If you think they hate us now »
Posted By deathray 1 year, 11 months ago in NewsA Republican victory in 2008 could sink America's reputation in the world even lower, at least, that's what Joe Conason thinks.
Read Full Story at salon.com »
153 Views Share Story 120 Comments Report
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 312 of 487 Comments (view all)
-
0%
deathray1 year, 11 months ago
Now, this is clearly a partisan piece. I don't know that I agree; I am not interested in appeasement, but I am interested in a different approach to the issue.
The problem is that ultimately, the Presidency is going to hinge on whether you believe that the current strategy is going to work in the near, middle and long term best interest of the United States and our interests, or not.
Let me know what you think.
Reply-
0%
quicksilver06021 year, 11 months ago
"The Republicans most likely to win their party's presidential nomination constantly use language that is meant to inflame anger against Muslims for political advantage."
Yes, whilst clearly partisan, there's something to it. I think this line from the article is a perfect example of what's wrong with conservative rhetoric...the all or nothing, black and white, misinformation that is spread so irresponsibly.
Reply -
-
0%
scott42611 year, 10 months ago
Joe Conason's recent book, "It CAN Happen Here," was an eye-opener for me. And Conason is correct here, too. A Republican victory in '08 would be a disaster. Of course, his focus is our foreign policy...and with the exception of Ron Paul, the Republicans seeking the nomination of their party seem to be willing to continue the failed foreign policy of the last 6 years.
A Democrat will win the next election...and we'd better pray that happens...because if the Republicans manage to steal another election, we can all kiss our collective asses goodbye!
Reply -
-
-
0%
skeek1 year, 10 months ago
deathray: "Let me know what you think."
Thank you, I will. I think the world, while it would much prefer to see a Democrat in the White House has largely resigned itself to it simply being more of the same sound and fury signifying nothing, and the same insidious significance deceitfully lied about, concealed and rationalised as something else, but of course all with a far more friendly PR face. The Democrats show the world the cheezy, capped smile and the exaggerated but insincere "Have A Nice Day!". The Republicans more readily embrace their inherent fascism fuelled by imaginary fears. The choice for us in the world, not that we get to choose, is either US Imperialism Lite or US Imperialism 100% Proof. At the end of the day, it's still the same stream of US hegemony, self-awarded claims of divine superiority, and unashamed hypocrisy. It's all the same dog, just a different leg action.
Reply
-
-
0%
deathray1 year, 11 months ago
FTA: Yet beyond the horrors of Iraq and the excesses of the "war on terror," for which history will hold him culpable, Bush at least has acknowledged the importance of reaching out to the world's Muslims (although he tends to reach out too often with bombs and a torture technique known as waterboarding).
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year, 11 months ago
In his rhetoric, the president usually seeks to distinguish the religion of Islam, which he has honored in the White House on many occasions, from the murderous perversion of that faith. And in his best moments after 9/11, he has defended the rights of Muslim Americans to live here without suffering persecution or prejudice.
Reply -
0%
kedirian1 year, 10 months ago
Do you realize that as far as his pontifications on Muslims, everything has to be run by his Vice President first?
Reply
-
-
0%
rightfromwrong1 year, 11 months ago
I wouldn't mind a republic president and both house democrats
with independents as well. Maybe we would get back to some truth in our country.....Hillary is scary to me
Reply-
-
0%
scott42611 year, 10 months ago
No, we do not need a Republican president at this time. We have been in the far right ditch for so long that the pendulum has to swing left with its momentum.
However, I do often wonder what would have happened if the Republicans had chosen John McCain, instead of Bush, in 2000. The election would not have been so close (at the time, McCain still had his mental faculties intact and was still considered a "maverick"). With Al Gore's weak campaign that year, McCain would have won the election and Florida would never have happened. And judging where McCain was at that point in his career, I don't believe he would have governed as far to the right as Bush has (Of course, all that is speculation....we have no idea how history would have unfolded).
Then, of course, I have the speculation of a Gore presidency, but that has been played over 1000 times on these threads.
Either would have been better than what we've endured over the last 6 years.
