comment #1

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

You know what's happening?

It's not just that Obama is pivoting to the center (John Kass has the column to read on that here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kasssun_bdjul13,1,4553426.column

The thing is, he knows he really might be president. And so he's looking at what he'll really need in office.

It's fine to attack the phone companies for cooperating with the government, but when you ARE the government and you're going to need their cooperation, you better show them that they won't get screwed for helping you.

It's fine to pretend the surge hasn't accomplished anything and we can just walk away from the middle east when you're a candidate in Numbnutten, New Hampshire, but when you're going to have to sit across the table from the commanders in the field, from the leaders in Europe who'll expect you to lead, from the parties in the middle east who are going to be judging whether you can be rolled, you need to be able to convince them you actually understand what's going on and that they, too, better play ball and won't get screwed if the political winds change.

This is Obama getting ready to lead. The time of pretending that America could do a 180 from the hated Bush years is over. The time for building on them is beginning.

comment #2

Count Thread says ...

Jeff, with all due respect, you're projecting.

This was the *one* thing Obama couldn't give up. The ONE THING. He could throw every position he had in the primary under the bus-- NAFTA, FISA, faith-based initiatives, public financing, gun control, Jeremiah Wright, the threat from Iran, "mental health" abortions, death penalty for child rape. . . on, and on, and on, and he gets a FREE PASS from you and people who think (or don't think) like you.

So, what happens when he abandons his position on Iraq?

Jeff, at which point does it become obvious to you that he doesn't know what he is doing, that he is in over his head, and that there is nothing there but a talent for speechmaking?

You like him on account of his personality. Fine, that is your right. But please admit that's the ONLY reason you like him, Jeff. For no candidate in modern history has so quickly and completely abandoned every major position he took in the primary campaign. And given that the Senator has no political record-- no *past*-- to speak of, his policy changes have left him with nothing to stand on, no appeal beyond "He's not the other guy."

Hillary Clinton must be rolling over in her grave.

Hagiography, Jeff. Not wisdom, not reason-- hagiography.

comment #3

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

"For no candidate in modern history has so quickly and completely abandoned every major position he took in the primary campaign."

He still stands by the idea that diplomacy is important, which is a major reason that I support him. Labeling other countries as "evil" and then refusing to even give them the chance to save face in any way is an extraordinarily counterproductive legacy of Bush. I suspect McCain would be McSame in that regard, or even worse, since he thinks we should have bombed Soviet supply ships in Vietnam.

comment #4

tbbaxter says ...

He hasn't waffled or softened??!! There are AT LEAST three video clips of him proclaiming at various rallies over the past year that, if elected president, he will have all troops out of Iraq in 2009! Now, he says he will check with the commanders on the ground in Iraq before he decides anything. Why didn't he say that from the beginning? Because he was too busy being the most liberal member of Congress until he knew that he would have to move center to win. But that's just one waffle in a whole stack of 'em. Just wait - by September he'll be more conservative than John McCain (which won't be that hard). At the end of the day, Obama is just another politician.

comment #5

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

And why exactly shouldn't we have bombed Soviet supply ships again?

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "It's fine to attack the phone companies for cooperating with the government, but when you ARE the government and you're going to need their cooperation, you better show them that they won't get screwed for helping you."

Obama didn't say he wouldn't hold them accountable, actually. He just didn't have the influence in the Senate to overturn FISA; but he did try to vote for the amendment which wouldn't give the phone companies immunity. I imagine if the courts overturn the bill entirely, he'll openly
support the decision.

"It's fine to pretend the surge hasn't accomplished anything and we can just walk away from the middle east when you're a candidate in Numbnutten, New Hampshire, but when you're going to have to sit across the table from the commanders in the field, from the leaders in Europe who'll expect you to lead, from the parties in the middle east who are going to be judging whether you can be rolled, you need to be able to convince them you actually understand what's going on"

Yes, because a guy who can't even walk out the right door in front of a camera, and a guy who wears a bullet-proof vest in an Iraq market know what's up over there...

