Just a quick post about the debate

Message

Sir_Galahad · #1 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:16 am

After watching the debate last night, this about sums my conclusion...

From the National Review

"I think Obama came off better than expected but McCain is the guy who knows the world and has the battle scars. And you cannot reasonably make the case that he is a poster child for anything you might not like about Republicans when he has been at odds with so many in his own party for so long. ... Obama's an impressive guy to have come this far. But do you look at them both tonight and think, "yeah, I want that guy to pick up the 3 A.M. phone call"? Not unless Joe Biden is sleeping next to him."

I'm sure others <wink> will have seen it differently and took away something other than what I took away. But, it is what it is.

BigDrawMan · #2 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:49 am

I give McCain a slight edge on the foreign policy portion of the debate.Except he screwed up the Ike dday letter.Ike's note said he
assumed full responsibility for the failure of the landings, not that he would resign if they failed.(Ike also dated the note July 5-ha).
I think mcCain was trying to convey that he breaks with his party on taking responsibility for failure.Not the GOP's strong suit.
Sure, Johnny isnt a wing nut, but if he is elected they have to come along for the ride.
I dont know if there's gonna be anything left for them to break.

BigDrawMan · #3 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:04 am

i thin Obama should have ended with "on the biggest foreign policy decision of his career, John McCain was wrong costing us over 4000 dead and more money than any bank bailout will".Just to pound the point home.

It is amusing to hear how Kissinger has been rehabilitated.It wasnt all that long ago that he was toxic.

I would not want the job of preparing Palin for her debate.
shudder

Norm Crosby is happy to be preparing Biden.

silverscreenselect · #4 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:12 am

BigDrawMan wrote:i thin Obama should have ended with "on the biggest foreign policy decision of his career, John McCain was wrong costing us over 4000 dead and more money than any bank bailout will".Just to pound the point home.

Barack Obama "courageously" made a speech as an Illinois state senator as a warmup speaker for Jesse Jackson before a slim crowd at a fairly minor forum in Illinois. He was so proud of the speech that there was no mention of it on his website until he realized it would be a good campaign issue and he re-recorded the speech in a studio so he could have video of it.

Of course, when asked by a reporter, he said he didn't know how he would have voted if he actually had to make a decision about the war as a Senator. And he voted down the line with Bush on every actual decision as a Senator regarding the war.

John McCain did vote in favor of the war. So did Hillary, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and about 70 other senators. Unlike Obama, they couldn't concoct a heroic image of themselves after the fact because they actually had the responsibility to make a decision before all the facts were known.

BigDrawMan · #5 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:19 am

Hillary, along with 93 other senators couldnt be bothered to read the national intelligence estimate on iraq before the vote.She voted for the war for what she thought was her own benefit-to look strong.Which is actually weak.

Lincoln Chaffee read the report and voted against the war.he has said that no one who read it could possibly vote for the war.

McCain was wrong pn the biggest foreign policy vote of his life.

So was Hillary.

Thousandaire · #6 Post by **Thousandaire** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:04 am

BigDrawMan wrote: I would not want the job of preparing Palin for her debate.
shudder

Just send her out in a bathing suit and high heels. She'll do fine.

ne1410s · #7 Post by **ne1410s** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:04 pm

I would not want the job of preparing Palin for her debate.
shudder

So who wins: the Lenscrafters model or the bad hair plugs?

silverscreenselect · #8 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:13 am

BigDrawMan wrote:Hillary, along with 93 other senators couldnt be bothered to read the national intelligence estimate on iraq before the vote.She voted for the war for what she thought was her own benefit-to look strong.Which is actually weak.

In the right presidential hands, a vote to authorize force in Iraq wouldn't be a bad thing. It had the desired result of forcing Saddam to allow meaningful inspections which were well on their way to revealing he had no WMD. Without a viable threat of force, Saddam would probably have done what he did in the past, bluff and bluster and put so many restrictions on the inspectors that the inspections were worthless. He was well on his way to being shown up for what he was, a paper tiger in command of a broken down, dispirited army no longer capable of regional conquest or terroristic acts.

Of course, we didn't have the right presidential hands. We had someone who was hell bent on invading Iraq at the earliest possible moment for a variety of half cocked reasons who had been lulled into believing how easy it was all going to be. And we are still paying for that.

I have no doubt that if the first Bush or Reagan or Ford or Nixon (or Hillary or Al Gore) had been president, that we would not have invaded Iraq, that Saddam would probably be dead or in exile today as a result of internal pressures, that the Iranians wouldn't have been in as strong a position as they are today and 4000 Americans would still be alive and thousands of others would have a full complement of limbs.

I also have no doubt that if Obama had been president, that we would have fumbled and lurched around and heard a bunch of speeches and sent a bunch of diplomats and reported "meaningful" progress on a number of occasions, Saddam would probably still be in power, and we would have still faced the same stalemate situation that existed in 2002.