Military force should be the last option. I don't think we'll get that with a McCain Admin. We'll get the very same shoot-from-the-hip, reactionary foreign policy that has us bogged down in Iraq and has lost the faith of the European Community.

FP is nuanced. You can either react to situations in a region, shoot first and ask no question, or try to strike a balnce in the middle. Obama and Biden would do that........McCain would just as soon launch a attack on America's enemies and then wonder why everyone is pissed off at America, and then we can rely on Palin's FP experience.....

I mean after all, Alaska sits close to Europe.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did the timetable for a troop withdrawal become more of a likelihood because Obama pushed it as an issue and the country being occupied wants a timetable?

Since the Europeans don't care for Bush then McCain is unlikely to seem any different. They weren't interested in him when he went over there and he hasn't done anything fantastic since that will prompt them to change their minds. If he's elected then they'll be stuck with him and they'll deal as they do now.

To tack on to the executive experience discussion: the governor of any state that is prone to natural disaster will most likely develop emergency preparedness skills (good or bad). I live in a state prone to annual wildfires and the devastation from that is sometimes compounded with mudslides, if we have heavy rain in those areas. That's something with which any governor of this state has to deal.

Now I like the governor (maybe more for his movies than anything else) and I have no complaints about his job performance since I know this is tough state to manage and his best happens to be better than some of the others. He's tough, tough talking, charismatic, no nonsense, engaging, humorous and a host of other things and he's perfect at this level of government. I could even see him as a senator but not president (and it's not because he was born here). He might be engaging domestically but I don't see him as a world leader.....so all that experience doesn't make him ready for the world to me.

I stand by my opinon of McCain being hypocritical on the experience issue but it since it's McCain vs Obama then the quality of his 25.5 years of service are up against the quality of Obama's 3.5 years as a senator. And Joe Biden's vs. Palin's.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Wales2004

Correct me if I'm wrong but did the timetable for a troop withdrawal become more of a likelihood because Obama pushed it as an issue and the country being occupied wants a timetable?

That is a possibility but you have to keep in mind that it would not have been possible at all to even mention a time table had the surge not worked. Also keep in mind that Obama voted against the surge. It can be looked at as somewhat of a double-edged sword, If you give him credit for speaking out for a time table then you also have to note that he hurt his cause by voting against the surge.

Since the Europeans don't care for Bush then McCain is unlikely to seem any different. They weren't interested in him when he went over there and he hasn't done anything fantastic since that will prompt them to change their minds. If he's elected then they'll be stuck with him and they'll deal as they do now.

That is possible as well, but I am of the belief that Europeans should not dictate our approach to foreign policy. They are nice to have on your side, but I would not allow them final say as to what we should do to protect ourselves.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

Correct me if I'm wrong but did the timetable for a troop withdrawal become more of a likelihood because Obama pushed it as an issue and the country being occupied wants a timetable?

Since the Europeans don't care for Bush then McCain is unlikely to seem any different. They weren't interested in him when he went over there and he hasn't done anything fantastic since that will prompt them to change their minds. If he's elected then they'll be stuck with him and they'll deal as they do now.

To tack on to the executive experience discussion: the governor of any state that is prone to natural disaster will most likely develop emergency preparedness skills (good or bad). I live in a state prone to annual wildfires and the devastation from that is sometimes compounded with mudslides, if we have heavy rain in those areas. That's something with which any governor of this state has to deal.

Now I like the governor (maybe more for his movies than anything else) and I have no complaints about his job performance since I know this is tough state to manage and his best happens to be better than some of the others. He's tough, tough talking, charismatic, no nonsense, engaging, humorous and a host of other things and he's perfect at this level of government. I could even see him as a senator but not president (and it's not because he was born here). He might be engaging domestically but I don't see him as a world leader.....so all that experience doesn't make him ready for the world to me.

I stand by my opinon of McCain being hypocritical on the experience issue but it since it's McCain vs Obama then the quality of his

The Bush Admin. didn't want to hear anything based on a timetable. They called it cutting and running. Obama and Biden wanted a timetable to let the Iraqi government that they better get their act together because it will be time for us to go home and if you don't.......well, it's on you.

Now, the Bush Admin. has taken to making a timetable. You will hear that is because the surge worked. Mighty funny how they now wanted what the country wants......a redeployment of our troops andfor most of them to come home. I guess it's time for the Bush Admin. to "cut and run" as it were.

They drew a strong correlation between McCain and Reagan last night. (some of you guys might have missed that while reading the liberal blogs instead of watching)

McCain was more involved with the Reagan admin than any other since becoming a senator. He was as they like to say, a "foot soldier" in the Reagan Revolution.

