Question for Everyone

[Jake]

First for Democrats,

Would you rather have us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, have the GOP make major gains in Congress and win the presidency in 2008; or would you rather us pull out of Iraq, be defeated and have the GOP embarassed and humiliated ?


For Republicans and everyone else,

Would you rather us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, etc as above; or would you rather Bush succeeds with his domestic agenda of tax code reform, social security reform, etc ?

[opebo]

First for Democrats,

Would you rather have us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, have the GOP make major gains in Congress and win the presidency in 2008; or would you rather us pull out of Iraq, be defeated and have the GOP embarassed and humiliated?

I would prefer the latter.  I don't want to encourage further US agression, and besides, a minor defeat in a pointless foreign war that would help us get rid of Religious Party rule would be well worth it.

[A18]

Defense comes first. Certainly I would prefer the former.

Of course, I would hope that a stronger GOP would be able to press successfully for domestic reforms in Social Security, the tax code, etc.

[dazzleman]

First for Democrats,

Would you rather have us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, have the GOP make major gains in Congress and win the presidency in 2008; or would you rather us pull out of Iraq, be defeated and have the GOP embarassed and humiliated ?


For Republicans and everyone else,

Would you rather us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, etc as above; or would you rather Bush succeeds with his domestic agenda of tax code reform, social security reform, etc ?

I think success in Iraq could only boost Pres. Bush's ability to pass the rest of his program.  Defense comes first, so if I have to choose between the 2, I'd say the first.  But the first will probably lead to the second.  I believe and hope that Bush will get both.

Real liberal Democrats will likely pick their second option.  You know that's what the Hollywood crowd and Michael Moore want, as well as the Soros crowd.  They have felt this way for a long time, and this is why people associate liberalism with anti-Americanism.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I believe the US is well on the road to sucess in Iraq.

Interestingly enough, peoples around the world have gotten the message of Iraq (khadadifi of Libya was one of the first to understand the message), the people of Lebanon picked up the message, as have recently other peoples throughout the world.

American liberals remain incapable of understanding the message (or to be more accurate, are opposed to it).

The message is really pretty simple, the people can prevail in obtaining their rights if they are sufficently determined in opposing the forces of evil.

It will be interesting to see if in the near future the people of Iran topple the evil mullahs have tyranized their country.

Who knows, perhaps the people of the United States will yet have sucess in their struggle to tame the activist judiciary which is legislating from the bench.

Yes, this may temporarily help Bush and the Republicans in the next election, but, it may in the long run help the Democrats if it forces them to discard the mindless and immoral leftwing forces who have held sway in the national party for too long.

Remember, the Republican electoral sucess in the 1946 election led the forces of decency in the Democrat party to purge the communists.

[Richard]

For Republicans and everyone else,

Would you rather us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, etc as above; or would you rather Bush succeeds with his domestic agenda of tax code reform, social security reform, etc ?

Probably the latter.  I don't really care too much about Iraq.

[dazzleman]

I believe the US is well on the road to sucess in Iraq.

Interestingly enough, peoples around the world have gotten the message of Iraq (khadadifi of Libya was one of the first to understand the message), the people of Lebanon picked up the message, as have recently other peoples throughout the world.

American liberals remain incapable of understanding the message (or to be more accurate, are opposed to it).

The message is really pretty simple, the people can prevail in obtaining their rights if they are sufficently determined in opposing the forces of evil.

It will be interesting to see if in the near future the people of Iran topple the evil mullahs have tyranized their country.

Who knows, perhaps the people of the United States will yet have sucess in their struggle to tame the activist judiciary which is legislating from the bench.

Yes, this may temporarily help Bush and the Republicans in the next election, but, it may in the long run help the Democrats if it forces them to discard the mindless and immoral leftwing forces who have held sway in the national party for too long.

Remember, the Republican electoral sucess in the 1946 election led the forces of decency in the Democrat party to purge the communists.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Great post.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks.

For too long regular Democrats have been silent while the lefties have led the party into the fever swamps of extremism.

Its time for the reasonable people to take back the party from the nut cases.

