5 Reasons to hate on Mccain's VP choice

[Spensed]

I know McCainites don't like this source, but it is only conveying what two local Alaska papers are saying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-top-alaska-newspapers-q_b_122625.html

Here are excerpts from the editorials in the two leading papers.

From the Daily News-Miner in Fairbanks:

Sen. John McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate was a stunning decision that should make Alaskans proud, even while we wonder about the actual merits of the choice.... Alaskans and Americans must ask, though, whether she should become vice president and, more importantly, be placed first in line to become president.

In fact, as the governor herself acknowledged in her acceptance speech, she never set out to be involved in public affairs. She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Republicans rightfully have criticized the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, for his lack of experience, but Palin is a neophyte in comparison; how will Republicans reconcile the criticism of Obama with the obligatory cheering for Palin?

Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation's when he created the possibility that she might fill it.

And from the Anchorage Daily News:

It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be heartbeat away from the presidency. Gov. Palin is a classic Alaska story. She is an example of the opportunity our state offers to those with talent, initiative and determination...

McCain picked Palin despite a recent blemish on her ethically pure resume. While she was governor, members of her family and staff tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers. Her public safety commissioner would not do so; she forced him out, supposedly for other reasons. While she runs for vice-president, the Legislature has an investigator on the case.

For all those advantages, Palin joins the ticket with one huge weakness: She's a total beginner on national and international issues.

Gov. Palin will have to spend the next two months convincing Americans that she's ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency....

 

[Kulindahr]

On the subject of Russia in particular McCain is a largely respected voice and in reality what McCain wants to do in Iraq is make sure that when troops are withdrawn the country doesn't implode and that is smart foreign policy. If you believe the US reputation has been damaged by going into Iraq that's nothing compared to the damage that'll be done if you get the withdrawal wrong.

On the subject of Russia McCain is an old codger who isn't in touch with reality. He's full of rhetoric and bluster, and doesn't realize it's just noise.
Putin has Europe by the balls, since he controls their oil, and there's not a bloody thing the U.S. can actually do that will bother Russia. So sounding tough is just... sound.

My point was that going to Iraq doesn't give him any understanding of the area or situation nor has it helped make his position clearer. He didn't spend anywhere near enough time in Iraq (or the Middle East as a whole) to even come close to scratching the surface of the problems in the region. The argument that he's been there, he knows is beyond flawed.

It has nothing to do with him not grasping the severity of the situation and more with him having no grasp on the politics and issues in the region as a whole or how to solve them. Everyone and anyone should be able to see how serious the issues are Obama just hasn't demonstrated any clear understanding of the problems or their solutions.

I don't really see why we should care whether our next president has any understanding of the area, or grasps the politics and issues in the region. After all, our current president and his team started the mess in Iraq ignorant of all those things.

 

[robertstar]

Marley, it is clear that Robertstar advocates illegal invasions of other countries that did not attack or provoke us, and further advocates occupying their land, regardless of their wishes. All in the sake of "winning" and showing your Example by Use of Force, as Bill Clinton made reference to the other night. If he was so adamant about this occupation, I really am not sure why at 22 years of age, he is not serving in Iraq, since this is such an important, vital cause that he staunchly believes him. As is the case of the chickenhawks in the States.

I have taken several stabs at writing my response to this (which is why its taken so long) because there are certain elements of my life that I have no interest in discussing or using in a discussion of this ilk. However there are so many elements of the comments quoted above that frankly infuriate me that the only way to effectively explain why is to put them into the correct context. As a general rule though I don’t discuss it and prefer people know nothing about it.

