The 2008 primary elections will bring boring and predictable results, and the general election will have two safe candidates fighting until the conclusion.
There will be no surprises, no shocks, and no earthquakes in the primaries. The media are desperate for a story, and writing about the candidates that will win would force reporters and columnists to run out of ink before the general election.
Every election has the upstarts, the dark horses, the gadflys and the lunatics. When their collective 125 minutes of fame are up, the favorites always win. Let me say this again. The favorites always win.
The democratic party is almost democratic in the sense that it does not immediately rally behind the favorite. The republican party simply anoints whoever is next in line. Whoever’s “turn” it is gets the nod. This pattern has not changed in decades, and will not change any time soon.
In 1980, people love to gush about how Ted Kennedy nearly took down sitting President Jimmy Carter. Only in politics is almost winning a victory. Carter won for the democrats. For the republicans, Ronald Reagan was the favorite. Yes, upstart George Herbert Walker Bush won Iowa, and no, it didn’t stop Reagan. John Anderson was the gadfly, and he won nothing.
In 1984, Walter Mondale was the favorite for the democrats, yet Gary Hart was the upstart who had early success. Jesse Jackson was the gadfly. Mondale won the right to get trounced by Reagan.
In 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush was now the favorite for the republicans. Yes, Bob Dole was a well known war hero and Senator, but he was an upstart, nothing more. The gadfly lunatic role was played by Pat Robertson, who did well in Iowa. President Bush won handily. The democrats had a cast of characters. Gary Hart dropped out way too early to be factored into anything. Michael Dukakis was the favorite, with several upstarts in Dick Gephardt, Al Gore and Paul Simon. Jesse Jackson and Pat Schroeder were the gadfly lunatics. Yes, there were some early surprises, but when all was said and done, the safe, inoffensive, technocratic Dukakis was the winner.
1992 is another example of people gushing over an insurgent, and unlike Ted Kennedy, Pat Buchanan won nothing. President Bush won every primary and the nomination. It was not Buchanan who wrecked President Bush, despite a horrible speech that was the lowlight of a disastrous convention. Ross Perot did actual damage in terms of votes, not Buchanan. Buchanan was the upstart, the gadfly and the lunatic all in one, and his impact to this day remains overstated. The democrats fawned over non-candidates such as Mario Cuomo, but of those running, Bill Clinton was the favorite. Paul Tsongas was the upstart, with Jerry Brown the gadfly lunatic. Tsongas won New Hampshire, and Bill CLinton won the nomination anyway.
In 1996, Bob Dole was pretty much handed the job, proving that the republican party primary process was a waste of time. He might have been the weakest frontrunner in history, but that was enough. Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, and Lamar Alexander were the upstarts, Pat Buchanan the full fledged lunatic gadfly, Alan Keyes, Bob Dornan, and Morrie Taylor as additional gadflys, and pretend drama when Buchanan won New Hampshire. This led to the expression, “As New Hampshire goes, so goes New Hampshire.” Pete Wilson and Dan Quayle were more than upstarts, but were simply not frontrunners. Arlen Specter was an upstart. Bob Dole quickly won the nomination.
In 2000, Vice President Al Gore was the favorite, and upstart Bill Bradley was going to shock the world. After all, he was a basketball hero. Apparently, the establishment was unimpressed, and Al Gore won the nomination. The republicans had George W. Bush as the favorite, upstarts in Elizabeth Dole and John McCain, and similar gadflys who would not go away. McCain won New Hampshire, and George W. Bush won the nomination and the White House. People want to talk about Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, but the bottom line is there have always been third parties, and they win nothing. They also have nothing to do with the primaries.
In 2004, John Kerry was the favorite. Yes, Howard Dean rocketed to fame as an upstart, lunatic, gadfly all in one, but when all was said and done, he lost badly. The “invisible primary” that respected former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw talked about is not a substitute for actual votes. Outside of the 10-12 people who watch the Sunday morning talk shows, nobody cares who wins the Iowa Straw Poll. Dick Gephardt may have been more than an upstart, and had he been anointed the favorite he would have won. Joe Lieberman was not the favorite, although he might have been slightly more than an upstart. John Edwards and Wesley Clark were the upstarts. The gadfly lunatics were Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich.The safe choice was Kerry, and he won most of the primaries.
