As I have written before, and as the article in last night's post intimates, Barack Obama has been criticized for being to vague in his ideals...too grandiose in his speeches...and too unwilling to offend possible voters.
Judging by the reaction - or rather lack of one - to his healthcare proposal, there's a better explanation...it's just too darn early for people to being paying attention. Candidates who explain specific steps they would take to combat serious issues are not going to get the attention they deserve until the number of viable candidates in both parties combined can be counted on one hand. Until then, those with the best fundraising efforts would be foolish to do anything other than wait for the financially malnourished among them to drop off the radar screen. Don't say anything stupid for the next 6 months in other words.
Barack's proposal has some interesting ideas, but as the Time article pointed out, it's not exactly revolutionary. That's ok. Momentum will continue to build for healthcare reform over the next few months. Michael Moore's summer movie "Sicko" should also put a little sizzle in the health care debate (Hopefully Moore can make a movie with some facts in it this time around).
Until then, Barack did just what he needed to do. He put out a fairly serious proposal with just enough detail to keep the naysayers at bay for a while. I suppose that could be viewed as calculating, but sometimes calculating is nothing more than common sense.
And couldn't we use a President with a little common sense?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Barack's health care proposal
Barack Obama is starting to get specific:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626105,00.html
More on this tomorrow night.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626105,00.html
More on this tomorrow night.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
The gathering storm
Newt Gingrich was on "Meet the Press" today. Newt is one of those characters who everyone agrees has as much chance of winning the Presidency as I do, yet he enjoys remarkable regularity when it comes to being a guest on newsmaker shows. His penchant for controversial quotes probably helps in that regard. But the most interesting quote today from Newt wasn't the typical "speak before you think" bombast...it was actually quite perceptive:
"I mean, you look around the world, the forces of freedom are on retreat, the forces that are anti-freedom, pro-dictatorship, and, in some cases, purely evil are on offense. I agree with Senator Dodd (co-guest) that we need a dramatically expanded ability to use state craft. But I think it’s—I think you got to make any Iraq decision within the framework of this larger maelstrom of dangers that are growing across the planet."
While Newt seems incapable of understanding how we got to this growing maelstrom of dangers, he is absolutely dead on with his assertion.
The happy talk of "democracy on the march" from the neocons in the White House is a distant memory. It never existed in the first place, thanks to the incredible incompetence and arrogance of the Bush administration. But now, it's becoming plain that within a possibly very short time frame, we are going to be like the Roman empire in it's very last stages. Besieged on all fronts, rotten and corrupt within and lacking any moral sway.
The rise and fall of empires is a natural course of history, but never has one country lost so much wealth and power so quickly as the United States has under George Bush and his neocon puppeteers.
Newt sees it, although he refuses to understand why. By the time the next President is sworn in, many others will also see the danger of the growing maelstrom. As Iraq continues to disentegrate, the forces of evil grow ever stronger. It will take the greatest President in the history of our country to rescue us from the awful fate that rapidly approaches.
Please, someone...any candidate..step forward and tell us how we can save ourselves.
"I mean, you look around the world, the forces of freedom are on retreat, the forces that are anti-freedom, pro-dictatorship, and, in some cases, purely evil are on offense. I agree with Senator Dodd (co-guest) that we need a dramatically expanded ability to use state craft. But I think it’s—I think you got to make any Iraq decision within the framework of this larger maelstrom of dangers that are growing across the planet."
While Newt seems incapable of understanding how we got to this growing maelstrom of dangers, he is absolutely dead on with his assertion.
The happy talk of "democracy on the march" from the neocons in the White House is a distant memory. It never existed in the first place, thanks to the incredible incompetence and arrogance of the Bush administration. But now, it's becoming plain that within a possibly very short time frame, we are going to be like the Roman empire in it's very last stages. Besieged on all fronts, rotten and corrupt within and lacking any moral sway.
The rise and fall of empires is a natural course of history, but never has one country lost so much wealth and power so quickly as the United States has under George Bush and his neocon puppeteers.
Newt sees it, although he refuses to understand why. By the time the next President is sworn in, many others will also see the danger of the growing maelstrom. As Iraq continues to disentegrate, the forces of evil grow ever stronger. It will take the greatest President in the history of our country to rescue us from the awful fate that rapidly approaches.
Please, someone...any candidate..step forward and tell us how we can save ourselves.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
How to keep score
Now that the Democrats and Republicans each have one debate out of the way, it's obvious that we're going to have to wait a bit longer for meaningful debate on key issues. All the candidates are more concerned with their position in the polls than they are with addressing issues. That's fine. Soon the "never were" and "never could be" candidates will be eliminated for lack of funds.
When the field is effectively whittled down to the top three in each party, then it will be time to pay attention. But pay attention to what?
Try this...when the top candidates debate later this campaign season, keep a scorecard. Not a scorecard on which candidate has the most clever one liners, makes the most gaffes or has the most statements that you agree with. Instead, keep a scorecard for each time a candidate actually answers the question that was asked by the moderator.
One or more of the candidates by that time will have figured out that the electorate is no longer going to put up with "talking points" answers that have nothing to do with the question asked.
Example: "You (candidate x) have advocated an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but many directly involved in the conflict say that would lead to chaos that would ultimately bring about more casualties than remaining would. Why are they wrong?"
Currently, this type of question elicits a prepared speech about how the Iraqis need to do more, how the other side (ie. Dems or Republicans) are the cause of why we are where we are now, how the war has been mismanaged and about how wonderful our troops are. Glittering generalities in other words.
In the past, this answer might have worked because people either weren't informed enough to see through the smokescreen, or because they were so disenchanted with the cynicism in politics that they had given up hope for an honest answer. Pundits will tell you that both of these reasons are still valid. Don't believe them.
There will be a candidate brave enough to answer tough questions with tough answers. A candidate strong enough to get past the fear of alienating voters by asking for sacrifice. A candidate smart enough to realize the time to speak the truth has finally aligned with the winning campaign strategy. We can handle it. Just give us the truth.
Get your scorecards ready....
When the field is effectively whittled down to the top three in each party, then it will be time to pay attention. But pay attention to what?
Try this...when the top candidates debate later this campaign season, keep a scorecard. Not a scorecard on which candidate has the most clever one liners, makes the most gaffes or has the most statements that you agree with. Instead, keep a scorecard for each time a candidate actually answers the question that was asked by the moderator.
One or more of the candidates by that time will have figured out that the electorate is no longer going to put up with "talking points" answers that have nothing to do with the question asked.
Example: "You (candidate x) have advocated an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but many directly involved in the conflict say that would lead to chaos that would ultimately bring about more casualties than remaining would. Why are they wrong?"
Currently, this type of question elicits a prepared speech about how the Iraqis need to do more, how the other side (ie. Dems or Republicans) are the cause of why we are where we are now, how the war has been mismanaged and about how wonderful our troops are. Glittering generalities in other words.
In the past, this answer might have worked because people either weren't informed enough to see through the smokescreen, or because they were so disenchanted with the cynicism in politics that they had given up hope for an honest answer. Pundits will tell you that both of these reasons are still valid. Don't believe them.
