[tomder55]

From his victory speech last night :

I will leave it to my opponent to argue that we should abrogate trade treaties, and pretend the global economy will go away and Americans can secure our future by trading and investing only among ourselves. We will campaign in favor of seizing the opportunities presented by the growth of free markets throughout the world, helping displaced workers acquire new and lasting employment and educating our children to prepare them for the new economic realities by giving parents choices about their children's education they do not have now.

I will leave it to my opponent to claim that they can keep companies and jobs from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business here at home. We will campaign to strengthen job growth in America by helping businesses become more competitive with lower taxes and less regulation.


I will leave it to my opponent to propose returning to the failed, big government mandates of the sixties and seventies to address problems such as the lack of health care insurance for some Americans. I will campaign to make health care more accessible to more Americans with reforms that will bring down costs in the health care industry down without ruining the quality of the world's best medical care.


And I will campaign to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil with an energy policy that encourages American industry and technology to make our country safer, cleaner and more prosperous by leading the world in the use, development and discovery of alternative sources of energy.

[excon]

Hello tom:

That's very cool talk. Dare I say, it's "inspiring"? Yes, it is. It made you feel good, didn't it?

But, alas and alack, it's not true, of course. Didn't I hear him say just a little while ago that he knows nothing about economics?? I DID hear him say that. The inspiring speech above, proves it.

In all that wonderful talk, I didn't notice how he's going to pay for his 100 years worth of war. His predecessor, the current dufus-in-chief cut taxes, started a war, and told us to go on spending as usual. Huh? He borrowed the $2 trillion the war has cost so far, and we've only been there 5 years. We're feeling that mismanagement right about now. And, it's going to get worse – much worse.

So, your dude is going to cut taxes some more, huh? Right... Talk about voodoo economics...

excon

[NeedKarma]

Just feel-good rhetoric - no substance.

[tomder55]

I'll disregard your miscaracterization of McCain's Iraq remark . As far as the economy goes ;McCain has Phil Graham as his chief advise. Graham is a balance budget deficit hawk who made his name by attacking wasteful government spending . Hope they take a sharp pencil when it comes to cutting the failed, big government mandates of the sixties and seventies.

[excon]

I'll disregard your miscaracterization of McCain's Iraq remark .

Hello again, tom:

Mischarachterize??

YouTube - McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me"

excon

[speechlesstx]

This is empty rhetoric with no substance:

You know, decades ago, as a community organizer, I learned that the real work of democracy begins far from the closed doors and marble halls of Washington. It begins on street corners and front porches, in living rooms and meeting halls, with ordinary Americans who see the world as it is and realize that we have within our power to remake the world as it should be.

It's with that hope that we began this journey, the hope that if we could go block by block, city by city, state by state, and build a movement that spanned race and region, party and gender, if we could give young people a reason to vote and the young at heart a reason to believe again... if we could inspire a nation to come together and we could turn the page on a politics that has shut us out, let us down, and told us to settle, we could write a new chapter in the American story.

We were told this was impossible. We were told the climb was too steep. We were told our country was too cynical, that we were just being naïve and we couldn't really change the world as it is.

But then a few people in Iowa stood up and said, "Yes, we can." -Obama's remarks last night

Very inspiring, very cool talk, can really make a guy feel good. I have a new campaign theme for Obama - "Visualize Change"

[tomder55]

Yes that little snippet of the town hall meeting mischaracterizes his comments because by itself it does not show content.He drew parallels to the longstanding presence of United States troops in places like South Korea and Japan and Europe .

Here is the exchange in it's entirety :

E.H.: I want to say at the outset I'm not going to be voting for you. I'm going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from new york, who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.
I have listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war and I've heard you say we can't leave Iraq. In both cases I think the devil's in the details. I looked at your Web site; I read everything on your web site today and I couldn't find any answers to my questions.
What I would like to know is, I've heard you say a million times all the reasons why we can't leave Iraq. But I've never heard you say what it is you hope to accomplish in Iraq and how long it's going to take.
Mr. McCain: Yes, sir, and thank you for coming tonight and thank you for your frankness and candor. … This is the classic counterinsurgency we're engaged in right now. This is not a new strategy, General Petraeus has updated it, but the fact is it's a classic counterinsurgency.
And you have to get areas under a secure environment and that secure environment then allows the economic political and social process to move forward. … In case you missed it, on New Year's Eve, people were out in the streets in Baghdad by the thousands for the first time in years.
That's because we provided them with a safe and secure environment. Is it totally safe? No. I talked earlier about the suicide bombs and the continued threats.
And then what happens is American troops withdraw and they withdraw to bases and then they eventually withdraw, or we reach an arrangement like we have in South Korea, with Japan. We still have troops in Bosnia.
But the fact is it's American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.
And the option, and I'll say this again because you've got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I'd look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we'd gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others.
So I can tell you that it's going to be long and hard and tough.
I can tell you the option of defeat is incredible and horrendous. And I can tell you and look you in the eye and tell you that this strategy is succeeding.
And what we care about is not American presence, we care about American casualties and those casualties I believe will be dramatically and continue to be reduced.
Please follow up.
E.H.: I do not believe that one U.S. soldier being killed almost every day is success. There were three U.S. soldiers killed today. I want to know how long are we going to be there? Are you are you …
Mr. McCain: How long do you want us to be in South Korea? How long do you want to be in Bosnia?
E.H. There's no fighting going on in South Korea. Let's not talk about South Korea. Let's come back to Iraq.
Mr. McCain: Thank you sir, and I can look you in the eye and tell you that those casualties tragically continue as I made very clear in my opening remarks. But they are much less and we will eventually eliminate them.
And again the option of setting a date for withdrawal is a date for surrender and we would then have many more casualties and many more American sacrifice, if we withdraw with setting a date for surrender.
Now you and I have an honest open disagreement, but I can tell you six months ago that people like you who believe like you said the surge would never succeed. And it is succeeding. And I've been there and I have seen it with my very own eyes.
E.H.: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-
Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.
We've been in South Korea, we've been in japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so.
That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day. ........

