Obama knows he's going to get slaughtered on national security

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I believe that just change of face and personality in the White House will help. Sort of like when Crowton left BYU, any warm body not named Crowton was going to help right away by simply not being his predecessor. I don't really mind Obama on foreign policy because, as I say, I think he will not do anything radical as commender in chief. I will likely vote against him for two reasons: (1) liberal jurists (2) he is perhaps the most liberal member of the senate.

Very well put. There's no way to go but up from the current administration. I also think you're correct about Obama and foreign policy--he's wise enough not to shake anything up too much.

You're second point is what I'm amazed that everyone seems to be overlooking. I'm finding all these people who are talking about voting for Obama, but who would NEVER vote for Clinton. You press them on it and they have no idea why, other than he's trendy and "shiny". This guy has the most liberal voting record in the senate. I don't have a problem with Calicoug voting for him as he obviously has liberal opinions. But Obama's got this huge voting block that have no idea why they're voting for him, and I think they'll get a rude awakening to find out that he's nothing new--it's standard Ted Kennedy liberalism.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is likely best answered by Tex. It is his offering, not mine. Tex claimed that Obama lacked any real security credentials. I asked him for 3 or 4 specific examples of national security credentials.

So far, we have, amongst others, that he was born on a military base (that one was yours. It was pretty sweet, actually), that he went to the Naval Academy about 50 years ago, that he was a pilot in Vietnam (shot down and captured, btw), and that he currently sits on an oversight committee with Liddy Dole helping to decide fair pensions for retired soldiers.

I don't see how any of this pertains specifically to our current national security threats...ie, terrorism, border patrol, and illegal immigration. Help me see it.

McCain is the Senator for a state that is one of the most notoriously LACKING in border control. Has he done anything in AZ that has helped control the tide of illegal immigrants? I think that is way more relevant than the fact that his grandfather was a soldier.

When pressed about Reagan's complete lack of national security experience, the only response seems to be, "well, Reagan was different, but I cant really explain why...."

I have no opinion on Obama's National Defense credibility, but I've got to throw in here...

To minimize the effect personal experience in the military has in one's understanding of the workings of said military, the effects of war on soldiers, and so on, is incredibly dishonest. This knowledge on the inner workings of the military cannot be underestimated in terms of National Defense.

Furthermore, while the fact that my father was a retail-store manager for 30 years doesn't qualify me as being a credentialed economist, it certainly gives me some insight into the effects of minimum wages on the operation of a business. My degree in economics, however recent, certainly does give me those credentials.

The items Tex listed are, to me, compelling reasons to trust McCain in terms of National Defense as POTUS.



IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Your best bet is the route Cali has taken. I find his arguments in this case to be far more compelling. Alternatively, pointing out the inherent fallacy in the original post would be the way I would go (specifically, that attacking someone using that person's support for an unpopular war isn't defensive in nature at all - it's an offensive tactic, and may well be effective in the anti-war community).

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Very well put. There's no way to go but up from the current administration. I also think you're correct about Obama and foreign policy--he's wise enough not to shake anything up too much.

You're second point is what I'm amazed that everyone seems to be overlooking. I'm finding all these people who are talking about voting for Obama, but who would NEVER vote for Clinton. You press them on it and they have no idea why, other than he's trendy and "shiny". This guy has the most liberal voting record in the senate. I don't have a problem with Calicoug voting for him as he obviously has liberal opinions. But Obama's got this huge voting block that have no idea why they're voting for him, and I think they'll get a rude awakening to find out that he's nothing new--it's standard Ted Kennedy liberalism.

To be fair, I think a large portion of the voting populace have no real understanding of why they're voting for the person they're voting for. I don't think the general public is as educated on the issues as they should be.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I have no opinion on Obama's National Defense credibility, but I've got to throw in here...

To minimize the effect personal experience in the military has in one's understanding of the workings of said military, the effects of war on soldiers, and so on, is incredibly dishonest. This knowledge on the inner workings of the military cannot be underestimated in terms of National Defense.

Furthermore, while the fact that my father was a retail-store manager for 30 years doesn't qualify me as being a credentialed economist, it certainly gives me some insight into the effects of minimum wages on the operation of a business. My degree in economics, however recent, certainly does give me those credentials.

The items Tex listed are, to me, compelling reasons to trust McCain in terms of National Defense as POTUS.



IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Your best bet is the route Cali has taken. I find his arguments in this case to be far more compelling. Alternatively, pointing out the inherent fallacy in the original post would be the way I would go (specifically, that attacking someone using that person's support for an unpopular war isn't defensive in nature at all - it's an offensive tactic, and may well be effective in the anti-war community).

The effects of war on soldiers? Here is the effect of war on soldiers....it traumatizes and scars them for life. Since McCain understands this, are you suggesting that he will pull everyone out of Iraq, where we are currently at war? What is the relevance of understanding the effect of war on soldiers?

The POTUS has very little, if any, contact with the military at the troop level (other than the aforementioned speeches and expensive motorcades). The POTUS stays in Washington, gets briefed by the Pentagon and his cabinet advisors, asks them what THEY think we should do, and then goes with it. Do you think the Pentagon presented GWB with a plan for invading Iraq and then Bush said...."no, I think we should flank from the left, not the right!"

I have already taken the stance that neither resume (Obama nor McCain) truly qualifies them to do ANY of the things everyone is talking about....what knowledge do either of them have of running the nation's economy? What do they know about sealing our national borders? What inside information does either man have with regards to the state of the environment? These men spend the majority of their lives in meetings and giving speeches. Everything they know is largely fed to them by someone else...they dont even write their own speeches, for cying out loud.

The only intellectual dishonesty being perpetrated here is the notion that one stuffed shirt "lacks serious credentials," while the other stuffed shirt has them.

The notion that McCain is a credible source for national defense is almost laughable. Didnt he basically finish dead last at the Naval Academy? He basically almost flunked out of school....the very place many here are proporting that he received credible training to lead up our national security efforts.

The critique that Obama has no specific plan for Iraq is fair. I get it. So what is the specific plan coming from McCain? one plan is to leave.....it is criticized for not being specific enough. The other plan simply seems to be to stay...with no real ability to provide an accurate timeline or details. Why is one plan more credible than the other.

The real issue is not to determine which person is the most "qualified." It should be to determine which person assembles the strongest overall team.

Mitt was allegedly the most qualified candidate...the brilliant strategist....yet he failed to run an effective campaign and failed to focus on key strengths....so much for his "gravitas" and "qualifications" as someone who can anticipate problems and adapt to them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Wrong. I said Reagan came with no national security credentials (that I remember, anyway). I said Obama had no gravitas or credibility.


He was, but that's not really relevant. We're talking about during the campaign.


It's relevant because though Reagan was neither a military man (though I think he did enlist; don't think he saw combat) nor a foreign affairs expert, he came across as knowledgeable and confident in his views. People trusted him on national security. The fact that Carter was such miserable failure at it only helped him further.

In other words, Reagan succeeded on the issue despite his credentials. Obama has none to begin with, his opinions shared thus far have been immature (to put it politely), and he's up against a candidate who is very strong on the issue.

I can't see how there's any similarity at all. It's like saying Obama and Reagan both liked to eat at McDonald's. Yeah, so?

Obama isn't running against Bush, a fact many libs have yet to figure out. He'll be (presumably) running against McCain.

He's weak, and his "100-year war" attack reflects that.

Do you realize how nonsensical what you just wrote was? Your argument appears to be (now) that neither Reagan nor Obama had national security credentials, but Reagan was better at convincing us that it didn't matter (because of his "gravitas and credibility" that Obama "doesn't have"). lol! Solid argument there, Tex, particularly given that the main reason given by many of his supporters (as even you have acknowledged, and then criticized, in the past, is his gravitas and credibility ("He just seems genuine and different")).

I think you will quickly find that the "experience" factor you so commonly allude to isn't going to help McCain out at all. Experience is something we look to as a predictor. It isn't a guarantee that anyone will be either good or bad at another job, particularly when that other job is so far more involved than anything any candidate is currently experienced in.

In addition to experience as a predictor, people look to statements made by candidates to determine what they will do, as well as votes on certain issues in the past (where applicable).

McCain has the unfortunate reality, politically, of being on the wrong side of the debate on whether to remain in Iraq or withdraw. The war is exceptionally unpopular, and people want to get out. McCain has no interest in getting out, and he certainly can't define for the American people how long we need to stay or what needs to be accomplished before we get out (which is what Obama is highlighting with McCain's 100 year comment- McCain doesn't have a clue what he is committing to other than an open-ended commitment).