There will be a candidate brave enough to answer tough questions with tough answers. A candidate strong enough to get past the fear of alienating voters by asking for sacrifice. A candidate smart enough to realize the time to speak the truth has finally aligned with the winning campaign strategy. We can handle it. Just give us the truth.
Get your scorecards ready....
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Here comes Rudy
Rudy has figured it out.
During the Republican debate a few weeks ago, he stumbled trying to explain his position on abortion. Trying to be all things to all people, he alternately made it sound like he supported a woman's right to choose and judges who would abolish legal abortion.
That's yesterday's politics - trying to not offend the extremes of political thought.
Then last week it came to light that Rudy had given money to Planned Parenthood back in the 1990's. This revelation may have turned out to be the defining moment in Rudy's bid for the Republican nomination. If he had continued down the same track he was on, his response to questions this raised might have been, "While I did give money to Planned Parenthood, I believe abortion is wrong and will oppose it to the best of my ability if elected." This would be the "damage control" response, designed to get him back within the tolerance of the conservative base of the Republican party.
But instead Rudy opted to say what he thinks. Namely, that abortion ultimately is a woman's decision, even if he personally opposes it. This response won't win him any friends with the single issue crowd. In fact they'll probably write him off now. But Rudy realizes that winning the support of that segment would doom his overall electability because times have changed. The extremists no longer have the power. More importantly, Rudy decided it's time to say what he thinks. Saying how you really feel about an issue is a wonderfully liberating experience.
I'm expecting a re-energized Rudy Guiliani over the next few months - and the Democrats had better pay attention.
During the Republican debate a few weeks ago, he stumbled trying to explain his position on abortion. Trying to be all things to all people, he alternately made it sound like he supported a woman's right to choose and judges who would abolish legal abortion.
That's yesterday's politics - trying to not offend the extremes of political thought.
Then last week it came to light that Rudy had given money to Planned Parenthood back in the 1990's. This revelation may have turned out to be the defining moment in Rudy's bid for the Republican nomination. If he had continued down the same track he was on, his response to questions this raised might have been, "While I did give money to Planned Parenthood, I believe abortion is wrong and will oppose it to the best of my ability if elected." This would be the "damage control" response, designed to get him back within the tolerance of the conservative base of the Republican party.
But instead Rudy opted to say what he thinks. Namely, that abortion ultimately is a woman's decision, even if he personally opposes it. This response won't win him any friends with the single issue crowd. In fact they'll probably write him off now. But Rudy realizes that winning the support of that segment would doom his overall electability because times have changed. The extremists no longer have the power. More importantly, Rudy decided it's time to say what he thinks. Saying how you really feel about an issue is a wonderfully liberating experience.
I'm expecting a re-energized Rudy Guiliani over the next few months - and the Democrats had better pay attention.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
He said what?
Headlines lately have made Rudy Giuliani look like just another conservative ranter. "If Democrats win we'll have another 9/11 type attack," he supposedly said at a Republican fundraiser this past week.
That quote sure doesn't gibe with my conclusion that Rudy would run an upright campaign and is extremely worthy of the presidency. But what did Rudy really say? Turns out the quotes (consolidated) in the Washington Post are quite a bit more nuanced:
"We're going to win that war (on terrorism) whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president. The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer. If one of them (Democrats) gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."
It's just amazing how certain elements of the press try to inflame instead of educate. The Washington Post has great integrity, and got the quote right, but numerous other outlets quickly tried to stir up trouble. The Democrats in this example also are a sorry lot. Reactions to the speech ranged from indignation to disgust. Barack Obama said Rudy, "took the politics of fear to a new low."
Well Barack, let me tell you as one of your supporters...he didn't.
First of all there is a lot of truth to what Rudy said. If you go on defense against Islamic militants, we will suffer greater casualties and we will lose the war on terror. I have no doubt that several of the Democratic candidates (and many Democrats) do not fully understand the scope of the war we are in and the peril that we face. They are simply naive to think the isolationist policies they hold dear will protect us.
On the other hand, winning the war on terror requires more than brute force, aggressive interrogation tactics and a reduction in our personal freedoms. This is where I disagree with Rudy, although he has every right to say what he feels.
To win against Islamic militants takes a strong military approach - where appropriate. And ANY military action MUST go hand in hand with the following:
That quote sure doesn't gibe with my conclusion that Rudy would run an upright campaign and is extremely worthy of the presidency. But what did Rudy really say? Turns out the quotes (consolidated) in the Washington Post are quite a bit more nuanced:
"We're going to win that war (on terrorism) whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president. The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer. If one of them (Democrats) gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."
It's just amazing how certain elements of the press try to inflame instead of educate. The Washington Post has great integrity, and got the quote right, but numerous other outlets quickly tried to stir up trouble. The Democrats in this example also are a sorry lot. Reactions to the speech ranged from indignation to disgust. Barack Obama said Rudy, "took the politics of fear to a new low."
Well Barack, let me tell you as one of your supporters...he didn't.
First of all there is a lot of truth to what Rudy said. If you go on defense against Islamic militants, we will suffer greater casualties and we will lose the war on terror. I have no doubt that several of the Democratic candidates (and many Democrats) do not fully understand the scope of the war we are in and the peril that we face. They are simply naive to think the isolationist policies they hold dear will protect us.
On the other hand, winning the war on terror requires more than brute force, aggressive interrogation tactics and a reduction in our personal freedoms. This is where I disagree with Rudy, although he has every right to say what he feels.
To win against Islamic militants takes a strong military approach - where appropriate. And ANY military action MUST go hand in hand with the following:
- A well thought out plan from the beginning to to the end including planning for what might go wrong and an attitude that acknowledges our purpose is not to spread American style democracy, but rather to help the locals live in peace in the way that best fits their culture. (i.e. lack of arrogance on our part)
- Truthful education of the American public on why the campaign is necessary and what the costs will be.
- Support from our allies.
- A robust plan for economic aid in the region.
As you can see, President Bush and the crazy neocons he fell in bed with could not pass even one item from this list when it comes to Iraq. Forget the debate on whether we're in a Vietnam-style quagmire. If only we were so lucky...
But deadlines for troop withdrawals, denials of how serious the threat is or playing politics by misquoting someone who is seriously (if a bit misguidedly) addressing the issue is no answer either.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
If only...
If you watch enough sporting events you'll eventually observe a particularly frustrating form of defeat - when the team that was being beaten finally figures out what they were doing wrong and mounts a comeback - only to be denied because time has run out.
As I have said before, the tragedy of George Bush's Iraq policy was that he took a dangerous, but necessary idea (combating militant Islam in the heart of the Mideast) and wrecked it with stubbornness, arrogance and incompetence. If only we had not mislead the American people about why toppling Saddam was necessary (it had nothing to do with WMD)...if only there had been a comprehensive economic and political plan after the initial invasion - lead by talented people instead of yes men...if only we had brought in enough force to quell any ideas of an insurgency (like we did in Bosnia where the mantra of "we're going to be the biggest dog on the street" worked wonders in a situation that was initially much more bleak than Iraq)...and if only the right commander had been in place once the insurgency started.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18252538/
The link above is to an article that is striking in its forthrightness. Frankly, coming from someone the Bush administration trusts, it's downright amazing. If any man can parlay a 5% chance of success into the real thing, it's General Petraeus, and the more I read, the more I believe this man could have turned things around as late as about a year ago. I'm assuming that the Iraqis would have started making progress toward settling their differences if the environment had been calmer, but at least there would have been some chance of that. Now all we have is a Hail Mary (another sports analogy).
