Yes, it is Election day here in Ohio. Two things I am struck by in this primary season, mainly on the Democratic side:
1) Saw a Hillary commercial the other day. It was set in rural Ohio with lots of hills - think anything south of Columbus and east of Cincinnati. Chillicothe? Portsmouth? Anyway, they had several folks - men and women - appear and laud Hillary.
However, one think struck me. That commercial featured a few blue-collar, beer drinking 50-year old union males that were talking positively about Hillary. It's just very hard for me to picture these sort of men walking into the voting booth and voting for Hillary. The cultures, the genders, the styles are just too ..... different.
2) I don't think anyone should underestimate the importance of NAFTA/Free Trade as a campaign issue here in Ohio. We can debate intelligently all we want about the issue, but it is an accepted fact that NAFTA has caused a loss of jobs here in Ohio. People in those areas - especially NE and SE Ohio - are mad and pissed off. (Never mind the fact that cities like Columbus and NW Ohio are doing well in adapting.... look at Marysville and the new Honda plant, for example. What's the difference between the Marysville Honda plant and the Ford/GM plants in Cleveland or the Delco plants in Dayton? The lack of a union....)
The Ohio election may come down to the fact that Hillary -and her husband - is associated with passing NAFTA back in 1993. As an Ohio resident at the time, I was against NAFTA......because of the "giant sucking sound" that would be heard in these sorts of states. These states - and the people in them - would not accept that the world is changing around them and they would have to be retrained. Because of this, NAFTA would be hastening the loss of jobs that probably would be coming gradually......and I would like to have seen that be postponed as much as possible, since I live here.
Once again, it looks like the greatest Presidential candidate of the last 20 years, Mr. H Ross Perot, was right.
Went into the polls today with Freddie and Warren as I took them to day care. I let them touch the voting screen and "vote" for all the uncontested races.
I told them I was voting for John McCain for President.
"But who is Mommy voting for?" asked Freddie.
Well, I'm not sure. We will have to ask her when she gets home tonight.
"I think she's going to vote for Hillary", Freddie said.
Question: who do I have a serious talk with first? With Janice to make sure this is false? Or Freddie for actually naming Hillary unprompted?
18 comments:
Manufactoring jobs. Yes!!! That's what I want my kids to say they want to be when they grow up. Gotta love that Midwest mindset.
And maybe you should blame the school system for putting the name Hillary in his head.
Ah, that's why we love the elitist coasters.
For those people in our country not fortunate enough to be blessed with intelligence to get into good colleges - what jobs should we have for them? What responsibility does society have to ensure that everyone can particiapate to their full potential?
Not everyone can be a manager. We need to make sure our society is set up in that manner, with jobs for all.
And what the hell is wrong with manufacturing jobs? I read a story where the largest concentration of millionaires per capita is.......
not in Los Angeles
not in Washington
but in Scranton, PA, where we have one of our largest plants.
Green Bay is on that list, too.
Why? Because 30 years of working in that factory can pay off for many...many who did not have a college degree.
Those jobs do exist....and it's our responsibility to make sure we have those types available for those who are interested.
You may not see those types of jobs in California, due to the high taxes....but one should not consider a job a "In N Out" Burger to be a career in manufacturing.
By voting for John McCain for President, it seems to me you'll alleviate, to a large degree, the problem of finding something for our kids to do.
Why, with us planning to spend 100 years in Iraq and invasions of Iran, North Korea and possibly even the Canary Islands imminent, there won't be anyone left for whom to find jobs (sounds awkward, I know, but I HATE ending a sentence with a preposition!).
I thought it was left up to the Republicans to use scare tactics, but appartently Neil has adopted this strategy.
Wow, Layup, I couldn't have said it better myself.
And we really have turned into a nation of wimps. What if we were all transported back in time, to 1942 or 1943? When we had 4,000 soldiers dying....a week, on average......
People are upset now at 4,000 deaths over 5 years? perspective, people.
