The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Go listen to The Bugle from Times Online.

[scaeagles]

Tuesday and Wednesday of next week are going to be very, very interesting.

The special election to fill the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by Ted Kennedy is Tuesday, and the spin starts on Wednesday.

There is a real chance that the dems lose the seat. Brown (the republican) has huge momentum, going from down 31 two months ago to up four in polls yesterday.

If Brown wins, I cannot WAIT to hear the spin that comes from the democrat party. It will have to be mighty creative. Even if Brown loses and it is close, that has to signal some significant danger to the dems for November 2010.

And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone.

It sounds to me like she said something slightly different. She supported going into Afghanistan when we were targeting al Qaeda. Now that al Qaeda has moved elsewhere (according to her), she is all for pursuing them to wherever they have run. She never said Afghanistan is terrorist-free. I don't know if she's right about al Qaeda, but I agree that they should have been our focus for a long long time now. (They are the ones who actually attacked us.)

I don't have an opinion about what we should do in Afghanistan. I don't know if they want the Taliban removed. I don't know what our chances of success there are, or even what success there means. So, I can't comment on that end of the equation. But I do remember a brief time when the whole world was united against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and I often wonder why we are still so far away from finishing that initial fight.

The unending rhetorical battle about the "War On Terror" is a useless one, with limitless empty phrases easily hurled at whoever you don't agree with. It also seems to cast everyone in a harsh binary all-good or all-bad way that just doesn't lead to much reason or understanding.

And on the other matter, is there any response from the dems that would not seem like spin to you, sca? (And really, if your side wins, will you really care? Don't you WANT dems to say and do dumb things? Heaven knows the dems had no end of joy watching repubs in the aftermath of the last election. It's not noble or grand, but it's unavoidable.) Also, I don't get the predictive criticism. Why demonize your opponent in advance? Why not wait until they actually do something?

[scaeagles]

What in there was demonizing the opponent? Politics is spin and both sides do it.

She said:

"I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

She is either saying that terrorists aren't there anymore or that the Taliban isn't there anymore. While the Taliban may not be in power, they are definitely still there.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Every intelligence report has said that there are fewer than 100 active Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and NONE of the Al Qaeda leadership. They've moved on to Pakistan and other places. Obama mentioned it several times in his speech about the troops increase. The generals on the ground have mentioned it. To try to paint it as if she is talking about anything other than that fact, which no one has disputed is a fact, is being utterly obtuse.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What in there was demonizing the opponent? Politics is spin and both sides do it.

Undoubtedly, but you have made a point of saying that the dems will spin if they lose. What would constitute non-spin in your mind? Who knows? Maybe they will be gracious. (And by they, I mean her opponent and his staff, those actively in the race - what other pundits and commentators do is less important - and you are right - spin is their product.) I have seen democrats and republicans lose gracefully and concede without vituperation before. What do you gain by predicting they won't? (If you were just predicting that the media will spin, I retract my comments - of course they will, both sides, but who cares?)

And as GD said, Coakley's comments, in full, seemed clear to me to be about al Qaeda. If that is what she meant, I agree with her. If what she meant was your interpretation, yes, that's inane. I'm pretty sure she isn't that dumb.

[flippyshark]

On a reread, I may have mistaken your post. I thought you meant Brown would spin, which I find fairly unlikely, actually. (at least, not on Wednesday.) Losers usually wait a while before saying much. You seem to be talking more about widespread party spin - I assume you mean that a dem loss would spark lots of "Hey, we're not really in trouble" response. Sure, that's probably true. and there are significant risks for democrats this year. Absolutely. (Oh, how my hard core liberal friends would deride my conciliatory tone )

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What in there was demonizing the opponent? Politics is spin and both sides do it.

She said:

"I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

She is either saying that terrorists aren't there anymore or that the Taliban isn't there anymore. While the Taliban may not be in power, they are definitely still there.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Every intelligence report has said that there are fewer than 100 active Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and NONE of the Al Qaeda leadership. They've moved on to Pakistan and other places. Obama mentioned it several times in his speech about the troops increase. The generals on the ground have mentioned it. To try to paint it as if she is talking about anything other than that fact, which no one has disputed is a fact, is being utterly obtuse.

I knew this felt familiar.

what's old is new

Another case of ignoring the months and months of context that lead up to a statement so you can interpret it in the worst light possible.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone.

She may be an idiot. I know next to nothing about her.

But it is hard to see such a statement being all that harmful. It is, after all, the mainstream argument for opposition to expanding or continuing indefinitely the war in Afghanistan.

The argument being that hardly any of the terrorists we were initially after remain in Afghanistan and that to a large extent the terrorists that are now there are almost entirely engaging in terrorism because we are still there.

I disagree with it on balance (I don't disagree with the assessment but rather the result of pulling out) but it hardly strikes me as an unreasonable position to hold.

[scaeagles]

Even though I am not a baseball fan, at least I know Curt Schilling is not a Yankee's fan, as accused of being by Coakley as he was campaigning for Brown. not important, but humorous.

But you have to love Ed Schultz of MSNBC encouraging voter fraud.

Originally Posted by Ed Schultz

I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.