Comments | mommyathome: Had fun last night mildly annoying my big brother

mommyathome

Had fun last night mildly annoying my big brother

Aug 29, 2008 14:11

My oldest brother is a Democrat and is constantly cringing at my Libertarian (which translates to Republican at voting time) leanings. So last night we were talking politics - good naturedly mind you - and it was very entertaining. My father became a Republican after Carter and never left (pun intended ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

llennhoff August 29 2008, 12:30:35 UTC

Wow. You're the first PUMA I know in sorta real life. I don't know if you want to talk politics, but if you do I'd be fascinated to know what you fear would be worse about an Obama presidency than the predictable results of a McCain presidency.

llennhoff August 29 2008, 14:12:47 UTC

What the hell is a PUMA?

I'm hesitant to talk politics... but feel free to ask. BTW, I know McCain is a nightmare when it comes to women's issues and this is why I'm not happy with either choice.

cahwyguy August 29 2008, 14:31:48 UTC

I, too, would like to know what you do not trust about Obama. I could understand if you have honestly studied his proposals and McCain's proposals and liked McCain's better, but one should not be making their decision for president based on some unspecified distrust.

mommyathome August 30 2008, 15:03:35 UTC

At this point it's been all about gut when it comes to Obama (I'm already familiar with McCain). I've heard Obama talk about a united Jerusalem and then take it back the following day - which didn't leave a particularly good impression. But I'll definitely make my final decision on facts and not gut.

cahwyguy August 30 2008, 15:08:31 UTC

I did a quick search. According to the Jerusalem Post:"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

Certainly it is a fair question to be asked (and I hope it is asked during the debates), but one also needs to look at the total picture of all the positions.

mommyathome August 30 2008, 15:14:17 UTC

He did even more waffling on the issue when he met with the Palestinians. My problem is he would give far too much time and effort to Israel - which I think we neither need nor want. However, we won't be in a position to say no - this is part of why I liked Bush. He left us alone to our own devices. What makes America think they can fix this issue? Just let it be.

cahwyguy August 30 2008, 15:20:44 UTC

I don't think we will know how much time he will spend on Israel, and what the focus of that time would be, until we see who his foreign policy advisors and team are. My guess would be, for at least the first two years, that he'll be preoccupied with getting out of Iraq safely, focusing on Afghanistan, dealing with Iran (which could be a plus for Israel), and dealing with the Georgia mess. As for Israel involvement, I think it would all depend on approach. Providing facilitation to the parties when requested by them is one thing; trying to force a solution neither side wants is another. Still, if he tries to facilitate a solution, he might get a more receptive response from the various parties than McCain (or certainly Palin) would get.

mommyathome August 30 2008, 15:24:40 UTC

There's a saying in Israel, 'Only a hawk can bring peace.'

And I think it's true. The doves won't argue, and the other hawks will follow their leader. Which means McCain has a better chance making peace than Obama will.

cahwyguy August 30 2008, 15:29:53 UTC

We've had both hawks and doves try, and neither has succeeded. I think only something unexpected will bring peace, something that hasn't been suggested or tried before. We certainly saw that with Sadat, which was unexpected. So who would have new ideas?

However, in reality, it all comes down to the advisors, and who is leading the countries in question. Israel is about to change leaders, and so is the US. It really is a guess.

One important thing for Israel is to have an American partner who is strong, respected, and stable economically.

Back to all threads