Redstate

Mitt's position. Correct! The point is that there is to me a glaring spotlight on this changeableness of Mitt's for political expediency. Call me suspicious, but did this change occur as a direct result of a potential Thompson candidacy? Maybe some of you can correct me on this.

Going facetious here, but what did Mitt believe and when did he believe it?

November 21 -- FredsGivingDay

Well he does say "I am not calling for a nationwide ban on abortion." And I think anybody familiar with the HLA understands that the effect of its language is a constitutional ban on abortion (as how exactly do you grant the fetus 14th Amendment rights and yet still allow any abortion law to stand).

So if Mitt is to claim that his statement against a nationwide ban did not indicate a position on HLA, he would likely have to claim that he had no idea what the HLA was in March 2007. I don't think he would impress more pro-lifers if he came out with that.

read any of Thompson's speeches, interviews, writings... etc...

He specifically addressed this time and time again, go read his report "Government on the Brink"

Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com

I consider Fred Thompson disqualified as a candidate, he lacks any relevant national security experience. Anyone can comment about keeping the course against Islamic aggression but I've seen the result of having an inexperienced leader at the helm of our national security for the last seven years.

I applaud his dedication to federalism issues, but I'm afraid current circumstances lead me to consider him impossible to support.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

HTML Help for Red Staters

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

She's the only person in the campaign with any Presidential experience.

Thompson headed the National Security Advisory Board for the Secretary of State from the time he left the Senate until this summer. He also helped draft the legislation for to develop the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com

I still consider it insufficient experience, I don't dilute the mans accomplishment. His record for federalism is more impressive the anyone, but we each have our own criteria for judging what is important.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

You stated that no candidate had made specific federalist proposals.

Thompson has. If you don't like him, fine, but your statement was incorrect, and when you were called on it, you got yourself worked up and stopped making sense.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

HTML Help for Red Staters

I still consider the president's performance less then stellar in regard to the growing threat from Russia, the rise of anti-Americanism in a good chunk of the world, and his handling of China and Taiwan.

I avoid the issue of Iraq because the issue itself is very private for me.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

Hey, not our fault if you can't handle keeping up a conversation that you yourself started. One that had nothing to do with Mitt Romney, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It seems that your national security issues should disqualify pretty much everybody running with the possible exception of John McCain.

Rudy responded to a crisis - he did not formulate and national security policy, nor did he even formulate much of the heightened security needed in NYC - he left office only 4 months after the attacks. He clearly has no experience dealing with Russia, or a state like Iran.

Huckabee - he would appear to have as much foreign policy and security background as W did in 2000.

Romney - another governor - I guess he did manage to organize security for the Olympics. Also has no experience starting down dictators, restless former superpowers, or threatened nuclear states.

McCain - he's at least been around foreign affairs and security issues as a Senator for a long while. Service in the military gives him some background in how things work in that area. But the Senate isn't a personal responsibility kind of place. And if you find Thompson unqualified, I can't see how you would find McCain more qualified, as his experience is the same in quality as Thompson's though greater in quantity.

I would like to know what you consider "experience in national security" that is sufficient and like enough to "qualify" one to be president.

You're correct in assuming I consider military service a prerequisite for my vote on national security, there is argument to be made that many notable leaders didn't have those qualifications and were fine commander's. I simply believe the current climate requires someone who has seen the horror of war.

Rudy did an excellent job after 9\11, but I don't consider his foreign policy experience enough.

The same goes for Mitt Romney, I believe he would be excellent on some issues important to me, but not the main one.

Mike Huckabee.. I can disqualify on his penchant for using the government to intrude on the life's of people.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

I would assume you are supporting McCain then.

I don't really subscribe to your criteria (I think they are a bit rigid and unnecessary), but the choice isn't all that bad, though McCain also has his drawbacks.

I do support John McCain, and I tend to agree that each candidate has their drawbacks. It simply a matter of which ones are important for you.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

meet your requirements then is it foreign wars or combat vets only?

Not trying to pick at you just curious about your threshold.

Who chooses to place a uniform on is elevated in my judgment, but the fact remains I was not old enough to vote for GWB during his elections, so it wasn't an issue for me.

I also disagree with his policies on many national security issues, as noted below.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

Russia- I believe the aggressive move to place missiles in Eastern Europe is a mistake. Vladimir Putin remains a popular figure for the Russian people because many seehim as the strong man needed to ensure Russia doesn't completely fall into chaos.

The Russian people themselves are sensitive to the fact of their diminished capacity on world affairs, and instead of offering them a new role as potential American ally, we've only added to their fears that the West is trying to encircle them.

Certain NATO allies are proving themselves completely unsuitable as partners, consider the restrictions placed on German troops fighting in Afghanistan? What kind of ally demands their troops remain in the safer part of the country, are these the people we expect to stand with us?

