2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

Case in point: after the first debate, I said that we'd have to wait about a week to see the full extent of how much Obama would take a hit in the polls. After the 2nd debate on Tuesday, Coito was on the next morning discussing how they polls didn't seem to have budged.

And you were both wrong. After the first debate, the effect in the polls became obvious in a day or two, when the tracking polls first started reflecting answers from after the debate. No such result was obvious immediately after the second debate.

I never suggested the polls significantly changed a day or two after the debate.

[Coito ergo sum]

I haven't defended Mormon missions.

Oh no, you just asked, "Aren't they different ways of serving" in a lame assed attempt to equivocate between military service in a war and a Mormon mission to France. I mean....they're just different ways of serving...like being a waitress is similar to being in Afghanistan!

The point is, it's a big nothing. We know he didn't go to Vietnam. Neither did Biden. So fucking what?

It was an idiotic question posed by Whoopi Goldberg, who first thought Mormons were not allowed by their religion to serve in the military. Ann Romney just explained what Mitt was doing at the time. She did not EQUATE anything.

I just don't buy into the hypocrisy that you folks swallow like candy -- that getting deferments from Vietnam is bad for Romney because he went on his Missions, but you don't have any issue with Biden's 5 deferments. Obama never served in the military either, but, again, that's fine with you, right?

Not an issue for me. If I'd been an adult during Vietnam, I'd have done everything in my power to stay the hell out of it too.

So, that is why you harp on Romney not having served, but you say nothing about Biden serving. Like I said, hypocrisy.

[Warren Dew]

I do take more issue with lack of military service in politicians with more hawkish views. Romney/Ryan might not be overtly talking about putting new boots on the ground because they know to do so after Iraq/Afghan would be political suicide, but I can't help worrying that they will in Syria or Iran with how tough their talk has been on the two. And yes, I do feel strongly that if your intent is to send American troops off to war, you ought to have the experience of having been there yourself.

I think that experience shows that politicians with less hawkish views are more likely to send large numbers of American troops off to pointless wars. Obama's tripling of our troop strength and casualty rates in Afghanistan is a case in point, as was Vietnam earlier on.

I feel comfortable with Romney because he understands the "peace" part of "peace through strength" - that the primary purpose of a strong military is to prevent war, not start war. Benghazi is an excellent illustration of that in miniature: increased strength, in the form of retaining the ambassador's Marine contingent, would most likely have prevented the ambassador's death, and likely would have deterred the attack entirely.

That's one of the reasons McCain was a significantly better Republican candidate than Romney is. McCain knew better than anyone the cost of sending troops off to war, and for all the things I could disagree with him on, I feel confident that McCain would not be as foolhardy with American lives as Bush was. I have no such confidence in Romney.

I feel the opposite. McCain seemed to me the perfect example of someone who thought the purpose of the military was to make war, not to prevent it.

[Warren Dew]

I never suggested the polls significantly changed a day or two after the [second] debate.

Valid point.

[Warren Dew]

[Wumbologist]

How does Obama's hawkish positions on Libya,

Are you talking about the NATO strikes with no boots on the ground? Doesn't compare to Iraqistan, I think you know that fully well.

and on blowing nonmilitary folks up with drones, compare?

I'm not a fan of the drone strikes, as much as I'm sure you'd like to believe that I'm behind everything that the current administration does just because I like them better than the Repuglies. It still doesn't stack to Iraquistan, though.

He and Biden don't need military service for that, but Romney/Ryan do?

There's a clear difference between military strikes and boots on the ground.

And, you couldn't find a bigger hawk than Biden. He voted for the Iraq War, and he was all over the idea of forcibly knocking Hussein out of Iraq in 1998.

Obama voted against it. He's the only one who got it right from the get-go.

Foolhardy? Nonsense. Democrats were in favor of Iraq in 2002. If you think we wouldn't have gone into Iraq if Gore was elected President, then you know nothing of the the political position of the Democratic Party at the time.

I don't think it's as likely we would have gone into Iraq with Gore. Possible? Sure. With Bush, it was a certainty. And yes, the Democrats went along too much with Iraq. Again, I'm not sure if you think the point of political discussions is that one is supposed to agree with their party 100% in every situation. The Democrats have their flaws, but I prefer them to the Republicans. Obama has his flaws, but I think he's the better option of the two. The real world isn't a black and white dichotomy of "My guy is always right and your guy is always wrong".

[Ian]

I do take more issue with lack of military service in politicians with more hawkish views. Romney/Ryan might not be overtly talking about putting new boots on the ground because they know to do so after Iraq/Afghan would be political suicide, but I can't help worrying that they will in Syria or Iran with how tough their talk has been on the two. And yes, I do feel strongly that if your intent is to send American troops off to war, you ought to have the experience of having been there yourself.

