Sunday, October 15, 2006

BINGJoe and Pre-Debate Musings

Play along with...

How will each candidate play in this unfamiliar format?

Will Lieberman be an attack-dog tomorrow, like he was when he debated Lamont, or the lap-dog he was when he debated Cheney? Will he try to nestle himself in between Schlesinger and Lamont or will he try and secure the Republican vote? Moving to the center without looking "waffly" might prove difficult since he has maintained his far-right position on the Iraq war and torture. Schlesinger has even insinuated that he was more "reasonable, rational hawk" than Lieberman during his interview on Hardball (transcript, YouTube).

Will Lamont try to flank Lieberman from the "right" on economic issues? or will he try to energize his progressive base with the war? or both?

Schlesinger needs to unequivocally dominate if he wants to continue.

What do you think?


GMR said...

has even insinuated that he was more "reasonable, rational hawk" than Lieberman during his interview on Hardball

I guess you should either be in it to win, or not be in at all. And if you don't think that you can win, then you probably shouldn't be in at all.

A few months ago, Schlesinger said we should reduce our troop level by half. Now, I have no idea if that's a good idea or not: I'm not a military strategist. But I'm about 100% positive that AS didn't consult with any strategists either: he just thought that would sound good, because it wasn't one extreme or the other. I just think that if we decide we're going to be there, have enough soldiers there to do the job.

One thing I'd like to hear from Lamont and Lieberman is what they think our objective should be. I don't think Lamont is for withdrawing everyone right away. But what does he think should become of the place? Does he think there's no way for Democracy to take root, and if so, should we install a strongman and retreat to relatively secure bases within the country? Or should we just go, and who gives a damn what happens there? Does Lieberman think that we'll eventually turn the tide against the insurgency? If not, then why stay? If so, what makes him think this way?

(I definitely had no problem with getting Saddam out of power, but I've heard about 20 times that there's some major development that is helping us turn the tide. Yet these things are almost instantly forgotten. We bombed that dude Al-Sadr or whatever. We got Saddam. We got his crazy sons. Yet nothing really changes).

Many Democrats seem to pay lip service to bringing the troops home, but it's not that simple. What exactly do they think will happen if we leave in 12 or 18 or 22 months or whatever?

Genghis Conn said...


TrueBlueCT said...


I love you man! Thanks for making me LMAO.

Shadow said...

> GMR - What exactly do they think will happen if we leave in 12 or 18 or 22
> months or whatever?

What will happen is an escalation of the conflict into a more bloody and chaotic civil war. It's the same thing that would happen if we left two years ago, and the same thing that will happen if we leave five years from now. That was actually the chief argument against attempting regime change in Iraq long before we went in there, but everyone was afraid to air that point of view in the media in 2002 because of the powerful propoganda machine that called anyone who did so un-American. But the reasoning was common sense was understood not only by Colin Powell ("you break it, you buy it") but James Baker over a decade earlier.

The question is do we gain more by having that chaos start now by beginning gradual withdrawal immediately, or do we let more US soldiers die, more anti-US sentiment fester, and more terrorists get recruited, and face even greater chaos in a few years we when do eventually withdraw.

Stretchy McStretch said...

The idea of Schlesinger "unequivocally" dominating is positively hysterical. Matthews has made him look like a moron every time he's gone on Hardball.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope that they make the cue cards big enough so Ned does not look so bug eyed when he scrambles for a clue.

Anonymous said...

If you missed the Lieberman attack dog or lap dog debate video link above (linked from the word "or"), here it is.

justavoter said...

Lets put it this way Lieberman will be attacked big time by Schlesinger on alot of issues.

Connecticut Republicans will finally have a chance to see him debate and show Republicans that they have a chocie and they do not need to waste a vote on Lieberman.

Don't count out Schlesinger I don't believe he will win ,but I do believe he will take away votes from Lieberman who has been counting on Connecticut Republicans big time.

I also see the Green Party Cadidate going after Lieberman aswell.

Lieberman will have problems in this debate.

Lamont is ready and I cannot wait to see him go on the attack with Lieberman on the issues.

It will not be a good debate night for Lieberman no matter which way he turns his head.

Shadow said...

I agree, the worst thing to happen when you're holding together a coalition of voters is a pincer attack.

Joe's only hope not to lose the election in this debate is talking to the right of Schlesinger, yet in a tone as friendly and nice as Cheney lapdog mode. This will be an incredibly difficult duality to maintain, and even maintaining it successfully comes at the risk of seeming disengenuous to the audience. But he has no choice; he can't be Democrat Joe because most of his voters are Republicans, he can't seem like a condescending entitled politician like in the first debate or he risks losing the independents and minority of democrats he has left, and there is no center position on the Iraq issue in an election becoming perceived as a national up or down vote on the war.

> I also see the Green Party Cadidate going after Lieberman as well.

Really, I did not realize Ralph Ferrucci was going to be debating today, I just thought it was going to be the three leading candidates. If true, that actually may be worse news for Lamont, as Ferrucci's whole campaign is in protest of Lamont not speaking out fervently enough against Israel when it has been involved in rogue behavior.

Although I strongly agree with Mr. Ferrucci in this principle, I disagree with his timing. If I was Ned Lamont running for Senate, and I wanted to change our asinine Israel policy that is has been the chief catalyst for terrorist recruitment for over half a century, the one time I wouldn't bring it up is when trying to make history unseating my own party's recent Vice Presidential candidate, who also happens to be the most powerful Jewish politican in the country. Lieberman is just BEGGING for that opening, as evidenced in speeches he's already given and in a recent Courant article in his support, both ALREADY criticizing Lamont as being anti-Israel, and that's without any justification; Lamont would be a fool to bring up our foreign policy towards Israel now, as it's the only thing that could be twisted by negative campagning into him losing this race, meaning he wouldn't be able to do anything about changing our Israel policy at all.

