Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:59:08

dajafi wrote:
“Our political system is weak, the terrorists and former regime members are sparing no effort to overthrow the system, and neighboring countries have their own ambitions,” Mr. Adeeb said.

I think everyone agrees that "security" is better....

The Bush administration, mostly peopled by belligerent sociopaths who were too personally cowardly to engage in war but too temperamentally warlike to successfully pursue diplomacy, is almost HAMELS ill-suited to help Iraq resolve its very thorny political problems.....

Personally I wonder if it isn't time to revisit the Biden federation idea, at least as a way of consolidating gains and drawing in more outside help from the (anti-Iran portion of the) Arab world and NATO. Divvy it up, get the strongest possible security guarantees and start bringing our soldiers home.

All very nice I suppose, but what's it have to do with Obama's "reluctance to speak to the changing circumstances and....reexamine his position"? You're not giving joisey's unfounded assertion even a little chance here!!!1!

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:23:59

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mQ_eCGbdg0&eurl=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/new-mccain-ad-uses-obamas-words/[/youtube]

McCain with a web only ad on the campaign finance thing. I guess it's too process oriented to actually resonate in a real ad.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:28:04

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain with a web only ad on the campaign finance thing. I guess it's too process oriented to actually resonate in a real ad.

How much does any of this stuff matter? Who does this ad target? Is there a single Obama supporter who's now reconsidering? Is there a single undecided who is going to be persuaded by this? Is there some right winger sitting around thinking, "well I was lukewarm on McCain, but this campaign finance thing by Obama has me really fired up now!"

I know that vote decisions by low-information voters is based on an impression formed during the campaign without reference to specific incidents, but I often think insiders and pros convince campaigns to piss money away on stuff like this for the sake of their own bottom line.

I know that's what keeps you in whiskey and coke zero, but don't you ever feel the least bit sorry for candidates and their hard-working contributors?

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:35:59

drsmooth wrote:
dajafi wrote:
“Our political system is weak, the terrorists and former regime members are sparing no effort to overthrow the system, and neighboring countries have their own ambitions,” Mr. Adeeb said.

I think everyone agrees that "security" is better....

The Bush administration, mostly peopled by belligerent sociopaths who were too personally cowardly to engage in war but too temperamentally warlike to successfully pursue diplomacy, is almost HAMELS ill-suited to help Iraq resolve its very thorny political problems.....

Personally I wonder if it isn't time to revisit the Biden federation idea, at least as a way of consolidating gains and drawing in more outside help from the (anti-Iran portion of the) Arab world and NATO. Divvy it up, get the strongest possible security guarantees and start bringing our soldiers home.

All very nice I suppose, but what's it have to do with Obama's "reluctance to speak to the changing circumstances and....reexamine his position"? You're not giving joisey's unfounded assertion even a little chance here!!!1!

"...see the whole thing mainly through the prism of domestic politics and who wins/who loses (like baseball!)..."

Admittedly, I'm off the hook here solely because at the moment I don't give much of a shit who wins the election. At the moment. I'm giving myself two or three more months before I'll start making myself care again, depending on how much mindspace the Phillies, Eagles, my career, etc are claiming at that time.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:36:52

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:McCain with a web only ad on the campaign finance thing. I guess it's too process oriented to actually resonate in a real ad.

How much does any of this stuff matter? Who does this ad target? Is there a single Obama supporter who's now reconsidering? Is there a single undecided who is going to be persuaded by this? Is there some right winger sitting around thinking, "well I was lukewarm on McCain, but this campaign finance thing by Obama has me really fired up now!"

I know that vote decisions by low-information voters is based on an impression formed during the campaign without reference to specific incidents, but I often think insiders and pros convince campaigns to piss money away on stuff like this for the sake of their own bottom line.

I know that's what keeps you in whiskey and coke zero, but don't you ever feel the least bit sorry for candidates and their hard-working contributors?