This is war. Yes, it is terrible that our forces are suffering losses. But - again - this is war.
There will be human life lost.
And consider that there has been no additional terrorist activity on US soil after 2001. How many lives have been saved by this conflict? We could ask that question instead.
We can argue whether the war is just or unjust, righteous or unrighteous....but from a historical perspective, the loss of life over the last five years - while terrible - is nothing compared to what we lost in WW II or Vietnam.
I love the "This is war and in war people die" comment Eric. Wow, thanks - I wasn't sure. Since you are so hawkish on this war, and clearly believe this is a great thing, (perspective right)?? Since 4,000 deaths over 5 years isn't a big deal, I fully expect you to sign up Freddie and Warren for the Army when they are of age. You are going to do that right? Since McCain will have us in there until 2108 - don't worry you will have plenty of time to sign them up.
Of course you aren't going to do that. Instead you'll wave your pompoms for the war, place a "Support the Troops" sticker on your SUV and tell everyone else how to be patriotic, when it is OPB (Other People's Blood) being spilled for this cause.
That's the same ridiculous specious argument the administration gave us from day one.
In World War II we were attacked . . . by Japan. And we responded by declaring war . . . on Japan and its allies. How can you even compare that to a situation where we were attacked by Al Quaeda and we attacked Iraq, by and large the only secular country in the entire region and a country that had absolutely no connection with the September 11 attacks?
And it's true that there hasn't been a domestic attack since we went into Iraq. It's also true that we haven't had a terrorist attack since we went into Afghanistan, which was supported by the overwhelming majority of Democrats. Here's a question though. How do you explain to the people of Madrid and London your theory that Al Quaeda has been limited to fighting only in Iraq?
It's the same old tired crap. If you're opposed to us being in Iraq, you are anti-American, unpatriotic, hate the troops, cowards etc.
I think I can clear this up very easily. We are not opposed to the concept of war. We understand that when wars need to be fought, American lives will be lost. What we object to is when lives are being lost in wars that never should have been fought in the first place.
But I think it was said best by soon-to-be President Obama who said the following, at virtually the exact moment President Bush and Congress agreed to invade Iraq:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Sounds about right to me.
Well Jay, I think we differ in one key area.
I plan to raise my kids so that theu can make their own responsible decisions when they become adults at the age of 18. I hope to instill values, morals, and sport loyalties so that they can make their own decisions when they become men.
You, however, think that the role of parents is to "sign up" the kids for the causes the parents believe in. I don't believe that.
I don't think our kids should be forced to re-live our lives - be it playing varsity golf, quiz bowl or the military. I hope to raise them so they can make their own choices. It seems you beleive differently.
Neil:
I don't think I called you unpatriotic. Really. We can debate the policy. Is 4,000 American troop deaths worth our policy for the last 5 years? You think no, I think yes.
I just want you to keep this all in persepctive - 400,000 were killed in the 40s when we attacked Japan "and their allies". 60,000 dies in 8 years in Vietnam when we were not attacked. And now 4,000 have died when we attacked Al-qaida and their potential allies.
I want to debate policies and principles for this war as well as the results - and those anit-war posters that are offended by possibly being called unpatriotic by others should not then breezily call those who support the war as "pompom waving SUV drivers". (not your words, I know).
I am offended mainly because I don't own an SUV.
OK, OK, I misspoke. I don't own a minivan, but I do own an SUV.
(well, it's my wife's....)
Sorry. I misread.
Eric,
Didn't mean to suggest that you personally called me unpatriotic. It was more of a comment about the general tenor of the debate on these issues.
While I understand your point about the loss of life in Iraq as compared to World War 2 and Vietnam, there is one big difference between the scenarios. In the case of Vietnam and World War 2, those lives were lost in active combat during the war itself. The vast majority of lives lost in Iraq have been since we were told "Mission Accomplished."
