Petraeus planning 2010 visit to Iowa

Rhoda Klapp

By 'eck, this is a stretch.

Sam Huss

He will lose. Obama will win.

Hal

This would be more plausible if Petraeus had been C-in-C in a war that we. . . you know. . . won. Oh, and it might also help if the war had been necessary and just.

strapworld

He will win - The USA will see through Obama by then!

TGF UKIP

This is WOW on so many levels. The general is obviously a very intelligent, tough, sophisticated and subtle man, so let's see what unfolds over the coming months.

For the time being though, this does put enormous pressure on Obama to be very wary over a premature withdrawal from Iraq. Nothing would suit the GOP more than seeing the Bush/Petraeus victory tossed away to appease moveon.org.

If the general really does have his eye on 2012, Pelosi and Reid should prove enormously helpful.

benjamin

What a load of BS.

How in hell can you go from "Noone knows anything about his politics" to "He would be the most serious threat to Obama in 2012".

Wtf ? In what world will the 2012 election be run on national security ? And even if it is, how in hell does Petraeus run against a policy that he will HAVE HELPED IMPLEMENT ? In what world does an unknown get puffed up as a terrible threat to the sitting President based on nothing but press puff pieces and daydreams of conservative bloggers ? Remember the last time the Republicans did that ? A certain Sarah Palin ?

Yeah. That worked well.

Verity

Strapworld - First he's got to win the nomination. He'll be up against, as of now, Bobby Jindal and Governor Huckabee.

Alex

Sam Huss

... is the winner of todays' most unconstructive comment award!

Stewart

Petraeus has been untouchable in Washington for some time but the minute his Presidential ambitions are talked about on CNN the far sighted in the Obama administration will start the campaign to undermine him even if he is still commanding CENTCOM. Whether or not he can win will depend on the extent to which the economy is perceived to be recovering by late 2011 and how much of the novelty factor of Obama's election has worn off. However well Obama does, it will be difficult for his campaign team to reignite the level of enthusiasm amongst the core that helped him win in 08. His election was by no means a blowout and if Petraeus can run a tight campaign and if national security issues are to the fore, he could win. Ironically if the economy improves substantially under Obama by say late 2011 this may allow non-economic international security issues to dominate the news agenda. For example, if Iran continues to pursue and make progress with a nuclear weapons progamme this issue or a simlar one could have the potential to galvanise the Republican core and divert the attentions of enough swing voters to make a difference.

Ifticar

Patraeus would be the perfect guy for the GOP to rally behind and send that lying sneak, Obama, packing.

Conservative Cabbie

Hal

I don't know which war you're referring to, it can't be Iraq, because they did win that one. It's a simple equation - before the war, Saddam Hussein, after the war, no Saddam Hussein and democracy. As for the justness of the war, what has that got to do with Petraeus?

Reg

benjamin: "In what world does an unknown get puffed up as a terrible threat to the sitting President based on nothing but press puff pieces and daydreams of conservative bloggers?"

What a load of BS. In what world does an unknown get puffed up to become President based on nothing but press puff pieces and daydreams of leftist radicals?

Verity

Reg - And his inspiring oratory. Don't forget the inspiring oratory. The one that comes off the autocue and that was written for him by William Ayers.

Oh, and let's not forget the cheap tricks. Like the "presidential" emblem on the podium he appeared on in Berlin. And that he wanted to give his speech, which was autocued to a fare thee well, in front of the Brandenberg Gate to invoke memories of JFK and Ronald Reagan. A ride on someone else's coattails and an autocue.

On his own, with no one to prompt him, once he became president, he actually tried to climb through a window in the White House from the lawn under the impression that it was the entrance to the Oval Office. Duh. Then, he stood on top of the steps of AF One, waving at the peeps, then turned his head smartly to enter and cracked it on the side of the plane.

So we might get a few laughs.

Fredrik Ingemarsson

Petraeus and Palin too !

bjjfiter

We have a long history of electing successful generals to be President. Petraeus was the singular architect of the Surge.

He'd have the military vote locked up by a wide margin. By definition, he's a leader. He is articulate and a great speaker.

The only caveats for him would be to avoid the traps and improvisations that take so many politicians out of the race.

And if Obama flubs his first term, and he appears to be on that course, people will want a change and will naturally look at anyone but Obama.

