Guapo wrote:None of those positions have ever led to the White House.

Stop being obtuse. I meant that with very few exceptions most President have held other lower positions in Government. The general population considers it an indication of the experience necessary to hold the higher office.

Guapo wrote:This is where I think your perception is wrong. Statism isn't simply an extreme position, like you're trying to make it out. If that was the case, there are very few statists, yet the state grows and grows and grows. People can reside on the extremes, as I do, but that's not to say that others aren't anti-statists. Yes, there are more extreme statists than you, but that doesn't mean you're not one. Statism is better understood on a sliding scale. And because issues vary in importance either toward statism or towards anti-statism, there can be no 50-50.

But this is just as extreme. Taken to the logical conclusion, if a person doesn't want to live without government, they are a statist. Just at a different level. So basically everybody that doesn't agree with you is evil. I don't see the world in black and white like that.

Guapo wrote:And I think it can be demonstrated that you believe the government should control the economy--almost as much as Lenin did.

Really please do.

Guapo wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Isn't possible that a person can recognize government is a necessarily evil. That it should be as small and as unintrusive as possible. That it should be staffed, as small as can be, with people who have the experience to get things done?

Hmm. Were you trying to say "government is a necessary evil," or "government isn't necessarily evil"?

Yeah the former. I missed an 'it' in the beginning of the sentence.

Guapo wrote:There are plenty of antistatists out there. You just never seem to "agree" with them.

It is quite possible that is the case. I can't say. What I can say is that I find most of the anti-statest I have "met" are niavely idealistic and what they want to do has no chance of actually working in the real world.

Guapo wrote:And what do you mean "here to stay"? Do you really think that "America" is some magical concept that is immune to the laws of economics? Do you think that it can barrel down the same road as Rome and survive? Surely, you're not so irrational to think that this system is going to be permanent. Moreover, the system never stays the same to begin with. The "system" keeps changing every time their last scheme @#$! up. Eventually, it will dry out and collapse.

Again stop being obtuse. I meant government is here to stay. Yeah Rome fell. However, did government just cease to exist or did another government just replace it.

You can either sit in the corner bitching and moaning about all the things you don't like crying it will never change or you can get involved and try to influence things into the direction you prefer.

Guapo wrote: Wait, what? The governor is not a legislator.

Well no, a Governor is not a legislator. He is an executive. The Governor doesn't actually introduce bills to the floor of the legislature. He does not vote on legislation. He executes and enforces the bills passed by the legislature.

Randy, the US policy on Israel has been based on using the 67 border as a starting point for as long as I can remember. Certainly that was part of the framework of peace talks. Obama was just expressing a known.

a lot of them just liked the idea of voting for a young black guy with no experience (clinton 2008!)

danivon

Obama was just expressing a known

But expressing it in the context of the new Arab Awakening... and expressing it at a time when the Palestinians are chnaging their tactics and addressing the nature of their status through the UN and other venues that atempt to bear a new pressure on the Israelis...
What it seems to have accomplished is little more than an an expose of Netanahyu's profoundly confrontational manner and obstinance on the expansion of Israel to an audience not always conversant with the middle east or US policy in regards to the area.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Guapo wrote: All I'm saying is that neither does Huntsman, {snip}In reality, I like when people pick longshots.

And you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I am going to vote for Huntsman. I haven't decided yet. What I am saying that Huntsman is not a long shot and I have been trying to explain why.

I don't know that there is a more "centrist" Republican than Huntsman. As the video I posted showed, he's pretty much of a somewhat conservative Democrat--in his own words. I think he is a long shot. I think, when push comes to shove, even Romney is more electable. He's got all the baggage Romney does (plus Cap and Trade and other liberal positions, and Mormonism) and very little of the non-governmental success (business and Olympics). You can argue for his age, but in that case, I've got a host of other suggestions, starting with Paul Ryan.

Sassenach wrote:Out of interest Steve, of the likely candidates which do you favour ? I assume that you couldn't abide any of the 'RINOs' and your disdain for the libertarians like Ron paul etc is a matter of record here. That wouldn't seem to leave too much to choose from atm.

I will actively (and monetarily) support whomever the nominee is.

My preference would be to take Ron Paul's financial positions and mix them with a non-19th Century foreign policy. Apologies to all Paulites, but neo-isolationism doesn't work in a world with nukes, jets, and the Internet. We can't just wait for the next superpower to be fully developed and declare war on us, because we won't have months and months to respond. We don't live in that world any longer.

My preference would probably be someone not in the field yet--like Ryan. I would love to see Jeb get in.

I know, I know. They're not as conservative as I am. Well, I want someone who would deconstruct the Departments of Energy and Education, slash spending, lower taxes, etc., but that guy or woman won't get elected. So, I could live with a Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann, or Santorum. The main point? Obama must be defeated. Only in such an environment would it be possible to look at ways to restructure the mammoth government.