Other characters in elections are the “respected, cerebral candidates people like but can’t win the nomination.” In 1980 the republicans had Howard Baker. In 1996, the republicans had Richard Lugar. The democrats had Bob Kerrey in 1992.
Both parties have their “if only they had run they would have changed the world” dream candidates. The democrats had Mario Cuomo in 1988 and 1992, and George Mitchell in 1992. The republicans had Colin Powell and Jack Kemp in 1996.
Both parties have had their “if only they had not had bad luck they would have won” candidates. If Gary Hart had not gotten caught on the boat for the democrats in 1988…if Pete Wilson had not contracted chronic laryngitis in 1996…if, if, if…nothing.
None of these candidates would have won.
So what will happen in 2008?
For the democrats, Hillary Clinton is the favorite, Barack Obama is the upstart, John Edwards is the quasi-upstart, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the gadfly lunatics, and Bill Richardson and Joe Biden are the dark horses nobody will consider. Christopher Dodd is an even darker horse.
For the republicans, there is dispute over who the original favorite actually is. Some say Rudy Giuliani, some say John McCain. They can be considered co-favorites, which is unprecedented, although they can both make a case for being next in line with Dick Cheney opting out. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson are the upstarts, Duncan Hunter the respected dark horse, and Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul rounding out the lunatic gadflys. Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback also ran, and were also rans.
When all is said and done, this mythical, media manufactured excitement will be nothing but Trivial Pursuit answers to meaningless questions.
By the time Hillary’s minions are done destroying Obama, people will believe he molests puppies and kittens. Edwards will escape her wrath as long as he flies under the radar and does not actually win anything significant.
As for the republicans, Mike Huckabee will fail in the 49 states not dominated by Christian activists. Mitt Romney, only making headway because George Allen self destructed with one macaca moment, is an impressive upstart. Fred Thompson will be back on Law and Order because somebody has to keep Sam Waterson’s Jack McCoy from being an arrogant gasbag.
Hillary will win for the democrats, Giuliani will win for the republicans, and McCain winning for the republicans is possible.
Everything else is a media creation.
Wesley Clark, Colin Powell and other handsome, telegenic celebrity candidates keep reporters employed. They do not win elections.
Enjoy the exciting days of December 2007, because within weeks of 2008 beginning, the 9 month general election will be tedious, neverending, and decided between frontrunner candidates that we all knew were going to win the whole time.
How do we know this? Because while people claim that they clamor change, Americans by nature are minimalists, incrementalists, and risk averse. They prefer evolution to revolution.
Speculating about primaries can be faked into looking exciting, but the results will be traditional, stable, and boring.
eric
The results might be traditional, stable, and boring.
But the process is a riot.
Same bat channel, same bat time.
Puppies -AND- kittens ?!??!
That’s just not right.
It’ll probably be boring, but at least we can have some fun with it. See what the baby thinks of the GOP candidates on my link.
Hillary Clinton will win the election by a landslide. The average vote for President is won by what 2 to 4 million votes – a 2 to 4 point swing.
Hillary will pick up the VP candidate NewMexico Governor Richardson. This will guarantee her foreign policy of schmooze and lose.
The Richardson pick for VP will be a matter of what I call “Projection Politics”. She plans to make “Legal” the illegal immigrants in the United States with a favorable Congress. This coupled with her Hillary Care will guarantee Hillary an additional – yup 40 MILLION!!! votes in 2012. And will guarantee a Richardson/Obama ticket in 2016. Call me crazy – but this is what my crystal ball shows me.
Hillary will win by 6% or 10-12 million votes. Why will she win the largest landslide in history? The numbers of voters in 2008 will not be the normal 55% of the population. This time – roughly 65 to 70 % of the US will vote. It is a combination of factors that are at work…and will lead to this chain of events. The main factor is the anonymous/private voting booth. Regardless of the political circus and lackluster ad campaigns of both parties…WOMEN will go into the voting booth in 2008 (Republican/Democrat/Independent Women) and vote for Hillary Clinton thinking to themselves “What could it hurt? It is time for a woman to lead us into a world of peace. I can say I voted for the winner if it is a Republican. I can say I voted for HIllaryif she wins. No one will know.” This Rationalization is the nature of a guilt ridden, emotion driven sect of our society. It is the wild card of politics – the self-Punishment Vote.