Anan

So amusing to see how bitter people still are about Obama's victory. He won with a broad coalition of voters. Relying only on a despotic rump of maniacs, as the Republicans did and still do, will lead only to defeat. Learn that at least now.

fred t

Let us hope that Ogabe hasn't totally destroyed the nation by then and that he will allow free elections ( most communists hate democracy).

Suzy

At the very least, this should scare the hell out of Obama until then!

Verity

Anan - Obama won - by a fairly slender margin - $600m doesn't buy much these days - "with a broad coalition". No. He won mainly because every fanatic in America wanted to be in on the feelgood landslide. And black professionals/entrepreneurs, who would normally be staunch Republicans, voted for him on the surge of wanting to see one of their own (although he's not) as President. This was understandable enough, but those people will return pretty smartly to the Republican fold.

Despite all this, Obama got in because hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Republican voters just couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain, who they viewed as too old for the job, and too busy "reaching across the aisle" to be a true Republican.

Obama's a one-termer.

keyboard jockey

If he runs he already has my vote I don't even care who his running mate would be. By the time the deflation and in turn inflation hits us from the Progressives bka Socialist policies of tax and spend, hit the American Citizenry anything other then the Obama Administration will look good to Americans. He could waltz into office easily. Like how Zimbabwe is run and their hyper inflation just hold on, it's coming to your bank account soon.

Handel

obama wouldn't stand a chance.
Petraeus is a man of character and SUBTANCE. A man with achievement.

Obama is none of those things. Barely even a whisper of a man.

This would be fantastic.

LarrySinclairsPinky

By 2012 pee wee herman will be able to beat obama.The US media cant cover for a radical empty suit forever(hmm who did pay for obamas education,media types?or are you still too busy looking up Palins daughters uterus?)

David

"Very little is known about Petraues’s politics"

Although you do seem to be assuming he's a Republican.

porkbelly

What a non-story: American generals make terrible politicians and they never win. Remember Wesley Clarke? The last military president was Eisenhower and he famously was more politician than warrior. I'm afraid Petraeus' fame has gone to his head. Obama and his crew of hitmen would take him out without breaking a sweat. Whoever wants to challenge Obama had better be prepared to beat him at his own game - good ol' dirty street politics.

ctay

Hes a great and loyal leader who would make an awesome president. We in the military already admire him. Obama sucks he wants vets to pay for their own insurance to pay for their war injuries. Obama has FAILED MISERABLY ALREADY!

THX1138

Michael Goldfarb is big fat prat

See below:-

http://tinyurl.com/6eo395

Ron Donderevo

The Iowa story is a joke, and a feeble one at that. Read the Weekly Standard story before you get all excited.

Ace of Spades reader

Goldfarb was making a (lame) joke...

* This was meant as joke, though obviously it fell a little flat. Petraeus has no plans to go to Iowa that I'm aware, this year or next. I regret the confusion that has resulted from my clumsy attempt at humor.

Anan

Although I don't reply to nonsense posts, this will be worth it.

Even a simple analysis of the election results will show how wrong you are. Whether you and the rest of tha fundamentalists accept it or not is up to you, but the vast majority of Americans and the citizens of the world know it.

Let's first take the example of the reddest of the red republican candidate, George W Bush. 2000: Gore 48.4%, Bush 47.9%. Gore won by 0.5% but Bush became president, if a margin of -0.5% isn't slender I don't know what is. Then we have 2004: Bush 51%, Kerry 48%, thats a 3% margin. Pretty slender by any regard, but at least he actually got more votes this time. And now 2008: Obama 53%, McCain 46%. That is 7% to Obama. More than Double Bush's margin in 2004.

Taking into account the state of the economy in 2004 (booming), the military situation with both the Taleban and Saddam resoundly defeated, house prices going through the roof, literally, Bush did a pretty poor job in 2004. Now taking into account Obama's colour, his lack of experience, the constant attacks of "muslim" and "socialist", the continual attempts to align him with the black supremacy movement (twice), the continual attempts to tarnish his name with the Rezko affair, the vicious attacks on his wife and family, Obama's victory with a 7% margin is not just far from slender, but resounding and magnificent.