I come from a military family, my father and my grandfathers on both sides of my family served as did their fathers. When I was 17 I made the decision to follow in their footsteps and join the army, it was 2003 when I signed up so I was fully aware of what I was getting into. Not long after I turned 18 I was deployed in Afghanistan where I spent a combined total of 18-months. During my time in Afghanistan I made and lost friends. After leaving Afghanistan I was redeployed to Iraq and spent just under 6-months in the country and once again during that time I both made and lost friends. It was during my fifth month in Iraq that I suffered injuries to both my legs and my back, injuries that ultimately have led to me being discharged on medical grounds. Since that time I have made significant progress and find myself in much better shape than many of the people I have come into contact with and needless to say I am obviously still alive.

Personally I do not believe that my personal experiences or story have any relevance to this discussion, I do not believe that to support staying in Iraq you must be in Iraq partly because I see no logic in that argument. I see no logic in it because for that theory to be true the opposite must also be true, how can you make a true analyse of the situation of Iraq if you aren’t there? How can you understand the situation on the ground if you aren’t there living it everyday? I don’t believe you have to be there to decide we should withdraw and I don’t believe you have to be there to decide we should stay.

As it stands I don’t particularly enjoy discussing my time in Afghanistan or Iraq, not because I am bitter or angry about my time spent in either country but because they don’t hold particularly good memories for me and I find that when I do discuss them people’s reaction to anything I say or do is completely different. People will, in my experience, now look back on everything I have said in this thread and others and apply new meaning to it all and this is wrong. Or more irritatingly people assume that by mentioning my service I am somehow trying to lord some kind of expertise over them, which is not the case. In truth it couldn’t be further from the truth. I spent five and half months in Iraq, I met the people, saw parts of the country the media and visiting politician don’t see and I trained alongside the Iraqi army and still I’m far removed from being an expert on the troubles or politics of the region. The situation is beyond complex so assuming that anyone who’s spent a couple of hours looking into can even scratch the surface of the problems is beyond naïve.

However what truly irritates me about the post quoted above is in fact the first two sentences.

Marley, it is clear that Robertstar advocates illegal invasions of other countries that did not attack or provoke us, and further advocates occupying their land, regardless of their wishes. All in the sake of "winning" and showing your Example by Use of Force, as Bill Clinton made reference to the other night.

I generally struggle to put into words how much I hate the concepts at work in those sentences and I cannot stand people that come out with this crap. It doesn’t help that the people that make these kind of statements are the same ones who buy into this ‘support the troops but not the message’ bullshit. And that’s what it is. There is an endless list of people who have sacrificed their lives, their health and their families for the mission you’re telling me you don’t support. Telling those people and their families that the mission they’ve sacrificed so much for is meaningless, wrong and in reality not important at all is not supporting the troops.

I’ve also had more than enough of hearing this stupid ‘illegal war’ line.

Here’s a news flash for you, somebody believing that a withdrawal from Iraq, right now is not the way to go does not equate to supporting an illegal war nor does it equate to supporting the reasons given for going into Iraq. The time for debate about why we went in to Iraq and whether it was legitimate has long since passed or is some way off yet and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should still be there now. The reasons for going in are irrelevant in the decision to stay or go.

You don’t walk into someone’s house smash vases, cover it in graffiti and start a few small fires and then slowly back out leaving them to clean it all up themselves. In that analogy the reason you went into the house in the first place is irrelevant and the same is true for Iraq. Why we went in doesn’t matter anymore, we’re there, we’ve fucked the country up in a massive way and it is now our responsibility to (at the very least) help fix the problems we’ve caused and leaving before we’ve done that is wrong. And that’s what Obama is proposing right now, he wants to get us the hell out of there and leave the Iraqis to clean up the mess that we’ve helped make. And that for the record is another reason why America’s reputation will go down the toilet even further if the withdrawal of troops is handled and timed poorly.

I don’t support staying in Iraq because I passionately believe in the reasons we went there in the first place, I support staying in Iraq because I believe leaving now would be massively irresponsible. I also believe that if we leave now there is a very real possibility that the country would implode and that would mean we ever pretend the problems don’t exist after we’ve left or we have to go back in and start from square one. There’s a (very) mistaken belief that the troop surge has worked, it hasn’t it is working. It is a on going process, the problems and the insurgent troops still exist and frankly I’m not convinced that the Iraqi army will be in any position to fight them by themselves if the increased and highly organised US presence leaves.

