Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Rag's and Sailormon-excellent points in my opinion.

Contrary to what passes for accepted wisdom, Obama has made some important distinctions between himself and Senator Clinton. Distinctions that reflect poorly on Senator Obama when examined. For better or worse, Senator Clinton voted on the war during the time it mattered, at the very start. Senator Obama was not only lucky to get elected but, once in the Senate benefitted from the fact that all the heavy lifting had been done previously and it was now quite the easy path to proclaim one's views based on hind-sight. This hardly makes him a geopolitical philosopher of the first order.

Obama's naivete, which accounts for much of his support among populists, has numerous dangerous elements to it. He has been smart enough to shut up about it of recent. Ideas have consequences. And the consequences to Obama's ideas of sitting down with Iranian and Cuban leadership are well known. The last murderous dictator to take advantage of western naivete so successfully was Yasser Arafat. Arafat was given, by virtue of being openly welcomed by western leaders, a prominence and a validity that were contrary not only to the reality of his leadership but were directly contrary, in execution, to western interests. Arafat was marginalized as a force until the Oslo accords and like agreements elevated him to a stature of statesman. Arafat never had a single statesman-like impulse in his miserable existence.

I see, and most with a sense of world affairs see, absolutely no reason to grant even the smallest measure of respectability to either Castro or Ahmadimijhad (sp) by allowing their meeting with a western leader. If there are to be any type of negotiations, those negotiations must start at far lower levels. Once a serious framework has been developed, and success can be reasonably seen as possible, it may be appropriate for high-level meetings. Reagan did not meet with Gorbachev until after many, many lower level meetings had taken place. The results, compared to earlier "summits", were startlingly different.

Senator Clinton knows that this is how things are accomplished in the diplomatic world. Senator Obama on the other hand is merely whistling the can't we just talk this out tune as if we were merely discussing local zoning ordnances among like minded individuals. That's a dangerous level of naivete. And it will be noted that I've not even gone into his interesting notions of Pakistani sovereignty.

One could examine history and make the case that such immature impulses are at the root of the Democratic tradition of getting the US into shooting wars. Perhaps Senator Obama IS the heir to the Kennedy mantle! Like Kennedy, he is a naif.

[wind_magic]

I've said on a number of occasions that I like Obama, and I do, so it's best I lead with that. However ..

The trouble with the Obama camp, as I see it, is that it really is far left. On the surface it seems to be inclusive and has a message of unity, but really that message is an invitation for everyone to come on over to the far left. I know that during a Democratic primary that is a good thing, it's been demonstrated many times before. Hillary and some of the other old schoolers believe these same sort of things, but they won't go there during an election or even during a primary, even though they know it'll get them a ton of far left votes, because they know what happens during a general election when you hold a platform like that and all those sound bites come back to haunt you. Yes, Obama is scoring points with Democrats, with supporters on the Internet, etc, but that platform has yet to meet the reality of a moderate America. And not even a Republican America, just a moderate middle-of-the-road electorate. The only moderates that Obama's campaign has had to deal with so far is, if I can bring myself to even say it, Hillary, who herself is left of much if not most of America.

Running Obama, and believe me when I say I truly do think he's a great candidate for Democrats to run, running Obama is sort of like if Republicans just up and decided to run a preacher who advocated tearing down abortion clinics, cutting taxes in half on his first day in office, getting rid of welfare, etc. Yes, a lot of Republicans would be going ape sh#t and be chanting the man's name at his fund raising rallies, but that doesn't mean the man's going to win in a general election, it just means he's a rock star for the party faithful.

Many of these lines that Obama is getting cheers for are not going to be so welcome in a general election, and that's not just with Republicans. Combine Republicans with Independents and throw in some moderate Democrats for good measure and you have a challenging electorate for much of Obama's message. I'm not saying any Democrats are going to vote for McCain, but I am saying some Democrats might stay home. Just because a person is a Democrat doesn't mean they believe they should elect just anybody.

Before this election is over Republicans are going to be running a lot of commercials featuring Obama himself saying some really weird stuff. Some will be taken out of context, but most will be true to the spirit in which he meant it, just like McCain's 100 more years in Iraq comment. Some things like that, even though the person is trying to make a point and just gets wrapped up in the excitement a little bit, come back to haunt people. McCain's comment is an obvious example, it is true to what he meant, that we need to stay there, but I'm sure he wishes he'd rephrased that a little bit. Obama has plenty of this stuff floating around out there but Democrats aren't going to use it against one of their own, mostly because Hillary believes a lot of the same things so it would be absurd for her to point it out during a Democratic primary. But it's all out there ...

I'm really glad that Democrats have become so excited about Obama, or at least half of them, because soon Obama is going to leave space and come slamming into the atmosphere of a middle America that is very moderate in it's positions, and Democrats are going to need that good cheer.

[chucklesR]

I'm thinking that at some point during a debate John McCain should look over at Barry and say "will the real Barak Hussein Obama please stand up"

I want to know what he really thinks, not what his advisor's say will get him elected.

Of course that could go both ways on some issues, but then McCain has a much longer record to search for flip flops.

[PorFin]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Every once in a while, a messiah comes along who claims to have the power of original thinking, because he doesn't follow conventional wisdom or conventional rules. On the contrary, he eschews them. Beware of such a person, because it's impossible to predict where he's liable to lead you. More often than not, they don't take you to your happy place.

Reminds me of a fairly famous statement attributed to the Wehrmacht General Staff, which basically said that it was counterproductive to study American military doctrine because the American army a) didn't study it themselves, and b) could almost be relied upon to do something completely different.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by PorFin

Reminds me of a fairly famous statement attributed to the Wehrmacht General Staff, which basically said that it was counterproductive to study American military doctrine because the American army a) didn't study it themselves, and b) could almost be relied upon to do something completely different.

I wonder if this comment was made before or after American upper-rank officers started collecting graduate degrees from some of the most prestigious and, therefore, most corrupt, schools in the nation.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I wonder if this comment was made before or after American upper-rank officers started collecting graduate degrees from some of the most prestigious and, therefore, most corrupt, schools in the nation.

To quote a famous conservative of whom I'm sure most here are familar with

"well.. there you go again"

Prestigious means corrupt?

Why do I bother?

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by PorFin

Reminds me of a fairly famous statement attributed to the Wehrmacht General Staff, which basically said that it was counterproductive to study American military doctrine because the American army a) didn't study it themselves, and b) could almost be relied upon to do something completely different.

Yes, I've heard that quote, and could never decide whether it was intended as a criticism of the American military, or a compliment. Unpredictability is crucial in warfare, but in government, it's not usually a good idea for a President to sneak up on his citizens and surprise them.

[bubb2]

Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
George S. Patton

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by bubb2

Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
George S. Patton

"You can tell me what to do or how to do it, but not BOTH!" - I don't remember the source but it was in a comic situation of a husband talking to his wife.

[bubb2]

It is the silly season, Rush is now saying Hillary is the man.