I don't know what you are trying to say with the "fanatics" comment there. If the majority of the people voted for Obama, and if everyone that voted for him is a fanatic, you are clearly saying that the majority of Americans are fanatics. Why? Because they chose to see past a candidate's colour and chose him over a war-mongering, racist, decrepit loudmouth who has no sense of judgement? Oh my god, how FANATICAL! In that case, being a fanatic should be worn as a badge of honour!

Now let us find the true fanatics. Let us take the audiences of the two respective Conventions, the simplest comparison to be made. The Democratic convention was filled with a sea of colours, ages and religions. Rich and poor, professionals and workers. That is the broad coalition. What about the Republican convention? That was overwhelmingl white, whiter than ever before, and older than ever before. It was filled with a few rich oil billionaires and then a load of racist redneck working class, complete with cowboy hats and all! Even more striking was the numbers. While the Republican convention attracted a paltry number of desperate losers, lamenting over bygone supremacy, the Democratic convention filled a football stadium and was bursting at the seems with people enthusiastic for a brigther, better tomorrow, and a leader who would look to the future rather than talk about the good old days when only one colour was important; not to mention the millions watching at home and at other venues around the country. So who are the real fanatics? The Republicans of course. And then in true NeueLabourPartei style, they decide to "elect" a figurehead token African American to head the RNC, to pathetically try and cash in on the new (to the Republicans) severe lack of colour prejudice in the American population. This is the very definition of fanatisism!

Regarding money - so Obama's being able to raise more money than McCain is some kind of negative is it? McCain and the Republicans were cash-strapped because of McCain's own self-righteousness, nothing to do with Obama. They were cash-strapped because the party was morally and politically bankrupt, and so no one with any self respect or sense of fairness wanted to be associated with them. One billion dollars is a record, and a testament to Obama's vision and inspiration, something which will not be surpassed anytime soon. Get over it!

About racial block voting - rubbish! You would well have seen the crowds at the victory celebrations and at the Inauguration parties. Those shouting "Obama" the loudest and with the greatest fervour were young, middle class whites, NOT the black Americans. This was one of the biggest miscalculations that the Republicans made, stemming from an uncontrolable urge to refuse to see the truth of America today. They desperately hoped that most of the poll numbers in favour of Obama were just the "bandwagonning," and the media continually talked about the "fears" about the Bradley effect. No doubt many of these commentators were voicing their own wishful thinking, hoping rather than "worrying" that it was true. In the end it did not materialise, and those who said they would vote for the "African American" did so. In fact if anything there was probably a reverse Bradley effect, with many whites, you know, those "millions" you talk about who couldn't stand to vote for Bush Junior (who happens to be older than him) and that joke of a moose-with-lipstick Palin, saying they were voting Republican or abstaining, but in fact voting for Obama.

Sadly, you still stick to this idea of "bandwagonning" even after it's all over and the result, and your folly, has been shown clearly. In any case, "staunch Republicans" are not really going to just jump onto the Democrats just because the candidate was black. Then they aren't really "staunch" are they? Of course not. This is just as stupid a theory as McCain unilaterally picking Palin over someone far more suited, perhaps even that clown Huckabee or the more plausible Jindal (though I don't think too highly of him), in the hope that women all over America would somehow vote for her because of gender (lol!) or because Clinton supporters would vote for any woman, regardless of POLICY or PARTY. They failed on both accounts.

This idea that Republicans didn't vote for McCain because he wasn't Risible, oh wait, I mean Republican, enough is just a fool's paradise you and other desperados of the extreme Right have made up to try and soothe your anxieties and utter loss and inability to comprehend what has happened. From what I saw, on CNN, BBC, and you know, the only real, proper, righteous, patriotic, fair and above all balanced station, Fox, as well as all the rightwing journals National Review, Washington Times, etc., not to mention the ridiculous and ever indulging Times of London and its Bush poodle Gerard Baker, was that McCain was THE Man. Unlike Brown, he was elected by the party, and therefore was seen by those same "millions" of Republicans as the best candidate. Why would they then NOT vote for the man they put into power? Ridiculous.