I have previously said that I hate the ‘until the jobs done’ line and I do but in very base terms its right.

We should be staying in Iraq until one of two things happen, one the insurgent forces are defeated (never going to happen) or the Iraqi army is ready to completely take over from both UK and US forces. There should be no discussion or timetable for withdrawal until one or both of those conditions have been met. Planning a withdrawal in the hope that Iraq will be ready to fend for itself is hugely irresponsible and incredibly dangerous. Conditions on the ground have to dictate what happens not just in Iraq but any war zone and Obama has no interest in paying any attention to the conditions on the ground. He’s walking into the Oval office with his timetable and he’s sticking to it, conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders be damned.

This ‘illegal war’ argument is such a narrow minded and completely false argument, particularly when the discussion is not even remotely connected to why we went into Iraq but whether or not we should leave.

What however I find massively hypocritical and insulting about Democrats who use this ‘illegal war’ line and the ‘we can’t afford this war’ line and other crap like that is that not only did the vast majority of them vote for this ‘illegal war’ they’ve passed every single funding bill for Iraq. You want to blame Bush and the Republicans for Iraq and its out of control cost? What have you been for the past two-years? Bush’s puppets incapable of independent thought? The Democrats are doing exactly what they did before the midterms, talking big and making promises but when did they start delivering on any of those promises? They didn’t.

As I’ve said previously the last two-years of Bush’s legacy also belong to the Democrats its time people faced up to that.

 

[robertstar]

Yes you can. I've already replied to this point. Obama has a laudable legislative track record in his seven years in the Illinois Senate and three years plus in the Senate. Palin has no record to speak of other than the spin that she's done great things in one and a half years in Alaska. What great things that are relevant to her being Vice-President? She's on record as saying she doesn't know what the Vice-President even does.

So to be clear you believe people should vote for Obama because he was part of a corrupt local Government? You believe his experience in local Government makes him a viable option as President? Because when you take away the time he's been on the campaign trail his time in the Senate is equal to Palin's time as Governor if not less. And once again the comparison is skewed because Palin isn't running for President, she doesn't need comparable experience to Obama.

As per my previous comment, you're just swallowing the pre-packaged spin. What is the very good job she's done that would have qualified her for this nomination if she were a man?

I believe she would be a good choice woman or man because I have no interest in listening to the short sighted Democratic spin of ‘they’re trying to win Hilary’s vote’. And not just because its hugely insulting to assume that women are the exclusive property of Hilary Clinton. I don’t believe she’s a good choice for the McCain ticket because she’s a woman, I believe she’s a good choice because she’s young and because she (unlike Obama and Biden and McCain) has a history of actually effecting change. She brought down the party regime in Alaska because it was corrupt, that’s why she’s a good choice.

Of course you can. It's a well known and effective negotiating technique as in, for example, Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis.

You can use carrot and the stick when you have balance, Obama has no balance. Kennedy was aware of and understood that balance, Obama does not seem to.

As I said, Obama, as a intellectual, is overly defensive about not being seen as too weak, which is McCain's propaganda. But that doesn't mean Obama's foreign policy proposal aren't intelligent. They seem rather obviously so:

And his policy would be fine if he could be consistent with them and had any kind of balance with them. He doesn't. His AIPAC speech completely blew his stance on Iran out of the water because rather than actually stick to his guns and explain why his position was right he toughened the message up and told people what he thought they wanted to hear.

That's because you haven't bothered to check your facts before you assert them. In his most recent Iraq positioning, McCain has been aping Obama.

Or in fact he hasn't.

Claiming that he would like troops to be home by the time his first term is done is not the same as setting a time table and promising to bring them home regardless. McCain has been incredibly consistent on his stance that conditions and commanders on the ground must decide when/if troops come back.