By comparison, America lost zero lives in Germany and Japan combined post World War 2 doing essentially the same as we are doing now which is trying to maintain a post-war peace and maintain stability. And we still have troops located in both countries more than 50 years later.
The question that needs to be asked is whether America is better off today than it was before we went into Iraq and I think it's very difficult to make the case that it is. And I love the fact that everyone is going on about how successful the surge has been when it was essentially an 11th hour effort to correct what was, to that point, a horribly mismanaged war.
Maybe it's just me, but I have a lot of trouble giving credit to President Bush for the supposed success of the surge when it was only necessary because of his initial mismanagement and incompetence.
The violence level has decreased, but largely because it had gotten out of hand before the surge. Crediting President Bush, McCain etc. with the "success" of the surge is the equivalent of congratulating a bank robber because he has attempted to remedy his criminal proclivities and last month he only robbed 2 banks instead of his usual 5.
Eric, you missed the point. The main point is IF your son's were fighting this war in Iraq, and they were killed during a tour of duty - would you still be saying that 4,001 lives lost is not a big deal. Perspective I guess. Hey, its war we will lose lives. Right now its so easy for you to take that position of being pro war because you have no personal skin in the game. If you did, my guess is you would think differently. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you feel like Iraq is worth potentially losing your sons (in my hypothetical).
That isn't to say that every war is a mistake. Like Neild said, I just believe that THIS war was a mistake from the start.
"You were given the choice between dishonor and war, you chose dishonor, and you will have war." - Winston Churchhill
Jay, who does have "skin in the game?" You? Me? 300 million other people in the country? No. So does that mean only people who have kids fighting in the war can talk about going to war? This is not the American way. When have we ever had people making decisions about going to war actually have children go fight that war?
And seriously, we are all a bunch of pussies. I wish we had enough balls to make Iraq into a parking lot and then we would not be talking about our 4000 casualties, but instead the innocent Iraqi women and children that we killed. This is a much better discussion for us to have since we don't have to bring in the likes of Luke and Freddie. Instead of debating about if we are going to win or lose the war, we should be debating if we went too far. In my opinion this is a much better discussion. But we have turned into a bunch of lazy cowards who have become way to comfortable and have become niave that people will do anything to kill us.
And the 4000 US casualties will be minor compared the showdown in 15-20 years with China/Russia over oil, mail order brides, and illegal copies of the Matrix. Its inevitable Mr. Anderson.
Neil:
Good points. Breaking them down one by one:
"The vast majority of lives lost in Iraq have been since we were told "Mission Accomplished.""
EZ: this probably will be recorded in history as the biggest blunder of the managmement of the war. Bush knew it would be hard - he said so in 2002, 2003! He needed to level with the people early on as to the mission - and what the mission was.
Neil: (talking about Germany and Japan): "And we still have troops located in both countries more than 50 years later."
Well, are you opposed to that? We may have a similar situation 50 years from now in Iraq - and hopefully at the similar violence levels seen in Germany/japan. Are you opposed to that? Do you want our US troops out of Germany/Korea/Japan now?
Neil: "The question that needs to be asked is whether America is better off today than it was before we went into Iraq and I think it's very difficult to make the case that it is. "
Well - no terrorist activity in America for 7 1/2 years now.
Look at the response to the 1993 WTC bombing......we then had teh embassies in Africa bombed, and then 9/11. One could eaily say that Clinton's policy in response to the 1993 bombings were a failure. We have not had that activity on US Soil since 2001 - and I do believe that's a result of our policy. To me, that is a success.
neil: "Maybe it's just me, but I have a lot of trouble giving credit to President Bush for the supposed success of the surge when it was only necessary because of his initial mismanagement and incompetence. "
I have no problems with that statement above. I can agree with a lot of this.
But:
"The violence level has decreased, but largely because it had gotten out of hand before the surge. Crediting President Bush, McCain etc. with the "success" of the surge is the equivalent of congratulating a bank robber "
Ah ah ah - careful. If you recall, McCain was pushing for the surge a year before it was implemented! So McCain had the foresight to see that the current path isn't working, propose a solution - the solution took a while to be implemented - and the solution works.....and you want to denigrate McCain? I don't get that.
