That's just reduction to ridicule. Giuliani has never been able to refute Paul, so he resorts to making fun of him.
It's unfortunate that the Republicans have been shutting him out of everything but he is still holding strong, which I'm happy to see.
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
He just rambles for a minute and a half while McCain looks around like "noob."
And anyway, not to contradict the good Dr., but escalation in Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower, a pretty classical Republican.
You're doing it too.
Don't make fun of him, engage the points he brings up and deny them. Yes the Vietnam statement was wrong, he also made a few other mistakes at the end, but what about his major assertation, that the debate should focus on interventionisim, not petty details.
He's more right there then any candidate on either side. The debates need to be on a higher level, discussing actual political science and not just trying to sway the public with spoon fed drivel.
Seriously, how can any candidate debate the amount of time that troops should stay in a war without knowledge that is only gained from being privy to presidential information?
What the hopefuls can do is decide when the US should interveen, when a dictator should be removed, and when foreign civil conflict becomes a genocide that requires US boots on the ground. These are the things that should be debated by US front runners, not the addition of 5,000 or 6,000 troops.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
You're doing it too.
Don't make fun of him, engage the points he brings up and deny them. Yes the Vietnam statement was wrong, he also made a few other mistakes at the end, but what about his major assertation, that the debate should focus on interventionisim, not petty details.
He's more right there then any candidate on either side. The debates need to be on a higher level, discussing actual political science and not just trying to sway the public with spoon fed drivel.
If they start talking about Realist and Liberal theories of international politics, they're going to lose their target audience. Look, I want some real discussion of broad foreign policy agendas as well - that's why I supported Biden until he dropped out - but the fact is, that will go over the average voter's head. The average voter wants to know the physical steps we can take to improve national security, and little more.
And anyhow, a debate on foreign policy strategies HAS been addressed - but not in debates, where they try to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to win the greatest number of voters. I suggest you check out Foreign Affairs - they've published foreign policy essays written by all of the leading candidates - that's where you'll find a more comprehensive summary of each candidate's views on the "political science" stuff that you're looking for.
quote:
Seriously, how can any candidate debate the amount of time that troops should stay in a war without knowledge that is only gained from being privy to presidential information?
Most of the candidates running are members of Congress with access to a pretty substantial amount of information. Obama and Paul, for instance, are both members of their respective foreign affairs committees and receive regular briefings on foreign policy stuff.
Also, most major candidates get daily national security briefings in order to facilitate a transition from candidate to President-elect.
quote:
What the hopefuls can do is decide when the US should interveen, when a dictator should be removed, and when foreign civil conflict becomes a genocide that requires US boots on the ground. These are the things that should be debated by US front runners, not the addition of 5,000 or 6,000 troops.
I think they've been pretty explicit about that, with the exception of Romney. Those Foreign Affairs essays are a very good place to start.
From an article describing how, contrary to popular belief, ethnic nationalism in Yugoslavia didn't run very deep even though it was a very vocal movement - instead, the war was in fact orchestrated by a small group of nationalist elites that used common interests with convicted criminals, racists, and gang members to create "revolution":
"A poll conducted throughout Yugoslavia in the summer and autumn of 1990, even as nationalists were apparently triumphing in elections, more accurately indicates the state of opinion after centuries of supposed ethnic hatreds and after years of nationalist propaganda. The question, "Do you agree that every Yugoslav nation should have a national state of its own?" elicited the following responses: completely agree, 16%; agree to some extent, 7%; undecided, 10%; do not agree in part, 6%; and do not agree at all, 61%.
At times, particularly in Serbia during the rise of Milosevic, militant nationalists were able to orchestrate huge public demonstrations, which have often been taken to suggest their popular appeal. But in general it is unwise to take large, noisy crowds, which clearly are heavily self-selected, as representing public opinion more generally."
Mueller, John. "That Banality of 'Ethnic War.'" International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000).
Read that in an article on the bus today and lol'ed when I thought of this thread.
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
If they start talking about Realist and Liberal theories of international politics, they're going to lose their target audience. Look, I want some real discussion of broad foreign policy agendas as well - that's why I supported Biden until he dropped out - but the fact is, that will go over the average voter's head. The average voter wants to know the physical steps we can take to improve national security, and little more.
