Korean Job Discussion Forums

[fiveeagles]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-bacevich24-2008aug24,0,1685703.story?track=rss

On inauguration day, a new U.S. president is a demigod, the embodiment of aspirations as vast as they are varied. Over the course of the years that follow, the president inevitably fails to fulfill those lofty hopes. So the cycle begins anew, and Americans look to the next occupant of the Oval Office to undo his predecessor's mistakes and usher in an era of lasting peace and sustained prosperity.

[ED209]

So, vote McCain?

[Ya-ta Boy]

While the title of the piece is not a shock to anyone with any common sense, the article itself is a good reminder that the president must play the cards he is dealt. While it doesn't come out and say so in so many words, it also implies that past mistakes have weakened the president's hand this time around.

[Nowhere Man]

[Ya-ta Boy]

I was reading EJ Dionne's piece on Biden (good read) and it mentions something Biden said years ago that is relevant to this thread:

This week's convention is Obama's, not Biden's. But by setting the agenda for the work that needs to be done here, Biden may yet achieve a goal he set for himself back in 1987. His hope, he said, was "to bend history just a little bit."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obama_08_is_biden_88.html

[Ya-ta Boy]

The NY Times has a concise summary of Obama's political philosophy that makes calling him a liberal (with the most liberal rating in the Senate) a little problematic. The word that popped out to me was 'pragmatic', not ideological. That alone is refreshing.

Tracing the Disparate Threads in Obama�s Political Philosophy

Presidential candidates often exude a whiff of centrism as they enter the general campaign. But for Mr. Obama, a relative newcomer to the national stage who will use the Democratic Party�s convention this week to sell himself to voters on his terms, these moves have heightened a sense of his ideological elusiveness.

Much of Mr. Obama�s politics, his opposition to the war and support for raising taxes on the wealthy, and his support of abortion and labor rights, falls squarely in the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party. But his ideological departures are noteworthy.

[Kuros]

[Kikomom]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Kuros]

Ya-Ta,

First of all, the more you learn about Mao, the more you will despise him. I guarantee you he knew very little about the French Revolution and said what he did to appear contemplative. Mao is an awful man, one of the worst of the 20th century.

Second of all, notice I did not bring up all Presidents. But you cannot tell me that FDR did not RADICALLY change the relationship between the Federal gov't and the States. And there are those of us who believe it is for the worst. Do you agree with federal drug policies? It was FDR's encroachments which has made it possible. FDR was not the worst President, its just that he's one of the most consistantly over-rated.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I assure you, the ONLY thing about Mao I ever liked was his comment about the French Rev. I mean that seriously. The man was a monster who got worse with age.

I agree with you that FDR changed the relationship with the states. It was long over-due and the public had been asking for it for a long time. Once it was agreed we are one people and not a collection of states, the change was inevitable and necessary. While I don't think government has the solution to all problems, I do think it's a tool to be used to improve people's lives. The function of progressives is to suggest ways government can do that; the function of conservatives is to be the voice of caution, asking the hard questions that force the progressives to hone the ideas to practical and achievable ends.

[Czarjorge]