There is a significant hard line element within Russian politics gaining strength, simply because they see the West as encroaching upon them.

Putin is being forced into their arms, and that is against our interests.

Taiwan- The United States can't continue to ignore Taiwan in favor of China, the fact remains Taiwan is best chance of building a bulwark against China in the pacific area.

Either were going to confront them eventually, or were going to find ourselves stabbed in the back while our eyes are turned in another direction.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

While Putin is far from a saint, I think that the US decision to treat Russia like a defeated enemy rather than an equal partner has been very bad. And then we complain when they don't play ball with us on Iran. Does anyone really think that the Russians are going to invade Eastern Europe anytime soon?

From a desperately struggling idea that any alliances must be based on the traditional transatlantic structure. While I don't support allowing the Russians free rein in Eastern Europe, outright provocations serves no purpose.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

Freedom isn't one of them, of course. But they're far from descending into chaos. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, but high oil prices have turned things around in a big way there. Consumption is up sharply, and measurements like life expectancy have stabilized.

Adding to the Russian people's fears of the West: I'm not sure how relevant their feelings are. The regime, whose feelings do matter, are intent on gaining economic (and thus political) leverage over Europe. They're doing it too.

Russia is not a natural ally of the US by any stretch, and it would be quite a nifty piece of foreign policy to neutralize them, to say nothing of allying with them. I'd be very curious to know specifically what approach your ideal US President would take to the problem.

Taiwan and China: oh how I hate to say this, but the reality of the situation is that we will abandon our security guarantee to the Taiwanese. The timing is hard to predict, but the people doing the backstabbing will be us.

If you're suggesting that an ideal US President should reverse this course and aggressively confront the PRC over Taiwan... well, it will be great theater but I'm not sure I want to live through it.

.

Freedom isn't one of them, of course. But they're farfrom descending into chaos. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, but high oil prices have turned things around in a big way there. Consumption is up sharply, and measurements like life expectancy have stabilized.

What about the rise of hard line nationalism due to demographic changes? There is a significant dangerous tone come from some Russian youth who see their country's stature as diminished, and weakened.

There are a lot of Russians angry at the lost of their countries stage on world affairs, and that means it's easy to listen to those who will whisper sweet nothings about returning Russia to a world player.

Adding to the Russian people's fears of the West: I'm not sure how relevant their feelings are. The regime, whose feelings do matter, are intent on gaining economic (and thus political) leverage over Europe. They're doing it too.

They do matter because the people support Vladimir Putin, and that means their fears are translating into the Kremlin's policies. A country that is seeking a way to become strong again is limited by their options, and since we seem intent on forcing a conflict with them. There options are very limited, and they choose to go back to the traditional route of expanding their influence in Eastern Europe.

Russia is not a natural ally of the US by any stretch, and it would be quite a nifty piece of foreign policy to neutralize them, to say nothing of allying with them. I'd be very curious to know specifically what approach your ideal US president would take to the problem.

Our so-called natural allies are becoming more useless, either we change with times or those that do will win. I would suggest we stop treating Russia like an enemy, but instead as a friend we can do business with.

The Russians have a long conflicted history with the Chinese, and they can't be blind to the growing power of Beijing. It's in their interests to help us contain them, we have plenty of economic incentives we could be offering to.

Taiwan and China: oh how I hate to say this, but the reality of the situation is that we will abandon our security guarantee to the Taiwanese. The timing is hard to predict, but the people doing the backstabbing will be us.

That would be a mistake, it makes no sense to abandon our ally for someone who is obviously an enemy. Taiwan represents a good place to draw the line in the sand of what we will tolerate in the terms of the Chinese expanding into the Pacific in terms of influence.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

...received wisdom, well answered in other places. For my money, you're overrating the importance that the Russian people's dreams and aspirations have on the Russian leadership. I could be convinced otherwise.

Hooking up with the Russians in order to counterbalance the Chinese: interesting thought. Would you really trust them to hold up their end of a deal like that? And their intention is not only to threaten Eastern Europe, but Western Europe as well.

China and Russia FP: our relations with both nations are marked no longer by ideological conflicts but rather by geopolitical ones. You do seem to appreciate that fact, but I think you may be overstating the value (and underestimating the costs) of military confrontation in such an environment.

Abandoning Taiwan will certainly be a moment of shame for the US, that whoever is in the White House will try to cover up by saying that it was the desire of the Taiwanese themselves to reunite with their ethnic brethren on the mainland. But will it be a mistake, as you say? Hell of a question. I don't think the answer is necessarily yes. Ideological struggle is about survival, but geopolitical struggle is about balance.

they are doing a great job of consolidating power. They are doing a great job of making enough people dependent on statist largesse. They are also doing a great job of attacking enemies in the region, the former Soviet Bloc. They are also doing a great job of making natural gas a was to blackmail Europe.

the reality is China, while not benign, can be dealt with, Putin's Russia is much like 1930's Germany. NO, I do not think they will invade Western Europe, but they will never be friends or even partners.

