Obama´s mosque

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF,

After the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole bombing it was evident that Osama Bin Laden was operating with taliban help. The US actions against Afganistan should have happened since 2000, of course, it would have been a US-only action (or only back up by England) because I doubt the ISAF (I Suck At FIghting) alliance would not have gone alongside the US for those partucular terrorist actions.

We can only speculate about if that could have, or not, prevented, the 9/11 attacks. My hindsight opinion is that if the terrorists were busy defending their taliban regime then they could not been in a position of delivering attacks abroad, but that is not valid. However the US failed to retaliate and got struck pretty hard a year later.

I concur with frontkampker that inaction is only viewed as weakness by both, allies and enemies. The mosque is also that, a gigantic weakness on behalf the Obama-Islamic regime and their socialist bleeding hearts. My prayers (christian) go all the way for having them removed from office ASAP.

[lwd]

lwd, from my perspective as an outsider looking in, it seems to me the long campaign did expose McCain as looking rather old and tired for the job, unlike Reagan who espoused energy and confidence that belied his age. I think that would have put some voters off him, even if they didn't vote for Obama.

Might have put some off might have encouraged others. Not at all convinced that it would have been enough to make much difference.

As for Huckerbee, he was a southerner who didn't have the campaign resources to mount a national effort. I believe he did win the West Virginia primary (something Reagan failed to achieve in 1976). I would have that as being from the south and fairly youthfull looking he would have done better than McCain by winning Florida and Virginia, and perhaps Indiana, New Mexico and Colorado as well.

Except for an accident of geography Florida is not a southern state. Huckerbee was far enough to the right that Obama wouldn't have had as much trouble staking out the middle ground and that's where a lot of the independents are. He would likely have had more problems in the northern states and I'd include Colorado there (as well as Indiana). GOP politics would also likely have cost him more Hispanic voters which would have had an nimpact in both Florida and New Mexico.

[RF]

lwd, I am something of a cynic when phrases such as ''middle ground'' are mentioned. It didn't stop Reagan from winning two landslide elections, including becoming the closest to winning all fifty states......

Really it is about what voters are comfortable with. And at the start Obama had a problem with Hispanic voters, of which there are quite a few in Florida with rather right wing dispositions. If voters can become comfortable with Obama then another youthful candidate has the chance to stake out his own personality, especially if he made a better choice of running mate than McCain did (such as perhaps Romney). And being an outsider and governor of Arkansas didn't impede Bill Clinton; whilst very different politically than Clinton Huckerbee would be closer to the religous right than McCain without being owned by them, something like the position that George W Bush was in. McCain was handicapped by not being part of any of the main groups/voters that comprise the Republicans, whether religous, business or anti-big government, Huckerbee would have something to offer all three and be of greater appeal to independents. How he performed against Obama in the Presidential debates would of course be crucial.

[RF]

We can only speculate about if that could have, or not, prevented, the 9/11 attacks. My hindsight opinion is that if the terrorists were busy defending their taliban regime then they could not been in a position of delivering attacks abroad....

This is the fundamental question - we can only speculate. For a diffuse organisation like Al Qaeda the obvious strategy is that the best form of defense is attack, and as a guerilla movement attack means going to the heart of the enemy. And it takes only a small group of fanatics to do it. If the US took early vigorous action in the Middle East, how can you know that the attacks on the twin towers wouldn't have happened? You don't. Another scenario is that it would have happened earlier, that all four airliners hit their targets......or they blow up a US nuclear plant etc

[lwd]

lwd, I am something of a cynic when phrases such as ''middle ground'' are mentioned. It didn't stop Reagan from winning two landslide elections, including becoming the closest to winning all fifty states......

Reagan is a rather interesting case. People seem to see in him what they wanted to see. It was not for nothing that he they comparisons were made to him and Teflon. My personal oppinion is that he was essentially a front man for the team that really ran the country. Especially in his last few years as president I'm not even sure how mentally competent he was. Certainly the gaffs and the inability to distinguish between movies and reality bring it into question. In any case there wasn't anyone anything like him running in the last election.

Really it is about what voters are comfortable with. And at the start Obama had a problem with Hispanic voters, of which there are quite a few in Florida with rather right wing dispositions.

Hispanics with any significant amount of money tend to be conservative. However it's not the same form of conservative as the "religious right" even though religion plays a part. Indeed they may be a group that more than many illustrates the addage that "all politics are local".

... Huckerbee would be closer to the religous right than McCain without being owned by them, something like the position that George W Bush was in. McCain was handicapped by not being part of any of the main groups/voters that comprise the Republicans, whether religous, business or anti-big government, Huckerbee would have something to offer all three and be of greater appeal to independents. ....

I'm not sure that the "not owned by them" would be enough. Many who are not part of the "religious right" are very leary of them and he would be vulneralbe to that portrayal. While it would help in the Primaries it might well hurt in the actual election. The same might well be said for the pro business stance if he wasn't very careful.

[RF]

I agree that he would have to be very careful, and here the choice of running mate becomes crucial.

[Dave Saxton]

. Last time they could have chosen Huckerbee, instead they went for McCain, a major blunder.

........

Well McCain won the nomination by winning key New England primaries, in which masses of Democrats crossed over to vote for him in the Republican primaries only. They were encouraged to do so by the main stream media which was temporarily pro McCain. At the time the Irak war was on the front burner, but by the time of the general election the media had de-emphasised this issue to the point that McCain had no issue he was strong on to run with. During the summer of 08 energy costs went through the roof and Palin provided a strong position of energy independance. But by the time of the general election energy costs softened and it became another non issue.

