DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on October 10, 2008, 03:46:57 PM
-
Hoover vs. Roosevelt?
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 10, 2008; A19
Hope vs. fear, new vs. old: Barack Obama and John McCain have placed their bets. These are the terms on which the 2008 presidential campaign will be decided.
That's why it's unfair for political bystanders to attack Obama and McCain for offering few specifics as to how they'd fix an ailing economy. And it's foolish to ask them to jettison their campaign promises in order to pay homage to the God of Balanced Budgets.
Each campaign has given voters ample notice about the inclinations, temperaments, habits, philosophical leanings and advisers they would bring to the White House. That's enough.
Piles of prescriptions would be useless because this crisis is moving so fast. New ideas could become obsolete in a few days -- or require substantial redrafting on the run, as happened with McCain's sketchy mortgage purchase plan floated during Tuesday's debate.
In this financial catastrophe, last week's unthinkable idea quickly becomes this week's imperative. The Bush administration is wisely contemplating following the lead of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in having government take ownership shares in many banks to get them more cash and allow them to lend again.
If Obama had suggested such a thing, he would have been condemned as a socialist and the administration might well have had to shelve a necessary idea. Better that the candidates acknowledge that they are powerless until after Nov. 4.
As for cutting back on their programs because the government is spending and lending so much to save the economy, the candidates should just say no to the deficit carpers.
Yes, the federal government faces a huge deficit, bloated during eight years in which many of those now crying out for fiscal responsibility put up little resistance when the administration started two wars and cut taxes at the same time. Where were these deficit hawks then?
The time to balance budgets is when the economy is humming. Now, the government is obligated not only to prop up the economy but also to bring back long-term growth. That will require transformative investments in infrastructure, health care, education and new green technologies.
If you think the number of Americans without health insurance is too high now, wait until this recession really kicks in. Few investments would help businesses more than offloading a share of their health-care costs to the government. It's social justice with an economic kick.
In fact, if these various bailout plans work, the government should get much of its money back during an economic recovery. If they don't work, balancing the budget will be the least of our problems. The short-term costs of healing the economy should be considered apart from the rest of the budget. We should create a separate Economic Recovery Authority to handle the outflow and (we hope) inflow of cash from various bailout plans.
Obama and McCain are giving us a clear sense of who they are and how they would lead. It would seem that Obama has been studying the 1932 campaign of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The key to Roosevelt's victory was not a big program but a jaunty sense of optimism in the midst of despair that led to his signature inaugural line -- "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Less famously, Roosevelt declared in his acceptance speech that "this is no time for fear, for reaction or for timidity."
In recent days, Obama has painted himself as calm, pragmatic, open and hopeful. He seemed to be channeling FDR when he told a crowd in Indianapolis on Wednesday: "This isn't a time for fear or for panic. This is a time for resolve and steady leadership."
As for McCain, his campaign is trying to sow fear and panic about Obama. That's exactly what Herbert Hoover tried to do with Roosevelt. Days before the 1932 election, Hoover attacked Roosevelt's "inchoate New Deal." He predicted it would "crack the timbers of the Constitution" and warned voters to beware of the "glitter of promise."
Hoover stopped short of declaring Roosevelt a celebrity. But Donald A. Ritchie reports in his excellent 2007 book, "Electing FDR," that Hoover saw Roosevelt as "his weakest and most vulnerable" foe and "did not respect him as a political rival." McCain conveys unmistakably that he feels the same way about "that one" running against him.
It's too early to predict that the 2008 campaign will turn out like the one in 1932. But history suggests that in American elections, the candidate who underestimates his opponent often loses, and hope almost always beats fear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902331_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902331_pf.html)
-
For me, the comparison rings true.
Obama has been hopeful and bringing folks together. McCain is sowing hate and fear.
-
and if I recall correctly, it was messers Pelosi & Reid that ushered in this new era of "hope" and "change", with their new found majority status.....which was about the same time the economy started to tank. Imagine that. And here Obama wants to add a new layer of such "hope & change". Hard to imagine how the economy can survive that much more :-\
-
This is probably one of the mosty blatantly false opeds i have seen this weak.
What 2 wars did Bush start?
Who is sowing fear about a president dying in office?
and on and on and on.....
-
This is probably one of the mosty blatantly false opeds i have seen this weak.
What 2 wars did Bush start?
Who is sowing fear about a president dying in office?
and on and on and on.....
The disconnect from reality continues. Now, we're not even at war anymore.
Oy and god damn.
-
What 2 wars did Bush start?
Was the question not clear enough for you?
What 2 wars?
-
no matter the outcome there will be no winners.
-
Was the question not clear enough for you?
What 2 wars?
You are kidding, right?
-
You are kidding, right?
No. What 2 wars did he start. This isn't a trick question. The author stated Bush started two wars. Which two is he referring to?
-
(1) Afghanistan
(2) Iraq
Surely you are aware of these as being wars, and not one, nor three shall be their number, but two.
-
no matter the outcome there will be no winners.
===========================================
I observe that McCain is all for "victory" in Iraq, and yet General Petraeus, who I suspect knows more about the Iraq War than McCain, refuses to use the word 'victory'.
As for the elections, we will be paying for the misbegotten presidency of Juniorbush for a very long time. Winning will consist of losing the least and for the shortest period of time.
Obama will cause a surge of optimism across the world as someone that will cause a break from the disastrous past administration. Electing McCain will denote that the people wish to perpetuate the borrow and squander, warmongering ways of the past. Obama has the demeanor of being unflappable, thoughtful and considerate.