Reply -
0%
scott42611 year, 10 months ago
I have to agree with the part about Hillary being scary. I feel like she has the special interests more at heart than the public...and I believe that "triangulation" will reach a whole new level under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Though she pushed universal health care in the early days of Bill's presidency, she has too much from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries for me to believe that she would even accomplish a damn thing!
As a progressive liberal who would love to re-claim a place in the Democratic party (a party I walked away from in disgust), I am much more inclined to support John Edwards, who could emerge strong in the primaries. In 1991, the wisdom was that George H.W. Bush would handily win re-election. Paul Tsongas would be the Democratic nominee...(and we know what happened in 1992...who outside of my state even knew of Bill Clinton). Howard Dean in 2003...now Hillary in 2007.
Reply -
0%
scott42611 year, 10 months ago
In 2008, even with our front-loaded primaries, the nominee may not be Hillary. I hope that she does NOT become the nominee. If she does, I would not at all be surprised to see an independent run by Mike Bloomberg...and I might just vote for him, in that case. I think that even if he were to run, he is very unlikely to win. I cannot stomach a vote for Hillary (probably for differing reasons that conservatives here, but I'm uneasy with her, nonetheless). I cannot vote for the current incarnation of the Republican Party(and Ron Paul is unlikely to be their nominee).
I hope that I don't have to make that choice, but if we are determined, as a country, to continue this dysfunctional Bush-Clinton-Bush-Cl... cycle, I will be forced to cast my vote for an independent candidate.
I want my county back more than I want my party back...
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
Truzseeker1 year, 11 months ago
What's funny is that the rest of the world really knows what is going on. We don't have representative government any longer and continuing on the current course is self destruction. I have posted many hard hitting stories here on Netscape that never really see the light of day because it has very little in common with the MSM and the censorship. I simply want someone in office that can actually support and defend the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less, and that means also obeying its mandates.
Reply -
-
0%
Punchkin1 year, 11 months ago
I seriously don't care which Dem gets the DNC nomination.. I'm out campaigning for them no matter what.. will be the first time campaigning for a president in my life, but I'm gonna do it.. I don't care who I have to make excuses for whether it be taking lobbyist funds or inexperience (please, lord, let Gore run in '08).. I'm viewing this as a go big or go home situation and I'm hoping for another "Blue Wave".
Reply-
0%
tanglang1 year, 10 months ago
WOW! Just like a democrat. It does not matter who they are or what they believe, as long as they are a lib, you'll support them for president. Way to prove my point that you all are just a bunch of sheep. Incapable of thinking for yourself, so you need big government to protect you.
As for gore, have you seen this?
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/08/10/a...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: User banned.7 Replies
-
anioklyComment removed: User banned.16 Replies
-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 11 months ago
Where are you AL? Why haven't you joined the fight to return this country to the rule governed by the Constitution?
Obama--Lacks experience and seasoning
Shrillery---Every times she opens her mouth it's like finger nails on a blackboard and in the pockets of every lobbyists.
Edwards--Coming on strong but can he be elected?
Biden--Humm. Is what he says his own, or stolen from someone else?
Dodd-- No freaking way.
The rest reduced to blowing in the wind.
Jim Webb--Not running but should.
Ron Paul--Wrong party but a better choice than all the rest.
Long time before the next election, if Bush doesn't play the EO 51 card. Still time to hold all of their feet to the fire and find one better than all the rest. Time will tell.
Reply-
-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 11 months ago
obamas inexperience just means he isnt bought and paid for by lobbyist
he is a realist that has some common sense
the recent flak about pakistan is a perfect example...the USA should nevr have let bin laden escape at tora bora and the idea that they have been left for yrs to rebuild their base is incredible
the idea that neo con romney thinks killing/capturing bin laden is a bad idea is insane
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
Dionys1 year, 11 months ago
You're all assuming there will even be an election in 2008.
With Bush signing the "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," the text of which can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05...
It seems much less likely.
Reply -
-
0%
farmerman1 year, 11 months ago
I think there is a very good chance of a Republican Presidential win in 2008. It somewhat depends on how the surge works out and how the Iraqi government is able to take control of their country. But there are many other issues too. Things such as immigration, health care, taxes and quite frankly just the ability to name Supreme Court Justices.