As far as the candidates for President, even my candidate fails woefully at understanding the repercussions of the current Iraq situation. Pulling out our troops without a plan is as bad as going in without a plan - and I haven't seen any kind of thoughtful plan from Barack Obama or any other troop pullout candidate. The President's defenders seem as clueless now as they did back when this whole mess started. When Harry Reid says the war is lost and the Republicans immediately attack him for deserting the troops and being a "defeatocrat", you can see nothing's changed on the conservative side either.
Only one man with any influence seems to get it. General Petraeus has to battle Sunni insurgents, Shiite death squads, Al Quaeda, troop exhaustion and a woefully inexperienced and partly corrupt Iraqi government. Despite all this, I think some very small steps have been made over the past two months in Iraq.
The question is...is there any time left on the clock?
As I have said before, the tragedy of George Bush's Iraq policy was that he took a dangerous, but necessary idea (combating militant Islam in the heart of the Mideast) and wrecked it with stubbornness, arrogance and incompetence. If only we had not mislead the American people about why toppling Saddam was necessary (it had nothing to do with WMD)...if only there had been a comprehensive economic and political plan after the initial invasion - lead by talented people instead of yes men...if only we had brought in enough force to quell any ideas of an insurgency (like we did in Bosnia where the mantra of "we're going to be the biggest dog on the street" worked wonders in a situation that was initially much more bleak than Iraq)...and if only the right commander had been in place once the insurgency started.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18252538/
The link above is to an article that is striking in its forthrightness. Frankly, coming from someone the Bush administration trusts, it's downright amazing. If any man can parlay a 5% chance of success into the real thing, it's General Petraeus, and the more I read, the more I believe this man could have turned things around as late as about a year ago. I'm assuming that the Iraqis would have started making progress toward settling their differences if the environment had been calmer, but at least there would have been some chance of that. Now all we have is a Hail Mary (another sports analogy).
As far as the candidates for President, even my candidate fails woefully at understanding the repercussions of the current Iraq situation. Pulling out our troops without a plan is as bad as going in without a plan - and I haven't seen any kind of thoughtful plan from Barack Obama or any other troop pullout candidate. The President's defenders seem as clueless now as they did back when this whole mess started. When Harry Reid says the war is lost and the Republicans immediately attack him for deserting the troops and being a "defeatocrat", you can see nothing's changed on the conservative side either.
Only one man with any influence seems to get it. General Petraeus has to battle Sunni insurgents, Shiite death squads, Al Quaeda, troop exhaustion and a woefully inexperienced and partly corrupt Iraqi government. Despite all this, I think some very small steps have been made over the past two months in Iraq.
The question is...is there any time left on the clock?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The most important issue is...
Sometimes I'm glad I'm 42 years old.
On days when I am stiff and sore, can't swing the golf club the way I want to and have memory lapses I'm not so glad. But when I think of what the world is like now and what the world is going to be like in 40 years, I realize that I have had the privilege to live a good part of my life before too much went wrong...before things got totally out of control.
Many people have seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Many of those who saw it walked away saying they would try to do the little things in their life that might make a difference when it comes to global warming. I know I did. Some people, however, came out with a more pessimistic viewpoint - that it's already too late to do anything. If you read the article through the link below (the video is even more stark), you can understand why they feel that way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18039460/.
It may indeed be too late to stop nearly catastrophic change. But there's still a difference between nearly catastrophic change and catastrophic change.
Despite the immediacy of the war in Iraq, there is no greater issue facing this country (and the world) than global warming. Every day that goes by without starting the extremely painful measures that will curb greenhouse gas emissions is a day that brings us closer to our own self-caused destruction. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Every time a presidential candidate asks for questions from the press or the audience, the first question should be:
"What measures are you prepared to take to limit the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and how are you going to convince the American people and the world that these painful measures are absolutely essential?"
It's probably already too late for the polar bears and seals mentioned in the article above. But the answer to that question will determine whether it's also too late for us.
On days when I am stiff and sore, can't swing the golf club the way I want to and have memory lapses I'm not so glad. But when I think of what the world is like now and what the world is going to be like in 40 years, I realize that I have had the privilege to live a good part of my life before too much went wrong...before things got totally out of control.
Many people have seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Many of those who saw it walked away saying they would try to do the little things in their life that might make a difference when it comes to global warming. I know I did. Some people, however, came out with a more pessimistic viewpoint - that it's already too late to do anything. If you read the article through the link below (the video is even more stark), you can understand why they feel that way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18039460/.
It may indeed be too late to stop nearly catastrophic change. But there's still a difference between nearly catastrophic change and catastrophic change.
Despite the immediacy of the war in Iraq, there is no greater issue facing this country (and the world) than global warming. Every day that goes by without starting the extremely painful measures that will curb greenhouse gas emissions is a day that brings us closer to our own self-caused destruction. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Every time a presidential candidate asks for questions from the press or the audience, the first question should be:
"What measures are you prepared to take to limit the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and how are you going to convince the American people and the world that these painful measures are absolutely essential?"
It's probably already too late for the polar bears and seals mentioned in the article above. But the answer to that question will determine whether it's also too late for us.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Hate vs. Hope
No matter how good a writer you are, words inevitably pale in comparison to one electrifying (if deeply disturbing) visual moment. Several times in my posts I have sought to describe the sickness in our country that is exemplified by those in the media who seek to inflame issues for political gain. I have said Bill O'Reilly is the worst offender alive at this game. For those who doubt me, here's a clip that I would like you to watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZB7dKJk5c
It makes no difference where you stand on the immigration debate. It makes no difference if you are liberal or conservative. It makes no difference if you are Republican or Democrat. The only thing worth taking from this video (and it's everything) is that Bill O'Reilly is filled with hate. Watch his face and you will see it's not a face of someone passionately arguing a point - it's a face of hatred. End of story.
But in the news, there is also hope. A few days ago figures were released on how the major candidates are doing raising money. Some are doing better than others, but the big story to me was not that Barack Obama raised a staggering $25million in the first quarter - essentially tied with Hillary Clinton for first in the fundraising game. The big story was that he had nearly twice as many donors - many of whom gave small amounts of money. In other words, he got those who rarely contribute to give money.
In the coming months, the electricity of the ever-growing crowds listening to Obama's speeches will become startling. Those who said relying on students for support is foolish - because they never vote - will be proven wrong. Those who think they can write off those who had given up on politics will rue the day they did so.
Get ready for hope to vanquish hate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZB7dKJk5c
It makes no difference where you stand on the immigration debate. It makes no difference if you are liberal or conservative. It makes no difference if you are Republican or Democrat. The only thing worth taking from this video (and it's everything) is that Bill O'Reilly is filled with hate. Watch his face and you will see it's not a face of someone passionately arguing a point - it's a face of hatred. End of story.
