Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Unlikely. That would be about time for the Washington/Grant/Ike analog (who someone once called "The Honor General"). Anyone who's going to be a 4 or 5-star general (or admiral) in 2028 would already be an officer, and probably a field grade officer (i.e., a major or lieutenant commander). Since only about 20% of officers are female, the odds are against it, just going off the raw odds. If you consider that such an individual would probably come from combat arms, it sinks to below 5%.

Heather Wilson

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Indeed. Murdering children can be a very effective way to motivate parents.

On the other hand. um (I can't believe this even needs saying)... murdering children

One of Samuel Jackson's movies, "The Unthinkable" takes a look at this concept, which of course is a very old tactic for controlling folks who are willing to die for their cause.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

-Ugh. I hope not.

And why do you scorn our sisters in arms? Is it that she'd be a veteran and you're a pacifist? Or is it that she's an Xer?

Originally Posted by TnT

Heather Wilson

Heather has made much of her status as a veteran, but there are two things against her. First, she's a Boomer. Second, there are people who think she hasn't done much for veterans - or for that matter, for the people in her district.

Pat, calling on vague memories of the last election in which she was running. Besides, where did she serve? Was she a REM?

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Originally Posted by Odin

I'll go out on a limb and guess that our first woman president will be an Xer military veteran and will be elected in 2028

-Ugh. I hope not.

Why? As a general rule, former memebers of the military make good Presidents. In fact, those with no military background often tend to be reckless.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's really not complicated. Obama campaigned as a moderate, and has governed as a leftist. And his record has been a catastrophic failure. He lost left leaning moderates (whose most likely response was to stay home), and drove right leaning moderates screaming into the arms of the GOP.

That is the reality of what happened in 2010. I realize that certain posters here have no interest in reality, but the truth is out there to be found if you have any interest in it.

Silly me, I based my analysis on a survey of several thousand people done by one of the world's most respected polling organizations. I forgot that the received wisdom of the right-wing noise machine is far more compelling evidence than actual statistics.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Nate Silver,, by the way, has a comment in his last post suggesting that he regards a Bachmann victory in 2012 as a serious possibility. I hope he elaborates on this later. When he talks, we had better listen.

I misspoke. Silver did not speculate about Bachmann winning--he speculated about Rick Perry winning. Not that he's really any better. But the implication was clear: he doesn't think Obama can definitely beat a right winger at this point.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I misspoke. Silver did not speculate about Bachmann winning--he speculated about Rick Perry winning. Not that he's really any better. But the implication was clear: he doesn't think Obama can definitely beat a right winger at this point.

Oh joy. Just what we need - another Texan.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Why? As a general rule, former memebers of the military make good Presidents. In fact, those with no military background often tend to be reckless.

-Sure. Just what is needed. Warmongers make great presidents. Prove it.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

-Sure. Just what is needed. Warmongers make great presidents. Prove it.

"Former member of the military" != "warmonger"! Good grief ... have you looked at who starts the most wars? Frex, Bush served - sorta - but if he ever heard a shot fired except when some cowboys were celebrating New Year's Eve, I'd be surprised.

Real veterans know that war is hell.

Actually, your statement reminded me of some of the more mindless Vietnam-era slogans -- the sort shouted by people tho think in bumper sticker sound bytes.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have points of disagreement here. Lincoln was ambivalent about the role history thrust him into, although his Lyceum speech, delivered when he was about 30--I've posted it several times--suggests that he had imagined it long before. FDR and Churchill loved being Crisis leaders. FDR loved coping with problems and incarnating the nation's hopes. Churchill loved the idea that he alone could save Britain and his whole life had been preparation to do so. Obama actually said something like this late in the campaign--that it was great to come in during a crisis when you could really accomplish something. But he hasn't proven to be that kind of guy.

Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill may have gotten the ultimate thrill in politics -- of leading nations in consummate danger to a necessary victory. But that's not to say that they predicted how precarious the situation would be.

Lincoln had no capacity to bring the Opposite Side to his way of thinking -- that of course was the Confederacy. FDR and Churchill united their nations as few ever could. Maybe the difference between Lincoln and either FDR or Churchill was that with Lincoln, the danger peaked early and in the Crisis of 1940 the Crisis peaked late enough that the nit-picking had petered out. We are still early into this Crisis, and the economic mess may be only the first wave of danger.

Nor can I agree about FDR's first term, which was filled with bold experiments that had mixed results. (There was nothing wrong with the AAA, though--it did exactly what it was supposed to do, raised farm prices substantially.) Above all, FDR substantially reduced unemployment in his first term. There is a good chance unemployment is going to be higher in November 2012 than it was in January 2009.