Reply-
0%
DoseASpinoza1 year, 11 months ago
That last is usually the most important consideration. You can vote out a bad president but you are stuck with the justices.
This time around the war will definitely weigh on votes, and if the current economic turmoil continues that will also. It's another one of Shrub's Pollyanna blind spots that he keeps saying the economy is so good.
And it is a piece of bipartisan idiocy that the government reports on inflation minus food and energy costs. So the economy can look great as long as you don't eat, heat/cool your home or go anywhere.
Reply -
0%
scott42611 year, 10 months ago
"....Things such as immigration, health care, taxes and quite frankly just the ability to name Supreme Court Justices."
All reasons for me to vote Democratic.
We even have some common ground on the immigration issue, but many in Republican party seemed to stand behind Bush on this last farce of a bill. As did many Democrats. Democrats and Republicans alike, who were listening to angry constituents, kept that bill from going any further. I'm beginning to think neither party has America's best interests at heart on that issue...very unfortunately.
Would that the Democrats grew a spine? That's all I ask!
Reply
-
-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 11 months ago
I notice that the article correctly identifies Ron Paul as a Republican, then turns around and labels him a Libertarian. While he DOES sound an awful lot like a Libertarian, I think he probably comes closer to TRUE Republican ideals than the author gives him credit for. It's just that the Republican party has drifted pretty far downstream towards where the Democrat's boat is docked. They ALL want to make government bigger, tax more, spend more, control more.
Reply-
0%
farmerman1 year, 11 months ago
"the Republican party has drifted pretty far downstream towards where the Democrat's boat is docked. They ALL want to make government bigger, tax more, spend more, control more."
So true, I look back at the days of Kennedy, Johnson, Scoop Jackson and realize that Party is dead and gone. Those people would be calling the Republican Party home today. And us Conservatives don't have a Party we can count on.
Reply -
-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 10 months ago
joe,
Maybe it is just my perspective, but I see the Republican Party drifting towards the Corporations and their lobbyists!
They always had this little issue of ethics. Although they are "married" to their constituents, they are having clandestine "affairs" with lobbyist! Some of them are doing "triple" dipping by cheating on their wives, too!
I don't see too many Democratic "Boats" drifting that way!
If you know any, I would appreciate it if you would post the names. Knowledge is always good!
Reply
-
-
0%
Punchkin1 year, 11 months ago
So far, Republicans have shown us to be pro-unchecked executive power, pro-unchecked corporate power and reach, and for spending half of our budget on a military, much of which is excessive and only necessary given sloppy and inept handling of our foreign affairs only to benefit a few fat-cats in the weapons and oil industries.. none of these things prove positive they care about America's future or her people.. . never mind them not seeming to give a rip about her land (environment) or nearly endless supply of national debt.. This info is very public and now common knowledge.. without rigging the election, I don't think they have a chance.
Reply -
0%
ericb21 year, 11 months ago
There is an obvious reason not to say "Islamic terror," which stupidly suggests that terror is indeed Islamic, as the ideologists of al-Qaida would argue. There is also an obvious reason to say that same phrase - if you believe that we are careening toward a war of civilizations and your aim is to inflame.
Let's see, first of all...The largest threat of terrosim, and certainly the most common, is of Islamic origin. If saying that means my aim is to inflame, rather than state the obvious, then, by definition, not saying it means your aim is to appease. The idiotic double standard of being tough on your oppenent without offending him is absurd. If Muslims dont like terrorism being linked to thier religion then the need to learn to police themselves. When your image becomes your driving factor, even to the extent of your own saftey, then you have crossed a line.
Reply-
0%
DoseASpinoza1 year, 11 months ago
How do you measure that the "most common" threat of terror "is of Islamic origin?" Did you hear that from the same people who told you Iraq was full of WMDs?
The really sad thing is that yesterday when Shrub was talking about Iran "meddling" in Iraq, there was not one word of it that would not have applied to him if the rest of the world just substituted "U.S." for "Iraq."
