The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Howard’s Republican gamble > Comments

Howard’s Republican gamble : Comments

By Brendon O'Connor, published 21/11/2006

Our prime minister’s preferred candidate, Republican John McCain, is still favoured to win the US presidency in 2008.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
A good commentary.

Despite losing the midterms the Republican's are attempting to preempt the Democrats decision making (January 2007 onwards) in congress regarding Iraq. Interesting that the US military (independently?) have announced the option of sending more troops to Iraq (temporarily, in theory, of course). The Baker's Iraq Study Group may well highlight the same option next month.

This appears to be setting the bar high so that any milder option pushed by the Democrats is more likely to be the status quo.

The more troops option will also divide the Democrats, as some, like Kerry have actually advocated more troops.

On possible candidates for President in the 2008 elections its an unlikely mix, particularly on the Democrat side (Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama). The US electorate appear to be very conservative - always choicing alpha male whites - taking more than a century to even choose a Catholic. Hillary has spouse skeletons and Obama? - too new and with a weird name (close to Osama) for a frequently alarmed US electorate. I think the Democrats might play it safe in the end and field a WASP male.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose it is a measure of the Realist approach to foreign affairs that Dr O’Connor takes the line he does, probably rightly.
I suppose also it is naïve to think that popular concern with humanity, with international law would feature, though claims to God like purity and concern for collaterals are often made. Thanks and praises to God made not infrequently from increasingly popular new religious groups.
War was illegal? My reading is yes the media’s; depends on the lawyer and degree of justification as getting rid of a dictator. Untested in a court of law.
A dictator who happened to be in a desired position serving as useful excuse others, choose which you like there are many, some with Western support, can be ignored or referred to the U.N.
That is the body set up to in theory prevent war and bring some measure of humanity to the world. That is the body derided as ineffective by our leaders many of whom have deliberately undermined its activities rather then seek to improve.Whose resolutions vetoed for perceived national value.
Human Nature, realist foreign affairs, national concerns, Herman Goering’s dictum yet again!
The world will move on with the American century still to the fore though operating more clandestinely than previously, the meida now out of the loop in this area.. The National Security Strategy of Bush still on the table. Profit imperatives of the multinationals made more urgent as the finiteness of resources becomes apparent to the unheeding eyes. Fear still abroad and useful, terrorism needs tweaking when the electorate becomes quiescent but Newsworthy items moulded round these tools still serves.
Naïve to think it worth pushing for Law international Law as aid to control of human behaviour. Nationally it works, fear of my neighbours intentions muted at least by police patrol.
An international patrol with other nationalities of varying colour and social ways?
My God next I will be wanting international meets that really do concern themselves with others not their nation, corporation or pride.
Morality on public display as actuality not rhetoric?
Oh dear!
Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A white male such as.... gore? Now there'd be some interesting politics... but no less interesting than the first black or first female president.
At least the democrats are experimenting I suppose... and American voters haven't really had the option of choosing anything other than a white male. I agree there will be a scare factor to overcome, though the novelty/curiosity favour, coupled with additional votes garnered from women or racial minorities who identify with their candidate, may prove to be an asset. Then again, it could fail miserably... they're in unfamiliar territory here.
These polls will be more interesting than most.

Actually, I'm somewhat optimistic about the next US elections. Whoever wins, their role will be reasonably defined.
Even a republican victory will be an improvement over the current administration, as at least McCain has proven a little more progressive on foreign policy.
What's more, he has the experience to back up his views.

My money's on a narrow win for McCain, over Clinton. It's too soon for Obama to step in to the role, though perhaps next time. I'd like to see the democrats win, but despite the landslide mid-terms, I still see them as the underdogs.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:59:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard ought to cement his sycophancy with an endorsement of McCain the moment he gets the chance. With any luck the favour will be returned.