McCain is the one famous for flailing about wildly for a short period of time, and then accepting the status quo. Observe his actions on trying to abolish torture. The only difference now is that they have to deputize the torturers as CIA approved, after which they can break out the waterboards and hoses and do as they did before. Calling McCain a 'maverick' is just creative branding.
Vote Republican! Now with more torture supervision and more Maverickisness®!
-
I disagree that Bush started the Afghanistan War.
What was the widely supported reason for going in?
-
If Bush did not start it, who did?
I think there was justification in starting the Afghan War, but the attack was so poorly done that Taliban is once more back in power, this time financed by drugs, and Osama bin Laden is still around.
Pretty much everything Juniorbush has touched has turned to sh*t.
It's like the Midas touch tale, but with more stink, more files and less irony.
With wars, finishing them is pretty much all that counts.
-
>>Pretty much everything Juniorbush has touched has turned to sh*t.<<
And yet here you are seven years later freely disseminating all the things you find wrong with America and her president. you haven't been jailed, which the left kept telling us would happen, your leaders are free to tell any lie they please, and you've been free from terrorist attack.
It took the democrats to destroy the economy, but it was Republican who kept us safe. Ole Barry will be to busy socializing healthcare to worry about something like national security. Besides, we asked for it anyway.
-
I am sure that this is what they tell you.
-
If Bush did not start it, who did?
Al-Queda based in Afghanistan.
Who do you think started it?
-
If Bush did not start it, who did?
Al-Queda based in Afghanistan.
Who do you think started it?
Your statement is slightly misleading. AQ was never proven to be "based in Afghanistan". It was widely accepted (since the Bush "administration" kept stating) that ObL was holed up in Afghanistan so there was a lot of support for going into Afghanistan to take him out.
To put forth the idea that Bush did not start a "war" with Afghanistan by invading it, is slightly disingenuous, in my opinion.
To be really technical in your favor though, I can't recall Bush every officially "declaring war" on either Afghanistan OR Iraq. I would submit that neither instances of military action could be considered real "wars" especially since the people that are shooting at our military are not actually members of any official military of a sovereign nation. Since those people are basically guerrilla warriors, I would say that we are invaders and occupiers and those trying to shoot at our military at rebels.
But whatever these military excursions are called, I don't see how one can possibly put forth the idea that Bush didn't start either one of them.
To extrapolate on this though, I find it odd that when "terrorists" come into our country and then flee into Afghanistan (who may harbor them but not necessarily direct them or fund them), Afghanistan, a whole nation and its government, is then to held totally accountable for all of those "terrorists" actions.
But when someone in the Bush "administration" is shown to be a criminal of some kind, true of some lesser kind of crime than killing 3000 innocents, that person is somehow a rogue or lone nut or acting on his own and the "administration" is in no way accountable for anything that individual has done.
Would you square that circle for me?
-
"...that neither instances of military action could be considered real "wars" especially since the people that are shooting at our military are not actually members of any official military of a sovereign nation."
When was this definition of "war " invented?
-
"...that neither instances of military action could be considered real "wars" especially since the people that are shooting at our military are not actually members of any official military of a sovereign nation."
When was this definition of "war " invented?
From the Wiki on "war"...
War is an international relations dispute, characterized by organized violence between national military units. In his seminal work, On War, Carl Von Clausewitz calls war the “continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means.”[1] War is an interaction in which two or more militaries have a “struggle of wills”.[2] When qualified as a civil war, it is a dispute inherent to a given society, and its nature is in the conflict over state governance rather than sovereignty. War is not murder or genocide because of the usually organized nature of the military's participation in the struggle, and the organized nature of units involved.
...
Conduct of wars
The war to become known as one must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and Operational art within the broad military strategy subject to military logistics. War Studies by military theorists throughout military history have sought to identify the Philosophy of war, and to reduce it to a Military science.
In general modern military science considers several factors before a National defence policy is created to allow a war to commence: the environment in the area(s) of combat operations, the posture national forces will adopt on the commencement of a war, and the type of warfare troops will be engaged in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Conduct_of_wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Conduct_of_wars)
-
Even in the site you cited they didn't insist that war was strictly and only between nations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war)
war13 dictionary results for: war
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
war1 /w?r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8. Cards. a. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
b. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9. Archaic. a battle.
–verb (used without object) 10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11. to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
–adjective 13. of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.
-
Read and learn:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html)
Wow that's a real clarion call to action. Basically saying nothing more than
"OBL is a very bad guy who hates the US and all things American and might be able to do us a lot of harm one day. He lives in Afghanistan."
I wonder how many similar reports were floating around in those days about Abdul and Umar and Naji and Ghazi, who lived in Baghdad or Beirut or Aleppo or Izmir and were very bad guys (with beards!) who had weapons and hated the U.S.A. I'll bet that dozens of reports like this have been coming in for decades from all over the Middle East every single day of the year. No government in the world would act on any one of them unless there was evidence the guy was a perp and had already committed serious crimes against Americans.
Simple prudence would have dictated that airport security be tightened dramatically, but of course the incoming President and Combat-Avoider-in-Chief didn't even dream of it. And so there was 9-11.
-
The report reute this statement by Brass:
Your statement is slightly misleading. AQ was never proven to be "based in Afghanistan".
-
"The report reute"... ??? ??? ???
-
refutes
-
"The report reute"... ??? ??? ???
The spelling nazi strikes again
-
"The report reute"... ??? ??? ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reute