This comparison would be a minefield, IMO. Reagan's idea of diplomacy was Iran-Contra. How is that something to aspire to be, or to be like? Arguably, beginning with his administration the divisive issues came to the forefront more so than in administrations prior to his. Reagan was a man that couldn't even utter the word "AIDS" until his second term.

This is what really really bothers me about Republicans, and why I have such a hard time understanding how they are a viable political party in today's United States. A party that blatantly supports making homosexuals second class citizens because of whom they sleep with. I have yet to understand how two women marrying or two men marrying has anything to do with anyone other than the people who make that commitment. Really, if you had a lesbian or gay couple next door to you, living together, how does that affect anyone else? Or the same couple that now are still living together, but now have a piece of paper making it "official"? This argument of "defense of marriage" is just beyond me.

In my honest opinion, the Republicans should get back to the constitution that they seem to love when appointing their own activist judges and read the part of ALL men being created equal. My impression of the party is that they have changed that to read "All straight, rich, Christian white men are created equal". Because they have done nothing to help anyone other than those in that statement. If there is something that they have done for the homeless, poor, minority, non-Christian or GLBT, then please fill me in. I would love to know what that is....

The Bush Admin. didn't want to hear anything based on a timetable. They called it cutting and running. Obama and Biden wanted a timetable to let the Iraqi government that they better get their act together because it will be time for us to go home and if you don't.......well, it's on you.

Now, the Bush Admin. has taken to making a timetable. You will hear that is because the surge worked. Mighty funny how they now wanted what the country wants......a redeployment of our troops andfor most of them to come home. I guess it's time for the Bush Admin. to "cut and run" as it were.

Since I don't give believe in the occupation, the surge means nothing to me. Patting yourself on the back for something which was based on lies in the first place is mind boggling except if your reality is different on the issue. No Osama Bin Laden = no success. Unless Al Quaeda is now defunct the fact that they relocated is a geographical victory at best.

I stand by my opinon of McCain being hypocritical on the experience issue but it since it's McCain vs Obama then the quality of his 25.5 years of service are up against the quality of Obama's 3.5 years as a senator. And Joe Biden's vs. Palin's.

I agree the quality of their tenure should weigh more heavily than the number of years served. While Obama has had a shorter number of years in the US Senate, he has not really accomplished anything of substance. John McCain has.

I'm not a huge fan of Joe Biden basically because I disagree with him on the issues, but he has done a lot.

Sarah Palin, if you want to talk about quality, has been a very very good governor during her term. She turned a deficit into a surplus in only 1 year. She completely eradicated the status que of Alaska's leadership. She has created jobs and is doing wonders for their economy. Alaskans absolutely love her. (I'm sure you've seen her approval ratings) They are actually mad to be potentially losing her.

Since I don't give believe in the occupation, the surge means nothing to me. Patting yourself on the back for something which was based on lies in the first place is mind boggling except if your reality is different on the issue. No Osama Bin Laden = no success. Unless Al Quaeda is now defunct the fact that they relocated is a geographical victory at best.

The "surge" is just a nicer way (according to Bush's focus groups) to say "escalation". And you're right. The occupation - and it IS an occupation - is illegal. In every sense of the word. If another country would have behaved in this manner, they would have been put up before the World Court by now on war crimes charges.

Since McCain supports this occupation, he is no better than the criminals (the Bush Administration) that launched it.

This comparison would be a minefield, IMO. Reagan's idea of diplomacy was Iran-Contra. How is that something to aspire to be, or to be like? Arguably, beginning with his administration the divisive issues came to the forefront more so than in administrations prior to his. Reagan was a man that couldn't even utter the word "AIDS" until his second term.

I was speaking mainly about McCain's similarities with Reagan in relation to foreign policy. If you give Reagan credit for only Iran-Contra, who then to you credit with ending the 40+ year cold war?

If there is something that they have done for the homeless, poor, minority, non-Christian or GLBT, then please fill me in. I would love to know what that is....

I assume you are talking about recent years, you know that the party was founded to end slavery right?

In recent years republicans have held the idea to lessen the role of government in our lives (except for Bush). Although this seems cruel because it does leave some groups to deal with their issues at the state, local level, and private sector.

I do not like to be lumped in with being anti-homeless, anti-gay..or what have you. Simply because I do not feel it is the role of the federal government to step into these situations.

This comparison would be a minefield, IMO. Reagan's idea of diplomacy was Iran-Contra. How is that something to aspire to be, or to be like? Arguably, beginning with his administration the divisive issues came to the forefront more so than in administrations prior to his. Reagan was a man that couldn't even utter the word "AIDS" until his second term.

This is what really really bothers me about Republicans, and why I have such a hard time understanding how they are a viable political party in today's United States. A party that blatantly supports making homosexuals second class citizens because of whom they sleep with. I have yet to understand how two women marrying or two men marrying has anything to do with anyone other than the people who make that commitment. Really, if you had a lesbian or gay couple next door to you, living together, how does that affect anyone else? Or the same couple that now are still living together, but now have a piece of paper making it "official"? This argument of "defense of marriage" is just beyond me.

In my honest opinion, the Republicans should get back to the constitution that they seem to love when appointing their own activist judges and read the part of ALL men being created equal. My impression of the party is that they have changed that to read "All straight, rich, Christian white men are created equal". Because they have done nothing to help anyone other than those in that statement. If there is something that they have done for the homeless, poor, minority, non-Christian or GLBT, then please fill me in. I would love to know what that is....

IA with you on almost everything, even though there are some Republicans who don't care what people do in their private lives. But, I see what you are saying.......the Party as a whole seems to give off this narative that it is ok for them to legislate morals from the bench or branches of government, but then get caught in scandal and that is supposed to remain a private issue.

The "surge" is just a nicer way (according to Bush's focus groups) to say "escalation". And you're right. The occupation - and it IS an occupation - is illegal. In every sense of the word. If another country would have behaved in this manner, they would have been put up before the World Court by now on war crimes charges.

Since McCain supports this occupation, he is no better than the criminals (the Bush Administration) that launched it.

I wonder why Russia hasn't been brought up on war crimes for their recent actions?

Oh, and one other thing.....

Didn't the Cold War end under GHWB's one term? NOT Reagan's?

Oh, and one other thing.....

Didn't the Cold War end under GHWB's one term? NOT Reagan's?

yeah, in 1989/90, the first two years of his term. However, that does not discount the 8 years that Reagan spent focusing on the USSR.

If you look back I said, McCain would be more closely compared to Reagan and HW rather than W.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

If religious groups see Palin who has no qualms about ridiculing community organizing (which in this case helped benefit people in dire need) as a great example of what they stand for then thank God I am not one of them. How anyone can preach to the masses Biblical principles and call themselves Christian while ignoring Jesus' greatest commandment "to love one another as I have loved you" and to basically ridicule the poor who Jesus loved, is a travesty.

Palin has every right to defend herself against attacks but if her way of doing it includes ridiculing significant service then I have no interest in her whatsoever. I may engage in discussion about her since she's part of the election discussion and I may defend any poor treatment of her as a fellow human being but that's about it.

If religious groups see Palin who has no qualms about ridiculing community organizing (which in this case helped benefit people in dire need) as a great example of what they stand for then thank God I am not one of them. How anyone can preach to the masses Biblical principles and call themselves Christian while ignoring Jesus' greatest commandment "to love one another as I have loved you" and to basically ridicule the poor who Jesus loved, is a travesty.

Palin has every right to defend herself against attacks but if her way of doing it includes ridiculing significant service then I have no interest in her whatsoever. I may engage in discussion about her since she's part of the election discussion and I may defend any poor treatment of her as a fellow human being but that's about it.

You know the very first comment that came out of the Obama camp was to downplay Palin's role as Mayor of Wasilla. Is this not the same thing? I guess it's ok to put down small town America if you are promising the world to them out of the other side of your mouth.

The impression I got last night from the questioning of a community organizer is ..what exactly is a community organizer? I dont really know of a specific definition for what that even is.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

I do not like to be lumped in with being anti-homeless, anti-gay..or what have you. Simply because I do not feel it is the role of the federal government to step into these situations.

Casey, I would like to clarify something. And I'm sorry if I offended you. You arguments for your party are compelling and you state them very eloquently. What I meant was that my impression of the Republican party's platform. I'm sure there are Republicans that are not biased against the groups I listed.

I was speaking mainly about McCain's similarities with Reagan in relation to foreign policy. If you give Reagan credit for only Iran-Contra, who then to you credit with ending the 40+ year cold war?

IMO, the beginnings of that started under Nixon when he went to China. Every administration after that one did some work to end the Cold War. Was Reagan part of that? Yes. Should he get all the credit? Absolutely not.

In recent years republicans have held the idea to lessen the role of government in our lives (except for Bush). Although this seems cruel because it does leave some groups to deal with their issues at the state, local level, and private sector.

We are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. I don't believe the Republicans want to lessen the role of government in our lives and then, in the next breath, say that lesbians and gays cannot be married. Isn't that further government intrusiveness? Or how Edwin Mease in the 1980s had a gay couple arrested for having sex in their own home!

If they want to spend less money, fine. Spend less. But don't spend less here and then spend billions overseas in a war that is not justified. Imagine if just half of the money spent in Iraq was spent here on our citizens. Don't you think that alot of our problems would have been solved by now?

I just don't understand taking money from people who desperately need it just to put it in the hands of military contractors is the way to go. I just don't.