Remember, after the Tories repeatedly thumpted the labourites in the UK, New (more moderate) Labour emerged under Tony Blair.

[Jorge Estrada]

i'm neither republican or democrat so i'll answer both.

for both questions, i'd like to see victory in iraq.

[dazzleman]

Thanks.

For too long regular Democrats have been silent while the lefties have led the party into the fever swamps of extremism.

Its time for the reasonable people to take back the party from the nut cases.

Remember, after the Tories repeatedly thumpted the labourites in the UK, New (more moderate) Labour emerged under Tony Blair.

Yes, and the Tories collapsed.  It's ironic how often success in politics ultimately leads to political oblivion.  As Margaret Thatcher said (paraphased), "the measure of one's success in politics is not how much one has changed the position of his own party, but how much he has changed the position of the opposition party."

Right now, the Democrats seem to have chosen a path of going further left, and relying on the barren reaches of their extreme elements.  This approach, in addition to being totally wrong for the country, guarantees long-term minority status.

So far, Bush has not succeeded very much if one uses Thatcher's definition.  But he still has a full second term.  Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, just seem blind to certain facts that are in conflict with their ideology.  That's why they encourage political correctness to stifle the presentation of these facts.  It can't last in the long run.

[FerrisBueller86]

Would you rather have us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, have the GOP make major gains in Congress and win the presidency in 2008; or would you rather us pull out of Iraq, be defeated and have the GOP embarassed and humiliated ?

This sounds like a loaded question, because it doesn't show all the possible scenarios or the likelihood of each one.  But since I'm not being interviewed for TV, I'll bite.  Of course I'd prefer that we succeed.  I was against the first Gulf War, and I was glad that it ended relatively quickly.  I was ambivalent on Gulf War II at first.  I thought that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction at first, but I thought that Bush should have given the UN inspectors time to do their jobs before starting the invasion.  Of course, things like the lack of weapons of mass destruction and the prison abuse scandal turned my opinion against Gulf War II.

The right wing loves to tie liberals with Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.  This would be like tying the Christian Coalition to the KGB in the Soviet Union.

[Trilobyte]

First for Democrats,

Would you rather have us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, have the GOP make major gains in Congress and win the presidency in 2008; or would you rather us pull out of Iraq, be defeated and have the GOP embarassed and humiliated ?

If by "succeed in Iraq" you mean leaving behind a stable democratic government and restoring the infrastructure destroyed in the war, then I choose the former. The people of Iraq are the ones who suffered the most from the war and the violence that followed. As the invading force, America has the moral responsibility to leave Iraqis in a better state than before the war. Pulling out early would only result in civil war.

Ultimately, I want the best outcome for the Iraqis. Bush and the GOP really are not that important.

[Hitchabrut]

First

[MaC]

Everyone else:  as long as Bush is distracted with Iraq and "bringing terrorist to justice", he doesn't have the time or the money to f--- it up at home, so the first option for me. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

the question is irrelevent, because complete success in Iraq, IMHO, is not a possibility.  As long as we are there, there's going to be those who want to kill us.  We are going to pull out eventually, and not everyone left is going to be a freedom-loving, America supporter.  It's just not going to happen.  Truth is, we can't pull out until we have some kind of stability.  By that time, our forces will be in such ruin and disarray that even with the "victory", Bush will not be popular. 

the Iraq War was a horribly, ill-advised decision, to say the least.  And no matter what happens, we are not going to have a truely stable democracy there and America is paying a heavy price.  Sad, really. 

[Citizen James]

Sure, I'd love to see us succeed in Iraq.  I'd love to see the world all live in freedom in which all people have inalienable rights, governments are chosen freely by the people, and everyone is well informed.

I would also love to see all diseases cured, people lifted up out of poverty so that all have at least a decent standard of living, and the world singing in perfect harmony.

Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that George II is the second coming of Christ, no matter how many of his followers act as though he was infalible.

Like communism before it, neo-conservatism lives by the mythology that you can create a utopia through authoritarianism and millitary might.  The only differences are that the corporations own the government (rather than vice versa), and the constitution gets in their way of ideological purity.

