Candidate Reviews

As I do Candidate Reviews I am going to place them over there on the left right above my links. A few caveats are in order.

I didn't put Mosely Braun or Sharpton in with the rest on foreign policy. Foreign policy is neither of their fortes, but I will use them when we get to domestic issues.

Also I am not trying to present a complete picture of their beliefs. Just a set of quotes taken off of their websites. I try to quote the candidate directly for the most part, although some of their websites are better than others. Enjoy.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Senator Joe Lieberman and Representative Dennis Kucinich

Finishing up today, which I suspect will happen pretty regularly if I do these on Friday.

Here's Joe Lieberman, from a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, September 10, 2003.

"In 2000, then-Governor Bush said he wanted American foreign policy to be "humble, but strong."

To have ignored his own credo right after the election was bad enough. But to have continued on that path after September 11th has been downright dangerous. It hasn't just let down the American people; it's let down the moderate Muslim majority that needs our support now more than ever.

As a result, distrust of America is wide and deep around the world today, even among our closest allies. That is an ominous fact in a war that demands we muster long-term moral and political strength as well as military might.

We have suffered enough from the Bush Administration's miscalculations and mistakes. It is time to rebuild strategic partnerships with the world--partnerships that will promote our values, strengthen our security, and stand the test of time."

And from Dennis Kucinich's website, his proposal for a department of peace. You'll remember I made fun of this idea when I first heard it, and I haven't changed my mind much, but at least I'll present it for your review.

"As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values."

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Representative Dick Gephardt

Here's the quote, from a speech in Cedar Rapids on Monday (December 1, 2003).

"Promote stability and democracy abroad by raising living standards through fair trade and social reform. The power of a free market that expands growth equitably can tackle the root causes of terrorism and free an oppressed people. We just have to reach out an open hand.

"We must lead the world by building consensus with other nations, rather than fostering resentment. This sounds elementary, possibly because this was our foreign policy for generations. But George Bush has discarded this approach with arrogance and a flick of the wrist."

Gephardt doesn't go out of his way to talk about foreign policy perhaps assuming (correctly, in my opinion) that he's on stronger ground when he talks domestic policy.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Senator John Edwards

Let me say parenthetically that Edwards' website is not the best organized website I've been to. Also they should post more of his speechs. Let the candidate stand or fall on his own words, not on the words of some website flunky (unless Senator Edwards actually does the website himself, which would answer both of my complaints.

Also these comments are from before the war in Iraq, and are more than a year old (October 7, 2002 to be precises).

. . . the first responsibility of any government is the safety and security of its citizens. I believe that, today, that responsibility imposes three challenges above all others: first, to eliminate the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; second, to win the war on terrorism; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, especially the Middle East.

I believe that the successful pursuit of these goals can only come through American leadership of the world - not American disregard for it. Leadership is one of those words that is used so often it sometimes loses its meaning. But sometime soon, if our men and women in uniform are sent into battle into Iraq, we will see very clearly what leadership means. Because if we lead properly, others will join us, adding moral and military strength to our cause, sharing the dangers of war and the burdens of peace that will follow. But if we fail to lead, we will bear those risks and costs alone.

American leadership is about more than our ability to dominate others. It is about convincing others that our power serves their interests as well as our own. We inspire others to stand with us when we show that we are willing to stand with them, to listen to them, to take their views and contributions into account instead of taking them for granted. Too often, this administration seems to confuse leadership with going it alone and engagement with the compromise of principle - but real leadership is about setting principles and rallying others around them.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - General Wesley Clark

Oh, and these are in no particular order, and I will try to post views from all nine candidates. But I am going to focus on Kerry, Clark, Dean, Gephardt, and Edwards, as I think they have more of a shot than Lieberman, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton.

Oh, and I'm not covering Iraq in this foreign policy section. I have to save that for sweeps.

Once again this is from his website, from a speech he gave in South Carolina.

"As my record makes clear, I am not opposed to confronting a dictator, setting an ultimatum, and acting with force if the ultimatum's not met. We did it twice. We fought with Milosevic and persuaded our allies to join us. And I wrestled with some of the pentagon brass along the way to get it done. If we have to confront danger again, we will. And we will win.

