Meanwhile, over in Georgia

I think Derbyshire's point about this being an electoral factor -- ie, that it won't be, in practical terms -- holds.

Podhoretz had the nerve to spit on Ingmar Bergman's grave last year and I hope he gets prostrate cancer and is bound to a bronze-colored catheter for the rest of his days. Even seeing his name in print makes me feel nauseous

>>I think Derbyshire's point about this being an electoral factor -- ie, that it won't be, in practical terms -- holds.

-- Ned Raggett, Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link <<

Id like to think so, but I don't think anything within 90 days of the election can be ruled out as an electoral factor, with the spin machines brewing and especially with the 9-11% of "undecideds" in the most recent polls

Also - vocal recordings be damned - the day that Ned Raggett is agreeing with John fucking Derrbyshire on *anything* is enough to color my daily black cloud even darker

Sigh

I think the fact that most Americans have no idea who/what/where Georgia is will mitigate this invasion's role in the election, particularly if the fighting stops after less than a week.

*shrug* I think the appetite for 'going to war' among the general voting populace is rather different now than it was in 2003 -- which I rather think is Derbyshire's point as well, if implicitly. He thinks it won't sell as a voting point if push came to shove, which strikes me as accurate.

John McCain isn't going to run on "going to war," he's going to run on "keeping democracy safe," and "keeping us safe, the way Republicans have successfully, since 2001!" ...the latter which Bush ran and won on in 2004

+ add in all the "do you think this frosh celebrity senator is ready to deal with X, Y, & Z" attacks won't help

wait, you aren't American, are you

lol

he's going to run on "keeping democracy safe," and "keeping us safe, the way Republicans have successfully, since 2001!" ...the latter which Bush ran and won on in 2004

Russia not being al-Qaeda, or being seen as behind 9/11, I don't think this'll fly either. Shakey Mo's next-to-last post OTM, really.

about as American as you. Maybe more self-conscious of being identified as "non-America" due to appearance

How is it OTM ?

+ add all these "the Iraq war has been won, BOOYA, da surge worked!, Go Republicans!" sloganeering

like here, which is published within an admittedly right-leaning editorial board: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850093104731719.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

And even more irksome in the MSM are stories like this, which completely baffle me http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731 - until I remember that Zakaria supported the Iraq war

Wow. Condi Rice is on ABC World News now, and she actually said, "This is not 1968." Maybe she gets it.

Ah scratch that, you said Shakey's next to last post, not his last.

His last post is assuming I'm, what..Hawaiian ?

Condi's speciality was Russia, wasn't it ?

Anyhoo, I hope Ned is correct. If he is in November I will FAP with him again, after may a day (years now) of not-FAPing

yeah I just don't see conflating American interests with Georgia as working - we aren't afraid of Russia anymore, after all they LOST the cold war, remember? (lolz I am over-simplifying America's incapacity for grasping geopolitical nuance but you get my drift)

I think America is tired of being paranoid and being at war, and Obama's optimism is gonna resonate more strongly than whatever slapdash "I R A HARDMAN" crap McCain can come up with, which, so far has been pathetically grasping at any single-issue headline-grabbing position that pops up in the rightwing blogosphere and trying to attach himself to it. otherwise his foreign and economic policies are alternately incoherent and ridiculously out-of-step with what most Americans actually say they want, so unless he can align himself to a really powerful narrative that the majority of the country can get behind (preferably something a little stronger than "("old white man is old and white, unlike his opponent"), I think he's totally screwed.

sorry I genuinely thought you were British Vichitraya, my mistake.

x-post

I hope Ned is correct

I predict nothing about this election, though I have my hopes, and they're not hopes for McCain. But I do not think a McCain victory goes through hundreds of dead in Georgia.

I think this major blunder by Georgia (perhaps with U.S. assurances) will make a lot of people think twice. It's one thing to back a democracy against the evil ruskies, but when it's a batshit insane democracy that picks bad fights with its bigger neighbor, do you really want them in NATO? It's typical McCain brgadaccio parading as principle but it would pretty easy for a skilled rhetoritician to skewer him on that poit in a way the average American would get.

No worries Shakey, I'll actually take that as a compliment!

I just feel pessimistic since I also read some crazy article today about the ex-Hilaryites group the Puma - http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/08/09/puma-gets-scary/ - which is perhaps partially explaining why Obama's #s aren't higher. I don't know. It made me wonder just how many angry people were left over from the primary. Note that I'm not advocating here that O pick H as VP, I'm just...taken aback by the *depth* of anger

The election just shouldn't be as close as it is. I'm looking forward to the televised debates, when McCain will start stuttering

MW: the amount of headlines stating that "Russia invades Georgia," while omitting Saaky's blunderous miscalculations haven't been helpful so far. When this news cycle passes, I hope it's not just remembered as "When Russia attacked that other place called Georgia during the Olympics"

I think this articulates my anxiety:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1831761,00.html

The crisis has played mostly to McCain's advantage. McCain and his advisers have long pushed for the U.S. to respond more aggressively to Putin's threats against pro-Western neighbors like Georgia and Ukraine by kicking it out of the G-8 and limiting its contact with NATO. The campaign wasted no time calling this position "prescient," and it called for a more thorough application of diplomatic pressure than did either the Administration or the Obama campaign — including an emergency session of the NATO council to consider a peacekeeping force, to reassess relations with Russia and to reconsider offering a membership plan to Georgia.

