(On the subject of drinking in the morning, did I ever tell you about the time I had to take someone to the emergency room on Christmas morning? They brought this man in, and I could overhear the nurse asking him if he'd had anything to drink, and he answered "No," long pause, "six pack of beer" -- as if "six pack of beer" were a very modest qualification of the "no.")
But, so, what happened at the debate?
9:11am George just nailed Hillary, with videotape, for taking nukes "off the table" her own self last year. Hillary deflected, talking about "the Bush-Cheney administration." Did she really just use the evil "Bush-Cheney" codephrase? Does she think she's running in the last election? She certainly sounds like it, when she needs to rally the nutroots.More at the link. Green is clever, but nonetheless it seems that not much happened. If I'm wrong, point out some video clips.
9:13am "Hope and optimism, where did it go?" asked the Breck Girl. Uh, dude -- have you heard your paranoid self on the campaign trail the last two years? I'd say Edwards chucked hope and optimism overboard on the November night in '04 that he discovered his smile wasn't enough to win him higher office....
9:17am George just used a Karl Rove interview to ask Obama, basically, "Is Hillary electable?" That is the real question, isn't it? Obama's answer: "Boy, the last six years sure sucked, huh?"
9:19am Obama is now rambling about how much the tone in Washington also sucks. And he's going to change that by being Obama, I think....
Posts
22 comments:
"George just nailed Hillary"
Wow, that could be taken out of context...
Yes, a Sunday morning is not the time for a debate.
Summer weekends at the beach I would breakfast on cheese, croissants, strawberries and a split of champagne. Winter weekends in the mountains I would breakfast on Belgium waffles with strawberries and a shot of amaretto. I miss my youth.
When in trouble
When in doubt
Run in circles
Scream and shout
BUSH IS EVIL!
And that pretty much summarizes a Dem "debate."
I liked that Richardson wants to scrap No Child Left Behind, but alas, one has to doubt that his intent is to remove direct federal involvement in education, a quintessentially state function. Richardson's problem with NCLB, I suspect, isn't that it meddles but that it doesn't meddle efficiently enough. OTOH, he's a state governor, so perhaps he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
So many of the questions asked in these debates strike me as being matters wholly beyond what is the ambit of the Article II Presidency, and for that matter, the federal sphere generally.
Starting the morning with a beer is a commitment to doing nothing. And there's nothing wrong with the occasional Sunday where you're drunk by 1:00 PM.
A six-pack isn't that much, anyway. It's less than an evening of drinking. Well, for me, at least, but I'm a lightweight. I know a few people who would say the same thing about a twelve-pack.
This is a cheap shot, and is beneath you, Ann.
The majority of the political interview shows on network TV are on Sunday morning, and that has been true for at least a generation.
It's true that therefore Americans who attend church (as I did, this morning and early afternoon) miss those shows, but it is also true that millions of other Americans who exercise their freedom to not attend religious services (which freedom they wouldn't have in say, a fundamentalist Islamic country) have been tuning into those Sunday morning interview programs often enough that the format dominates a lot of network Sunday morning programming. Further, it's a reasonable conclusion that one can draw from that, that they are interested in politics, and therefore a political debate makes a lot of sense on Sunday morning.
This is a cheap shot, and is beneath you, Ann.
Oh boo-frickin-hoo.
"This is a cheap shot, and is beneath you, Ann."
Lighten up, Francis.
I know there's a tradition of Bloody Marys and Mimosas for Sunday brunch, but no one actually gets drunk over brunch, do [they]?
I don't believe I've ever had alcohol before noon. Waking and baking is another story.
It looks like he only had 2.5 bloody marys in 2 hours, and was drinking coffee for the last half hour. Which is hardly "drunk blogging". If people are gonna advertise drunk blogging you gotta pound 'em, preferably shots downed on cam.
Is this debate gonna be re-broadcast at a proper hour? The blogger kept saying Obama was a lightweight, not ready for prime time, etc etc. The talking points of the Republican blogosphere, who never actually demonstrate why the things they call "gaffes" from Obama are wrong on substance. Just repeat it often enough that he's a "lightweight" and I guess it magically becomes true? And why bother watching a debate if you're just gonna repeat what you always say anyway about the candidates no matter what they say?
Obama still looks like the cream of the Democratic field to me. But I've only watched the YouTube debate so far, along with reading some of the speeches here and there. Obama's speeches are very good reads, which is probably why so many people have to constantly distort what they say to ensure as few people as possible know what he actually said.
Did the Democrats give ANY mention to radical Islam or Iran?
Or was it all about entitlements to the victim-class in America?
Just checking...
The talking points of the Republican blogosphere, who never actually demonstrate why the things they call "gaffes" from Obama are wrong on substance
No, Captain's Quarters gave a good fisking of Obama. Even linked to his campaign's "clarification" that he WAS indeed talking about an invasion of Pakistan, that he unwisely took nukes off the table, that he misrepresented our current mission in Afganistan as randomly bombing villages.
Obama really doesn't understand the basics of foreign policy. He's as light as Lucky or Hdhouse. Who are his advisors?
I'd rather suffer Hillary in the WH than than Obama-noob. He'll instigate a nuclear exchange.
At 1 drink per hour you can still drive. Which means not drunk to me.
I admire Green, I'd need a Gallon of Gin Rickey's to get through another Democrat "debate".
