New Developments III

[OscarGuy]

Oh, so John McCain HOPES to have troops home by a supposed second term. Good to know. At least we know that troops will be home before a second term if Hillary or Barack is elected.

[criddic3]

I think there is a difference between hoping that by 2013, we will have victory, and saying that we will draw down our troops by a particular day.

This isn't an age issue, but a hope issue.

[Big Magilla]

It sounds like the babblings of a delusional old man. He's aging rapidly under the stress of just running for President. What would the stress of the actual job do to him?

[OscarGuy]

So, basically what he's saying is that for us to win the "war" under his presidency, you would have to elect him to a second term.


McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013 By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago



COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.

The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the choice of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040 form, said only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been defeated and Iraq's government will be functioning on its own.

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain told an audience of several hundred here in the capital city of a general election battleground state.

Later, as the Arizona senator drove to the airport on his "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus, McCain was peppered by reporters with questions about the timetable. He and his aides insisted there was a difference between ending the war and bringing troops home and, as they criticize the Democrats, announcing a withdrawal upfront without regard for the military endgame.

"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," McCain said.

The Vietnam veteran added: "I know from experience, you set a day for surrender — which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing — and you will pay a much a heavier price later on."

In the primary campaign, McCain had criticized former Republican rival Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable.

Democrats challenged McCain's comments, led by presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In a statement, the New York senator dismissed McCain and said he "promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened our military, our national security and our standing in the world." The Barack Obama campaign said that while the candidate agrees with some of McCain's sentiments, "you cannot embrace the destructive policies and divisive political tactics of George Bush and still offer yourself as a candidate of healing and change."

Other Democrats equated McCain's comment with President Bush's May 1, 2003, speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier displaying a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

In his remarks, McCain peered through a crystal ball to 2013 and envisioned an era of bipartisanship driven by weekly news conferences and British-style question periods with joint meetings of Congress.

The senator conceded he cannot make the changes alone, but said he wanted to outline a specific governing style to show the accomplishments it can achieve. He backed up his remarks with a Web ad featuring similar content.

"I'm not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries," McCain said. "There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will end; the era of problem-solving will begin."

To the disdain of some fellow Republicans, the likely GOP nominee has worked with Democrats on legislation aimed at overhauling campaign finance regulations, redrafting immigration rules and regulations and implementing government spending controls.

While that has cultivated a maverick image for McCain, the Arizona senator has also been accused of exhibiting a nasty temper — swearing even at fellow lawmakers from his own party — and unabashed partisanship.

In particular, McCain has clashed with the leading Democratic presidential contender, Barack Obama. After tangling with the Illinois senator on lobbying reforms, McCain questioned Obama's integrity in a publicly released 2006 letter.

McCain wrote he had thought Obama's interest in ethics legislation "was genuine and admirable," before adding: "Thank you for disabusing me of such notions." He accused Obama of "partisan posturing."

In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his speech, the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek a second term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four years after being the oldest president elected.

In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.

He added: "The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. ... There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001."

McCain also pledged to halt a Bush administration practice of enacting laws with accompanying signing statements that exempt the president from having to enforce parts he finds objectionable.

[criddic3]

2. Actually, your statistic on Americans who think we are winning is wrong. Not too long ago, I read a poll that stated a majority think we can win in Iraq. That doesn't mean that they want to stay, but they think it is winnable. I'll try to locate the poll.

I bet tickets to Avenue Q that this is also imaginary. Did your boyfriend conduct the poll?

To ignore or not to ignore? That is the question.

[jsmalahy]

2. Actually, your statistic on Americans who think we are winning is wrong. Not too long ago, I read a poll that stated a majority think we can win in Iraq. That doesn't mean that they want to stay, but they think it is winnable. I'll try to locate the poll.

I bet tickets to Avenue Q that this is also imaginary. Did your boyfriend conduct the poll?

