Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

Huntsman never received this kind of coverage.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61922.html

So really, Plinko meant "the guy who just got massive TV coverage," not "the newcomer."

 

[RustyNails]

Would you, in general, expect the newcomer into a race to immediately be in the lead by a significant margin? And if so, why didn't it work for Huntsman?

A newcomer making a splash in the polls is variably related to the exposure factor he or she has in the media. Huntsman has very low media exposure, and so does Ron Paul. For example, the Palin bump in 2008 elections. McCain-Palin team surged ahead of Obama-Biden for a few days as soon as Palin was announced as the VP pick.

 

[mckmas8808]

Perry was one of the first politicians to really understand the Tea Party and he's planning on riding them to the nomination. After that, I suspect he'll ditch them like an ugly prom date and try working the independents.

Question: Do you expect independents to be that forgetful after Perry rides the back of the tea party for 8 straight months? In this day in age, I can't see the media not calling him out if he tries to distance himself from the tea party and just go for independents.

 

[besada]

Question: Do you expect independents to be that forgetful after Perry rides the back of the tea party for 8 straight months? In this day in age, I can't see the media not calling him out if he tries to distance himself from the tea party and just go for independents.

Shit, I hope not. But you know the old saying: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

In fact, I said much earlier that he'll find it much harder to walk back from crazytown on the national stage than he has in Texas because the national media isn't anything like the state media, most of which is decidedly conservative, and many of whom are simply scared of the power he wields in Texas.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Perry is still a sitting governor and he can't escape his Texan core constituency. He will still have to pander to them the whole time.

The mainstream Republicans know this and that's why they will encourage the voters to flock to the candidate that's the most electable (Romney). Even if that doesn't work, there will be poll after poll that will show Romney faring better than Perry in a H2H with Obama. The point will be received.

 

[jamesinclair]

All tese candidates have these hype bubbles that burst.

Next
Trump
Crazylady
Perry

They get media exposure, they fuck up, someone new comes in, and theyre forgotten.


Romney just sits back and lols, as does Paul.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Perry didn't take anything from Bachmann or Romney. His whole surge has come from former Pawlenty supporters. Romney and especially Bachmann appeal to a niche group and have a hard time breaking through to others. Romney might lose further support if NY's Pataki gets in. Perry is definitely picking up a nice piece of the pie.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Perry didn't take anything from Bachmann or Romney. His whole surge has come from former Pawlenty supporters. Romney and especially Bachmann appeal to a niche group and have a hard time breaking through to others. Romney might lose further support if NY's Pataki gets in. Perry is definitely picking up a nice piece of the pie.

I hadn't realized such things existed.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Perry didn't take anything from Bachmann or Romney. His whole surge has come from former Pawlenty supporters. Romney and especially Bachmann appeal to a niche group and have a hard time breaking through to others. Romney might lose further support if NY's Pataki gets in. Perry is definitely picking up a nice piece of the pie.

You mean Pawlenty's 4-6%? Nah. Bachman's support has dropped significantly since the straw poll. Only two major things can attribute to that: her debate performance and Perry entering the race. Likewise, the Gallup poll shows Romney's support falling

 

[besada]

I hadn't realized such things existed.

Yeah, I'm not sure how one gets double-digits ahead of the pack by cannibalizing the votes of a guy who couldn't get double-digits at all.

 

[Plinko]

Would you, in general, expect the newcomer into a race to immediately be in the lead by a significant margin? And if so, why didn't it work for Huntsman?

Apparently this has been answered already numerous times. Guess I'm late on the draw today. Probably why I didn't end up with a HP Touchpad

 

[TacticalFox88]

I predict ZERO media coverage on this.

For all the braying by the Senate’s top three hawks about how the U.S. wasn’t doing enough to oust Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi from power, one might be surprised to learn that exactly two years ago, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Tripoli meeting with the erratic leader and giving him assurances that relations between the nations were on the mend.

According to a leaked August 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks recounting the Senators’ junket, the neoconservative Connecticut Senator captured the dynamic of aligning with a brutal dictator:

Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.

Qaddafi’s history as a top enemy of the U.S. stretched back decades, but his change of heart came quickly after the U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretense of Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction. Hawks seized on Libya’s détente with the West as a sign that Bush’s tough actions in Iraq were having a ripple effect, though patently not, as Iraq War boosters had predicted, with regard to democratic reforms. “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qaddafi,” said Lieberman, according to the leaked cable.
The three Senate hawks discussed in detail the Qaddafi regime’s security needs with Libyas National Security Adviser, Qaddafi’s son Muatassim. According to the cable:

5.(C) Senator McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its [a Libyan security program]. He stated that he understood Libya’s requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C130s [a transport plane] and pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome.

