To those who plan on voting for a Republican in '08

[bamacre]

I have always believed that the biggest problem with the Bush administration was not so much Bush himself, but those who surrounded him.

I watched an interview today with Giuliani on CNN (IIRC), and he refused to talk about who he would surround himself with. Probably something typical, with the exception of Vice President, but even that position would remain open until we get closer to the elections.

Which of these candidates do you think most likely would give staff positions to members and/or strong supporters of PNAC and their beliefs?

Giuliani
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Thompson
Paul
Hunter
Tancredo

And do you think it would positively or negatively affect their administration?

Edit: For those living under a rock...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...e_New_American_Century

 

[FoBoT]

do normal people know what "PNAC" means?
or does it tell you in the tinfoil hat manual or something

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
do normal people know what "PNAC" means?
or does it tell you in the tinfoil hat manual or something

http://www.newamericancentury.org

:roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
do normal people know what "PNAC" means?

or does it tell you in the tinfoil hat manual or something

Big Rich Republican money.

 

[Pabster]

What's wrong with PNAC members on staff?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's wrong with PNAC members on staff?

I agree. These tin foil hate types thing that saying PNAC is equivalant to saying Nazi, and that we're all going to be against PNAC.

 

[Pabster]

Well, it just seems stupid to single out PNAC. What would you think of a staff comprised of MediaMatters folk? Or MoveOn.org folk?

If the argument is that putting people of an extreme persuasion on staff is a bad idea, OK, but be fair about it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's wrong with PNAC members on staff?

I didn't say there was something right or wrong with PNAC.

Although the quick defense they have received so far says something.

 

[PrinceofWands]

As I see it there are two ultra-dangerous groups currently active in the political sphere: PNAC, and fundamentalist evangelicals. I refuse to support in any way a person who is in any way ok with those two groups of thought.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's wrong with PNAC members on staff?

I agree. These tin foil hate types thing that saying PNAC is equivalant to saying Nazi, and that we're all going to be against PNAC.

That's because any semi-sane would be. They are probably about tied (with fundamentalist religious whackos) for the single greatest threat to the world.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster
What's wrong with PNAC members on staff?

----------------------------------------------------

Pabster, if you don't know what wrong with PNAC staffers, you are far too dumb to explain anything to.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As I see it there are two ultra-dangerous groups currently active in the political sphere: PNAC, and fundamentalist evangelicals. I refuse to support in any way a person who is in any way ok with those two groups of thought.

And in my book the most dangerous are those who would bring appeasment to our foreign policy and socialism domestically. I guess that's why I'm Conservative and you're liberal.


***********

Topic:

PNAC members wouldn't make me not vote for a candidate, however I expect to see some balance in cabinet positions no matter who is elected.

 

[nageov3t]

if NYC was any example, Giuliani would surround himself with loyalists and sycophants, like GWB did.

 

[Lemon law]

As CadsortaGuy points out---And in my book the most dangerous are those who would bring appeasment to our foreign policy and socialism domestically. I guess that's why I'm Conservative and you're liberal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with the neocons and PNac types are not so much in their goals, which might at a stretch be laudable, but in their totally inept implementation of policy. That and their total blindness to any reality based feedback as their policies crashed around them while they studiously avoided questioning their own policies or assumtions.

Which from the point of someone like CadsortaGUY can only result in a huge weakening of America's ability to pursue a strong foreign policy and will also force a more socialistic domestic agenda. I would think CadsortaGUY as a self professed conservative, would be outraged at the neocons and PNAC types as the very people who most damaged his political ideals and options.

But that seems to be about it, conservatives seem to have become the party of self destructive stupidity, who then blame liberals for problems of conservative ineptness.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pabster, if you don't know what wrong with PNAC staffers, you are far too dumb to explain anything to.

...Says the far-left nut job who thinks MoveOn.org and MediaMatters are credible, charitable organizations. :roll:

 

[Stoneburner]

Pabster, what are you barking about now? You're equating PNAC to media matters?

The OP's point is, why would you surround yourself with dumbasses who created this massive international mess? Answer that question instead of throwing out a curve ball.

And CAD, the damn neocons are largely former liberals. Get your history right. I will let you figure out for yourself the implications of their past liberalism in their current policy.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pabster, if you don't know what wrong with PNAC staffers, you are far too dumb to explain anything to.

...Says the far-left nut job who thinks MoveOn.org and MediaMatters are credible, charitable organizations. :roll:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pabster, I may be left wing but I NEVER made such a statement. So please, look at any of my back posts and try to find ANY evidence to back your claim. If you can't back your claim, I am asking for an apology.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pabster, I may be left wing but I NEVER made such a statement. So please, look at any of my back posts and try to find ANY evidence to back your claim. If you can't back your claim, I am asking for an apology.

I don't have time (nor the desire) to go post hunting. You can do that yourself. I can vividly recall you defending both MoveOn.org and MediaMatters during several threads. One was vis-a-vi Petraeus and the MoveOn fiasco there (though there were tens of Petraeus threads IIRC) and there were a couple others.