But in the news, there is also hope. A few days ago figures were released on how the major candidates are doing raising money. Some are doing better than others, but the big story to me was not that Barack Obama raised a staggering $25million in the first quarter - essentially tied with Hillary Clinton for first in the fundraising game. The big story was that he had nearly twice as many donors - many of whom gave small amounts of money. In other words, he got those who rarely contribute to give money.
In the coming months, the electricity of the ever-growing crowds listening to Obama's speeches will become startling. Those who said relying on students for support is foolish - because they never vote - will be proven wrong. Those who think they can write off those who had given up on politics will rue the day they did so.
Get ready for hope to vanquish hate.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Second thoughts
It's always dangerous to think you know someone that you have never met, let alone spent any time with. It's fine to blog your opinions out there on the Internet, but deep down, I know that I will most likely never meet any of the people I am writing about. And because of this I know that it's possible that I may not capture the absolute truest picture of who they are.
But sometimes the material available is so strong that you just sense it must be true. Such is the case with the interview Jonathan Alter of Newsweek did with Elizabeth Edwards (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/). There's nothing I can write that would do justice to this woman. All I can say is, read the interview, and then ask yourself how would you handle the same situation? Deep down ask yourself what your attitude would be like and how strong you would be.
Elizabeth Edwards is not running for President. But she decided to spend her life with John Edwards. She sees something in him that is good, true and worth loving or she wouldn't have married him and stuck by his side as she has done. And that's enough to make me reconsider what kind of man Edwards is.
But sometimes the material available is so strong that you just sense it must be true. Such is the case with the interview Jonathan Alter of Newsweek did with Elizabeth Edwards (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/). There's nothing I can write that would do justice to this woman. All I can say is, read the interview, and then ask yourself how would you handle the same situation? Deep down ask yourself what your attitude would be like and how strong you would be.
Elizabeth Edwards is not running for President. But she decided to spend her life with John Edwards. She sees something in him that is good, true and worth loving or she wouldn't have married him and stuck by his side as she has done. And that's enough to make me reconsider what kind of man Edwards is.
Monday, March 26, 2007
A very early prediction
If Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani wind up as the finalists in the 08 Presidential campaign, which one is the worthier candidate? Which one will win? And do these two questions have to have the same answer?
Given that Obama and Guiliani are both strong candidates, stronger than we have had in many years, it's really not possible to objectively decide who is "worthier." That's a value judgment.
Guiliani guided our nation's most important city through our worst nightmare. He became America's mayor due to his unwavering confidence, tempered by a clear and deeply felt empathy for the victims of 9/11 - the most important event in our lifetime. He didn't boast about retribution, he didn't seek political gain from the disaster and he didn't fearmonger.
Obama's candidacy has revealed that despite recent momentary lapses into racial ugliness, America will eventually overcome it's ethnic divisions. Obama is intensely intelligent, and he, better than anyone, understands that he is a bridging figure - from polarization and fear to unity and hope. He's lived, it breathed it and dreamt it.
So who will win - and why?
If I am right, this election has already been decided. The confluence of events leading up to this presidential cycle have in effect already determined the winner. Our next President won't be the one with the most experience. All else being equal, he or she won't necessarily be the one with the absolute "best" plan to solve the Iraq quagmire, defeat the terrorists, keep our economy running strongly, etc. If that were true, my guess is the winner would be Rudy Giuliani - although we're still rightly months away from finding out the details of Rudy's campaign platform. And if I'm wrong, I'll still be proud to call Rudy Giuliani our President.
But in a Guliani - Obama election I don't think we'll see dirty campaigning or a distortion of your opponent's views. Yes - there will be significant differences and heated exchanges. I'm sure there will even be attack ads (although nothing like the nastiness of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth). But in the end, those won't matter. I think Barack Obama will use the inevitable series of Presidential debates to put to rest fears that he is too inexperienced to be President. And then his charisma will take over.
I don't think any pundit realizes the thirst this country has for a charismatic leader whose ideals also match up with the majority viewpoint. No matter how well Rudy campaigns, he won't be able to overcome this.
If only he would be Obama's Vice President...
Given that Obama and Guiliani are both strong candidates, stronger than we have had in many years, it's really not possible to objectively decide who is "worthier." That's a value judgment.
Guiliani guided our nation's most important city through our worst nightmare. He became America's mayor due to his unwavering confidence, tempered by a clear and deeply felt empathy for the victims of 9/11 - the most important event in our lifetime. He didn't boast about retribution, he didn't seek political gain from the disaster and he didn't fearmonger.
Obama's candidacy has revealed that despite recent momentary lapses into racial ugliness, America will eventually overcome it's ethnic divisions. Obama is intensely intelligent, and he, better than anyone, understands that he is a bridging figure - from polarization and fear to unity and hope. He's lived, it breathed it and dreamt it.
So who will win - and why?
If I am right, this election has already been decided. The confluence of events leading up to this presidential cycle have in effect already determined the winner. Our next President won't be the one with the most experience. All else being equal, he or she won't necessarily be the one with the absolute "best" plan to solve the Iraq quagmire, defeat the terrorists, keep our economy running strongly, etc. If that were true, my guess is the winner would be Rudy Giuliani - although we're still rightly months away from finding out the details of Rudy's campaign platform. And if I'm wrong, I'll still be proud to call Rudy Giuliani our President.
But in a Guliani - Obama election I don't think we'll see dirty campaigning or a distortion of your opponent's views. Yes - there will be significant differences and heated exchanges. I'm sure there will even be attack ads (although nothing like the nastiness of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth). But in the end, those won't matter. I think Barack Obama will use the inevitable series of Presidential debates to put to rest fears that he is too inexperienced to be President. And then his charisma will take over.
I don't think any pundit realizes the thirst this country has for a charismatic leader whose ideals also match up with the majority viewpoint. No matter how well Rudy campaigns, he won't be able to overcome this.
If only he would be Obama's Vice President...
Monday, March 19, 2007
Neck and Neck
I've spent most of my time writing about the Democratic candidates for President on this blog. And while it is true that my ideals overall slant a bit to the left of center, it doesn't mean that I loathe Republicans. In fact, there is one Republican that all voters should take a good hard look at. A Republican who has almost the ideal combination of smarts, toughness and leadership experience. And the Democrats fear him.
Rudy Giuliani.
After 9/11, does anyone think that Giuliani doesn't have the skills necessary to run the country? Does anyone think he would have waged as incompetent a campaign in Iraq as George Bush and the neocons did? Does anyone think he won't stand up and make tough decisions, even if it costs him votes from the base of his party?
Giuliani has that tough to define quality - he's someone you respect even when you disagree with him. He knows who he is, but he listens to others. He's proven to be tough on crime (NYC's crime rate has dropped dramatically while he's been mayor), but he stands up for civil liberties. He's made mistakes in his personal life, but you don't hold it against him because he doesn't lie about it, or make excuses.
Frankly, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (and I think he will), he's going to be very tough to beat. And if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (and I think he will), it's going to be a campaign like nothing we have seen. A campaign between, two honest, thoughtful, centrist candidates.
