• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Presidential election may be up for grabs

Well, that answer was one of explanations of the "Bush Doctrine". What about the others?

P.S. Just for me explain"Canadian Values". You will probably do better at this explanation, but then maybe not.
 
2 Cdo said:
Probably the same time as the USS Jimmy Carter! :blotto:

So Barack Obama already has a ship named after him?  Is a a Seawolf like the USS Jimmy Carter too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter
 
Regarding Palin's supposed screw-up of the Bush Doctrine question.. Here is Krauthammer's opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe


By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12


Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"


She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

........

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

You can read the rest of the story at the link, although I think you'll need a free log in.
 
You made it too easy for him. But I will too. I still want to hear about "Canadian Values". The phase is certainly popular with a certain segment of Canadians.

Bill O’Reilly
FOX News

'Bush Doctrine.' When I heard that question from Charlie Gibson, I thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was the president's belief that encouraging democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism. But Gibson put forth that the 'Bush Doctrine' is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks. The record shows there is no precise definition of the 'Bush Doctrine,' so if I were asked about the doctrine I would have been confused

Dan Froomkin
Washington Post

But Gibson was making a common error, and what Palin said in her response did not actually address what was so radical about Bush's contribution to American foreign policy. Preemption has in fact been a staple of our foreign policy for ages -- and other countries' as well. The twist Bush put on it was embracing "preventive" war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening.

And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years. Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good."

And then there was Bush's second inaugural address, when he pledged himself to spreading freedom and ending tyranny in the world.


Wikipedia

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1]
Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of encouraging democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

 
Even if the "Bush Doctrine" response is debatable, Palin's inability to name a single Supreme Court decision she did not agree with other than Roe v Wade is pretty telling of how informed she is.  I am not even an American, and I could name a few: Dred Scott, Boumediene v. Bush. This is somebody that is a heart beat away from nominating justices to the court.
 
As I said, I didn't agree with the question - because it is so ambiguous.  It's not as those there's some book that clearly defines it.  I understand why it was asked - to try to get a handle on what understanding of foreign policy Sarah Palin has - but it is at best a junk question, at worst a loaded one designed to make her look bad.  Asking someone for definitions to me isn't much for an interview - I'd have wanted her to explain what her view of Bush's foreign policy actions was and what she saw as being her priorities, something to that effect.

Any sort of definition is useless.  My view of Canadian values most likely doesn't agree with a lot of people's, simply because one projects their own value set onto their ideal view of them.  It's just like when people talk about "family values" in the political arena - what I view to be "family values" would be very, very different than someone who holds strong religious views (which I do not) - and further, the views of many very religious people are to me abhorrent.  That, however, is a whole different kettle of fish.

My overarching point is that in my view the GOP has failed to establish Sarah Palin as someone with any real redeeming qualities that make her well qualified for the office for which she is running.  The Democrats have seemed to establish their candidates much better.  The fact that he's being branded a "Marxist" (amusing and ridiculous), that people still identify him as a Muslim, etc shows that to me.  In the debates I watched Obama focused on what his vision was, he talked about his idals and so on.  McCain did not.  He talked about what he saw as being wrong with Obama more than anything, and that's what really put me off.  Interestingly enough, Harper did the same thing during the campaign here and I was similarly unimpressed with his efforts.

Rifleman62 said:
Well, that answer was one of explanations of the "Bush Doctrine". What about the others?

P.S. Just for me explain"Canadian Values". You will probably do better at this explanation, but then maybe not.
 
In the last two Cdn elections, at least, I heard a huge amount of flapping about preserving "Canadian Values", but no description other than Peacekeeping. I think what "Canadian Values" are, is a Liberal government in power permanently.

And you think an establishment Democrate guy like Joe Biden is qualified? I think you have listened to Obama, but have not heard. That's easy cause there are not any specifics: just change, change, change.

If you think Obama is qualified to be the protector of the free world, you are in the company of millions of others. I hope nothing happens to prove you all wrong.
 
Rifleman62 said:
In the last two Cdn elections, at least, I heard a huge amount of flapping about preserving "Canadian Values", but no description other than Peacekeeping. I think what "Canadian Values" are, is a Liberal government in power permanently.

And you think an establishment Democrate guy like Joe Biden is qualified? I think you have listened to Obama, but have not heard. That's easy cause there are not any specifics: just change, change, change.

If you think Obama is qualified to be the protector of the free world, you are in the company of millions of others. I hope nothing happens to prove you all wrong.

To quote from the 300: "We're in for a wild ride" or words to that effect.
 
Since defence spending is now considered "up for grabs" under an Obama administration (up to a 25% reduction), I suspect we will never see a USS Barack Obama.

As for the 300, Leonidas the King told them on the last morning:

Eat well, for tonight we dine with Hades!
 
"Eat well, for tonight we dine with Hades!"