"The time of pretending that America could do a 180 from the hated Bush years is over. The time for building on them is beginning."

You're not really getting that there's nothing to build on, from the Bush years, because he tore everything down-from our surplus, to our economic stability, to our military readiness. When even Arnie cites Carter's environmental policies, you know that Dubya will be a footnote, other than in courses on the wrong way to lead.

"And why exactly shouldn't we have bombed Soviet supply ships again?"

I'm guessing for the same reason nuclear war with N. Korea, Vietnam, and China were bad ideas...

Count: "So, what happens when he abandons his position on Iraq?"

If he abandons it, we'll vote him and everyone else out who continues to enable it, until they get the picture. That's all there is to it. Vietnam didn't end with Nixon, either.

"Jeff, at which point does it become obvious to you that he doesn't know what he is doing, that he is in over his head, "

He still knows more than Shrub, and that's all that matters.

"For no candidate in modern history has so quickly and completely abandoned every major position he took in the primary campaign."

You seem to forget about Clinton and Reagan on free health care and no taxes.

"And given that the Senator has no political record-- no *past*-- to speak of, his policy changes have left him with nothing to stand on,"

And Bush had a horrible political record before he stole the Presidency. What's your point?

baxter: "There are AT LEAST three video clips of him proclaiming at various rallies over the past year that, if elected president, he will have all troops out of Iraq in 2009! Now, he says he will check with the commanders on the ground in Iraq before he decides anything."

That's still better than 2013.

comment #7

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

""And why exactly shouldn't we have bombed Soviet supply ships again?""

"I'm guessing for the same reason nuclear war with N. Korea, Vietnam, and China were bad ideas..."

Well, then supplying the guys fighting our troops ought to be a bad idea, too. Leonid, you don't know what Nixon is capable of!

See, that's the problem. If you're worried about how the other guy feels all the time, you're not making HIM worried about how you'll react. And so he takes advantage of you. That's why we need a Reagan or a W every 20 years or so, to scare people.

comment #8

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"You're not really getting that there's nothing to build on, from the Bush years, because he tore everything down-from our surplus, to our economic stability, to our military readiness."

Nation of whiners.

Things are so bad, you can only afford to see The Dark Knight twice in theaters before buying it on Blu-Ray. It's a regular deep-ression!

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

"Well, then supplying the guys fighting our troops ought to be a bad idea, too."

So shouldn't we be cutting ties with the Saudis?

"If you're worried about how the other guy feels all the time, you're not making HIM worried about how you'll react. And so he takes advantage of you. That's why we need a Reagan or a W every 20 years or so, to scare people."

You honestly think no one was worried about Dubya being an idiot or Reagan selling weapons to Osama and Saddam? Or that they didn't take advantage of paranoid people
[anti-black, in Ron's case, anti-gay, in George's case] to get elected?

comment #10

Edward says ...

I want to be clear about something: Because Obama wants to get the troops out of Iraq safely and he'll need to consult with the commanders, that's waffling?

Hope you never have to change your mind and waffle.

comment #11

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

I heard a great thing on NPR today. Some NY Times reporter was getting all hysterical about a massive, well coordinated attack in Afghanistan which inflicted heavy casualties on US and NATO forces.

Here's what the massive, well-coordinated attack turned out to be: a force in "the low hundreds."

And our heavy casualties? Nine dead, 16 wounded.

Now, I do not make light of the tragedy this represents for those families (though I'm sure I'll be accused of such), but if 9 dead is heavy casualties, what was Antietam, where 23,000 were killed or injured in a single day? And if a force in the low hundreds is a massive, well-coordinated attack, then what was the force of over 4 million that Hitler threw against Russia in Operation Barbarossa?

This is why people like D.Z. run around in such a panic, because the news media go around treating the sort of casualties that the British 150 years ago would have hardly written home about as if it were another Pearl Harbor. Same thing for the Great Depression we're in right now, which still doesn't even fit the definition of a recession and beats most of the 70s and 80s on nearly all economic indicators. No wonder so many people are such hysterical ninnies, when that's all they hear from the media all day.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Nation of whiners."

