Sunday, 31 August 2008

Just The Ticket?

Since all you neocons out there cannot support any ticket with either Obama or the Buchananite Palin on it, is it time for a third party or an Independent candidate from your stable?

Who, exactly?

And why, exactly?

Good luck...

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you think I'm a neocon (signed the Euston manifesto, vote Labour, like Oliver Kamm's blog, supported the Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq wars). But I'm supporting Obama, and I very much hope he wins. Maybe I'm not a neocon, or maybe you just don't understand much about how other people form preferences.

David Lindsay said...

I am delighted, in a way, to find anyone who still admits that they did support the Iraq War. Over on Harry's Place, in particular, they now react as if their maiden honour had been impugned if I suggest that they ever did.

Anonymous said...

OK, whatever. But I hope you now accept that it's possible for people to support Obama while having supported the Iraq war.

If it weren't, of course, then Obama wouldn't have a hope of getting elected.

David Lindsay said...

"it's possible for people to support Obama while having supported the Iraq war"

Of course.

"If it weren't, of course, then Obama wouldn't have a hope of getting elected"

Rubbish. It's now almost as unpopular there and it has always been here.

Anonymous said...

When the war started, it was overwhelmingly popular in America. Many people have changed their minds since, but they really did support it at the time. Even lots of Democratic senators voted for it - a symptom of the fact that the wider public did too. I have no doubt those senators are all supporting Obama now.

David Lindsay said...

You've made your point.

If they really still supported the war even now, then they wouldn't be backing Obama. Nor would you.

Anonymous said...

"You've made your point."

Yes. I was right, and you were wrong - as suggested by the fact that you're no longer attempting to argue against it.

"If they really still supported the war even now, then they wouldn't be backing Obama. Nor would you."

Why on earth not? We can believe that Obama was mistaken about whether a decision taken in 2003 was correct, while believing that overall, Obama is the best candidate to be President from 2009 onwards.

Ali said...

Not true. Only if the war was a dealbreaker for their vote.

I'm not crazy about Obama's education plan, for example. But I still hope he wins, because overall he's a better candidadate than McCain. Many Democratic senators and voters may support the war but its not the most important issue for them.

David Lindsay said...

What, you can believe that he was wrong about the most recent war that America started, a war which is still going on, and yet also believe that he is the right man to be President? No, you can't.

Anonymous said...

"What, you can believe that he was wrong about the most recent war that America started, a war which is still going on, and yet also believe that he is the right man to be President? No, you can't."

Yes, of course it's possible. People vote for the person they think is the best candidate overall. In every election, most voters disagree with at least some of every candidate's/party's views. You have to weigh the issues you think are most important, and vote accordingly. There is never a perfect candidate or a perfect party.

In this election, I'd vote for Obama. In the last one, for what it's worth, I'd have voted for Kerry.

David Lindsay said...

"Not true. Only if the war was a dealbreaker for their vote."

How could it not be?

"But I still hope he wins, because overall he's a better candidadate than McCain."

That's more like it, and perfectly sensible.

ali said...

Well thanks, I'm perfectly sensible. But I also thought the war was the right thing to do at the time.

How could the war not be a dealbreaker? Because it just isn't. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. The fact it would be for you does not logically preclude it not being for someone else.

David Lindsay said...

"People vote for the person they think is the best candidate overall. In every election, most voters disagree with at least some of every candidate's/party's views. You have to weigh the issues you think are most important, and vote accordingly. There is never a perfect candidate or a perfect party."

Indeed there isn't. But waging wars is one of the very few things that a President of the United States can actually do.

Yes, Obama is better than McCain, who is dependent on Robert Kagan and all that mob where foreign policy is concerned.

And no, he wouldn't actually veto, say, universal health care. But he cannot actuallybring it about it, either. That is for Congress.

Just as, for example, abortion is for the Supreme Court, on appointments to which the Senate has the final say, as most recently illustrated when it demanded Sam Alito even though Bush wanted Harriet Myers.

I'm all for Obama, but President of the United States is not really all *that* much of a job. More powerful than any other single individual in America, certainly. More powerful than any other single individual in the world, arguably. But not Master of the Universe. Not even Master of the American Domestic Policy Agenda.

Anonymous said...

Cheers for the American Political Systems 101, David. The fact remains that Obama will never be President in 2003, so his opinion on the Iraq war then is less important than the decisions he would take from 2009 onwards. I think he'd make better foreign policy decisions than McCain would. So I'd vote for him.

David Lindsay said...

"his opinion on the Iraq war then is less important than the decisions he would take from 2009 onwards"

It gives a cricial insight into what those decisions would be. Thank God.

And, of course, the Iraq War is still going on. I think we all know what should be his first "decision from 2009 onwards" there.

Ælfhere said...

Whaaaat? Mrs Palin is a Buchananite? Now I've heard everything!

Or is that just Lindsay's way of saying he likes her?

David Lindsay said...

You need to get out more on the blogosphere. Buzzing with it. Harry's Place is incandescent, which is always a good sign.

Anonymous said...

You'd be a better blogger, David, if you linked much more when you made claims about what other blogs are talking about. That way they might link to you too.

David Lindsay said...

I can't imagine Harry's Place ever linking to me!

Anonymous said...

You should write them another article.

David Lindsay said...

Gladly.

They know where I am.

Anonymous said...

When you wrote them an article before, they linked to you. When they wrote a number of posts about you, they linked to you.

David Lindsay said...

Yes?

Anonymous said...

I see that today's nutter has turned up. He is the why don't you link to Harry's Place nutter. Yesterday we had the Hutton told the truth and settled the matter nutter. Miliband-loving nutters seem to turn up from time to time. Who will be tomorrow's nutter?

David Lindsay said...

I can hardly contain my anticipation.

Now, back on topic, everybody.

Anonymous said...

"I see that today's nutter has turned up. He is the why don't you link to Harry's Place nutter. Yesterday we had the Hutton told the truth and settled the matter nutter. Miliband-loving nutters seem to turn up from time to time. Who will be tomorrow's nutter?"

Quite. But you know, I wouldn't be surprised if they were all the same person - someone who wants to make it look as if David has far more readers than he really does. I reckon the number of commenters is far smaller than it appears.

David Lindsay said...

Anonymous commentators could all be the same person, I suppose. Certainly, those who are remorselessly hositile to something different on here every day might be. One wouldn't wish to imagine that person, mind you.

Now, back on topic.

Anonymous said...

Your refusal to publish perfectly civil comments which you can't answer only diminishes you, David.

David Lindsay said...

I'm sure it would.