Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We've all heard enough of the Democratic primary process to hold us for at least 3 election cycles, but as it was over so quickly comparitively, we saw little of the Repubilcan contest.

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?
Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?
Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?
Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?

I've been curious, since all the attention has been on the Democrats for so long, what the overall Republican mindset has been. I'm interested to hear what our "locals" might have to say.

Conservative, not Republican but I’ll bite (and a BigMac guy so rebutting the Ron Paulies)

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?
Nah-my guy won.

Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?
Nah-beats the happy happy joy joy the democrats just went through. Besides the media would have been busy pounding on the repubs throughout.

Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?
I like BigMac and wonder what would have happened had he made it in 2000.
Of the candidates running liked Huckabee. Romney is Clinton without the pantsuit and a CEO of one of the banks currently in crisis from bad loans. Absent Teddy Roosevelt or Robert Mitchum suddenly running BicMac works for the ones running.

Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?
See above. The media would have had a field day.

I hate the Republicans,

but

I prefer John Mccain over Obama or Hillary, since Mccain is honest and straight about his opnions (which are gakky conversative opinions). But Obama and Hillary are wolves in sheep's clothing, their foregion policies are not gonna be much different to the Republicans, they just seems to be the "good guys" on the surface.

But I am not an American, so my words really mean gak in this case :(

McCain, while a Republican, is not a Conservative. Many conservatives don't like him because he believes, and acts, moderate ideals. One of the great coup's of the Conservative movement is the co-opting of the Republican party. Republican =/= Conservative. He'll have to kiss some conservative booty to get the nomination to be sure, but that is the nature of the election system here.

I'm not sure that McCain is the absolute best choice, but he is a good one for sure. This is the first time in a long time I think that we have two decent candidates running for office. There are things I agree and disagree with both of them, but generally I think they are both good candidates.

Ahtman wrote:McCain, while a Republican, is not a Conservative. Many conservatives don't like him because he believes, and acts, moderate ideals. One of the great coup's of the Conservative movement is the co-opting of the Republican party. Republican =/= Conservative. He'll have to kiss some conservative booty to get the nomination to be sure, but that is the nature of the election system here.

I'm not sure that McCain is the absolute best choice, but he is a good one for sure. This is the first time in a long time I think that we have two decent candidates running for office. There are things I agree and disagree with both of them, but generally I think they are both good candidates.

I don't like liberals either, cause they are full of hypocricies as well.

McCain may not be conservative by American standards but he sure is by Irish ones.
But hey, nothing wrong with that.
I thought it was interesting the way things worked out from my limited perspective. McCain seemed unpopular within the party, but he came out on top due to popularity with voters. Am I right in this? This to me is a good sign that democracy in america might be regaining some of it's vigor. If the Republicans in general didn't like the way the party was headed and voted a black sheep like McCain in, and it worked, then that's great.
Do any of the posters here have any more light to shed on this stuff for me? I'm always interested to read the political discussion here.

McCain is a maverick. Generally a moderate who is known for reaching out to conservative democrats to get things done. He hates pork/earmarks and his campaign contributions from special interests are suffering as a result (in comparison to Obama).

BigMac! BigMac! BigMac!

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?

> By the time my state came around it didn't matter.

Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?

> It doesn't matter, it is the rules. Just as presidents are chosen by the Electoral college and not the popular vote.

Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?

> I actually like Paul. Sure, he'd probably use the Grand Canyon as the country's landfill if he had his way, and he is an anti-Choice advocate who advocates pulling out of the UN, but his civil liberty focus and foreign policy positions override my main concerns. Paul could actually accomplish very little in way of a legislative agenda, but his veto power and command of the executive are very attractive.

Right now the Republican party needs to figure out who its constituents are. Is it the war hawks who want perpetual war? The religious zealots who want the Bible everywhere and laws passed telling me how I need to behave in the privacy of my own home? Is it the 'financial conservatives' who just want gov't out of capital?

I don't have as many issues with McCain as I do most other Republican candidates, but John McCain 2000 is not the same as John McCain 2008. I understand he needs to kiss conservative ass to mobilize the base, but he is still too morally and militarily conservative for me. He has no chance of transforming the Republican party. He's running on more of the same Republican tenants as all Republicans since 1980. Unfortunately for me, that is not a modest foreign policy coupled with a sensible domestic agenda of shoring up American infrastructure, improving America's resilience to catastrophic events, and sheparding my country's moral agenda in a post-superpower world. Nor is it a financially conservative spending approach that balances realistic tax policy with the challenges of entitlement programs and an inefficient, bloated military planning for yesterday's war.

Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?

> The whole idea of the Democaratic party moving state primaries up was to decide on their candidate earlier than in the past. That didn't work out. So I'm not sure your conclusion is valid.

Da Boss wrote:McCain may not be conservative by American standards but he sure is by Irish ones.
But hey, nothing wrong with that.

Oh absolutely. Like many things, the US has decided what political terms mean for the rest of the world are not good enough for us so we use them in a different way, as to sow confusion and anger. Some time I'll post the chart from Poly Sci.

Da Boss wrote:I thought it was interesting the way things worked out from my limited perspective. McCain seemed unpopular within the party, but he came out on top due to popularity with voters. Am I right in this? This to me is a good sign that democracy in america might be regaining some of it's vigor. If the Republicans in general didn't like the way the party was headed and voted a black sheep like McCain in, and it worked, then that's great.
Do any of the posters here have any more light to shed on this stuff for me? I'm always interested to read the political discussion here.

McCain was mostly disliked by the political pundits who like to pretend they talk for all Republicans, but more Republicans voted for moderate McCain. The part of the Republican party that wants a Citizen Kane size painting of Jesus posted in Congress is not happy about it, and the burn it all part as well (Ron Paul). The reality is that most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I thought it was great that the people kept voting for McCain while the TV and Radio people kept saying that Republicans didn't like McCain and that he wasn't going to get it. Apparently their little circles of listeners don't make up as much of the party as they think.

Indeed.

Thanks for that. Yeah, as I said, the perspective I have is mostly from online or TV pundits, who represent extremes more often than not. I was curious as to what the "on the ground" republican would think.
I'm also glad to see that people don't listen to pundits.

jfrazell wrote:McCain is a maverick. Generally a moderate who is known for reaching out to conservative democrats to get things done. He hates pork/earmarks and his campaign contributions from special interests are suffering as a result (in comparison to Obama).

BigMac! BigMac! BigMac!

The pro-choice lobbying group I get spam from says his voting record is 125/130 (or in another place, 115/119) against choice and reproductive freedom.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf

I’m still not clear on how he qualifies as a maverick anymore, unless it’s by appearing on The Daily Show. Back in 2000 his campaign was built around him being a straight shooter, telling truth to power. He was genuinely centrist, and I had multiple centrist and liberal friends and acquaintances who found him very appealing, several of who did vote for him.

Then the Karl Rove campaign machine drove him and his dreams into the muck, in part by claiming he wasn’t a “real” conservative, though manipulations of racism and allegations of adultery and having illegitimate kids were also prominently featured. Smears on his war record were also a classy touch.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/mccain-embraces-rove_n_85881.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/08/the-oreilly-factor-karl-rove-points-to-mccains-adopted-daughter-as-example-of-mccains-worthiness/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/26/31853/5881

Since then McCain has largely been a pretty good lapdog to the Bush administration and the war machine. He’s definitely the best option out of the cavalcade of scumbags (and one great loon- my Libertarian streak still loves Ron Paul) the Republican party put forward this time, but I’m not sure how he’s not a conservative. I think saying he’s not is mostly just holdover from the religious right, and calling him a maverick is just a leftover media catchphrase that’s no longer accurate.

Still, I love the idea of a series of town hall-style genuine debates. That’s just cool.

Ah Ve Meeeet Agaaaain Mister Manniie...

No democrat commentary here this is a repub/conserv knifefight. Kindly return to your seat until the main repub/demo event.

I won't open the DailyKos or Huffington after they left up posts hoping for Tony Snow dies from cancer, and questioning whether McCain suffered while in the Hanoi Hilton.

Besides-townhalls won't happen. Obama can't handle unscripted verbiage. He always does poorly and McCain does well. He does better in the side by side press conference format.

Interesting note Rezko was convicted on multiple counts today...

I don't see how being pro-LIFE makes him no longer a maverick. Lots of dems are pro-life (like the Catholic vote) while many repubs are pro-choice.

I can say that since both Obama and Clinton are against gay marriage they must not be very good liberals but that wouldn't really be true. Hell, I'm for gay marriage and I'm a conservative Republican.