If you take Bush's Iraq strategies and action in relation to the military, which McCain has endorsed, those are false beliefs and hopes about McCain. Bush has used the military as a shill, when it suits his purposes and just replaced people or ignored them, when they don't provide him with cover for what he wants. I'm sure McCain can be relied on to do likewise.

And I disagree with that analyse when it comes to McCain.

Try using your commonsense. Obama is a very educated and intelligent man. He's picked Biden to help give him foreign expertise credentials and then, once in office, he's going to have a foreign policy that ignores Biden and the many other foreign policy adviser and expects he'll have at this disposal. And Biden's going to go along with this. I don't think so.

And one more time, does anyone on this board know without doubt and without question what role Biden will play in an Obama admistration? Does anybody here know how much sway Biden actually has over Obama? And if Democrats believed Biden was the man to be making these decisions why didn't they vote for him? Also lets not forget that the Democrats and Obama have been telling us endlessly how experience is a false argument and that Obama's ideas are right, so why, if they truly believe this do they need Biden on the ticket? The answer is to get Obama elected and that isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

On the subject of Russia McCain is an old codger who isn't in touch with reality. He's full of rhetoric and bluster, and doesn't realize it's just noise.
Putin has Europe by the balls, since he controls their oil, and there's not a bloody thing the U.S. can actually do that will bother Russia. So sounding tough is just... sound.

Your analysis of the situation is flawed and somewhat contradictory.

Firstly the assertion that America has no power when it comes to stopping or ‘bothering’ Russia is wrong. A brief assessment of recent Russian history highlights the lie in that statement as does a limited understanding of the situation in Georgia and why it actually happened. More importantly than this is the fact that the reason you apparently dislike/discredit McCain’s stance on Russia is the exact same reason why Obama’s diplomatic route would never work.

If America has nothing to take away from or give Russia how do you suppose a diplomatic route would work? America would walk into talks with Russia with absolutely no power or leverage, which would ultimately mean that Obama’s stance on Russia becomes, give them whatever the hell they want! However as I said, America has leverage over Russia, which is why McCain’s tougher stance on Russia is important. Russia has to be aware of the fact that America (and the rest of the world) is watching and will take action if necessary.

There are many very real reasons to be unsure of McCain’s position on Russia, realistically America’s military power is so stretched that a conflict with Russia (even a repeat of the Cold War) could be incredibly risky. Ultimately though, on balance, I feel McCain’s stand on Russia is the way to go and will ultimately be more effective than Obama’s.

I don't really see why we should care whether our next president has any understanding of the area, or grasps the politics and issues in the region. After all, our current president and his team started the mess in Iraq ignorant of all those things.

Please tell me this was a failed attempt at sarcasm...

 

[Spensed]

So to be clear you believe people should vote for Obama because he was part of a corrupt local Government? You believe his experience in local Government makes him a viable option as President? Because when you take away the time he's been on the campaign trail his time in the Senate is equal to Palin's time as Governor if not less. And once again the comparison is skewed because Palin isn't running for President, she doesn't need comparable experience to Obama.

You haven't bothered to check the links on Obama's legislative record, including his pro-gay votes.

Of course, the comparison between Obama and Palin is relevent. She's a heartbeat away from the position, he's competing for. Just because she's a stand-in, doesn't mean she doesn't need to know her lines.

She brought down the party regime in Alaska because it was corrupt, that’s why she’s a good choice.

Bringing down a corrupt party regime in Alaska is the best and only thing you can claim for her. And then you have to ignore that she did this purely to advance herself and appears to do many of the same things she supposedly objects to. She has no claims to any national expertise, although Cindy McCain has said Palin knows about foreign affairs because Alaska is near Russia.

Even the papers in Alaska, who are pleased to see her nominated, get that her expertise is non existant and isn't why she was picked.