Then we can simply formalise the arrangement and become part of the US.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 1:09:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McCain/Rice versus Gore/Richardson is my bet. I just came back from the US and every Democrat friend of mine thinks that Hillary will get the nomination but she cannot win...what is that telling you about the chances of Hillary getting it or of Hillary even deciding to run. The big problem for the Democrats is that the big winners from the mid-terms were conservative Democrats in places like Indiana, Texas and North Carolina but the base of the Party supports losers like the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
Posted by matt@righthinker.com, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 3:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
there is no obvious democrat candidate, perhaps because no one is sure they want to deal with the middle east in it's present state.

a year or two from now, the dems will have some popular laws and policies established by congress and can run on them, without having to convince anyone they can 'fix' the middle east. the middle east will simply be america's chernobyl- "the republican disaster".

more important from an australian view is that howard has not visibly improved our position in the world, by tacking his nose on dubya's bum. the (thousand plus page) 'freetrade agreement' is anything but free, and seems to benefit the usa at our expense. protecting the iraq wheat contract with a few hundred volunteer gunmen in the 'coalition of the willing' might have been of some electoral benefit to the national party, but the stink of corruption and a few brave whistle blowers has turned that contract into a debit in local politics.

still, the libnats have several assets for the coming election. there's always the willingness of the electorate to be hoodwinked, and this time the vast incompetence of any 'opposition party' is particularly visible.

as long as beasley is the visible face of labor, and the american government is in bypartisan/waiting mode, his 'pilot fish' gamble will succeed, regardless of stumbles and scandals. after all, people in what they call "parliamentary democracy" have no real choices in their power. in the end, they can only say:"better the devil we know"
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 3:49:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

It is a wonder Howard wants to go on. Could even spoil his record.

Remember the Australian Prime Ministerial vote is almost a year before the US Presidential vote. So if Howard is relying on McCain to win, the Democrats might even stand Nancy Pelosi, present leader of the Democrat Congress. The British Guardian which is also backed by the Washington Post and Le Monde of France, says Pelosi is now only two heartbeats away from the Presidency. Furthermore, the US Congress with a new appointed Leader, wll be still in power for at least another term after the Presidential election.

Much could happen in the meantime. How safe if the White House takes on Henry Kissinger’s advice about handing over the Iraq problem to pretty well the whole of the Middle East, which surely could happen if both Syria and Iran accept Kissinger’s suggested invitation? With Israel sure to be dangerously interested, which side will she take if Kissinger's idea eventuates?

We could also wonder about the new position of the UN, with GWB still allowed to suggest, but with the new Congress able to cramp his style?
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 5:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part Two
As suggested previously, pity this whole mess in the Middle East could not be handled by a non-political World Court. Probably end up with someone like Rupert Murdoch declaring that as he has always been middle of the road like a true newspaperman, he is there to trust. My God - we could all bet our bottom dollars where Murdoch’s middle of the road would lead straight to - no question.

John Howard too, possibly not only our most successful PM in the eyes of the Aussie public, but also the most successful in beating the gun, and dodging the issue which not only includes not a word to America about scrapping US farm protection policies which is what the original WTO was all about, but himself without advice allowing the bi-lateral Trade agreement with the US, which in turn weakened our Bio-Security Laws so much, a shipment of foot and mouth suspected Brazilian carcase meat was landed in NSW, the meat after shocked orders from cattle-men, only allowed to be buried, but not safely disposed of by the recommended process of chemical treatment.

One wonders which are the worst Howard’s boo-boo’s, or the one of Donald Rumsfeld letting 300, 000 of Saddam’s elite frontline fighting force dive underground in Iraq. to emerge again as terrorists, with the Stars and Stripes run up aloft at the time, while the victory in Iraq was celebrated
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 5:47:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, there's a very likely possibility Giuliani could lead the republican party.

He doesn't get as much attention as McCain, but he's not nearly as divisive... I'll still peg McCain, but I'm wondering where Condolezza Rice is going to fit into this - I certainly don't think she'll gun for the top spot, but I could see her in the vice presidents's chair...
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:24:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy