Hey, remember the Rush Limbaugh article we pointed out earlier? The one that talked about Gore's psychological affinity with Dean, because Dean was the candidate he wanted to be?
Well check out this Editorial from the New York Times. "The other message was the degree to which the Democrats have bought into the theory that victory in November will belong to the party that best energizes its passionate base. It is a concept embraced by President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, and, now, by Mr. Gore, in his implicit turning away from the triangulation politics of the Clintonites who courted swing voters so well.
Yesterday, there was a hint of wistfulness, even envy, in Mr. Gore's appreciation of Dr. Dean's go-for-broke style. Candidates who feel blindsided by Mr. Gore's surprising initiative still have the opportunity to go for broke themselves and push their own agendas."
That Liberal Media, always copying Rush Limbaugh.
“Well, I've been in the city for 30 years and I've never once regretted being a nasty, greedy, cold-hearted, avaricious money-grubber... er, Conservative!” - Monty Python's Flying Circus, Season 2, Episode 11, How Not To Be Seen
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Once around the Horn
Well, as you know Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean yesterday for President. So lets see what people are saying about that.
First of all let's check in with the new Rush, who's stay at a drug rehab facility has apparently turned him into a font of psychological understanding. "In addition to the personal characteristics of this, Gore wanting to get even with the Clintons, I actually think Gore is endorsing Dean because Dean is running the kind of campaign that Gore wanted to run but was never able to achieve. I think Gore wanted to be a radical, freewheeling populist and wanted to be perceived as authentic, and is saying to himself, 'That's what I wanted to do, and nobody would let me, Shrum wouldn't let me do it, Clintons wouldn't let me do it, that's who I wanted to be, this is my candidacy, I want to glom onto this, that's who I am.'
And it's sad that, you know, Algore sees in Dean, an angry, petulant, arrogant, aggressive, reckless little guy - everything that he never was but always wanted to be. I mean that's what I think is going on here. I've learned about this, my friends, trust me on this. I now know how to recognize these kinds of thing. "
The problem with Rush is that he has a set of unproven postulates that he holds onto with grim determination. One of those postulates is that Al Gore doesn't know who he is. That's nonsense, of course. Gore's performance in the election of 2000 was pretty sad, but his performance since then has been that of a man rejuvenated. Still I guess we've got to trust Rush's deep psychological understanding of the situation. After all, he's been through Drug Rehab and I haven't.
Jonah Goldberg spends a bit of time writing about how unfathomable Al Gore and referring to him as having a lead cased android skull (which I wish I had). He then concludes that "I understand Gore sees in Dean one qualification Lieberman doesn't have: the potential to win. But when you think about all that has happened since 9/11, for Gore to say that the post-9/11 world makes Howard Dean more, not less, qualified to be president than Joe Lieberman really shows how unserious Al Gore and his party have become."
Yep, once again, the candidate the Republicans love the most is Joe Lieberman. Mainly because in a choice between Conservatism and Diet Conservatism (Same Great "Taste," only 1 calorie), most people will still choose Conservatism. Frankly if the Democrats are going to pick our candidate based on his potential to woo Jonah Goldberg away from President Bush, they are truely doomed.
The other theorys are that Dean has no hope, but that Gore can take his followers and organization and challenge Hillary for the Nomination in 2008. This is kind of a crazy theory in my mind, but it is popular among conservatives, particularly those who subsitute cynicism and mean spiritedness for evidence.
Joe Conason has a reaction to all these theories. "Many politicians remain static throughout their careers, regardless of the changing world around them and even of their own experiences. Gore isn't one of them. He has always been more thoughtful, more observant, more intellectually open and simply more curious than the average pol. (In that respect he resembles Bill Clinton, now his supposed nemesis.) He is aware of the need for change in his own party, for instance, as his remarks this morning in Harlem showed. That's why he spoke of the Vermonter's "promise" to rebuild the Democratic Party from the grass roots. (An apt epigram I've seen on pro-Dean blogs: "Dean is the messenger. We are the message.")
Whatever the reasoning behind Gore's endorsement, I doubt that petty animosity toward the Clintons or personal ambitions were important factors. It's interesting, though, that so many political reporters gravitate automatically toward such explanations, in the absence of any evidence. Might that reflect on their own unresolved feelings about the former president and the junior senator from New York?"
That's a fair question. Americans have always been suspicious of Politicians (and with good reason), but the "Perfidy of all peole connected to Bill Clinton" Explanation is starting to wear a bit thin. Why not look at what Mr. Gore said and consider that instead of trying to imagine a reason?
"I have watched this campaign and I have listened to all of the candidates. I think it's a great field. There are a lot of great Democratic candidates out there. But what I'm about to say doesn't come as a secret or as a surprise to anybody within the sound of my voice, and that is that Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire, at the grassroots level all over this country, the kind of passion and enthusiasm for democracy and change and transformation of America that we need in this country.