My idealogy is echoed in Mr. Ferrucci's words, but my pragmatism regarding achieving that idealogy is better reflected in Mr. Lamont's timing.

GMR said...

our asinine Israel policy that is has been the chief catalyst for terrorist recruitment for over half a century

No, the chief catalyst for terrorism against the United States has been that we do not subscribe to their whacked out view of Islam. We don't make women wear burkhas, we don't execute our homosexuals, we let our women into the workplace, and our economy has been successful. Even if we threw Israel to the wolves, they'd still hate us. Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 hijackers were doing that because of our policy towards Israel?

Anonymous said...

AlQaeda's mission against the United States is driven by what the United States has done and does in the Middle East not what the United States does in the United States.

Anonymous said...

If you believe that then your a fool, it amazes me how so many people believe we are the cause of the problems in the middle east.

These fundalMENTAList will stop at nothing until we are all practicing Islam.

They killed a nun for godsake over a cartoon. They rioted because the Pope quoted a passage from an old book.

People don't wake up and say today we hate the US or today we hate France. These people are taught at a very young age to Hate and to hate everyone.

Liberals preach tolerance unfortunatly you have a much to narrow veiw of the world. Do you think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if GORE won....absolutly it would have.

Amercans politicans have lost there threatens are very way of life.

Shadow said...

GMR - The 9/11 hijackers all formed their geopolitical views in a culture that already had years of resentment against what they perceived as an outside annexation of Muslim land and ongoing occupation and oppression of Muslims. But for the fact that we gave away land in the Middle East that we didn't own in 1948, that perception would not exist. Whether you agree the creation of Israel in Palestine was right or wrong, that's how people there feel, and that's the culture they came out of and the culture we have to deal with. Does that make the 9/11 hijackers any less guilty, vile, or murderous? No. But we need to understand our enemies if we are to defeat them.

You are absolutely right about the oppression in Islamist countries, and the rejection of Western ideals and society by their government and religious conservatives. However, the very nature of this phenomenon is insular; their best route of keeping technology and modern civilization out is closing their doors and keeping to themselves, not on initiating some cockamamie scheme to convert the West. The only reason the West became a target was because it had such a physical and political presence in the Middle East; keep in mind, Bin Laden cited US troops in Saudia Arabia as one of his chief inspirations to attack us.

You want to suggest that even if there had been no creation of Israel, no $3 billion dollar annual paycheck to them from us along with nuclear technology, no US troops all over the Middle East in the last fifty years, no US support of the Shah against Mossadegh, no US support of Saddam Hussein against Khomeni, and no other dumb US foreign policy blunders in the region, that everything would still be exactly the same; the intolerance towards us would be at the same level, and young, poor Muslims in insular communities who have no interest in Western culture would be dying to come half way around the world to convert and/or destroy us. Now think that logic over, is there any evidence or reasoning to back that up?

> Even if we threw Israel to the wolves, they'd still hate us.

Exactly right, the terrorists would still hate us even if we threw Israel to the wolves or otherwise attempted to appease them, and anyone who disputes that is nieve.

The real battle here is not to convince the terrorists to sit down, talk, and accept daisies from us in peace; we need to blow their heads off before they kill us first.

The real battle here is for the hearts and minds of over a billion Muslims, most of whom are reasonable people, just like anywhere else; we can win if they see this as civilization vs. anarchy, but right now we are LOSING. Every time the US is seen as supporting Israeli rogue behavior, or spends another bloody year in Iraq, the claims of American imperialism and anti-Islamic prejudice sound justified to those people, and the terrorists start looking like the lesser of two evils.

Also, just like anywhere else, the Middle East is a political spectrum; every time the US villifies itself in the eyes of the region, all the people shift one notch down that spectrum. With each time time we validate the terrorist caricature of us, those Muslims who support us strongly lose their fervor, those who support us mildly become neutral, those neutral become sympathetic to terrorists, and those sympathetic to terrorists become vulnerable to recruitment.

We have to stop this slide and reverse it, not by re-enforcing Bin Laden's "JudaoChristian vs. Muslim" view of the war as we have been, but by consistently stressing the pluralism of our nation, and speaking about the historical danger of ALL religious fundamentalism in politics; the fact in all democratic and non-democratic societies past and present, religious extremists, despite being a minority, attempt to hijack complete political control from the majority of more reasonable and moderate people.

We must set an example; if we, as a country with over two centuries of dramatic tradition, cannot stop religious fundamentalists from influencing our politics and reinforcing terrorist-creating policies, what hope do countries with far fewer resources and no democratic traditon have in suppressing their religious extremists from engaging in terrorism?

Anonymous said...

the anonymous at 10:48 has an apparent problem with reading comprehension or just a pat answer for everything.

justavoter said...

Ralph Ferrucci will be in the next debate on channel 3.

Sorry about the error .

He is being leftout of the the last debate which the day newspaper and channel 8 are sponsoring.

The Greens would do good to go after Lieberman and his failed voting record.

Anonymous said...

the Green Party another bunch of Liberal Wackos!!!!!!Just as bad if not worse than Lamont and the Loser Liberals behind him.

GO Lieberman!!!!!!!