Let's Talk About the Issues, People

[Sanchez]

Nah, I think those plugs are flame retardant.

In all seriousness (sarcastic meter off), I have never really believed people care about "the issues." I know people say that they do, but if you ask a probing question or two, the knowledge level is pretty thin. Most people cast partisan votes, or pick the guy (or gal) they "like," "feel good about," "seems most presidential" (largely based on appearances), etc. It's really a gut-level decision. Few people, I think, actually study a candidate's platform. If one of the networks did a prime time show on "the issues," it would get creamed in the ratings by "Survivor," "Law & Order," and whichever celebrity Oprah is interviewing. The debates will get viewers, but that's because it's a "contest," like football, and we all want to be able to be Monday morning quarterbacks.

And before you think that's a cynical take, I'll add that I believe most people are simply content and satisfied, and therefore mostly unengaged from the political process except for fulfilling their duty to cast a vote — which, again, will be a largely partisan vote. The lack of the public's engagement in the process, I think, as well as our focus on "drama" over the issues in the campaigns speaks to the largely comfortable existence American life provides. We're having dinner, going to the movies, shopping at the mall, and watching TV. Politics just can't compete with all that…leisure.

That's just my take. (And, yes, I know that some people aren't prospering in this American life, but most are.)

Agreed. But I think many on a political forum like this have a heightened sense of awareness - or at least want to learn more.

Let's face facts - these great plans the candidates have (taxes, health care etc) will never see the light of day in their proposed format. I agree that discussing specifics is overrated. For me, it comes down to leadership abilities. I doubt we will see complete government controlled health care and I doubt we will see a ban on abortions

 

[Island_Lauri]

I'm up for that discussion. But I'll say right at the onset of the debate, I don't favor a plan to end the war in Iraq. I favor a plan to win the war in Iraq.

And what about Afghanistan? Do we continue to ignore how that is going? Things have gone from bad to worst there.


"Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers Wednesday that the U.S. isn't winning the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan, and added: "We cannot kill our way to victory."

A top Pentagon official conceded Wednesday that coalition forces are not winning the battle against an increasingly deadly insurgency in Afghanistan, adding that the U.S. would revise its strategy for the region to include militant safe havens in neighboring Pakistan.

"I'm not convinced we are winning in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. The testimony came nearly seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled Afghanistan's former Taliban regime following the Sept. 11 attacks."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26642415/

 

[LuvDuke]

I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan are going to end up democracies as we know them. Democracy to them means "majority rules" and that majority in Iraq is Shia. As far as Afghanistan, I think it's still too tribal to even consider hoping for a limited democracy as Iraq.

 

[Took]

Actually, I am completely grateful for the Palin hysteria. It has opened the window on a number of realities about Barack Obama — and the modern democrat party — as well as the partisan wasteland that is the Washington elite press corps. All the discussion in the world wouldn't have convinced tens of thousands of voters that Obama is just a typical politician who will change nothing and will continue the partisan hatred that has plagued Washington since the democrats lost 2 close elections and became consumed with moveon.org-style hate. Few wanted to believe he was being shepherded into the highest office in the country by a shameless media unwilling to show us who he really is. Now, the vast majority of American voters understand how utterly contemptuous the democrat party really is of the "regular folks" it purports to serve, not to mention their horrific disdain for women which we had a glimpse of with Hillary Clinton's candidacy, but see in its full ugly scale now. This is good information for voters to have.

AND this is discussing ISSUES how?????

 

[Sanchez]

I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan are going to end up democracies as we know them. Democracy to them means "majority rules" and that majority in Iraq is Shia. As far as Afghanistan, I think it's still too tribal to even consider hoping for a limited democracy as Iraq.

Agreed. And if our definition of "win" equals creation of democracies then our situation is hopeless.

So what is a "win?" To some a win is the immediate withdraw of all troops. To others it is leaving those countries with some stability and the ability to police themselves.

 

[Fawkes]

And sadly, I don't think that elections are really won on the issues. I mean, if things go the way of the last two presidential election the only people's whose votes are really going to matter are some moderate folks in Ohio and some moderate folks in Florida. My guess is that the reason that there's so much crap out there is because it's the crap that is going to sway those voters one way or the other.

Sorry to be a downer.

I agree that elections are not always won on the issues. Take people on the go. Are they really listening to the news to see what the latest politician said about anything current? No. All they see is a magazine in the store with Barack on the cover blasting Palin in a "sexist remark". They don't really know what's going on. All they see is Barack is a mean nasty guy for going after Sarah like that.

 

[Christine]

I agree that elections are not always won on the issues. Take people on the go. Are they really listening to the news to see what the latest politician said about anything current? No. All they see is a magazine in the store with Barack on the cover blasting Palin in a "sexist remark". They don't really know what's going on. All they see is Barack is a mean nasty guy for going after Sarah like that.

Yep, that's exactly what my husband thought tonight. He doesn't do any further research then what is thrust in front of his face. I'm not sure who he is voting for this year, but it bugs me that he keeps getting pulled by this media crap.

 

[Fawkes]

The media stuff is getting really annoying.

 

[mickeysgal]

The media stuff is getting really annoying.

We live in a realtity TV/American Idol type of world filled with glitz and glammor but no real substance. Media hype is the only thing people seem to pay attention to. Maybe we should start texting in our votes.

 

[Fawkes]

We live in a realtity TV/American Idol type of world filled with glitz and glammor but no real substance. Media hype is the only thing people seem to pay attention to. Maybe we should start texting in our votes.