At another point, McCain and Graham reiterated pledges to push to fulfill the Qaddafi regime requests at the Pentagon and on the Hill:

Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the U.S. interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship and pledged to try to resolve the C130 issue with Congress and Defense Secretary Gates.
But 18 months later, Qaddafi reacted to mass protests by mobilizing his military, bringing down international condemnation and, in just a few short weeks, a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. The U.S. and it’s allies in NATO and elsewhere rained down bombs to hold Qaddafi’s forces at bay as rebels organized a coherent opposition council. As the rebels went on the offensive, Western and allied bombers lent them air support with surveillance and tactical bombings.

When suddenly — as if Qaddafi’s repression had emerged from out of the blue — McCain and his clique returned to their perches as the staunchest advocates of U.S. military action in Liyba, taking to the airwaves to lament the U.S.’s mere three-week delay to build international consensus and calling for arming the Libyan rebels.

Just as the political winds around Qaddafi seemed to determine the senators’ stand — for him when it was convenient as a win for the Bush administration, and against him when the uprising began and in the month it took to rally the Security Council — McCain and Graham took a curious political shot at Obama just as Qaddafi’s regime crumbled. In a statement, they thanked everyone but the U.S.

Starting with the Libyans themselves, they went on to
also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.

One wonders if August 2009 was too soon to press Qaddafi on the well-being of his people: there’s no hint of democratic reforms, or indeed the Libyan people, in the WikiLeaks cable.

Just WOW

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's leading in IA and WI

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

By a pretty decent amount too.

No but he's gonna lose because Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are the pinnacle of popularity and American voters never make a distinction of "lesser of two evils"

 

[jamesinclair]

Wow, I just noticed I derailed not one, but two ToxicAdam threads. So what's more to blame, the fisher who launches the bait thread, or the octopus that takes the bait?

 

[RustyNails]

Glenn Beck's Israel rally stuff:

But political and religious leaders from “around the world” will be enjoying U.S. taxpayer subsidized — through non-taxable charitable contributions — travel to the rally. The travel will be paid for by WallBuilders, an organization founded by David Barton, a pseudo-historian and frequent Glenn Beck guest. Barton has a history of anti-gay and anti-Muslim rhetoric, has spoken at events sponsored by anti-Semitic organizations, and promotes a revisionist history of the U.S. claiming that the “Church-state separation is a liberal myth.”

 

[Particle Physicist]

Apparently this has been answered already numerous times. Guess I'm late on the draw today. Probably why I didn't end up with a HP Touchpad

I'm usually the one late to the draw. I open tabs, to read later, respond to posts only to find out that a bunch of people have basically said what I've said and the conversation has already moved on. lol

 

[Particle Physicist]

Glenn Beck's Israel rally stuff:

The organization is called WallBuilders? :O



EDIT

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

Blacks' Dilemma with Obama
Election of our nation's first black president is delivering an unexpected message to our black population. Blacks are discovering that what a man or woman does -- their actions -- is what matters, not the color of their skin. It seems ridiculous to point out that this was supposedly the point of the civil rights movement. Purge racism from America. But blacks themselves have been the ones having the hardest time letting it go. It is not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States.............

:O

 

[gcubed]

Obama's leading in IA and WI

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

By a pretty decent amount too.

No but he's gonna lose because Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are the pinnacle of popularity and American voters never make a distinction of "lesser of two evils"

anything under 50% is iffy. Over 50 is solid... looks mostly solid

 

[Jackson50]

I predict ZERO media coverage on this.

Just WOW

Not to defend those particular senators, but they are not the only officials to support Qaddafi. The Obama Administration is also culpable. Of course, Libya was pursuing rapprochement with the West. Nearly everyone supported improved bilateral relations.

If you win the independent vote, isn't that enough to win the election?

No. If Republicans are energized and/or Democrats are enervated, Obama could lose the election while winning independents. This is a distinct possibility in close elections.

 

[Dude Abides]

Obama's leading in IA and WI

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

By a pretty decent amount too.

No but he's gonna lose because Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are the pinnacle of popularity and American voters never make a distinction of "lesser of two evils"

You're setting yourself up for another worst day of your life.

 

[Oblivion]

I hadn't realized such things existed.

:lol Seriously. Dunno what he's talking about.

Also, has that douchebag Grover Norquist said anything about the payroll tax hike yet? Would love to see the spin.

 

[empty vessel]

Not to defend those particular senators, but they are not the only officials to support Qaddafi. The Obama Administration is also culpable. Of course, Libya was pursuing rapprochement with the West. Nearly everyone supported improved bilateral relations.

Nobody in power anywhere cares about dictators until narratives are manufactured providing political reasons to care. This is universal. Those narratives are often constructed to advance certain agendas.

