Nader In: Chance for Dopers to Elect McCain

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
Presidential elections should be more than personality contests, don’t you think? Al Gore may have been a droning space robot during the debates, but look at what a phony Texas-by-way-of-the-Ivy-League guy who most people find personable got us. Just because someone is boring doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a capable president, but so many people are suckered in by personality, on both sides–part of why Hillary is losing now is due to personality, with people paying more attention to Obama’s speeches and Youtube videos than their policy differences, or so it seems.

I want a strong and capable leader, not Miss Congeniality.
[/QUOTE]

However, personality should be a part of it. Kerry and Gore came across terribly. Bush almost as bad in my book. McCain & Obama both sound like and act like leaders. Additional they both have large and extensive positioned detailed out on the Internet and provided to media sources. McCain was the first to do so this time around and Obama’s was far more robust that HRC & Edwards in January when I was doing my heavy research. Additionally, much of HRC’s experience is as wife to Bill. Obama’s is as Obama and McCain’s record is longer than both of their’s and Bushes together.

I would be more impressed with the first serious female Presidential candidate was someone like Nancy Pelosi or Senator Snowe of Maine. Snowe would make an interesting running mate for McCain in fact. Both Snowe and Pelosi have run on their own merit and success. Not someone else’s coattails.

Gore was a poor campaigner. You do not easily get the job as President as a bad campaigner unless the opponent is worse. See Bush I and Bush II as examples.

Jim

122

[QUOTE=elucidator]
The “law enforcement” approach, oversimplified, means applying a net of intelligence sources, informants, and sympathizers. It means recognizing that, fundamentally, the WOT is a battle of hearts and minds. If it could be reduced to military terms, who has the mostest and bestest armored divisions, we already would have won. When what you got is a hammer, you try to make all problems nails. But a hammer is of scant use to a man assailed by a swarm of hornets. He can flail about in panic, and every once in a while announce that he as smushed the #3 Hornet Operative, and 75% of the Hornet leadership is neutralized. You know, the standard crapola we’ve been served, lo, these several years.

We need informants, not tanks. We need to know what is going on in the slums of Hamburg and Ankara, not a new! improved! stealth bomber.
[/QUOTE]

No, sir, we need them all. And concentrating on one to the exclusion of the other would be a fundamental mistake.

It would make no sense to put the FBI into the fight without intel, and let out intel services not give them any information. It would make no sense to send our troops into Afghanistan against an enemy without also using Treasury investigators to starve their funds.

However, we have since at least 2002 been doing these things. Now, it is certain that our military gets a ton of press, but I won’t disparage the other efforts of our government in this area, as they’ve all shown various levels of success. The Treasury stuff in particular has done pretty well.

For you to come here and say we’re fighting this on one front only displays gross ignorance of the fight. Now, individual criticisms of a weapon or a tactic might be appropriate - and I’ll certainly listen to these, if you have them.

But to say the administration hasn’t thought about this systematically is just false. And since it is false, I expect you to either retract it or provide a cite.

123

Piffle. Neither of us have access to the deliberations that went into these collosal clusterfucks, your insistence is nothing more than an attempt to butress a weak argument with impossible demands.

How about results, Moto? Never mind the pristine purity of their intentions, what actually happened? Has our military approach garnered us more friends and allies, or more enemies?

124

[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
Presidential elections should be more than personality contests, don’t you think? Al Gore may have been a droning space robot during the debates, but look at what a phony Texas-by-way-of-the-Ivy-League guy who most people find personable got us. Just because someone is boring doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a capable president, but so many people are suckered in by personality, on both sides–part of why Hillary is losing now is due to personality, with people paying more attention to Obama’s speeches and Youtube videos than their policy differences, or so it seems.

I want a strong and capable leader, not Miss Congeniality.
[/QUOTE]

Except, what exactly can a president do, if they can’t persuade congress and the american people that their polices are the correct policies?

The president is not just a manager. They should be, as you say, a strong a capable leader. How many strong capable, yet deadly dull leaders are there? It’s a contradiction in terms. Which would you prefer, a president with a long list of policy positions that you agree with, but who is unable to convince the American people that those policy positions should be adopted…or a president with a shorter list of policy positions that you agree with, but who can get those positions enacted?