I think that experience shows that politicians with less hawkish views are more likely to send large numbers of American troops off to pointless wars. Obama's tripling of our troop strength and casualty rates in Afghanistan is a case in point, as was Vietnam earlier on.

I don't think this makes sense. For one thing, I don't think you can make a case for LBJ not being much of a hawk. As for Obama, you can point to Afghanistan but you should also mention pulling troops out of Iraq - something that would very likely still not have happened if we had a McCain administration right now, at least if McCain had meant what he said.

I'm cautious of any President who does not have military experience, Democrats included. But Republican leaders who have no military background and yet talk tough are more wont to prove it and use the military like a tool, the most salient point being Bush/Cheney. I think they're more likely to make reckless decisions. Between Obama and Romney, I feel far more comfortable with Obama. Neither has a military background, but Romney is talking the same sort of neoconservative hubris that got us into Iraq. Maybe he knows it just plays better with conservative voters, but his foreign policy advisors are largely made up of Bush 43 alumni. I have little reason to think his administration's advisors would look much different than those on his campaign.

That's one of the reasons McCain was a significantly better Republican candidate than Romney is. McCain knew better than anyone the cost of sending troops off to war, and for all the things I could disagree with him on, I feel confident that McCain would not be as foolhardy with American lives as Bush was. I have no such confidence in Romney.

I feel the opposite. McCain seemed to me the perfect example of someone who thought the purpose of the military was to make war, not to prevent it.

Maybe, but I would've felt more comfortable that he'd be more hesitant to put troops in harms way, given his own experience - the one major caveat being his preference to keep US troops in Iraq until who-knows-when. And I think McCain would likely have tried to be pragmatic about foreign policy. I have no such feelings about Romney; on foreign policy issues to date, his record has been downright embarassing.

[Wumbologist]

I think that experience shows that politicians with less hawkish views are more likely to send large numbers of American troops off to pointless wars. Obama's tripling of our troop strength and casualty rates in Afghanistan is a case in point, as was Vietnam earlier on.

Afghan would likely have played out the same way under a Republican administration, and odds are good we'd still be in Iraq, to boot.

I feel comfortable with Romney because he understands the "peace" part of "peace through strength" - that the primary purpose of a strong military is to prevent war, not start war.

Under Romney, the primary purpose of a strong military will be to unnecessarily drain the nation's budget. Military technology is increasingly pushing towards a leaner, more technologically advanced military that focuses on getting the most capability out of the least amount of hardware possible, yet Romney thinks it's sheer size of our armed forces that is important. We don't need more ships and submarines than we already have, and certainly not at a point where we're finding it so hard to balance the budget in the first place.

Benghazi is an excellent illustration of that in miniature: increased strength, in the form of retaining the ambassador's Marine contingent, would most likely have prevented the ambassador's death, and likely would have deterred the attack entirely.

I'd think if the Republicans believed that so strongly, they would have avoided cutting half a billion in funding to the State Department so they could afford to more adequately secure their embassies. Benghazi would have happened one way or the other, the fact that it happened under a Democrat just means that it's the Republicans that get to milk it for political points.

[Warren Dew]

And, you couldn't find a bigger hawk than Biden. He voted for the Iraq War, and he was all over the idea of forcibly knocking Hussein out of Iraq in 1998.

Obama voted against it. He's the only one who got it right from the get-go.

To the contrary. Obama wasn't even a senator when the original Iraq war vote happened, but he voted in favor of continuing funding, which was the only opportunity he had to vote on it.

I don't think this makes sense. For one thing, I don't think you can make a case for LBJ not being much of a hawk.

My point exactly. LBJ wasn't a hawk, and he was the one who escalated Vietnam from a limited intervention to a huge intervention tremendously costly in terms of money and casualties.

As for Obama, you can point to Afghanistan but you should also mention pulling troops out of Iraq - something that would very likely still not have happened if we had a McCain administration right now, at least if McCain had meant what he said.

Obama continued the then current drawdown of troops in Iraq that Bush had already started, on essentially the same schedule as Bush's. I think McCain likely would have too. The only possible difference is that McCain would have left a relatively small residual force there - and Obama likely would have too had he not failed in his attempts to negotiate a continued status of forces agreeement.

I'm cautious of any President who does not have military experience, Democrats included. But Republican leaders who have no military background and yet talk tough are more wont to prove it and use the military like a tool, the most salient point being Bush/Cheney.

Bush didn't talk tough - in fact, he was elected on a domestic platform of reforming entitlements and strengthening education. And frankly, I'm not sure I'd disregard the National Guard as military experience - plenty of National Guard have have served in the middle east wars.

