Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Brian]

I guess I could give money to his campaign, but I am principled, and I will not violate my personal lifetime ban on political contributions. 

The only time I ever made a political donation, (a) I was younger and more naive, and (b) I ultimately voted against the candidate in question.

Embarrassing note: when George Pataki announced this morning, I actually forgot what political party he was in.

[San Antone]

Embarrassing note: when George Pataki announced this morning, I actually forgot what political party he was in.

Actually, I think that is a good thing.  I wish all candidates would have that effect.   

[Ken B]

I'm not so sure.  First, Romney managed to get the nomination in 2012, and it's fair and accurate to say that he is not on the far right of the party, so it can be done.  It usually is done.  Second, and more important, the RNC has limited the number of primary debates this cycle to avoid the long slugfest from last time around.  The Republicans want a less damaged candidate when the general election rolls around. 

If Pataki were better known and younger and a bit more conservative he'd stand a better chance.  I wonder if he's angling for a cabinet position or perhaps a stint at St James or something.

It's still early, of course, but it looks like Bush III, Rubio, and Walker are the frontrunners.  I can stomach two of those.

Yes. Despite the extremism of some of the gop, they have nominated their moderates for president: Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush 1. (I even see Reagan as a closet moderate.) Noe of these was on the party's right wing, especially Romney and Dole.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes. Despite the extremism of some of the gop, they have nominated their moderates for president: Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush 1. (I even see Reagan as a closet moderate.) Noe of these was on the party's right wing, especially Romney and Dole.

Yes, all true. But if one watches the 2 year run-up, it is the loonies who are steering the ship o the last moment. And I might just add, it is in Congress where the loonies tend to congregate and screw things up in between elections. Not that the Dems don't have their share, it is just that somehow the Rep loonies seem more... dangerous. 

[Ken B]

Yes, all true. But if one watches the 2 year run-up, it is the loonies who are steering the ship o the last moment. And I might just add, it is in Congress where the loonies tend to congregate and screw things up in between elections. Not that the Dems don't have their share, it is just that somehow the Rep loonies seem more... dangerous. 

Oh no. I disagree there. Both parties are too much controlled by their loonies but I think the dem loonies are the more dangerous. The gop loonies want irksome stuff like creationism, prayer in school, unimplementable restrictions on abortion, a rollback on gay marriage. They won't actually get any of this, they'll just stir the pot a lot trying. The dem loonies want an end to free trade, censorship, and dangerous retreats in foreign policy. Who would defend Poland or Romania for example?  The dem loonies are far more likely to get their way, and their way is generally more harmful when gotten.
BOTH parties support the war on drugs, which is a huge problem. NEITHER has a good record as a steward of prudent fiscal policy (but Bill Clinton was the best recent president on that).

But in politics you never have good choices. I can pick from 100 Beethoven symphony sets, but two candidates. The best I ever hope for is the lesser evil.

[North Star]

But in politics you never have good choices. I can pick from 100 Beethoven symphony sets, but two candidates. The best I ever hope for is the lesser evil.

The glory of the two-party democracy of USA. In Finland, there are half a dozen bad choices.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'll probably do my usual thing and vote 3rd party. I long ago gave up on the two slightly differing branches of the Corporatist Party.

Who would defend Poland or Romania for example? 

Here's a radical idea: how about Poland and Romania?

[Florestan]

Here's a radical idea: how about Poland and Romania?

Well, when they had the opportunity they did. Poland did her best against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Romania decided that her best option was to ally herself with the former against the latter. Too bad you were born too late to counsel Churchill: WWII might have never happened. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

A WW2 analogy of dubious relevance to the present day...what a surprise 

But since you brought up

Poland

it serves as an object lesson in the folly of putting your faith in foreign powers to come to the rescue (in Poland's case, those British and French "security guarantees").

Meanwhile, to get back to the topic at hand, the first candidate who promises to close down our bases in Europe and Asia and concentrate on solving our own domestic problems will get my vote. (Like that'll ever happen...)

[Ken B]

A WW2 analogy of dubious relevance to the present day...what a surprise 

But since you brought up

it serves as an object lesson in the folly of putting your faith in foreign powers to come to the rescue (in Poland's case, those British and French "security guarantees").

