mattp

Apart from whether we could live with a single less warhead, Fairweather, what do you think the election said - if anything - about Americans' feelings about our military preparedness? McCain certainly expressed a lot less interest in diplomacy and a tougher rhetorical stance on terrorism but didn't he also at least in a vague way stand for a bigger military than Obama? I don't think reducing our nuclear arsenal is very high on Obama's list of priorities at the moment and I can't imagine him taking any unilateral step toward disarmament except as some kind of efficiency or modernization effort but don't you think he could win points with voters if he at least once in a while says that there are too many nuclear weapons in this world and we should consider dusting off some of the old arms control agreements taht Bush and Co. sought to set aside?

Can you not consider or acknowledge that we might have more nuclear weapons than we could possibly need? I didn't call you any name in my prior post but referred to your same question about Obama. On the other hand, you certainly are some kind of extremist (you pick the flavor) if you cannot fathom the possibility that we could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal even a tiny bit of if you suggest that any talk of pursuing disarmament is the path of a moron. Once again: do you see in this election ANY shift in American politics or is it just politics as usual? The fact that Obama won overwhelmingly with young voters and hispanics, two growing populations, any cause for concern?

Oh. And nuclear weapons? Only a complete moron would think we need them all. You are not a moron, are you?

I don't quite understand all of that Fairweather (is he proposing to take over your 401k or purge the officer corps - whatever that means?) but I'm wondering what you think the election says about your prior estimation of American politics? Do you think this was just a normal election cycle or are we going to see a significant change either in the level of partisan gamesmanship or in the overall political wind?

There has been a lot of talk about whether or not Obama's election represents a mandate. My distinct impression is that the American public has voted FOR healthcare and AGAINST character-attack campaign tactics, but I'm less clear on how we've voted on taxes, foreign policy, and "social" issues. Thoughts? Do you guys who predicted republican landslides for President and Governor have reason to re-evaluate where you think the "center" lies? Or you, who say the Democrats are sellouts to "the middle," any real reason to think they will shift more toward your liking?

I read it the same way Bug did. But I think J_B had a good point. I don't think Obama will be fully in charge of this. And, if he is, I think he'd be out on his ass like Jimmy Carter if he tried an immediate about face.

That was TVash' point yesterday, Doug: after the last 30 years of Reaganomics and the last 7 years of the "war on terror," a moderate set of economic and foreign policies is going to represent a big step left. I AM hoping for a giant leap in our political dialog because I believe our government should work with our allies and abandon the "with us or against" us approach and I think we should scrap the notion that corporate welfare is good but social programs are bad. I also think we should start actually trying to do something about global warming and energy independence. But in terms of actual policy implementation and political pragmatism I don't think the Democrats can pull the plug on Iraq, discontinue all farm subsidies, and mandate solar and wind power for domestic electricity.

I agree. I've already said I don't expect Obama and the Democrats to take a big leap left and it'd be a good thing if Obama can deliver on his promise to be a uniter not a divider but it will require the Republican party to decide not to try to undermine everything he tries to do. In a paradoxical sort of way, the power of "the most liberal member of the Senate" may actually be lessened if Congress can find a way to get back to doing the people's work. If the Republicans decide to play nice they may well strengthen their hand not only in terms of winning power in the short term but they may also figure out how to be a stronger party in the next election cycle.

Yup. Despite the sludge coming from the RNC and repeated by our own KK here on cc.com, Fox news says the selection of Rahm Emanuel is not a sign that Obama wants to be Hitler: rise to the occasion video So does Lindsey Graham: ABC News article I think Emanuel's been quoted as saying the Democrats should not push for dramatic healthcare reform, too. I hope Obama hasn't chosen him for his policy positions but more for his broadly recognized skill for being pragmatic and getting people to fall in line.

Just for grins, I just searched google looking for president-elect Bush's first press conference in 2000. It looks as if it was given by Cheney. CNN

Welcome back, KK.

