Oh, the ales of growing old.

It's clear that Senator McCain suffers from an inability to recognize changing popular regimes.

Thank God Obama understands the times...?

But do anyone really think Obama will withdraw the US from Iraq?

Maybe 40-50,000 troops for appearences, there's no way any American president will voluntarily give up on control over the greatest oil reserve in the world. The US will never never leave without securing dozens of permanent military bases and a puppet regime. It's just not in the Empire's interest.

Obama will not leave Iraq. He will not leave Afghanistan. He will not give Guantanamo Bay back to the Cubans and stop the embargo. He will not stop the propaganda campaign against Chavez or Iran. He will not force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any of that happening.

But do anyone really think Obama will withdraw the US from Iraq?

Only if he wants to get re-elected.

there's no way any American president will voluntarily give up on control over the greatest oil reserve in the world.

You may or may not be right about whether Obama or any other American president will leave Iraq. But is the "control" of Iraqi oil really so important to the US? If so, how is that control manifested now? Iraq is producing and exporting at about the pre-war level now (roughly 20% of either Saudi or Russian production and about 10% of US consumption), and it has only just reached that level in the past year or so. If the US "controls" Iraqi oil, is the US currently suppressing Iraqi oil production below where it could be?

I understand that the Iraq war has been very profitable for some American corporations, and I'd strongly agree that American corporations exert way too much influence on American government policy, but I don't really don't see how Iraqi oil "control" is all that indispensable to the "empire". What good is it doing us - especially in view of the costs?

I didn't expect it would take long for Olbermann to take this purposefully-misconstrued comment and use it to make one of his sanctimonious, tired speeches. This must be more of that 'high road' we keep hearing about. Obama doesn't have to campaign dirty when the liberal media will gladly do it for him.

What good is it doing us - especially in view of the costs?

In the long term, having a 'locked up' supply with preferential treatment would most certainly be advantageous. It's a critical and limited resource. The world is only going to get more crazy over it as supplies continue to diminish.

calligraph:

In your opinion, had America ignored Iraq, and instead invested a half trillion dollars in alternative energy, would oil still be such a critical and limited resource?

Econ 101: as an alternative energy becomes cost-competitive, demand on fossil fuels will decrease, thus lowering price.

Its a win-win: the consumer market can transition to new technology while simultaneously, prices drop on industry's main fuel, affording them the flexibility to begin a costly and difficult transition.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you sir are no conservative. WWRRD? (What would Ronald Reagan Do?)

Hint: Lebanon 1984

In the long term, having a 'locked up' supply with preferential treatment would most certainly be advantageous.

except we have taken no such liberties and likely will end up with democracy installing a government that dilsikes us at best.

Iraq will never be preferential unless something changes radically.

I imagine what Obama will do is what he said. Remove troops from Iraq. And then Build a base in Kuwait and launch attacks as needed.

Casualties will be minimal and most Americans will be fine with it.

It's not exactly peace, but it isn't war, so I will take what I can get.

We will be in Afghanistan until we find Osama.

Psudeo-conservatives like calligraph have chased me and my fellow Paulians from the GOP. They reject the rich insights of Eisenhower, Goldwater, Reagan and Paul- all of whom have warned us that this neocon world view is asinine and futile.

So JoAnn (et all) consider this: although calligraph's type might force Prez McPain come November, they are still allies in the long-term progressive movement. So long as they maintain a stranglehold on the GOP, me and my ilk are forced to turn to 3rd-parties, thus combating the "Nader" effect.

Also, assuming cloning remains illegal, most of them will be dead within 100 years, and senile within 50.

Patience, friends. Patience.

Our children's children's children will thank you. Well, actually, they will have no idea who you were. Even so-

In your opinion, had America ignored Iraq, and instead invested a half trillion dollars in alternative energy, would oil still be such a critical and limited resource?

Of course. I don't know where the persistent delusion of instant alternative energy adoption comes from. We have a gigantic petroleum-based infrastructure. Even if we discovered cold fusion tonight it would take years to replace our existing systems.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for alternative energy. The resources will dry up eventually, and getting off the tit will allow us to stop dealing with a lot of shady people. But I'm not so blinded by emotional rhetoric as to believe it will be an instantaneous change. And I also realize that the prime movers in such discoveries have been and will continue to be private enterprises such as the auto and energy industries.

Econ 101: as an alternative energy becomes cost-competitive, demand on fossil fuels will decrease, thus lowering price.

Reality, Preschool Edition: real life is not an Ivory Tower simulation.

Psudeo-conservatives like calligraph have chased me and my fellow Paulians from the GOP.

I'm sure you meant to say that your bigoted, self-centered impression of intelligent and realistic individuals like myself have chased you into a fantasy-land.

