<p>What we don’t need is a president who is acceptable to tin-pot dictators like Chavez.</p>
<p>I don’t care what Chavez thinks; why does anyone?</p>
<p>Honestly does anyone really think if we elect Obama we will become a communist state? seriously? Congress and the Senate will just lay down? </p>
<p>do you folks really believe this? Do you think things will change all that much? Outside of an estate tax and readjustment of tax brackets, what’s really going to happen?</p>
<p>“I don’t care what Chavez thinks; why does anyone?”</p>
<p>Because he is an enemy of our country. If he thinks John McCain’s presidency wouldn’t further his ends, that says something to me.</p>
<p>“Because he is an enemy of our country.”</p>
<p>But he’s a crack-pot; we shouldn’t be guided by crack-pots, even if they are our enemies.</p>
<p>“But he’s a crack-pot; we shouldn’t be guided by crack-pots, even if they are our enemies”</p>
<p>He’s a crack-pot with oil and influence. It’s good for him to be unhappy. In fact, I think it would be a very good thing for several other “leaders” to know that our president won’t be pushed around.</p>
<p>vossron - he’s a crack-pot sitting on a huge oil field “just around the ocean” from the US…</p>
<p>Though I haven’t decided whom to vote for yet, I do not think that McCain is a “man of war” as Chavez charges, but rather a man who would understand war in a way that several (not all) of the immediate past presidents have not. I believe there would be a “groundedness” about McCain that would come into play with respect to international relations generally that scares folks like Chavez who’ve been able to point to and manipulate some of the hyperbole and posturing that I think’s gone on.</p>
<p>he’s got a big mouth, and i’m not happy with some of the ways he handles things internally in his country (things i could say about at least half our allies.) But what makes him our enemy? that’s a pretty strong word.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was wondering the exact same thing. What does make him our enemy? Because he doesn’t like America and makes that known? As far as I know he has never killed American citizens, made any attacks on our country, or harmed us in any significant way possible so whats to hate about him?</p>
<p>Because he has a big mouth and doesn’t like America?</p>
<p>“I think it would be a very good thing for several other “leaders” to know that our president won’t be pushed around.”</p>
<p>Ah, yes, that’s worked out very well for us during this administration. Let’s have even more of the world despise us.</p>
<p>That’s one thing I’m interested in too. Chavez spends a lot of time complaining about and berating Bush, and pursuing all kinds of policies to try and weaken the administration’s influence in Latin America as much as possible, but are we really sure he’s anti-American through-and-through or just anti-Bush? Seems to me that a lot of heated rhetoric is coming from both sides of that particular spat; I don’t think it’s just Chavez.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Chavez is indeed an idiot who wouldn’t have been elected to run so much as the local judge’s office in Chile had it not been for the increasingly negative perception of America abroad and his capitalizing on it.</p>
<p>You know in some parts of the world the popular thing to do is “hate america”. It keeps you power and the locals forget about their situation when the american lifestyle is brought up as unsavory. A politician is a politican in anytown usa or simplevillage third world country. You say what the masses want to hear. </p>
<p>It’s not right, but it’s what is… in DC or Pollyang.</p>
<p>“I was wondering the exact same thing. What does make him our enemy? Because he doesn’t like America and makes that known?”</p>
<p>Perhaps some research? Seriously, though, it’s clear that Chavez wants to dominate the region, a la Ahmadinejad, and the oil issue certainly comes into play. Do I think we should invade? Of course not, but a socialist like Mr. Chavez with his minions, could do a lot of damage if he thought he could get away with it. I hate to break this to you, but not everything is about President Bush. He is not always at fault, and there really are world leaders who will damage America’s interests when/if they can. The question for this election is what path is best to address those threats.</p>
<p>“On the other hand, Chavez is indeed an idiot who wouldn’t have been elected to run so much as the local judge’s office in Chile had it not been for the increasingly negative perception of America abroad and his capitalizing on it.”</p>
<p>Really? So then you are willing to back off your previous assertion that the elections of pro-US leaders in Canada, Germany and France was a reflection of their people’s attitudes towards us? Or, is it only when anti-US leaders are elected that it is because of an anti-US feeling among the populace?</p>
<p>I agree with 1of42. I don’t get how anyone can consider him an enemy just because he passes laws in HIS country to weaken American influence, and because he’s anti-american. He’s just someone that doesn’t like America. Too many people on here (conservatives mostly) equate anyone who doesn’t like or agree with America or its values, enemies. </p>