It's nice that you can come up with someone else's talking points, but you seem to ignore the feds bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the 62,000 jobs lost last month.

"Things are so bad, you can only afford to see The Dark Knight twice in theaters before buying it on Blu-Ray. It's a regular deep-ression!"

They're so bad, that even if people see the Dark Knight that many times, it won't make money.

"Some NY Times reporter was getting all hysterical about a massive, well coordinated attack in Afghanistan which inflicted heavy casualties on US and NATO forces. Here's what the massive, well-coordinated attack turned out to be: a force in "the low hundreds." And our heavy casualties? Nine dead, 16 wounded. Now, I do not make light of the tragedy this represents for those families (though I'm sure I'll be accused of such), but if 9 dead is heavy casualties, what was Antietam, where 23,000 were killed or injured in a single day?"

The problem is not the numbers, but the lack of stability, since we don't even have that many troops there.

"And if a force in the low hundreds is a massive, well-coordinated attack, then what was the force of over 4 million that Hitler threw against Russia in Operation Barbarossa?"

If you want to be technical, Hitler's army in Russia wasn't well coordinated, or it would have won. But it still managed to wipe out a sizable portion of the population in that region. Now if you're arguing about being able to send Afghanistan into a mess it hasn't seen since after the Soviets left, then you could make the case that that smaller force is well-coordinated.

"This is why people like D.Z. run around in such a panic, because the news media go around treating the sort of casualties that the British 150 years ago would have hardly written home about as if it were another Pearl Harbor."

The British media also made light of what was going on in WWI and the Boer Wars, but that doesn't mean anything, either.

"Same thing for the Great Depression we're in right now, which still doesn't even fit the definition of a recession and beats most of the 70s and 80s on nearly all economic indicators."

Except for the fact that gas and food cost more than they did in the 70s and 80s, sure...

comment #13

Indeed says ...

It still never ceases to amaze me how far into the sand the die-hard Obama supporters have their heads buried. It reminds me of W's most ardent supporters in '04.

No wonder this country is going down the shitter.

comment #14

Indeed says ...

D.Z.: "Except for the fact that gas and food cost more than they did in the 70s and 80s, sure..."

Phenominal argument. You should be an economist.

comment #15

Count Thread says ...

"I want to be clear about something: Because Obama wants to get the troops out of Iraq safely and he'll need to consult with the commanders, that's waffling?"

It is when he never bothered to consult with any of the commanders before he got the nomination.

That position is a perfectly fine one to take. If Obama gets elected, I would *hope* that would be his position. Trouble is, that was never, never, never Obama's position-- that was the position of George W. Bush, John McCain, and (gasp) Hillary Clinton (well, before *she* waffled over in the early primaries to "leave Iraq ASAP no matter what" in order to appeal to the Kos-Kid crowd-- nobody bought it, of course).

Obama is toying with taking that position now because no one can deny the surge's success, not even he.

McCain, whether you like him or not, supported that strategy from the beginning-- back when most everyone else (Obama, reasoned man of judgment included) argued that it was doomed to failure.

Better yet, McCain supported that position when it was unpopular, when it was likely to cost him as many votes as it would earn him.

Obama is waffling. Politicians do that, it's normal. But don't pretend that this isn't about politics, and completely divorced from what Obama's personal convictions are (whatever they may be-- I think "ego" and "want to be POTUS because it'll look good on my one-page empty resume" are about all that's left-- and it's only July!).

(P.S. The first person who chimes in with "McCain wants to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years!" should be banned, for that's not what he said, and that's not what he wants. We've had troops in Europe and Asia for over sixty years without a shot being fired-- I have no problems whatsover keeping troops *safely* in Iraq for as long as we plan to be engaged in the region. Which, sadly, appears to be forever-- but that's the price we pay for being grown-ups).

comment #16

Richardson says ...