Let's hope it doesn't come to that... :-\
 
Doing there part for clean government, Slate does an experiment to see if the Obama campaign really cannot access the names of the supposed small donors (like "John Galt", "Good Will" and "Doodad Poo"). It is possible, so they cannot or will not release the names for other reasons. You can stop and think of a few....

http://www.slate.com/id/2203421/

Yes, He Can
Barack Obama should be able to disclose his small-dollar donors pretty easily.

By John Dickerson and Chris Wilson
Posted Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008, at 6:50 PM ET

Barack Obama with supporters in FloridaBarack Obama refuses to release the names of the 2 million-plus people who have given his campaign less than $200. According to campaign officials, it would be too difficult and time-consuming to extract this information from its database.

So how come we were able to do it in a couple hours? Not literally—we don't have access to the campaign's list of donors—but we created a database of similar size and format in a Web-ready file and posted it online. (You can view a sample text version of it here. The full version is 824 MB.)

But before we get into the technical details (though, if you're with the Obama campaign and want to skip ahead, please do), it's worth dwelling on the reasons for the Obama campaign's reluctance to disclose this information. It can't be legal: No law prevents Obama from releasing these names.

Politically, there would be several advantages in releasing the names. Obama has campaigned (effectively) on a platform of making government more transparent, citing his efforts to do so in Chicago and Washington as signature achievements. He has also disclosed the bundlers who raise large amounts of money for his campaign. Finally, making the list public would rebut McCain's broad and unsubstantiated claims that the list (and the huge sums of money it represents) is shot through with fraud.

Of course, releasing the information would also be politically risky, since the inevitable errors in a database so huge (errors of the kind McCain also had, like a contribution from "Adorable Manabat") would give McCain an opportunity to scream fraud. Then again, he does that sometimes even without evidence.

And from a purely logistical standpoint, we have a hard time believing the campaign lacks the expertise to do this. We know the information is already in a very sophisticated database—it has to be, because the Obama campaign has been manipulating the information for more than a year as it continues to raise money from these small-fry donors. It also uses the information to contact and track donors to make sure they get out and vote on Election Day.

So much for the arguments. Now for the technical details. We created a randomly generated dummy database in Excel that consisted of 50,000 donors. Each entry had a field for all the data normally disclosed in a typical FEC filing for donors who give $200 or more: first name, last name, two address lines, city, state, ZIP code, employer, occupation, the amount of the donation, and the date it was given. (Excel 2003 maxes out at around 65,000 rows, and the Obama campaign is certainly using something much more sophisticated.)

Share this article on DiggBuzz up!Share this article on BuzzTo create an xml database from this data that approximates the size of Obama's donor database, we wrote a short script in Excel's built-in version of Visual Basic that looped through the database of 50,000 pretend donors 50 times, for a total of 2.5 million entries, adding each entry to an xml file. Even on a wheezing, overworked Dell Optiplex GX280 (2.8 GHz processor, 504 MB of RAM), this took exactly two hours. The resulting xml file was 824 MB—big, but not unheard of. Any competent developer could take this file and make a searchable application from it.

Web developers would be quick to point out that a huge xml file like this is too bulky for an online application to easily parse. For the Obama campaign to create a searchable database like the one the McCain campaign released, it would probably need to take a few extra steps to convert the xml document into something that can handle the size of the dataset, like MySQL. But simply for the purposes of releasing the raw data, a universal format like xml is sufficient.

Unsurprisingly, a campaign spokesman rejects the premise of our little experiment, saying the task they face is far more difficult than we think. The campaign's last FEC report, he notes, runs to 176,000 pages. But the number of pages isn't the relevant metric here; it's the size and shape of the database. And we're talking about something far less complex than an FEC report. Finally, since it's online, it requires no printer. All we're doing is rearranging 1's and 0's.

Obama aides also deflect the question about the names of the campaign's low-dollar donors by saying that the McCain has lapsed in reporting the names of more than 100,000 donors. They're right—and they illustrate the point by helpfully pointing to an online spreadsheet. Which also proves our point that it's easy to put this data together in a digestible form. So how 'bout it, guys?
 
Obama thinks we are selfish if we dont want to pay higher taxes. :-\

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V3FNh3mAuY&eurl
 
McCain is doing it wrong:  you run to the right in the primary and then you plan yourself in the center for the general election.  McCain inexplicably ceded the center to Obama while running to the lunatic fringe on the right. 
 
Obama is so far to the left he couldnt find the center with a flashlight.
 
The polls say that a majority of the electorate thinks otherwise...  He's even getting 15%+ of the Republican vote according to most polls
 
Very misleading.  The Jerusalem Post says here http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199612287&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull that it was an exit poll with a very limited and flawed sample that oversampled the Orthodox Jewish community, a natural McCain constituency.  I wonder what results an exit poll conducted at 3 polling stations, 2 of which were in Harlem, would produce.
 
