[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^^ BTW, I’m not trying to bait you into a fight, USMC. I’ve done the Iraq thing here before, many times, and I’m certainly not going to tell you that I know how you should vote. Just voicing my disappointment.[/quote]
I understand. You probably know more of the facts than I do anyway (I was 17 when the war started…). Most of what I’ve read have been biased sources anyway (Reign of Fire, Decision Points, etc…).
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I agree with SMH that he should have made a better effort to distance himself from his brother, he is already viewed at with guilt by association by his last name. [/quote]
This, too. My personal disappointment aside, the politically savvy move would have been to at least keep distance, given public opinion (and the simple factual record) about W. Bush’s foreign adventures.[/quote]
He’s a politician, and base polling likely shows that after Obama, Bush doesn’t look as bad a before Obama. [/quote]
If this is true, they must be making the same mistakes Romney did. Obama’s numbers are up, and they may end up being a plus for Hillary if the economy is not set back before 2016.
Either way, I don’t see any benefit at all to coming out as close with G.W.B. specifically on OIF, which was – factually, objectively – the biggest mistake W. made.[/quote]
I said he was a politician, not that he was smart.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get the above; although, I thought British intelligence was worse than ours iirc, but Jeb is already taking heat from all over the place and he hasn’t even announced his candidacy. He seems to be standing firm on common core and immigration both of which puts him at odds with the conservative base of the Republican Party. It sounds like (correct me if I’m wrong) you want him to essentially throw his brother under the bus, putting him at odds with his family too, at a time when the war in Iraq is over.[/quote]
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it, etc. I simply want him to speak the plain truth. As far as I’m concerned, he hasn’t, so either he doesn’t understand the plain truth, or – much more likely – he doesn’t have the spine to do it. Either way, even though he’s my favorite of all the current candidates for either party, he won’t get my vote. Because, for me, OIF is a simple deal-breaker, and I won’t vote for anybody who toys with the historiography.
For me, this is something like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer would make a good babysitter because he had tons of experience with kids.
(Yes, that’s an exaggeration and a joke.)
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^^ BTW, I’m not trying to bait you into a fight, USMC. I’ve done the Iraq thing here before, many times, and I’m certainly not going to tell you that I know how you should vote. Just voicing my disappointment.[/quote]
I understand. You probably know more of the facts than I do anyway (I was 17 when the war started…). Most of what I’ve read have been biased sources anyway (Reign of Fire, Decision Points, etc…). [/quote]
I was only 15 haha. However, I have since read (i.e., been forced to read) every word of every report that was written about the invasion. This took me years.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^^ BTW, I’m not trying to bait you into a fight, USMC. I’ve done the Iraq thing here before, many times, and I’m certainly not going to tell you that I know how you should vote. Just voicing my disappointment.[/quote]
I understand. You probably know more of the facts than I do anyway (I was 17 when the war started…). Most of what I’ve read have been biased sources anyway (Reign of Fire, Decision Points, etc…). [/quote]
I was only 15 haha. However, I have since read (i.e., been forced to read) every word of every report that was written about the invasion. This took me years.[/quote]
That’s funny. I thought you had a few years on me…
(That’s a compliment btw)
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get the above; although, I thought British intelligence was worse than ours iirc, but Jeb is already taking heat from all over the place and he hasn’t even announced his candidacy. He seems to be standing firm on common core and immigration both of which puts him at odds with the conservative base of the Republican Party. It sounds like (correct me if I’m wrong) you want him to essentially throw his brother under the bus, putting him at odds with his family too, at a time when the war in Iraq is over.[/quote]
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it, etc.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t it be prudent to listen to the council of the man that oversaw the majority of the conflict in order to safeguard against repeating the same mistakes?
I’m willing to bet GW would admit failing and short comings to Jeb that he would not admit to anyone else.
[quote]
I simply want him to speak the plain truth. As far as I’m concerned, he hasn’t, so either he doesn’t understand the plain truth, or – much more likely – he doesn’t have the spine to do it. Either way, even though he’s my favorite of all the current candidates for either party, he won’t get my vote. Because, for me, OIF is a simple deal-breaker, and I won’t vote for anybody who toys with the historiography. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
For me, this is something like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer would make a good babysitter because he had tons of experience with kids.
(Yes, that’s an exaggeration and a joke.) [/quote]
Lol.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That’s funny. I thought you had a few years on me…
(That’s a compliment btw) [/quote]
Compliment taken.