The 'neocon' label is just liberal fear speak. I'm a classical conservative, as is McCain. The reality is that most intelligent people become conservative as they grow older, because liberalism is based largely on naivete and exploitation of good will. As you begin to see the holes in the dogma, and start experiencing the real world, you grow up. There's a reason why you have to be at least 35 to be president.

calligraph:

"There's a reason why you have to be at least 35 to be president."

Good point. I have no doubt that one day I will look back at my 28 year old self with a mix of awe and shame.

"I'm sure you meant to say that your bigoted, self-centered impression of intelligent and realistic individuals like myself have chased you into a fantasy-land."

Paul, Goldwater- fine. We are just wackos. Irrelevant lunatics.

But Reagan and Eisenhower? Are you shitting me? Are you telling me McCain is more conservative than the Supreme Allied Commander of WWII?

Eisenhower's farewell speech on the Military-Industrial Complex should be broadcast in every elementary school in America.

And Reagan had far more sense to get engaged with these lunatics; he "cut and run" when Lebanon attacked our Marines in '84.

McCain and Bush are nowhere in the same league as the two people.

And more important- I've yet to hear you provide any reasons why you support McCain. And we both know why- you aren't here for honest debate; you are here to rile up 'dem liberals so you can have a good laugh.

You believe in this war? Go fight it. Failing that, you are a chicken-shit chicken hawk, and a disgrace to the word "conservative".

Fact: Eisenhower ENDED the Korean War.

Fact: Reagan AVOIDED prolonged open warfare, and as a result, beat the USSR with diplomacy while presiding over a booming American economy.

Fact: Bush ain't nothin' more than "the bosses son". That's all he ever was, and that's all he'll ever be. He will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents in American history, and one day your great grandchildren will look at you with pity when you explain why McCain was the right choice in 2008.

Fact: Cheney didn't have the BALLS to fight in Vietnam.

Fact: Bush didn't have the BALLS to fight in Vietnam.

Fact: Clinton didn't have the BALLS to fight in Vietnam.

When it comes to manliness, young John McCain beats em all.

However, American history is filled with ex-military (Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower...) who understood the horrors of war better than a chicken hawk (or peace-nick hippie like myself) ever could.

And you know what?

As President, they ENDED wars- they didn't start them.

If this were 2000, I would be right behind you with a McCain button, genuinely excited for this guy.

However, after the Military Commissions Act of 06, and the objection to increase vet benefits after the longest war in recent history, I simply don't understand how any rational person can still defend this guy as a "Maverick".

I honestly think that the GOP could nominate a rock, and the Hannity-Right would STILL argue in favor of it.

Ditto the DNC & Air America.

And in both cases, it is simply embarrassing.

If you want to "root for the home team", go to a ballgame. If you want to address why McCain is "more conservative" than Dwight "I Eat Fucking Nazis For Breakfast" Eisenhower, I'm all ears.

Eisenhower's farewell speech on the Military-Industrial Complex should be broadcast in every elementary school in America.

I'm not sure of your point. Do you really think hearing a bogeyman speech would prevent war?

One of the other facets of my reality-based approach to life is the acceptance of war as a utility. It amazes me that the same people who will get up in arms about Santa Claus and religion actually believe telling kids crap like "no more war!" and such is productive. Understanding something is a better way to lead to its respectful use than fearmongering.

And Reagan had far more sense to get engaged with these lunatics

And they just came after us. The 'just ignore them while they kill our soldiers' approach didn't work out that great for Clinton, either.

And more important- I've yet to hear you provide any reasons why you support McCain.

I've given my reasons for supporting McCain many times. McCain is a classical conservative, and my ideology has become more conservative as I have matured. He isn't beholden to a bunch of religious lunatics (the left loves to excoriate him on his inability to pull the far-right into his camp - but who else would they vote for?). He has military experience, which I do think is an important fact. He has political experience. He openly states the fact - accepted by Democrats, although they don't like to admit it - that our troops will have to remain in Afghanistan and Iraq at some level for the forseeable future.

More importantly, I don't see anything in Obama. And it's not like someone else said - I don't hate him. I just think there's nothing there. Obamaniacs remind me of Paultards, the kids who kept repeating the name 'Ron Paul!' without ever knowing what the guy really stood for. Obama is not the arbiter of change he pretends - read his website.

You believe in this war? Go fight it. Failing that, you are a chicken-shit chicken hawk, and a disgrace to the word "conservative".

You eat meat? Go kill it yourself. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite. Spare me your childish baiting.

Bush ain't nothin' more than "the bosses son"

I have never, ever defended Bush - either of them. I voted Gore because I thought he was the better candidate. I voted Kerry largely out of habit, and because I figured anything was better than Bush.