Plus presumably you have no problem with her opposing healthcare for gay couples? Don't tell me. You see much more important priorities.

You can use carrot and the stick when you have balance, Obama has no balance. Kennedy was aware of and understood that balance, Obama does not seem to.

Balance? Who sez? You're just making it up as you go along.

McCain has been incredibly consistent on his stance that conditions and commanders on the ground must decide when/if troops come back.

So consistent that he's praised Obama's troop withdrawal timetable:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/26/mccain-offers-praise-for-obamas-troop-withdrawal-timetable/

And one more time, does anyone on this board know without doubt and without question what role Biden will play in an Obama admistration? Does anybody here know how much sway Biden actually has over Obama? And if Democrats believed Biden was the man to be making these decisions why didn't they vote for him? Also lets not forget that the Democrats and Obama have been telling us endlessly how experience is a false argument and that Obama's ideas are right, so why, if they truly believe this do they need Biden on the ticket? The answer is to get Obama elected and that isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

You're just repeating yourself. It's not even just about Biden. As Obama's call on the Iraq War shows, the idea that Obama has no foreign affairs knowledge or judgment is erroneous. A Republican talking point.

And the idea that, if in office, he would make inexperienced decisions without relying on a battery of state department, foreign affairs and military experts lacks any commonsense. Maybe you're thinking of the incumbent President.

Russia has to be aware of the fact that America (and the rest of the world) is watching and will take action if necessary.

Not my point. but negotiation, economic, trade, incentives and international pressure and the like are the only real tools you have with nuclear powers.

Russia, like China, knows that the US doesn't have the power to force them to do, or refrain from doing, anything unless the stakes are really really high and then only with the most severe consequencies to the US.

The trouble is that McCain, like Bush, doesn't know that. Hence, the bluster instead of meaningful diplomacy.

 

[Lostlover]

Co-sign 100% on what Spense just said.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Isn't JUB great?

We get 113 responses on a "hate" thread.

And so far, what, only 4 on a "positive" thread. ( http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229813)

 

[Spensed]

Bad is always more interesting than good.

Plus most of the hate thread post are more about fear and concern.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Whatever.

You all know that negativity and hate will age you years beyond the normal, right?

 

[Spensed]

^ Are you still talking about John McCain? LOL.

 

[MystikWizard]

^ Are you still talking about John McCain? LOL.

Maybe McCain will Draft him once in office. We'll see how much he loves him, then.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Never said I supported his party.

But I've been betrayed enough times by the other party to consider it......

 

[Spensed]

Never said I supported his party.

But I've been betrayed enough times by the other party to consider it......

Oh get over it. Who hasn't been betrayed. LOL.

 

[kneelin]

So to be clear you believe people should vote for Obama because he was part of a corrupt local Government? You believe his experience in local Government makes him a viable option as President? Because when you take away the time he's been on the campaign trail his time in the Senate is equal to Palin's time as Governor if not less. And once again the comparison is skewed because Palin isn't running for President, she doesn't need comparable experience to Obama.


...

I concur . . . I was about to say the same thing when I came across your post. I too would rather have the inexperience in the VP and not at the head of the ticket
It always amuses me to hear recounts of Obama's time in IL as 'experience . . . that was where he only had the courage to vote "present" much of the time so as not to offend anyone or tarnish his record by taking a real stand.

 

[Spensed]

Isn't what "phobia" is? So homophobes hate out of fear and concern so it's okay.

Oh you'll figure it out. LOL.

 

[robertstar]

You haven't bothered to check the links on Obama's legislative record, including his pro-gay votes.

1 - A Presidential election is not and should not be decided on ‘gay issues’. The truth is that the vast majority of voters don’t really care about Obama’s stand on ‘gay issues’ because it doesn’t effect them. The only people who care are gay men and women (90% of whom will vote Democrat over Republican anyway) and religious voters who are going to be turned off by Obama’s stance on ‘gay issues’

2 - How does his ‘pro-gay vote’ have any bearing on whether or not he is ‘experienced’ enough to be President? And whether or not his time in the Illinois state senate has any real bearing on his Presidential bid?