Come on, Eric. You gave us a very convincing argument for why the favorite always wins. Well, who’s the favorite among Republicans?
Also, it seems to me at least as far as the Democrats go, the favorite going into the last month or so before the first primary gets trashed. I don’t remember John Kerry being the favorite until Howard Dean screamed.
My prediction is that one day in early February, we’re going to wake up and Gwen Steffani will have boobs.
Good article, eric. As I kept reading, however, I was wondering whose turn it is for the Republicans and I can’t say that there really is someone like that this time around. The most logical ones would be Guiliani and McCain, as you say, but I’m not sure either of them will get it. If I were a betting man, I’d say Romney and Clinton are the nominees.
Interesting side note to the 2000 election. This was one where it is very possible that a third party candidate actually did tilt the election. Often times when there are third party candidates of any magnitude, they tend to be on the left and the right and tend to cancel each other out. In 2000, for example, you would have expected Nader to take votes away from Gore and Buchanan to take votes away from Bush. What happened, especially in Florida, as I recall, is that Nader polled something like seven times the number of votes that Buchanan did. Part of the problem for Pat was that he had emergency surgery in the middle of the campaign.
Either way, it’s very possible that if Nader had not done so much better than Buchanan the election would have gone the other way.
Interesting perspective! You know your history well.
On the GOP side, America’s mayor has more of a claim on being the frontrunner. Even in 2005 he was leading in primary polls. Here’s one link http://www.draftrudygiuliani.com/read_article.php?id=98. He has been leading in the RealClearPolitics national polls as far back as their charts go.
McCain was already passed over by the GOP. He had a media generated candidacy, and is less popular in the GOP now than he was in 2000. McCain arguably falls into the gadfly / crank category.
Following Eric’s logic, it should be a Giuliani / Clinton race. However, every election is unique. Rudy’s recent DRASTIC drop in the polls is amazing, but I hope Eric’s is correct!!
Hahahahaha!!!! You know that I’m not a blog in the name of Ron Paul kind of gal, but here’s what I wish:
Ron Paul is sooooo conservative that he actually saves the R party.
Gravel is sooooo right on the WOD that he actually saves the D party.
The LP guy breaks double digits.
We get a libertarian minded prez, who in reality can do squat about our very real constitutional screwups, but makes people remember they’re free not by government edict, but by the process of breathing.
In other words, Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party have already won.
and by that, I mean the forgotten man has won.
If Hillary wins the Dem nom, she will lose the nationals. I don;t think Giuliani or Romney can win the GOP nom, and that pretty much just leaves McCain, my odds-on favorite to win the nod, and Huckabee, who I think, and have always thought, stands real chance. America is not ready for a black president named “Obama,” unfortunately. Hillary can’t get past the misogynist vote in the nationals, unfortunately. Giuliani and Romney have problems with the GOP that are probably insurmountable (“liberal” New York Italian and a Mormon shuckster). Edwards (or Richrdson) could beat McCain or Huckabee, but the Dems may not be realistic enough to grasp that. We shall see.
JMJ
I’m with Miche
I’m also with Miche insofar as Paul has made a powerful statement to and for Libertarian Republicans – and Libertarians and Republicans. The union of Libertarians, Social Conservatives, and Laizzez Faire Republicans may well be tenuous today. If the Libers go Dem the GOP will lose – let alone if the Laizzez Faire crowd goes Dem, and they have been heavily backing Hillary on the buck.
JMJ
I was not being serious, Ron Paul doesnt know what he his.
He speaks to a buch of idealists who have no clue as to whats really going on.
His vision is one for those who would like the easy way out by just apologizing to the world for us being Americans and then have us all climb back into our holes.
Besides that, he’s a tempermantal little b**ch who reminds me of Barney Fife.
Kucinich is a three time loser. Anyone know the description of insanity?