Yes, I want it reduced greatly. However, I am more interested in what is possible than what is ideal. Start with the possible, show that it works, and further advances can be made.

danivon wrote:Randy, the US policy on Israel has been based on using the 67 border as a starting point for as long as I can remember. Certainly that was part of the framework of peace talks. Obama was just expressing a known.

He did go a bit further though. He said the Palestinian state would have to be "contiguous." If that's the case, then Israel cannot be "contiguous."

Also, by making public what had previously been a subtext, he basically emboldened the Palestinians to stand their ground on other matters (right of return). Any public negotiation or setting of parameters with this specificity is not helpful. In other words, he could have furthered the possibility of peace more by keeping his yap shut than by saying what he said.

rickyp wrote:danivon

Obama was just expressing a known

But expressing it in the context of the new Arab Awakening...

Do we know where the so-called "Arab Awakening" is going? What if it leads to new strongmen of a profoundly Islamist bent? Isn't that just as likely as the dream-like scenario the Obama Administration is cooking up (and giving BILLIONS to) about democracies sprouting up?

and expressing it at a time when the Palestinians are chnaging their tactics and addressing the nature of their status through the UN and other venues that atempt to bear a new pressure on the Israelis...

Only you would think going to the UN is new. The Arabs have consistently gone to the UN.

Oh, you mean to have a State declared? Big deal.

You know what would impress me? If they acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation and gave up terrorism as a tactic. That would be "new."

What it seems to have accomplished is little more than an an expose of Netanahyu's profoundly confrontational manner and obstinance on the expansion of Israel to an audience not always conversant with the middle east or US policy in regards to the area.

Yeah, nevermind Obama's arrogance--presuming to tell a sovereign nation what they must do in the face of an enemy determined to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

Btw, would you agree with the pundit who said Netanyahu should have suggested the US return to its 1845 boundaries with Mexico?

As long as we are off topic here, one of the interesting items of the Obama-Netanyahu debate is that Netanyahu's refusal to go to the pre-67 borders (with adjustments) was argued based on security and not the Old Testament. He said those borders are indefensible. I know that Ricky and Danivon have accused the religious "eretz Israel crowd", (and their outsized political power relative to population) for Israel's refusal to give away parts of the West Bank, but that is not the tact that Netanyahu took. It's all about security. As it relates to the Israeli political situation I think this reflects two things: (1) Netanyahu is not a particularly religious man, and (2) the large number of Soviet immigrants over the last 2 decades tend to be more hawkish, but not particularly religious; I believe that they tend to vote Likud.

Frankly, I think this is a positive development. It is more rational and more understandable to other westerners. Although North America is much more sympathetic to the Israelis than Europe, at least we are talking about the right stuff. Also, different religious views are tough to reconcile, but there are ways for the Palestinians to have a state and for Israel to have security. Not that I see that happening anytime soon. The parties are still very far apart ...

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know that there is a more "centrist" Republican than Huntsman. As the video I posted showed, he's pretty much of a somewhat conservative Democrat--in his own words. I think he is a long shot. I think, when push comes to shove, even Romney is more electable. He's got all the baggage Romney does (plus Cap and Trade and other liberal positions, and Mormonism) and very little of the non-governmental success (business and Olympics).

That Centrism is what is what makes him not a longshot. He has cross over appeal to Independents and conservative democrats. In other words, the people besides Republicans voting in those 26 open and partially open Republcian primaries.

While I would agree that he has different baggage then Romney, Romney's is worse. First there is "RomneyCare" and his refusal to say it was a mistake. That is huge. Romney's flip on abortion and same sex marriage are also huge. Huntsmans is pro-life. While he supports Civil Unions he opposes gay marriage, which is pretty much the positon the majority in the U.S. have.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can argue for his age, but in that case, I've got a host of other suggestions, starting with Paul Ryan.

True but then I am only commenting on the people most likely to run for the Republican nomination and Paul Ryan won't run.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Randy, the US policy on Israel has been based on using the 67 border as a starting point for as long as I can remember. Certainly that was part of the framework of peace talks. Obama was just expressing a known.

He did go a bit further though. He said the Palestinian state would have to be "contiguous." If that's the case, then Israel cannot be "contiguous."

well, that depends. He didn't say it 'had to be', he said that they had a right to it. I guess Israel have the same right. There are ways to have two contiguous states in the area, especially if Gaza is not included in a Palestinian state.

Also, by making public what had previously been a subtext, he basically emboldened the Palestinians to stand their ground on other matters (right of return). Any public negotiation or setting of parameters with this specificity is not helpful. In other words, he could have furthered the possibility of peace more by keeping his yap shut than by saying what he said.

There will need to be public discussion of these things at some point. But it's always been pretty clear that the starting point will be the 1967 borders. That doesn't mean it has to be the ending point though.