3 - I honestly don’t care about his pro-gay voting recording.

Of course, the comparison between Obama and Palin is relevent. She's a heartbeat away from the position, he's competing for. Just because she's a stand-in, doesn't mean she doesn't need to know her lines.

Only it isn’t relevant, at least nowhere near as relevant as people want it to be.

She isn’t running for President, just as Joe Biden isn’t running for President to claim that her experience is as important as Obama’s is a skewed argument. She won’t be sworn in as President in January, John McCain or Barack Obama will be. Is it possible she’ll be called to take over as President? Yes but how often has a Vice-President taken over the Presidency during a term? Its astonishingly rare that it happens, so for Democrats to fight this campaign on ‘she might be President’ is a ridiculous argument and incredibly hypocritical of you after the stink that was kicked up when it was suggested during the Primaries that Obama might die in office. It’s also incredibly hypocritical for the Democrats to suddenly argue that Palin doesn’t have enough experience, what was it Bill Clinton said about the experience argument in his convention speech?

If you and the Democratic Party are going to attack Palin for her lack of experience you have to find a much less hypocritical and flawed way of doing it. My suggestion would be to point out the inconsistencies on McCain’s ‘experience is king’ argument, paint the picture that McCain doesn’t know whether he wants experience on his ticket and whether or not its important. To outright attack Palin for her lack of experience when you’ve spent months arguing experience is a false argument isn’t wise.

Bringing down a corrupt party regime in Alaska is the best and only thing you can claim for her. And then you have to ignore that she did this purely to advance herself and appears to do many of the same things she supposedly objects to. She has no claims to any national expertise, although Cindy McCain has said Palin knows about foreign affairs because Alaska is near Russia.

Bringing down a corrupt party regime is hardly a small thing and counters nicely with the argument that as much as Obama talks about change and a new way, he’s just become part of the political regime that he apparently objects to. The concept that Palin was picked purely because she’s a woman is wrong, that may very well have played a part in the decision and it certainly doesn’t hurt her but she’s a strong asset to the ticket because she strengthens the ‘Obama is all talk’ argument the Republicans have been honing. She was picked because she’s a counterpoint to Obama’s message of change and the Republicans need it.

And again coming back to the experience/expertise argument here is a bad move when Obama is the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Plus presumably you have no problem with her opposing healthcare for gay couples? Don't tell me. You see much more important priorities.

1 - There are more important priorities.

2 - I honestly don't care where either ticket stands on 'gay issues'

So consistent that he's praised Obama's troop withdrawal timetable:

From the article you linked

“I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal,” he added, echoing a phrase President Bush used in recent days. “But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.”

McCain has long maintained that conditions on the ground are a key consideration in any withdrawal of American troops. And he has argued that Obama would withdraw troops based on his timetable without regard to conditions in Iraq, although Obama says he would listen to U.S. military commanders about those conditions.

You're just repeating yourself. It's not even just about Biden. As Obama's call on the Iraq War shows, the idea that Obama has no foreign affairs knowledge or judgment is erroneous. A Republican talking point.

I disagree. I thought at the time and I still think that he made the wrong call on Iraq and has continued to make the wrong call.

And the idea that, if in office, he would make inexperienced decisions without relying on a battery of state department, foreign affairs and military experts lacks any commonsense. Maybe you're thinking of the incumbent President.

And here you help highlight the point I’m making.

Before Bush was elected the argument regarding his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge was that he’d be surrounded by experts who’s advice he would listen to, allowing him to make informed decisions. The Republicans went onto surround him with those experts (admittedly not the best ones) and things still spiralled out of control. My point was, is and remains that you can assume that Obama will listen to those around him (and he might) but there is no way to guarantee it will happen and there’s also no way to guarantee that the advice he’s getting is going to be good. Bush is again a case in point on that.