 

[gcubed]

When liberals start thinking your the best choice in the republican primary its time to bail out.

Romney is getting the kiss of death

 

[RustyNails]

:O

That is absolutely outrageous. So glad I didn't google them to read their diarrhea.

 

[TacticalFox88]

:O

Wow...they don't know what it's like being black do they?

 

[Chichikov]

Not to defend those particular senators, but they are not the only officials to support Qaddafi. The Obama Administration is also culpable. Of course, Libya was pursuing rapprochement with the West. Nearly everyone supported improved bilateral relations.

If you think they acted appropriately then it's fine.
If like me, you believe that such policies are disastrous not only the middle east but to the US as well, then we need to start holding people who promote them accountable.

There's a lot of things that senators are afraid to do because of public reaction.
I suggest we add "help a murderous dictators" to that list.

 

[RustyNails]

Nobody in power anywhere cares about dictators until narratives are manufactured providing political reasons to care. This is universal. Those narratives are often constructed to advance certain agendas.

Serious question: do you believe in just intervention? What about responsibility to protect charter?

 

[Jackson50]

If you think they acted appropriately then it's fine.
If like me, you believe that such policies are disastrous not only the middle east but to the US as well, then we need to start holding people who promote them accountable.

There's a lot of things that senators are afraid to do because of public reaction.
I suggest we add "help a murderous dictators" to that list.

I am not opposed to holding them accountable. And I was not defending them. Nevertheless, if you hold them accountable, you should hold all actors accountable. Democrats also pursued improved relations with Qaddafi.

Nobody in power anywhere cares about dictators until narratives are manufactured providing political reasons to care. This is universal. Those narratives are often constructed to advance certain agendas.

Unless you are Jimmy Carter.

 

[Cubsfan23]

Not to defend those particular senators, but they are not the only officials to support Qaddafi. The Obama Administration is also culpable. Of course, Libya was pursuing rapprochement with the West. Nearly everyone supported improved bilateral relations. No. If Republicans are energized and/or Democrats are enervated, Obama could lose the election while winning independents. This is a distinct possibility in close elections.

impossible for Obama to lose if he has the independents, along with the dominating margins he has with hispanics and blacks.

 

[Jackson50]

impossible for Obama to lose if he has the independents, along with the dominating margins he has with hispanics and blacks.

The margins may be irrelevant if the groups are not energized. Moreover, the margin, at least with Hispanics, will not be as dominating if the economy remains anemic.

 

[Chichikov]

I am not opposed to holding them accountable. And I was not defending them. Nevertheless, if you hold them accountable, you should hold all actors accountable. Democrats also pursued improved relations with Qaddafi.

I have not problems with holding more people responsible, but I refuse to accept that unless we're hold everyone than we shouldn't even try.

I don't give a shit about fairness toward senators.
I care about affecting change.

Senators know that talking against Israel is bad for their career so they don't do it.
If they knew that brokering weapon deals with dictator is going to come and bite them in the ass, they might change their ways.

 

[mckmas8808]

I predict ZERO media coverage on this.


Just WOW

Man that's crazy. And they were the ones that said we didn't get rid of Qaddafi quick enough. Why does that even matter? And what does leading from behind even mean?

 

[Jackson50]

I have not problems with holding more people responsible, but I refuse to accept that unless we're hold everyone than we shouldn't even try.

I don't give a shit about fairness toward senators.
I care about affecting change.

Senators know that talking against Israel is bad for their career so they don't do it.
If they knew that brokering weapon deals with dictator is going to come and bite them in the ass, they might change their ways.

Well, I was not implying you should not even try. Honestly, I am helping you. The more actors held accountable, the more change effected.

 

[Cyan]

Apparently this has been answered already numerous times. Guess I'm late on the draw today. Probably why I didn't end up with a HP Touchpad

Next time, baby!

 

[RustyNails]

And what does leading from behind even mean?

Leading from behind = some other country is dropping bombs instead of 'Merka. In all seriousness, these neocons wanted US to play a decidedly more prominent role in the conflict, instead of a supportive role. Cost and burden-sharing are meaningless terms for these folks.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

obama administration told_senators not to discuss lockerbie bomber with qaddafi
Just before his release, McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) visited Libya to meet with Muammar al-Qaddafi, but were advised by the U.S. embassy in Tripoli not to raise the Megrahi issue because it could become an irritant in the newly restored U.S.-Libya relationship.

"We do not expect the issue to be raised during your visit, but if it is, we believe the most helpful response would be to note that this is an issue for the Scottish Executive and that it would not be constructive to discuss the case as a bilateral issue,"

Simply appalling.

At least Lieberman and McCain had the balls to ignore the Obama administration and press the issue.