Reagan was the perfect example of someone without military experience who talked tough. He ended the cold war with extremely limited combat intervention, especially as compared to Vietnam. Like Romney, he understood that "peace through strength" implied that the purpose of strength was peace, not war.

[Wumbologist]

To the contrary. Obama wasn't even a senator when the original Iraq war vote happened, but he voted in favor of continuing funding, which was the only opportunity he had to vote on it.

You're right about that, though Obama was consistently on the record as being opposed to the war before it began. Voting in favor of continuing funding is a bit different. Once we're in, getting out is significantly more complicated and pulling funding without a comprehensive plan to get out makes no sense.

[Ian]

I don't think this makes sense. For one thing, I don't think you can make a case for LBJ not being much of a hawk.

My point exactly. LBJ wasn't a hawk, and he was the one who escalated Vietnam from a limited intervention to a huge intervention tremendously costly in terms of money and casualties.

You mis-read me. LBJ WAS a hawk. Granted, he didn't nuke Hanoi, but are you saying he was dovish about foreign policy? No way, IMO. No way at all. The only dovish thing about him was his escalation in Vietnam over a period of three years rather than a full-out assault in 1965.

I'm cautious of any President who does not have military experience, Democrats included. But Republican leaders who have no military background and yet talk tough are more wont to prove it and use the military like a tool, the most salient point being Bush/Cheney.

Bush didn't talk tough - in fact, he was elected on a domestic platform of reforming entitlements and strengthening education. And frankly, I'm not sure I'd disregard the National Guard as military experience - plenty of National Guard have have served in the middle east wars.

Bush very much did talk tough. On the campaign trail and right through the Axis of Evil stuff. Do you think Iraq would've happened if Gore were President? Afghanistan yes, but almost certainly not Iraq. That was Bush's war-of-choice.

I can't believe you brought up Bush's National Guard experience. That's just laughable, if not disrespectful to actual servicmen. Absolutely I disregard his "service". Yes, many modern-day guardsmen have served in the middle east, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush's snoozing his way through the Texas Air Natl Guard during Vietnam. Touting Bush's military service is like saying you've got law enforcement experience because you've done a few ride-alongs with your local sheriff's dept. His military background was a joke.

Reagan was the perfect example of someone without military experience who talked tough. He ended the cold war with extremely limited combat intervention, especially as compared to Vietnam. Like Romney, he understood that "peace through strength" implied that the purpose of strength was peace, not war.

Reagan was an Army veteran! And comparisons of the an existential (i.e. nuclear) threat like the Soviet Union doesn't hold up well.

[Warren Dew]

To the contrary. Obama wasn't even a senator when the original Iraq war vote happened, but he voted in favor of continuing funding, which was the only opportunity he had to vote on it.

You're right about that, though Obama was consistently on the record as being opposed to the war before it began. Voting in favor of continuing funding is a bit different. Once we're in, getting out is significantly more complicated and pulling funding without a comprehensive plan to get out makes no sense.

What Obama says and what Obama does are often diametrically opposed; this is just another case.

The fact is, pulling funding is the only way for Congress to stop a war. Fund the withdrawal, don't fund the war. Withdrawal will happen.

Anyone who says, "we need a comprehensive withdrawal plan first" really means, "I'm happy with continuing the war."

[Warren Dew]

You mis-read me. LBJ WAS a hawk. Granted, he didn't nuke Hanoi, but are you saying he was dovish about foreign policy? No way, IMO. No way at all.

Sorry about the misreading. In that case, though, I have to disagree: the 1964 "daisies" ad proves that Johnson was running as the opposite of a hawk. If you call him a hawk because his solution to Vietnam was throwing more troops at the problem without solving it, Obama qualifies as a hawk based on Afghanistan.

Bush very much did talk tough. On the campaign trail and right through the Axis of Evil stuff. Do you think Iraq would've happened if Gore were President? Afghanistan yes, but almost certainly not Iraq. That was Bush's war-of-choice.

We'll have to agree to disagree here; your recollection of the 2000 campaign differs from mine. Bush's lack of attention to military matters was one of the reasons I didn't really care for him in 2000.

Yes, I think Gore would have gone into Iraq. Remember, it was the Clinton/Gore administration which bombed Iraq in 1998 supposedly because of WMD violations.

Reagan was an Army veteran! And comparisons of the an existential (i.e. nuclear) threat like the Soviet Union doesn't hold up well.

You're right, I should have said "limited" military experience. However, Iran is all about a nuclear threat.

[Tero]

Fox business chic and Danish banker conclude we are on our way to Greece. Or at least Denmark. Obviously.

[Ian]

I find it amazing how Republicans keep talking about food stamps. I guess they're pretty low on other economic talking points considering how well the recovery has been going, but since when do Republicans give a flying fuck about helping people on food stamps?