That's the scathing attack I'd expect from you, KK. Been listening to KVI? Some of your friends over at American Prospect don't see it the same way. Ezra Klein

Really, Bill. I think Bug is right: the article you linked said that Emanuel was on the board for just over a year and specifically noted that he expressed concern about Freddie Mac and has NOT been said to have been responsible for or involved in the mess. Was he irrespnsible as a board member? Maybe, but that single article sure doesn't say so. For someone who spent the last several days demanding links to back up "statements of opinion," you aren't showing much critical thought here. Having said that, I agree with your general skepticism. I don't much appreciate the vicious and in my opinion irresponsible attacks from the right who seem to be trying to undermine Obama before he even gets started but on the other hand I believe that those who expect Obama to change the world are going to be disappointed. I'm afraid he is going to maintain most of Washington just as it is and, indeed, we WILL continue to see the fox guarding the hen house when it comes to the economy.

Allstate and Farmers are both notorious for denying valid claims and obnoxious litigation practices. The plaintiff's attorneys have special workshops about how to deal with them and the judges hate 'em because of their scortched earth litigation tactics. Insurance companies in general seem to really suck. Besides USAA, what other companies may be better than average if you actually have to file a claim?

Is that the Mariacher? I bought a pair of those in Andermatt, Switzerland. I still have 'em in my basement somewhere. Good solid and comfortable shoes!

Let me know when you figure out that you are not god's gift to humanity just because you signed up for the military. You deserve to be proud of your choices; suggesting that anybody who doesn't make the same choices as you has and will not make any difference in this world is weak.

Let me know when you win the war, huh?

Hey big man: I am in awe. I bow to your obvious superiority.

Do you read the papers or watch the news at all?

This is one area where I hope Obama takes dramatic action. In doing so, he might alienate quite a few wacko's but I think he could show, at little real cost and with even less downside, that things are going to be a little different now.

I agree with you that the problems with bad guys in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not going to go away easily, Bill, but I am less than hopeful that Obama or anybody else including Alkatete here can "solve" the problem.

I agree with you 100% here, Prole, but at the same time I would add that I hope the Democrats don't overreach. It'd be great if they could enact national healthcare, cut back our military operations around the world, put Bush and his buddies in jail, and do all those other great things we'd like to see but if they try to go too far in this direction all at once I think we'd see them voted out of Congress in two years and out of the White House in four. Just as much as the Republicans, the Democrats need to redefine themselves. I hope they have in Obama a leader who will help with this and I hope that they'll grow a bit more confident with their rising political fortunes but more than take a big leap to the left I'd like to see them refine their platform and start acting like leaders instead of hiding from their responsibility. If they can pick a couple of things like healthcare and diplomacy where they can really make a difference, develop a clear sense of priorities and a positive message, and maybe keep us out of major recession I'll be pretty happy.

So you voted for cowards and traitors? Interesting. Anyway, back to the guns: You guys who proclaim your maintaining guns in the basement is an act of patriotism keep repeating some mythical notion that if things really get bad you will rise up against government power. I can’t say this could NEVER happen but looking around the world and considering how “government power” is applied here and at home it seems like a very dim possibility, at best. I haven’t studied the history of this issue, so I’m going to go out on a limb here but my bet is that by any measure freedom is not necessarily greater in countries that have lots of weapons in circulation. I’m guessing that taking away small arms has not been an important step in many nations’ movement toward centralized State control. I don’t remember reading about any armed citizens’ uprising restoring any balance of powers in modern times. In short, clinging to such things as guns and religion is more likely to take us toward accepting a loss of freedom in the U.S than to cause us to defend against such loss.

What's my point? Quite obviously, the following is nothing but empty rhetoric: You vote for fearmongering fascists and attack those who disagree with you as "cowards" and "traitors." That is not exactly standing for freedom.

You been listening to KVI today? I listened to Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham too.