Ray Jay wrote:As long as we are off topic here, one of the interesting items of the Obama-Netanyahu debate is that Netanyahu's refusal to go to the pre-67 borders (with adjustments) was argued based on security and not the Old Testament. He said those borders are indefensible. I know that Ricky and Danivon have accused the religious "eretz Israel crowd", (and their outsized political power relative to population) for Israel's refusal to give away parts of the West Bank, but that is not the tact that Netanyahu took. It's all about security. As it relates to the Israeli political situation I think this reflects two things: (1) Netanyahu is not a particularly religious man, and (2) the large number of Soviet immigrants over the last 2 decades tend to be more hawkish, but not particularly religious; I believe that they tend to vote Likud.

Yeah right. he didn't make reference to the Old Testament at all when he spoke of "Judea and Samaria" and how they were the homeland of the Israeli people. Sorry, but if you listened to all he said he used both security and ancient history. On (1) He isn't, but he leads a coalition government that contains religious people and which relies on the religious constituency for votes.

And here's the problem - everyone seems to be assuming (falsely) that by saying we should 'start' with the 1967 boundaries that this means you have to end up with them.

That's not to say that security is not a valid concern. It clearly is. A viable solution for both Israel and the Palestinians would have to be based on both of them feeling that they had a secure state with defensible boundaries. One thing that the Settlements have done (partly by design) is to alter the facts on the ground regarding security, which is one reason why they are so contentious.

Frankly, I think this is a positive development. It is more rational and more understandable to other westerners. Although North America is much more sympathetic to the Israelis than Europe, at least we are talking about the right stuff. Also, different religious views are tough to reconcile, but there are ways for the Palestinians to have a state and for Israel to have security. Not that I see that happening anytime soon. The parties are still very far apart ...

No, it will not be solved quickly. It won't be solved by any US President waving a wand or making a great (or average) speech, that's for certain. It would take a lot more effort from a lot of people, frankly. What is important is that there is more dialogue and some pressure to come to a peaceful solution.

Oh, and to get back to the GOP2012 race, I see Palin is going on a tour of the East Coast for some public attention grabbing. I think at the end of it she'll declare her intentions (which I would agree are likely to be to give 2012 a pass).

Romney I would think has a very good chance of getting the nomination. I can understand that the hardcore don't like him, but he seems to have more appeal to independents.

Archduke Russell John wrote:That Centrism is what is what makes him not a longshot. He has cross over appeal to Independents and conservative democrats. In other words, the people besides Republicans voting in those 26 open and partially open Republcian primaries.

Who was the more centrist candidate in 2008: McCain or Obama?
Who was the more centrist candidate in 2004: Bush or Kerry?
How did centrists do in Congress in 2006?
How did they do in 2010?

Centrism has become less and less appealing to voters. They still want the status quo at large, but change, difference, and new are taking over.

ray

As long as we are off topic here, one of the interesting items of the Obama-Netanyahu debate is that Netanyahu's refusal to go to the pre-67 borders (with adjustments) was argued based on security and not the Old Testament. He said those borders are indefensible

This is true and in this he essentially had agreement from Obama didn't he?
The important thing is that someone has to start drawing acceptable boundaries and sticking to them. Stalling, whilst annexing the West Bank in block by block stages seems to be the current strategy.
And I also agree Ray that israel needs defensible borders. They should never give back the Golan Heights for instance.
But how, for example, does Hebron fit into this?
(See religious minority here for their influence...)

Steve

Do we know where the Arab Awakening is going?

I think its long term trajectory is indicative of the seemingly inevitable human evolution towards democratic societies... Short term, there can be no predicting. (Nor I suppose is the "term" predictable. Although modern communication seems to be telescoping change...)
The Arab Awakening makes the middle East unpredictable. And for Israel that unpredictability is probably unsettling. Plus, its a lot harderr to take sides when both sdies are democracies . Supporting a democracy against a totalitarian society seems almost automatic for other democracies.

re the race: The recent Gallup poll (linked to Nate Silver story on it below) indicats that for those actually exposed to Cain, there is a gain in support by Cain.... But most know Palin and she has no where to grow. Nor does Bachman. Nor, does Paul. Only really those who are unknown have a chance to find new supporters. Those who've been around people have made their mind up about. Given a winnowing down of choices Mitt seems to be be the recipient of "setters" That is he's the 2,d or 3rd choice... He'll win eventually unless something puts a rocket under a fairly unkown candidate. (I don't seee Pawlenty growing much support Arch. Maybe Huntsman...)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I'd love to see Ron Paul get the nomination. Obviously I'm a long way from being a Paulista (57% statist apparently, whatever that means), but I think it would be fascinating to see Paul fight a presidential election. It would be the first time in decades that a clear ideological choice was on offer and it would be really interesting to see what effect that had on the standard of debate.