Explain the likely US presidential candidates

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I think the degree of movement is exagerrated - McCain, for ex, though he doenst speak in favor of Roe anymore, has been part of the centrist group of Senators on SCOTUS nominations, and thats the practical aspect of the abortion issue right now.

Similarly, despite the assertion that he went hawkish for political reasons, I think hes been fairly consistent on that since before 2000.

The fact is centrist candidates like Clinton, Biden, and McCain (and yup, I know McCain is pretty far right of Clinton and Biden) will always be accused of waffling. Oddly by some of the same people who demand they waffle more (see Clinton and her vote on the war, forex).

I agree re: McCain's hawkishness... he's always been one. On that he's been consistent. On the moral/social issues he's spent some time trying woo the RR nutbags, but I do cut him some slack there.

As for flip-flopping - agreed. Any centrist (which is what I want) will be branded with that. It's unfortunate that it sticks.

Anyway, my basic point is that you can't always trust what the candidate is saying (that's probably an understatement, dontcha think?). They've got to try to be everything to everybody (post-primary), because the parties are big tents and they've got to manage to get 50% of the vote, or thereabouts (EC and all that). Voting record is better, but has its own pitfalls, particularly if a candidate has a long history.

And, of course, in the end they're all lying bastards anyway.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Wrong. See the Iraq De-Escalation Act that he recently introduced. His plan starts withdrawal in a few months, with most combat troops gone by March of next year (and if certain benchmarks are met, with Congress' consent, the President can reverse the de-escalation).

WTF? We should withdraw our troops cause theyre allegedly making the situation worse, and then if withdrawl actually makes things better, the president can send the troops back in? To make things worse? He may be smart at Con Law, but it doesnt sound like hes though through his strategic assumptions. Hillary might let that one go (since she definitely doesnt want to talk about Iraq) but McCain wont.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I agree re: McCain's hawkishness... he's always been one. On that he's been consistent. On the moral/social issues he's spent some time trying woo the RR nutbags, but I do cut him some slack there.

As for flip-flopping - agreed. Any centrist (which is what I want) will be branded with that. It's unfortunate that it sticks.

Anyway, my basic point is that you can't always trust what the candidate is saying (that's probably an understatement, dontcha think?). They've got to try to be everything to everybody (post-primary), because the parties are big tents and they've got to manage to get 50% of the vote, or thereabouts (EC and all that). Voting record is better, but has its own pitfalls, particularly if a candidate has a long history.

And, of course, in the end they're all lying bastards anyway.

-Arrian

I dont know that they really lie any more than anyone else who has to sell something to the public. Look we all want pols to be honest - we want them to HONESTLY say the things WE believe in. If they HONESTLY say the things we dont, well, so much for honety. They are what we make them.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by VJ
Thanks for telling me that, but I already know that now, Kuci educated me about US college rankings through PM's

Sorry. I hadn't read through the entire thread when I posted that.

Maybe it's not well known outside of the U.S., but we have some excellent public universities. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, University of Texas-Austin, University of Califronia (both at Berkely and L.A.), Universty of Virginia, William & Mary, and UNC-Chapel Hill are regarded as some of the top schools in the country.

To the topic at hand:

The Republican candidate is completely up in the air. As Ramo stated, all of the major candidates have some significant weak points. I can't see McCain winning, and I think that Guiliani's social positions will scare off the religious right. Mitt Romney doesn't look much better than Guiliani in that respect. Maybe a second tier candidate like Tancredo or Huckabee will do surprisingly well in the early primaries and change the dynamic.

The Democratic ticket seems more clear than the Republicans, but is still very muddy. Clinton and Obama
are the clear front runners. Everything could change if Al Gore decides to enter the race.

[Ramo]

WTF? We should withdraw our troops cause theyre allegedly making the situation worse, and then if withdrawl actually makes things better, the president can send the troops back in? To make things worse? He may be smart at Con Law, but it doesnt sound like hes though through his strategic assumptions. Hillary might let that one go (since she definitely doesnt want to talk about Iraq) but McCain wont.

Just because our presence may be a destabilizing force now, doesn't insure that it will be so for the entirety of the next year. The intent here is that you give some flexibility to the situation on the ground, and you give Maliki incentives to get an equitable national oil law, moderate the de-Ba'athification, and clamp down on the Mahdi Army and Badr Corps.

Obviously, I don't know if it's the best course, but nothing else looks particularly appealing. Least of all, Biden's. I'd definitely prefer escalation to partition...

[Jon Miller]

My issue with McCain, and a lot of people in the Senate currently, is that they voted against mine and other's rights to a trial.

JM

[lord of the mark]

If the issue is Malikis behavior, wouldnt it be preferable to establish the benchmarks first, and then not withdraw at all if the benchmarks are met? Why promise an automatic withdrawl if your focus is benchmarks? Is it because otherwise you look too much like Hilary and dont appeal to the antiwar folks who are especially attracted to you (IE Obama)?

[lord of the mark]

"The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues"

Doesnt sound much like partition to me.

