Comments on: Moot promises http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/ I used to be in the middle, but they keep moving the line! Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:01:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Polimom Says » Gnashing and wailing their way back to Earth http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-127977 Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:06:36 +0000 http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-127977 [...] I fully expect the cacophony to be deafening when Obama starts acknowledging (and adjusting his rhetoric to) the changing conditions in Iraq. Like the campaign financing, the situation on the ground necessitates a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. [...] […] I fully expect the cacophony to be deafening when Obama starts acknowledging (and adjusting his rhetoric to) the changing conditions in Iraq. Like the campaign financing, the situation on the ground necessitates a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. […]

]]> by: Polimom Says » “The right to assess the situation” http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-114616 Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:28:38 +0000 http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-114616 [...] I wrote over a month ago that I’d be impressed with any Democratic candidate who could admit that the situation is fluid, and that any promises today would likely be moot later. [...] […] I wrote over a month ago that I’d be impressed with any Democratic candidate who could admit that the situation is fluid, and that any promises today would likely be moot later. […]

]]> by: Goldenrod http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-110487 Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:29:54 +0000 http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-110487 I try not to discuss politics, but feel the urge to comment here. "John Q. Public" seems to require (media-driven?) sensationalism in any/every form. Most of the time, it seems to me, it is negative and designed to inflame what is -- often present -- an ever-smoldering fire. (Probably due to "our" need to feel better about ourselves by putting others down.) In this day & age of ever-advancing technology & instantaneous "news" (albeit edited), it would be extremely difficult for one person to ascertain the real facts about ANYthing ... and, even more difficult for that one person to get others to believe in that "discovered" truth. Personally, I am having a problem with ALL of the candidates for the coming nomination & subsequent election process. There is one person who, I believe, might actually be a viable candidate. However, he is not currently in the running, and I am not about to propose his candicacy in this venue. I try not to discuss politics, but feel the urge to comment here. “John Q. Public” seems to require (media-driven?) sensationalism in any/every form. Most of the time, it seems to me, it is negative and designed to inflame what is — often present — an ever-smoldering fire. (Probably due to “our” need to feel better about ourselves by putting others down.)

In this day & age of ever-advancing technology & instantaneous “news” (albeit edited), it would be extremely difficult for one person to ascertain the real facts about ANYthing … and, even more difficult for that one person to get others to believe in that “discovered” truth.

Personally, I am having a problem with ALL of the candidates for the coming nomination & subsequent election process.

There is one person who, I believe, might actually be a viable candidate. However, he is not currently in the running, and I am not about to propose his candicacy in this venue.

]]> by: Polimom http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-110346 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:33:22 +0000 http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-110346 Hi TM -- Thanks for the "welcome back"! It's been kind of hard to verbally sit on the sidelines in the last week or two. What a relief to finally be past this excrutiatingly long build-up, and get to some meat and potatoes! Thank you also for the link to the WSJ editorial. Much appreciated, and I've added to the initial post.... and I agree about the "pot" and "kettle". OTOH, the inability to differentiate between today's reality, and potential policy a year from now, is not limited to the Democrats. We (as in, the electorate), by demanding present-day solutions to evolving situations, are also responsible for this silliness. Hi TM —

Thanks for the “welcome back”! It’s been kind of hard to verbally sit on the sidelines in the last week or two. What a relief to finally be past this excrutiatingly long build-up, and get to some meat and potatoes!

Thank you also for the link to the WSJ editorial. Much appreciated, and I’ve added to the initial post…. and I agree about the “pot” and “kettle”.

OTOH, the inability to differentiate between today’s reality, and potential policy a year from now, is not limited to the Democrats. We (as in, the electorate), by demanding present-day solutions to evolving situations, are also responsible for this silliness.

]]> by: The Master http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-110344 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:10:18 +0000 http://www.polimom.com/2008/01/08/moot-promises/#comment-110344 Hi Polimom, Welcome back to the fray! Good point about the Democrats' denial of reality (so as to placate 'The Base'). The Wall Street Journal also has an editorial out today that explores each of the four leading Democrats' <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119975661015673629.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_opinion" rel="nofollow">somewhat different forms of denial</a>. The closing paragraph: <blockquote> "It is evident, though, that the opposition to Iraq after the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 has put these candidates in a corner. For the past year, Democrats in both the Senate and House have enforced rock-solid party opposition to every jot and tittle of the Bush policy. They now have four candidates running for the U.S. Presidency who seem to believe it is to their political advantage to deny manifest reality." </blockquote> If they are going to start their Presidential runs by insisting on a make believe reality, why should voters take them seriously? Surely the bare minimum we should expect from a candidate is the ability to take a clear eyed look at the world before formulating policy. The Democrats have (rightly, in my opinion) pilloried George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for not recognizing the unpleasant realities on the ground in Iraq. Pot? Kettle? Hi Polimom,

Welcome back to the fray!

Good point about the Democrats’ denial of reality (so as to placate ‘The Base’). The Wall Street Journal also has an editorial out today that explores each of the four leading Democrats’ somewhat different forms of denial. The closing paragraph:

“It is evident, though, that the opposition to Iraq after the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 has put these candidates in a corner. For the past year, Democrats in both the Senate and House have enforced rock-solid party opposition to every jot and tittle of the Bush policy. They now have four candidates running for the U.S. Presidency who seem to believe it is to their political advantage to deny manifest reality.”

If they are going to start their Presidential runs by insisting on a make believe reality, why should voters take them seriously? Surely the bare minimum we should expect from a candidate is the ability to take a clear eyed look at the world before formulating policy. The Democrats have (rightly, in my opinion) pilloried George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for not recognizing the unpleasant realities on the ground in Iraq.

Pot? Kettle?

]]>