Actually, Jazz, I'd say one of the big problems with the GOP is that they weren't, in fact, "tax and spend" types. Rather, they were "cut taxes and spend".

McCain's experience in the business world? Zip.

McCain's economic background....nope.

Worshiped Rev. Wright? And here I thought he was a Christian.

Best friend of Ayers? That is even worse than Palin's claim that Obama was pals with him. Is it worse to have family ties to companies that did business with the Nazis during world war II? I'd just like to know how you feel about the Bush family, since guilt by association is acceptable to you.

As far as being decisive, Bush/Rumsfeld couldn't or wouldn't commit to sending about 800 rangers (one battalion) to help close Osama Bin Laden's escape route from Tora Bora to Pakistan. Obama has now upped the number of troops in Afghanistan by about 20,000 troops. He has been asked for 40,000 more. Are you saying that he shouldn't think twice about it....just do as he is told by the military? That isn't the way the republic works. The president should take some time to evaluate the costs and how the new troops would be used. That is his job.

Yes, the GOP under GWB was cut taxes and spend. For the GOP brand to recover with fiscal cons \ moderates they need to convince them that they can get back to sound fiscal policies.

In spite of your complaint with McCain's conservative credentials there were 8 million more votes cast for McCain than for Bush in 2004. The problem was that there were 16 million more votes for Obama in 2008 than for Bush in 2004. Bush is what happened to the republican party.

Now a mere 20% of voters identify themselves as republicans. That is in spite of your attempt to claim that Obama is somehow responsible for the 5 or 6 Acorn employees who didn't mind advising a pimp on how to finance a brothel. I guess you didn't notice that Bush was Cheney's sock puppet for about 6 years. That is how long it took for Bush to grow a pair.

Obama isn't completely ignoring the advice of his general.

More like avoiding the thought all together. He simply doesn't want to think about it, nor make a decision, because he doesn't believe in a commitment on the scale that McChrystal wants.

He did his surge, now deal with it, is what I think Obama is feeling.

He damn well knew what was coming back in August (the war has been going badly all summer), and told the Generals to not even bother asking, which is part of the reason it was leaked to the press, because they didn't want to be silenced, and blamed for not doing anything.

In this case, McChrystal wasn't afraid to jeopardize being shit canned.

By virtue of Obama's prompt firing of the previous Afghan commander, to give the impression Obama was in charge, starting a new approach that was going to be his, actually gave McChrystal unintended cover to potentially embarrass his commander in Chief due to his policy speech in England (of all places, I'm sure Obama loved it, SIKE!).

Afterall it was a campaign promise to expand the size and scope of the Afghan mission beyond the token force during the Bush years.

He is simply failing to act on the advice either way.

He should have just said no to begin with (he has ruled out a precipitous withdrawl), but has delayed, and he wasn't counting on another surge or more military spending than he's already allocated.

He has other plans for that money. Like wetting the beaks of sympathetic industry and buying votes.

He is determined to do that, Afghanistan?

He's just not that into you.

did you ever complain about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ignoring the requests from their commanders on the ground for more troops?

Again, look at the dates, and the context. Cite an example, and it's a pretty safe assumption Democrats including yourself weren't in a hurry to escalate beyond what it was, and even pull out.

The most recent, that Obama's officials compared to his own delay was I assume "the surge", the ISG report, which was commissioned by Congress in March 2006, completed it's work, and submitted it's report in early December of the same year.

Bush acted on that in several steps all within the month, and officially announced the policy in January of the new year.

It took a month, and he made his decision in less time than that. Probably had made up his mind before that on conviction alone.

Something Obama lacks, unless were talking about throwing around other people's money to grease his pals.

That is something he's serious about it, redistributing wealth.

On Afghanistan??? Well during the campaign her certainly talked the talk, and did his surge, and now that it's gone sour????

This is his war, he decided to expand the mission beyond what it was to prove his seriousness over his predecessor.

Now he's not willing to go all out as commander in chief.

I was debating the authors point that Obama is ignoring the advice of his Generals.

No he's simply trying not hear it period. Now he's listening to his advisors. Sure a President should have advice, and time to make decisions, but he's had plenty of time.

Obama can't simply fire McChrystal, and he can't bring himself to act on his advice either.

Obama's commitment goes only as far as his original down payment.

That is what were dealing with, and people are making excuses for the delay.

This is our special olympics foreign policy, and Obama will remain stuck in first gear.

1. Bush was told by his commander on the ground that they needed 800 or so Rangers (however many is in a battalion) to help close the escape routes into Pakistan from Tora Bora. That request was ignored. The Bush administration was told the exact same thing by the CIA station chief in Islamabad. He was ignored. Instead the administration decided to bribe warlords in Afghanistan to send fighters after Bin Laden.

2. In August of 2002 the Army War College produced an assessment of the impending invasion of Iraq. They predicted an insurgency and significant civil unrest upon the fall of the Saddam regime. General Eric Shinseki testified before congress and when asked how many troops it would take to occupy the country he said several hundred thousand. Rumsfeld first had Doug Feith go before congress to talk about how Shinseki was incorrect and probably not aware of all the information used by he, Wolfwitz and Rumsfeld in making their own far lower estimate of the military manpower needed.

So a navy LT and two guys who never were in uniform decided they knew more than a career officer and Army Chief of staff (to say nothing of the Army War College).

Well, good luck with that.

You'll need it.

I do not see why we should excuse Obama based on anything that Bush did. We are dealing with a CIC who will be there for 3 more years and if he is a traitor to his own strategy including his hand picked General we have a problem with leadership------YOU MUST AGREE. Also, how do you think our enemies are reading the dithering of our CIC. Do you think that they regard him as a strong leader? This is a current issue---not something that happened in the last Administration.

did you ever complain about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ignoring the requests from their commanders on the ground for more troops?

Obama committed 20,000 additional troops when he first took office. Now his commander on the ground has asked for 40,000 more troops. Are you saying that the president should not spend any time evaluating the request? Why do we have a civilian in charge of the defense department?

How do you think the terrorists regarded Bush's dithering? How about his empty threats to bring Bin Laden to justice?