But we must be a country that listens, and leads again. A country that is respected, not resented. Not for its military might or material wealth, but for its values and vision; for the greatness of its goals, and for the generosity of its spirit. Respected more than feared, by nations rich and poor, Christian, Jews, and Muslim. A country governed by people with ideals, not radical ideologies. A nation where citizens speak their minds, demand more of their leaders, and serve their country. It's what I call a New American Patriotism."

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Former Governor Howard Dean

By the way I won't be making too many comments on these statements. I haven't made up my mind yet entirely.

From Howard Deans website. "We remain the sole superpower in the world. As Madeleine Albright once put it, we are the "indispensable power" for addressing so many of the challenges around the world. But we cannot lead the world by force, and we cannot go it alone. We must lead toward clearly articulated and shared goals and with the cooperation and respect of friends and allies.

I seek to restore the best traditions of American leadership. Leadership in which our power is multiplied by the appeal of democratic ideals and by the knowledge that our country is a force for law around the world, not a law unto itself.

I will not divide the world into us versus them. Rather, I will rally the world around fundamental principles of decency, responsibility, freedom, and mutual respect. Our foreign and military policy must be about the notion of America leading the world, not America against the world."

New Feature - Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Senator John Kerry

For the next couple of months we are going to review, as best as we can, the Democratic Candidate's positions on various key issues. Probably do this on Friday for now, although I may switch to Monday later on (for about the same reason, Monday and Friday are the slowest news days).

Here's a quote from Sen. John Kerry from his website.

"Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security."

Lots of ellipses in that statement. The website focuses on Sen. Kerry's experience as a veteran and as a Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee.

A Clarification for Mr. Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg writes an article on what he believes is the confusing policy of Senator John Kerry. So lets look at one of his examples.

"In his speech, Kerry said that he was worried Iraq would turn into some kind of long-running quagmire. "As we discovered in Vietnam, success on the battlefield, or even in a series of battles, can often be the beginning and not the end of a conflict."

OK, fair enough. But then he said, "I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is now considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy."

Um, which is it? Are we in for too long a haul, or are we cutting and running?"

Uh, Mr. Goldberg. Perhaps you ought to reread Mr. Kerry's work, because clearly you don't understand what he is saying. He is saying, as almost any rational observer would, that the Bush administration planned for an easy victory over Saddam, and failed to plan much for what happened afterwords (widespread looting, thousands of priceless historical artifacts destroyed or stolen).

He then, like any mature adult, admits that the United States has made a bit of a mess in Iraq and we need to stick it out and fix it up. Mr. Goldberg also apparently missed the very clear signals that the Bush Administration has sent out suggesting that they will be getting out sooner rather than later. Mr. Mark Matthews of the Baltimore Sun (reprinted in the Seattle Times) wrote recently, "In the euphoric days after the fall of Baghdad in April, the United States assumed near-total control over Iraq, confident that it knew best how to stabilize the country, win the hearts and minds of its people and steer it toward democracy.

Seven months later, unable to quell an increasingly effective insurgency, getting less cooperation from ordinary Iraqis and at odds with some of Washington's own Iraqi appointees, President Bush has made a major midcourse correction. His administration is hastily reworking its military tactics and political strategy, mounting aggressive airstrikes and artillery barrages to wipe out insurgents' hide-outs while trying to speed a transition from a U.S. occupation to Iraqi self-rule.

So it looks like Kerry's position isn't as crazy as you made it out to be.

We're Safe Again

According to Maggie Gallagher anyway. "To someone less determined to snatch defeat out of victory, the bad news is the good news: Just 73 Americans died in the April invasion. Not a single American, meanwhile, has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since 9/11. Do you remember how we told each other things would never go back to normal here?

But they have, even here in New York. The threat of terrorism remains but it is a background buzz, no longer a daily reality, a paralyzing fear."