Well, Micky, I personally find Libertarianism to be the political philsophy of spoiled teenaged white kids – narrow, naive, self-serving and usually subjectively selective. Just the same, there is a large number of Americans who identify themselves as or at least with Libertarians. They make up a good slice of the GOP base. Without them, as without any other part of the base, the GOP is in trouble. As it stands now, GOP party affiliation among voters is at an unprecedented low, and at an unprecedented disparity from the Dems (about 36% to 50%). Therefore, any disenfranchisement among any GOP base group should be worrisome to the GOP. Perhaps that’s why they are going to let this guy Paul in for the long Haul, whereas other third-tier GOPers are dropping like flies.
Kucinich is a long time pol from Cleveland. He’s no loser – just a genuine progressive liberal in a party that is niether genuine nor liberal, let alone genuinely liberal. Kucinich is proff that you cons have no clue what you’re saying when you say that the Dems are “liberals.”
JMJ
Jersey McJ,
I grew up dirt poor and on welfare and even before I knew what the Libertarian Party was, I was libertarian minded. A person who grew up as I did can certainly see how government help hurts by making people more dependent. My mother, when she finally got off the government teat, found that she could be very successful in business. I’ve never seen a more profound transformation. Anecdotal, I know, but you can look at the Katrina (it makes sense to repeat that the damage in NOLA was not from the hurricane, but by Army COE levees) victims who have broken free of their government welfare chains for further examples.
I might be spoiled, white, and very comfortable today, but two of those things were brought about by hard work and a good husband.
You are spot on with the description of Kucinich; he shares different philosophical views than I but he is no loser for it.
And, about what Micky2 said, a foreign policy of trade and freedom is not naive. As a country, we have for many years acted like a 3rd grade schoolgirl. We are friends with Mary one week and then when Lori has a better sleepover, we treat Mary like garbage on the schoolyard to secure an invitation. It’s not smart in third grade, and it’s terrible for our country as a nation and its taxpayers.
Jersey, your comparison is an insult to white spoiled teenagers.
there is a large amount of those who identify themselves with libertarianism.
There are also a large amount of heroin addicts.
That base you are talking about are mostly fence sitters who just like a fancier name for themselves.
In two weeks Paul and Kucinich will be history, I’ll bet money.
And please, get over yourself would you ?
Stop this snotty elitist attitude that always promotes you to say that nobody knows what a lib or a dem is. You’re not that freeking unique that we or I cant see what you are.
The only reason you move your title around or wont claim a definite one is because it involves commitment to a standard. A liberals nightmare.
Miche
Study up on Ron Paul, please.
If the man had it his way he would move everyone and thing out of Iraq tomorrow.
The result would be a reversal of everything we’ve done in the last 6 years and the finale` would be a genocidal blood bath. The guy is an idiot.
He’s only playing to the anti war crowd by telling them what they want to hear.
” America is the bad guy” “We started it”
And he raises a good amount of money because yes, anti war folks have money too.
The deal is this. All the Dem candidates tell us they will end the war. Most realize that when elected they wont. Those who really want us out of Iraq expeditiously know that Ron Paul will without a question. That’s where his support comes from. But they are just not that many , period.
Its all a little more complicated than a third grade analogy. If you understood the free market and how it works you would understand that , YES ! Its always about who has the best sleepover ! Its about supply and demand and having the freedom to dump Mary when Lori has a better product.
You are confusing the feelings of little girls with big business in your analogy.
Screw Mary’s feelings.
Puhleeze. Ron Paul would move us out of Iraq as soon as it’s possible and consistent with our safety. That means making sure that we leave nothing behind that would cause us future injury. And, I’ve never heard Ron Paul say that America is a bad guy. Our policy of funding (foreign aid) opposite sides of warring groups, blindly getting into a swinging marriage bed of sorts with corporate interests and sometimes delusional heads of foreign governments will never be good for the American individual.
You missed the boat on my analogy. To be fair, I’m feeling a little under the weather and perhaps didn’t spell it out well enough. How about I rephrase it:
We are friends with Mary one week and then when Lori has a better sleepover, we get our fifth grade brother to beat Mary up to gain favor with Lori and thusly secure an invitation.
If we existed in a truly free market, you’d be right about screw Mary’s feelings when a better product comes along. But it wasn’t about Mary’s feelings; it’s about doing what’s right. Unfortunately, there ain’t nothing free about a market that uses national force, at the expense of taxpayers, to protect a few corporate mammoths.
Miche.