If anything the difference in severity of the current economic distress and that beginning in 1929 may be that New Deal and Great Society reforms were in place this time. Note that FDIC insurance made certain that bank deposits were safe this time, that Social Security and unemployment insurance are in place this time, and that the welfare system is not yet destroyed. To be sure, many of the political choices of early-4T America were blunders (like heavy reliance upon tax cuts), but this may reflect that some 3T politicians have yet to disappear from the political scene or change their ways.

At this point the election seems to me to turn on one question: will Obama's huge disadvantage stemming from the economy be overcome by the Republicans' determination to act like complete idiots? I think Mitt Romney would be well advised to call for a deficit deal right now. He would become the favorite Republican of every pundit.

As a political outsider, Mitt Romney may seem in a better position in which to call for a deficit deal. But he is not one of the bought-and-owned GOP politicians who can now scream at anything not exactly what they and their financial backers want.

Nate Silver,, by the way, has a comment in his last post suggesting that he regards a Bachmann victory in 2012 as a serious possibility. I hope he elaborates on this later. When he talks, we had better listen.

It's easy to say that if everything goes right (or wrong- depending on one's view of her as a politician), then a Bachmann victory (God help us!) is possible. It is also possible that the Detroit Lions will win the 2012 Super Bowl.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

-Sure. Just what is needed. Warmongers make great presidents. Prove it.

George Washington is generally understood as a great President for defining what the Presidency is -- he had no credible precedent, but in view of what the Presidency is, he did right.

I'm going to concede that the Civil War veteran Presidents were mediocre at best.

Truman saw combat in WWI, reaching the rank of Colonel -- any problems? Eisenhower is the consummate Hero General. Both are considered among our better Presidents. John F. Kennedy, commander of PT-109, did much right early -- but also got cut down early. He is above average, and I have to hand the Cuban Missile Crisis as a job well done.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

-Sure. Just what is needed. Warmongers make great presidents. Prove it.

This is a very inaccurate stereotype. Military leaders, and especially former military leaders, know what war really is, and that often makes them very wary of it. Neither Washington, nor Grant, nor Eisenhower showed any eagerness to involve the US in a new war. Neither did JFK. On the other hand, Texans who served quickly and safely (both LBJ and GWB) were eager to show their cojones.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell has gone off the deep end, says democracy is a problem.

Mitch McConnell: We Must Rewrite The Constitution Because ‘Elections’ Haven’t ‘Worked’


.

Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered what may be the most concise summary of conservative constitutionalism ever spoken — America must rewrite the Constitution to force conservative outcomes because we the people consistently elect lawmakers who disagree with McConnell:

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.

It’s worth noting just what McConnell is asking the American people to choke down. Senate Republicans’ so-called “balanced budget amendment” does far more than simply requiring federal spending to equal federal revenues. It makes it functionally impossible to raise taxes by imposing a two-thirds supermajority requirement — a provision closely modeled after the California anti-tax amendment that blew up that state’s finances. It would also require spending cuts so steep that it would have made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. Ezra Klein rightfully labeled this plan the “worst idea in Washington.”

So there really isn’t any question why the American people refuse to elect a Congress that will force this agenda upon the nation, but McConnell simply doesn’t care. If the American people won’t vote for the kind of government he wants, then we must strip away the people’s ability to choose their own government. Elections haven’t worked.

Sadly, McConnell’s deeply authoritarian plan to take away our ability to choose how we will be governed is part of a much larger conservative agenda to strip American democracy of any meaning and force conservative governance upon the American people:

• Affordable Care Act Litigation: In 2008, elections didn’t work because we the people elected Barack Obama and gave him the majorities he needed to comprehensively reform the health care system. Conservatives immediately responded with an entirely fabricated constitutional argument against this law that relied on a constitutional theory that no one had ever even heard of before 2009. Even Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a former Scalia clerk and a leader of the conservative states rights movement, rejected this meritless attack on the Affordable Care Act.
• Killing Medicare and Medicaid: In 1964, elections didn’t work, and the American people gave President Lyndon Johnson the congressional support he needed to enact Medicare and Medicaid. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) would take away the American people’s ability to benefit from this law as well. He claims that the Constitution must be reinterpreted so that the federal government can’t do anything at all about “health care.”
• Bringing Back Whites-Only Lunch Counters: In 1962, elections didn’t work, and the American people gave Johnson enough votes to pass a ban on whites-only lunch counters. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) disagrees with this outcome, so he would reinterpret the Constitution to make the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional.
• Putting Children To Work: In 1936, elections didn’t work, and the American people reelected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and gave him an enormous supermajority in Congress. Roosevelt used this mandate to eliminate the exploitation of child labor. Sen. Lee also disagrees with this outcome, and would rethink the Constitution to make child labor laws unconstitutional.
• Cutting Students Loose: Time and time again, elections haven’t worked because the American people elected a Congress that supports education programs. Numerous members of Congress believe that all federal education programs — from Pell Grants to federal student loans to public school funding — must be eliminated entirely because, in Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) words, “I don’t even think [education] is a role for the federal government, if you read the Constitution.”