The fact that you consider either (or both) of those organizations credible while blasting PNAC speaks volumes...of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As I see it there are two ultra-dangerous groups currently active in the political sphere: PNAC, and fundamentalist evangelicals. I refuse to support in any way a person who is in any way ok with those two groups of thought.

And in my book the most dangerous are those who would bring appeasment to our foreign policy and socialism domestically. I guess that's why I'm Conservative and you're liberal.


***********

Topic:

PNAC members wouldn't make me not vote for a candidate, however I expect to see some balance in cabinet positions no matter who is elected.

That's a narrow-minded generalization. There are many different types of conservatives and liberals. REAL Republicans (as in party origin believers) are just as outraged by PNAC and neocons as are core libertarians (who are also a form of conservative). Many liberals, especially those bowing to socialistic international pressures, would support much of the PNAC policy and would worship their methodology. You can't paint with a brush that broad and wind up being right very often.

Myself, it's true I am socially liberal, and have much of my root political philosophy in liberalism...but by American definitions my government leanings are core historical conservative.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pabster, I may be left wing but I NEVER made such a statement. So please, look at any of my back posts and try to find ANY evidence to back your claim. If you can't back your claim, I am asking for an apology.

I don't have time (nor the desire) to go post hunting. You can do that yourself. I can vividly recall you defending both MoveOn.org and MediaMatters during several threads. One was vis-a-vi Petraeus and the MoveOn fiasco there (though there were tens of Petraeus threads IIRC) and there were a couple others.

The fact that you consider either (or both) of those organizations credible while blasting PNAC speaks volumes...of your intellectual dishonesty.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then Pabster, you memory is as defective as your judgment. In the thread regarding Petraeus, I was critical of moveon.org for handing the hawks an issue that distracted from a rational discussion of the so called Petraeus report. As for media matters, I never mentioned them in any way.

 

[Obsoleet]

Most likely:
Giuliani
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Thompson

Slightly less likely:
Hunter
Tancredo

Zero staff positions:
Paul

Hugely negative effect. While those in my "most likely" category could have a shot against the warmongers like Hillary Clinton. Obama could defeat all 5, though it might be tight in some cases. Can Obama walk the walk though on being anti-war and non-interventionist? I doubt it, as I feel he'll be easily influenced like Bush was.
'Silly little' comments like "I'll invade Pakistan" then backing off says enough on that concern.

Hunter/Tancredo are just not nearly as globalist as the others and seem to want to focus here at home rather than police the world.

Dr. Paul shakes the entire system up for both parties on this one. Neocons seem to have jumped ship and are lending their considerable influence to Hillary Clinton who they believe is the "sure bet" this election, with Guiliani a close 2nd if not a tie.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pabster, I may be left wing but I NEVER made such a statement. So please, look at any of my back posts and try to find ANY evidence to back your claim. If you can't back your claim, I am asking for an apology.

I don't have time (nor the desire) to go post hunting. You can do that yourself. I can vividly recall you defending both MoveOn.org and MediaMatters during several threads. One was vis-a-vi Petraeus and the MoveOn fiasco there (though there were tens of Petraeus threads IIRC) and there were a couple others.

The fact that you consider either (or both) of those organizations credible while blasting PNAC speaks volumes...of your intellectual dishonesty.

I hate when they teach people phrases like 'intellectual dishonest' who can't handle them and use them at all responsibly.

PNAC consists of people who either are, or serve, the interests of those who benefit by exploiting, dominating, subjugating certain other nations economically, and who use violence without any adequate concern for their ends - and those who are some of the worst, in terms of degree of crime and incompetence, 'ends justify the means' ideologues in the world. They're a network equivalent to an organized crime racket, but for having their (moral) crimes legalized and harming far more people than the mafia.

Mediamatters consists of people who point out the errors of the propaganda machine who supports the right wing, including PNAC.

They serve to let Pabster's crazy ideology make sense to him by equating the two groups.

As for letting Bush off easy compared to the PNAC people, wrong - he's the one who has prostituted the power and trust of the presidency to let criminals run amok.

He's accountable, no less than Reagan and his father for empowering the people who ran Central American death squads and terrorist armies.

 

[Ozoned]

All of them would. Wouldn't you surround yourself with people that will put aside their own personal beliefs and do what is best for the rest of the citizens of this country?

 

[NoStateofMind]

If you have never researched what PNAC is or read their mission statement I suggest you do so immediately. The most vile organization in the history of the US.

If you want to know more about their agenda I suggest you read this PDF on PNAC's site. Rebuilding America's Defenses


Put that together with Dick Cheney being a supporter and watch Cheney's Law. Connect the dots.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
If you have never researched what PNAC is or read their mission statement I suggest you do so immediately. The most vile organization in the history of the US.

:roll: Says you and about 20 other people here on anandtech