To try and attribute the loss to "millions" of Republicans "staying at home" is pathetic, to say the least. Based on the audience of Republic rallies and the convention, with all the shouts of "muslim," "socialist," "ouurr opponant," "terrorist," and "kill him!", it is pretty clear that the Republican suporters would vote for anyone as against a black man. These people claim to be Christians, but I bet if Jesus himself came to run, but happened to be black or brown in colour rather than the idealized white, they would vote for Satan (being red helps I guess) instead. There's the answer to the question of the fanatics - Repubicans are far more fanatical than anyone the Democrats have. If these people are a tiny minority, then surely steps would be taken to distance the Republican party from them. But this has not happened. And therefore it can be said that their comments were condoned, and that is why I called the remnant of the party that exists today the "despotic rump of maniacs." And please don't talk about Steele. He is just a useful idiot, just a darker skinned version of Ian Duncan-Smith.

The biggest single mistake of all the mistakes (and there were many) made by the Republicans, was the failure of the racist core (though not all are so small-minded) to understand that America has moved beyond the race wars of the 1960s. They were stuck in the past, and hoping beyond hope that the rest of the nation was too. "A black man President of America? Not in my lifetime!" They said, along with most Blacks (ironically enough), though the latter through disbelief that it would be possible, the former through outright racist superiority and arrogance.

The Republicans have to ask themselves, what is their purpose? Who do they represent? Because at the moment, who they represent are the people of a bygone era, whose numbers are declining day by day. And because what they supposedly represent, namely small government, individual freedoms, and personal responsibility, are different to what they practiced when in power. We all know this, so I won't bother listing the massive catalogue of offences they committed here.

Contrary to what the Republicans think, the American people are not idiots. They see the disconnect between what the Republicans say they hold dear and what they actually do when given power. There is no one in the Republican party who can oppose Obama and win. No one. Until the party moves from the 18th century into the new millenium, they will continue to have no one, and will never have control again. But hey, I read that lots of white supremacists are planning on moving to moose country and seceding from the Union. The current Republican party will fit right in there!

You predict Obama is a "one-termer." You also predicted in the past that Obama would lose, and said clearly in a delightful tone that "the wheels are coming off" Obama's campaign. You were wrong on both counts. Therefore, I know with almost complete certainty that Obama will win two terms, and the Democrats will reign supreme while the Republican party turns to dust.

THX1138

Anan - Brilliant, post of the week

njgop1

Hal, I guess you missed the news that the surge worked and we ARE WINNING, despite the Democrats apptemps to secure defeat!

sancho

I have no idea is Petraues is Democrat or Republican. I personally admire him.

ambimas

Petraus is the perfect foli to Obama he was right and Obama was wrong. And in 4 yrs. The Americdan public will see it to be that way!!!

Conservative Cabbie

Anan

So much ammunition - where to start?

1. you say Bush should have done better in 2004 because of propitious circumstances but then determine that the odds were stacked against Obama. That's fraudulent reasoning. Apart from the transition from Hoover to FDR, circumstances were never better for a non-incumbent to run for President. The economy collapsed a month or so from the election, the outgoing President had record low approval ratings and the media (as they have admitted themselves) were effectively working on Obama's behalf. 7%, whilst a good win, should be the least he was expecting with such propitious circumstances.

2."and chose him over a war-mongering, racist, decrepit loudmouth".

A really, really stupid statement!

3."The Democratic convention was filled with a sea of colours, ages and religions"

Ie The politically connected. Your rainbow coalition consists of Acorn, NAACP, trade unions and Moveon.org

"It was filled with a few rich oil billionaires and then a load of racist redneck working class"

So when the working class support the Democrats, they're part of a broad coalition, but when they support the Republicans, they're racist rednecks? That is the most laughable reasoning I think I've ever seen on this blog.

4. "they decide to "elect" a figurehead token African American to head the RNC,"

More 'interesting' logic. The Spendocrats elect an African-American and it's onward to a better brighter tomorrow, The GOP do it and it's tokenism. That's fuzzy logic from a fuzzy intellect.

5. "so Obama's being able to raise more money than McCain is some kind of negative is it?"

Yes, when they turn off security controls that prevent illegal foreign donations. I wonder why they did that?

6. "About racial block voting - rubbish!"

Really! Obama got approx 5m more black votes than John Kerry did. That means the non-black difference between the two is 4.5 million which equates to a 1.5% swing or only 40,000 people per state. That is only slightly more than the margin by which Bush beat Kerry, which by your own words is a "pretty slender" margin. Yeah, I'd say that racial block voting helped. Throw in the latino vote and this mass white migration from Republicans to Democrats seems to be, quite frankly, a load of rubbish. Obama's gain on white voters over John Kerry is approximately the same as the increased turnout of white voters in 2008 over 2004. So he did well to get new white voters, but only took a very small number away from the Republicans.