Now it's not about getting rid of Bush. No matter how much liberals try to lie and frame McCain as 'four more years of Bush', they're not the same people. They support some of the same rational goals, but - surprise! - if you read Obama's website you'll find he supports quite a few of those things himself.

The fervor over Obama is like the natural reaction of a human when driving down an icy road: if you slide left, you pull hard right. If you slide right, you pull hard left. Thing is, doing that puts you in a ditch. I'm not voting for superficial change and empty promises.

However, American history is filled with ex-military (Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower...) who understood the horrors of war better than a chicken hawk (or peace-nick hippie like myself) ever could. And you know what? As President, they ENDED wars- they didn't start them.

Nonsense.

Washington was one of the primary belligerents for the War of Independence. He ran the Continental Army and was largely elected because of his war heroics. He ended no wars in his presidency.

Andrew Jackson was commander of the American forces in the Battle of New Orleans. He ended no wars in his presidency.

Ulysses Grant was the leading Union general in the Civil War. He ended no wars in his presidency.

Eisenhower created the Eisenhower Doctrine, for fuck's sake. But you're right, he is credited with 'ending' the Korean War, although one could argue that after two years of stalemate they could have sent a muppet and had the same results.

The problem with labeling yourself a 'peace-nik' is the implicit assumption that everyone else is just a dumb war hawk. But I have bad news for you - we're already at war. Everybody would love to see it end. If you can find a way to get a loose association of murderous thugs and terrorists to sit down at a table with our military and diplomats and come up with a rational solution, let us know.

In the long term, having a 'locked up' supply with preferential treatment would most certainly be advantageous. It's a critical and limited resource. The world is only going to get more crazy over it as supplies continue to diminish.

An extremely poor investment. The Iraq war has been estimated to have a total price tag of $2 trillion or more. Iraq's total oil exports run less than 700 million bbl per year. Even if the US expropriated 100% of Iraq's oil without giving the Iraqis a dime (obviously impossible) and it was replacing $200 per barrel oil, the investment would return ~ 7% per year - a return of closer to 2% per year would still be optimistic with any kind of realistic assumptions.

We've already poured $530 billion into a stupid war and are throwing away about $100 billion more every year. Just the money wasted so far is more than 5 times as large as all investment in Canadian tar sand derived oil. Even at current rates of investment, oil from tar sands in Canada amounts to about 60% of all Iraq's oil exports. Oil from tar sands will never be cheap, but it is far cheaper than all the oil we'll ever get out of Iraq if the cost of the Iraq war is considered an expense of "doing business".

I started to respond to caligraph but realized I don't have the time or energy.

So - just this --- the old saw he was spouting: "The reality is that most intelligent people become conservative as they grow older, because liberalism is based largely on naivete and exploitation of good will. As you begin to see the holes in the dogma, and start experiencing the real world, you grow up."

The reality is most people want the same thing - to live good lives and be generally left alone to do so - liberals and conservatives just have different ideas of how to achieve that end. Liberals believe the more people that are doing well, the healthier and happier a nation you have and the more opportunities for more people to do well. The flip side of that is if people don't have anything, they have nothing to lose so they become prime candidates for racial, religious or other forms of extremism. And crime. I think it is very realistic approach. The best example of that was America's strong middle class which was what made our nation truly enviable - brought about by FDR BTW.

And - not knowing about neocons - if a "conservative" is unaware of the neoconservative movement, you might want to start doing your homework starting with Papa Kristol...since those are the policies you are supporting.

What else - oh this: "And I also realize that the prime movers in such discoveries have been and will continue to be private enterprises such as the auto and energy industries." Talk about naive! Or, perhaps you just haven't been paying attention.

Calligraph loves to fill his remarks with generalizations about liberals and their emotional or immature arguments. He says he 'hates' these liberal characteristics. In fact, however, without such generalizations and 'old saws' it is usually the case that nothing remains of his arguments at all.

On economic issues, Calligraph writes about how conservatism is a product of 'real-world' experience, but he very rarely cites any quantitative, statistical evidence that would demonstrate the superiority of 'conservative' government in the US. The reason he doesn't, of course, is that he will lose an argument in which numbers measuring the performance of Republican and Democratic administrations in economic growth, stock market performance, incomes for any income group but those a the top, wealth accumulation for any group except those at the top – all favor Democrats. This is especially true of the last 30 years. So, while Calligraph says he hates emotional arguments, he lives for them - without them he either loses or remains silent.