<p>Since when does everyone have to like us? Why do people even listen to him? You could say what you want about him and how he deals with his country but thats his and his people business. They’ll figure it out.</p>
<p>And while I’m on that, I HATE how people think that America has to be the international police rushing to tell other countries what they’re doing is wrong and they should stop or else. Who are we to dip into other countries business?</p>
<p>I always like to think of it like this. What would of happened if during slave times Britain came and said “we don’t like how you’re treating blacks so we’re going to stop you and make the changes for you”? Or if before the Civil Rights Movement Russia came and said “you guys aren’t giving blacks equal opportunities and are treating them horribly, we’re gonna make you change”.</p>
<p>If you don’t agree with that why do you agree with us being the international police. Its the epitome of hypocrisy.</p>
<p>People will fight for change in their country when thing get bad enough on their own time, just as we’ve done in ours. And it’ll be permanent just like ours because THEY fought for it, and didn’t have anyone else come in and make changes for them.</p>
<p>"The question for this election is what path is best to address those threats.</p>
<p>Well said. But do we want to give such world leaders even and ever more reasons to want to damage our interests? Of the three, it seems like McCain would do the least to improve the impression we make abroad.</p>
<p>“Since when does everyone have to like us? Why do people even listen to him? You could say what you want about him and how he deals with his country but thats his and his people business. They’ll figure it out.”</p>
<p>And what our government does is OUR business. Other countries need to further their interests, but so does our government. What you don’t seem to get is that it is the role of our government to do so, and that doesn’t make us the international police. It makes us a sovereign nation. Chavez’s goals and intentions are at odds with ours and it is our government’s job to ensure that our interests prevail. I’m fine with that.</p>
<p>“Well said. But do we want to give such world leaders even and ever more reasons to want to damage our interests? Of the three, it seems like McCain would do the least to improve the impression we make abroad.”</p>
<p>I completely disagree with your premise. I don’t think popularity with certain leaders is any way to foster our interests abroad.We have certain allies with whom our standing and impression is enormously important. Chavez is not one of those allies. The only way to deal with him, with Kim, and with Ahmadinejad, is through perceived strength. Neither Hillary nor Obama offer the impression of strength. Again, you view diplomacy as the means to achieving goals. I respect that and share that view with certain leaders. I believe Senator McCain has shown that side during his recent trips abroad. He has the whole package of strength AND diplomacy. I don’t believe that anyone could seriously view either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama as strong leaders.</p>
<p>“Of the three, it seems like McCain would do the least to improve the impression we make abroad.”</p>
<p>Based on what? Most foreign countries are only interested in what effects them directly. The impact of the US on them is almost 100% based on financial ties and trading relationships with the US. Of the three candidates, McCain is the only one who wants to promote free trade. This would make McCain the preferred candidate for most logical people.</p>
<p>ZM–could you be more specific about what Chavez does, beyond vague goals and intentions, that makes him an enemy.</p>
<p>(and btw, people like him *love *us having a prez like Bush; it gives him something to harangue against. If you really want to annoy him, elect a liberal.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I’m not, and if you knew anything about those elections you’d agree. The Harper government in Canada was elected because of an ongoing massive scandal with the previously dominant Liberal party, not because of changing attitudes towards America; to this day association with American policy is a major weak point for that government with the Canadian populace.</p>
<p>Merkel was elected on a host of issues, but being pro-American certainly wasn’t one of them. In fact, the largest American influence in that election was a weakness for Merkel - that was her borrowing some Reagan phrases in a speech. She was roundly criticized for it.</p>
<p>As for Sarkozy, he is probably the only one of the candidates you mentioned whose pro-American views helped him at all in his election, and even that is debatable, given that they played such a minor role in his election, despite the airplay they got in America. In reality it was his pro-free-market ideals that really differentiated him from the other candidates, and got him elected.</p>
<p>Is it fun analyzing things so superficially, ff? Must be nice not having to look past the surface of issues like these…</p>