[criddic3]

Citing Larry Kudlow's opinion is about as valid as citing Barbara Bush's. Kudlow is a hardcore, true-believing Republican; of course he thinks Bush is right in every way. There's a wonderful cartoon in this week's New Yorker that captures these folks perfectly: Two guys are crawling, parched, across the desert. The caption: "Rescue, hell! Conservative principles will get us through"

criddic posts so much bilge I usually ignore it, but I had to comment on his "it's not Bush's fault these things happened to him and history will be kind" rationalization -- especially when he couples it with a GOPer's world-view of the Carter record. No president, possibly excepting Herbert Hoover, was ever saddled with problems as little of his own making as Jimmy Cater was. The US's decades-long support of the Shah in Iran hardened the Iranian population against the US, and when the fundamentalist revolution came, they turned on us with a vengeance. This led to not only the hostage crisis, but also the worldwide spike in oil prices, which led to recession, which led to the Kennedy challenge, ad infinitum. Take Iran out of the equation, and Carter might well have been re-elected.

Bush's problems, by contrast, are vastly of his own making, starting of course with Iraq (keep telling yourself we're winning; 28% of Americans agree!), but also including the lax regulation of the lending industry which has led to this economic slowdown; the horrible response to Katrina was partly from his giving over FEMA to an unqualified hack. His fingerprints are all over every disaster out there.

Carter at least had the Camp David accords...one more positive achievement than shows up on the Bush side of the ledger. (As Truman had the Marshall Plan, and Nixon had the opening to China) Most Americans don't cherish Bush's leadership after 9/11 anymore; rather they, like Matt Damon at the end of Bourne Ultimatum, see what he's done since as abject betrayal of their patriotic inclination to rally behind a president in time of peril.

1. Carter may have been saddled with some things not of his making, but his decisions in dealing with those events were horrible. Even without the Iran Hostage situation, I think it would have been difficult to beat Ronald Reagan. Carter lost a lot of support by saying "I have lusted in my heart" and trying to appease enemies (much like Obama wants to do). Carter only won because of the Nixon pardon.

2. Actually, your statistic on Americans who think we are winning is wrong. Not too long ago, I read a poll that stated a majority think we can win in Iraq. That doesn't mean that they want to stay, but they think it is winnable. I'll try to locate the poll. It was conducted around the time that Petraeous was tesifying before congress.

3. I could post some very good political cartoons, as well, that show the opposite viewpoint. And they come from award-winning artists.

4. I posted Kudlow's article because it was an interesting read. Not because I am his hard-core reader. I got the article from Real Clear Politics, which showcases both conservative and liberal viewpoints from various sources. Just because a person has a particular political viewpoint, does not mean they don't have a brain. I read some articles written in support of Democrats, and some against Republicans, that I find interesting. I might not agree with them most of the time, but I don't dismiss them out-of-hand like you do. Since I posted that article, the main complaint has been who wrote the article and not the merits of the substance. If you feel that Ludlow is wrong, just rebut his opinion. There's no reason to personally blast the guy. I mean, really! "He was a druggie over a decade ago, so he can't know anything!" And yet you people are always crying out about how we must be compassionate towards people, give them a chance to rejoin society and be productive. Now I see the real truth. You only are compassionate when it serves your own motivations.

[Mister Tee]

Citing Larry Kudlow's opinion is about as valid as citing Barbara Bush's. Kudlow is a hardcore, true-believing Republican; of course he thinks Bush is right in every way. There's a wonderful cartoon in this week's New Yorker that captures these folks perfectly: Two guys are crawling, parched, across the desert. The caption: "Rescue, hell! Conservative principles will get us through"

criddic posts so much bilge I usually ignore it, but I had to comment on his "it's not Bush's fault these things happened to him and history will be kind" rationalization -- especially when he couples it with a GOPer's world-view of the Carter record. No president, possibly excepting Herbert Hoover, was ever saddled with problems as little of his own making as Jimmy Cater was. The US's decades-long support of the Shah in Iran hardened the Iranian population against the US, and when the fundamentalist revolution came, they turned on us with a vengeance. This led to not only the hostage crisis, but also the worldwide spike in oil prices, which led to recession, which led to the Kennedy challenge, ad infinitum. Take Iran out of the equation, and Carter might well have been re-elected.

