Hmmm…. McCain/Liberman ticket….

Have to say. I’d like that, and it’d be just about unbeatable.

7 Comments

  1. I don’t think there are _that_ many pro-war voters in the US — at least, not enough for them to be “unbeatable.” These are two of the few people left trying to defend our activities in Iraq, at a time when Bush’s War is increasingly unpopular. That would be very tough to run on.

  2. You’re right, it does alienate them from some folk, but I don’t sure that would be a kill topic in all demographics.

  3. Well, no — there’s always going to be a pro-war crowd to play to. The question is, how big is that group? At this point, while we are fighting a very unpopular and off-the-books war, my guess that the group’s size is small — perhaps historically so. And if people ever find out how much this war is really costing us, that number might get even smaller.

  4. @ alice

    It’s never as simple as pro-war/anti-war.* The voting population is an amalgam of views and motivators.

    I hope I’m neither ignorant nor flippant about what costs there are. The physical and emotional capital spent is heavy and I’m positive the families whose sons and daughters know exactly how much this war is costing them. As far as the monetary cost… we’re essentially all being forced to buy imaginary war bonds – which we may or may not be able to cash in.

    I was for the military action because I knew the people in southern Iraq. They were horribly oppressed by Saddam’s rule and daily feared for their lives. I don’t regret supporting his disposal and I believe Iraq will be better for it. How much more should we pay for this? I’m not sure. Since we initially funded Saddam and helped him become who he was – perhaps we’re now repaying on a debt we owe the Iraqi people.

    Who folks will vote for come next election will in part depend on how these chain of events have effected them, how they wish they had transpired and what they believe should be done now. Unfortunately some will chose to remain ignorant and apathetic – letting a party or single stance sway them.

    In my day to day discussions with folk I don’t see evidence of the national will to support only those who are “anti-war,” but I could be ignorant and you may be right in what you say.

    ————–

    * as an aside, I find the anti-war semantics interesting. They’re reminiscent of Pro-Life/Pro-Choice – supposing that those in opposition of the stance are Pro-Death or Pro-Control or Anti-Life or Anti-Choice… Is someone who supports finishing the military operation Pro-War?

  5. While we’re weighing the cost of the Iraq war, let’s not forget that while Bush has been fulfilling Cheney’s pet project in Iraq, he’s been ignoring North Korea altogether and he has really dropped the ball in Afghanistan. If we were faced with a real threat from another country, our military would be hard-pressed to respond, especially on a long-term basis.

    As far as how we’re paying for the financial costs of the war, I don’t think war bonds are a good analogy, because no one has gotten anything in exchange for the money spent (no certificates have been issued) — and for good reason, because we haven’t actually paid the bill yet. This war has been financed outside of the nation’s budget and is being financed with foreign debt. A better analogy would be that we’re are taking out a credit card in your kids’ names and charging a bunch of stuff on the card. When they’re old enough, we’ll turn the credit card statements over to them, and they will be responsible for making the payments on the debt we built up with our war spending.

    I agree that it is not as simple as being pro-war or anti-war. But McCain and Lieberman are both politicians with a “shoot first question later” approach to foreign policy. It’s been a long time since this country put any serious effort into diplomacy, and I doubt things would change much in a McCain and/or Lieberman administration. I think there are other candidates for president who are far more likely to exhaust other options before resorting to war (which I admit is occasionally necessary).

    BTW, speaking of anti-war voters, even though I don’t really like either candidate, one thing that would be interesting about a Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul race would be watching the anti-war democrats trying to figure out who to vote for! ;-D

  6. Well fortunately, Mr. Washington set the tone for our country by only serving two terms. So whether demon or saint a president’s reign can only have so much impact (excusing Mr. Roosevelt).

    I still like my bond analogy (especially since I came up with it :) ) and I did try to hedge my analogical bet by saying “which we may or may not be able to cash in.” We invest through our government each day. Each tax dollar is an investment as is each notch up with inflation. History determines whether or not it was wise or foolish. I hope that this one will be of benefit to all involved.

    I’d agree that both McCain and Lieberman are on the hawkish side of things (for clarification neither of them really fit my style) but collectively they can appear like a level headed ticket. My initial post was intended to be a look at the current political waters – seeing a semi-likely tandem that might catch the imagination of the voters.

    Fortunately for me I went through my utopian and cynical political stages a few years back. Thinking too highly and lowly of the whole process and coming to some semblance of a center ground since. I’m not a Bush disciple, but I not in the “burn him at the stake” camp either.

    I’ve come to trust the natural ebb and flow that seems to happen with parties and policies – but I wonder sometimes if there are ever “mid-tide” moments.

    I feel a rambling tangent coming on… time to stop.

    Off to sing now.

    Peace on Earth, good will to men.

  7. Oh, yes! And joy to the world! :-D

    Blessings!


Post a Comment

*
*