Your interpertation of things is naive to say the least.
Paul did not directly say that America is the bad guy. But when he says we are doing bad things , its the same , O.K?
The U.S. was forced to adopt an interventionist policy at the start of World War I. From that day on it was necessary for our country to be involved in others’ actions. For the past 90 years our country has intertwined itself in foreign affairs, and contrary to Paul’s position, we cannot just stop with the flick of a pen.
Ron Paul scares me because he is actually going to do what he says. If elected he would eliminate our intelligence agencies, and get us out of Iraq as well as Afghanistan, regardless of the unintended consequences. But then what? What happens if Iraq is overtaken by extremists? What happens if the flow of oil is disrupted in Saudi Arabia? What do we do if Israel is bombed by Hamas and Hezbollah, or Iran? What if Iran, with their mind set on the destruction of Israel, gets a nuclear weapon? If any Ron Paul supporters reading this know the answers to these questions please tell me.
Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by “diplomacy.” But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan’s military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union.
As far as when he said we should get our bases out of the middle east, this shows an incredible amount of naivety. Saudi Arabia has allowed our presence in order to protect their oil reserves from exterior threats. We have been sensitive to their requests for a minimal military footprint and have in fact been removing troops since Saddam Hussein was eliminated, as he posed the greatest danger. This not only ensures a constant flow of oil from the leading producer in the world, but also provides relief to investors driving our market, as they have reassurance knowing that a disturbance in the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia is unlikely. We cannot be responsible if a contingent of extremists believes our intentions to be negative. A disruption of oil from the country could cause economies to enter depressions.
President Bush did not invent alliances or trade agreements. Those have been around for a long time. And need to stay.
Miche said;
“there ain’t nothing free about a market that uses national force, at the expense of taxpayers, to protect a few corporate mammoths.”
This is another example of total misconception Miche.
Millions of peoples livlihoods, Americas economy and the economic stability of world markets are at stake. Not just a few corlorate mammoths.
But , just to make another point . Those corporate mammoths do as a matter of fact employ millions of people whos jobs would be at stake if Paul had his way, not just CEOs
In addition.
I will give credit to Ron Pauls political and professionalresume`.
I should retract a little here and remove some of the deragatory statements I made of him.
I believe he means well.
But even if I agreed with all of his polocies and intentions there is one huge astronomical attribute he has that will always stay in the way.
And that would be his temperment and demeanor.
At the South Carolina debate he threw a hissy fit on the subject of terrorism like I.ve never seen before. It was a total lack of composure equivalent to the famous Howard Dean scream.
This man should not have any kind of power period. Never mind access to a nuclear arsenal.
No way.
Micky2 thinks me naive while he has bought, lock, stock and barrel, a bunch of horsecrap. Do a little more research rather than cruising blogs picking up tidbits of bad info. A good place to start might be the Ron Paul/ Meet the Press interview from this morning.
I do believe you and I had the oil discussion months ago so I won’t rehash it today. We view that situation differently and nothing I can say today in a comment thread will bring you around.
As far as people losing their jobs under a Ron Paul administration, you are half right. There would be a lot of departments in government shutting down IF he could garner the support from another branch so, yes, there may be some IRS agents unemployed.
And I like the idea of our nuclear aresenal being accessed by a man who understands “just wars” and the congressional approval requirement.
Miche said;
“Micky2 thinks me naive while he has bought, lock, stock and barrel, a bunch of horsecrap.”
I dont equate the world market to a 3rd grade sleep over.
==================================================================
Miche said;
“Do a little more research rather than cruising blogs picking up tidbits of bad info. ”
If you paid attention to my writtings you would not of said that and also realized that my research goes way more in depth than anything you have presented so far.
==================================================================
Miche said;
” A good place to start might be the Ron Paul/ Meet the Press interview from this morning.”
His positions have been crystal clear for years now. You might get excited hearing him say the same thing over and over again.
I only need to see nuts once to know they are nuts. And I found out long before you.
==================================================================
Miche said;
“nothing I can say today in a comment thread will bring you around.”
Unless you have facts and documents or relative history, I doubt it..
==================================================================
Miche said;
“As far as people losing their jobs under a Ron Paul administration, you are half right. There would be a lot of departments in government shutting down IF he could garner the support from another branch so, yes, there may be some IRS agents unemployed.”
