PDiddie, The Republicans (as a party --I say that to except some obvious individuals) haven't behaved honorably in almost 40 years -- and they get worse daily. I don't want the Dems to do the same. Not speaking to your point about Wesley Clark but rather more generally, I'd rather see the Dems build on their shreds of honor and nominate whichever candidate is most likely to behave honorably and effectively in office.
Quote:I'd rather see the Dems build on their shreds of honor and nominate whichever candidate is most likely to behave honorably and effectively in office.
Tar, who, of the present candidates, would meet this criteria?
Tartarin - I'm all for honesty, integrity, etc., but I think the dems lose elections on that. When the repubs have been able to produce people like Joe McCarthy, Reagan, Nixon - and a host of others - it's way past time for the dems to take a clear look.
We need to do what the repubs have done. Dig out as many dirty secrets as there are (not make them up, as so much was), then coerce and buy as much media as possible to publish the dirty little secrets.
When you look at the public, it really doesn't take in all the pie charts and wealth of information on the economic situation. It is highly susceptible to planted stories, rumor, and tabloids. And that's where I think we should be looking to make our mark. I think we should parade all the unemployed over and over, all the heart-rending stories of what's really happened to ordinary people. Make a concerted effort to get the media in to cover the bad things repubs have done. Well, that's a bit of exaggeration, but I don't think the dem party has been taking a clear look at the total picture.
The repubs aren't getting any of this on ethics or morals or ood for the country. They are wrapping themselves in the flag. And if women stayed home, I'm sure the old apple pie and mom would be there too.
We need fighters, and candidates who aren't afraid to come out fighting. I don't know yet about Clark, but I do think he was right to contact CNN, since that's who he was doing appearances for.
As for Powell - for me he's lost whatever little bit he may have had left. He's a toady - appears when called, and then goes and waits for the next call. And how can I respect a person who appears to have lost self-respect? Who allows himself to be publicly contradicted, who allows himself to be deliberately excluded from meetings? And he's the only one in the admin they can send places.
Below is a link to a website called Black Commentators, which has its own views on various public figures and issues. Some of it's interesting.
http://www.blackcommentator.org/guest_commentators.html
Mama -- I never saw Powell's color as being important (except to Bush, politically). (Personal note: I've been back in the US about as long as I was gone, now, and I still can't get used to being expected to notice people's color.)
I'm not above the dirty secrets idea!
But I don't want to live in an America which we is led by bad guys (the right) or guys (middle to left) who aren't really bad guys but who behave just about as badly because they have to -- to win -- maybe... In either case, it's like treating someone for acne who has cancer. In this specific case I'm referring to a sick America and its sick people who need a better choice than between two acne medicine manufacturers!
I am so tired of the Republican Party claiming that it is the only party of real patriots, that opposing the war is equivalent to not supporting our troops (Vietnam all over again), that real American values are only possible through a Christian, right-wing life style, etc. I have to hand it to the Republican marketers, however, they have in fact sold these preposterous notions to mainstream America. Admittedly, as most of mainstream America is at least somewhat uninformed on the issues and at least somewhat under the influence of right wing radio and TV demagogues, it wasn't all that hard of a sell. Still, it was effective, and the Democrats need to take notice.
Somehow, they need to make mainstream America understand that patriotism does not have to mean support for a group of military cowboys who believe might is right, whose arrogance and disrespect for the rest of the world has hurt rather than helped the war on terrorism, who essentially believe that the shedding of American blood is more tragic than the shedding of non-American blood.
Are any of the Democratic candidates making the patriotic AMERICAN case for opposition to Bush's war and his destructive foreign and domestic policy? Yes ! You're probably not hearing about it or reading about it, however, so please allow me to provide these thoughts recently expressed by Gov. Howard Dean.
(The following article was published on CommonDreams.org. )
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
by Howard Dean
April 17, 2003
[Note: After reading a recent article that called into question my opposition to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, I wanted to state my position clearly to set the record straight. I appreciate that the editors of Common Dreams have given me this opportunity.]
When Congress approved the President's authorization to go to war in Iraq - no matter how well-intentioned - it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.
Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that "if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides." And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.
Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy - bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community - and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.
Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.
This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States - from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment - can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.
The largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot eliminate the threat of sleeper terrorist cells. That task requires the highest level of intelligence cooperation with our allies.
Even the largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot be expected to go to war against every evil dictator who may possess chemical weapons. This calls for an aggressive and effective diplomatic effort, conducted in full cooperation with a united international community, and preferably with the backing of the multilateral institutions we helped to build for just this purpose. This challenge requires treaties - such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - that this Administration has sometimes treated cavalierly. In any case, war should be a last resort or an option to be used in the face of an imminent threat.
The UN Charter specifically protects the right of self-defense against armed attack, and most agree that action against imminent threat is also justified. As President - as has been the case with all previous presidents - I would not hesitate to use our military might to protect our people or our nation from an imminent threat. But you will not find a Dean Administration turning to the option of force in the first instance as this President does.