If you think his 100 year comment hurts Obama because Obama repeats it, I think you don't understand American politics. You also clearly don't understand the reasoning behind Obama's use of the quote, particularly given your very odd insistence that it must mean, it MUST, that Obama doesn't understand foreign policy. How you even arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The POTUS has very little, if any, contact with the military at the troop level (other than the aforementioned speeches and expensive motorcades). The POTUS stays in Washington, gets briefed by the Pentagon and his cabinet advisors, asks them what THEY think we should do, and then goes with it. Do you think the Pentagon presented GWB with a plan for invading Iraq and then Bush said...."no, I think we should flank from the left, not the right!"

You really ought to stop typing. You're not helping your case.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

These men spend the majority of their lives in meetings and giving speeches. Everything they know is largely fed to them by someone else...they dont even write their own speeches, for cying out loud.

Being President is easy! Just do what you're told!

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

You really ought to stop typing. You're not helping your case.



Being President is easy! Just do what you're told!

Until you can cite something to the contrary, I have no reason to stop typing.

Being a President isnt easy--it is a lot work....travel, speeches, motorcades, debriefings, rinse, repeat. But it doesnt require any personal specialities in the areas of economics, military, environment, education, etc..

On the other hand, being Tex seem to be easy. Lob out partisan rhetoric and then hide behind empty platitudes when asked for specifics.

Being a good president is likely the hardest job in the world, I would guess.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do you realize how nonsensical what you just wrote was? Your argument appears to be (now) that neither Reagan nor Obama had national security credentials, but Reagan was better at convincing us that it didn't matter (because of his "gravitas and credibility" that Obama "doesn't have"). lol! Solid argument there, Tex.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Sums up politics, actually. Reagan was excellent at convincing people his national security approach was right, despite whatever his background was. And he was running against a weak foreign policy candidate to boot.

Obama has neither of these advantages.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you will quickly find that the "experience" factor you so commonly allude to isn't going to help McCain out at all. Experience is something we look to as a predictor. It isn't a guarantee that anyone will be either good or bad at another job, particularly when that other job is so far more involved than anything any candidate is currently experienced in.

In addition to experience as a predictor, people look to statements made by candidates to determine what they will do, as well as votes on certain issues in the past (where applicable).

More than a predictor, it goes toward the issue of judgment. Obama's given us no reason to trust his judgment on security. Reagan did. McCain is.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

McCain has the unfortunate reality, politically, of being on the wrong side of the debate on whether to remain in Iraq or withdraw. The war is exceptionally unpopular, and people want to get out. McCain has no interest in getting out, and he certainly can't define for the American people how long we need to stay or what needs to be accomplished before we get out (which is what Obama is highlighting with McCain's 100 year comment- McCain doesn't have a clue what he is committing to other than an open-ended commitment).

I agree people are weary of the war, but I don't think the cut-and-run philosophy is as popular as you think. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you think his 100 year comment hurts Obama because Obama repeats it, I think you don't understand American politics. You also clearly don't understand the reasoning behind Obama's use of the quote, particularly given your very odd insistence that it must mean, it MUST, that Obama doesn't understand foreign policy. How you even arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

It doesn't "MUST" mean he doesn't understand foreign policy. It reflects how weak he is politically on the issue. Saying McCain wants a "100-years war" is an obtuse distortion, relying on people to be uninformed and stupid.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Until you can cite something to the contrary, I have no reason to stop typing.

I have. But keep talking. You make yourself look more fringe.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Being a President isnt easy--it is a lot work....travel, speeches, motorcades, debriefings, rinse, repeat. But it doesnt require any personal specialities in the areas of economics, military, environment, education, etc..

On the other hand, being Tex seem to be easy.

You were the one saying it's just doing what you're told.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

I have. But keep talking. You make yourself look more fringe.



You were the one saying it's just doing what you're told.

You actually have not. If I missed it, apologies. My original question still stands...cite 3 or 4 specific qualifications as they pertain to National Security.

Examples: "McCain was a key component in developing our strategy for the Iraq Invasion." or "McCain was instrumental in drafting legislature in AZ that wound up decreasing illegal immigration by X percent." I can see those are legitimate and compelling credentials.

You have definitely provided generic examples, though....McCain finished almost dead last in his class at the Naval Academy, McCain's relatives were soldiers, McCain is on an oversight committee that monitors military pensions, etc..

One thing you havent addressed is whether McCain played a lot of Stratego as a kid. Maybe that also qualifies him because he has an innate ability to guess whether the opposing piece is a bomb or higher ranking officer.