By most standards that would make Dubya a Christian Terrorist. "If Christians don't like terrorism being linked to their religion then they need to learn to police themselves."
I hope all those evangelical voters will remember that come election day.
Reply -
0%
DarkWizard1 year, 10 months ago
ericb2,
Good to see someone get back on topic. The reason you don't see Bush or his administration say "Islamic Terrorists" is because he is getting support from Saudi Arabia and maintains an alliance with Pakistan. This would be counter productive to the current administrations push to "democratize" the Middle Eastern area and procure their oil (and I say democratize loosely).
As for "who will win the presidency in 2008" history shows that there is a high probability of a democrat winning because of the current discontent with this administration. The only way the republicans could keep sway over the public would be to show the ineffectiveness of the democratically controlled congress.
Hypothetically, a democratic executive branch and legislative branch will show no more progress toward pressing issues for the public than republicans in the same situation would. Once again the public will become discontent and want change.
My opinion.
Reply
-
-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 11 months ago
I don't usually read the articles and just post on people's comments, but I have to say this is a really good article. Sort of refreshing.
It really shows just how self-interested politicians can be, and that there is nothing they won't sacrifice for their career 'advancement'
Even deliberately antagonizing a billion people just to use 'us vs them' campaign strategies.
Just because something is effective in polarizing voters and knocking a fews folks off the fence to your side of the corral...
....shouldn't they put on wider world-goggles and see the effects of these strategies globally, or are they fully aware that they're pi*ssing on the future for political expediency in the present, and do they just not care?
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 11 months ago
as I have already alluded to, I am not the most well-read cat, but I think about how so many people in the muslim world despise AQ, and I think, why in the heck are we alienating muslims who hate AQ by lumping them in with AQ? What ever happened to that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' foreign policy maxin used by the US so often?
Instead we'll just lump the enemy of my enemy in with that enemy, and try our best to make new enemies with rhetoric like Guiliani's insistence that the 'Islamic' is the key word in 'Islamic Terrorism'. The key thing is the terrorism. But these political folks will do and say and focus on what they need to for their selfish career goals, instead of approaching the issue like problem solvers.
Reply
-
-
0%
joeeddie1 year, 11 months ago
I don't see a candidate from either party who has a grasp on the issues identified in this article. It is little more than a partisan plea for votes in 2008.
Reply -
-
0%
farmerman1 year, 11 months ago
There are not many people on Netscape who will buy your position, but you are right. And as the religious war expands, our relationship with Europe, in particular will deteriorate even further. Not counting the Europeans who will be trying to flee to the US to avoid the conflict in their own Countries.
The riots in France are just a sign of things to come from our former allies. It will be interesting to see what steps the more Conservative new French leader will take to address the Muslim problem.
Reply -
-
-
0%
KISA452a1 year, 11 months ago
So, the part of the world that funds most of the terrorists who are against the US will dislike me if we elect a republican. I'm not sure there is a better possible slogan for the Republicans...
If you can not name your enemies you will either fight everyone or noone. But they attacked the US while the US was not fighting back. Now that the US is fighting back they and the civilization that produces them do not like the US... Tough luck comes to mind...
Now dont' get me wrong, the current strategy probbly isn't the best. It's better than the previous stick your head in the sand approach, however. And better than the current let's run away, defeat ourselves, and leave the field to the enemy of the left and media elites.
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 10 months ago
''If you can not name your enemies you will either fight everyone or noone. ''
that's an interesting sentence. I might have to think about that awhile.
but before I ponder that like the true Zen riddle it seems to be, we named our enemy[AQ] and said he was in Iraq.
so while defining the enemy is good, good intel left unfiltered by biased leaders and media appears to be better.
a short post in honor of Farmerman :-)
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs1 year, 10 months ago
It is just lunacy to continue a policy that gets Americans killed, wastes our resources, weakens our defense capabilities, and produces not one positive outcome. Give it a rest. It is not better to wage war on the wrong people than to do nothing.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Harbeas1 year, 10 months ago
I get so sick of reading about republican, democrat and the like. When are we going to totally ignore the party and vote for the man(or woman). We need a paradigm shift on voting for our politicians.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.