It's a web only ad, which means it cost probably around 10k to write, produce and place online. It will probably get a bunch of free media. Like I said, I don't think it would resonate enough to spend real money on it, but if it gets played a bunch on Fox and a write up in the NYT or Washington Post, that's probably a good investment.

I don't think it's an issue that changes people's minds on its own, but it can be added onto a list used later on in the campaign that demonstrates that Obama is a flip flopper or plays unfair or whatever.

And it doesn't keep me drunk anymore. I got fired from the media firm when it broke up and now work in research, though I guess the research will eventually go into ads.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:37:21

dajafi wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
dajafi wrote:
“Our political system is weak, the terrorists and former regime members are sparing no effort to overthrow the system, and neighboring countries have their own ambitions,” Mr. Adeeb said.

I think everyone agrees that "security" is better....

The Bush administration, mostly peopled by belligerent sociopaths who were too personally cowardly to engage in war but too temperamentally warlike to successfully pursue diplomacy, is almost HAMELS ill-suited to help Iraq resolve its very thorny political problems.....

Personally I wonder if it isn't time to revisit the Biden federation idea, at least as a way of consolidating gains and drawing in more outside help from the (anti-Iran portion of the) Arab world and NATO. Divvy it up, get the strongest possible security guarantees and start bringing our soldiers home.

All very nice I suppose, but what's it have to do with Obama's "reluctance to speak to the changing circumstances and....reexamine his position"? You're not giving joisey's unfounded assertion even a little chance here!!!1!

"...see the whole thing mainly through the prism of domestic politics and who wins/who loses (like baseball!)..."

Obama?

by **drsmooth** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:38:20

TenuredVulture wrote:....I often think insiders and pros convince campaigns to piss money away on stuff like this for the sake of their own bottom line.

say it ain't so, Joe - say it ain't so!!

by **Laexile** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 14:46:21

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:McCain with a web only ad on the campaign finance thing. I guess it's too process oriented to actually resonate in a real ad.

How much does any of this stuff matter? Who does this ad target? Is there a single Obama supporter who's now reconsidering? Is there a single undecided who is going to be persuaded by this? Is there some right winger sitting around thinking, "well I was lukewarm on McCain, but this campaign finance thing by Obama has me really fired up now!"

This ad should help Obama with the right wing Republicans. For years McCain has talked about campaign finance reform and public only money. The Republicans have opposed him at every turn. Obama took up McCain's message of public financing and has now abandoned it. The right wing Republicans are breathing a collective sigh. Obama loves the idea of private money running a campaign. He doesn't want to restrict private money influence. This is a really positive step for Obama to grab conservative Republicans that hate McCain away from McCain.

Conservative Republicans have two choices. They could choose McCain who they despise and who is out to put their campaign funding out of business or support Obama. They don't like him either, but at least if he wins they can run their own candidate in four years and play by his rules.

I know that vote decisions by low-information voters is based on an impression formed during the campaign without reference to specific incidents, but I often think insiders and pros convince campaigns to piss money away on stuff like this for the sake of their own bottom line.

I know that's what keeps you in whiskey and coke zero, but don't you ever feel the least bit sorry for candidates and their hard-working contributors?

The ad is supposed to target independent voters who were excited when Obama talked about reform and taking private money out of elections that he only meant that he wanted to take Republican private money out of elections. Some people might not agree.

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 15:01:42

Loyal Bushies

Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
...
The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.
...
“When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys,” Mr. Conyers said, “our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test. ‘’

Note that this wasn't Henry Waxman or Moveon.org, but the DoJ's own inspector general who issued this report.

For the right-wing Leninists who guided the Bush administration, these sorts of practices served a double purpose: putting loyalists in key positions to do things like file politically motivated lawsuits, but also that staffing the bureaucracy with ideologues and idiots further advances the message that government is inept and useless.

by **jeff2sf** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 15:08:06

dajafi wrote:Loyal Bushies

Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
...
The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

Applications that contained what were seen as “leftist commentary” or “buzz words” like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general’s office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.
...
“When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys,” Mr. Conyers said, “our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test. ‘’

Note that this wasn't Henry Waxman or Moveon.org, but the DoJ's own inspector general who issued this report.