7. "all the shouts of ..."kill him!"

You do realise that that was a lie made up by a local journalist? What wasn't made up was the "Sarah Palin is a c-word" t-shirts that appeared on Obama's campaign website, the liberal comedian who threatened to have her friends rape Sarah Palin, the leading S.Carolina democrat who said that Palin's primary qualification was not having an abortion, the Democratic husband of aforesaid state democrat who rejoiced at an oncoming hurricane because it would disrupt the GOP convention. What a charming bunch your fellow liberals are.

8. "And please don't talk about Steele. He is just a useful idiot, just a darker skinned version of Ian Duncan-Smith."

Ah yes, the Uncle Tom comment. You are the real racist here.

9. "Until the party moves from the 18th century"

Considering that the Republican party didn't exist in the 18th Century, that's a pretty dumb statement. If however, you want to talk about the respective parties history, you may want to remember that the Democrats were the party of slavery, of the Ku Klux Klan, of 'Jim Crow' and a Democratic President who was responsible for scuppering the best chance for Reconstruction of the South. It was the Republicans who were responsible for emancipation, for the fourteenth amendment, for ending "seperate but equal" and a far greater percentage of Republicans voted for the passage of LBJ's Civil Rights Act than democrats. You cry racism, but it is thanks largely too Republicans that African-Americans have the rights they do today. Unfortunately, the fact that their rights took so long to come about was the fault of the Democrats.

The Democrats can hardly be described as the popular Presidential party in America. In the last 44 years, only two Democrats have polled more than 50% of the electorate (and Carter only did so by 0.2%). The Democrats are the minority party in American Presidential politics and Obama's 53% is statistically speaking an outlier, not a trend.

Your comment was an interesting polemic. However, it was fallacious in it's reasoning and featured an obscene amount of hateful prejudice and bigotry.

THX

Shame on you for cheerleading this paean to prejudice.

THX1138

Cabbie- Ouch that hurt.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

"Ouch that hurt"

The truth usually does.

My admonition to you on the other hand was friendly advice so that your (and mine) partisanship doesn't succumb to ill thought out bigotry like Anan's.

RMH

CC - The Spendocrats

Remind me who turned a trillion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar defecit and who grew Government massively?

Conservative Cabbie

RMH

But it's a funny name!

Not the same person who has since doubled the debt, lied about how he intends to reduce the deficit (ending spending on Iraq from 2012 to 2019 even though there wasn't going to be any spending), has acted to reduce charitable donations and has declared himself open to the "largest middle class tax increase in history".

If "spendocrats" was the only thing from my comment that you question then I must have been more convincing than I thought I was.

dp damato

Outstanding Cabbie! I could not have said it better myself. I especially appreciated contrasting the history of the Democratic Party with the Republican Party. The libs are trying to adopt Lincoln as their own - as they are so ashamed of the history of the party. This cretin Anan is a perfect caricature of American liberals. Demands we all get past race but brings up race in every sentence. Yells tolerance every minute but rages at everyone who has a different worldview than he. Claims Republicans are irrelevant but cannot stop obsessing about the right. They are clearly deluded. The argument that liberalism is a mental disorder does have merit. Your post is a great reminder that the Democratic Party was and is the most corrupt, venal, and (I believe most Republicans would agree) - criminal organization that ever existed. They are the party of the KKK, slavery, communist fellow travelers, and Viet Cong sympathizers. To continue in that tradition they are now the party that celebrates the genocide of the unborn. Great job Cabbie.

Conservative Cabbie

dp damato

Many thanks.

Largely I agree with you, as a collective, liberals are everything you say. However, as individuals, many are well-meaning and intelligent. Some of the best online relationships on this site are with those of the left (RMH, ndm, THX, Israel, fellow traveler). The debate is often contentious, but never rude. Anan I fear does not qualify however.

You are absolutely right to point out their sanctimonious duplicitousness however, my biggest issue with liberalism.

