[Still] The President of these here United States of America

[LittleCupcakes]

Entirely flippant, yes, and you are correct of course in that no Republican can bear to be out-hawked by a Democrat even if the Democrat is as hawkish as The Big O.

The implication of my remark is that, regardless of the vote cast, when it comes to issues of war, Obama gives us much the same results that McCain would have (Romney/Ryan AND Obama/Biden will do similarly), but that when Obama is President the wars, etc suddenly seem less newsworthy, more trivial.

If there had been no new wars, I'd emphatically agree that a character matter would be a dispositive factor. BUT, BO has gotten us involved on new fronts, has wielded American might in places in which we hadn't been militarily involved before (recently at least) and that indicates the character content is not as strong with The One Who Slowed The Rise Of The Oceans as we might want to believe. Are these more thoughtful wars (Libya, Yemen, Somalia), even if the consequences for those people on the receiving end of our might are the same as those resulting from less than thoughtful deliberations?

If Romney might sing along with Bomb Iran, then analogously (and rather aptly, I think) Obama merely hums, but just how different is that? We're still killing them, new wars or old, perceived character notwithstanding.

[philipchevron]

Entirely flippant, yes, and you are correct of course in that no Republican can bear to be out-hawked by a Democrat even if the Democrat is as hawkish as The Big O.

The implication of my remark is that, regardless of the vote cast, when it comes to issues of war, Obama gives us much the same results that McCain would have (Romney/Ryan AND Obama/Biden will do similarly), but that when Obama is President the wars, etc suddenly seem less newsworthy, more trivial.

If there had been no new wars, I'd emphatically agree that a character matter would be a dispositive factor. BUT, BO has gotten us involved on new fronts, has wielded American might in places in which we hadn't been militarily involved before (recently at least) and that indicates the character content is not as strong with The One Who Slowed The Rise Of The Oceans as we might want to believe. Are these more thoughtful wars (Libya, Yemen, Somalia), even if the consequences for those people on the receiving end of our might are the same as those resulting from less than thoughtful deliberations?

If Romney might sing along with Bomb Iran, then analogously (and rather aptly, I think) Obama merely hums, but just how different is that? We're still killing them, new wars or old, perceived character notwithstanding.

I'm not so sure the wars are less newsworthy although, as ever, that depends on the source of the news. Rachel Maddow devoted half her show last night to the failed Afghan Surge, for example, and there are many on the Right who would view that as counterintuitive of a liberal station 40 days out from a key election. But media does not exist in a vacuum, it responds to what it thinks people want to know. It gets this wrong most of the time, and you'll have to help them out there. But there is a quantative difference between the Bush wars and the Obama wars. As you know, I have already agreed it doesn't make much difference who's hitting you if you're the person being hit. but the Bush wars were unmistakably rooted in a last gasp ideology, proposed by the self-confessed imperialism of NeoCons of the Project for the New American Century. They were explicitly about American Exceptionalism, about America's footprint in the world. If this is also true of the Obama wars, why are so many of Bush's NeoCon advisers currently shaping what passes for foreign policy in the Romney campaign?

[Clash Cadillac]

Nice to see the Fascist and Communist communicating again.

[DzM]

I have missed these conversations. Just a FYI.

[Sportin' Life]

I have missed these conversations. Just a FYI.

But Rich seems to be gone, and what fun is it if everyone agrees all the time?

[DzM]

I have missed these conversations. Just a FYI.

But Rich seems to be gone, and what fun is it if everyone agrees all the time?

Like I said, I've missed 'em.

[LittleCupcakes]

Entirely flippant, yes, and you are correct of course in that no Republican can bear to be out-hawked by a Democrat even if the Democrat is as hawkish as The Big O.

The implication of my remark is that, regardless of the vote cast, when it comes to issues of war, Obama gives us much the same results that McCain would have (Romney/Ryan AND Obama/Biden will do similarly), but that when Obama is President the wars, etc suddenly seem less newsworthy, more trivial.

If there had been no new wars, I'd emphatically agree that a character matter would be a dispositive factor. BUT, BO has gotten us involved on new fronts, has wielded American might in places in which we hadn't been militarily involved before (recently at least) and that indicates the character content is not as strong with The One Who Slowed The Rise Of The Oceans as we might want to believe. Are these more thoughtful wars (Libya, Yemen, Somalia), even if the consequences for those people on the receiving end of our might are the same as those resulting from less than thoughtful deliberations?

If Romney might sing along with Bomb Iran, then analogously (and rather aptly, I think) Obama merely hums, but just how different is that? We're still killing them, new wars or old, perceived character notwithstanding.