E.H. I want to go back to Iraq — 50 years? What if American soldiers are being killed one per day four years from now?
Mr McCain: I understand what's at stake here. And I understand that American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continued to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed.
E.H.: So what I hear is an open-ended commitment? An open-ended commitment? —
Mr. McCain: I have a quote open-ended commitment in Asia, I have an open-ended commitment in South Korea, I have an open-ended commitment in Bosnia. I have an open-ended commitment in Europe. I have an open-ended commitment everywhere.
E.H. Thank you for going on record.
Mr. McCain: Thank you, sir. Thank you for this exchange. This kind of dialogue has to take place in America today and I thank you for expressing your views and I appreciate it.

[tomder55]

And here was McCain when Tim Russert quizzed him about the comment:

Mr. McCain: Most importantly, so would the American people if Americans aren't dying. We have a base in, in the neighboring country of Kuwait, very large base. We have a base in Turkey. We have a base in Japan, Germany. We've had bases there. It's not American presence that bothers the American people, it's American casualties.
And if Americans are safe wherever they are in the world, Americans — the American people don't mind that. So what I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying, we're supporting them, and, over time, then it'll be the relation between the two countries.
With Kuwait, they want us there and they want us there for a long time, so we're glad to be there. The Saudis? They didn't want us there for various reasons, so we left. That's going to depend on relations between the United States government and the Iraqi government.
My point was — everybody says, “How long are we going to stay?” My point is, how — when are we going to succeed? Which we are succeeding now so that the Iraqi government is functioning, and we have stability in the region. Instability in Iraq means instability…
Mr. Russert: What kind of troop levels for the next 10, 20 years?
Mr. McCain: I — you know, that's very hard to say. But they — but the troops would be out of harm's way. That's the key to it. And…
Mr. Russert: Would you have permanent bases?
Mr. McCain: If, if that seems to be necessary, in some respects. It depends on the threat. I mean, look, what if, what if Jordan falls? What if there's another war with Israel? What, what if Egypt, that, that there's tremendous upheaval? This is a very unstable part of the world as we just found out in Pakistan.
So it depends on our national security threats and the needs to meet them. But right now I just want to look you in the eye and tell you that al-Qaeda is on the run and they are not defeated. But we are succeeding, and many, many experts said that the surge would not succeed and said that I was wrong. And, my friend, I was right.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I understand what he's saying.

If I may cut to the chase - he's a stayer. The Dem's are leavers. McCain believes that we need a presence in the area because it's so dangerous. The Dems believe that we don't need a presence in the area because it's so dangerous.

The area particularly THOSE folks are speaking of, is Iraq. Nobody is calling for a disengagement in Afghanistan. That IS still the area.

I don't disagree that it's a dangerous place. But, we're in over our head. We're fighting one good war and one bad one. Our military is stretched. We can't fight Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and their other buddies too. We just can't.

And, even if we had the gumption, we can't afford it. THAT'S my point. If we bankrupt ourselves, then what did we win? I'm all for kicking butt over there. But, I'm also willing to pay for it too.

excon

[BABRAM]

The least rhetorical candidates we have are Ron Paul and Barack Obama. The business as usual Republicans were so intimated by Ron Paul they didn't invite to some of the debates. I'm really starting to enjoy this pattern. The Obama dislikes continue to charge him with rhetoric and then their choice for candidate ends up eating those words in debate. Hillary took it on the chin when she tried that nonsense forcing her to resort to smear tactics. McCain's uneducated rant about "Al Qaeda in Iraq, being Iraq, is Iraq," backfired on him. Not to be done, Dubya announced in that same week how out of touch he was on gas prices. Provided Obama can get past the crooked campaign tricks the Clinton's have waged, watch McCain get his comeupins.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

I understand what he's saying.

If I may cut to the chase - he's a stayer. The Dem's are leavers. McCain believes that we need a presence in the area because it's so dangerous. The Dems believe that we don't need a presence in the area because it's so dangerous.

Hillary and Obama are both hedging their options on Iraq:

"Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region."

"Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region."

Both lean on the terms "redeployment," "strategic" and "phased," and promise they won't withdraw in a way that leaves Iraq susceptible to chaos.

Hillary's plan and one of her favorite themes leaves plenty of wiggle room:

"As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

What does that mean? Specifically?

[Dark_crow]

After all the name calling and back and forth between the two opposing sides in the end it comes down between taking the country in two different directions. The one side would 'stay the course,' would continue in the course its founders set during this countries early years.

But there are many wanting to set a new course which would take us in the direction the USSR took…Isolation, Protectionism, with the promise of 'Cradle to Grave' government care.

That is the big picture with-out all the accouterments.