TheScout

Whether she has less experience than Obama is up for debate. 13 years in elective office, 2 as Governor of Alaska.

Lisa, I suspect you are a smart enough person to realize that race is big part of American life. You really don't think Obama's rise has anything to do with his color? Tell me how many other people risen fromt he state legislature to potentially the Presidency in a handful of years? I can't think of any. Say what you wish but I think I am at least a reasonably astute observer of politics and think that people like a novelty. Remember Mr Biden once said about Mr. Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Or maybe he is just a man of few other redeeming qualities.

Because Obama is black and he has no other qualifications.

It seems that died a horrible wound under President Wilson when American boys entered the trenches of France in World War I. And then it finally died when President Roosevelt used American "neutrality" to support the United Kingdom and the USSR against a Germany which had no qualms with the US. He went as far as waging an de facto undeclared naval war against Germany in the North Atlantic. Odd to think liberals back then were the warmongers and conservatives were the proponents of peace.

True, but I would contend it was an overseas policing operation of a regime that didn't have to be taken out. Like I said, everyone else used diplomacy to quiet them. Don't get me started on Kosovo. The KLA was a bunch of gangsters and drugrunners and the Serbs rightfully cracked down on them. Then we stepped in, violating the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, leading to the creation of another Muslim nation in Europe. Now as we support the territorial integrity of Georgia we look like hypocrites to the Russians who would love to get us back on this issue for bothering their Eastern Orthodox Slavic Serbian friends.

I was just making the point that the action against the Barbary pirates seems to be the epitomy of a world police action. The United Kingdom, France, and the other great maritime powers negotiated a settlement with the pirates to leave them alone. Jefferson made a bold move in using force to stop their terroristic attacks on American merchant interests, especially considering the meager state of the US Navy at the time. Though I agree with you in principle about Jefferson, he is a complex character and the Barbary actions and his serious consideration of a preemptive war against France was worth making note of.

I don't understand the age obsession. History has shown many brillant young leaders. Think of Alexander Hamilton, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Alexander the Great who all came to great prominence in their 20's. It has also shown a great many wise older folks and Benjamin Franklin and Queen Elizabeth II are examples of people who continue(d) to be effective leaders into their 80s. Policies and values matter to me. Age does not.

Jefferson squashed the Barbary pirates with quite dramatic action, that other countries with much greater navies didn't dare. Couldn't the Barbary pirates be considered an early 19th century form of terrorist? I don't think anyone else from that time period could be as close of a comparison. Is this also the same Jefferson who was prepared to launch a preemptive attack against France to seize New Orleans to secure the mouth of the Mississippi for America to prevent Emperor Napoleon from gaining a foothold on North America if he refused to sell?

"Presidents get more credit than they should when things go well and too much blame when they do not" Amen to that. My favorite one is when Presidents take credit/blame for the economy. Even the President has so little effect on the cyclical nature of our economy.

I don't get people that want all the books on the computer. I hate reading long things on a computer. I like having a book in my hands. That way I can take it with me wherever I go. It is quite convenient.

Well I must admit I knew very little about the woman before today. It seems she gained statewide noteriety in 2003 after launching a vigours ethics campaign against state Republicans including the state party chairman while serving on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She ran for Governor without much support in the Republican party as a result and won. She appears to be a good fiscal and social conservative. She killed the infamous bridge to nowhere in her own state and apparently has been a big fighter of pork. She opposes abortion, gun control, gay marriage. Has executive experience as Governor of Alaska and mayor. Something Mr. Obama lacks. As a hard core conservative I like the pick. A good bio I found: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7588542.stm

.

But we have more freedom. The government takes less of our money and we can make more choices on our own.

Conservatives were never a big fan of McCain at least in my opinion. Bad campaigns doomed opponents and independents and Democrats came out in important primaries to give McCain crucial momentum. Personally I voted for Ron Paul! Probably more McCain votes will be anti-Obama than pro-McCain. Mine will be. Unless I throw my vote to Bob Barr since I live in a very Blue New York that McCain will not win anyway.

The point is that I think one could clearly point out to actions of Lincoln and FDR which were far greater abuses of Presidential power than anything Bush has done. They are held up as liberal icons, yet Bush is reviled. It is a double standard.

Well people do not put things in the broad context. Yes Bush had some dirty campaigns, but probably not the dirtiest, and you wouldn't think that by the way some people talk. Same as with his civil rights record. I am not a fan of some of that such as the PATRIOT Act, etc. But some make it seem like he has the worst civil rights record ever which is clearly not true. The liberals will praise Lincoln who jailed thousands of opponents of the war and FDR who locked up over 100,000 Japanese Americans but will lambast Bush for wiretapping? I don't get it.

Look at the history of American politics in the early 19th Century. Political attacks were even cruder back then! The 1800, 1824, and the 1828 campaigns come to mind in particular. Dirty politics have been around as long as our republic. Though not excusing this, I do not think this is a valid reason to criticize Mr. Bush.

Might be an interesting read. I must admit I only know the basic outline of the Algerian War. I have heard that that book was popular with US military officers recently.

Didn't the French get whipped in Algeria, suffering 100,000 casualties in the process, all of which led to the collapse of the Fourth Republic?

I don't understand why we hate labels so much. I suppose they can cause division? But they do exist for a reason. They were not created for no purpose. I suppose in modern times all politicans such as Mrs. Thatcher are involved with the "socialist" nature of the governments they lead. We all know the US is not a pure capitalist or socialist state. But the term "socialist" does mean something. Maybe here only to the extent of one's policies having more socialist tendencies than another. If one persons policies are more socialist than another's, isn't it fair to say so?

Interesting take on freedom, to be forced into a government program and have my taxes raised. I would prefer to have lower taxes and buy my own insurance, or choose not to buy it at all. I think your blind faith in the ability of government to put on a cost efficient program that would be better than the private insurance system as a bit naive. Besides it legitimate functions government does nothing as well as the private sector. Under you logic why don't we just have a giant public company to do everything instead of many little private ones. They could pump our oil, grow our food, manage the distribution, etc. We could all just have a little higher taxes and we could have a different public company to run every facet of our economic life and make things better for all our people. It would get rid of profit and make everything more egalitarian. Alexis de Tocqueville once said, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." A national health system would only restrain individual choice. That was not the dream of the Revolution.

I don't think anyone yet has described how they would pay for the national health care system.

The real best solution to this whole dilemma is to realize the federal dream of our union. Let each state decide on its own how to deal with the problem of health care. Live Free of Die New Hampshire and the "red states" of the west can keep a private system. The socialists of California, Oregon, and Massachusetts can make a mandatory health care system on the European model. Voters can deciede through their state legislators what they want. Therefore each state can have a system that reflects the values, traditions, and aspirations of the people of that state? Programs would be smaller, easier to manage, closer to the people, with less bureaucracy if adopted. This was the whole point of the federal union, wasn't it? We don't need a one size fits all national solution.

Yeah but that takes away from freedom doesn't it? I guess I am old school and think that the purpose of government is to provide its citizens with the maximum possible liberty. Forcing somebody to have insurance isn't consistent with that.