In other words, McConnell’s plan to strip we the people of our ability to govern ourselves is only the beginning. The right has a clear and comprehensive agenda to rethink the entire Constitution — and democracy has no part in their vision.

Sickening. So in essence if Mitch McConnell doesn't like some liberal legislation it must be unconstitutional because the legislation isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

With such reasoning we would have to disband the Air Force because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sickening. So in essence if Mitch McConnell doesn't like some liberal legislation it must be unconstitutional because the legislation isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

With such reasoning we would have to disband the Air Force because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

That kind of nonsense is actually a pretty typical opinion among the extreme RW Republicans and their odd mix of Libertarianism and Social Conservativism. The argument is that the federal government is not allowed to do anything not explicitly allowed in the Constitution, no leeway allowed, the Constitution, according to them, must be interpreted absolutely litterally.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Heather has made much of her status as a veteran, but there are two things against her. First, she's a Boomer. Second, there are people who think she hasn't done much for veterans - or for that matter, for the people in her district.

Pat, calling on vague memories of the last election in which she was running. Besides, where did she serve? Was she a REM?

According to Wikipedia, she served in the Airforce from 1977 - 1989.

I was skeptical that she was a Boomer -- I mean, "Heather" is the quintessential core Xer name. But yes, she was born in 1960.

Lets face it. If the GOP would be more willing to pay for China (tax cuts) than for grandma (SS, Medicare, Medicaid).

Obama looks headed to re-election. It looks like Clinton-Gingrich again.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

According to Wikipedia, she served in the Airforce from 1977 - 1989.

I was skeptical that she was a Boomer -- I mean, "Heather" is the quintessential core Xer name. But yes, she was born in 1960.

Okay - she's a cusper. But when I asked where she served, I meant in what capacity. Flying helicopters? Pushing papers?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

According to Wikipedia, she served in the Airforce from 1977 - 1989.

I was skeptical that she was a Boomer -- I mean, "Heather" is the quintessential core Xer name. But yes, she was born in 1960.

Heather tied with Jennifer, I think. I had four of those in a single class once.

Heh, Heather is my '76 cohort sister's name.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Heather tied with Jennifer, I think. I had four of those in a single class once.

But a book about Silent men chasing Boomer women was entitled "Jennifer Fever." I remember that.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is a very inaccurate stereotype. Military leaders, and especially former military leaders, know what war really is, and that often makes them very wary of it. Neither Washington, nor Grant, nor Eisenhower showed any eagerness to involve the US in a new war. Neither did JFK. On the other hand, Texans who served quickly and safely (both LBJ and GWB) were eager to show their cojones.

Jackson: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Harrison: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Taylor: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Lincoln: hypocritical Civil War and numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Grant: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Hayes: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
Harrison: numerous criminal wars against Native Americans
McKinnley: imperialistic Spanish American War
and crimianal war against Chinese and Filipinos
Roosevelt: crimianl war against Filipinos
Truman: hyopocritical atomic war against Japanese and criminal war against Korean people
Bush: criminal war against Panamanian and Iraqi people

(most of these were against people of color, of course)

You will not find a nation-state in history that doesn't have "criminal" wars. So your point is? You really do trot out the knee-jerk soundbyte view of history.

(I wrote that before I read GBs comment)

Originally Posted by annla899

You will not find a nation-state in history that doesn't have "criminal" wars. So your point is? You really do trot out the knee-jerk soundbyte view of history.

(I wrote that before I read GBs comment)

Kaiser claims that warmongers do not become warmongering presidents. I showed him he was wrong.

I forgot Washington criminal wars against Native Americans, Eisenhower's planning of war against Cuba, kennedy's execution of war against Cuba, his "Cuba Missle Crisis" and his war against Viet Nam.