A Crack In The Dike

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

We already covered why Clinton didn't act, and that's not the issue here. Don't change the subject.

Bush took office in January armed with good information on the attack on the Cole, AQ and OBL.

Much of Bush's message in the last 2 weeks of October - Nov. was that he'll keep us safe from terrorism. Given that: Why did he do nothing with that information?

I don't really know what he had, do you think he had everything Clinton had?
Did he trust the information Clinton gave him?
What would you have done your first two months in office?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Please cover it again...I am not sure you are correct in your assumptions.

Edit: I hope this link works. It is long but worth the time.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch6.htm

I thought everyone knew Clinton was too busy chasing interns to have time for foreign policy.

[livi]

Please, tell me how it is that Frau Clinton in International press is illustrated as the most potential next President - yet many of you portrait her as a person nobody likes and no one will want for President. Does not make sense.

Secondly, is the fact that Obama is black a disadvantage for him in this race. I guess it is - how much?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

I don't really know what he had, do you think he had everything Clinton had?
Did he trust the information Clinton gave him?
What would you have done your first two months in office?

I would have done what Bush has failed to do in 7 years. Kill OBL and put his head on a pike at the White House.

thing is, even with just the Cole, nevermind 9/11, that's not a disproportionate response to the bombing of a U.S. Navy ship. where I come from, that's called an Act of War. and when 17 sailors are dead, I do anything and everything to make sure it doesn't happen again, i.e., 9/11.

[futuresoptions]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

America really IS collectively stupid enough to elect Hillary. Don't kid yourselves. This is just a very small and minor caucus, of a non-representative population. Very few candidates that have won in Iowa have gone on to win the whole thing. Statistically speaking, this doesn't mean very much.

This is probably the most accurate post I have seen on the boards for a while.....
I really don't know what America needs right now as a President, but I know for sure that the answer is not Hilary Clinton, and for the most part I do not see much in leadership from the other candidates both Republican and Democrat. My only hope would be that we get someone with a level head that is able to look at the big picture and bring our country together and allow it to prosper without any interference from the "evil doers" or special interest groups. I hope all of us end up with a good life and the ability to enjoy life without any negatives....

[Moneyguy1]

evil doers and special interest groups....

Aren't they the same thing?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

evil doers and special interest groups....

Aren't they the same thing?

No. If you disagree with their cause, you call them a special interest. If you agree with them, you call them a watchdog or citizens' group.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

I would have done what Bush has failed to do in 7 years. Kill OBL and put his head on a pike at the White House.

thing is, even with just the Cole, nevermind 9/11, that's not a disproportionate response to the bombing of a U.S. Navy ship. where I come from, that's called an Act of War. and when 17 sailors are dead, I do anything and everything to make sure it doesn't happen again, i.e., 9/11.

I do agree with the pike thing but he seems to be hard to find.
About the Cole, it isn't the first ship, there was the Pueblo under LBJs watch.
I didn't like the way that turned out either. Should Nixon have done something about that? I know, that is a stretch.

[Moneyguy1]

Rick:

All "special Interest Groups" are after influence, power and funding for this or that. Whether I agree with them or not is irelevant. I know no way they can be controlled so that Washington more accurately reflects the interests of the citizenry. I wish I did.

[Rick Lee]

Bob, do you belong to any groups like AAA, AARP, the NRA or ANY such org.? If you do, you're part of the special interest machine, but I doubt you call a group you agree with a special interest.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Bob, do you belong to any groups like AAA, AARP, the NRA or ANY such org.? If you do, you're part of the special interest machine, but I doubt you call a group you agree with a special interest.

U mean like Move On, Org., Hand Gun Control....

[tabs]

If none of you deal with what I say than your posting here is merely irrelevant.

[Moneyguy1]

I belong to AARP becaurse their rates for insurance thru Hartford are fantastic!!

Other than that, any organization that would accept me as a member I will not join.(Groucho)

[Mule]

Isn't a crack standard equipment on a dike?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

I belong to AARP becaurse their rates for insurance thru Hartford are fantastic!!

Other than that, any organization that would accept me as a member I will not join.(Groucho)

Then you should know that AARP is the number one or two most powerful special interest group operating in Washington and your dues to them help make that possible. Oh, but they get you low insur. rates, so they must be an advocacy or watchdog group, right?

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Then you should know that AARP is the number one or two most powerful special interest group operating in Washington and your dues to them help make that possible. Oh, but they get you low insur. rates, so they must be an advocacy or watchdog group, right?