And bravo on pointing out their culture of death. What does it say about someone, that they value a fox or an owl over an unborn child.

dp damato

Cabbie,
Your comment about the individual liberal highlights a conundrum. The average liberal is a decent bloke - a bit ridiculous and confused but okay. He listens to NPR, BBC, reads NYT and Guardian, likes baseball, Broadway plays, etc. He is the target of Woody Allen jokes in almost all his movies. He values his sense of sophistication, tolerance, and charity. However this personality type is less and less prevalent. He doesn't identify with right wing culture warriors, but he also doesn't identify with the deranged left. I suspect he has found a home in libertarianism. He has been replaced in the Democratic Party and the Labour Party by a the extreme left. They are racist, fascist, anti semitic, nihilistic, hedonistic, and unfortunately quite clever. They cannot believe their luck. As Marxists (marxism and fascism are two sides of the same coin) they thought their day was done. They found the power of language and framing. To hide their inclinations they couched it in a reinvention of language. they monopolized terms like tolerance, enlightened, sophisticated, open minded, trendy, intolerant of intolerance, etc. I believe they are shocked at how successful this tactic has been. For the old style liberal, I will listen to his point of view out of politeness. For the Left - never. All their schemes from global warming to embracing those that hate western civilization are not considered they are opposed. The left is the bane of our existence on both sides of the pond and including continental Europe.

THX1138

Cabbie & dp in our weaker moments we all I'm sure succumb to a bit of partisan barn storming, remember Palin's convention speech nothing but bile flung at Obama and plenty on this board cheered her on as I recall.

I love healthy argument that's why I come here, who wants to nod along with bunch of people reinforcing their own stereotypes & prejudices how can you feel any conviction in your own beliefs unless you have the put to the test against intelligent articulate opponents whom you respect. I freely admit that I have changed my views on many things since I arrived here but I really resent this idea that people like me who are pro choice some how subscribe to a cult of death. I do not.

Republican's are deeply hypocritical on this issue, they purport to believe in personal liberty and small Government but would strong arm their fanatical religious views on others by force of law. Their more extreme leaders like Palin and Jindal would rather see a child's life ruined because she was raped by her father and then be forced to carry that baby rather than allow to have a termiantion. They would put their own religious fanaticism ahead of the best interests of the child and they would force others to do the same. I find this cruel and abhorrent.

The right to life somehow does not apply to the hundreds of their fellow citizens they cheer to the death chambers in prison's or the hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians killed in their wars in Indo China and more recently in the Middle East. I refuse to be lectured to on this issue and will never change my mind.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

"thousands of foreign civilians killed in their wars in Indo China"

You mean the war the Democrats started with no exit strategy?

"remember Palin's convention speech nothing but bile flung at Obama"

I also remember Obama's statement (before her speech) that she was just the mayor of a small town. Hardly respectful of a mayor - he deserved all the vitriol he got for that one statement alone. I also remember Andrew Sullivan's trig-trutherism (which I believe was sanctioned by the party), also before her speech.

"but would strong arm their fanatical religious views on others by force of law"

That's rich coming from a supporter of the party of death. The ACLU's attempts to rid government of any reference to religion is fascistic in it's strong-arming. FDR actually tried to significantly increase the number of justices in the SCOTUS because it was about to rule a lot of his measures unconstitutional. LBJ bugged Nixon's campaign plane long before Watergate and it was JFK that gave Hoover his long leash in the FBI. Don't talk to me about strong arm tactics. On the other hand, on both gay marriage (I oppose the GOP position here) and abortion, the Republicans are seeking constitutional amendments to change the law. Those are only possible with big majority support. You don't get more democratic than that.

"They would put their own religious fanaticism ahead of the best interests of the child"

So the best interests of the child are to be torn limb from limb and ripped from it's mothers stomach is it? That's Mengele morality. The Democrats aren't interested in the well being of the child - they're only interested in the support of radical feminists. There is a reason why an abortion has never been shown on television despite us being able to witness assisted suicides, autopsies and all manner of other operations. It is because it is such cruel and unusual punishment that public opinion would change overnight should it be shown.

"their fellow citizens they cheer to the death chambers"

I actually oppose the death penalty. Having said that, I don't lose any sleep over a serial rapist or mass murderer getting the chop. But the Democrat's like to release these type of people (does Willie Horton mean anything to you)?

"I refuse to be lectured to on this issue"

We weren't doing that, but as you brought it up - red rag and all that. Are you saying you have a closed mind? How very liberal.