When are we all going to admit that Hillary is going to be the nominee? Neither Obama or Edwards is credible. Neither is gaining traction in the polls. And the Nut roots think Clinton is OK.
I know what a debate looks like and these events are not it. Better to sit around in lounge chairs and strike up a moderated confab and let the most cogent prevail. That would be worth watching. Sunday morning would be fine.
Ha, Ann. That's exactly what the debate was like! Hillary got nailed (a lot, even Richardson said her answer on residual troops made no sense) and had no good reply, Edwards fell flat, and Obama coasted through to a mild win (note the Richardson praise).
Richardson's problem with NCLB, I suspect, isn't that it meddles but that it doesn't meddle efficiently enough.
Personally, I love that opponents of NCLB call it "meddling".
The penalty for ignoring the federal provisions of NCLB is a loss of federal funds. In other words, the government is "meddling" by attaching conditions to the money it gives out, instead of just handing over a free bag of money to every incompetently-run school district in the nation.
the Republican blogosphere, who never actually demonstrate why the things they call "gaffes" from Obama are wrong on substance
If you need someone to explain why invading a nuclear power without the permission of its rulers is a bad idea, the explanation would probably be wasted on you anyway.
Similarly Obama's asinine comment about our Afghanistan operation consistingly solely of air strikes--The soldiers of NATO and the 10th Mountain division might argue on the substance--Or, pray tell: was Obama right on the substance?
fen: No, Captain's Quarters gave a good fisking of Obama. Even linked to his campaign's "clarification" that he WAS indeed talking about an invasion of Pakistan
I missed the all-important "fisking" by a partisan blogger. As I noted to you in a previous thread, I read Obama's speech un-filtered and un-distorted and didn't need some bloggers who've been wrong about most things related to foreign policy over the years to tell me what to make of it.
You claimed in the previous thread that Obama "called for an invasion of Pakistan, full-scale like Iraq, which would give them cause to declare war on us."
I'd love to know how you got that from what Obama actually said about Pakistan in his speech:
And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
Nope, nothing about a full-scale, Iraq-style invasion. If you object to anything or everything he said, fine, but you first have to be accurate about what he said.
If you wanna be Clinton-esque, it's technically an invasion to - in the lawless areas of Pakistan that are technically part of Pakistan's sovereignty - do this: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. But that's not at all the sort of invasion you were talking about.
I haven't heard any of the leading Republican candidates say they would not move on actionable intelligence regarding high-value targets in Pakistan even if Musharraf couldn't be persuaded to approve. If that's their policy, they should be as oopen about that as Obama is about his policy.
(BTW Bush has some of these missions taking place right now, if my understanding is correct, and has explictly stated at least once that he would do so over the objections of Musharraf if they couldn't pressure the dictator for his approval.)
I guess what they object to is that Obama is being too open with the American people about what his policy would be, while they wanna keep it all on the down-low. How am I supposed to choose a president if they won't be open with me about their policies? And why is it bad for Musharraf to know that a Democrat president wouldn't be a softy on him?
I sure don't want more of Bush's failed policies in Pakistan, which led to al Qaeda growing in strength in their havens in Pakistan and Bush never fulfilling his promise to get the perpetrators of 9/11 "dead or alive." Not even Bush wants more of his own failed policies, which is why he's been changing them at long last.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, but since Republicans and Hillary lie so much about Obama I guess someone needed to post his actual words. Now that we know what he actually said on the subject, feel free to post about what makes him a lightweight and not ready for prime time.
You claimed in the previous thread that Obama "called for an invasion of Pakistan, full-scale like Iraq, which would give them cause to declare war on us."
I'd love to know how you got that from what Obama actually said about Pakistan in his speech:
Again, I got it from Obama's campaign website, where he clarified his remarks and used the word "invasion". Its the same site you keep quoting from. I think its telling that you've ignored that point twice now...
Here it is again, from Obama's own website:
"The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."
Fen: Again, I got it from Obama's campaign website, where he clarified his remarks and used the word "invasion". Its the same site you keep quoting from. I think its telling that you've ignored that point twice now...
It's telling that you don't concede Obama was not suggesting he'd engage in a full-scale, Iraq-style invasion of Pakistan. If you read the whole speech, he also mentions he would not repeat the mistakes of Bush, such as Iraq.
What you keep quoting from is not Obama "clarifying his remarks." It's an Associated Press story by AP reporter Nedra Pickler
about Obama's speech that happened to be posted on Obama's web site in its "In the News" section that posts news articles that talk about Obama.
Obama's actual clarification went like this: "The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up. I never called for an invasion of Pakistan."
Obama's speech did not call for the type of invasion you claimed it did under any hypothetical circumstances, Fen. Furthermore, Obama went on to clarify that many of the news stories about that speech misled by using the word "invasion," a word he never used.
Whether the word "invasion" can technically be used for the type of missions he was talking about, it's beyond clear that what Obama was talking about were situations where he might have to order unilateral strategic strikes on terrorist camps or special ops missions to capture terrorists. He never used the word "invade" and everything he was talking about had no resemblance to a full-scale invasion.
You still insist he said something that he did not, and you cite an AP news story as representing Obama's clarification when it did not, and when Obama's actual clarification was intended to correct the record of those very sorts of news stories. Amazing how dishonest you're being.
Whenever you're ready to let go of your false claim that Obama was talking about a full-scale, Iraq-style invasion of Pakistan, it would be nice.
Post a Comment