So that's comforting. Of course, it's more comforting if you believe that President Bush has actually made our lives safer. And if you forget (hard to do since Gallagher quotes the statistic herself) that we had 81 troops die in November. I think it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on what's happened since April when we are evaluating the success of this invasion.

It's OK to Waste Your Money

Yep, William F. Buckley, father of Modern Conservatism or something, writes today on the virtues of pork. Apparently at a recent Democratic Party debate, the Democratic candidates suggested that the latest Medicare increase was a boon to the phamacutical industry. Buckley commented that, "No one seems to cavil at the assumption that new laws are exactly that, obeisances to private interests. Targeted patronage can't be disguised when we are talking about a farm bill. Farmers are intended to benefit from farm bills. Steel tariffs are intended to help steel makers."

To be fair, Buckley isn't as comfortable with the Government buying off a section of the population as this quote makes him sound. He even sounds like he has some sense that the ever expanding deficit might have a downside. But it is interesting that he is comfortable with the Government handing money to drug companies. I wonder if he would feel the same sort of patriotic glow if the money were being handed to poor people.

Back with a Bullet, It's Brandy!

We haven't heard from Brandy in a while, but the earlier article on Ben Shapiro's latest (and an e-mail) has caused a response, so here it is.

"Speaking as a Jew (by a long long line) let me first state that any true Jew is by nature a Liberal. How can I say that you ask?
1) We clearly didn't even believe in a military until post WWII and even now Israel hasn't pulled out the hardcore guns to defeat the Palestinians -something any far rightwinger would do
2) Anything even close to fascism (Nazi's/Stalin) we want to be as far away from politically as possible (liberal)
3) A key 'Jewish' mentality is "live and let live" (so be it gay marriage or anything else 'liberal' it is
accepted)
4)Civil Rights marches -Blacks and Jews (liberal)
5) do you know of a successful entertainer who isn't Jewish AND Liberal (Spielberg, Jon Stewart ..or anyone from the Hanukkah song)"

So more to consider, Mr. Shapiro.

A Caveat

O'Reilly Sucks is in a part a boycott site. While I don't have any problem boycotting Fox News or O'Reilly's show (or MSNBC, which they through in for good measure), they also call on their readers to boycott products that advertise on FOX or MSNBC.

I don't support that strategy. While I disagree with Fox News' slant on the news, they have the right to seek out advertisers as they like. And trying to muzzle them by cutting them off from their source of revenue is not a tactic I think anybody should be proud of. I'm going to leave the link for now, because there is a lot of good information on that site, but do not construe that as support for their boycott.

Real Jews vote for President Bush

According to Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognisticator. Apparently Ann Coulter wrote an article last week in which she commented that many of the candidates, including Lieberman (who is, of course, Jewish), were claiming a connection to the Jewish people. So Ben Shapiro weighed in, claiming that Liberal Jews are, by not being conservative, betraying "authentic" Jewish values.

This is an old game the right likes to play. When a college professor is a liberal, he is an egghead, a gutless intellectual, a Communist sympathizer. When a college professor is a conservative, he is insightful and worthy of respect.'

When a college student is a liberal, she is an empty headed dupe. When a college student is a conservative, she is an upstanding clean cut young person who gives one hope for the future.

When an actor speaks out in favor of liberal ideals, he should shut up and let serious people do the talking. When an actor speaks out in favor of conservative ideals, he is remarkably astute and a fine addition to the dialogue.

And, now, when a Jew is a liberal he is inauthentic. When a Jew is conservative he is authentic.

I'm sure you picked up on the pattern.

I don't want to mock young Ben's faith. If he feels that it is necessary for him to be Conservative to best serve his faith and his people, let him. But I do believe there is something unsavory about attacking the faiths of other Jews, merely because they are on the other side of the political aisle from him.

New Link

Added a link to O'Reilly Sucks. It looks like it has some interesting info on it. I think the website has an opinion on Fox News Person Bill O'Reilly, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what that is.

President Bush in Iraq

As many of you know, President Bush journeyed to Iraq this last week to visit the soldiers near the Baghdad airport. Many have commented on the fairly transparent political goal of this visit. Deseret_Vet, writing at Democratic Underground, commented on this.