Just remember, whilst the tone might be terse, it is not personal.

Conservative Cabbie

dp

Okay, lay off with the baseball comment - that's my sport of choice. Go Sox! :-)

You are spot on with the way that the modern liberal has reframed the political debate. They control the media and academia and that allows them their propoganda victories. It's a tough fight for the right (a fight I suspect is permanently lost here in Europe). America is the last bastion.

"The left is the bane of our existence"

I'm actually going to respectfully disagree with you on this point. I believe that both the left and right have a symbiotic relationship - they need each other. Without the left, the right would cause society to stagnate, the progressive impulse just isn't there. However, conservatism acts as a vital brake on the unfettered progressivism of the liberals who have no understanding of the word 'no'. Without the cautious impulse of a conservatism keen to protect the legacy of the dead and the inheritence of the not yet born, liberalism, in a binge of pandering to political pressure groups and the worshipping of abstract social scientism, would take us on a magical mystery tour of whatever is fashionable within elite circles. Liberals aren't interested in the little man, they are only interested in the testing of hypotheses, we are merely rats in their social science live trial experiments.

porkbelly

Is it just me or do the comments on this website seem to be getting more thoughtful, sharper, better-written, more illuminating, while the actual postings by Forsyth, Massie, et al are getting sloppier, more illiterate, more cut-and-paste?

Conservative Cabbie

THX

Having re-read your post and my reply, I realise I was a little aggressive. Put it down to having been up for 24 hours. Sorry.

Question. Your reference to indo-china. Were you referring to Vietnam?

THX1138

Cabbie-

We obviously both love the USA and love to argue about it and it's politics and it's politicians most of the time we disagree in a respectful good natured way which is why I enjoy debating with you so much. Sometimes however an issue pops up that brings into sharp relief the differences between us pro choice/ pro life is the biggest of these, for you this must be a matter of conscience which I completely respect even though I think you're wrong & for me a woman's right to choose is intertwined into everything that I believe too. Can I suggest that we park this issue neither of is ever going to change the other opinions and could lead us into vicious arguments that I don't want to have with you.

Lets us instead stick to politics, the stimulus & the idiocy of politicians & commentators on both side of the divide (more on your side of course). Do you agree?

And yes I did mean Vietnam I know Kennedy started it and I expected your response, however Nixon & Kissinger dramatically up the ante with the indiscriminate B52 carpet bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia and of the course the covet and overt wars in central America lead by Reagan that killed hundreds of thousands - I've read my Chomsky & Vidal

As part of a long response to your previous post that I deleted as It sounded too angry (and I don't want to be that person) in your section on attacking the ACLU I wanted to understand religion and the state so I went and read the Constitution of the United States and the amendments The Bill of Rights. Can I suggest that if you get the chance you should do the same it is a remarkable document.

Lets shake and make up!

RMH

CC - it was one of your "independent" replies........

I liked a good chunk.

A good test....

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/progressive_quiz.html/

I was 300, which makes me very progressive.....

Conservative Cabbie

THX

Chomsky & Vidal? Good balanced reading there then. :-)

I've read the constitution and Bill Of Rights and as you say, it's a great document. However, as you must now be aware, it says nothing about the seperation of church and state. The, I believe, unconstitutional judicial rulings stem from a Jefferson speech to congress where he recommended that a wall be put up between church and state.

I don't believe Nixon had any choice but to up the ante in Vietnam, LBJ was so negligent in his running of the war. The N. Koreans had no motivation to take a peace process seriously when LBJ was in charge. Nixon recognised this and saw that the only way to obtain an honourable withdrawal was to get N. Korea to the peace table. It's just a shame that Democrats in congress sold out the S. Koreans by refusing to allow Nixon to seld help to his allies once America had withdrawn.

Yes, I agree to 'park' abortion as a debate with you, except to say finally that it is not a religious question with me but a philosophical one. I don't agree that there are more idiots on my side than yours though.

Conservative Cabbie

RMH

Thank you. I'm quite schizophrenic when it comes to my political feelings. Normally, I'm fairly independent. Still conservative but prepared to see the wrong in conservatism and some good in the left. Other day's, I'm as partisan as they come (although those days are normally precipitated by liberal attacks on my 'team'.

I had a previous go at the quiz, low 100's for me which makes me a safe conservative.