This statement shows your lack of understanding of the corporate world.
The proof is that you never answerd my questions pertaining to the matter, because you cant.
Try again,
What do you think would happen to our countrys economy if we pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia ?( Which is just one of Ron Pauls idiotic ideas )
I’ll tell you, only because I know the truth hurts.
OUR COUNTRY WOULD COLLAPSE !
Miche said;
“And I like the idea of our nuclear aresenal being accessed by a man who understands “just wars” and the congressional approval requirement.”
Do some research on what lead up to the Iraq war and Irans history with us.
And certainly you do not believe that Afghanistan was un just, do you ?.
(if you cant find the truth on the Iraq war , let me know)
Miche, you need to remember that micky2 is always right about everything and anyone who, even in the slightest, disagrees with him is an idiot.
The only ones I disagree with are moonbats Greg.
Miche, Gregs consoling you will not answer the questions I asked you.
The difference between you and I greg is that you argue the “ideal” with “emotion”
I argue the facts with proof.
Now tell me who the idiot is.
micky2, you know there’s a pill that can stop all your ranting and delsions of grandier!!
The idiot would be you because your “facts” rarely are more than yelling and screaming or unverifiable opinion.
Unfortunatly the facts concerning who the real idiot is are verifiable on the below link. Seeing as how you cotradict yourself with undeniable clarity. Especially on the topic of the government being a reliable source of info.
They are reliable when you make your arguement on gerbil warming. But not reliable when I use them to back up my claims on the war.
Hyrocrisy is one of the truest forms of idiocy.
Second of all.
I was having a debate with someone else. The debate did not have anything to do with with the personal attack you launched on me while I was debating Miche.
At least you could of come into the debate using the subject (Ron Paul) as the subject of conversation.
You launched an attack on me out of no where for no reason having anything to do with you.
The FACT is this. When my questions go unanswerd and the opposition resorts to silence or personal attacks this means that you have run out of intelligent options and responses.
And if you had one shred of honesty, decency or integrity you would realize that I always provide facts , documents and relative history to prove my claims.
This is what frustrates you and Jersey the most. To the point where you are left with no other optiom but to argue the sentiment and emotion of the issue. Which is just as useless as an idiot.
Please, be a man. Show me where I have yelled and screamed unverifiable opinion.
If neither you or Miche can answer my questions with rational and plausable arguements based on some kind of common sense instead of personal attacks…
you have left yourself looking like an idiot
I’m sorry, I forgot the link that would show this incredible display of hypocrisy on the part of Greg.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/general-petraeus-and-the-cair-bears/#comments
While it’s very nice that Greg stepped in on my behalf, it was unnecessary. Micky2, you can’t possibly think that my absence from this conversation meant I was skirting your (nearly hostile) questions. Nobody is that stupid although I’ll admit that I found the questions so unimaginative with regard to real life and real threats that I assumed you were just being over the top to show your, um, enthusiasm for a different foreign policy agenda. Since you were serious, here goes…
Your questions were specifically:
Iraq is pretty fragmented by and has extremists already. We did that nation a disservice by deposing and having a hand in killing their leader (our old buddy) but we are bleeding ourselves dry putting Band-Aids on an internal bleed. We can’t fix what we screwed up and it’s better to let them proceed how they wish. We might consider some interim aid to mitigate the damage.
If we don’t protect Saudi oil, they’ve enough money to hire someone to do it for them. (Or is our oil more subsidized that the average American realizes?) Perhaps they can hire DynCorp directly rather than us footing the bill? DynCorp will be looking for new contracts when we aren’t policing the world.
If Israel is bombed by a group of extremists, they can handle it as a police matter. If they are bombed (or in an alternate universe, nuked), by a sovereign nation, they have the fire power to defend themselves.
And, about the nukes, here’s some interesting reading for ya’.
And, the real money quote:
And, just so ya know, the site is a .mil site, so the author may have a wee bit more experience than you. In fact, I’m sooo sure of what I just typed, that I’d wager my husband’s hard earned pay on it.
I’m back off to practice the couple of guitar chords I learned tonight. Perhaps you should learn some more tricks too.