We need to remake the Democratic Party. We need to remake America. We need to take it back on behalf of the people of this country."
First of all let's check in with the new Rush, who's stay at a drug rehab facility has apparently turned him into a font of psychological understanding. "In addition to the personal characteristics of this, Gore wanting to get even with the Clintons, I actually think Gore is endorsing Dean because Dean is running the kind of campaign that Gore wanted to run but was never able to achieve. I think Gore wanted to be a radical, freewheeling populist and wanted to be perceived as authentic, and is saying to himself, 'That's what I wanted to do, and nobody would let me, Shrum wouldn't let me do it, Clintons wouldn't let me do it, that's who I wanted to be, this is my candidacy, I want to glom onto this, that's who I am.'
And it's sad that, you know, Algore sees in Dean, an angry, petulant, arrogant, aggressive, reckless little guy - everything that he never was but always wanted to be. I mean that's what I think is going on here. I've learned about this, my friends, trust me on this. I now know how to recognize these kinds of thing. "
The problem with Rush is that he has a set of unproven postulates that he holds onto with grim determination. One of those postulates is that Al Gore doesn't know who he is. That's nonsense, of course. Gore's performance in the election of 2000 was pretty sad, but his performance since then has been that of a man rejuvenated. Still I guess we've got to trust Rush's deep psychological understanding of the situation. After all, he's been through Drug Rehab and I haven't.
Jonah Goldberg spends a bit of time writing about how unfathomable Al Gore and referring to him as having a lead cased android skull (which I wish I had). He then concludes that "I understand Gore sees in Dean one qualification Lieberman doesn't have: the potential to win. But when you think about all that has happened since 9/11, for Gore to say that the post-9/11 world makes Howard Dean more, not less, qualified to be president than Joe Lieberman really shows how unserious Al Gore and his party have become."
Yep, once again, the candidate the Republicans love the most is Joe Lieberman. Mainly because in a choice between Conservatism and Diet Conservatism (Same Great "Taste," only 1 calorie), most people will still choose Conservatism. Frankly if the Democrats are going to pick our candidate based on his potential to woo Jonah Goldberg away from President Bush, they are truely doomed.
The other theorys are that Dean has no hope, but that Gore can take his followers and organization and challenge Hillary for the Nomination in 2008. This is kind of a crazy theory in my mind, but it is popular among conservatives, particularly those who subsitute cynicism and mean spiritedness for evidence.
Joe Conason has a reaction to all these theories. "Many politicians remain static throughout their careers, regardless of the changing world around them and even of their own experiences. Gore isn't one of them. He has always been more thoughtful, more observant, more intellectually open and simply more curious than the average pol. (In that respect he resembles Bill Clinton, now his supposed nemesis.) He is aware of the need for change in his own party, for instance, as his remarks this morning in Harlem showed. That's why he spoke of the Vermonter's "promise" to rebuild the Democratic Party from the grass roots. (An apt epigram I've seen on pro-Dean blogs: "Dean is the messenger. We are the message.")
Whatever the reasoning behind Gore's endorsement, I doubt that petty animosity toward the Clintons or personal ambitions were important factors. It's interesting, though, that so many political reporters gravitate automatically toward such explanations, in the absence of any evidence. Might that reflect on their own unresolved feelings about the former president and the junior senator from New York?"
That's a fair question. Americans have always been suspicious of Politicians (and with good reason), but the "Perfidy of all peole connected to Bill Clinton" Explanation is starting to wear a bit thin. Why not look at what Mr. Gore said and consider that instead of trying to imagine a reason?
"I have watched this campaign and I have listened to all of the candidates. I think it's a great field. There are a lot of great Democratic candidates out there. But what I'm about to say doesn't come as a secret or as a surprise to anybody within the sound of my voice, and that is that Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire, at the grassroots level all over this country, the kind of passion and enthusiasm for democracy and change and transformation of America that we need in this country.
We need to remake the Democratic Party. We need to remake America. We need to take it back on behalf of the people of this country."
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
New Flash
For those of you wondering if maybe the Bush Administration had learned its lesson as was willing to reach out to the United Nations and those nations who had opposed our invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon announced today that all nations who did not support the invasion of Iraq will be barred from rebuilding contracts.
According to MSNBC, "The ruling bars companies from U.S. allies such as France, Germany and Canada from bidding on the contracts because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The Wolfowitz memo, dated Friday and posted on a Pentagon web site Tuesday, says restricting contract bids “is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.”
Not sure I buy that, but then again, I've been a little suspicious of the Bush administration since we stopped looking for Weapons of Mass Distruction and started looking for Weapons of Mass Distruction Programs.