Drag said:
The polls say that a majority of the electorate thinks otherwise...  He's even getting 15%+ of the Republican vote according to most polls

And which poll would that be? Please specify, because I have not seen any polls that would indicate such a trend. And face it, it would have been front page in every newspaper in the U.S. The reality is that there are dozens of polls out there making predictions that are quite literally all over the map. For example:

"...the Associated Press/Gfk poll which says Obama will win by one, or the Pew Research poll which says Obama will win by fourteen?"

"...the Battleground poll which says Obama will win by three, or the CBS/NYT poll which says Obama will win by thirteen?"

As you can see, even among reputable firms there is quite a discrepancy. To get an understanding on why the polls are are all over the map I would recommend the following website Stolen Thunder (the source of the above quotes). Anyone interested in what is happening in U.S. polls should take a look at it. I can't recommend it enough. What the blogger (DJ Drummond)is saying is that the polls in this election are screwed because of corrupt data. To get a good handle on what he is saying, go back to about mid-Oct and read forward.
 
The polls have been slanted for awhile trying to reduce republican turnout.On election night the networks will try to call some states too early as they did in 2004 when their exit polls were so off.As to the Orthodox vote being over sampled here is an explanation.

The largest wave of American immigration to Israel was in the heady years following the Six-Day War in 1967. It is estimated that some two-thirds of the 30,000 immigrants from America who arrived between 1967 and 1973 remained in Israel. Although this group was both diverse with regard to its background and professed a wide variety of explanations for their decision to immigrate to Israel, about half described themselves as "religious."5 Indeed, this group was far more likely to acknowledge religious motivations in their decision to move to Israel than those ABIs who had preceded them.

Over the last quarter century since the Yom Kippur War, some 60,000 American Jews have settled in Israel. Sixty percent of this group is estimated to be Orthodox. The Orthodox not only comprise a clear majority of the American immigrants who arrived during this period, but are estimated to have a "return rate" of roughly 20 percent - only half that of their non-Orthodox counterparts.6
So a 60% Orthodox survey is likely the correct distribution of American immigrants to Israel. And Orthodox Jews are much more likely to vote for McCain than their non-Orthodox brethren

Cuban Americans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/29/barack-obama-cubans-communism

John McCain threw up his Florida fire wall today: a million Cuban Americans who see Barack Obama as a combination of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and any other Latin leader who ever nationalised a business.

In the streets of Miami's Little Havana, which McCain visited today, there was one word for the kind of change promised by Obama.

"Comunismo," said Michael Garcia, 30, the son of Cuban émigrés who works at his family-owned accounting business.

"I shouldn't have to pay more taxes because I work harder than other
people," he said. "The things that Obama say scare me because that's
everything that Fidel said. These things are associated in my mind with
going down the path to communism."

McCain, who is fighting to hang on to the pivotal state, has tried for two weeks to tap into fears that Obama would raise taxes for business owners, using the story of Joe the Plumber, the Ohio man who confronted the Democrat about his plan to "spread the wealth around".

But nowhere perhaps has McCain found a more willing audience for his story about Joe the Plumber than south Florida, the heartland of Cuban émigrés - where he is known locally as "Pepe el plomero".

Russian Americans:
http://www.interfax.com/3/439657/news.aspx
U.S. Russian community will vote for John McCain - poll
    MOSCOW.  Oct  24  (Interfax)  -  The  majority  among  the  Russian
community  in  the  United  States are going to vote for Republican John
McCain at  the  U.S.  presidential  election, the Moscow Bureau of Human
Rights (MBHR)  told  Interfax on Friday, after conducting a survey among
the Russian community in the U.S.
    MBHR  experts are monitoring the U.S. elections and are planning to
be in the  U.S.  on  election  day on November 4, human rights activists
said in a statement.
    MBHR  cited  figures  provided  by the institute for studies of new
Americans, which conducted a social poll among Russian immigrants in New
York, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Florida and Massachusetts between
August 30  and  October  10  in  cooperation  with  the  American Jewish
Congress.
    "Of  the  total  number  of  respondents 79% (80 % New Yorkers) are
certain  to  go  to  the  polls. Fifty-six percent (65% New Yorkers) are
going to  vote  for  John  McCain,  10% - for Barack Obama. Twenty-eight
percent  (19%  New Yorkers) are still undecided. Of those who are likely
to go to  the polls 63% will vote for McCain, 11% for Obama, and 25% are
still undecided," MBHR said in the statement.
    Four  percent  of respondents made donations to the Obama campaign,
MBHR said in the statement.
    During  the  U.S. census in 2000 almost 2 million Americans claimed
their Russian  roots and approximately the same number said the USSR was
their country  of  origin.  After  Poles  (over  6 million) the Russian-
speaking  community  is  the  biggest  group  speaking one of the Slavic
languages in the United States.
    New  York  has  the  greatest  number  of Russian-speaking American
residents.
 
Back
Top