As much as I dislike the Bush admins Iraq policy's I would still prefer to see McCain in the Oval Office Office rather then Hillary. Say what will about the current admin but the NZ government knows where it stands with its US allly. If the NZ government had to deal with someone like Hillary it would be a nightmare. The US government's stance on the likes of a FTA agreement would change with the direction of the wind back in the US.


I still like Giuliani the best out of the Republicans who are in the running but for reasons I have discussed in the past on PTS I don't have a lot of faith in US political leaders at the moment.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by xpert11]

I truly still have to back Giuliani over other contenders. He showed good leadership during 9/11 and as I said earlier tends to be more mainstream. I don't believe McCain can win. I chatted with my daughter this afternoon, she attends a liberal arts college, most of the students don't really back Clinton, they say Kerry has no opinions of his own (true statement) and they just don't know enough about Obama to decide. Many however, do believe that he is the Democrat's token which they find insulting to him. I was surprised at our conversation since I expected the students to back Clinton over any Republican but that doesn't seem to be the case. I thought this might be of interest; I believe the younger voters (18-21) may be some what of a wild card in this next election.

Mainstream voters who aren't conservative lady Republicans as you described them don't seem to care about other more important issues then a politicians personal life. Bill Clinton was elected despite his personal life.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by xpert11]

Giuliani does have some problems with social conservatives, but there's really no hardcore conservative candidate right now (as I said before). Romney could emerge as one, but he's a Mormon and it's really unknown how that will fly with conservative Christian evangelicals. McCain is probably more to the right than Giuliani, but he's viewed as a loose cannon. As a New Yorker, I have to support Giulliani. I don't agree with some of his social views, but I know he's a great executive and really did wonders for this city. I would like to see him as president.

I think the issue is coming down to the novel interpretation of what the designation of Commander-in-Chief means in 2006. Radical Alberto Gonzales - him of the 154 executions in Texas - has a perverted view o the constitution and of what bing commander in chief entails.

The office of C-in-C was first assigned to George Washington in 1776. Washington was one of 3 Lieutenant Generals appointed by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. The majority of Congress recognized there needed to be just one man in charge of the colonies’ military operations, despite many who wanted otherwise. The post having worked well for the Revolution, it was carried over into the replacement document we know as the Constitution of 1787.

Attorney General Gonzales has improperly advised George Bush there are essentially no limits on the post of C-in-C in matters of the survival of the nation. “And lucky you, George, you and you alone get to decide what and when those national survival matters arise.”

Let’s see what the Constitution says. Article 2. Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . “ The office, duty or responsibility is not otherwise defined or referred to in the Constitution. Until Gonzales came along, it was assumed this meant the civilian president was made Command in Chief of the Army and Navy to assure civilian control over the military and naval forces, thereby making military coups d’etat less likely here. No one ever claimed before AG Gonzales this made the president a 6 star field marshal. Or the American Fuhrer!

Franklin Roosevelt was C-in-C from December 7, 1941, units his death on April 12, 1945. He appointed the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Marshall, the Navy CNO, Admiral King, and later the Army Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Arnold. FDR’s personal military adviser was retired Adm. Leahy who FDR had known during his service as Assistant Secretary of Navy under Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt allowed those men to make the choices for theater commanders and to develop and implement grand strategy.

FDR and Churchill had decided the war would be fought first in Europe then in Asia. That decision was FDR’s to make. And he made it. Then FDR left the details to his staff and subordinates. HST, in 1945, as C-in-C, decided to use the only 2 atom bombs we had on targets in Japan. That was his decision alone to make. Once made, he left the choice of date, time and targets to his subordinate field commanders.

It is a good man who knows his own limitations.


[edit on 1/9/2007 by donwhite]

Chalk up another good point for Don. I do think the Bush administration's liberal interpretation of the Constitution will play a role in yet more Republican defeats in '08. With that in mind, it may be that McCain is too closely linked to the war and all that it entails.

Now that the precendent has been set, I wonder what liberal interpretations await us under the next President? Would McCain dare to use that 'authority' now that it's been battle tested? If the next President did as Don suggests, and played by the rules, what would we see?

I agree that Giuliani would be a formidable candidate. As a Dem, I would worry more about him than I would about McCain. First, McCain is too old. Next, he has too many pro military solutions to world problems. Although he is a genuine war hero (survived 6 years as a POW) we are heading into an election where heroes are not going to carry the day. IMO. In Re Romney: I’m afraid the general public is going to be very skeptical of any candidate from Massachusetts.