So what's to choose between these two?
There's one small, but perhaps decisive difference between the two. And I'll cover that on my next post.
Rudy Giuliani.
After 9/11, does anyone think that Giuliani doesn't have the skills necessary to run the country? Does anyone think he would have waged as incompetent a campaign in Iraq as George Bush and the neocons did? Does anyone think he won't stand up and make tough decisions, even if it costs him votes from the base of his party?
Giuliani has that tough to define quality - he's someone you respect even when you disagree with him. He knows who he is, but he listens to others. He's proven to be tough on crime (NYC's crime rate has dropped dramatically while he's been mayor), but he stands up for civil liberties. He's made mistakes in his personal life, but you don't hold it against him because he doesn't lie about it, or make excuses.
Frankly, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (and I think he will), he's going to be very tough to beat. And if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (and I think he will), it's going to be a campaign like nothing we have seen. A campaign between, two honest, thoughtful, centrist candidates.
So what's to choose between these two?
There's one small, but perhaps decisive difference between the two. And I'll cover that on my next post.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Is Barack Obama for real?
Critics of Barack Obama usually fall into two camps - right wing ideologues or those who believe he's pulling one over on the electorate. It would be true to say that Obama has had a relatively easy go of it from the national media so far. For every Fox News driven "discovery" of abhorrent behavior that quickly dissolves when exposed to the truth (i.e. unrepentant smoking or attending terrorist madrassas) there are a multitude of stories that cast Obama in glowing terms. But the naysayers remain persistent and lately with stories about 17 year old parking tickets and the arcane structure of blind trusts, they've become louder. Why?
The Right Wing angle is pretty easy to understand. If you're a Republican, whom do you most fear? Hillary Clinton? Please...as mentioned on the post about Hillary and Barack's spat over David Geffen, the Republicans have a treasure trove of information to use against her in nasty (but likely effective) attack ads. And while it used to be Hillary occasionally would blurt out an alienating statement like the infamous, "What I am I supposed to do, stay home and bake cookies?" she now seems so intent on avoiding controversy that people are wondering if her obsession with the Presidency has stifled her true beliefs.
Do Republicans fear John Edwards? I doubt it. It's not impossible to imagine Edwards' populist message catching fire - with a different candidate. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes...people have an innate distrust of them and Edwards hasn't done much to dispel the notion that he's just a bit too slick (see the last post).
The other Democratic candidates are going to fall off the radar sooner rather than later. It would be nice to see Bill Richardson do well though, as he would make an outstanding Vice Presidential pick.
But yes...the Republicans do fear Obama - as they would fear anyone who is charismatic enough to capture the imagination of the average (centrist) voter. And, as I hope but admittedly don't know, there doesn't appear to be much dirt on the guy.
Which brings me to the other doubters - those that believe Obama is too good to be true. That he's selling us what we want to hear without giving us any meat. I've got a simple answer - if his message of shared sacrifice, isolating the extremists and galvanizing the silent majority in a call to action is calculated - why isn't anyone else doing it? Why are almost all of the other candidates following the tired and ultimately disastrous (for the country) approach of appealing to the extreme wings of their party? It used to be that's how you won the primaries - but the 08 campaign is about a sea change. It's about leaving the extremists behind so they can fight their little battles against each other while the rest of us move on and solve tough, seemingly intractable issues. Obama didn't calculate that the time is right for that kind of campaign, he was for it all along - and smart enough to realize time has caught up with his ideals.
It's way too early in the campaign for extremely detailed plans on how Obama hopes to achieve his goals. But they will come. If they don't I won't hesitate to raise objection. But for now, just be glad it appears we finally have a candidate who understands the truth of our nation's fate.
The best candidate for President won't solve our problems - he'll inspire us to solve them for ourselves.
The Right Wing angle is pretty easy to understand. If you're a Republican, whom do you most fear? Hillary Clinton? Please...as mentioned on the post about Hillary and Barack's spat over David Geffen, the Republicans have a treasure trove of information to use against her in nasty (but likely effective) attack ads. And while it used to be Hillary occasionally would blurt out an alienating statement like the infamous, "What I am I supposed to do, stay home and bake cookies?" she now seems so intent on avoiding controversy that people are wondering if her obsession with the Presidency has stifled her true beliefs.
Do Republicans fear John Edwards? I doubt it. It's not impossible to imagine Edwards' populist message catching fire - with a different candidate. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes...people have an innate distrust of them and Edwards hasn't done much to dispel the notion that he's just a bit too slick (see the last post).
The other Democratic candidates are going to fall off the radar sooner rather than later. It would be nice to see Bill Richardson do well though, as he would make an outstanding Vice Presidential pick.
But yes...the Republicans do fear Obama - as they would fear anyone who is charismatic enough to capture the imagination of the average (centrist) voter. And, as I hope but admittedly don't know, there doesn't appear to be much dirt on the guy.
Which brings me to the other doubters - those that believe Obama is too good to be true. That he's selling us what we want to hear without giving us any meat. I've got a simple answer - if his message of shared sacrifice, isolating the extremists and galvanizing the silent majority in a call to action is calculated - why isn't anyone else doing it? Why are almost all of the other candidates following the tired and ultimately disastrous (for the country) approach of appealing to the extreme wings of their party? It used to be that's how you won the primaries - but the 08 campaign is about a sea change. It's about leaving the extremists behind so they can fight their little battles against each other while the rest of us move on and solve tough, seemingly intractable issues. Obama didn't calculate that the time is right for that kind of campaign, he was for it all along - and smart enough to realize time has caught up with his ideals.
It's way too early in the campaign for extremely detailed plans on how Obama hopes to achieve his goals. But they will come. If they don't I won't hesitate to raise objection. But for now, just be glad it appears we finally have a candidate who understands the truth of our nation's fate.
The best candidate for President won't solve our problems - he'll inspire us to solve them for ourselves.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
John Edwards - coming into focus?
John Edwards is a puzzlement.
He's a lawyer who long ago learned how to cleverly turn a phrase yet you seldom hear him give a stirring speech. He's young and attractive, yet it doesn't seem like his natural core constituency (young people) have taken much notice of him. He seems genuinely interested in big picture issues, like health care and income inequality, yet he consistently resorts to lowbrow politics.
Two recent incidents unfortunately paint a disappointing picture that gets harder and harder to look beyond.
First, there was his reaction to an attack by everyone's favorite crazy, Ann Coulter. To call Ms. Coulter a conservative is, frankly, a disservice to conservatives. She's only worthy of mention because of Edwards' reaction to her "faggot" comment. Well boo hoo John. Mean Ms Coulter doesn't like you. The Edwards campaign immediately placed a video of her ridiculous comment up on their website and appealed for $100,000 of donations to fight back. I'd hate to think what Edwards would do if Iranian crazy Ahmadinejab called him out.
Second, he's decided to withdraw from a Democrat Presidential debate in Nevada because it is cosponsored by Fox News. Fox News is a right wing news organization just as NPR is left wing. They are experts at finding and exaggerating minuscule incidents of "liberal extremism" so as to inflame their base. They are the best example going of what is wrong with American politics today.
