Huh? So, if you can't have a Libertarian in office, you want to skip across the political spectrum and pick the most statist? Can you explain your reasoning? I'm not calling you out, I'm just interested in your reasoning.
That entire interview I couldn't help but think what it would have been like if it were undertaken when Gates was SecDef under Bush rather than Obama. Same person, largely the same policies, but a different boss. I can't help but think it wouldn't have been quite so fawning.
That's my viewpoint. I had no problem with our state creating the Oregon Health Plan (although I didn't agree with it), but I have a huge problem with Obamacare.
I bet the Libertarian guys can work with a republican congress to slash and burn. I trust them to veto the asinine social agenda things they'd pass as well. Barring that ideal outcome, gridlock is the next best thing. And Obama is a good guy with a lot of positives aside from poor governance.
Really? I was thinking I wonder how Iraq and Pakistan would have gone if we had Gates as Sec Def instead of Rumsfeld during the entire time. I really didn't think the interview was fawning at all.
Patraeus was the guy that won it, not Gates, IMO. And I officially changed my voter's registration from independent to Libertarian Party today.
You are aware that the Oregon Health Plan is a massively expensive program (to Oregon taxpayers) serving a tiny minority of well-connected Oregonians. Seems like it's the exact kind of big government waste you are usually opposed to.
Gates failed miserably as SoD, and owns quite a large portion of the blame for our country's financial predicament. Already in over his head and beyond his capabilities, I doubt he could survive a 4 year term as Pres without being impeached for incompetence.
Gary Johnson has some good ideas, but his war on the poor and his promise to cut medicare and social security by half pretty much kills any realistic chance for him to even be taken seriously.
Mitt Romney is just another pretty face who will say or do whatever he feels will get him elected. He has no moral code, no bright ideas, no vision, and no conscience. I nominate him as the most likely to be nothing more than a corporate lapdog if elected.
Speaking of which, I am consistently being told that going in with overwhelming force to kill or capture one of the world's great villans was a "gutsy call" with many people in the Administration saying it was the "gutsiest call [they've] ever seen". Wouldn't approving the surge--which undeniably turned the tide in Iraq--be a bigger "gutsy call"? It was (and remains) an unpopular conflict where there would be no one moment defining success and putting thousands of troops in harm's way. To me, approving the action to get Bin Laden is like saying going with the sausage and mushroom over pepperoni and olive is a "gutsy call".
Lincoln won a war that became unpopular over time. But it didn't happen until he fired a few generals and stumbled onto one that had the winning plan. I see the surge and Patraeus as a similar situation. Not so much a gutsy move as lucking into the right general. Gates was a good choice because his appointment took the scrutiny off the Pentagon and Secy. of Defense. IMO
I wasn't comparing enacting the surge strategy with "gutsy calls" throughout history--Inchon, crossing the Delaware and the actions during the Cuban Missle Crisis are all more impressive--I was comparing the fawning over Obama's relatively easy decision vs. the lack of media comment over President Bush's more difficult one (especially after roasting him over the coals for Iraq in the first place).
Like I said, I see the situation with Bush and Lincoln as similar. The northeastern "liberal" establishment roasted Lincoln over the coals, etc.