I think AARP is very much Pro Hilary.

I belong to ScrappleFace.com.

[Moneyguy1]

rick:

The insurance is through Hartford.

So, I supplose I am guilty by implication.

Personally, I don't give a rat's a$$. I am saving over $500 a year on homeowner and auto over State Farm.

We all have our faults....Oh, sorry Rick...I misspoke!!

[jyl]

livi, PPOT is not perfectly representative of the US electorate, in the degree of dislike for Hilary or in many other things.

That said, a lot of people do have negative feelings about her personally. I, for instance, have posted before that she just rubs me the wrong way, even though I liked Bill Clinton a lot and agree with many of Hilary's positions on the issues. As another example, we had two other couples over for dinner last night, turns out they were all ardent Democrats and despised Bush, but two of the four said they didn't like Hilary on a personal level.

My best guess about what is going on is, that a substantial majority of the electorate wants to reject Bush and a smaller majority wants to reject the Republican party. But it is really early in the election process, the primaries got moved up in time and most Americans are not paying much attention to the candidates yet. So in polls, many Democratic-leaning voters have been saying they support Hilary, simply because she is the best-known name among the Democratic candidates. Again, my best guess.

Now with the Iowa caucuses done, the primary elections are starting and voters will be sitting up, paying attention, and trying to figure out who they really do support.

From a foreign observer's viewpoint, I imagine the logic would be something like this: the US has swung towards the Democratic party, based on the weight of the polling, so it is more likely that the next President will be a Democrat. And until a few weeks ago, Hilary Clinton was polling as the front-runner among the Democratic candidates. So I can see why the international press would think she is the likely next President. But American presidential politics is not that predictable. If a Republican candidate really "connects" with the voters, convinces them that he shares their rejection of Bush and their demands for "change", and presents himself as a centrist, then I think that Republican candidate could win in 2008, even though the polls say the Democratic party has the advantage.

As for Obama's race, I doubt that hurts him much in the more liberal states or the more urban areas. I suspect it will hurt him in the more conservative states and in many rural areas. I don't know how much. I am skeptical that a black man can be elected President, but I'd be pleased to be proven wrong. I know if he is the nominee, I will pay a lot of attention to his vice-Presidential choice, because I think Obama would have a higher chance of being assassinated than would a white President. Again, I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.

P.S. - remember how arcane the Electoral College system is. It means that winning a state by a landslide is the same as winning by a hair - you still get all the state's electoral votes. You can lose the popular vote but win the Presidency. As a practical matter, many states are almost pre-determined to vote for the Democratic candidate (e.g. California) or for the Republican candidate (e.g. Texas). The 2008 election will come down to about 10 "swing" states. So if you wanted to figure out the impact of Obama's race (or anything else), you'd have to really dig into the demographics and attitudes in those key states, and in fact in some key regions of those states.

Originally Posted by livi

Please, tell me how it is that Frau Clinton in International press is illustrated as the most potential next President - yet many of you portrait her as a person nobody likes and no one will want for President. Does not make sense.

Secondly, is the fact that Obama is black a disadvantage for him in this race. I guess it is - how much?

[lendaddy]

Obama's race will only be a problem with the Democrats. I'm not saying there aren't Republican racists but they don't matter as no Republicans are going to vote for him anyway.

The southern racist Democrats (Dixicrats) are the ones he needs to worry about as they will stay home where they would normally always vote for the Democrat in the race. Even those with latent racist issues will be tough to energize.

Again, it's sad but is still an honest appraisal of the hurdles he faces.

After that we can get into his extreme liberal bent that has yet to be shown to the nation.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by tabs

If none of you deal with what I say than your posting here is merely irrelevant.

Careful boys - Tabs is getting his knickers in a twist. Better give him some attention or feel the wrath of his name calling.

Keep your hair on Tabby - I've got the response you so crave -

Tabs-"For the most part if the USA did pull out its military presence the forces of chaos and discord would rise."


This is so fresh and new that I had to respond. The answer is Yes, you're right -it would go back to the way it was before we stuck our noses where they did not belong. Do you think that maybe neighboring countries might step in and deal with this?

And my cherry on top of this attention whore cake - By Golly - You're right Tabs. Seriously! It was fun to see Hilbillery lose. She is a snake. I'll say again, however, that I'm rooting for her just to make it easier on whatever Republican I vote for next.