Incidentally, I’ll pay you a weird but scout’s-honor true one in return. For no reason at all, I yesterday (while training – I think about strange things in between sets) found myself wondering to whom I’d hand political power if I had to choose from among PWI regulars who are not me. I settled on a system whereby you had 31 percent of the vote on every issue, with the rest of the votes evenly divided among a dozen or so other regulars, each of whom would have a much smaller portion of the say.
Edit: A simple majority for all matters other than declarations of war, which require a 2/3 majority.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That’s funny. I thought you had a few years on me…
(That’s a compliment btw) [/quote]
Compliment taken.
Incidentally, I’ll pay you a weird but scout’s-honor true one in return. For no reason at all, I yesterday (while training – I think about strange things in between sets) found myself wondering to whom I’d hand political power if I had to choose from among PWI regulars who are not me. I settled on a system whereby you had 31 percent of the vote on every issue, with the rest of the votes evenly divided among a dozen or so other regulars, each of whom would have a much smaller portion of the say.
Edit: A simple majority for all matters other than declarations of war, which require a 2/3 majority.[/quote]
I’m flattered.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Obama’s numbers are up, and they may end up being a plus for Hillary if the economy is not set back before 2016.
[/quote]
I’m curious to see what the current infighting about the trade deal will do here. Liz is a new darling, and Bam is an Old Busted… You know how the left loves “progress”… It can be towards a cliff, but all is well as long as we’re moving “forward”.
The democrats being exponentially better at messaging and smoothing over controversy will likely not feel any sort of down trend from this blatant infighting and Bam’s childish reaction, but I’m curious, if after only 6 years, the majority party finally eats itself alive like “conventional wisdom” suggests it always does.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Obama’s numbers are up, and they may end up being a plus for Hillary if the economy is not set back before 2016.
[/quote]
I’m curious to see what the current infighting about the trade deal will do here. Liz is a new darling, and Bam is an Old Busted… You know how the left loves “progress”… It can be towards a cliff, but all is well as long as we’re moving “forward”.
The democrats being exponentially better at messaging and smoothing over controversy will likely not feel any sort of down trend from this blatant infighting and Bam’s childish reaction, but I’m curious, if after only 6 years, the majority party finally eats itself alive like “conventional wisdom” suggests it always does. [/quote]
What I really want to see is the Left break apart as the Right has been threatening to do since 2008. They both shatter in half. The two centermost halves form a majority party, stomp the ideologues, put things in order, and then collapse under their own weight. Then we can redraw the old lines and start fucking everything up all over again.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I was only 15 haha. However, I have since read (i.e., been forced to read) every word that Push has written on this subject. This took me years. And I am still too stubborn to learn from him.[/quote]
Fixed.
;-)[/quote]
Exactly what I’d meant to type! This damn autocorrect really musses things up sometimes.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I caught a portion of the interview, Jeb comes off well spoken and confident about his positions. He made it clear that he makes no apology for where he stands on issues, and intends on not being someone who flip flops.
I agree with SMH that he should have made a better effort to distance himself from his brother, he is already viewed at with guilt by association by his last name. [/quote]
I disagree he should distance himself from his brother. If anything, he should use his brother’s help. If he acts ashamed of his name, he’s going to turn off people who liked his brother, which is still a lot of people and make people generally afraid of the Bush name. No, the way to deal with it is embrace being Bush 10000%, turn a disadvantage into an advantage. You’re not going to accomplish that scurrying away from the name, but embracing it.
Think about it, with the Bush name you have a built in constituency. Let’s take the worst case scenario. What was George W.'s popularity at the end, 25%? Somewhere in that range? That’s a strong base, and big advantage to have. Distancing himself means he has to win those 25% back plus everybody else. Embracing he’s got that 25% and can build on that.
Everybody has the willies because of the Iraq war. Congress voted for the fucking thing. If they thought it was such a bad idea, they should have voted against it. Lot’s of democrats voted for that war, even Hillary. Jeb has plenty of ammunition for his critics. That war was conceived in H.W’s presidency and was considered being launched numerous times by Clinton. It wasn’t a G.W. invention.
I don’t think Jeb will win because he is not going to embrace his name. If he says ‘Fuck you, I’m a Bush and damn proud of it’ he’ll do much better.
