One guy I met liked Obama on all of his domestic policy (healthcare, economy, etc...) but was voting McCain because he thought that the idea of a timeline to withdraw from Iraq was dangerously bad. He had friends and family over there, so I can understand why he's touchy over the subject, but I couldn't seem to convince him that the idea of a timetable was so inherently bad that it overrid all of the other good thing about an Obama presidency.
On the other side, I met a guy who wasn't convinced Obama was ready for the job until he picked Biden as a running mate. Apparently Biden would have the foriegn policy experience to help Obama, and then we would stop "pussy footing around" and use nukes to scare the Arab countries into not fighting us. He had a military background, and saw no reason why we had to send troops to the middle east to fight terror when we could just call them up and threaten nuclear attacks.
I find it strage that there are such completely contrasting views of Obama and how we think he'll approach the war on terror. These are just examples, but there are plenty of others that alternatively think he'll be too weak or too strong on terror. What do you all think? Any advice on what to say to these people?
4 comments:
In my experience with military voters, it's almost impossible to change their minds when it comes to war. This is true even if you are their superior in rank (I watched this over many drunken debates between an E5 and several E1-3's during the initial launch of the Iraq war).
They are "in the military" and are "heroes", which makes them PhD Magna Cum Laude's from Harvard as far as the topic of war is concerned.
Still, if you have to say something, you could try saying one of two things: (1) that the Iraqi government supports Barrack Obama's timetable and thus, we would be better working with the government than against them
OR
(2) In the end, Barrack will do what every good president does and listen to his Generals.
He wants a timetable, but he's smart enough to know when to demand something and when to defer to the people who really know what they are doing.
Voters who have family in the military vote emotionally rather than sensible. When the GOP talk about not leaving Iraq until our troops come home with "victory and honor" anything that doesn't echo that essence of victory is wrong because their sons and daughters deserve more; they deserve to be honored.
Two points:
1) State what Brian said in suggestion #1, but include a short line about his #2. Obama advocates a timetable that is flexible and will reflect the progress on the ground. His thought on the manner reflects Patraeus's view except that when Patraeus talks, he omits the word time table.
2) In regards to people who think they can bully adversaries with nukes it would signal an end to whatever remains of the NPT and supports countries like Iran and N. Korea to acquire a nuke. That particular kind of voter needs to understand the differences in reaction to a threat and an imminent threat. In cases of imminent threat (survival of state) a state will react with haste and hostility spelling disaster.
Thanks for the comments guys. A lot of the people I meet seem to have very strong positions. Sometimes it's not worth trying to persuade them because it would take too much time.
However I think these talking points are good short lines I can leave with people to ponder. Thanks!
Honestly, anyone in the military or related to someone in the military (whom they are citing) are about as likely to be swayed as a fire and brimstone evangelical.
If time is of the essence, I agree. Just say something quick and move on. You aren't likely to accomplish anything more than that at this point.
Post a Comment