I'm not so sure the wars are less newsworthy although, as ever, that depends on the source of the news. Rachel Maddow devoted half her show last night to the failed Afghan Surge, for example, and there are many on the Right who would view that as counterintuitive of a liberal station 40 days out from a key election. But media does not exist in a vacuum, it responds to what it thinks people want to know. It gets this wrong most of the time, and you'll have to help them out there. But there is a quantative difference between the Bush wars and the Obama wars. As you know, I have already agreed it doesn't make much difference who's hitting you if you're the person being hit. but the Bush wars were unmistakably rooted in a last gasp ideology, proposed by the self-confessed imperialism of NeoCons of the Project for the New American Century. They were explicitly about American Exceptionalism, about America's footprint in the world. If this is also true of the Obama wars, why are so many of Bush's NeoCon advisers currently shaping what passes for foreign policy in the Romney campaign?

I won't delve into the depths of mainstream American media's coverage of the Race and the many Wars, and here I mean the ostensibly "neutral" news programs, rather than opinion shows like Maddow or comedy shows like Stewart. Suffice to say, it seems fairly clear to one who strives to see both sides that Obama is treated much more gently than Romney is and especially as Bush was (it is difficult to see how an argument can be made against this contention), but considering the subjective nature of the interpretation, an argument on this point is unnecessary and distracting. The contention is that much like Medusa's Politics and World Events forum, mainstream news coverage is an echo chamber for those of a more liberal persuasion, and the views common to those folks seem mainstream since these folks don't actually know people who might have opposite, sincerely held views, and any attempt at neutrality is necessarily tinged by the effect of this misapprehension on the part of the reporters (see Tim Groseclose).

Both Obama's and the opponents' wars in fact spring from the same well of American Exceptionalism, just viewed differently: Obama believes, and the Republicans believe, that the USA is uniquely situated in having the ability to alter the course of world events (we are) and that therefore we must in fact intervene, and to use our position to advance the ends of truth, justice, and the American way, in whichever way the Leader interprets those terms. To one, it's imperialism, and to others it's helping those struggling to be free, but either way, we CAN so we DO leave a footprint. The military is a powerful tool in the hands of one man, and few can resist the power that entails.

As to your question (you answered already), the foreign policy team of Romney/Bush/McCain (I see no real differences here) wants to use American power to spread the uniquely American ideals, which are clearly (said for rhetorical effect) superior. Likewise, Obama wants the USA seen as a helper, a prodder, a doer of good deeds, because his view of the power of the USA demands it, in just the same way.

[LittleCupcakes]

Nice to see the Fascist and Communist communicating again.

My fault:)

[Frances]

Debate, debate, debate!!!

Makes you wanna kick over a Romney yard sign to celebrate.

[Frances]

What the hell is happening?
Did CNN's John King really just say that the President "got spanked?"

<3 James Carville.

Sweet Jesus! Good Lord! Somebody give Jim some milk and cookies and send him to bed. Bless his heart. ~Wanda Sykes

[LittleCupcakes]

It's as if the mainstream press is treating Obama gingerly, instead of subjecting His administration to a greater scrutiny appropriate to the one in power.

ACLU reports warrantless wiretapping (so-called "trap and trace" and "pen register", time and correspondents recorded, not content) had a 60% increase since the beginning of our current President's administration. The New York Times won a Pulitzer for "exposing" this practice in the Bush years.

But no news so far in the NY Times about The One Who Cooled The Earth and his vigorous use of the same procedures.

No, Romney will be no better, and neither will (I expect), The Times.

[NewJerseyRich]

Nice to see everyone mourning the ass whoopin Romney laid on BO.

[DzM]

Hey! It's NJR! Happy birthday a few weeks back. Stick around.

[NewJerseyRich]

Hey! It's NJR! Happy birthday a few weeks back. Stick around.

Thank you Bossman, Life's been a bit insane this year and I do miss the raft. I'll be 'round for sure.

[Frances]

Nice to see everyone mourning the ass whoopin Romney laid on BO.

It was not good. If you let a pod-person tree man dripping in Max Factor appear to best you, yeah, that sucks.

I don't know what kind of out-of-body experience the President was having. Even his personal comments at the start crashed and burned. It was not the night for husband and wife discussion, though Romney getting caught on camera rolling his eyes at it amused me.

Fuck Mitt Romney. He will never be President.

I did somehow miss Romney calling the President bro, did that actually happen? I did see the President say crap though. What the hell.