According to MSNBC, "The ruling bars companies from U.S. allies such as France, Germany and Canada from bidding on the contracts because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The Wolfowitz memo, dated Friday and posted on a Pentagon web site Tuesday, says restricting contract bids “is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.”
Not sure I buy that, but then again, I've been a little suspicious of the Bush administration since we stopped looking for Weapons of Mass Distruction and started looking for Weapons of Mass Distruction Programs.
Your Weekly Rush - A Little Prediction of My Own
Rush Limbaugh will describe every Democratic Rally between here and March (at least!) as a "Hate-Bush" rally (as he did yesterday).
Every single rally in which Democrats dare to criticize the President will be described as a "Hate-Bush" rally, so as to minimize the legitimate complaints Democrats have against this President. This President who lied his way into Iraq. This President who has emptied the budget to make room for huge tax cuts for the rich and corporate giveaways. This President who promotes radical conservative Judges and then has the audacity to complain that Congressional Democrats won't approve any of his nominees.
Yep, the only reason anybody would criticize President Bush is if they were motivated by personal hatred. Makes sense to me.
Every single rally in which Democrats dare to criticize the President will be described as a "Hate-Bush" rally, so as to minimize the legitimate complaints Democrats have against this President. This President who lied his way into Iraq. This President who has emptied the budget to make room for huge tax cuts for the rich and corporate giveaways. This President who promotes radical conservative Judges and then has the audacity to complain that Congressional Democrats won't approve any of his nominees.
Yep, the only reason anybody would criticize President Bush is if they were motivated by personal hatred. Makes sense to me.
Respect for the Dead
Dennis Prager is upset. Recently Sylvia Bernstein, a civil rights activist and member of the Communist Party, died. No, I'm pretty sure Prager is not upset that a communist died. Instead he's upset that Ms. Bernstein was not denounced as a Communist.
According to Mr. Prager, the fact that she was a communist negates everything else positive she did in her life. Her membership in the Communist Party should cause her to share in the guilt of the thousands killed by Stalin.
It's striking how simplistic this analysis is. A Communist is evil, and therefore, no matter what that Communists personal accomplishments or goals or connection to the party, he or she should be condemned. Personally I favor a more nuanced judgment than that, but that's because I'm a wishy-washy intellectual.
Plus you have to factor in that this is an obituary. Rightly or wrongly, you always try to find nice things about a person after they have died. Perhaps Mr. Prager doesn't think a Communist should receive that respect we generally give to our dead. I personally disagree.
According to Mr. Prager, the fact that she was a communist negates everything else positive she did in her life. Her membership in the Communist Party should cause her to share in the guilt of the thousands killed by Stalin.
It's striking how simplistic this analysis is. A Communist is evil, and therefore, no matter what that Communists personal accomplishments or goals or connection to the party, he or she should be condemned. Personally I favor a more nuanced judgment than that, but that's because I'm a wishy-washy intellectual.
Plus you have to factor in that this is an obituary. Rightly or wrongly, you always try to find nice things about a person after they have died. Perhaps Mr. Prager doesn't think a Communist should receive that respect we generally give to our dead. I personally disagree.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Howard Dean in South Carolina
"In the year 2003, in the United States, over 12 million children live in poverty. Nearly 8 million of them are white. And no matter what race they are, too many of them will live in poverty all their lives.
And yesterday, there were 3,000 more children without healthcare -- children of all races. By the end of today, there will 3,000 more. And by the end of tomorrow, there will be 3,000 more on top of that.
America can do better than this.
It's time we had a new politics in America -- a politics that refuses to pander to our lowest prejudices.
Because when white people and black people and brown people vote together, that's when we make true progress in this country.
Jobs, healthcare, education, democracy, and opportunity. These are the issues that can unite America.
The politics of the 21st century is going to begin with our common interests.
Here's the link. It's at Salon, so annoying ad watching may be necessary.
And yesterday, there were 3,000 more children without healthcare -- children of all races. By the end of today, there will 3,000 more. And by the end of tomorrow, there will be 3,000 more on top of that.
America can do better than this.
It's time we had a new politics in America -- a politics that refuses to pander to our lowest prejudices.
Because when white people and black people and brown people vote together, that's when we make true progress in this country.
Jobs, healthcare, education, democracy, and opportunity. These are the issues that can unite America.
The politics of the 21st century is going to begin with our common interests.
Here's the link. It's at Salon, so annoying ad watching may be necessary.
Life During Wartime
One of the charges that has been leveled against President Bush is that of inconsistency (If I'm not mistaken, I've leveled the charge myself). He campaigned on the idea that we needed to be a humble nation and not impose our values on the rest of the world. He specifically attacked the Clinton idea of Nation Building.