[quote]pat wrote:
Think about it, with the Bush name you have a built in constituency. Let’s take the worst case scenario. What was George W.'s popularity at the end, 25%? Somewhere in that range? That’s a strong base, and big advantage to have. Distancing himself means he has to win those 25% back plus everybody else. Embracing he’s got that 25% and can build on that.[/quote]
A 25-35 percent approval rating does not exist on its own, in a vacuum, with the rest of the people frozen in indecision. A 30 percent approval rating accompanies a ~65 percent disapproval rating. If 6 to 6-and-a-half out of ten people disapproved of someone when they were in office*, that someone is not going to help get you elected. Ever.
*They all become at least somewhat more popular after they leave, but this is really just a function of their having finally fucked off and left us all in peace. Approval rating upon leaving office is the better indicator of actual political clout (or else a Jimmy Carter endorsement/convention speech would mean the same thing that a Bill Clinton one does)
[quote]
Everybody has the willies because of the Iraq war.[/quote]
No – everybody has realized that the Iraq War was an enormous and enormously costly mistake into which figured both the Bush White House’s stupid incompetence and its insidious mendacity. This is not opinion; it is fact, and it’s very well documented.
[quote]
Congress voted for the fucking thing. If they thought it was such a bad idea, they should have voted against it.[/quote]
By far the worst thing about the Iraq War was the phony case that the Bush White House built and presented in justification. It’s easy to say that this or that Senator shouldn’t have voted for it, but the vast, vast majority of the error and misrepresentation was not discovered until some time after the war had begun. So, though Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, she doesn’t have anything to do with what was truly censurable about the whole clusterfuck.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By far the worst thing about the Iraq War was the phony case that the Bush White House built and presented in justification. It’s easy to say that this or that Senator shouldn’t have voted for it, but the vast, vast majority of the error and misrepresentation was not discovered until some time after the war had begun. So, though Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, she doesn’t have anything to do with what was truly censurable about the whole clusterfuck.[/quote]
Fine and fair point. That doesn’t mean I can consciously pull the lever for anyone that voted for it, or subsequently (Jeb) refuses to admit it was, at this point in history, a more poor choice than good.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By far the worst thing about the Iraq War was the phony case that the Bush White House built and presented in justification. It’s easy to say that this or that Senator shouldn’t have voted for it, but the vast, vast majority of the error and misrepresentation was not discovered until some time after the war had begun. So, though Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, she doesn’t have anything to do with what was truly censurable about the whole clusterfuck.[/quote]
Fine and fair point. That doesn’t mean I can consciously pull the lever for anyone that voted for it, or subsequently (Jeb) refuses to admit it was, at this point in history, a more poor choice than good.
[/quote]
I can certainly see that. (I, too, wouldn’t vote for either of them*.)
So long as Democrats can use the “look who got us into the war” card, it would be best for Republicans to not remind people any more than they already might (by their last name).
Even if Jeb feels the way he does, he should have the political savvy to not be so outspoken about it.
If it should come down to Hillary vs Jeb (and I sure hope that it doesn’t) if you stay home you could perhaps help Hillary achieve her life long goal of the Presidency.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By far the worst thing about the Iraq War was the phony case that the Bush White House built and presented in justification. It’s easy to say that this or that Senator shouldn’t have voted for it, but the vast, vast majority of the error and misrepresentation was not discovered until some time after the war had begun. So, though Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, she doesn’t have anything to do with what was truly censurable about the whole clusterfuck.[/quote]
Fine and fair point. That doesn’t mean I can consciously pull the lever for anyone that voted for it, or subsequently (Jeb) refuses to admit it was, at this point in history, a more poor choice than good.
[/quote]
I can certainly see that. (I, too, wouldn’t vote for either of them*.)
Your posts are always a pleasure to read. Always well informed and balanced. Did you take any SIPA courses during your graduate studies? I’ve been an admirer of the faculty since my undergraduate years.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
So long as Democrats can use the “look who got us into the war” card, it would be best for Republicans to not remind people any more than they already might (by their last name).
Even if Jeb feels the way he does, he should have the political savvy to not be so outspoken about it. [/quote]
Great point Maximus. That’s why we’d be far better off with a candidate whose last name is not Bush. On the other hand the country would be far, far better off without a President whose last name is Clinton. So…if it is Bush/Clinton I am voting for Bush. I won’t like it much but I’m certainly not going to play any part in electing Hillary.