Also, McCain knows better than just about anyone the horrors of war so if he feels that this war is necessary I'm going to believe him. He knows the cost of entering a war and he has the resolve to do what he believes is necessary.

In the end, I'm voting for the person who best represents what I believe in and of the two front-runners, that's McCain. I wanted either him or Giuliani so I got my wish.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozy-

Sorry if I wasn't clearer. I was saying that calling him a "maverick" or a centrist, when his espoused views and voting record hew pretty close to the party line, is a misnomer. The voting record on that one particular issue is just one example. The pro choice groups are specifically working on this labeling issue because they don't want voters to mistakenly think the guy's actually pro-choice.

Argument by authority doesn’t do it for me when the costs are thousands of innocent lives and trillions out of our treasury. If McCain had been the architect/planner of the war at the beginning his experience might have inclined me to trust him more. As he was not, and as the reasoning behind the war has since been demonstrated to be both fraudulent and mistaken (depending on the participant), his continuing support for it has just served to detract from my prior respect for his experience.

Jfraz-
I just linked some sites that had examples of what I was talking about re: Rove and the smear campaign. Just some first page Google results when I searched for McCain, Rove, and 2000. No particular credence or respect implied to any of them in particular. I did link to The Nation as well.

BTW, which is worse? Leaving up hateful posts on a high-traffic public forum, or paying for attack ads on network TV that impugn a decorated veteran’s military service?

America is still going to be evil after this election. I feel sorry for Iran :( they need to hire some space marines to help em

Mannahnin wrote:Ozy-

Jfraz-
I just linked some sites that had examples of what I was talking about re: Rove and the smear campaign. Just some first page Google results when I searched for McCain, Rove, and 2000. No particular credence or respect implied to any of them in particular. I did link to The Nation as well.

BTW, which is worse? Leaving up hateful posts on a high-traffic public forum, or paying for attack ads on network TV that impugn a decorated veteran’s military service?

DailyKos and Huffington are rabid foam at the mouth sites. I visited them in the past and quickly went away. Just as I won't visit whatever Klan/Ron Paul sites are available I'm not going to visit that drivel and citing to them will just get your average person to shake their head.
Again, save your arguments for other threads-I'm sure they'll come.

And Kittenslayer, I know you weren't serious, else you'd be a troll and I'd have to reply with a great big "go yourself."

The reality is that most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I thought it was great that the people kept voting for McCain while the TV and Radio people kept saying that Republicans didn't like McCain and that he wasn't going to get it. Apparently their little circles of listeners don't make up as much of the party as they think.

Viewing the election from this side of the pond I find this idea tremendously reassuring, and much closer to the ideals and grandeur of America that I grew up with than the version we've had presented by both sides of the media in the last few years.

I'll also say, even if it has mainly been about the Democrat candidate, I've been touched/impressed with the vigour and enthusiasm that the populace have shown for their democratic process. Wish we were even half as motivated over here.

jfrazell wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Jfraz-
I just linked some sites that had examples of what I was talking about re: Rove and the smear campaign. Just some first page Google results when I searched for McCain, Rove, and 2000. No particular credence or respect implied to any of them in particular. I did link to The Nation as well.

DailyKos and Huffington are rabid foam at the mouth sites. I visited them in the past and quickly went away. Just as I won't visit whatever Klan/Ron Paul sites are available I'm not going to visit that drivel and citing to them will just get your average person to shake their head.
Again, save your arguments for other threads-I'm sure they'll come.

"Rabid foam at the mouth sites" is an argument ad hominem. There CAN still be useful data there, even if there's garbage there other times. Saying the sites are bad doesn't make the data bad. Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring info because a site you don't like posted it is just silly. Sure, you have every right to be skeptical of info from a site you distrust, but every source of info has an appropriate level at which it can be used, with appropriate critical thinking applied. Again, I did a quick google for articles using a few keywords, so I could post a few links for the benefit of international readers who might not be aware of what happened in the 2000 Republican primaries. DailyKos and Huffington post are not necessarily bad sources for that particular data.

Ron Paul's not a racist. He did something tragically dumb and let other people (including some pretty scummy racists) keep putting his name on a newletter he turned over to other management and stopped thinking about. Relating RP to the Klan demonstrates that you've uncritically swallowed some bad data.