Molon Labe!

It seems plain to me that the PRC's following the Hitler model, while Putin's just gaining power personally. That to me makes the former far more dangerous.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I have studied a lot of Russian History, the Russians have always been a people with authoritarian rulers. They are also a people who try to change things fast, and when they become dissilusioned, they revert back to extreme authortarianism.

The Chinese are a continental people, they are open to change and interaction with other ideas. The Chinese seek change over a very long period, they are not anxious people. I can not see into the future, but I would bet China looks more like Japan in 50 years than Russia looks like Germany.

Both Russia and China are strategic rivals. Yet, anyone should know that China is a very important economic partner with the US. Russia means very little to the US economically. However, they are a great threat to US interests in Europe.

Molon Labe!

Is there any evidence that Putin has had success in making Russia *capable* of winning an offensive war? We all know Russia wins on defense traditionally just by throwing bodies at the line, but even now with the population threatening to decline, that historical trend may go away.

Hitler was a threat because he was expansionistic in his goals, not just because he was a vicious dictator.

Meanwile China is open in its expansionism, is showing a strong ability to whip up nationalistic riots against designated enemies (Japan), is ramping up a corporate/state entertwined economy with select officers integrated into the Army, and of course is looking for that all-important international approval via the Olympic games.

I'm not a fan of the turn Russia's taken since Yeltsin, but I just don't see how they *can* become anywhere near the threat China will be to us anytime soon.

HTML Help for Red Staters

trust me, the gas and oil sales have translated directly towards military spending, and Russia has always had great scientists. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p04s01-woeu.html

But the real threat are nationalized Russian vital industries such as gas piplelines to Europe and oil companies. The Russians are using their control of vital resources to control political events abroad. I DO think this is expansionist, Putin is not just taking control of Russians, he wants to be an international player, and not for good reasons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/24/AR200612...

I still think Putin's Russia is becomming more and more like Hitler's Germany. There are organizations that play up the "Russian race" and attack minorities and other enemies of the state. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWOiN2rjCIYv2yQ7SXPp2YhxLMSAD8SLKMEG0

and this "Sex For the Motherland" rally is very similar to SS attempts to create a master race. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWOiN2rjCIYv2yQ7SXPp2YhxLMSAD8SLKMEG0

Molon Labe!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article...

Molon Labe!

Sure, United Russia is solidly dominant in Russian politics. Yet the political arena remains open to such cranks as Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

I think Garry Kasparov is exactly right about one thing: Putin cares most about keeping the price of oil high. The daily rhetoric is kind of a show compared to primary long-term interests. In all things, Russia will always gladly arrive at a very businesslike agreement with any other country, on any issue, and current global market conditions seem very favorable to Russian interests for decades to come, particularly in regards to natural resources.

I've noticed lately that the US media is finally starting to clarify the fact the the Bushehr nuclear reactor is in fact a separate project from the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program, centered around Natanz. The media may still might try to play up the diplomatic drama but, honestly, if a hot war between the US and Iran sends crude oil prices to $200 a barrel, I really don't think we'll hear any strong protest from Russia.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

the opposition to missle defence. At one time I believe we offered some sort of partnership to the Russians.

I'm not against missile defense, I fully support deploying a missile shield, but not at the expense of inciting Russia. It makes no strategic sense, and I'm not sure I can remember anything about offering them a partnership.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

But I seem to remember something about shared development and technology to address their fears of our development.

A while back you were complaining that President Bush hasn't done *enough* against Russia and China. Now you don't want us to take *purely defensive* steps in such fear of *inciting* them?

Is John McCain your first choice in the field, by the way?

HTML Help for Red Staters

The last I checked, pro-American leaders have been elected in several elections; Germany, France, and Canada to name a few. I trust how folks vote, not how some lefty media types "scientificly" poll.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

>>>but I've seen the result of having an inexperienced leader at the helm of our national security for the last seven years.<<<

whale.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

While a senator Fred served on the Intelligence committee. I have absolutely no qualms about the "experience" component. National Review didn't editorialize Fred this week as "Policy Fred" for nothing. The man is steeped in knowledge of foreign policy, as well. He will, in my opinion make a superior commander-in-chief. Just this week, his plan for revitalizing national defense began the revelations.

FredsGivingDay -- November 21

This video hasn't been out there. The the times Romney was questioned were from different episodes. "Pointless and idiotic" until hugh hewitt claims exactly the opposite this week.

Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com