In recent elections the Republicans have nominated moderates which actually hurt their positions in the general elections by alientating their conservative base. So called Independants are more likely to vote democrat regardless; if the TV media favors the democrats. And if the base conservatives stay home (which they have in 06 and 08) the democrats will likely win.

The Republicans didn't have a canidate they could agree on. Huckabee's role was to spoil it for Romney because the bible belt couldn't stomach Romney because he is a Mormon and New Englander. Even McCain was down playing his Catholic heritage which doesn't play well in the south.

An increasingly important factor in the demographics of recent US politics is rural vs urban view points. In the last election almost all the counties voted Republican. A map of the US showing red of counties that voted Republican will be almost entirely red with blue counties being only those in large urban centers, which have a concentration of population and of union voters of course. California's map for example, shows only LA and the Bay Areas blue. Even Sacto was red. Even in southern California, areas like Long Beach and Orange County voted Republican. But because of the Urban vote the whole state was represented as liberal in the electroral college. In Nevada everybody hates Harry Reid except Clark County (Las Vegas) which is the only urban area, and where non-citizens can get away with voting.

[RF]

The New England primaries wouldn't have been that significant for the Republicans, especially in terms of the number of delegates from those states. Of course they were the first primaries to be held, so a winner there can gain some momentum.

However the first key primaries for Republicans are Florida and South Carolina. Mc Cain did well in Florida and then in the mid-West, to become front runner. Bush junior used the southern block primaries (in particular Texas and Florida) to make himself frontrunner for his first Presidency - which is where Huckerbee missed out.

[RF]

. Last time they could have chosen Huckerbee, instead they went for McCain, a major blunder.

........

The Republicans didn't have a canidate they could agree on. Huckabee's role was to spoil it for Romney because the bible belt couldn't stomach Romney because he is a Mormon and New Englander. Even McCain was down playing his Catholic heritage which doesn't play well in the south.

So why didn't the conservative voters in the south back Huckerbee, a southerner, in greater numbers?

[RF]

. Last time they could have chosen Huckerbee, instead they went for McCain, a major blunder.
........

An increasingly important factor in the demographics of recent US politics is rural vs urban view points. In the last election almost all the counties voted Republican. A map of the US showing red of counties that voted Republican will be almost entirely red with blue counties being only those in large urban centers, which have a concentration of population and of union voters of course. California's map for example, shows only LA and the Bay Areas blue. Even Sacto was red. Even in southern California, areas like Long Beach and Orange County voted Republican. But because of the Urban vote the whole state was represented as liberal in the electroral college...

But conservative Republicans, especially fiscally conservative ones do get elected in these so-called liberal states, even Kennedy's seat in Massachussetts for example.
I also gather that some of the ethnic groups, such as Asians and Hispanics, are becoming more Republican than they have traditionally been in the past. The Republicans are even fielding black conservative candidates.....

[Dave Saxton]

Iowa is the first primary and Huckabee first emerged there. But Huckabee was not really considered a serious canidate by the overall conservative base, even in the bible belt, despite being a protestant clergyman. As stated above his role was spoiler to Romney who was considered a serious canidate by conservatives. Romney should have done well in the New England (New Hampshire especially) primaries which are important in sifting out the front runners from the also rans. Huckabee and McCain (both preceived moderates) emerged from the New England primaries as the Republican front runners. Guilianni (sp?) was counting on doing well in Florida but by then it was way too late.

What happened last election was that the media and crossover voters really determined the Repubican nominee early on, alienating may normally Republican voters. A very clever strategy. Yes, the republican voting bloc has become much more diverse from the traditional, and overall America is still center right. The defection of traditional liberal types to the conservatives as they become more educated and experienced on economic issues, has caused much concern by democratic strategists, and is something they don't want to talk about. This is why the democrats put so much emphasis in creating more (Acorn), and energizing inner city, likely more liberal, voters, and in depressing conservative voter turn out.

[RF]

Dave, if conservative voters become alienated by ''moderate'' front runners, it brings me back to the question I raised above - why didn't they react by voting for Huckerbee? Why simply not vote and in the act of abstaining effectively rubber stamp the choice of nominee?

In 1976 Ford won a string of primaries, edging out Reagan firstly in New Hampshire and then in Florida. Only a fluked narrow win in North Carolina stopped Reagan from withdrawing, and then a landslide win in the Texas delegate selection opened things up. I would have thought a candidate you object to is more likely to encourage voters of a party to go out and vote for an alternative to block that candidate, and not give up by abstaining.

I might add that I have been voting in British elections almost without fail since 1976. I have never ever voted for a winning candidate. In more than half the elections I have voted in the candidate came in fourth place or worse. But no way does it stop me from voting, I would still vote even if a minority of one.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Another news from those " playfull and friendly" guys around the street:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39734140/ns ... ews-europe

Death is their common denominator.

[RF]

Death is of course self defeating and ensures they only complete one mission.....

[Dave Saxton]

Hi RF,

Huckabee just didn't turn on the voting base for some reason. He still doesn't have "it", like Obama did. Although Obama was the most unqualified and least experienced canidate (something the media carefully ignored) in the last election as proved by becoming probably the most incompetant US Pres in US history, he had the charisma factor.

I know it doesn't make sense to drop out of the proccess if you don't like the canidates, and I have tried to explain this to friends many times, but that's what happens.

It seems that the democratic voting coalition has lost interest this time around too. A very unusual thing happened in 08, with a higher % of youthful voters (including young women) actually voting. Traditionally, this demographic although pressured to vote by the get out the vote programs, doesn't actually vote come election day. It remains to be seen if this was an aberation in the last election, and if not, if this group still will vote the same way with a bit more age and wisdom.