As Politico noted today, McCain and Lieberman totally ignored the embassy's advice and raised the Megrahi issue early and often with both Qaddafi and his son Muatassim, as an Aug. 14, 2009, diplomatic cable sent from Tripoli embassy reported.

 

[mckmas8808]

Leading from behind = some other country is dropping bombs instead of 'Merka. In all seriousness, these neocons wanted US to play a decidedly more prominent role in the conflict, instead of a supportive role. Cost and burden-sharing are meaningless terms for these folks.

But these are the same folks that keep telling us that we can AFFORD new rail, green energy, social programs, etc. Ugh!

 

[Oblivion]

In other news, seems Steve Benen hates me. I recommended him an article, which he posted and discussed today, and he didn't even give me credit like he does to his other contributors.

Not to be petty or anything, but I hope his kids get cancer.

 

[reggieandTFE]

And here we have another example of why I will not be voting for Obama again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...a-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233633-schneiderman-removed-from-mortgage-deal-committee

The short of it? His Justice department is leaning on the NY Attorney General to stop investigating the banks and their "securitization" policies that defrauded investors. The administration supports a settlement that lets all the banks off the hook for a measly $20 billion. However, if any of the attorney generals opposes it, it won't go through.

 

[reggieandTFE]

obama administration told_senators not to discuss lockerbie bomber with qaddafi
Just before his release, McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) visited Libya to meet with Muammar al-Qaddafi, but were advised by the U.S. embassy in Tripoli not to raise the Megrahi issue because it could become an irritant in the newly restored U.S.-Libya relationship.

"We do not expect the issue to be raised during your visit, but if it is, we believe the most helpful response would be to note that this is an issue for the Scottish Executive and that it would not be constructive to discuss the case as a bilateral issue,"

Simply appalling.

At least Lieberman and McCain had the balls to ignore the Obama administration and press the issue.

They also had the balls to try to help get Qaddafi more weapons...

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html

Senator McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its TRIPOLI 00000677 002.2 OF 002 security. He stated that he understood Libya's requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C130s (ref D) and pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome. He described the bilateral military relationship as strong and pointed to Libyan officer training at U.S. Command, Staff, and War colleges as some of the best programs for Libyan military participation.

 

[Oblivion]

Krugman doubling down on the crazy.

Knew that didn't sound like Krugman.

 

[empty vessel]

Serious question: do you believe in just intervention? What about responsibility to protect charter?

I believe every situation requires its own assessment. I do not believe that intervention can never be justified, and I think serious crimes like genocide may support it. But I do not trust those in power--who are in the business of constructing narratives to manufacture consent for whatever they want to do, and have done so many, many times--to tell me when those conditions are met.

I believe my moral culpability is far higher for giving my assent to my country's use of organized military force to inflict harm on others erroneously (or without sufficient warrant) than it is for me to do nothing in the face of somebody else's violence. In other words, I err on the side of lower moral culpability and responsibility.

As you can probably surmise, I do not believe the narrative that was constructed for Lybia. (That is not an assertion, mind you, that the narrative is wrong in every or even some aspect, but I am inherently skeptical of such narratives supporting the use of force, all the more so when the target country is an oil-rich one that has historically (last several decades) exercised independence from the Western economic order.)

 

[PhoenixDark]

And here we have another example of why I will not be voting for Obama again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...a-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233633-schneiderman-removed-from-mortgage-deal-committee

The short of it? His Justice department is leaning on the NY Attorney General to stop investigating the banks and their "securitization" policies that defrauded investors. The administration supports a settlement that lets all the banks off the hook for a measly $20 billion. However, if any of the attorney generals opposes it, it won't go through.

Pathetic. Gotta raise that billion dollar war chest

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/24/glenn-beck-empty-jerusalem-rally

Apparently the only people who showed up where Tea Partiers and Christian Zionists from America.

Lots of empty seats so apparently it's was like vintage WCW.

 

[Byakuya769]

You get hacked by somedude or something?

Why is this a joke? Just look at history. Separation has to come.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

They also had the balls to try to help get Qaddafi more weapons...

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html

If you think a few senators can make these deals without administration approval you's crazy.

 

[Tamanon]

If you think a few senators can make these deals without administration approval you's crazy.

Considering they went against the administration on another directive in the same meetings, I don't see why they couldn't.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Considering they went against the administration on another directive in the same meetings, I don't see why they couldn't.

They aren't Oliver North.

 

[Byakuya769]

So senators can ignore the advice of the administration on one hand, but cannot try to initiate an arms deal..

Yea ok.

 

[Piecake]

They aren't Oliver North.

Yea, the Reagan administration totally didnt know anything about that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_(politician)#Soviet-Afghan_war

Seems like he didnt need administration approval to get weapons to a faction in another country