Bush's problems, by contrast, are vastly of his own making, starting of course with Iraq (keep telling yourself we're winning; 28% of Americans agree!), but also including the lax regulation of the lending industry which has led to this economic slowdown; the horrible response to Katrina was partly from his giving over FEMA to an unqualified hack. His fingerprints are all over every disaster out there.

Carter at least had the Camp David accords...one more positive achievement than shows up on the Bush side of the ledger. (As Truman had the Marshall Plan, and Nixon had the opening to China) Most Americans don't cherish Bush's leadership after 9/11 anymore; rather they, like Matt Damon at the end of Bourne Ultimatum, see what he's done since as abject betrayal of their patriotic inclination to rally behind a president in time of peril.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1210097255

[criddic3]

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor . . .

That's all you need to know.

At least he'd be in a position to know when the economy is in bad shape or not. Remember, the eighties were pretty good in terms of booming economy.

I bet you didn't even read the article and just scrolled to that line.

--
Magilla,

from wikipedia:

Kudlow converted to Roman Catholicism in the mid-1990s. It was during this time that he entered the twelve-step program to deal with his drug and alcohol problems.

This is after being fired, according to the very same section of the profile you refer to.



Edited By criddic3 on 1209934788

[Big Magilla]

Then he was chief economist and senior managing director of Bear, Stearns & Company. He was fired in 1995 after his out-of-control drug use resulted in him missing an important client presentation per his bio on Wikipedia.com.

[Damien]

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor . . .

That's all you need to know.

[criddic3]

When gas prices are truly high and people start to actually cut down on using it, then maybe I'll join in the anger. Right now it's a nuisance, but not really a life-changer in spite of the outspoken anger towards the rising prices.

You putz:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_18/b4082000518114.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008....=slogin

Oil is running out. This is not a wishy-washy head-in-the-sand "debate." For the record, I don't think rising gas costs are due to Bush going to war. I think that the war is a function, a response, to rising gas costs and a more intense emergence (in India and China esp.) into the "modern" middle-class, complete with the massive dependence on fossil fuels that this lifestyle entails.

It is because oil is running out that people are starting to cut down--the prices are going up because it is a more precious resource. Dwindling supply, increasing demand. US foreign policy is predicated on keeping as much of it accessible for ourselves as possible (regardless of whose land its under).

If we really do lose the war in Iraq, maybe I'll consider it a failure. Right now we're actually winning.

How could you have one fucking clue whether we're "winning" or not when you do not even know our actual objectives and reasons for being in Iraq? It's true that "we" are winning. But you and I are not members of this "we," oddly enough--and the front "we" are winning on is not what you think, nor is it what the media tells us.

When Social Security actually goes bankrupt and people start realizing that President Bush had some good ideas to help save it, maybe you'll start appreciating him.

For fuck's sake. Why should one privatize social security in a volatile, depressive market? (Unless SS were tied to hedge funds?) Bush's plan to "save" SS was in fact a way to convert public money for US citizens into private money for the wealthy elite.

Then there are the moral and compassionate policies on abortion and No Child Left Behind.

:laugh:

I think he has a good record as President. And they can never take away his leadership at the time of 9/11.

May 03, 2008
Bush's 'R' Is for 'Right'
By Lawrence Kudlow

President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country.

About a month ago he told reporters, "We're not in a recession, we're in a slowdown." At a White House news conference a few weeks later, despite the fact that reporters pressed him to use the "R" word, Mr. Bush refused. And on Friday, after the most recent jobs report -- which produced a much-smaller-than-expected decline in corporate payrolls, a huge 362,000 increase in the more entrepreneurial household survey (the best gain in five months), and a historically low 5 percent unemployment rate (4.95 percent, to be precise) -- the president told reporters: "This economy is going to come on. I'm confident it will."

We're in the midst of the most widely predicted and heralded recession in history. Problem is, so far it's a non-recession recession. Score one for President Bush. In an election year, it could be a big one.

