"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Rudy will be the next VP.

You bettting McCain -Giuliani then?

Two months board support?

S_A_M

P.S. That would be a strong ticket, and I'd like to see it becuse I would not absolutely hate losing the bet.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Rudy will be the next VP.

I'm not sure who would hate that ticket more--the Democrats or the Republicans.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. That would be a strong ticket,

Strong as in, it'll somehow play well in Peoria, or strong as in, Rudy will give the ticket that added fresh scent of Compassionate Authoritarianism?

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Lovely. The United States of Lawsuits.

I just became a Clinton supporter.

John Edwards is the worst thing imaginable for this country in every conceivable regard.

Mark Steyn said the same exact thing - nearly word for word - about 3 days ago.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
In about the time that it took you to write this silliness, I found this on Obama's website:

• Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

And yet:

...Moreover, as Trager points out (along with some on the left), Obama's recent pro-Israel positions almost surely amount to pandering of the most cyncial kind:

• After all, Obama is on record as having called for an “even-handed approach” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2000, just as the Palestinians commenced the Second Intifada following Camp David. According to Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah, Obama’s pro-Israel epiphany occurred shortly before his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign—an about-face for which Obama apologized to Abunimah. “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front,” Obama said at the time.

As Trager concludes, the mixture of Obama's advisers (at least two of whom -- Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samatha Power -- subscribe to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that that the U.S.-Israel relationship is the product of Jewish power politics, rather than strategic interest) and the candidate's own past statements "are hardly reassuring" when it comes to thinking about what an Obama presidency would mean for Israel.

From powerline

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Mark Steyn said the same exact thing - nearly word for word - about 3 days ago.

Lawsuits are quite literally destroying small business. The liability policies alone are staggering, and all so people like Edwards can lie to juries (look it up - many of his case theories have ben later proven to have been, scientifically speaking, bunk).

John Edwards would destory our precarious business climate. You want to watch commercial investment run en masse from our shores, put Edwards in a cabinet post.

I have done PI work and many honorable people do it. It is a necessary job, but PI cases are like abortion - it should be safe legal and rare. It should not be an industry, particularly a parastic one living at such dramatic cost to us all.

We need to get rid of a lot of lawyers in this country, and making Edwards our fucking AG sends the worst possible message.

For the record, I blame defense counsel for lawsuit abuse as much the personal injury lawyers. They stand by and watch the abuse and do nothing but get fat defending it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And yet:



From powerline

He can't possibly be more of a panderer than Romney.

What's wrong with Mearsheimer?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And yet:



From powerline

It's odd that many people seem to think that a candidate is insufficiently "pro-Israel" if they don't espouse a position far to the right of most Israelis. Presumably the reason for attacking someone like Obama in the way that you and Diane are attacking him is that if you discussed policy people would agree with him, and not you.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In about the time that it took you to write this silliness, I found this on Obama's website:

• Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

Exactly my point. He is not commenting on prior efforts and summits -- not even the biggest one that took place just a few short months ago after he announced his candidacy. That was my point. Your response is "Oh silly", didn't you see his website that says he "supports closeness"? Wow. The man supports closeness. Thanks for linking to that, Ty.

I suspect that you and others would be resistant to even very simple, clear statements on these subjects.

Try me/us.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably the reason for attacking someone like Obama in the way that you and Diane are attacking him

Wondering why a candidate for presidency isn't providing more flesh on his ideas is attacking him? I've criticized Republican candidates (quite ruthlessly). Have never questioned Obama's integrity. Excuse me if I'd like to know a bit more about someone's foreign policy ideas. Especially when they have no foreign policy experience due to their being a state senator. So cool it with the "attack" stuff.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Try me/us.

"[O]ur first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East."

Seems like a pretty clear and simple public statement by Obama.

You had suggested that Obama needed to come out before the election and say publicly whether he supported Israel or thought it should be driven into the sea.

Sounds like Ty's post _was_ helpful.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Exactly my point. He is not commenting on prior efforts and summits -- not even the biggest one that took place just a few short months ago after he announced his candidacy.

You found a single news article and -- apparently without trying to look elsewhere -- attack the man for not addressing other subjects. Come on now.

Try me/us.

Plainly, you'd rather attack the guy for imaginary/hypothetical positions than find out what he actually thinks. He's been in public office for a long time. He's been running for President for months now. The people who are attacking him for failing to run on specifics are either shilling for Hillary's campaign or watching only his victory speeches. You're pretty smart. You can use Google.

eta: And I don't think you're shilling for HRC. I'm just frustrated with horse race coverage that prefers to regurgitate each side's talking points instead of engaging in reporting. This business about the lack of specifics is a HRC talking point, intended to reinforce the notion that she is more ready than he is. The fact is that there's not a lot of daylight between HRC and Obama on policy. Also, Obama understands better than most Democratic politicians that running for President demands more than a comprehensive legislative agenda.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
"[O]ur first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East."

Seems like a pretty clear and simple public statement by Obama.

You had suggested that Obama needed to come out before the election and say publicly whether he supported Israel or thought it should be driven into the sea.

Sounds like Ty's post _was_ helpful.

S_A_M

No. I did not say Obama needed to "come out and say whether he supported Israel or driven into the sea". I already know that all candidates have said they "support Israel." My post talked about how Obama was talking about summits and such but has not talked at all about prior summits or efforts and my post also said how he has not addressed the conflicts between countries like Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia or otherwise shown any idea that he is very familiar with the nuances. I express these concerns and you come back and tell me his website says "security in Israel is really important and Israel is an ally". Eh....okay!

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And I don't think you're shilling for HRC. I'm just frustrated with horse race coverage that prefers to regurgitate each side's talking points instead of engaging in reporting. This business about the lack of specifics is a HRC talking point, intended to reinforce the notion that she is more ready than he is. The fact is that there's not a lot of daylight between HRC and Obama on policy. Also, Obama understands better than most Democratic politicians that running for President demands more than a comprehensive legislative agenda.

First of all, I"m not a reporter so if you're frustrated with whatever horse race/regurgitation (whatever you said), sorry dude but whatever. Second, you are correct, I am not shilling for HRC. Finally, I am not looking for a "comprehensive legislative agenda". (Especially since I am not talking about legislative branch positions/activities). Just more meat on the bones, which I have looked for and have not found. Some people like their candidates to have a very clear picture -- historical included -- about major topics like international politics and what is really going on behind each country's positions. Me included. That's not an attack. I'm even fine with electing a president without hands-on foreign policy experience, but I personally need to feel that such a candidate has an astounding interest and command of international politics. In some level of detail. I have not seen that with some of the candidates and for me, that's a problem. That doesn't mean I'm "attacking" the man. He seems to have tremendous integrity and that also goes far with me. I might even vote for him. The candidate that had views closest to mine (overall) was Guiliani and I would never (have) vote(d) for him b/c I see a major lack of integrity. So knock it off with the "you're attacking Obama" stuff. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
No. I did not say Obama needed to "come out and say whether he supported Israel or driven into the sea". I already know that all candidates have said they "support Israel."

Here is the bulk of your initial post:

"Anyhow, we already have a good sense of what "their concerns are" so maybe Obama should now, before the election and his "summit", weigh in on those "concerns" and tell us if he agrees Israel should be dismantled and if he agrees the U.S. should stay out of their terrorist-breeding countries, just continue to send money and sit tight and hope we don't get attacked again."

Do you not read what you write, or just not mean it?

We're not mind readers, Hon.

S_A_M