Not my point. but negotiation, economic, trade, incentives and international pressure and the like are the only real tools you have with nuclear powers.

The point you’re missing is that softly, softly doesn’t help use these tools.

Europe and the rest of the world started on the softly, softly approach with Russia and its had no effect. It doesn’t work and it was never going to work, as everyone said when we started down that road. McCain’s tougher stance on Russia works because ultimately that is what’s needed when it comes to dealing with Russia, softly, softly leads to them walking all over those they come into contact with. If you learn nothing from the situation in Georgia learn that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just dropping in to compliment robertstar on a masterful presentation of the case for continuing on in Iraq!

 

[MystikWizard]

Just dropping in to compliment robertstar on a masterful presentation of the case for continuing on in Iraq!

Well, he did say that the most important thing to do is to make sure that the men and women who have lost their lives do not die in vain. Never mind the cause of the War or whether it was right to go in or not. We simply must make sure that the soldiers don't die in vain ... and if there are more lives lost, then oh well. That's too bad.

He also says he was a War Vet of Afghanistan and Iraq ... lost the lives of several fellow soldiers ... and says that he himself lost limbs from the War.

Hmmm. Had a discussion with Marley about this and the only reply I will make at this time, is at least we have people at home in the U.S. that can look at this War from a logical point of view, and remove themselves from the frontlines to make a rational decision about what the outcome should be.

 

[MystikWizard]

Was this comment meant to be facetious, or do you really feel this way? I can't tell.

At times, I have a very facetious writing style. This was one of those times. I was actually mimicking Robertstar's seemingly own mentality towards the War. I have been a very outspoken critic of this Occupation for quite a while now, and the current reckless Foreign Policy that we have, is one of the Key Reasons I switched my Party Affiliation.

 

[Spensed]

1 - A Presidential election is not and should not be decided on ‘gay issues’.

I never said that it should.

2 - How does his ‘pro-gay vote’ have any bearing on whether or not he is ‘experienced’ enough to be President? And whether or not his time in the Illinois state senate has any real bearing on his Presidential bid?

It goes to the issue of Obama's past experience and judgment as a legislator in the area of respecting individual civil rights and the Constitution. Preventing discrimination, government intrusion and such.

3 - I honestly don’t care about his pro-gay voting recording.

Well a pro-gay voting record is a material factor, if you're gay, live in the States and, for example, want to adopt children or not to be fired or denied housing.

So for maybe the one or two other folk reading this, who might care, this is Obama's and McCain's record respectively. Palin, of course, doesn't have a record on this issue other than opposing gay marriage and same sex healthcare benefits:

Obama's pro-gay record in the Senate:

http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRCscorecard2006.pdf

In the Illinois Senate, he sponsored legislation to prevent anti-gay discrimination in employment and housing and spoke out against anti-gay discrimination in, for example, the debate with Alan Keyes.

His more recent record, such as his opposition to the anti-gay marriage initiative is reflected on his campaign website:

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

The website also contains his pro-gay action plan for the future:

http://obama.3cdn.net/795174956a7f432e93_4iiemv52b.pdf

And here, for you to compare and contrast, is McCain's anti-gay record:

http://www.hrc.org/equality08/mccain.htm

FYI:

Many gay Republicans are just Republican about it. Some one else achieved their existing civil rights for them, they're happy with what they have and fuck the gay couple who want to adopt kids.

Some gay Republicans agree with Republicans on other issues and think they can work within the party to get change on gay issues. It's the abused wife syndrome. While it's true that the more educated Republicans don't care about gays and are sympathetic to them, nothing's going to change while the religious right is such a large source of votes.