Note to Eric: I’ve edited my own curse words…the market can influence change. ;o)
An addendum:
I wanted to comment about your dismissal of a 3rd grade analogy as being naive. Maybe it is to a person who’s not learned the golden rule, but if we’d learn to play on the schoolyard, we might not face full “rumbles” in the larger world.
Rumble is a literary reference and you may want to pick up a book. But don’t worry; it’s a grade school level book and you might elevate your IQ.
Try reading “All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”. – by Robert Fulghum
Benn there, done that Miche. You’re fesicious attempt to humiliate me is about as effective as anything you find on a rednecks bumper.
In the beighborhood of ;
” I refuse to have a contest of wits with an unarmed person”
As far as IQs go. I graduated college at 18.
Now . onto more important matters.
If left alone Iraq will not only suffer one of the greatest humantarian crisis the world has ever seen. Upon which you and the rest of the moonbat population will explode in protest over.We woill be critisized for anything that happens in Iraq from here on in by your like. So do you really think we would be so stupid as to leave it the way it is ?It will be overun, occupied and dictated by extremists that will provide
The second and fairly larger point which none of the moonbat world can or will ever come to terms with is that we did not go to Iraq only to oust Saddam and provide regime change.
We went there to set up a watch tower. Other than the suspected WMDs we had about 1600 other reasons to go into Iraq that were valid. From Peace treaty violations stemming from the first gulf war being violated. prop 1441 and a host of other issues that deemed our invasion perfectly legit. We are in the process of building an embassy larger than any college campus in the US. And for one reason onl;y. And we are not out to capture hearts and minds.
But what is more relevant to debunking your inanely inadequate answer is that the recent surge is working and the extremist are being removed by private citizens as well as Iraqi military and US military. Refugees are returning by the hundreds every day and the economy and commerce are beggining to again everywhere.
The reason the Saudi government and/or oil companies do not hire their own security is because their threats come from within. And their intelligence capabilities and military competence is not even anywhere in the neighbohood of what it takes to defend an interest that is relevant not only to the United States , but about 100 other countries as well.
Once again , your simplistic and idealistic answers represent your naivety in these matters. You and your 3rd grade brainstorming wish it were so simple.
And further proof of your naivety is also represented in your assumption that Israel can defend itself against a nuclear attack.
Yes, it probably could. But your limits disable you from seeing the bigger picture. Should an attack of sorts be launched on Israel the entire Middle east would fall into complete and utter chaos. If you are aware of any of our policies and dependance on the exchanges we have with partners in the Middle east you would know that the effects on our economy would be devastating.
But when your only vision in this world is one of 3rd grade sand box deals, you obviously can not and will not ever understand.
You need not try to educate me on the history of nukes or the order and terms in which they were and have proliferated since the 50s.
I use to practice hiding under my desk during the Cuban missle crisis.
You may of read it in a book , good for you. I WAS THERE !
Tricks are for kids. Now… go play your guitar, stick a flower in your hair and gamble away your husbands money.
Every point you tried (woefully) to make can be brushed away by your first sentence, um paragraph, or whatever it’s supposed to be.
I refuse to again be a party supporting your website traffic drive, but I remember reading a much different tale about you. If you did indeed graduate college at 18, let me be the first to offer my condolences. You were a child left behind before it was a government catchphrase.
I’ve been dwelling on this bit of naivety also. Its time is here.
Miche wrote;
“If Israel is bombed by a group of extremists, they can handle it as a police matter. If they are bombed (or in an alternate universe, nuked), by a sovereign nation, they have the fire power to defend themselves.”
First of all you seem all too sure that the Israeli police could or should be the ones to deal with an extremist attack. The police are a municipal facility responsable for regional areas and inner jurisdictions of Israel. Not national security.
They do not have the forces or the weaponry to combat such a threat or to maintain border security in the case of a full blown ballistic assault.
Although the Iaraeli police department does have the worlds finest anti terrorism units on earth. It would very inneffiective against an invasion from Iran( a sovereign nation). Which has been identified by most modern world governments as a state sponsor of terrorism.
That would make them extremists by nature alone.
And then you contradict yourself by saying it is a police matter and that Israel has the fire power to defend itself. In the case of nuclear warfare as YOU describe it, Israel would be more than likely to retaliate with the equivalent force on a nuclear level also.