Meanwhile, to get back to the topic at hand, the first candidate who promises to close down our bases in Europe and Asia and concentrate on solving our own domestic problems will get my vote. (Like that'll ever happen...)

And Charles Lindergh would have agreed.

[Todd]

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

And Charles Lindergh would have agreed.

Not to mention John Quincy Adams:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

Those old guys, they knew a thing or two.

[Ken B]

I'll probably do my usual thing and vote 3rd party. I long ago gave up on the two slightly differing branches of the Corporatist Party.

Here's a radical idea: how about Poland and Romania?

Worked so well in 1939.
But you said something else interesting. What was Poland's alternative to trusting in allies? They could never stand up to Germany alone. And they did resist, rather fiercely, but were over-matched. (Personally I am less impressed by their folly than the folly of the other western powers in 36 and 38. )

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

But you said something else interesting. What was Poland's alternative to trusting in allies? They could never stand up to Germany alone.

Good question. I don't know. It's worth pointing out however that Polish diplomacy in the interwar period was not very rational or successful; in particular, they had bad relations with two immediate neighbors who could have been valuable allies (Czechoslovakia and Lithuania), due to territorial disputes which look rather petty in hindsight.

But my larger gripe is that to some people (neocons, etc.), it's always 1938, the enemy of the moment is always Hitler, and we must always intervene. And unfortunately, these people are deeply entrenched in the upper reaches of both parties, despite a track record consisting of one disaster after another. Come on folks, WW2 was a singular event; it's time to dispense with the brain-dead Hitler analogies.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Here Ken, you may enjoy this:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/61-times-kristol-reminded-of-hitler-churchill.html

[Todd]

Come on folks, WW2 was a singular event; it's time to dispense with the brain-dead Hitler analogies.

QFT.

[Gurn Blanston]

But my larger gripe is that to some people (neocons, etc.), it's always 1938, the enemy of the moment is always Hitler, and we must always intervene. And unfortunately, these people are deeply entrenched in the upper reaches of both parties, despite a track record consisting of one disaster after another. Come on folks, WW2 was a singular event; it's time to dispense with the brain-dead Hitler analogies.

Yup, pretty freakin' tiresome. That's an interesting link. Our politicians and journalists have gotten so used to making that analogy they do it as a knee jerk to anything they are against. They always want us to remember history, unless they want us to forget it.

Thing is, it is so easy to be right in hindsight. Hell, I manage it every time, standing on my head. It is a far more astute man who can judge the future accurately. No, I'm not talking about knowing the future here, rather, being able to gauge a situation based on THIS set of circumstances, not making analogies based on past successes or failures.

FWIW, I am in favor of Obama's policies so far in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. They may end up being mistakes in the long run, or resounding successes, but at least he got out of the big freaking circular trench which American foreign policy has been marching in and tried to move things forward. Can you imagine the depth of the stupidity of our Cuba policy? People would actually not look at Rubio as a moron after his scathing indictment of Obama for changing it? US Army still in Western Europe since 1945? Still in South Korea since 1950? Will we occupy the whole world eventually? I would like to own Romania some day...

[Pat B]

Yes. Despite the extremism of some of the gop, they have nominated their moderates for president: Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush 1. (I even see Reagan as a closet moderate.) Noe of these was on the party's right wing, especially Romney and Dole.

Maybe, but most of them didn't have viable challengers from their right, and the party has shifted further away from the center since 2000. Romney won the nomination practically by default.

As for Walker, he has not governed as a moderate, and now that he's running for president, he is no longer branding himself as a moderate. But he has a truckload of other problems (not directly related to ideology) that I think will prevent him from being the nominee, if he doesn't pull a Perry first.

[Todd]

US Army still in Western Europe since 1945?

To be fair, if any peoples have shown themselves to be more foolhardy and warlike than Americans when it comes to foreign policy, it is Europeans. 

Will we occupy the whole world eventually?

With the reach of US naval and air power, we effectively do now.  What other country can deploy, if need be, to Kazakhstan and Argentina and Malaysia all at once in less than a day?

[San Antone]

Driving home from work I listened to an interview on All Things considered with the Presidential Spokesperson about the US policy towards ISIS (or ISIL as the administration says, why?) and for once I completely support Obama's policy, which is: no more US combat troops.  The US will offer support and help to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, but no more US blood and treasure put into Iraq to (again) do what the Iraqis are obligated to do for themselves.