First-quarter GDP growth came in at 0.6 percent. It wasn't the widely predicted decline, and economists expect that number to be revised up. GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2007 was also up slightly, while the prior two quarters averaged over 4 percent growth.

My pal Jimmy Pethokoukis quotes Stanford professor Robert Hall, who heads the recession-dating committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research: "It seems unlikely that we would ever declare a peak-date when real GDP continued to rise."

Interesting -- isn't it? -- just how durable and resilient our low-tax, free-market, capitalist economy truly is. Hit by soaring food and energy prices, a bad housing downturn, and a Wall Street credit crunch, the economy continues to expand, albeit slowly.

The bad news bears always focus on areas of economic weakness. But parts of the economy are doing splendidly. This includes agriculture, energy, export firms operating in the global boom, and all manner of private-sector business, professional, health, and education services. Incidentally, these are the exact sectors producing the highest-paying jobs. What's more, at 154 million employed, the civilian labor force just hit a new all-time high.

Another significant data point: Corporate profits are outperforming all expectations. With three quarters of the S&P 500 companies reporting, profits outside the banking system have increased 10 percent over a year ago.

Profits are a dirty word on the campaign trail. Hillary and Obama, who blame American corporations for most every problem under the sun, want to tax profits heavily. With ExxonMobil and other oil companies reporting strong earnings, Democrats are now calling for a windfall profits tax. Last time we tried that -- under Jimmy Carter -- foreign energy imports rose 8 to 16 percent and domestic energy production fell 3 to 6 percent. (This according top a study by the Congressional Research Service.)

A Senate Republican group led by Pete Domenici has a much better idea: Expand drilling and production both offshore and in Alaska. Domenici's group estimates this would produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil, enough to cover five years of U.S. energy use without a single import.

It's a vastly better plan than penalizing American businesses and their profits, which are the mother's milk of stocks, jobs, and the economy. Senator John McCain gets this. His plan to slash the corporate tax rate is the single-best proposal on the campaign trail. McCain also understands that you don't raise taxes during a slowdown. Nor do you raise taxes when the economy is bouncing back.

Right now, optimism seems to be returning to the stock market. None other than the New York Times ran a front-page story stating, "Wall Street Sees Signs of Sunshine." That's like the Daily Worker announcing the end of socialism. But let's credit the old Gray Lady with reading the tea leaves right.

As a result of mighty efforts by the Federal Reserve, the credit crunch is easing and bond-market risk spreads are falling. The stock market just finished its best April since 2003, with the Dow running above 13,000. The Fed has come to the end of its rate-cutting cycle, and the U.S. greenback is starting to gain strength. With the dollar turning stronger, gold and other inflation signals are coming down.

Even tax rebates for working people will help a bit, although I'm no fan of temporary tax cuts. The much better idea is to make President Bush's investment tax cuts permanent. McCain is for it. Hill-Bama is against it.

Whose call is it going to be?

Recessions and slowdowns come and go in the free-market economy. But even so, it looks like President Bush -- against all odds -- may have the last laugh. If he's right on his no-recession prediction, Sen. McCain and Republicans down the electoral ladder are likely to benefit.

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics



Edited By criddic3 on 1209840042

[Heksagon]

I expressed myself poorly. Sorry. I meant that some professors do not like to recommend American textbooks because they do not believe they are advanced enough. And they do often write their own material instead. I did not mean that they use American textbooks as an excuse for anything.

[OscarGuy]

Heksagon, professors can't complain about textbooks because they, themselves, generally pick out what books they use for a class. Some teachers even ignore those books in favor of actual literature (from my experience) and if they don't like what's out there, they can write their own textbooks or find some from other countries that are written in English to use.

Blaming American textbooks is a lazy excuse.

[Heksagon]

I have to seriously think that criddic is an actual plant, by whom, I don't know--Wes, maybe? I cannot believe he is a real person.

I often feel the same thing. But then I start to think about how long he's been here and how often he posts... Nobody would bother with so much work, not for so long.