But you don't change minds by walking away from them. The role of the President is to lead. It can be (and this time must be) filled by a person who overcomes our divisions and unites the country in order to solve problems that will end very badly unless we attack them together. But Edwards evidently decided that some free publicity showing him standing up to Fox News was the politically correct choice to make.
Maybe John Edwards isn't a puzzlement after all. Maybe he's just a regular politician.
He's a lawyer who long ago learned how to cleverly turn a phrase yet you seldom hear him give a stirring speech. He's young and attractive, yet it doesn't seem like his natural core constituency (young people) have taken much notice of him. He seems genuinely interested in big picture issues, like health care and income inequality, yet he consistently resorts to lowbrow politics.
Two recent incidents unfortunately paint a disappointing picture that gets harder and harder to look beyond.
First, there was his reaction to an attack by everyone's favorite crazy, Ann Coulter. To call Ms. Coulter a conservative is, frankly, a disservice to conservatives. She's only worthy of mention because of Edwards' reaction to her "faggot" comment. Well boo hoo John. Mean Ms Coulter doesn't like you. The Edwards campaign immediately placed a video of her ridiculous comment up on their website and appealed for $100,000 of donations to fight back. I'd hate to think what Edwards would do if Iranian crazy Ahmadinejab called him out.
Second, he's decided to withdraw from a Democrat Presidential debate in Nevada because it is cosponsored by Fox News. Fox News is a right wing news organization just as NPR is left wing. They are experts at finding and exaggerating minuscule incidents of "liberal extremism" so as to inflame their base. They are the best example going of what is wrong with American politics today.
But you don't change minds by walking away from them. The role of the President is to lead. It can be (and this time must be) filled by a person who overcomes our divisions and unites the country in order to solve problems that will end very badly unless we attack them together. But Edwards evidently decided that some free publicity showing him standing up to Fox News was the politically correct choice to make.
Maybe John Edwards isn't a puzzlement after all. Maybe he's just a regular politician.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Do you know why you don't like Bush?
If you are an ardent Bush Basher, which of the reasons below would best explain why you dislike him so?
- He lied to us about Iraq. He's a Texas oilman and we went there to help Halliburton and to take over Iraq's oil supply.
- He's a warmonger - or even a terrorist.
- His policies are designed to help the wealthy and hurt the poor.
- He's against a woman's right to choose and gay marriage.
It's hugely important to understand why "W's" presidency has been such a disaster. If you didn't find the reason you were looking for in this list - congratulations! Many of the reasons listed aren't even true - but the real reason was all over the news today with Scooter Libby's conviction.
Lost? Let me explain.
Those who follow the White House closely know that the real tragedy of his administration isn't his policies per se. It's "W's" arrogance, displayed by a lack of curiosity and questioning. It's his inability to accept/understand different points of view. And it's his inability to change his mind when the facts are shown to be different than he supposed. These inherent traits have led to the disaster in Iraq, the alienation of our allies and lack of action on key issues like global warming.
I remember when "W" came to Southern Oregon for a campaign stop in the 04 election. Barely noticed above all the excitement about the President's visit was that the only people who could attend his rally were those who signed a pledge that they planned on voting for him. It was a sad day for democracy - just like Scooter Libby's conviction in the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson affair.
To recap the affair, "W" was determined to use the State of the Union address preceding the War as the opportunity to sell the American people on the need to invade in order to stop Iraq's ambitious nuclear program. The smoking gun was intelligence indicating Iraq was trying to obtain "yellow cake" uranium. But the only problem was that Wilson investigated this and found the claim wasn't true - and like a good whistleblower - he went public with it.
Apparently under orders from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, Libby nastily attempted to discredit and intimidate Wilson by insinuating to reporters that Wilson only got the Iraq investigation job because of his wife (Plame) who, by the way, was a covert CIA agent. In other words - anyone who questions the President will pay a severe price - their name will be dragged through the mud and their livelihood will taken away (the CIA doesn't have much use for outed agents).
It's hard to underestimate how important this is. The momentous decision to invade Iraq...the decision that has led to 10,000+ wounded and dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead...the decision that has severely weakened our world standing while strengthening Al Qaeda and Iran...was made with an arrogance borne of a lack of curiosity, debate or planning. And anyone who tried to speak up was squashed.
That's the real reason to dislike Bush.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Iraq - the real story
So far, all of the Presidential candidates have come out and said that they either oppose the Iraq war, or that they oppose how the war has been waged. I'm sure that they do, but saying you're against what's happened in Iraq is not exactly making a tough decision - and whomever wins in November 08 is going to have to make an incredibly tough decision.
It's my guess that the next year or so will not bring "victory" in Iraq. The insurgents are too well entrenched, the sectarian hatreds are too hot and the Iranians are too powerful. So the question is, what does the next leader of our country do when President Bush says, "OK, now it's your turn to fix this mess"?
Most are saying withdraw. But withdraw to where? To what? With what numbers of forces? Of course no one answers those questions. But here's what withdrawal means:
It's my guess that the next year or so will not bring "victory" in Iraq. The insurgents are too well entrenched, the sectarian hatreds are too hot and the Iranians are too powerful. So the question is, what does the next leader of our country do when President Bush says, "OK, now it's your turn to fix this mess"?
Most are saying withdraw. But withdraw to where? To what? With what numbers of forces? Of course no one answers those questions. But here's what withdrawal means:
- The Shiites and Sunnis will be free to kill each other on a true Civil War scale.
- The Iranians will back the Shias and most of the rest of the Arab world will back the Sunnis. It's not hard to see where that might lead.
- If somehow an awful Civil War is avoided, the result will be that the Iranians will have taken over the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world. They will also be the de facto power in the Middle East. And they have made no secret they desire the annihilation of Israel.
Then again, here's what staying means:
- Thousands more troops killed or wounded.
- Hundreds of billions of dollars drained away from the economy.
- Continued antagonism from many Iraqis and Arabs who resent our occupation.
Of course, none of the candidates will tell you this - but it's the truth. Thomas Friedman, the award winning columnist in the NY Times had the best summary of the situation: Either we commit to doing the operation over the right way, with our allies, with the right number of troops, with copious economic aid, with a well thought out plan and with smart diplomacy that brings in Iran and Syria - or we get out quickly and pray. He called it 10 years or 10 months.
Friedman's insight into this mess has been spot on since before the invasion. I'm watching to see if anyone running has half his understanding of what the stakes are - and is willing tell the nation that easy slogans of "get the troops out now" or "troop surge" are little more than fingers in a crumbling dike.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Truth Behind "An Inconvenient Truth"
Tonight is Oscar night, and aside from a particularly interesting Best Picture and Director race (go Clint!) a lot of attention is being focused on the Best Documentary category. I think this is quite revealing.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is the heart and soul project of Al Gore, the candidate every comedian hoped would win the Presidency due to his stiff, even nerdy speaking style. But the same person lampooned for his "lockbox" and "creating the Internet" is now about to win an Oscar. What's more, the movie is going to win despite the fact that it is really a scientific paper transposed to video.
So why is this so revealing?
Because the topic of global warming has caught on not just with the Academy, but with the general media/public, despite the Natalie Holloway, love crazed-astronaut or Anna Nicole Smith media meltdowns. The electorate is in the mood for serious discussion about real topics. They've come to the realization that there is no longer an argument about whether global warming exists. It's here, it's getting worse and it's time to act. Even 86 evangelical Christian leaders, including presidents of evangelical colleges and megachurches are putting their weight behind initiatives to address the problem. In California, always the state to watch for trends that sweep the country, Arnold Schwarzenegger has spearheaded and signed a sweeping law to cut CO2 emissions.
So while Fox News, President Bush and a few other holdouts get left behind, Al Gore will be on stage tonight accepting what I expect to be thunderous applause.
Any candidate hoping to win the Presidency best pay attention.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is the heart and soul project of Al Gore, the candidate every comedian hoped would win the Presidency due to his stiff, even nerdy speaking style. But the same person lampooned for his "lockbox" and "creating the Internet" is now about to win an Oscar. What's more, the movie is going to win despite the fact that it is really a scientific paper transposed to video.
So why is this so revealing?
Because the topic of global warming has caught on not just with the Academy, but with the general media/public, despite the Natalie Holloway, love crazed-astronaut or Anna Nicole Smith media meltdowns. The electorate is in the mood for serious discussion about real topics. They've come to the realization that there is no longer an argument about whether global warming exists. It's here, it's getting worse and it's time to act. Even 86 evangelical Christian leaders, including presidents of evangelical colleges and megachurches are putting their weight behind initiatives to address the problem. In California, always the state to watch for trends that sweep the country, Arnold Schwarzenegger has spearheaded and signed a sweeping law to cut CO2 emissions.
So while Fox News, President Bush and a few other holdouts get left behind, Al Gore will be on stage tonight accepting what I expect to be thunderous applause.
Any candidate hoping to win the Presidency best pay attention.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Hilary vs. Barack - Round 1
What are we to make of Hilary Clinton's attack on Barack Obama over what a Mr Moneybags Democratic party donor said?
For those who missed it, David Geffen, media mogul and the "G" in the Dreamworks SKG movie studio, had some less than nice observances on Bill and Hilary:
For those who missed it, David Geffen, media mogul and the "G" in the Dreamworks SKG movie studio, had some less than nice observances on Bill and Hilary:
- "God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hilary Clinton? Obama is inspirational. He's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family."]
- Everyone in politics lies, but they (the Clintons) do it with such ease. It's troubling."
- "I don't think anyone believes in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person." (Meaning that the Republicans will have all the dirt they could ever want to use if Hilary is the Democratic nominee).
So it makes perfect sense if Hilary shoots back right? Even though Bill and Hilary were very close with Mr Geffen during their administration, she's got the right to defend herself now, doesn't she?
But what did Hilary's campaign do? Did they go to their former friend and say, "Hey - what gives? A bit grumpy because the studio is struggling?" Did they take the high road and say, "Mr Geffen is entitled to say whatever he wants, but we're about winning this election, not reliving the past"?
No...
They shot off a nasty memo to all the press demanding that Barack Obama apologize for what Mr Geffen said since he helped with a fundraiser for Barack. What???????????????
Obama's campaign quickly shot back that just the other day Hilary lavished praise on a State Senator in South Carolina who has decided to endorse her. Interestingly, this State Senator said Obama's nomination would drag down the Democratic party because he is black.
Here's my theory on Hilary's overreaction. She's afraid. She has dreamed of being president for decades and in so doing has gotten the reputation for being manipulative, ambitious and mean-spirited (behind closed doors). She knows it's this election or never, and just when it seems like the time is right, here comes this upstart rocketing up in the polls with practically no experience but a lot of charisma. The regular politicians (and I count Hilary as one) think the answer is to sling mud in order to bring your opponent down to your level. That's the way the game is played - it's not about what kind of campaign you wage, it's about winning.
But I think Barack knows that finally the correct (and winning) response is not to sling mud back. He quickly came out and said, "The nation will remain at a standstill if we continue to engage in small and divisive politics and tit for tat. Our country is at the crossroads and it's not as if we don't know what the solutions are. What's missing is the inability of our leaders to develop consensus."
If Barack can live up to these words, the long neglected center (but majority) of the country has it's candidate. And there's nothing that the Republicans - or Hilary - can say to stop it.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Let's cut Hilary some slack
Hilary Clinton is not my favorite politician - and as my moniker suggests, I do not plan on voting for her in the primary. I'll cover on a later post several significant troubling issues that Hilary has not put to rest, but let me say right now:
Hilary is taking a bum wrap from many in the Democratic party that oppose the Iraq war. Hmmm...Democratic party and oppose the war might be a redundant statement.
For the last couple of days, campaign coverage of Hilary has consistently led off with an evidently earnest questioner at one of her rallies asking, "Will you now, once and for all, specifically and without equivocation, apologize for your vote to approve giving the President the authority to wage war in Iraq?"
Hilary's answer has been basically, "Why focus on what already happened? The problem is how the President abused that authority, and in any case, I will pledge to you to start bringing the troops back home as soon as I am President." I think that's a great answer. Full of truth and reason. Somewhat exasperated, she even changed her answer recently to say, "If finding someone who didn't vote for the war is your sole reason for voting for a candidate, then you need to find someone else to vote for." Hooray and well said!
Over and over we see how wrongheaded it is to demand/expect purity in thought with regard to a complex issue. Extremism in other words. Democrats are not immune from this phenomena. In fact, it's interesting to note how some Democrats who preach diversity...diversity in thought...in race...in culture...in opinion...are somehow unable to tolerate a person who thinks differently than they do. Maybe they are a bit more like the Republicans they hate than they would ever admit.
Hilary cast a vote that she thought was the best decision at the time. Everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Everyone agrees he was an evil tyrant. Most, (perhaps naively) thought "W" wouldn't be as obsessed with "winning" the war as he has proven to be.
If Hilary can continue to stand up to these critics with the forcefulness she has displayed so far...I might just give her a second look.
Hilary is taking a bum wrap from many in the Democratic party that oppose the Iraq war. Hmmm...Democratic party and oppose the war might be a redundant statement.
For the last couple of days, campaign coverage of Hilary has consistently led off with an evidently earnest questioner at one of her rallies asking, "Will you now, once and for all, specifically and without equivocation, apologize for your vote to approve giving the President the authority to wage war in Iraq?"
Hilary's answer has been basically, "Why focus on what already happened? The problem is how the President abused that authority, and in any case, I will pledge to you to start bringing the troops back home as soon as I am President." I think that's a great answer. Full of truth and reason. Somewhat exasperated, she even changed her answer recently to say, "If finding someone who didn't vote for the war is your sole reason for voting for a candidate, then you need to find someone else to vote for." Hooray and well said!
Over and over we see how wrongheaded it is to demand/expect purity in thought with regard to a complex issue. Extremism in other words. Democrats are not immune from this phenomena. In fact, it's interesting to note how some Democrats who preach diversity...diversity in thought...in race...in culture...in opinion...are somehow unable to tolerate a person who thinks differently than they do. Maybe they are a bit more like the Republicans they hate than they would ever admit.
