Letters to the Editor
-
If the Democrats want to blow it, they should talk about disarmament
@ezhik2:
"Not being friendly is not the same as being an adversary. Why should they be friendly?"
My mild sarcasm, "particularly friendly", was evidently too mild. In the new "great game" of securing energy resources, the US, Russia and China are adversaries.
"Both the breakup of the Russian Empire and the breakup of the Soviet Union were catastrophes."
The Soviet Union was the "Russian empire" I referred to. The USSR was an empire established by Russia.
"But do you think they are present military danger? Do we have to renew the arms race?"
Exhausted US ground forces tied down in an occupation weakens the credibility of American military deterrence. That is the present military danger.
-
For someone who is "not a member of Team Hillary" ...
@dcbrown:
"I am not a member of Team Hillary, but..."
Hmm... so who do you support?
-
Obama's not a good debater
He's not very impressive in one-on-one interviews either. His speech is halting--every 4 or 5 words he goes er, hmmm--he looks shifty and uncomfortable.
He's absolutely fantastic giving speechs before adoring crowds. He's a masterful teleprompter reader (he doesn't write his fabulous speeches, Jon Fevrau does).
Next debate, watch out how as soon it is over, he gets up immediately, yanks his microphone off and runs to shake hands with the audience. Then his face lights up and he flashes his Colgate smile.
These are the reasons why he doesn't want weekly debates with Hillary.
Ah...one more tiny detail. He's afraid people'll catch up on the fact that he's kind of thin on policy and concrete ideas.
-
Yeah, Hillary Clinton is strong on ideas
No doubt about it, Hillary Clinton is strong on ideas. Like her idea to support Bush's war with Iraq.
-
@ pwoxby or anyone who cares to answer:
That is an extremely large number of troops that Obama wants to expand the military by. Can anyone tell me how he plans to get that many more people when Gates has been saying for months that forces are stretched thin? Recruitment is way down. Where will these forces come from?
-
Five more recruits
Now that they are no longer serving their country by working on their father's campaign, Mitt Romney's five sons are available.
(My own son is serving in the US Navy.)
-
One more thing about the Obama/Clinton debates
There is no correlation between being a good debater and winning the presidency. There certainly has been no demonstrated correlation between being a good debater and being an effective president. So whether Obama is “good” at these media created confrontations does not tell us as much as some people might want to think. As far as the form goes, Alan Keyes is a good debater, but I wouldn’t want him to be president. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, is not known for his debating skills-- and he got the nomination and may end up president. Mondale, Gore, and Kerry bested their Republican rivals in terms of their demonstrated knowledge of policy. Not one, however, ended up with the title “President”. History suggests that it’s not the person who can rattle off the most facts in a ninety minute period, or who is the best at verbal sparring in quick time, who wins. It’s the person who touches most voters in a way that makes them want to go out and vote for him or her. Clinton is a brilliant woman, and very good on her feet. That’s not going to help her beat McCain.
-
Alan Keyes is a good debater?!
Pull the other one, Vox!
-
Da Baits
Fox holds debates? Fox holds da baits. Props to Obama for giving them a big "fuck off." While it's a shame Hillary's giving them any legitimacy by showing up, I do look forward to watching her castrate the whole bunch.
-
Obama/Clinton debates
About Alan Keyes, I was attempting to give credit where credit is due while setting out bait that I figured someone would take. Even though I don’t agree with the substance of his philosophy he did, in fact, receive praise for how he acquitted himself during a couple of the Republican debates. That led to his having a television show where the limits of his skills and appeal became apparent. But in the form of “debate” concocted by the media—ninety or so minutes where people spit out practiced talking points and live for a chance to play “gotcha”-- he met the standard of at least “good”.
-
Vox Veritas -- Obama evading one on one debate
The issue is not who is a "good debater" but discussing issues - discussing substance. People will come up with a weighted average based on everything they know about a candidate's position and credentials to cast a vote in favor of one or another. Reagan was a great debater, but everyone knew his strength would be in those that advise and he was clear on that. Reagan was a good President. Bill Clinton was a great debater, despite his personal transgressions, he was also a good President. Obama sells himself as a confident, intelligent reformer. Well then, there is no reason not to debate. It is more cowardly than Chicken George, because Bush concedes he just wasn't very good at the debates - -he conceded that in joint interviews while sitting next to his friend, Bill Clinton. The joke is Bill is the son he wished he had. . .
-
Obama/Clinton Redux
If televised debates were the only way to find out about the substance of a candidate’s philosophy or plans for his/her administration, you would have a point. As things stand, the suggestion that unless we have four (8, 16, 24, 32) debates between Obama and Clinton over the next four weeks, American voters won’t be able to find out what they plan to do in their administrations is a complete non-sequitur. Equating intelligence with debating capacity is also a fallacy. There are plenty of thoughtful and intelligent men and women who could be good presidents who might not excel at that very narrow skill. I would actually prefer to have them sit down separately with a good interviewer who would ask tough questions. It was Roger Mudd’s interview with Ted Kennedy that really killed his presidential hopes when he could not answer why he wanted to be president. It is axiomatic in politics that the person who is behind, and feels desperate, challenges the stronger candidate to debate. Airing the issues is not the real purpose for doing so. The hope is that the stronger candidate will do or say something-- make a gaffe-- that can be exploited, e.g. Ford’s preposterous statement that the Soviet Union was not dominating Poland. It’s a strict cost-benefit analysis. The challenger might make a mistake, too. But being behind, or fearing (knowing) that one is falling behind, makes the gamble worth it. My original point was that the calculation in Clinton’s debate challenge is patent, and calling Obama names (something else people do when they feel on shaky ground and are at a loss) misses the point. Obama is under no obligation to dance to Clinton's, or anyone else’s, tune. Doing well in these debates has nothing to do with what kind of president either she or he will be. We’ve had great candidates and presidents before televised debates, and we could have them without them.