On social issues, Calligraph's arguments with liberalism (most evident in discussions of gay marriage) are undisguised emotionalism: it's disgusting, its deviant, etc. Any question posed to him that would trap him into admitting that gay marriage is a rights issue, he simply leaves unanswered. Far from gaining wisdom from experience, Calligraph refuses to even confront his bias when it comes to an issue like gay marriage.

I think there is an issue about what is "conservative" and what is "liberal". We need to define these before we decide that folks become more conservative with age. I suspect they become more practical, and more accepting, and less likely to be "radicals" or "ideologues" in any movement, right or left.

The scientific evidence supports that people become more LIBERAL with age to conteract Calligraphs argument. . http://www.livescience.com/health/080310-liberal-seniors.

I have difficulties with all this left and right stuff. I am convinced it causes problems. I mean I try and see the world in a practical way, so that solutions to problems can be reviewed as openly as possible. Some examples.

Drugs: Drugs are a big problem for society, i would have no problem with a war on drugs if it worked. But as there is no evidence it does, I wonder about different solutions. Now some on the left think that folks just need treatment and housing and people being kind to them. I know ( I work with this population) that this alone is not true, people need quite a lot more incentive to change than just being nice to them. They also need to have consequences for their actions and frankly some really addicted people need to be forced into treatment as their brains are so scrambled by drugs they do not have the capacity to make any decisison. So the typical right wing approach will not work, the libertarian approach won't work and the typical left wing approach will not work.

So to solve a problem about drugs we have to leave our "labels" at the door, look at the evidence and be willing to change your mind on the subject if the approach you are proposing does not work.

Another example of this are some of the education programs aimed at youth about drugs. Almost all of them, very expensive programs have been shown NOT TO WORK. Yet we continue to fund them, as politically it would look bad not to continue them. The best studied prevention program is DARE, numerous studies have been done by independent investigators and basically it does not reduce substance abuse, but it is still widely funded.

A similar issue would be charter schools. We should not fund them because they are good for getting votes, or because of some ideology, we should only fund them if they can be demonstrated to provide better educational results than the current system. This is still not clear, as the studies so far are too flawed to really determine anything, but I think that the best decision would be that if school boards approve them a rigorous study of their effects be completed.

Now the war, Bush and the neocons wanted to invade Iraq to establish a stable democracy there. They felt that this would stablize the middle east. That is why we are in Iraq. So far I think the evidence does not support that was effective. I suppose we won't know for decades if their experiment worked. So to have a dogmatic view of this is also dangerous. The experiment is underway.

I believe if somehow people would stop using their "dogmas" to hide behind, and were willing to look at the options we would likely have a much better country.

Calligraph said:

The resources will dry up eventually, and getting off the tit will allow us to stop dealing with a lot of shady people.

Jill said:

I started to respond to caligraph but realized I don't have the time or energy.

This little boy who is still psychologically suckling his momma's teet is at least worth a laugh, no? ;). Is he also worried about the size of his pee pee?

K said:

have difficulties with all this left and right stuff. I am convinced it causes problems

I agree. I think that these labels result in unnecessary divides between us.

Yes, K, you are right - the labels do cause problems. And, it's funny - I don't remember using them much until I started hearing and reading how I was an idiot because I was a liberal. In fact, I never even thought of myself as a Democrat (I'm not in government). I just thought that I would probably end up voting for the Democrat because the Democratic party platform was more in sync with my beliefs.

But - starting somewhere in 2000/2001 - it became very unpopular to be a liberal. And I watched people change and say how they weren't that liberal or how they had been considering themselves more of a conservative - and then spouting the Rove (?) Luntz (?)talking points that were seeping into the zeitgeist. The connotations of liberal became so negative, it actually was hard to say you were one (and at some point came the birth of "progressive" just for that reason) so - I felt it was necessary to start speaking up. I'm sure others here have had that experience.

I was in NY and California during Bush's first term and it was NOT cool to be a liberal - there was some kind of Fight Club, Boiler Room, Clint Eastwood, "Greed is Good" marketing about the whole neocon thing. But, I didn't like being told to ignore reality, history and common sense...and, since I'm a marketer, I also didn't like the unethical marketing; the obfuscation of facts.

If you think it is no longer necessary to say we are on the left and are just as American as anyone on the right - that's great. But, if so, it didn't happen because people learned the facts - it happened because Bushco was so incompetent that their hijacking of the nation has become obvious in ways that affect everyone. And, even with that, we're not out of the woods yet. As we all know (and, JoAnn will make it clear to anyone who possibly, after living through these past two terms, still might not get it), Obama might not get in. But - ever the optimist, I think if he picks a good VP and, if he gets out there and gets to really talk to the people, they will be won over. (My less optimistic optimism is that if McCain gets in, he will be impeached - that he will become the Nixon of our times and the Democrats will follow with a solid couple of terms.)