[Ramo]

Hmm... I hadn't heard the oil revenue part. Apparently, he wants to guarantee the Sunnis 20% in the Constitution. I suppose that's not a bad plan then. Though, it may be a demographic problem as with Lebanon in a couple decades...

If the issue is Malikis behavior, wouldnt it be preferable to establish the benchmarks first, and then not withdraw at all if the benchmarks are met? Why promise an automatic withdrawl if your focus is benchmarks? Is it because otherwise you look too much like Hilary and dont appeal to the antiwar folks who are especially attracted to you (IE Obama)?

It's a dual focus. I see the benchmarks primarily as a stick for Maliki to get his act in order, with the recognition that US troops are a destabilizing force in the long term.

I wasn't aware that Hillary has put forth a plan mandating benchmarks, though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Hmm... I hadn't heard the oil revenue part. Apparently, he wants to guarantee the Sunnis 20% in the Constitution. I suppose that's not a bad plan then. Though, it may be a demographic problem as with Lebanon in a couple decades...



It's a dual focus. I see the benchmarks primarily as a stick for Maliki to get his act in order, with the recognition that US troops are a destabilizing force in the long term.

I wasn't aware that Hillary has put forth a plan mandating benchmarks, though.

http://www.votehillary.org/CMS/node/504

And I dont understand what you mean by dual focus. IF US troops are not a destabilizing force in 12 months, after Maliki has made necessary changes, why would they be a destabilizing force if Maliki made those changes tomorrow? Surely tomorrow isnt MORE long term than 12 months from now is? I think even the current admin doesnt envision a large scale US troop presence doing anything other than train and equip after say, 30 months from now (certainly Casey didnt, and I havent heard that Petraeus does)

[Ramo]

If Maliki made these changes, presumably the violence would start to die down, and everyone involved would want to start redeploying troops not much later.

I don't understand why you like Hillary's position, but don't think Obama's makes any strategic sense. Obama wants to wait until May till starting to act on benchmarks, while Hillary wants to wait until some undefined time (her inauguration?) till acting on benchmarks.

[lord of the mark]

First im not delighted with Hillary's position. I am more interested in what these would be presidents intend to do after they are inaugurated, in January 2009.

Second, Hillary at least allows for flexibility depending not only on benchmarks, but on the actual security situation, etc. Which I think is a more appropriate POV.

Third, I was simply asking about apparent contradictions in Obamas plan, as youve explained it.

Again, if Maliki doing the right things requires fewer troops, then I dont see why Obama would suggest putting in MORE troops after Maliki does the right things AFTER a withdrawl. It makes no sense. It seems to me that Obama simply wants to be able to sound more definite about an imminent withdrawl than Hillary does. That makes emminent sense - in terms of US domestic politics.

Im also not sure that Malike taking the right steps will automatically improve the security situation in Iraq - it will make it easier to improve, but seeing as both much (most?) of the Sunni insurgency and major elements of the Shia militias are not motivated by getting a fair deal on these issues, they will still need to be beaten militarily. I see the political and military strategies as mutually reinforcing, not as opposed alternatives.


I also not thats its now, in the midst of the surge, that an oil deal seems to have been reached.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_oil_law

I havent yet seen the details however.

[Elok]

Originally posted by VJ
But why he's considered for President is beyond me. Oh wait, no it isn't. A black guy made a succesful big-government praising speech in 2004 DNC, so he became the man to support for Democrats trying to prove themselves that they aren't racists.

It's just hilarious to see how his supporters are presuming already that if he loses, it's because he's black. Does one really think the journalists in NYC would've pushed Obama for the cover of both Time and Newsweek as a presidential candidate before he himself announced his candidacy (and over 2 years before the actual elections are going to be held) if he would be an old white guy? If he would be an old white guy, we wouldn't be talking about him right now.

Hopefully that will cure your amnesia, VJ...oh, and I didn't have any "badly hidden insults" there. I used direct insults or gave my honest opinion. If I'd wanted to use badly hidden insults, I would have quoted your first reply and commented, "This is an excellent example of why we in America think Europeans are odious douchebags. Note the assumption that, since my opinion agrees with media accounts he's run into, I must be blindly swallowing whatever the media feeds me. He's vicious that way because, like most Europeans, he's got VD from the hookers in Amsterdam and the chancres make him mean. Also, he resents us for saving his people from Hitler."

Oh, and then I'd act shocked at your incivility when you objected. But you know me, I'm an American. I'm not subtle like you.

[Guynemer]

I'd love to see Richardson get the Dem nom, but it's awfully hard to see anyone but Clinton or Obama (or possibly Edwards) getting enough cash to make a run.

[RGBVideo]

I'm arguing against your positively asinine remarks on race, you tool

If you think those remarks are asinine, then that's your right. Normal people would've just noticed that they're asinine remarks on Time magazine editors, not asinine remarks on race.

I've tried to be reasonable and polite with your continous insults and surreal tangents, but quite frankly Elok, you are a ****ing racist idiot for not seeing the difference. What's astonishing is that you still haven't breathed deep and taken a look of who made presuppositions about what, instead choosing to endlessly continue this surreal and abortive threadjack.