Well as the saying goes, "That was then, this is now."
At the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman makes an interesting argument that rationalizes away this apparent conflict. He makes comparisons to other war-time Presidents Lincoln and Wilson. After the carnage at Gettysburg, President Lincoln (our greatest president, despite what you might hear around the South) had to make the war about more than just preserving the Union. And hence the war became about preserving freedom.
In a similar transformation, according to Friedman, President Bush has been pushed by the war to accept nation building. This is a little facile. For one thing, the connection between invading Iraq and rebuilding it is only tenuously connected to the enemies that attacked us on September 11, 2003. Secondly, as even Mr. Friedman comments, Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address himself. President Bush isn't doing that so much, is he? (While we are the subject, have you ever heard the old Bob Newhart routine "Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue?" Brilliant.)
Anyway worth considering, but I don't think Mr. Friedman's argument holds water. Marmalade maybe.
Well as the saying goes, "That was then, this is now."
At the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman makes an interesting argument that rationalizes away this apparent conflict. He makes comparisons to other war-time Presidents Lincoln and Wilson. After the carnage at Gettysburg, President Lincoln (our greatest president, despite what you might hear around the South) had to make the war about more than just preserving the Union. And hence the war became about preserving freedom.
In a similar transformation, according to Friedman, President Bush has been pushed by the war to accept nation building. This is a little facile. For one thing, the connection between invading Iraq and rebuilding it is only tenuously connected to the enemies that attacked us on September 11, 2003. Secondly, as even Mr. Friedman comments, Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address himself. President Bush isn't doing that so much, is he? (While we are the subject, have you ever heard the old Bob Newhart routine "Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue?" Brilliant.)
Anyway worth considering, but I don't think Mr. Friedman's argument holds water. Marmalade maybe.
Diana West and Groupthink
This is one of the more interesting tropes of the modern conservative movement. Basically, the reason liberals, particularly ethnic liberals (Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, etc), are liberals is that they are constrained by the group they belong to. The possibility that Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics might honestly compare Liberalism to Conservatism and chose liberalism is apparently not worth discussion.
Diane West brings this argument in talking about a recent all-Latino play that failed. Apparently that a play would be put on containing all Latinos is an example of "Groupthink." The fact that actress Priscilla Lopez would be concerned that she seems to be one of a very few Latino actresses to make it is also an example of "Groupthink."
Quick, name five Latino actors or actresses (not counting Priscilla Lopez, cheaters). Name three Asian actors or actresses. Now see if you can name twenty white actors and actresses.
Does West really not know that the bar for Latino actors and actresses is higher because they have to find "Latino" roles? And frankly Hollywood and TV land are not interested in finding roles for Hispanics.
So maybe Ms. Priscilla Lopez's concerns aren't' entirely laughable.
She compares the Latino to an Islamic community in England and reveals a lack of understanding. "Indeed, the local imam of the Ryecroft Street Mosque has actually ruled out guilt as a Muslim option. ("A Muslim cannot be a terrorist as a terrorist cannot be a Muslim," he, um, explained.) Which is nonsense -- and worse than nonsense."
If this imam meant that Muslims were by their very natures innocent, she'd be right. But what if he meant that, by committing the sin of murder through their acts of terrorism, they had abandoned the true faith of Islam. Well, that would be a different scenario, wouldn't it?
Diane West brings this argument in talking about a recent all-Latino play that failed. Apparently that a play would be put on containing all Latinos is an example of "Groupthink." The fact that actress Priscilla Lopez would be concerned that she seems to be one of a very few Latino actresses to make it is also an example of "Groupthink."
Quick, name five Latino actors or actresses (not counting Priscilla Lopez, cheaters). Name three Asian actors or actresses. Now see if you can name twenty white actors and actresses.
Does West really not know that the bar for Latino actors and actresses is higher because they have to find "Latino" roles? And frankly Hollywood and TV land are not interested in finding roles for Hispanics.
So maybe Ms. Priscilla Lopez's concerns aren't' entirely laughable.
She compares the Latino to an Islamic community in England and reveals a lack of understanding. "Indeed, the local imam of the Ryecroft Street Mosque has actually ruled out guilt as a Muslim option. ("A Muslim cannot be a terrorist as a terrorist cannot be a Muslim," he, um, explained.) Which is nonsense -- and worse than nonsense."
If this imam meant that Muslims were by their very natures innocent, she'd be right. But what if he meant that, by committing the sin of murder through their acts of terrorism, they had abandoned the true faith of Islam. Well, that would be a different scenario, wouldn't it?
Sunday, December 07, 2003
Saturday, December 06, 2003
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.
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."
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."
Friday, December 05, 2003
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.
"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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
"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.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)