In the W-DC politics game, there is a constant struggle between the Congress and the President over “who is in charge here?” Because of the chaotic dynamics of 535 separate heads versus 1 head, the presidency is in a better position to be the winner, provided the president himself (or herself) has enough gumption to know where the public is going and is smart enough to be able to jump out front. Which automatically makes that person a successful “leader.” After FDR it seems to me the 20th century and now the 21st century has produced “leaders” as in going down a child’s sliding board. People best described as poll readers, but not leaders. They pretty much go where the momentum takes them. Too many homilies not enough challenges.

I’m talking sea changes. I know the Reaganites like to think he led a sea change, but then, you’re overlooking the real contributions of both Nixon and Ford (not to mention Ike) to the smaller government movement. Which by the way has not happened. When Reagan left office, the goverment was larger and the national debt had multiplied 2X over. A sea change? Or talk?
Despite Newt Gingrich getting a ride on that “tiger.” The more things change, the more things stay the same.

So, you’re looking to see a Clinton versus Giulliani race in ‘08? Does that mean the Born Again Movement has died? That Pat Robertson will not have the President’s private number? I saw Mr Reid a couple days ago on an interview show and he seemed very ebullient over the future. What’s he know we don’t know?



[edit on 1/10/2007 by donwhite]

I'm not convinced that Giuliani has the machinery in place to get the top spot on the GOP ticket. If he had fifty million in his back pocket by July of this year, and the right names on his staff list, aI would be tempted to believe. As it stands, I can't help thinking that the Republicans will bow to McCain's seniority a.k.a. Bob Dole.

In order to get around his ties with the Bush Admin McCain may do a Nixon and claim that he has plan to end the war in Iraq. The American right would be naive enough to fall for this but crucially mainstream voters probably arent dumb enough to swallow such BS.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by xpert11]

Here's a new question for all you finely tuned political minds. How doesthe President's recent Iraq speech play in to your political calculations?

From where I sit, Mr. Bush has essentially thrown gasoline on the fire. Anyone who wants to keep their job in '08 will be forced in to repudiation whether they believe in this war or not. Democrats like Hillary who started out in favor of this war have now been granted politically perfect chance to change their positions without appearing to be suck-ups or flip-floppers.

With memories of Vietnam behind us, Mr. Bush appears to have committed political suicide by using too many words that make it sound as is the ghost of MacNamara is channeling through him. there's no doubt that the military solutions he suggests make sense, but they appear to be too little too late.

If you're an advisor to one of the GOP candidates for '08...what do you suggest to the candidate?

This is an easy question to answer.
My advice would be dont run in 2008. Let someone else get elected and play a Ford type role and or face the burden of Iraq. He/she will only serve one term due to the Iraq issue.

It may still come to pass that McCain is 'chosen' to be the sacrificial lamb for the Republicans. As much as he watns the job, he might be willing to kid himself in to thinking that he's got a real shot. by this time next year, I'm reasonably certain that anyone who does get the GOP nod will only be in it for the money. It's worth noting that those Presidential contendors who lose do get to walk away with some of those millions they worked so hard to raise.

While I still stand by what I said above I reckon that if the Dems nominate Hillary even someone who connected to the Bush admin like McCain would have a chance at Winning. It dosnt matter what advisor's or the amount of money you have if members of your core supporter base don't like you.

Other wise I reckon the smart candidates will let 2008 pass by.

More to come later

[edit on 1/12/2007 by donwhite]

He's definitely the most liberal of the bunch.

The Repubican's nominee will be Newt sayeth my crystal ball.

It's going to be a bloodbath and he's the only one dirty enough to stand it. McCain will crumble in the primary and sign any traitor admission you put in front of him. The rest aren't crazy enough for the right.

There is really no doubt that Giuliani would be the better of the two major candidates we're discussing here. Trouble is, the GOP's seniority system will push McCain to the front of the line. Even if Rudy performs flawlessly as a VP candidate, his razzle-dazzle won't be enough to shine up McCain's image.

As a matter of course, I do think that that McCain's continued support of the war will cost him dearly in the primaries. That by itself could give Giuliani his one and only shot at grabbing the top slot on the ticket for himself. Can he do it? Not likely because too many people will still be hot to vote for anyone who is NOT a Republican to show their disapproval for the Iraq war.

If Giuliani were to come out staunchly against the war, he might have a shot at a Lieberman-style independent run that could scare the hell out of the GOP's old guard. I'd pay money to see that.

OK, so FDR and I think HST let the generals wage war but on the grand strategic plan they had adopted. Well defined areas of responsibility. “I’ll do what I’m designated to do, you do what you are best qualified to do.” HST fired MacArthur for not following orders. HST did not want a land war on the Asian land mass. And HST was not about to delegate the use of the atom bomb to any subordinate. The American people, the world, and history deserved better. “The Buck Stops Here.” Thank you Lord, for HST! A student of history.

