook hands Mcain looked the other way. That annoyed the hell out of me

 

But, it didn't annoy you that Obama called McCain "John", while McCain referred to Obama as Senator?

[SEC=UGA]

I'm not sure that admitting the war was wrong is a good tactic for McCain to take. Of course the democrats want to harp on that aspect and Obama did a good job at going back to the ideology of "forget where we are now, we should never have been there. Who cares if I disagree with the surge and said it wouldn't work, we should never have been there. Who cares how were going to get out of Iraq, we should have never been there and thus we need to leave now".

 

It does McCain no good to go back and state that the war was a bad idea. Even if he said it, those who agree are mainly in the Obama Camp and would not vote for McCain even if he introduced legislation to get out of Iraq tomorrow with riders allowing for universal gay marriage, the recognition of abortion as a fundamental right, a windfall tax on oil companies, and free birkenstocks for life to all Americans.

[detlef]

But, it didn't annoy you that Obama called McCain "John", while McCain referred to Obama as Senator?

I thought the massive gaff was actually him getting his name entirely wrong on one occasion and was pretty amazed. Much worse, IMO, than McCain stumbling over the name of the current (and rather new) head of Pakistan. Considering how calculated those guys are... It was kind of a slap in the face IMO.

 

To be honest, considering that they are at the same "rank" if you will, I don't see any problem with them using first names, even in a debate. Perhaps there's some protocol against that but it didn't bother me.

[SEC=UGA]

I thought the massive gaff was actually him getting his name entirely wrong on one occasion and was pretty amazed. Much worse, IMO, than McCain stumbling over the name of the current (and rather new) head of Pakistan. Considering how calculated those guys are... It was kind of a slap in the face IMO.

 

To be honest, considering that they are at the same "rank" if you will, I don't see any problem with them using first names, even in a debate. Perhaps there's some protocol against that but it didn't bother me.

 

They both had some pretty memorable gaffes; "I too have a bracelet of a fallen soldier, one.... Oh, hell, what was that kids name, hey Michelle... You know that crazy white woman that gave me a bracelet with her son's name on it... No, not that Sheehan chick, that other woman, Joker, Johak, Jobek, yeah that's it, Jobek, do you rememeber the kids name and rank and stuff, I'm dying up here".

 

McCain, couldn't remeber names of people and a few times he was speaking of Pakistan and was referring to it as Afghanistan and vice-versa.

 

That and it was the most boring debate I've seen in a while, McCain sounded flat... and my god if he said one more thing about Obama's $973 million in ear mark spending, I was going to stick him in a bamboo cage in a river somewhere....

[whomper]

But, it didn't annoy you that Obama called McCain "John", while McCain referred to Obama as Senator?

 

 

I noticed that too to be honest with you. More of a gray area there. Certainly can see your point though. Obama mixed it up though. He didnt call him John every time. Mcain made a concentrated effort to not look at him. It was weak

[budlitebrad]

My biggest concern about Obama being elected is what will happen to comedy and satire in the mainstream media. He's a goofy looking black guy with a funny name, big ears, acts white, his supporters think he's the The One, etc. and so far no one is allowed to make fun of him.

[whomper]

My biggest concern about Obama being elected is what will happen to comedy and satire in the mainstream media. He's a goofy looking black guy with a funny name, big ears, acts white, his supporters think he's the The One, etc. and so far no one is allowed to make fun of him.

 

 

The Chris Rock special was pretty funny. He jabs him a little and he goes after his wife bigtime. Good stuff. He said the problem with Obama winning is a black first lady because they wont take a back seat. Then he imitated the white first lady. Funny stuff

Edited September 29, 2008 by whomper

[detlef]

I'm not sure that admitting the war was wrong is a good tactic for McCain to take. Of course the democrats want to harp on that aspect and Obama did a good job at going back to the ideology of "forget where we are now, we should never have been there. Who cares if I disagree with the surge and said it wouldn't work, we should never have been there. Who cares how were going to get out of Iraq, we should have never been there and thus we need to leave now".

 

It does McCain no good to go back and state that the war was a bad idea. Even if he said it, those who agree are mainly in the Obama Camp and would not vote for McCain even if he introduced legislation to get out of Iraq tomorrow with riders allowing for universal gay marriage, the recognition of abortion as a fundamental right, a windfall tax on oil companies, and free birkenstocks for life to all Americans.

See, I'm not so quick to believe this. I understand that there's plenty who are damned glad we went there and have no problems with how long it takes us to get the job done. Certainly there are those on the other side who think we never should have gone and should leave in the morning. Those are the camps that have no chance at all of voting the other way.

 

I'm talking about the middle. Those of us who were against it but are open to hearing about how we're close enough now that sticking it out just a bit longer will at least salvage something out of a horrible mistake. Those would be the moderated dems. On the other hand, there's the moderate GOP who might have been down based on what they were told by Bush but have since soured on the whole mess due to the fact that the guys telling us how it was going to go down grossly miscalculated nearly everything they promised. I would hope that these people are also capable of understanding cost/benefit and would like to be given the straight dope.