A president doesn’t have to be “likeable”, but they do have to be effective. Managerial types who can’t campaign effectively aren’t going to be able to govern effectively. Of course managerial types are important, the government couldn’t run without them…but they are not found in elective positions but appointed positions.

125

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Piffle. Neither of us have access to the deliberations that went into these collosal clusterfucks, your insistence is nothing more than an attempt to butress a weak argument with impossible demands.
[/QUOTE]

Your argument is far weaker, and your demands unrealistic. But I should give you a pass?

Don’t think so.

126

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Has our military approach garnered us more friends and allies, or more enemies?
[/QUOTE]

Why don’t you answer this question. I would, of course, love cites.

127

I will cite our most renowned expert, Moto. You.

The most valuable potential sympathisizers and informants would be drawn from the Muslim World. Do you agree?

Our popularity and approval in that world is just slightly more positive than gonorrhea. Do you agree?

We had, at one time, the general sympathy of the world at large. (Hell, people who don’t even like us very much were holding candlelight vigils, fer chrissake!) This happy situation has deteriorated drasticly. Do you agree?

Ergo, we may reasonably assume that our policy is a failture, when it comes to enlisting the support and information of the, ah, “target audience”. Do you agree?

128

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I will cite our most renowned expert, Moto. You.

The most valuable potential sympathisizers and informants would be drawn from the Muslim World. Do you agree?

Our popularity and approval in that world is just slightly more positive than gonorrhea. Do you agree?

We had, at one time, the general sympathy of the world at large. (Hell, people who don’t even like us very much were holding candlelight vigils, fer chrissake!) This happy situation has deteriorated drasticly. Do you agree?

Ergo, we may reasonably assume that our policy is a failture, when it comes to enlisting the support and information of the, ah, “target audience”. Do you agree?
[/QUOTE]

In order:

Yes
Mixed
Irrelevant
And no, that isn’t a reasonable conclusion.

I’d be happy to expand later, but I have to go.

129

[QUOTE=elucidator]
How about results, Moto? Never mind the pristine purity of their intentions, what actually happened?
[/QUOTE]

Kinda funny given how this thread started. :wink:

130

[QUOTE=saoirse]
The problem I have with this is, first, that it assumes that being entertaining and personable should be a requirement for a candidate to win.
[/QUOTE]

Gee, I always thought that those qualities were pretty important in leadership in general.

131

We need intell but not here. Its over there that counts. We need arab speaking and writing operatives that we can put on the ground and pass. We need operatives that can get in with the dangerous people,follow them and infiltrate. After 911, we found we were sorely lacking in those abilities. We have done little to fix that. But,we have managed to give away our rights on a bait and switch.

132

Ok, here’s a concrete example of a very important example why I cannot support a Democrat: both of that party’s choices (Obama and Clinton) support the death penalty. As someone who considers capital punishment tantamount to murder, and one’s position thereon to be highly indicative of one’s moral compass, why should I support a Democrat?

133

[QUOTE=Lama Pacos]
Ok, here’s a concrete example of a very important example why I cannot support a Democrat: both of that party’s choices (Obama and Clinton) support the death penalty. As someone who considers capital punishment tantamount to murder, and one’s position thereon to be highly indicative of one’s moral compass, why should I support a Democrat?
[/QUOTE]
Because Democrats will appoint judges more likely to view Capital punishment as cruel and unusual punishment or racially biased.

I’d like to make a million dollars a year. If no one offers me a job making that, it makes sense to take the job that pays $75,000 vs the one that pays $50,000.

134

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Because Democrats will appoint judges more likely to view Capital punishment as cruel and unusual punishment or racially biased.

I’d like to make a million dollars a year. If no one offers me a job making that, it makes sense to take the job that pays $75,000 vs the one that pays $50,000.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, you said something in this thread that makes sense to me, that I also agree with. Cool.

135

I’m back. Between the job and the tail end of the flu, which doesn’t seem to want to go away, I couldn’t post until now.