The Browns are favorites against the Ravens...Romeo calls plays, but those plays have the Browns down 20-7 at the half.
Rob Chudzinski, the offensive coordiantor, yells at Romeo and says we need more passing to the TE, more pass blocking, etc - a change in planning....
Crenell doesn't listen - now we are down 27-7 at teh end of the 3rd.
Romeo finally gives in - and puts in Chudzinksi's plays. The Browns make a 4th quarter comeback with that strategy, and win 28-27.
Does this imply that Chudzinski is not had coaching material? I don't get that. This shows that Chud has even more foresight than the head coach, and would make him even more of a better candidate for a head coaching position......
Why go through all the trouble of planning a terrorist attack on American soil when Iraq is a lot closer? We went to Iraq and Al Qaeda followed having killed 4000 Americans. We haven't "ACCOMPLISHED" anything but piss off more radicals in the middle east.
And as for having troops in Germany and Japan. We're pretty much welcome there. In Iraq, we're just policing a civil war. Just another case of sticking our nose where it didn't belong. We should have focused on Bin Laden in Afghanistan or wherever he's hiding. We didn't go to Iraq to fight terrorism. It just followed us there because we took out the government.
Eric,
A couple of flaws in your Browns analogy:
1. You assume that the result of the surge is an ultimate victory. Were that the case, I would obviously be more inclined to praise McCain. To use your analogy, we're judging before the game is finished, but we're still losing.
2. McCain was a proponent of going into Iraq in the first place, so he was at least partially culpable for the poor planning. Again, the equivalent of him helping Romeo come up with the gameplan that was getting the Browns' butts kicked. Granted Romeo (Bush) was the main strategizer (is it "strategery" in football as well?), but McCain doesn't get to absolve himself from blame or benefit from praise when he proposed a resolution that helped improve a horrible situation. The fact is that, on balance, it's still pretty bad.
Now to address a couple of your other points:
1. I still think it's a false premise to say that Iraq has been a success because we haven't had any other terrorist attacks here in the States since 9/11. The major reason is better intelligence gathering and use as well as an improved law enforcement response. Again, if the sole (or even main) reason for a lack of terrorist attacks was the invasion of Iraq, then the London and Madrid bombings never would have happened either. Despite our presence there, Al Quaeda is still obviously capable of launching attacks on foreign soil. They haven't done it here because we have been more vigilant domestically.
2. I don't think there's a need to withdraw our troops from Germany, Japan and Korea because (a) those countries and their people are not opposed to our presence and (b) those troops are not directly in harms way. Also, our presence in those countries was in direct response to the flawed aftermath of World War I and the lessons learned from that. It was historically essential. Our occupation of Iraq is entirely different and for reasons that I am still not sure I fully understand, probably because they keep changing.
3. And finally, as more of an over-arching point, Bush told us "it was going to be hard" and then basically proceeded to enact a domestic agenda as though he was completely oblivious to the fact that we were at war. His tax cuts were the first time in recorded history that a country has actually had a significant tax cut while it was at war. We, as a people, have not really been asked to make any sacrifices. He didn't veto a single spending bill until the Democrats took control of Congress. And, every time the economy took a turn for the worse, he kept blaming 9/11 and just went back to spending hand over fist. I can only begin to imagine what you guys would be saying about a Democratic President who sent our troops to war while at the same time showing horrendous fiscal irresponsibility at home.
We were told by Rumsfeld and company that the war would end up paying for itself. Instead, trillions of dollars later and with the price of oil continuing to rise and us being on the brink of a recession, President Bush is asked a question at a press conference about the recent projection that gas is going to hit $4 a gallon this summer and his response is, "that's interesting. I hadn't heard that."
He's a disgrace.
Post a Comment