This story is archived

If you think they hate us now »

Posted by: deathray 2 years, 3 months ago

Archived 228 0 drops

A 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 »

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:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 487

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
deathray
Aug. 10, 2007, 8:50 a.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
deathray
Aug. 10, 2007, 9:21 a.m.
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).
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
rightfromwrong
Aug. 10, 2007, 10:13 a.m.
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
catstevensComment has been removed: Retracted by user
catstevensComment has been removed: Retracted by user
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Searchbeam
Aug. 10, 2007, 10:41 a.m.
DR,
Good story!
This adds another dimension to our discussion here!
Otherwise the discussions here just become "Diss" and "Cuss" stink bombs from the NeoCon Right Wingnuts!
lol!
ranchhandComment has been removed: Retracted by user
catstevensComment has been removed: Retracted by user
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Truzseeker
Aug. 10, 2007, 10:47 a.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Punchkin
Aug. 10, 2007, 11:40 a.m.
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".
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jordan11
Aug. 10, 2007, 12:05 p.m.
A republican victory in 2008 will do more than sink our world standing. It will sink our country, period.
DanmLiberalsComment has been removed: Retracted by user
anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
GHOSTWHOWALKS
Aug. 10, 2007, 12:44 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
not2needy
Aug. 10, 2007, 1:27 p.m.
Let's just hope and pray that there is NO republican victory in 2008.
If it were to happen, let's just hope it's Ron Paul, the only truly decent man they have running.
I think our biggest fear is whether there will be an "honest" election this time.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Dionys
Aug. 10, 2007, 2:14 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
entropy
Aug. 10, 2007, 2:45 p.m.
Switching from Republican to Democrats isn't going to make the world love us. It'll change nothing.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
farmerman
Aug. 10, 2007, 2:56 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joeblowe
Aug. 10, 2007, 3:08 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Punchkin
Aug. 10, 2007, 3:16 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ericb2
Aug. 10, 2007, 3:18 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin
Aug. 10, 2007, 3:23 p.m.
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?
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joeeddie
Aug. 10, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Albmore
Aug. 10, 2007, 3:32 p.m.
Are you all Americans or what? The president of the USA job is not to be a movie star politian like Clinton but to look after the interest of the US. Those lands who dislike a strong leader would love to see the US fall. Including Germany. Wake up!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
KISA452a
Aug. 10, 2007, 4:03 p.m.
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.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
patnmeril
Aug. 10, 2007, 4:45 p.m.
It is fairly pointless to discuss. Thanks to GWB it will be at least 1 election cycle before any republicans have a chance. He has single handedly discredited the whole party
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Harbeas
Aug. 10, 2007, 4:52 p.m.
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.