I didn't say Ron Paul was a racist (didn't mean to anyway). I was comparing RP and other crazy loon right wings sites I'm not going to visit anytime soon.

And yes where the statement is posted matters. Its silly to think all souorces are equal. I'm not going to listen to anything posted from a terrorist site because its prima facae suspect and I'm not going to slither through the vomitous filth to get to the supposed statement.

Same goes for Huffington and DailyKos.

By that reasoning you’d disbelieve a statement on a “terrorist site” that the sky is blue. Or that water is wet.

I didn’t say anything even vaguely like “all souorces are equal”. If that’s what you got out of my last post, I don’t know what to even say to you.

You’ve demonstrated on other subjects that you’re capable of critical reasoning; why are you unwilling to apply it here? The only way to get a genuinely informed opinion in politics is to read sources from all sides and apply critical analysis to all of them; even the ones you agree with.

I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered independent and really more of a Liberterian. Sorry, the Rep Party lost me years ago and put the nail in the coffin with Bush the younger. But, as an ex-Rep and conservative, I'll answer.

If you live in a state that had a "pro-forma" primary, do you feel like you got shafted out of your voice?
Didn't have one anyway, so no.

Do you feel the "all or nothing" nature of the Republican contests properly represented the results of the people's vote?
No. Clinton was crowned early and then lost. Someone else could risen up to win the nomination. But, it's better than the mess the democrats have now. Hillary's speech on Tuesday was a piece of work, 'we fought to hard for me to quit now. Tell me what you think I should do.' Appeal to the people, then don't drop out yet even though you lost, because your supporters don't want you to. I think she's hoping McCain wins so that she can run again in 2012 and remind all the 'little people' that she didn't give up on them.

Do you see McCain as the best choice out of the field, or do you feel someone else better fit where you think the party and country should go?
I thought he was the best in 2000. I don't like that he's now what, in his 70's? I was a Ron Paul fan, and didn't mind Romney or Huckabee, they both had flaws and strengths. I think McCain is the best choice for dealing with the Mess-o-Potomia (as Jon Stewart calls the mess in the middle east),The Bush administration totally mis-managed the war in Iraq, in many ways. They don't have enough troops. They didn't have enough at the start of the war. I think they expected to be greeted as liberators, not conquerors. They don't have the right people in place overseas. They contracted out WAY too much of the war effort. Interogators should not be contract employees, they should be Federal government employees. While the economy and rising gas costs are important, I think peace in the Middle East is the most important because it'll have the longest effect on the world. McCain at least seems to understand 'we broke it, so we bought it'. If the US pulls out of Iraq now, it'll be worse off than before the invasion and degrade into a feudal state and become a bigger mess.

I don't think the President controls the economy as much as people want to think he does. The economy is cyclic and has lows and highs, it'll rebound. I think the President can effect how low the low is and how high the high is, and how long each will last, but the economy is just going to behave in certain ways. I don't think McCain has the best track record for tackling the economy, but I can live with that.

I'll vote for McCain, even though I'm not sure he's the best person to be president, he does seem the best candidate.

One thing really bothers me about Obama. His lack of a voting record in the legislature. Not the lack of experience, I think experience helps but isn't everything, but because he doesn't have much of a record, you don't really know what he stands for. Would he have voted against sending troops into Iraq? and why? 'Everyone' thought they had WMDs. If Clinton had voted against sending troops in, she might have lost re-election to the Senate.

Do you think it might have been better to have the extended contest that the Democrats have had, or are you satisfied by the truncated nature of what happened?
Neither works well, but the republican way worked better.

Mannahnin wrote:By that reasoning you’d disbelieve a statement on a “terrorist site” that the sky is blue. Or that water is wet.

Yep.

I didn’t say anything even vaguely like “all souorces are equal”. If that’s what you got out of my last post, I don’t know what to even say to you.

This is true. I'm just not interested in looking at those cites as their veracity is beneath my minimum personal cost/benefit level. I'm not going to cite Townhall or similar sites either (the right wing side).

You’ve demonstrated on other subjects that you’re capable of critical reasoning; why are you unwilling to apply it here? The only way to get a genuinely informed opinion in politics is to read sources from all sides and apply critical analysis to all of them; even the ones you agree with.

1. The post is about what repubs think of the process and McCain (I unilaterally added in conservatives and BigMac supporters). Its not the proper forum for McCain vs. Obama.