 

My point is, that if McCain just adopts "stay the course" then he runs the risk of getting lumped in with Bush, as a guy who insists on pretending that there weren't massive screw-ups with this occupation from the outset. I think that could damage his credibility.

 

I just know far too many basically conservative people who are totally pissed off about how this war went and might be swayed to hang in there and not vote for a guy who's prepared to cut bait if the sell includes some apology, if you will, for how things were handled at the outset.

[SEC=UGA]

See, I'm not so quick to believe this. I understand that there's plenty who are damned glad we went there and have no problems with how long it takes us to get the job done. Certainly there are those on the other side who think we never should have gone and should leave in the morning. Those are the camps that have no chance at all of voting the other way.

 

I'm talking about the middle. Those of us who were against it but are open to hearing about how we're close enough now that sticking it out just a bit longer will at least salvage something out of a horrible mistake. Those would be the moderated dems. On the other hand, there's the moderate GOP who might have been down based on what they were told by Bush but have since soured on the whole mess due to the fact that the guys telling us how it was going to go down grossly miscalculated nearly everything they promised. I would hope that these people are also capable of understanding cost/benefit and would like to be given the straight dope.

 

My point is, that if McCain just adopts "stay the course" then he runs the risk of getting lumped in with Bush, as a guy who insists on pretending that there weren't massive screw-ups with this occupation from the outset. I think that could damage his credibility.

 

I just know far too many basically conservative people who are totally pissed off about how this war went and might be swayed to hang in there and not vote for a guy who's prepared to cut bait if the sell includes some apology, if you will, for how things were handled at the outset.

 

I understand your point. I do believe, however, on a number of occasions that McC has admitted that the initial strategy was flawed, that mistakes had been made and that we needed to change the course in Iraq. And I do believe that he is correct in that estimate.

 

But for him to come out and state that we were wrong for going into Iraq in the first place is a big step. He would have to pull the same line that the democrats have been trumpeting, one which i truly believe is false, that Bush lied and that vicariously, the Republicans as a whole lied and decieved the country in a most blatant and purposeful fashion. Him, being a Republican, would then have to go down with that ship. Or, he would have to pull one of these maneuvers, "well, at the time we did not know that the information was fabricated" a statement on to which the media would jump and hammer home the point of the Republicans being out of touch and uninformed in their decision making. If he conceeds that going into Iraq was wrong and that he should not have voted for it, the media will skewer him. It's best for him to let it rest and begin to stipulate that we have fixed the problems, the government is making progress, and that there will be a phased withhdrawal that will be planned out by the Iraqi government in concert with the generals on the ground in Iraq. He can not begin making arbitray timelines for withdrawal based on political expedience.

Edited September 29, 2008 by SEC=UGA

[detlef]

I understand your point. I do believe, however, on a number of occasions that McC has admitted that the initial strategy was flawed, that mistakes had been made and that we needed to change the course in Iraq. And I do believe that he is correct in that estimate.

 

But for him to come out and state that we were wrong for going into Iraq in the first place is a big step. He would have to pull the same line that the democrats have been trumpeting, one which i truly believe is false, that Bush lied and that vicariously, the Republicans as a whole lied and decieved the country in a most blatant and purposeful fashion. Him, being a Republican, would then have to go down with that ship. Or, he would have to pull one of these maneuvers, "well, at the time we did not know that the information was fabricated" a statement on to which the media would jump and hammer home the point of the Republicans being out of touch and uninformed in their decision making. If he conceeds that going into Iraq was wrong and that he should not have voted for it, the media will skewer him. It's best for him to let it rest and begin to stipulate that we have fixed the problems, the government is making progress, and that there will be a phased withhdrawal that will be planned out by the Iraqi government in concert with the generals on the ground in Iraq. He can not begin making arbitray timelines for withdrawal based on political expedience.

Good points to be sure.

 

Certainly saying Bush lied would be suicide. I'd imagine you're also correct that he needs to tread lightly with the degree to which he agrees how many mistakes were made either in preparation and execution. I suppose my point is that he'd better at least be sure to throw those who are fed up with the war a bone if he wants them to take him seriously. Because anyone left of Moneymakers has to at very least be pissed off with a number of screw-ups surrounding this thing.

[Atlanta Cracker]

Apparently McCain admitting that going into Iraq in the first place was a bad idea would be the same as Obama admitting he was wrong for voting against the troop surge.

 

What concerned me far more than anything else is that neither of them had any grasp, comprehension, or explanation about the current financial crisis and what needs to be done and how this affects everyone. It was merely political mumbo jumbo. I want their take on exactly what they think should happen, not just sitting back and waiting for things to spiral out of control so that they can say "hey that wasn't my idea." Tax cuts for the middle class and earmarks won't mean poopye if things get too messy.