Obama's campaign made two early missteps. First, in its initial statement, it called for restraint from both Russia and Georgia. "Generally, when a country is being invaded, you don't call on it to show restraint," a senior McCain foreign policy adviser responded. (The adviser declined to be identified, aware that the criticism could also apply to the Administration, which called for restraint as well.) Then Obama's campaign released a statement questioning McCain's objectivity in the crisis, since a top McCain aide, Randy Scheunemann, had lobbied for the Georgians. When the Kremlin's own lobbyists made the same point, McCain's campaign fired back. "The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Senator Obama's judgment — it answers them," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement Saturday.

the crisis only plays to mccain's advantage only because time articles exist saying it does!

only!

TIME magazine likes grandpa-in-uniform porn, film at 11

nobody in America actually cares about Georgia. or Russia, really.

which is why I was lolling at McCain "speaking for all Americans" upthread... if he was speaking for all Americans he'd be asking how the fuck a washed up loser like him got nominated.

honestly all this handwringing about how much farther ahead in the polls Obama should be at this point seems really unwarranted to me. dude is playing the long game - he's got nothing to gain from being in the spotlight right now, may as well let McCain flail around trying to get some traction on something/anything and then come back strong at the convention and then really lay into McCain in September. Debates are not gonna be kind to McCain...

well, debates were only water-treading for O too, but yeah mccain is way worse on his feet

I tried to talk to my mom about Georgia, and mention the war with Russia, and she gave me a really puzzled look on her face. "How did the Russians get to Georgia, and what's in Georgia that they care about so much?". Then I told her it was the country, not the state. Then she paused and said "Oh. Well I don't know a thing about that."

One more A-1 Republican who doesn't know and subsequently doesn't give a shit about (the country) Georgia.

Nobody cares about debates either, Shakes, although you're right about the rest.

I mean, if the Russia/Georgia war isn't visibly affecting gas prices or the presence of illegal immigrants, many voters aren't going to give a shit.

Hell, I dont think most people even fear Russia the way we did in the 80s any more. Which is a dangerous thing, tbh. Thanks, 9/11!

yeah I know debates don't decide anything for anybody, I just threw that in there

x-post

McCain's response is truly a triumph of stupid, but hatin on Russkies is a language everybody understands

What I'd ask McCain is - we know how you feel about Georgia - now what about Ossetia?

Is it the consensus of this thread that conventions do more than the debates to drive opinions of the candidates?

yeah I think so

everyone wants to be on the side of the winning mob, you know

Andrew Sullivan's apologia.

a little late, asshole

some fella in the local spar was explaining the situation to his mate on the till and mentioned "soviet tanks". i was going to correct him, but i didn't want to look like a smartarse.

I think my favorite part of this whole fiasco, if such a thing is possible, was when Zalmay Khalilzad (USA's man at the UN) disclosed a confidential phone call Condi had with the Russian Foreign Minister, who told her that the Georgian leadership had to go. Zalmay is all "Is Russia seeking regime change in Georgia?" And Russia's man at the UN says "That's an American expression."

Not read Sullivan in years but I just read that and it's very good.

Zalmay is all "Is Russia seeking regime change in Georgia?" And Russia's man at the UN says "That's an American expression."

okay, that's gold.

I have to say, reading this thread is so bizzaro... all the comments from the west about how Russia has backed the US into a corner, etc. etc. etc. where the "analytical" perception here in Russia is that the Russia has been suckered into doing something that has sharply turned world opinion against it (and thereby undermined its influence, short of playing the bully whenever it wants something)

Yeah, but what if the Russian government gets what it presumably wants? Does it care about saving face that much? (Serious question.)

Russia vs. Georgia settling scores OLYMPIC BEACH VOLLEYBALL right now. Come on Georgia!

Yay Georgia!

i.e. Brazil!

Christ, can it be even clearer than this? Even the Bush administration admits that it may have gone too far in prodding Georgia to attack:

The United States took a series of steps that emboldened Georgia: sending advisers to build up the Georgian military, including an exercise last month with more than 1,000 American troops; pressing hard to bring Georgia into the NATO orbit; championing Georgia’s fledgling democracy along Russia’s southern border; and loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia’s separatist enclaves.

But interviews with officials at the State Department, Pentagon and the White House show that the Bush administration was never going to back Georgia militarily in a fight with Russia.

In recent years, the United States has also taken a series of steps that have alienated Russia — including recognizing an independent Kosovo and going ahead with efforts to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. By last Thursday, when the years of simmering conflict exploded into war, Russia had a point to prove to the world, even some administration officials acknowledge, while Georgia may have been under the mistaken impression that in a one-on-one fight with Russia, Georgia would have more concrete American support.

You could multiply that first paragraph many times and it still wouldn't amount to the US causing this thing. It's not unreasonable to expect Georgia to show a bit of nous to interpret things properly. (I still maintain that they did this, knowingly taking a big gamble that just didn't pay off - but of course after the fact everything gets interpreted to make the US look like the bad guys)