2. I'm not going to wade through hate blogs that are generally worthless and not supportable. I'm not looking at leftwing/rightwing/monnbeam websites. They are just not valuable in a debate with multiple perspectives besides the true believers. Its like the Kerry Navy stuff in 2004 (whatever that was I didn't pay attention). Someone would have to show me 3rd party supportable media reports-not some special interest wacko blog. I wasn't convinced by that crowd and I'm not going to be convinced by other crowds trying a similar thing in this election.

3. You realize you have like 500 N's in your dakka name? Thats really cool although I always mispell it.

dietrich wrote:
I don't think the President controls the economy as much as people want to think he does.

QFT

I'd go so far as to say the President has no control over the economy beyond the illusion of control, which in economics can sometimes be enough. Markets do what they are going to do, regardless of speech's or legislation. If it is going down, or up, there is little to do but place blame or accept the glory.

Half the things people ask for out of the President he has no authority to do.

Mannahnin wrote:...his continuing support for it has just served to detract from my prior respect for his experience.

I did want to address this particular point. While I support anyone's right to disagree with McCain on Mess-o-Potamia, I do not support questioning his motives. Unlike Barack or Hillary or Bush or Cheney or 99% of his peers, McCain has one son who has served in theater, and another who very well might (as does Jim Webb). If he is supporting it, he believes in it. He has much more on the line with regards to the conflict than does the Democratic candidate (who I believe in as well), so I think his conscience in supporting the war is clear. It doesn't make him right, but it does speak to his integrity. It doesn't hurt that he supported the surge at it's most politically unpopular as well, knowing it was hurting his campaign. You may disagree with the man, but he isn;t playing politics with the war. Something i am not quite as certain of on the democratic side.

reds8n wrote:

The reality is that most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I thought it was great that the people kept voting for McCain while the TV and Radio people kept saying that Republicans didn't like McCain and that he wasn't going to get it. Apparently their little circles of listeners don't make up as much of the party as they think.

Viewing the election from this side of the pond I find this idea tremendously reassuring, and much closer to the ideals and grandeur of America that I grew up with than the version we've had presented by both sides of the media in the last few years.

I'll also say, even if it has mainly been about the Democrat candidate, I've been touched/impressed with the vigour and enthusiasm that the populace have shown for their democratic process. Wish we were even half as motivated over here.

You might get your chance. You gotta crawl through a lot muck to get the plebians motivated And I agree that most Americans are socially centrists or liberal. Seriously, wtf cares about gay marriage? And pro-choice/pro-life is old hat, Ragnar. Both parties have controlled everything at least once since Roe v. Wade, and abortion is still legal. Neither party has the stones to even address the legality (or illegality of it). Much better to fundraise off of it. Get the rubes to donate to save feminist rights or babies. That said, the majority of Americans are moderates with leanings. The nuts on both sides get airtime, but most of us consider both extremes, well, nuts.

Ahtman wrote:

dietrich wrote:
I don't think the President controls the economy as much as people want to think he does.

QFT

I'd go so far as to say the President has no control over the economy beyond the illusion of control, which in economics can sometimes be enough. Markets do what they are going to do, regardless of speech's or legislation. If it is going down, or up, there is little to do but place blame or accept the glory.

Half the things people ask for out of the President he has no authority to do.

Also agree. The President signs crap into law. He doesn't propose it. He's an executive, not a legislator. He needs vision - that's why I like Barack.

But he needs to counter-balance the legislators - that's why I like McCain. The Dems whined forever about how bad it was for one party to control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. I agree. Of course they sing a different tune when it could be them doing the controlling.

I'd also love a town hall, unmoderated forum. I'll be interested to see how this national campaign goes. Both politicians have made strong overtures to improve the dignity of the process.

Do they have the courage of their convictions? We'll see.


And McCain is easily the best choice of the old, white party. They need some new blood, back to conservative principles. Less tax, smarter spending.

Jfraz- Limiting your sources of data to ones you consider reliable or trustworthy is not a bad strategy, but water doesn’t stop being wet just because someone you distrust says it’s wet. Gathering as much info as possible, and assessing it all critically and in context, is always the best approach. I’m not trying to turn this thread into another Obama/McCain discussion. We’ll have more of those later. The above point holds true in all circumstances, including a discussion of the Republican candidates and process.

