Yes, we can.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think he is naive and dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, and I think Biden is no genious there either (for example, Obama opposed the surge and still denies it was a success, and Biden wanted to split the country into three parts). I do believe he is at heart a socialist. I believe he wants bigger government. I beleive he will gut the military budget. The thought of most important decisions being made by the triumverate of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama scares the crap out of me.

That's just the quick stuff.

Speaking strictly to the part about dividing Iraq into 3 parts... if he means along ethnic lines, there are some very solid historical arguments behind doing so. Many of the civil wars of the last century resulted from redrawing national borders along politically-expedient, rather than culturally-rational lines. I'm okay with that.

There is little that can be said about bigger gov't because I haven't seen a "small government" candidate from either party in a very long time. The Patriot Act certainly wasn't a small-gov't move.

[BarTopDancer]

McCain's foreign policy and potential 8 more years of causing trouble in the Middle East (instead of figuring out how to get our troops home) and pissing off the few allies we have left scare me far more than Obama's lack of experience. I don't think the surge worked. I don't think the war did much other than to completely destabilize the ME and make us a lot more hated and vulnerable. We had the sympathy of almost the entire world after 9/11. We had backing and support to go into Afghanistan. And what's going on there now? Still haven't found bin Laden, still haven't found WMDs, the Taliban is still alive and well. And the majority of the world hates us. Bush fvcked up big time, and I don't think McCain would be willing to do anything to improve that situation. McCain's foreign policy 'experience' = at least 4 more years of Bush.

Leo really needs to talk to the prez of my company. They can panic about teh "socialism" Obama will bring to this country together.

[scaeagles]

Oh - and other specific tax spolicies, WB, including the death tax and captial gains taxes are majorly problematic to me.

As far as the military.....Barney Frank said he wants to cut the military budget by 25%. Frank carries a lot of influence. That may not be Obama, per se, but I don't see Obama vetoing a budget that reduces military spending.

BTD, there are so many things in your post (though not all) I disagree with, but we've hashed over them before....I just didn't want silence to be considered acquiesence.

[wendybeth]

I wasn't aware we were electing Barney Frank.


I'm sorry, but many of the reasons you cite strike me as reaching. I can't help but think you simply don't like the man, and are striving for justification. If you don't like him, fine- I don't know that I could vote for someone I disliked intensely. So many of the things you are worried about are really decided by Congress and the Senate- Obama would have very little control over such things.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think Obama has said that surge didn't work when "work" is defined as meeting goals within Iraq. What he's said (and said to Patraeus's face) is that the surge did not support the overall picture of preventing terrorism and protecting American interests. Obama's argument is not that we can't win in Iraq or that the strategies currently employed in Iraq (now that Bush is bothering to listen to his generals) aren't effective. His argument is that Iraq is not the be all and end all of military priority and that our resources are better spent elsewhere. And those currently running things seem to be agreeing with that assessment as they've moved their best man, Patraeus, into a position where he is focusing on Afghanistan more than Iraq.

From accounts of his meeting with Patraeus:

"You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.

source

[Alex]

You have him on the capital gains tax, but his proposals on the "death tax" significantly reduce their impact on any estates smaller than some very large number (I'm thinking $8 million but I haven't looked it up again to confirm).

[scaeagles]

I can gaurantee you McCain would not vote for a budget that reduced military spending by 25%.

It's not that I don't like Obama as a person - I've said before that he seems like a decent man. I admit a lot of it is distrust of the democrat party and what has typically been the agenda of the democrat party - such as reduction in military spending, lax control of the borders, whatever.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I can gaurantee you McCain would not vote for a budget that reduced military spending by 25%.

Why would that automaticly be a bad thing? For example: If we could eliminate wastefull spending, and still keep up our readiness, why would it be bad to do so?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...what has typically been the agenda of the democrat party - such as reduction in military spending, lax control of the borders, whatever.

And the Republican White House has done such a superb job with that these last eight years...

[wendybeth]

Well, there are reports that illegal immigration is down and some illegals have headed back to Mexico in search of jobs. Weird, eh? Since it's the horrid economy that is causing this change, I wonder if the Repubs will take credit?

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Well, there are reports that illegal immigration is down and some illegals have headed back to Mexico in search of jobs. Weird, eh? Since it's the horrid economy that is causing this change, I wonder if the Repubs will take credit?

And as soon as the economey gets better they will get back.

We were studying this in my [horrible, awful] policy class. Until the reasons for illegal immigration are resolved (no jobs in their home countries, deplorable working and living conditions, corrupt government and military, etc...) illegal immigrants will find their way in. They will climb a larger wall, dig a deeper hole or swim longer distances. Employers will go further underground to employ (and exploit) illegal workers. It won't stop, neither president can stop it, though Obama has acknowledged the issue goes deeper than securing our boarders.