"which still doesn't even fit the definition of a recession and beats most of the 70s and 80s on nearly all economic indicators."

I love it when extreme right-wing talking points become "facts" because nobody knows where to start with debunking them, because they're so twisted and untrue.

comment #17

bents75 says ...

"This is why people like D.Z. run around in such a panic, because the news media go around treating the sort of casualties that the British 150 years ago would have hardly written home about as if it were another Pearl Harbor."

This is just a silly comparison Mgmax, and you know it. DZ is right here, it's not about the numbers, it's about the context. 9 dead may not be worth writing home about, but if you want to go back a little further, clearly just 5 dead at the Boston Massacre was.

And I would say hundreds of men banding together in a country where a pickup truck and an AK47 are a luxury, 6 years after we "occupied them", is a pretty big deal.

If you really want to have this discussion, in both American and World History, it's pretty damn hard to argue that just 2,974 people killed on 9/11 was a significant number either - but for some reason, that's an incident which "changed America forever" and has had ramifications across nearly every single foreign and domestic policy there is.

Where do you draw the line in terms of these numbers? At which point does it become meaningful?

On one hand I completely agree with you, but it goes both ways.

Go take a tour through every European, Middle Eastern, and Asian country there is and ask them if 2,974 is even a number they'd sneaze at?

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

Indeed: "It still never ceases to amaze me how far into the sand the die-hard Obama supporters have their heads buried. It reminds me of W's most ardent supporters in '04."

Actually, there's a difference. We just don't like Republicans, not homosexuals.

"That position is a perfectly fine one to take. If Obama gets elected, I would *hope* that would be his position. Trouble is, that was never, never, never Obama's position-- that was the position of George W. Bush, John McCain, and (gasp) Hillary Clinton"

No, their position was to let the commanders decide when to leave, not to actually take the initiative themselves.

"Obama is toying with taking that position now because no one can deny the surge's success, not even he."

He just did in that Op-Ed piece...

"McCain, whether you like him or not, supported that strategy from the beginning-- back when most everyone else (Obama, reasoned man of judgment included) argued that it was doomed to failure."

McCain was also against a Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday and continued occupations in countries like Lebanon and
Somalia.

"The first person who chimes in with "McCain wants to be fighting in Iraq for 100 years!" should be banned, for that's not what he said, and that's not what he wants."

Sorry, but that's exactly what he said, and if you don't think he doesn't want it, then why did he support the surge?

"We've had troops in Europe and Asia for over sixty years without a shot being fired-- I have no problems whatsover keeping troops *safely* in Iraq for as long as we plan to be engaged in the region"

With the exception of Indonesia and Ireland, Europe and Asian doesn't have people don't have blowing things up.
And if you have no problem being there against Maliki's will, then you're clearly not in it to fight terror or spread democracy.

comment #19

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Richardson, we have yet to meet the agreed definition of a recession (though we probably will soon) of two negative growth quarters. Inflation is much lower than the 70s and 80s, unemployment is lower than most of that period (it's still lower than much of the 90s!), homeownership is at an all-time high. What facts again did I get wrong that were in conflict with your unsourced assurance that we're in the shitter?

Listen, I would agree that there are very worrisome things happening. Things could get really bad. But as with the war stats, slowing growth does not equal utter catastrophe yet, any more than 9 dead equals Stalingrad. People are hysterical and I'd like to hear stats from you to justify that hysteria.

comment #20

K. Bowen says ...

MR. Air Conditioner will do whatever the generals recommend and pretend its his idea.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Inflation is much lower than the 70s and 80s,"

Um, that's not true. Oil officially costs more than it did back then, while food prices are leading to riots.

"homeownership is at an all-time high."

Home purchases are at an all-time low, though.

comment #22

saranie says ...

This is not bad. And I remember that I have ever viewed many sexy videos of those mature women on ~~tallmeet*com~~ , it is an online dating site on which the tall people seeking friends. you also can see many famous models and sports stars hanging out there.