Theres just one problem with your assunptions and ideas Miche.
The police dont have a nuclear arsenal !
So obviously as any intelligent person would gather, the countrys defense would most certainly be in the hands of the military, not the police.
You, Sir, are a sloppy reader. You may want to go back and read (carefully this time) what I wrote. I’ll be busy for awhile, but I’ll be back.
I only dig S&M on websites…
As far as this guy goes, you can throw it in the trash.
Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited
Strategic Doctrine in Question
COL ALAN J. PARRINGTON, USAF
It is clearly the ramblings of a disgruntled officer with an opinion. Fortunatly there are only a handful like him around.
My education hardly points to a child left behind.
As far as “sloppy reading ” goes , had you paid attention to my writtings you never would of said such a thing.
My education has provided me with a 450,000.00 home, my own business, a sucessful marriage with two kids who have never and will never be left behind.
Since you are so childish as to not set eyes on my website again , let me refresh your chemically effected brain for you.
I have passed the state of Hawaiis alcohol and substance abuse exam as required before being able to administer counseling to any individual. In addition to all my years of experience and study on the matter you choose to think that you could educate me in the issue.
That attempt was just as insane as you trying to tell me how things work in this world.
You idealistic interpretations of the world are truly naive,
Since you are so pathetically spiteful and childish so as to say you will not contribute to my website traffic( I’m devastated) let me refresh your memory on a more relative subject. (you thinking that you know what your saying)
“Addiction is not a textbook issue. I’ve tried everything that wasn’t injected and I have to tell you that booze is the hardest thing for me. I simply don’t have the “turn off” mechanism for alcohol. An eight ball of blow, no problem. I get sick of hearing myself talk. There is only so high you can go and that has never presented as a problem for me. Booze takes you low. Apparently, I’ve no threshold for pain and dark places. Some say that I’m genetically predisposition to booze as I’ve Native American bloodline.
Given my choice of mood altering drugs, it would go something like: Mushrooms, Ex, Coke, Booze. The first 3, I handle well. The last and legal one, I handle poorly.”
In the text books I used to study this field you are described as a “text book ” example of denial.
It seems that the person I’m talking to has not changed since then.
So telling me what you do and dont remember about me has little relevance anymore.
I read what you wrote very well. And most of it which was not what you wrote.
What you wrote only further proves my claims oh naivety on your part.
Anyone who thinks that the police should be instrumental in fighting off extremist with bombs is in la la land. Israeli police would be no match against a strike from either Hamas or Hezbolla who number in the hundreds of thousands.
As far as what you didnt write. Its just a bunch of opinions suppoting your opinion and gets us nowhere.
Once again it seems as though you have boiled everything down to a thied grade level of simplicity.
If only the solutions were that simple Miche.
You need to get caught up on whats happeneig in the world.
I remember quite well what I wrote on your site when I complimented your success in your fight with addiction. I, however, did not mean to suggest that I currently use anything and, yesterday, wasn’t even using the legal stuff.
You really should read more carefully…
Really, stop pretending that you are some kind of Shakespeare or some kind of literary genius
Your stuff, is incredibly easy to read.
And your position is also just as easy to understand. You need not go into a complicated diatribe of your views.
Your total sum of the world and its workings are inaccurate mostly because you are missing major parts of the equation.
You have little concept and idea of how all the markets in the world are connected and dependent on some basic fundamental ingredients.
This is made evident by your assertion that the Saudis can protect there own oil.
We have to guard that oil from the ground up to its containment and transport through the gulf due to a number of threats that have consistently been there for over 40 years now.
You obviously don’t know a hell of a lot about the motive and reasons for us being in the Middle east, let alone Iraq.
I don’t have the desire or need to explain it all to someone who has narrow mindedly narrowed everything in the world down to a third grade sand box rumble.
If I were you (thank god) I would not place any bets using your husbands hard earned money on the prospect of Ron Paul winning anything but gold star for effort.
He will lose, he is losing now.
Because he is a loser in the department of international affairs.
The point behind cutting and pasting your comments from my blog was to make evident that you think you know what you are talking about on issues that have escaped you, or that you have little knowledge of.