Many gay Republicans think other issues have a higher priority and see voting for someone because they support gay civil rights as a single issue decision. That's a slightly more benign version of the I'm-OK-And-You're-On-Your-Own attitude. Plus it doesn't factor in that how candidates respond to gay civil rights tells you a lot about how they are going to act in other area. No surprise that McCain shares Bush's punch-first-bring-'en-on foreign policy and will be equally happy to tap your phone.

Many gay Republicans are simply in denial. They keep themselves ignorant of the specifics of the Republican opposition to gays and the Democrats support for them. It's surprising how many gay Republicans have no or little idea of the impact of having an anti-gay majority on the Supreme Court.

Also, on gay issues, many gay Republicans just vote against their own interests. The Republican party is still great at getting people to do that. Look at all the folk who voted for George W. because, if they were ever rich, they wanted to maximize the tax breaks on the wealth they don't have, or because they thought Republicans are still about self-responsibility, small government or whatever or because George W. was good guy to have drink with.

My suggestion would be to point out the inconsistencies on McCain’s ‘experience is king’ argument, paint the picture that McCain doesn’t know whether he wants experience on his ticket and whether or not its important. To outright attack Palin for her lack of experience when you’ve spent months arguing experience is a false argument isn’t wise.

Maybe, if I had "spent months arguing experience is a false argument".

What you say about McCain is true, but it doesn't change the fact that experience is a factor and that Palin has too thin a resume to be President, albeit contingently.

Bringing down a corrupt party regime is hardly a small thing

Especially if it's to install your own equally or more pro-oil and anti-environment regime.

Remind me again what other relevant achievements and experience you're relying on in Parlin's extensive resume.

I don't see any legitimate sources even claiming that for her any more now that people have started to look behind the curtain.

From the article you linked

“I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal,” he added, echoing a phrase President Bush used in recent days. “But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.”

McCain has long maintained that conditions on the ground are a key consideration in any withdrawal of American troops. And he has argued that Obama would withdraw troops based on his timetable without regard to conditions in Iraq, although Obama says he would listen to U.S. military commanders about those conditions.

McCain had previously refused to talk about a timetable. Now he's saying Obama's timetable is "a pretty good idea".

Obviously, McCain then tries to distort Obama's position to his own advantage. But, as the quote concludes, like McCain, "Obama says he would listen to U.S. military commanders about those conditions".

So your point is?

I disagree. I thought at the time and I still think that he made the wrong call on Iraq and has continued to make the wrong call.

Obviously, I respect your opinion, especially if what you say about your own military experience is true.

But the fact remains that, according to the polls, most Americans now believe we should have stayed out of Iraq and now support an orderly withdrawal, some wanting it quicker than others.

That's why McCain had to flip flop on his vision of being in Iraq for 100 years in favor of Obama's timetable.

Before Bush was elected the argument regarding his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge was that he’d be surrounded by experts who’s advice he would listen to, allowing him to make informed decisions. The Republicans went onto surround him with those experts (admittedly not the best ones) and things still spiralled out of control. My point was, is and remains that you can assume that Obama will listen to those around him (and he might) but there is no way to guarantee it will happen and there’s also no way to guarantee that the advice he’s getting is going to be good. Bush is again a case in point on that.

No guarantee. But Obama is a highly intelligent man. And not just another Forrest Gump.

The point you’re missing is that softly, softly doesn’t help use these tools.

Sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't.

It's what Nixon did in easing relations with China.

Everyone knows the US doesn't have the power to make Russia do, or refrain from doing, anything without itself paying a very high price. In that context, you have to use the tools I mentioned. Threats are just empty rhetoric.

Europe and the rest of the world started on the softly, softly approach with Russia and its had no effect. It doesn’t work and it was never going to work, as everyone said when we started down that road. McCain’s tougher stance on Russia works because ultimately that is what’s needed when it comes to dealing with Russia, softly, softly leads to them walking all over those they come into contact with. If you learn nothing from the situation in Georgia learn that.

Yeah, because Bush's aggressive stance and proposed missile installations in Poland really worked for Georgia.