You know who Jeb Bush has advising him on foreign policy? Wolfowitz! On that link that Ricky provided the former New Mexico governor was asked about Jeb Bush and he said it would be bombs away. Or what if some there right-winger gets in there like Ted Cruz ? And Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate that I find the least objectionable (I feel like there is a compassionate conservative in there somewhere). With Hillary you know you 're going to get a centrist government that is not going to rock the boat too much. I am ok with that, even though I would prefer a more liberal government . She will be cautious about foreign intervention and I am ok with that too. With any of the Republican candidates I am worried that they will do the usual irresponsible tax cuts combined with military spending to drive up the deficit. We can 't afford that. I also don't think we can afford military interventions like we had under Bush II.

I am not in a position to demand anything. I am not quite sure why we can't seem to get good candidates to select from, that we may be selecting from a Clinton or a Bush again like we're selecting families to run the country , but name recognition and money seem to be everything.

Not so much the lesser of two evils as the evil of two lessers?

(c) Michael Moore I believe.

Modern Western politics are becoming more and more depressing, really. Where we have choice, it's either narrow, or includes the crazy. Debate is less about the actual issues and more about personalities or frippery. Parties and politicians are becoming more remote from the people, who trust no-one and don't believe that principles are being upheld - even when they are. Registration and voting rates are down, and yet we see moves to make it harder to vote. Systems from the 18th Century are maintained which entrench power. Global economics is rendering national governments powerless - they instead compete in a race to the bottom, big money buys politics & the media, and a global economy means whatever a country's policies are, they can be sunk by a recession or crisis triggered elsewhere.

Oh man, can you tell it's a Monday?

freeman3 wrote:You know who Jeb Bush has advising him on foreign policy? Wolfowitz! On that link that Ricky provided the former New Mexico governor was asked about Jeb Bush and he said it would be bombs away. Or what if some there right-winger gets in there like Ted Cruz ? And Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate that I find the least objectionable (I feel like there is a compassionate conservative in there somewhere). With Hillary you know you 're going to get a centrist government that is not going to rock the boat too much. I am ok with that, even though I would prefer a more liberal government . She will be cautious about foreign intervention and I am ok with that too. With any of the Republican candidates I am worried that they will do the usual irresponsible tax cuts combined with military spending to drive up the deficit. We can 't afford that. I also don't think we can afford military interventions like we had under Bush II.

Rand Paul?

Also, Santorum is striking a decidedly common-man approach to the economy. He flat-out said he will not do tax cuts for the rich kind of thing.

Cruz is a right-winger? Well, if that means "believes in the Constitutional limits of the office of President," then yes, he's a right-winger.

That's where Hillary ought to scare you. She's promised to go further than Obama on executive action. That's going to be hard to do.

I am not in a position to demand anything. I am not quite sure why we can't seem to get good candidates to select from, that we may be selecting from a Clinton or a Bush again like we're selecting families to run the country , but name recognition and money seem to be everything.

How about honesty?

Oh, and we're still waiting for an accomplishment of Hillary's. Simply occupying the office of SecState is not an accomplishment.

I am curious to hear more from Rand Paul. His ideas on criminal justice are welcome and I agree with his foreign policy for the most part. But it all comes down to a libertarian distrust of government which will also impinge too far on the safety net. Also government does do many good regulatory things (like pollution, clean water, anti-trust, financial regulation, etc.) which could be jeopardized under Paul. But he along with Sanders are probably the only interesting candidates in the sense of having ideas.

I hope Paul gets the nomination. I doubt that he will and I'm still not sold on whether he'd actually make a good president (probably not, in truth), but he's far and away the most interesting candidate in the field and I'd be fascinated to see the direction he'd take things.

Sassenach wrote:I hope Paul gets the nomination. I doubt that he will and I'm still not sold on whether he'd actually make a good president (probably not, in truth), but he's far and away the most interesting candidate in the field and I'd be fascinated to see the direction he'd take things.

Who would you pick between Paul and Clinton?

Sassenach wrote:I hope Paul gets the nomination. I doubt that he will and I'm still not sold on whether he'd actually make a good president (probably not, in truth), but he's far and away the most interesting candidate in the field and I'd be fascinated to see the direction he'd take things.

He won't.