For the right-wing Leninists who guided the Bush administration, these sorts of practices served a double purpose: putting loyalists in key positions to do things like file politically motivated lawsuits, but also that staffing the bureaucracy with ideologues and idiots further advances the message that government is inept and useless.

I'm unconvinced that it would operate in a different way if a Democrat ran it. (I'm hopeful on Obama, I'd flat out think it might get worse with Clinton)

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 15:12:45

It never did before, jeff. Under any president, of either party. Reagan and Bill Clinton probably did more to politicize the bureaucracy than any of their predecessors (and efforts such as this were probably inevitable to some extent as the executive got stronger and stronger relative to the other branches), but they never approached what Rove and Cheney tried to do.

I'm pretty confident that both Obama and McCain won't continue this trend of politicizing the administration of federal governance; their seeming disinclination toward that sort of thing is arguably the biggest reason I hoped they'd both get nominated. (Hillary and Giuliani, both paranoiac loyalty fetishists, unquestionably would have been the worst.)

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:04:16

jerseyhoya wrote:Bahaha

Not funny

Sorry, I forgot only limousine liberal and elitist jokes are funny. It's not my fault McCain can't keep shia and sunni straight and can't remember what his positions are.

Seriously though, I'm concerned about McCain's health. He doesn't look as good as he did last year and I'm not just saying that because I'm supporting Obama. McCain hasn't been able to articulate many of his positions without getting parts of it wrong, mixing up different muslim groups, and often even forgetting what his actual positions are. That's a legitimate concern, don't you think? It's plenty easy for him to make a retraction during a campaign, but is he going to get a chance at a retraction when he's talking to a foreign head of state, or negotiating a treaty, or issueing a proclamation of war? McCain's age isn't the issue, his seemingly deteriorating mental state is, however. So I can see why you don't think it's funny.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:14:41

Like when he said there are 57 states? Or when he said 10,000 people died in a tornado in Kansas?

Oh, no, that was Obama.

When you're on camera 24/7, you say dumb things. You mix things up. You say the wrong thing often even when you know the right answer. This doubles for someone like McCain who does town hall meetings all the time, and takes unscripted questions, as opposed to Obama, who is generally in more tightly planned formats.

Additionally, it wasn't funny because it wasn't funny.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:14:48

From purely an intellectual standpoint, I'd like to see what happened if Sadr (sp?) let his guys return to fighting. IOW, I really question how much of the surge's success is due to things other than the additional US troops on the ground. I know we'd all like to pat ourselves on the backs, but I don't think it's justified.

by **The Dude** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:21:18

Sadr's people are one group involved in the violence, mostly located in one city

by **Laexile** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:25:01

dajafi wrote:It never did before, jeff. Under any president, of either party. Reagan and Bill Clinton probably did more to politicize the bureaucracy than any of their predecessors (and efforts such as this were probably inevitable to some extent as the executive got stronger and stronger relative to the other branches), but they never approached what Rove and Cheney tried to do.

I'm pretty confident that both Obama and McCain won't continue this trend of politicizing the administration of federal governance; their seeming disinclination toward that sort of thing is arguably the biggest reason I hoped they'd both get nominated. (Hillary and Giuliani, both paranoiac loyalty fetishists, unquestionably would have been the worst.)

I've heard both of them mentioned for attorney general, although I think Clinton would be a longshot to take it. So you may get exactly what you're mentioning here.

The Bush administration has made a big deal of how Clinton fired all of Bush Sr's prosecutors and replaced them prosecutors with ideologies similar to his own. Wouldn't you expect a President Obama to fire everyone in the Justice Department that was hired by President Bush and replace them with people more fitting with his view? Obama has made a big deal about wanting to get rid of judiciary with a conservative view and how they need judges who are going to be in favor of the Democratic interpretation of issues.

