SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

ossobuco wrote:

A quick clue to me is that my primary fear is that we bomb Iran - the logical development of years of stupidity. I don't think anywhere near enough of the candidates think that is dumb in many ways.

Hillary voted yes on declaring Iran's Republican Guard to be a terrorist organization -- that clears the way for military action. Edwards and Richardson aren't in the Senate so wouldn't vote on it anyway; Obama sat it out.

Wish he would've voted, but FYI, in terms of "yes" vs. abstain.

Dodd and Biden voted "nay." (I do like both of them.)

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

blatham wrote:

They have one child and there's no present hint she'll move in a political direction.

err, actually Chelsea Clinton's been showing up on some addendums to Power 100 lists as someone to keep an eye on (most recently, I think, in the October 2007 Vanity Fair)

Thomas wrote:

OMGSigDavid wrote:

Thomas:
May we know your opinions
of Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises ?

I admire Milton Friedman the economist

Do u admire his economic philosophy, Thomas ?

David

ehBeth wrote:

blatham wrote:

They have one child and there's no present hint she'll move in a political direction.

err, actually Chelsea Clinton's been showing up on some addendums to Power 100 lists as someone to keep an eye on (most recently, I think, in the October 2007 Vanity Fair)

hi bethie

But on what basis does the speculation sit?

Do u admire his economic philosophy, Thomas ?

It's not so much that Chelsea Clinton has current political goals or aspirations but that she's just so dang smart and attractive (in a political sense) that the 'watchers' say she's got a political future if she wants it.

Other mags are describing her as the JFK Jr of her generation.

It wasn't something I'd been aware of until a few weeks ago.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do u admire his economic philosophy, Thomas ?

I do. It was empiricist, proceeding on a case-by-case basis, and open-minded. It's a significant contrast to the views he defended as a public intellectual, which were often dogmatic and overbroad.

But just as universal healthcare, my view of Milton Friedman is a topic that doesn't doesn't really belong here. Feel free to start a separate thread about it; I'll respond there.

sozobe wrote:

ossobuco wrote:

A quick clue to me is that my primary fear is that we bomb Iran - the logical development of years of stupidity. I don't think anywhere near enough of the candidates think that is dumb in many ways.

Hillary voted yes on declaring Iran's Republican Guard to be a terrorist organization -- that clears the way for military action. Edwards and Richardson aren't in the Senate so wouldn't vote on it anyway; Obama sat it out.

Wish he would've voted, but FYI, in terms of "yes" vs. abstain.

Dodd and Biden voted "nay." (I do like both of them.)

I saw reference in Maureen Dowd's column today to the fact that Obama would've voted "no" (but just that). Tracked down his statement:

Quote:

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html

It's sort of useless - I'm so against our being there in Iraq in the first place, and am perplexed that we think we can tell its neighbor what to do, even though we interfered there before.

I don't get who we think we are. At first I thought we think we are the world's policemen. Now I think we are a boy fighting for space on the playground, protecting our pile of zillion dollar snowballs. (Well, at the very first, I thought we were fighting for the forces of good.)

Speaking up for justice in the world, I can see that.
I don't see us that way anymore.

ossobuco wrote:

It's sort of useless - I'm so against our being there in Iraq in the first place, and am perplexed that we think we can tell its neighbor what to do, even though we interfered there before.

I don't get who we think we are. At first I thought we think we are the world's policemen. Now I think we are a boy fighting for space on the playground, protecting our pile of zillion dollar snowballs. (Well, at the very first, I thought we were fighting for the forces of good.)

Speaking up for justice in the world, I can see that.
I don't see us that way anymore.

History provides us with many lessons. The problem is they are often very contradictory,
ant it can be very difficult in prospect to judge just which will have proven itself to be applicable in retrospect.

Arguments such as yours were used to rationalize inaction by France and the UK (and the United States)
during the 1930s as Hitler developed his power and dazzled the German people
with the relatively cheap victories he accumulated in the early years.
In retrospect there is good reason to believe that firm decisive action
on the part of France and Britain following Hitler's reoccupation of the
Rhineland may well have toppled his regime, sparing all sides a great deal of human suffering.
One of the key "lessons" the United States learned following WWII
was the failure of our isolationist policies in the years between WWI
and WWII. Now we appear to have applied those lessons to excess.

The Korean War was widely debated in this country and to many
it seemed an unjusand costly effort to back one authoritarian regime in a strugge with another,
merely to check the ambitions of the Soviet Union.
The passage of time, and the starkly contrasting developments of the
governments of the two Koreas now reminds us of the much greater
human suffering that would have resulted had North Korea been allowed
to take the whole peninsula (not to mention the effect that would have
had on the politicaL trajectory of Japan).

One could put forward a very good argument to the effect that our
intervention in Iraq during the Gulf War was our fundamental great error
in that region. Certainly a strong Suni state, flush with the wealth of Kuwati petroleum
exports, would have remained a powerful check on the ambitions of the
radical theocrats of Iran. However, I doubt that the Kuwati people would endorse that argument.

It is not a simple thing to be always wise in dealing with the unfolding play of history,
and there are no simple rules for it.

It is relatively very simple to appear wise in criticizing events of the past, even the recent past.

George:

I submit that Iraq, under Saddam, represented a check on Iran, even after the Gulf War. The two fought an eight year stalemate.

With our genious for screwing things up, we have removed the check on Iran in the region, left Iraq in a very weakened position and opened the door for Iran to move toward regional dominance. Oh, did I mention that we also created our next problem country?

Does a powerful Iran pose a threat to the US? A minor one, perhaps. But in the world of relative threat assessments, Iran is rather like a small dog. They have teeth and they can bite, but they can also be kicked a very far distance, if necessary.

Halfback

Bill O'Reilly devoted the beginning of his show last night to warning Americans about the dangerous radicalism of John Edwards, proclaiming that "John Edwards has no chance to become president because he's simply too far-left for most Americans." After highlighting all the scary, fringe positions Edwards holds, O'Reilly summarized what the Far-Left America would look like once John Edwards got done with it:

Quote:

[W]ould you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.

Who could even fathom an America plagued by habeas corpus, search warrants, and a military that fails to beat, freeze and mock-execute its detainees? And nothing is more sacred to core American values than branding other countries' armies as "Terrorists" ("The [Revolutionary] Guard is the SS of Iran").

blatham wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

blatham wrote:

They have one child and there's no present hint she'll move in a political direction.

err, actually Chelsea Clinton's been showing up on some addendums to Power 100 lists as someone to keep an eye on (most recently, I think, in the October 2007 Vanity Fair)

hi bethie

But on what basis does the speculation sit?

her education and current employment seem to be what is landing her on Power Possibles lists.