But this is part of the problem. Sure the debates may not be as technical as they could / should be, but the average person is actually smarter then you'd assume. Most people have fairly well developed theories about philosophy, politics, and economics but usually lack the comunications skills to express them. When presneted with an argument about such things, so long as it doesn't ramble, most people can feild a decent opinion backed by reasons for thier choice.
Pandering is simply a way of avoiding actual public opininon about things that matter. Wouldn't it be horrible for the political establishment to open up real policy discussion only to find that the majority of people prefer leaving Iran as a smouldering crater? What does a politician do then? All of a sudden the person who is supposed to enact the will of the people has to do something they don't want.
IMO that's the point at which a politician should resign. If you can't do a reasonable job of expressing the majority opinion and acting upon it you shouldn't be even running for office. If the majority opinion is despicable, xenophobic, inhumane, and predatory then that is the majority opinion and the people will have to deal with the consequences, not just thier leaders.
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And anyhow, a debate on foreign policy strategies HAS been addressed - but not in debates, where they try to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to win the greatest number of voters. I suggest you check out Foreign Affairs - they've published foreign policy essays written by all of the leading candidates - that's where you'll find a more comprehensive summary of each candidate's views on the "political science" stuff that you're looking for.
I'm a huge fan of FA. It's one of those magazines that offers some amount of silver lining to a rather stormy society.
I've been following the candidates essays closely and I'm ready to look over the essays of who ever wins to see what's ahead. Hukabee and Guliani have had the absolute worst essays of all of them.
Guliani is full of aggression and tough New York talk. It might work well for a city where the population numbers in the millions, but a world who's population is 1000 times as big is completely different. It seems rather clear that Guiliani has spent a lot of time becoming king of his castle at the expense of not knowing much outside of it. I'm thinking of a character like Cousin Avi in "Snatch", someone who's tough, smart, and to the point but doesn't actually want to deal with learning how another city works.
Hukabee is down right scary. He opens his essay a mistake in each of his opening lines.
"The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries."
less vulnerable to millitary defeat then what? More vulnerable then what?
I think the implication is "other countries" but it's still a rather horid opening line.
It's also clear that Hukabee has at least two writers working on the essay. It jumps dramatically between styles of flow and vocabulary on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
A final note is that he ommits mentioning China, India, South America, and Africa. That's 13 pages of foreign policy speak by a potential US presidential candidate that leaves those "minor" points out of his writing.
A final note, I haven't seen an essay by Paul in Foreign Affairs.
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
From an article describing how, contrary to popular belief, ethnic nationalism in Yugoslavia didn't run very deep even though it was a very vocal movement - instead, the war was in fact orchestrated by a small group of nationalist elites that used common interests with convicted criminals, racists, and gang members to create "revolution":
"A poll conducted throughout Yugoslavia in the summer and autumn of 1990, even as nationalists were apparently triumphing in elections, more accurately indicates the state of opinion after centuries of supposed ethnic hatreds and after years of nationalist propaganda. The question, "Do you agree that every Yugoslav nation should have a national state of its own?" elicited the following responses: completely agree, 16%; agree to some extent, 7%; undecided, 10%; do not agree in part, 6%; and do not agree at all, 61%.
At times, particularly in Serbia during the rise of Milosevic, militant nationalists were able to orchestrate huge public demonstrations, which have often been taken to suggest their popular appeal. But in general it is unwise to take large, noisy crowds, which clearly are heavily self-selected, as representing public opinion more generally."
Mueller, John. "That Banality of 'Ethnic War.'" International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000).
Read that in an article on the bus today and lol'ed when I thought of this thread.
Likewise the "Brown Shirts" of the Nazi party were vocal and violent yet a minority.
Anas Attia
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
January 22, 2008 8:00 pm
Ron Paul of the Day: Google says Ron Paul media blackout conspiracies true!
Today’s Ron Paul of the Day comes straight from our brilliant friends at Google. Turns out Google has a pretty neat tool called Google Trends that charts how many hits, searches, and results a search term has. The great part about this tool is that it also charts mentions of the search term in the news. Surprise Surprise when compared to the other GOP candidates Ron Paul is by far the highest on the internet searches and by far the lowest by mentions in mainstream media. Here are some examples of charts. Check out the attached YouTube (not my video) for some more good explanations of the trends and charts.
Here is the search if you want to play with the time frame and check it by state or country: Google Trends