So, yes, I would love it if we succeeded.  I would love it if I won the lottery too.  Unfortunately, I don't see either as likely to happen in the near future.

[Citizen James]

Oh, and an alternate (and more ballanced) question for republicans.

Would you prefer we succeed in Iraq, while a scandal brings the GOP to it's knees, or that we remain in a quagmire, but the GOP makes large scale political gains?

I think that would be much closer to an equivilent question.

or...

Would you want us to have another major  terrorsist attack (which cements Bush's popularity somehow and gives the
GOP gains), or would you prefer the USA to remain safe, even if the Democrats gain control?

[J. J.]

I'd prefer the domestic policy to get better, but the two are linked, both politically and economically.

[AkSaber]

Iraq is a matter of life and death. The tax code and everything else can be fixed later. Iraq needs to succeed.

[Gabu]

First for Democrats,

Would you rather have us succeed in Iraq, pull out successfully, have Bush have high approval ratings, have the GOP make major gains in Congress and win the presidency in 2008; or would you rather us pull out of Iraq, be defeated and have the GOP embarassed and humiliated ?

Given what I've said in the past regarding this matter, I think my answer should be pretty obvious.

[The Duke]

I'd prefer successi n Iraq.  No one dies if social security goes bankrupt in 2017.

Side note: A big fat bitch slap to all the little bitches who criticized me for projecting insolvency in 2017 and demanded that I use 2018 as my insolvency date.  Bitch.

[CARLHAYDEN]

John,

For a number of reasons, the solvency (or lack there of) of the Social Security Trust funds is difficult to precisely project as a number of factors are involved.

The bottom line is that unless significant changes are made, even under the most favorable reasonable projections, all of the funds are going to be insolvent by 2050.

The stone-walling by Democrats in Congress to any change in Social Security except for raising taxes and increasing benefits is that when the system reaches crisis state, Democrats are going to be blamed for preventing  reforms that might save the system.

It seems to me that a compromise (where everyone gets something, both good and bad) would at least buy some time.

Such a compromise would include:

a.) Raising the amount of income on which Social Security 'contributions' can be assessed (thereby pleasing the Democrats in Congress).

b.) Slightly raising the retirement eligibilty age (which would reflect the original intent of the law).

c.) Changing the formula for the COLA to more accurately project real inflation for recepients (it is currently overstated),

d.) Allowing a small proportion of the 'contribution' to be invested in individual accounts under rules similiar to those which apply to investments of insurance companies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

John,

For a number of reasons, the solvency (or lack there of) of the Social Security Trust funds is difficult to precisely project as a number of factors are involved.

The bottom line is that unless significant changes are made, even under the most favorable reasonable projections, all of the funds are going to be insolvent by 2050.

The stone-walling by Democrats in Congress to any change in Social Security except for raising taxes and increasing benefits is that when the system reaches crisis state, Democrats are going to be blamed for preventing  reforms that might save the system.

It seems to me that a compromise (where everyone gets something, both good and bad) would at least buy some time.

Such a compromise would include:

a.) Raising the amount of income on which Social Security 'contributions' can be assessed (thereby pleasing the Democrats in Congress).

b.) Slightly raising the retirement eligibilty age (which would reflect the original intent of the law).

c.) Changing the formula for the COLA to more accurately project real inflation for recepients (it is currently overstated),

d.) Allowing a small proportion of the 'contribution' to be invested in individual accounts under rules similiar to those which apply to investments of insurance companies.

Just get rid of the cap on SS taxes (currently $90,000), and limit benefits for wealthy retirees. There's no need for cuts or delaying retirement.

Why are you Republicans so opposed to this? Someday I'll probably be making over $90,000 a year, and I'm not opposed.

[??????????]

Yeah fern that's fair. Remove the cap altogether and then limit their benefits! That IS theft.

[Alcon]

I would prefer that Iraq went perfectly from now on. I fear that it will not.

I will not hope that people die just so my party can win a few stupid elections.