I was hopeful, but his latest tirade against 95% of the GOP was too much. There are "self-inflicted wounds," there is political suicide, then there is dropping a nuclear bomb on your own campaign. When he said Republicans are to blame for ISIS, he pretty much guaranteed he can never get the nomination. Reince Preibus would put a contract hit on him before permitting it. Trump has as good a chance as Paul does now--which is to say "zero."

Who would you pick between Paul and Clinton?

That's an interesting question Brad. In truth I don't know. Paul has many qualities that I like, not least of which is that he seems to know his own mind and has a coherent philosophy that he advocates which isn't obviously beholden to vested interests. I like his stance on the war on drugs and a lot of the libertarian platform has a certain resonance with me. Even though I don't agree with all of his positions I respect the fact that he isn't obviously tacking with the political winds. That said though, I suspect he'd prove to be very divisive and in particular I think his foreign policy instincts are very naive. As a man I like him, but as a potential world leader I have my doubts.

Set against that is Hillary. She's the kind of machine politician that I instinctively dislike and her own foreign policy credentials are hardly a ringing endorsement. I don't like the way that she's placing so much emphasis on her gender, which is irrelevant to me and more than a little patronising, and generally speaking I find her to be a very underwhelming candidate. That said though, she's the continuity candidate and would probably be a comparatively safe pair of hands. There is something to be said for experience in politics. Paul would most likely waste his first few years on doomed, grandiose gestures, whereas Hillary already knows how to use the levers of power and would likely focus on solid, achievable objectives.

As a small 'c' conservative I'd say that the natural choice would be Hillary, since she's the status quo candidate who would change the least and who would probably be the most effective president. I'm not sure I could actually bring myself to vote for her though. As a Brit I still haven't forgiven her for the way she tried to sell us out over the Falklands when she was SoS. Setting that aside, there's something remarkably dismal about her candidacy that wouldn't motivate me. Paul for all of his obvious faults, is much more exciting. Perhaps that's the sort of thing that American democracy needs ?

Sassenach wrote:

Who would you pick between Paul and Clinton?

That's an interesting question Brad. In truth I don't know. Paul has many qualities that I like, not least of which is that he seems to know his own mind and has a coherent philosophy that he advocates which isn't obviously beholden to vested interests. I like his stance on the war on drugs and a lot of the libertarian platform has a certain resonance with me. Even though I don't agree with all of his positions I respect the fact that he isn't obviously tacking with the political winds. That said though, I suspect he'd prove to be very divisive and in particular I think his foreign policy instincts are very naive. As a man I like him, but as a potential world leader I have my doubts.

This is where I am with him. If I didn't have to have him as C-in-C, I could probably vote for him. However, he seems to favor a foreign policy that is based on a quaint 19th Century notion of nations. I think he would be a bigger disaster overseas than our current President.

Set against that is Hillary. She's the kind of machine politician that I instinctively dislike and her own foreign policy credentials are hardly a ringing endorsement. I don't like the way that she's placing so much emphasis on her gender, which is irrelevant to me and more than a little patronising, and generally speaking I find her to be a very underwhelming candidate.

You've hit the nail on its proverbial head. I think her "plan" is to motivate the base and count on gender loyalty to win. As Obama was an "historical first," she thinks women will think, "We should have a woman now."

I vote without regard to gender, religion, etc. I could no more vote for her than I could Harry Reid. They are both as crooked as they can possibly be. Who else would have the guts to whine about all the money in politics while laying the groundwork to raise $2.5B? She's incredible only in her capacity to say contrary things in the same sentence and somehow remain a candidate. If she were a man, she'd have no shot at all.

That said though, she's the continuity candidate and would probably be a comparatively safe pair of hands. There is something to be said for experience in politics. Paul would most likely waste his first few years on doomed, grandiose gestures, whereas Hillary already knows how to use the levers of power and would likely focus on solid, achievable objectives.

I don't think that's her record. One word: "Hillarycare."

As a small 'c' conservative I'd say that the natural choice would be Hillary, since she's the status quo candidate who would change the least and who would probably be the most effective president. I'm not sure I could actually bring myself to vote for her though. As a Brit I still haven't forgiven her for the way she tried to sell us out over the Falklands when she was SoS. Setting that aside, there's something remarkably dismal about her candidacy that wouldn't motivate me. Paul for all of his obvious faults, is much more exciting. Perhaps that's the sort of thing that American democracy needs ?