The Democrats believe what has gone down in Guantanamo is torture. The people in the Bush justice department don't. If Obama wants to try people for torture he's not going to want someone hired by Bush who is unsympathetic to his position.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:28:08

jerseyhoya wrote:Like when he said there are 57 states? Or when he said 10,000 people died in a tornado in Kansas?

Oh, no, that was Obama.

When you're on camera 24/7, you say dumb things. You mix things up. You say the wrong thing often even when you know the right answer. This doubles for someone like McCain who does town hall meetings all the time, and takes unscripted questions, as opposed to Obama, who is generally in more tightly planned formats.

Additionally, it wasn't funny because it wasn't funny.

Of course, people make mistakes. Every campaign has things like that. But mcCain has one every other day and has flat out mistated his own positions REPEATEDLY. That's quite different than the silly mistakes that politicians ruitinely make. Not knowing which groups are sunni and shia, even after being corrected, is something very different from mistakingly mentioning the wrong number of people or states. Of course, you know that, but the one thing that the McCain can't have happen is for people to start seeing him as fragile or weak because that would undermine Mr War's only chance at election, fear, so you're forced to make weak comparisons.

And I'm the type of guy that the mcCain campaign should be worried about because I'm someone who liked McCain very much until I saw his judgement and will to fight for what's right disappear over the past 5 years. His campaign should fear those of us who are actually paying attention and haven't hopelessly chained ourselves to the old version of McCain, the one that's gone missing since 2003 or so.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:29:28

The Dude wrote:Sadr's people are one group involved in the violence, mostly located in one city

Yes, but not anything like they were doing. He's reigned them in a good bit.

by **Laexile** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:36:17

Monkeyboy wrote:From purely an intellectual standpoint, I'd like to see what happened if Sadr (sp?) let his guys return to fighting. IOW, I really question how much of the surge's success is due to things other than the additional US troops on the ground. I know we'd all like to pat ourselves on the backs, but I don't think it's justified.

The point of the surge wasn't for the US to solve all of Iraq's problems. It was to mount offensives against insurgents in certain areas and hold those areas after success.

The success or failure of Iraq has to do with the Iraqi people regardless of how many troops are in the country. The surge was supposed to create an environment where Sadr could feel like he could call off his militias and commit to the Democratic process.

McCain's strategy in Iraq is for US troops to create a peaceful environment while the Iraqis work on becoming self-sufficient. Obama believes that the Iraqis will only resolve their differences by the US withdrawing. If he becomes President and starts withdrawing he'd be counting on Sadr to call off his troops the same as Bush is now.

If Sadr lets his guys return to fighting in an Obama Presidency, it'll be a disaster for Obama. If it happens before he draws down and he has to keep troops there to fight he's not achieving his goal. If a civil war happens after he withdraws troops it'll be a foreign policy failure of epic proportions that could sink his Presidency. Iraq without violence plays into Obama's hands. He can withdraw the troops because they aren't needed.

by **Laexile** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 16:46:24

Monkeyboy wrote:And I'm the type of guy that the mcCain campaign should be worried about because I'm someone who liked McCain very much until I saw his judgement and will to fight for what's right disappear over the past 5 years. His campaign should fear those of us who are actually paying attention and haven't hopelessly chained ourselves to the old version of McCain, the one that's gone missing since 2003 or so.

You're the type of person the McCain campaign can't worry about. You formed an inaccurate opinion of Senator McCain in 2000 at a time when McCain had a conservative score of 67.7 in 1999. Yet when McCain moved to the center with a 2004-2006 score of 56.0 you listened to the Democrats tell you that he moved to the right. Rather than pay attention to what Senator McCain actually said or did you chose the Democrats explanation for what he said or did. You consistently give the DNC talking points on his positions instead of actually listening to what he says.

Your fantasy version of McCain never existed. Rather than approach him now with an open mind you approach him from a Democrat's point of view. The McCain campaign had no hope of getting you and won't be able to sway anyone who listens to how the Democrats define McCain more than what he says.

Archived

Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread