Iran has presidential elections scheduled for 2009. It may be useful
to recall that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, not on a
platform of developing nuclear weapons or destroying Israel, but
instead by promising to tackle corruption and deliver economic growth.
If, prior to the forthcoming election, the United States and its
European allies laid out a very specific and detailed program that
included actual projects and the projected benefits to the Iranian
people—rather than more generic assurances about goodwill and some
small nickel-and-dime measures—not simply Iranian voters but Iranian
elites might be more energized to bring about change. It bears
recalling that in the 2005 elections, in the initial round, more votes
were cast for reform- and engagement-minded candidates than for
Ahmadinejad; even within the circumscribed limits of the Iranian
political system there is room for a change of course.
This
approach might fail, and there are no guarantees. But perhaps it should
be tried. The alternative is for us to continue with the present course
of containment and pressure—and then for us to accept the consequences
that flow from that approach. The United States is not in a position to
“dually contain” both Iran and a resurgent Russia—if Washington decides
that Moscow must be contained rather than engaged. Indeed, U.S.
containment of Iran has been a factor in Russia’s own economic revival
by keeping energy prices high and certain reserves of energy off the
market. Containment has also led to the resurgence of Russia’s
influence in Eurasia—by keeping the old Soviet-era links alive and
well. The current approach to Iran is unlikely to succeed with only the
support of the United States and Europe. As we have seen, Iran can
“limp along” based on its trading links with Asia—especially India and
China.
Candidates are notoriously bad at prioritizing. But the
new president is going to be forced by the changing circumstances of
the global environment to make some hard choices. Iran may prove to be
the test.
When he speaks Thursday night in a venue consecrated to the faux combat
of football, the NATO alliance, which was 12 years old when he was
born, may be collapsing because of its unwillingness to help enough in
Afghanistan and its inability to respond seriously to Russia's combat
in Georgia. It is unfair to neither NATO nor Obama to note that the
alliance is practicing what he preaches: It is preaching to Vladimir
Putin, who is unimpressed. NATO, said Lord Ismay, speaking of Europe in
1949, was created to "keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the
Russians out." That Germany's appeasement reflex is part of NATO's
weakness is perhaps progress, of sorts.
A few folks asked me for more detail. On this graph you will note that 80% of folks make $111,000 or less and so Obama's plan would lower taxes more than McCain's for 80% of folks.
One thing to remember when looking at this graph is that the top 1% of income earners pay less taxes and have more money than any time since the 1920's. And we know what happened then.
It is estimated the McCain's plan will add $4.5 trillion to the national debt during his 4 years. Obama's $3.3 trillion. Both don't do a good job there at all.
But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)
"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.
Hillary's piece in the roll call was very well put together.
Bill Clinton's speech was outstanding. He nailed it. I hope they can figure out how to use him in situations like that more. Maybe when Obama has some of his large rallies they can give him some time to pound away at McCain.
Biden's was great too. The intro by his son was a real tear jerker. A great, great story there. A very likeable guy that should really help Obama with older voters and the working class. He'll probaby spend half his time in FLA and OH.
I didn't see it, but I guess John Kerry let it rip on McCain. I'm sure it will show up on YouTube.
Overall, I think the Dems turned it around. The guys running this thing are on top of their game.
I think we'll see the attack dogs come out now on McCain with Kerry and Biden leading the way.
The guy is nuts, but it was an entertaining speech. Its only a few minutes long.
I don't agree with alot of what he says, but the main point I do agree with is that the neocons used fear to get us to spend trillions in a way that has not had much payback and has taken away from other areas like infrastructure and greatly increased out national debt which has sunk the dollar.
And they also were the same people who for years said that conservation was a waste and we'd have plenty of oil for years and years. They have sucked the life out of this country.
Obama's campaign has been the best run machine in the business up to now. Its about time they got their act together. My guess is that they plan to start with Biden tonight.
If I were them I'd go after McCain on Keating 5, G. Gordon Liddy (who has been a good friend of McCain for years and has on numerous times advocated for the killing of government officials, and oh yeah... was the big fish in the Watergate arrests), and.... push those POW's Against McCain out in the public more.
That's just the start. Then they could show all the flip flops on torture, drillling, foreign wars, the deficit, abortion... its a long, long list.
I won't show it, but here's the quote used in the latest slight of hand:
"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.' And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall."
This is what the ad disagrees with. So I guess McCain believes Reagan and Kennedy were wrong?
The article also talks about Justin Masterson who has looked like a real special player since coming up. he could be a number 1 starter guy with his stuff. And he will be a big factor down the stretch.
This has been as good a year as the Sox have ever had with thier farm system. Ellsbury, Lowrie, and Masterson all playing key roles as rookies. Bard and Michael Bowden look like studs in their roles who could contribute towards the end. Really impressive stuff.
From Sully on McCain's appearance on Leno last night:
LENO: Welcome back, Sen. McCain, for one million dollars, how many houses do you have?
MCCAIN: You know, could I just mention to you, Jay, and a moment of seriousness. I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, without—I didn’t have a house, I didn’t have a kitchen table, I didn’t have a table, I didn’t have a chair. And I spent those five and a half years, because—not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.
He's using the POW card at almost every turn at this point. He must think it works
This is McCain's latest. I'm not sure how the cut ins work and if she really said some of this stuff (and based on the campaigns track record of non-straight talking its likely not true), but its still a good ad for McCain. What will Hillary do?
When was the last time a presidential candidate had an ad with 2 members of the opposite party and none of their own?
The poor Republicans. A bunch of Republican senators aren't going to the Republican Convention because they don't want to be associated with the brand, and now McCain is producing ads with no Republicans. Sad.
On the defensive over the extent of multiple McCain homes, the GOP candidate strikes back. But his TV spot gives an oversimplified and misleading account of how Obama bought his own $1.6 million house in Chicago.
The ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.
It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.
Typical McCain. Lie, lie, lie. This will be followed by fear, fear, fear.