"Will this guy ever run out of shameless publicity stunts? Just when we thought his phony (and premature) aircraft carrier "victory" gig was the creme de la creme of gaudy overacting, he pulls this Baghdad stunt. After having consumed my fill of Thanksgiving goodies, I have to see this on TV? That doesn't bode well for healthy digestion.

This is the same president who feels absolutely no obligation to attend even one burial ceremony at Arlington National Cemetary. This is the same president who can't even get to Dover Air Force Base to pay respects to the casualties as their coffins arrive home. But he can make it all the way to Baghdad for a two-hour photo-op!"

It is a little frustrating that this will make a great story. I'm sure we'll see a Time or Newsweek story giving the inside story on President Bush's heroic trip to Iraq. I'm sure it will contain this phrase or some variation on it. "There are people who will say this trip was made for the basest of political motivations, but nothing could be further from the truth."

What's that line about if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck?

The Reagans

Well, hot on the heels of a scheme to replace Franklin D. Roosevelt with Ronald Reagan on the dime, Matt Towery writes an article about how our students are learning about Reagen.

In particular, he's concerned that people won't know the effect of President Reagans record on the economy. I wonder if he wants them to know that the Reagan economy lifted 77,000 out of poverty while the Clinton economy lifted 8.2 Million out of poverty (according to the Bureau of Census). Probably not.

I'm also pretty sure he doesn't want to focus on how Reagan left an enormous budget deficit for President George H. W. Bush (who did nothing to fix it) while President Clinton left a Surplus for President George W. Bush (who quickly got rid of it).

Well I'm on the road.

I'm in Atlanta for another three or four hours. Right now I'm using a kiosk to update the website--actually it's not bad. Kind of comfy. has a printer and everything.

One comment. One trope being repeated right now is that Democrats are just full of meanness and anger and they are motivated entirely by hatred for President Bush. Funny how this trope wasn't on everybodies lips when President Clinton was attacked every single day.

But we are seeing a lot of hand wringing about how awful it is that Liberals are standing up for what they believe in. There's a story on the front page of USA today on it. According to USA Today, "The sudden emergence of an outspoken left wing may be the most surprising political development of the year. Until recently, liberalism could not have been more out of a vogue."

All I can say is its about damn time. Half of the reason I identify myself as a centrist leftist (as opposed to a simple Liberal) is the mean and hateful tone of the right wing. They describe liberals as communists or as "America haters" or as traitors without shame. And, note to you who want to give the benefit of the doubt; when Ann Coulter and her "fellow travellers" talk about liberals, she means every single Democrat, every single person who ascribes to even the most mild of liberals, not just Berkeley Marxists.

Let's remember this gem from Ms. Coulter. "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

So maybe the fact that Al Franken says some mean things is alright with me. One thing Mr. Franken (or Joe Conason or Michael Moore) does not say is that all liberals need to be eliminated or physically intimidated.

On the Road Again

Yep I'm on the road again. So no posts today until late tonight, maybe. But that can only happen if you make it happen. Yes you, my audience. E-mail me a story you'd like to see commentary on. And I'll write about it. Probably. So find a story and e-mail it to me.

The address, in case the links aren't working, is politicalcombryant@hotmail.com

Scenes from the Old Place

I decided not to get all morose on you, but to keep my feelings bottled up inside. But I did come across one thing I saw in my home town I'd like to share.



Get that? The original pancake house is in Yorba Linda, CA. Before that pancake house, nobody else had the idea to have a pancake house. It was a whole new concept.

You know what would make this joke even better? If it was a chain.

Also caught a bit of Senator Tom Daschle promoting his book on C-Span. What a miserable performance. First of all, he basically let the Republicans off the hook for trashing the Wellstone Memorial. Essentially he agreed with them, that it was a dispicable performance. Then he said words to the effect that he spends hours looking at his phone before calling the majority leader and apoligizing or clarifying his position. Not very good.

New Quote

Theres a new quote, but since I'm on the road, no new quotes page for a couple of days.