If the US is still craving excitement after Obama, I think Rubio will get it. His moment with Kerry on the Senate floor was classic. He's capable of quick-thinking, giving a good speech, and his personal story is the kind of thing Americans tend to appreciate.

If it's Bush v. Clinton, there may be a revolution . . . or a national nap.

Set against that is Hillary. She's the kind of machine politician that I instinctively dislike and her own foreign policy credentials are hardly a ringing endorsement

7

Compared to whom? American foreign policy hasn't been terribly successful for decades...
Even the Sainted Reagan who was fortunate enough to have the inevitable collapse of Communism occur on his watch , screwed up badly in Iran, Latin America, South America and South Africa.

Clinton, if nothing else will manage expectations...
The American public has about had it with military interventions for awhile.... Even ISIS isn't creating a demand for invasion. (Maybe because a l
ot of people realize an ISIS state would look a lot like Saudi Arabia, and they are supposedly allies) And yet, other than Paul none of the republican candidates will eschew the option of sending in an invasion force and occupation force again...
On foreign policy she'll win the debate.

rickyp wrote:

Set against that is Hillary. She's the kind of machine politician that I instinctively dislike and her own foreign policy credentials are hardly a ringing endorsement

7

Compared to whom? American foreign policy hasn't been terribly successful for decades...
Even the Sainted Reagan who was fortunate enough to have the inevitable collapse of Communism occur on his watch , screwed up badly in Iran, Latin America, South America and South Africa.

Clinton, if nothing else will manage expectations...
The American public has about had it with military interventions for awhile.... Even ISIS isn't creating a demand for invasion. (Maybe because a l
ot of people realize an ISIS state would look a lot like Saudi Arabia, and they are supposedly allies) And yet, other than Paul none of the republican candidates will eschew the option of sending in an invasion force and occupation force again...
On foreign policy she'll win the debate.

Just today Obama said again he does not have a "complete plan" for dealing with ISIS.

Oh, and Hillary will say what about Libya? Her strategy worked?

How about the Russian reset?

How about the victory Obama/Clinton claimed in Iraq?

I'm guessing I could come up with 10-12 more memorable "wins."

Name ONE accomplishment. Go ahead.

fate

Just today Obama said again he does not have a "complete plan" for dealing with ISIS

Good for him. I mean who does?
Maybe Americans have finally got to the ppoint where they don't have to have a solution for every world situation.
Its whats attractive about Paul to some extent.
Clinton and Obama basically muddled through. Which isn't that bas considering the disasters of most previous foreign policeis. (Other than maybe Clinton)
But they weren't responsible for the disastrous Iraq adventure. An adventure that most of the republican candidates either offer only pallid excuses for.... (hey it was bad intelligence - like they never heard of the White House Iraq Group)or want desperately to return like Lindsay Graham.

Manage expectations.

rickyp wrote:fate

Just today Obama said again he does not have a "complete plan" for dealing with ISIS

Good for him. I mean who does?
Maybe Americans have finally got to the ppoint where they don't have to have a solution for every world situation.

It's his freaking job. And, he did claim he would degrade and destroy ISIS. months later, he admits to having no plan. To you, that's just great.

Americans know he has no plan. Americans want something done about ISIS. Obama wants to bide time , sign a deal with Iran, and hand off a region in flames to his successor.

fate

It's his freaking job

To police the entire world and provide a military solution everywhere whenever Americans are aroused? When Reagan retreated from Lebanon, he recognized that it wasn't the case.

fate

Americans want something done about ISIS

But not Boko Haram, right?
Its interesting that ISIS has managed to make leaders like Lyndsey Graham shit their pants in fear. But not so much the Nigerians. ISIS doesn't threaten the US directly but the threat by ISIS is hyped because for some the fear factor is politically useful.

Fate

Obama wants to bide time , sign a deal with Iran, and hand off a region in flames to his successor

.
A verifiable deal with Iran would be an enormous success.
Since Iran is also the key power facing down ISIS (other than Syria), and is an ally of the US in this conflict as a result .... maybe even more so.
Since ISIS was a result of the Bush invasion and failed occupation caused by the policy of Debaathification .... Republican candidates don't have any answers either. The simplistic offerings so far have been incredibly short on detail and completely devoid of recognition of the origins. A must if one is to offer a strategy.
There are no easy answers. And no way to predict what strategy can work. At least not for outsiders who've done nothing but screw up in the region forever.
I think most people understand that if ISIS actually established itself as a state it would look an awful lot like Saudi Arabia. But those fundamentalists are accepted.

rickyp wrote:fate

It's his freaking job

To police the entire world and provide a military solution everywhere whenever Americans are aroused?