Now then, I think my friend elucidator operates under a common misconception - that being a nice and well-liked nation will buy you influence. Hate to say it, but this is a very limited view of power.

Few nations are as well-respected as Canada, and few people are as well-liked abroad. Yet Canada’s ability to shape world events is limited severely, even more so than the constraints imposed by its small population would imply. Previous Canadian governments did not fund Canada’s military to anything close to an adequate level, and parts shortages, system obsolescence and manning levels are a problem there.

In addition, Canada has for years maintained that its role in world affairs would be through humanitarian aid, but those same recent governments were shortchanging this as well.

Conversely, Japan is a hated country throughout much of Asia. Yet it has considerable influence there despite this hatred - its massive economic power is simply a force to be reckoned with whether you think the Japanese are murderous bastards or not.

Currently we are getting considerable cooperation from locals in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no illusions that this is due to any great love of us. But if it comes from a calculation that we’re better than the Taliban (in Afghanistan) or al-Qaeda (in Iraq) and are likely to stick around until certain problems are fixed and those other shitheads are gone, it is an honest alliance and can last.

Certainly it is a more realistic basis to build one on than “teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony.” Besides, I’m a Pepsi drinker anyway.

136

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]

Currently we are getting considerable cooperation from locals in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no illusions that this is due to any great love of us. But if it comes from a calculation that we’re better than the Taliban (in Afghanistan) or al-Qaeda (in Iraq) and are likely to stick around until certain problems are fixed and those other shitheads are gone, it is an honest alliance and can last.

Certainly it is a more realistic basis to build one on than “teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony.” Besides, I’m a Pepsi drinker anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Or one could take the Teddy Roosevelt approach: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Notice he said “carry”, not “wield”.

137

[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
Or one could take the Teddy Roosevelt approach: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Notice he said “carry”, not “wield”.
[/QUOTE]

Sure. But if you look at his career, you’ll find instances where he was certainly willing to fight. He had to be kept out of WWI by the government - which was for the best, as he wasn’t up to it.

And yet the man also won the Nobel Peace Prize.

138

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Hey, you said something in this thread that makes sense to me, that I also agree with. Cool.
[/QUOTE]
Even a broken clock is right twice a day :slight_smile:

139

[QUOTE=Lama Pacos]
Ok, here’s a concrete example of a very important example why I cannot support a Democrat: both of that party’s choices (Obama and Clinton) support the death penalty. As someone who considers capital punishment tantamount to murder, and one’s position thereon to be highly indicative of one’s moral compass, why should I support a Democrat?
[/QUOTE]

You can not be elected in many places advocating the end of the death penalty. It seems as if your weak on crime. I do not know if they really believe in it?Bush , in Texas had a chain drive flowing into the execution chambers.
My first what the fuck about Bush was when Illinois stopped executing because they finally discovered that they were executing some innocent people. Bush said matter of factly that Texas had never executed an innocent man. He sounded like such a believer and had no interest in even trying to find out.

140

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Now then, I think my friend elucidator operates under a common misconception - that being a nice and well-liked nation will buy you influence. Hate to say it, but this is a very limited view of power.

Few nations are as well-respected as Canada, and few people are as well-liked abroad. Yet Canada’s ability to shape world events is limited severely, even more so than the constraints imposed by its small population would imply. Previous Canadian governments did not fund Canada’s military to anything close to an adequate level, and parts shortages, system obsolescence and manning levels are a problem there.

In addition, Canada has for years maintained that its role in world affairs would be through humanitarian aid, but those same recent governments were shortchanging this as well.

Conversely, Japan is a hated country throughout much of Asia. Yet it has considerable influence there despite this hatred - its massive economic power is simply a force to be reckoned with whether you think the Japanese are murderous bastards or not.
[/QUOTE]

You are confusing two distinct concepts. The Japanese are hated for what they did under a different government, over three generations ago. They are not hated for anything that they are currently doing, at least not much (Chinese and Koreans have issues with some of the policies of their Minstry of Education). That’s very different from adopting policies that are offensive to important nations around the world, each of whom can either help or hinder our interests, as they are inclined.