That would do the trick!!!

 

[bsnyder]

And what about Afghanistan? Do we continue to ignore how that is going? Things have gone from bad to worst there.


"Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers Wednesday that the U.S. isn't winning the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan, and added: "We cannot kill our way to victory."

A top Pentagon official conceded Wednesday that coalition forces are not winning the battle against an increasingly deadly insurgency in Afghanistan, adding that the U.S. would revise its strategy for the region to include militant safe havens in neighboring Pakistan.

"I'm not convinced we are winning in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. The testimony came nearly seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled Afghanistan's former Taliban regime following the Sept. 11 attacks."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26642415/

I agree that Afghanistan is a problem. In fact, I've said all along that in the long term, it's a much bigger problem than Iraq. Afghanistan is the stone age, compared to Iraq. We will have a military presence there for quite some time.

However, I don't think we're "ignoring" it. We may not have all the resources we need there at present, but we can tread water without dire consquences until we can redeploy some strategic forces. Massive ground troops aren't going to be the answer in Afghanistan.

 

[mickeysgal]

That would do the trick!!!

Can you imagine?

 

[Fawkes]

Can you imagine?

Okay, this is what I'm envisioning. A woman drops her kid off at school. She's going to work. She takes out her cell phone. She texts who she's gonna vote for on the way to work.

Same goes for the men.

 

[LuvDuke]

Agreed. And if our definition of "win" equals creation of democracies then our situation is hopeless.

So what is a "win?" To some a win is the immediate withdraw of all troops. To others it is leaving those countries with some stability and the ability to police themselves.

Honestly, I think Iraq is headed for civil war no matter how long we're there. As soon as we're out, the revenge starts. The occupation hasn't undone 1300 years of history.

IMO, The best we can hope for is creating a situation by which the penalty for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack is so high it discourages the attack. And still no guarantees.

If it happens again, we'll survive and go on. We can't live in fear of what some nut is going to do.

 

[Fawkes]

Honestly, I think Iraq is headed for civil war no matter how long we're there. As soon as we're out, the revenge starts. The occupation hasn't undone 1300 years of history.

IMO, The best we can hope for is creating a situation by which the penalty for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack is so high it discourages the attack. And still no guarantees.

If it happens again, we'll survive and go on. We can't live in fear of what some nut is going to do.

I really agree with you. I don't think we're ever going to make huge sucsess in Iraq big enough to have democracy there. The most we can possibly do is to try and ensure our country is safe. We can't have our sole focus be in Iraq. That's just asking for trouble. We need to keep America safe.

 

[Sanchez]

Honestly, I think Iraq is headed for civil war no matter how long we're there. As soon as we're out, the revenge starts. The occupation hasn't undone 1300 years of history.

IMO, The best we can hope for is creating a situation by which the penalty for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack is so high it discourages the attack. And still no guarantees.

If it happens again, we'll survive and go on. We can't live in fear of what some nut is going to do.

History would prove you correct. The practical issue is the politically prudent exit from Iraq. Senator McCain has claimed that he will remain in Iraq for 100 years, but I cannot imagine that he can keep significant troop numbers there for long. The public will not permit this and troubles in other parts of the world would not permit this. If he is president, would a Democratic Congress block continued funding of the war? The cynical view is that Congress has continued funding to keep the Iraq issue for the election. Would they turn around and halt funding? McCain could simply declare the objectives met - but then he runs the risk of looking bad if/when Iraq lapses into chaos. I think that McCain would come out best if the Dems were to block funding and then get blamed for the chaos.

Obama has claimed a more immediate reduction in troop strength. Seems like his best course is to work with Congress on a rapid but "responsible" (as perceived by the public) reduction. He still runs the risk being blamed for "losing" the war and any resulting chaos.

Cynical - I am. But the method of ending the war will be fought like many other political battles - can we save face by blaming the other side?

 

[bsnyder]

History would prove you correct. The practical issue is the politically prudent exit from Iraq. Senator McCain has claimed that he will remain in Iraq for 100 years, but I cannot imagine that he can keep significant troop numbers there for long. The public will not permit this and troubles in other parts of the world would not permit this. If he is president, would a Democratic Congress block continued funding of the war? The cynical view is that Congress has continued funding to keep the Iraq issue for the election. Would they turn around and halt funding? McCain could simply declare the objectives met - but then he runs the risk of looking bad if/when Iraq lapses into chaos. I think that McCain would come out best if the Dems were to block funding and then get blamed for the chaos.

Obama has claimed a more immediate reduction in troop strength. Seems like his best course is to work with Congress on a rapid but "responsible" (as perceived by the public) reduction. He still runs the risk being blamed for "losing" the war and any resulting chaos.

Cynical - I am. But the method of ending the war will be fought like many other political battles - can we save face by blaming the other side?

Wow. Cynical is right. These are the kind of thoughts I imagine some folks have, about the war, but they rarely admit to it. I grudgingly admire your honesty.

 

[Sanchez]

Bet - I will admit my lack of faith and admire your optimism regarding wanting to win. I just have a hard time understanding how we can win any more than we already have. When should we leave?

 

[duckfan78]

I would love to get to the issues. I seriously have no idea what BO stands for except for full withdrawl in Iraq and raising taxes. I would love for everyone to talk about issues.

 

[Tigger Woods]

I think the debates will help. The candidates will have no choice but to talk about issues.