No, you hind end of a donkey.

Obama said, "Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy."

He set the bar, not me--and not the American people.

Now he says he has no plan.

Sorry pal, don't say you're going to do something and then months later admit you don't have a bloody clue on how you're going to do it.

When Reagan retreated from Lebanon, he recognized that it wasn't the case.

Entirely irrelevant and a stupid comparison. If you want to start a forum about Reagan's mistakes, by all means, feel free.

Iraq is not "the whole world." And, if Obama hadn't said it was "stable" and "safe," he probably would not have to worry about it now. But, he did. And, then he opened his yap again and said we would defeat ISIL. So, he made the promise now HE has to figure out how to do it. That's what leaders do.

fate

Americans want something done about ISIS

But not Boko Haram, right?

Can you do any more "Look! Over there!"? Your ADD knows no bounds.

Its interesting that ISIS has managed to make leaders like Lyndsey Graham shit their pants in fear. But not so much the Nigerians. ISIS doesn't threaten the US directly but the threat by ISIS is hyped because for some the fear factor is politically useful.

Would you care to tell us how Graham has demonstrated his fear?

Btw, I am NOT a Graham fan. Still, if anyone has seemed confident about handling ISIS in short order, it's Graham. If anyone has seemed clueless and sounded like "Baghdad Bob," it's been Obama.

Fate

Obama wants to bide time , sign a deal with Iran, and hand off a region in flames to his successor

.
A verifiable deal with Iran would be an enormous success.

Yes, but that is not what Obama is negotiating. Furthermore, should a deal with Iran supercede everything else in the region? Given that no one but the American Left seems to trust the Iranians and the Iranians themselves are saying they will not abide by the terms Obama/Kerry seem to think they negotiated, how valuable is the agreement? When the Saudis and others are vowing to get nuclear weapons, who thinks this is a good deal?

Since Iran is also the key power facing down ISIS (other than Syria), and is an ally of the US in this conflict as a result .... maybe even more so.

An ally?



Yes, our "ally" who made a laughingstock of Obama in Yemen.

Obama is dancing with the devil and hoping his suit won't get singed. Good luck with that.

Since ISIS was a result of the Bush invasion and failed occupation caused by the policy of Debaathification ....

You are deranged. ISIS exists because Obama left Iraq. Deal with it.

Republican candidates don't have any answers either. The simplistic offerings so far have been incredibly short on detail and completely devoid of recognition of the origins. A must if one is to offer a strategy.

Um, again, let's go to the SALIENT FACT: OBAMA IS PRESIDENT AND HE ADMITS HE HAS NO STRATEGY!!!!

So, you're response is: "Yeah, but the Republicans running don't have answers either."

One more time: OBAMA IS PRESIDENT AND HE ADMITS HE HAS NO STRATEGY!!!!

I promise you there are answers. The answers are in the Pentagon. However, we only have one commander-in-chief and he is on vacation, choosing to believe he can waive a treaty and proclaim peace in our time when all the evidence points to the contrary.

There are no easy answers. And no way to predict what strategy can work. At least not for outsiders who've done nothing but screw up in the region forever.

Actually, we had an answer. The Sunnis were on our side. Petraeus convinced them he could be trusted. Al Qaida in Iraq was defeated . . . until Obama declared victory and took his army home. Then, like the smoldering ashes of yesterday's fire, a new flame gathered strength.

I think most people understand that if ISIS actually established itself as a state it would look an awful lot like Saudi Arabia. But those fundamentalists are accepted.

This is more nonsense. Saudi Arabia is bad. ISIS is far worse. ISIS will not stop and it will not be contained. When you view your life's work as killing infidels and bringing the world to heel, you can't stop.

Ricky, let me be gentle about this: you know nothing and you are dishonest while establishing your lack of knowledge.

Obama set the bar. When I mention that, you try to blame Bush. Bush didn't promise to degrade and defeat ISIL. Obama did that. When he did, he established his responsibility to establish a strategy. He does have an alternative: admit he was wrong and withdraw entirely. Instead, he tries a middle ground which is a massive embarrassment.