Dietrich- Not “everyone” thought Iraq had WMDs. While Congress went along with it, some of our allies (like France) were skeptical of the evidence, with (as it turns out) very good reason. The weapons inspectors didn’t think he was hiding any active program or weapons either. Some folks did speak out against the war before it happened. Reference the quote in my sig.

Ahtman- Spending trillions on a pet project has a direct impact on the economy. Re-writing energy regulatory laws in a way that allows companies to defraud and gouge consumers and states (see: Enron) has a direct impact on the economy. The president doesn’t control the economy, and if he has an uncooperative congress, neither one tends to be able to do much. But for six years Bush had a cooperative congress, and spent a downright ridiculous amount of money, often on pork or on projects (like the war) that are actually injurious to our country.

Chuck- Fair points all. I’m just saying that I think available evidence has always indicated that the war was a bad idea, and even if you think “we broke it, we bought it” is the only course of action at this point, McCain supporting it early and on an ongoing basis is a demonstrated failure of the very expertise for which we’d be counting on him.

Mannahnin wrote:Ahtman- Spending trillions on a pet project has a direct impact on the economy. Re-writing energy regulatory laws in a way that allows companies to defraud and gouge consumers and states (see: Enron) has a direct impact on the economy. The president doesn’t control the economy, and if he has an uncooperative congress, neither one tends to be able to do much. But for six years Bush had a cooperative congress, and spent a downright ridiculous amount of money, often on pork or on projects (like the war) that are actually injurious to our country.

And Obama will have a cooperative Congress. I firmly believe, and history bears this out, that corruption comes from influence and power, not from partisan beliefs. Why were the Republicans elected to the House in a landslide in 1994? Democratic corruption. Why were the Democrats so strong in 2006? Republican misanthropy. It's cyclic, and complete control of the process yields enough power/influence to hasten the degradation of the controlling party's ethics. It will happen again with all Dems, and the Republicans will take over. And so on and so forth.

Also, Enron's lawbreaking began and primarily occurred during the Clinton administration. Their discovery and prosecution occurred during the Bush administration.

Mannahnin wrote:Chuck- Fair points all. I’m just saying that I think available evidence has always indicated that the war was a bad idea, and even if you think “we broke it, we bought it” is the only course of action at this point, McCain supporting it early and on an ongoing basis is a demonstrated failure of the very expertise for which we’d be counting on him.

I don't think we can properly place this war in context in 2008. I know our media forces us into judging decisions the moment they are made, but it's a bad idea in something so gigantic in it's effects.

And many more politicians supported it in 2003 than John McCain, most of them based on the same inaccurate information. So Barack opposed this war when it was somewhat unpopular, which is a credit to his integrity. If he had been wrong about the WMD (which he had no more inherent reason to be right about than McCain had to be wrong), we'd be talking in the other direction. It wasn't genius. It was luck.

We should also note, he was running at the time in a district where saying the potential war was bad was a non-loser for him.

I agree in general re: power and corruption. From my perspective, a lot of what’s gone on in the last eight years is pretty egregious and above and beyond the usual. A lot of the 90’s Enron stuff actually goes back to Bush Sr.’s administration too, though I will certainly concede that a lot of bad stuff happened during the Clinton administration as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.PDF

And many more politicians supported it in 2003 than John McCain, most of them based on the same inaccurate information. So Barack opposed this war when it was somewhat unpopular, which is a credit to his integrity. If he had been wrong about the WMD (which he had no more inherent reason to be right about than McCain had to be wrong), we'd be talking in the other direction. It wasn't genius. It was luck.

Here is where I have to completely disagree with you. There was plenty of intelligence data, and information from the inspectors, to indicate that there were most likely no WMDs. No conclusive PROOF, but you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists, especially when you’re talking about initiating a course of action as serious and destructive as a war. It was not genius, but it was certainly not luck either. Most likely he just gave the information the time and analysis it deserved, and that many (most?) in Congress sadly did not. Certain other people had previously come to the same conclusions, before it became politically desirable to them to start a war.

• "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24 February 2001
• "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction... And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." - Colin Powell, 15 May 2001
• "We are able to keep arms from him [Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/i/iraq_overview_2.htm

Actually WMDs were irrelevant. Our planes were being shot at by Iraqi forces patrolling the no fly zone. That in itself is causus belli.

Again, it was McCain who pushed for the surge before the surge was cool.