Hilary cast a vote that she thought was the best decision at the time. Everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Everyone agrees he was an evil tyrant. Most, (perhaps naively) thought "W" wouldn't be as obsessed with "winning" the war as he has proven to be.
If Hilary can continue to stand up to these critics with the forcefulness she has displayed so far...I might just give her a second look.
Monday, February 19, 2007
McCain Then and Now
I don't know if it's possible to understand the inner strength John McCain needed in order to survive the brutal treatment inflicted upon him by his Vietnamese captors. Week after week/month after month/year after year he withstood physical and psychological torture that would break many people on the first day. I try to imagine myself in his situation...and my mind pretty quickly spirals down to an overwhelming sense of desperation - there's no hope for rescue, just tell them what they want and let it be over.
The man was made of different stuff than the rest of us.
That's why it is so painful to see what McCain did yesterday. In South Carolina, the very same state where "W" stopped McCain's momentum nearly 8 years ago with dirty trick campaigning and a fervent appeal to Christian conservatives, McCain went hat in hand asking for support. The man who withstood the Viet Cong torturers went out and basically said, "I'm one of you. We need to overturn Roe v. Wade. We need to oppose same sex marriage." This despite the fact that 8 years ago he chastised the Religous Right and their leaders (aka Pat Robertson) for their intolerance. Polls show that many of the Religous Right look at McCain with skepticism. They don't think he's a true believer and they don't think that he identifies with "their" issues (ie. abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, creationism, etc). I guess on that one thing, I have to agree. Whatever strength of character and conviction he had back in Vietnam...he seems to have conveniently misplaced.
The man was made of different stuff than the rest of us.
That's why it is so painful to see what McCain did yesterday. In South Carolina, the very same state where "W" stopped McCain's momentum nearly 8 years ago with dirty trick campaigning and a fervent appeal to Christian conservatives, McCain went hat in hand asking for support. The man who withstood the Viet Cong torturers went out and basically said, "I'm one of you. We need to overturn Roe v. Wade. We need to oppose same sex marriage." This despite the fact that 8 years ago he chastised the Religous Right and their leaders (aka Pat Robertson) for their intolerance. Polls show that many of the Religous Right look at McCain with skepticism. They don't think he's a true believer and they don't think that he identifies with "their" issues (ie. abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, creationism, etc). I guess on that one thing, I have to agree. Whatever strength of character and conviction he had back in Vietnam...he seems to have conveniently misplaced.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The beginning of the end of polarization
So what the heck is "The Ascendant Center"?
No...it's not a mystic academy in India where shamans guide you through the finer points of levitation! : )
"The Ascendant Center" is my political blog focused on the 2008 presidential campaign. Hmmm...I wonder if there will be anything of interest to write about between now and November 08? : )
I believe fervently that it takes more to win the presidency than just being the most skilled campaigner - or even the campaigner with the "best" message. It takes timing - the convergence of the political yearning of the country with the candidate best able to express that yearning. Ronald Reagan, whatever you may think of his politics, was an ideal candidate for his time. The same with John F Kennedy. All throughout our history, America has been blessed with gifted leaders at critical moments. The birth of our country is synonomous with George Washington. The Civil War with Abraham Lincoln. The Great Depression and World War II with Franklin Roosevelt. It's as if Americans recognize when things are at the tipping point, and our collective wisdom (and providence it would almost seem) bring us the person best able to see us through the darkness.
But the general public has become disengaged. The hysterics of the far left and right fill the airwaves. "Debate" in this country has become nothing more than a venal display of arrogance as hypesters on both sides find the smallest of incidents and try to use them to paint the other side as dangerous or out of control. I'm talking to you and your ilk Bill O'Reilly. Egged on by these PT Barnums of the media, the extremists have polarized our country. We have become a country of red states vs blue states, urban life vs. country life, rich vs. poor, religion vs. atheism, and most of all, for the war vs. against the war.
We have reached a tipping point.
The challenges ahead of us are as fearsome and complex as any we have ever faced. We're bleeding troops and wealth in the Iraq quagmire. Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon and wants to wipe Israel off the map. Global warming threatens to profoundly change the lives of this generation. Oh, and there are few issues worth noting at home too - like a broken health care system and rising wage inequality. If we continue down the polarized path we are on, it will become impossible to solve these issues.
But there is hope. While the vast majority of Americans have become disengaged with politics - they have also become deeply unsettled. They sense something is very wrong. Even those who have forsworn the news because "it's always negative" or it "doesn't affect me personally" sense by osmosis that things can't go on comfortably much longer. I'm also deeply interested in a phenomena that I see more and more of - a sense that it's this generation's time to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure the comfort of the next. The time for demonizing the other side is past. The time for saying "here's how I want to help" is here.
The table is set...
The people are ready...
All that's needed is the charismatic leader...
No...it's not a mystic academy in India where shamans guide you through the finer points of levitation! : )
"The Ascendant Center" is my political blog focused on the 2008 presidential campaign. Hmmm...I wonder if there will be anything of interest to write about between now and November 08? : )
I believe fervently that it takes more to win the presidency than just being the most skilled campaigner - or even the campaigner with the "best" message. It takes timing - the convergence of the political yearning of the country with the candidate best able to express that yearning. Ronald Reagan, whatever you may think of his politics, was an ideal candidate for his time. The same with John F Kennedy. All throughout our history, America has been blessed with gifted leaders at critical moments. The birth of our country is synonomous with George Washington. The Civil War with Abraham Lincoln. The Great Depression and World War II with Franklin Roosevelt. It's as if Americans recognize when things are at the tipping point, and our collective wisdom (and providence it would almost seem) bring us the person best able to see us through the darkness.
But the general public has become disengaged. The hysterics of the far left and right fill the airwaves. "Debate" in this country has become nothing more than a venal display of arrogance as hypesters on both sides find the smallest of incidents and try to use them to paint the other side as dangerous or out of control. I'm talking to you and your ilk Bill O'Reilly. Egged on by these PT Barnums of the media, the extremists have polarized our country. We have become a country of red states vs blue states, urban life vs. country life, rich vs. poor, religion vs. atheism, and most of all, for the war vs. against the war.
We have reached a tipping point.
The challenges ahead of us are as fearsome and complex as any we have ever faced. We're bleeding troops and wealth in the Iraq quagmire. Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon and wants to wipe Israel off the map. Global warming threatens to profoundly change the lives of this generation. Oh, and there are few issues worth noting at home too - like a broken health care system and rising wage inequality. If we continue down the polarized path we are on, it will become impossible to solve these issues.
But there is hope. While the vast majority of Americans have become disengaged with politics - they have also become deeply unsettled. They sense something is very wrong. Even those who have forsworn the news because "it's always negative" or it "doesn't affect me personally" sense by osmosis that things can't go on comfortably much longer. I'm also deeply interested in a phenomena that I see more and more of - a sense that it's this generation's time to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure the comfort of the next. The time for demonizing the other side is past. The time for saying "here's how I want to help" is here.
The table is set...
The people are ready...
All that's needed is the charismatic leader...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