Unfortunately, in large part due to technology never imagined by our FFs, it is all too easy for modern presidents to self delude that somehow God made them Carl von Clausewitz, Junior. FDR had his “Map Room” in the White House basement. But FDR was crippled, he could not walk. Before FDR, the president would walk to the War Department building just down the street. JFK used the Oval Office to run the Cuba Missile Crisis. But it was LBJ who began the highly problematic and generally unsatisfactory practice of micro-managing war, just because they can! I admit it is easy to believe the line between political and military decisions is sometimes murky. Especially if you want to.

Commander in Chief in 1787 meant overall command. But not that the president was a 6 star field marshal. Lincoln indeed was closely invovled in appointing generals but he did not command troops in the field. After he found US Grant, he left the generals to do their task without further interference. So don’t make me angry by comparing Lincoln to Bumbler43.

Then came Jimmy Carter in the failed rescue of the hostages. Operation Desert One. Carter was said to be watching on live tv in the basement of the WH. He is said to have ordered the termination of the mission. I’m sure without knowing he had help explaining the situation to him and consulted with his top advisers on options available before he gave the order. In a well-run environment, OTOH, and IMO, that order would have been the call of the on-site commander.

Then came Granada, followed by Panama, and lastly Mogadishu. Except for the dead soldiers, all penny-ante operations. Both Reagan’s Granada and Bush41's Panama were unconstitutional and violated international law. Clinton, OTOH, was legally operating in Somalia under UN aegis to protect humanitarian aid workers. Hmm? 2 GOP, 2 illegal. 1 Dem, 1 legal.

My real point is that Bush43 has precedent to micro intrude into pure military operations. By so doing, he confuses the proper role of the president, and that of commander in chief. As president, he sets overall policy and goals. As commander in chief, he assures the competence of his military commanders on the ground. It’s obvious to me Bush43 enjoys playing war far more than he enjoys running a country. That’s more like work. Something entirely foreign to Bush43. Thanks Mama Bush, he’s your boy. He reminds me of old Emperor Caligula. Are we going to need a constitutional amendment explaining the implications of Commander in Chief? I give you Bill Clinton who understood that best.


[edit on 1/12/2007 by donwhite]

One of the greatest tests we will face in this century will be met by the next President. If he/she doesn't back away from any of the newly assumed powers of the Federal Executive, we'll know once and for all that our political elites have failed us entirely.

I disagree with the notion that the next president will necessarily have to scale back executive power. That will only be required if the threat of Islamic terrorism disappears, and that's not likely going to happen in the next few years.

Unlikely. First, in the legal field, you don’t’ gratuitously address points of order that are not extant. Or relevant. You may think your predecessor was a jackass but you demean the office you are then holding to say so out loud. The real culprit in this debacle is Alberto Gonzales. I didn’t like Ashcroft because he was a single issue person, but I’d welcome him back because he did stand on the same constitution I stand on. As Attorney General, Gonzales has his own twisted vision - necessity + opportunity = power - shared only with the likes of CJ Roberts, AJ Thomas, AJ Scalia and AJ Alito. Do you realize the Neo Cons have come within in 1 vote of controlling the US Supreme Court? Hello Torquamada.



1) The Nine Eleven Event was not the first shot in the Battle of Armageddon.
2) The Bush Administration leaped onto it’s “back” to save the failing presidency of Bush43. It was co-opted. It was serendipity! The most venial act since Hayes sold the South’s blacks for his office. 1876.
3) War trumps Economy!
4) We, the United States, the Administration, have made the Islamic Terrorists the bogy men of the century. Not them, but us.
5) Fear. The Bush43 Administration are mongers of fear. The are running the United States into a fear driven, warring, militarist society on the model of Germany under Adolph Hitler in 1934-1935. Hitler used the Communists Fear to stampeded the Germans.
6) Get a grip, people. Life is fraught with danger. Who wants to live forever anyway?

It is true America has undergone a sea change since the Nine Eleven Event, but it was not a camel riding sheik from the sands of the Arabian desert who did it to us. It was a gun slinger from Texas, Bush43 who did it. Opportunist. Of the first order.

And that we can undo. When we have the smarts and the intelligence to review what went wrong on Nine Eleven and what is the smart thing to do about it. Rule 1. Do the least you can to acheive an acceptable outcome. We cannot afford, money-wise, nor liberty-wise, to go the path Bush43 has put us on. We are like a blinded bull in a china shop. We have gone berserk! This is not Texas, this is America! Let’s take our country back.



[edit on 1/15/2007 by donwhite]