The immediate task at hand of the next president will be to begin rebuilding our relationships with our allies so that we can work in concert on tackling these challenges.
The next president will need to undo the work of this band of radicals currently controlling our foreign policy - who view the Middle East as a laboratory for their experiments in democracy-building, where no such traditions exist. Their approach will drastically change the view that the world has had of the United States.
Our nation should be viewed as a moral and just power, a power that seeks to do good, one that has led by example and with a spirit of generosity, and one that works with the world community in advancing the ideals of human dignity and rule of law across the globe.
The people of this country must understand that this Administration has a far different concept of the role of America in the world. This concept involves imposing our will on sovereign nations. This concept involves dismantling the multilateral institutions that we have spent decades building. And this concept involves distorting the rule of law to suit their narrow purposes. When did we become a nation of fear and anxiety when we were once known the world around as a land of hope and liberty?
On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.
And not only will I seek to heal the divisions this President has caused in the world community, but I would also begin the process of healing the divisions he has exploited here at home.
This President shamelessly divides us from one another. He divides us by race - as he did when he claimed that the University of Michigan uses quotas in its law school admissions. He divides us by class by rewarding his campaign donors with enormous tax cuts while the rest of us are deprived of affordable health care, prescription drugs for our seniors, and good schools for our kids. He divides us by gender by seeking to restrict reproductive choice for women. He divides us by sexual orientation by appointing reactionary judges to the bench, and as he did in Texas by refusing to sign the Hate Crimes bill if it included gay or lesbian Americans as potential victims.
It is a Bush Doctrine of domestic division, and I want to be the President who tears that doctrine up, too. I want to restore a sense of community in this country - where it's not enough to worry whether your own kids have health care, but whether your neighbors' kids have health care. I want to go to the South and talk about race. White southerners have been flocking to the Republican Party in recent years, but I want to offer them hope that their children will benefit from better schools and affordable health care, too. The Republican Party has done nothing for working people, black or white, and we need to remind Southern white folks that the only hope for better schools, and better job opportunities, and health care that is affordable is a Democratic President.
I am what is commonly referred to as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I am proud of the fact that as Governor I routinely balanced the budget - which I was not required to do by Vermont's constitution - and paid down our state debt by nearly a quarter. I had to make tough decisions, and I will admit that some of them did not make the progressive community happy. But I made those decisions because I have a guiding principle that social justice must rest upon a foundation of fiscal discipline. Because of that approach to governance, Vermont today is not cutting education and is not cutting Medicaid despite the perilous economic times brought on by the Bush fiscal policies.
One of my goals as a Presidential candidate is to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party - a line made popular by the late Paul Wellstone. Some have questioned why I would so closely align myself with a politician whose politics were considerably more liberal than mine. The fact is that I admired Paul Wellstone greatly, not only because of his politics, but because he stood up for his beliefs and fought for them until the day he died. I can only hope that someday people will say the same about me - that I, too, remained true to my core principles no matter what. I believe that the Democratic Party needs to stand for something if we want people to vote for us. And by standing against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and domestic division, we may yet rediscover the soul of our Party.
Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean
Powell's color is important because it's been made so. This admin has made it a point on so many occasions to talk about the various ethinc groups they have representing them. To deliberately parade these various peoples. (Of course, they are curiously not represented where it counts - in the congress and in the courts.) That is one of the things they stress most about their nominee for the court - Estrada, and they can't comprehend why members of his particular ethnic group will not support him. But the fact is that very few of us are really color blind. So it becomes a factor, which then brings in political positions on affirmative action, day care, welfare. Nothing is simple.
I, too, wish for a world, a country, in which we can act as decent human beings. But what I see so far is bleak. You have to win it to make it happen. Once the Bush people won (and I believe it was through chicanery), we started on a downward path. No ethics (the corporate scandals, for one), no morals (the lies we were told to get this invasion accomplished), no concern for the country or its people (the ever relaxing environmental laws, the ever increasing loss of health care). So what can we do? First, we try to take back our country. But politics is not and never has been a clean little children's game. It's always been based on complicated plans and agendas. If we are to get our children educated, get health care to our citizenry, try to ensure that most of our judiciary system is working for our good, we must get our leaders elected. And I believe that what we need now are plain spoken people who are not afraid, and who care enough about the country that they are willing to fight for it.
See, Mamajuana, I don't think that's what the DNC has in mind. I think they want the same kind of power that Bush has, a power which is sustained by connections, money, and the backing of international corporations. If you look at the DNC's track record -- at the track records of many Dem candidates -- you see that they have many of the same supporters, albeit often on a smaller scale.
I've been very interested by the ability of MoveOn and the folks who supported Wellstone (and they're raising money again, btw), to raise enormous amounts of money very fast from people like thee and me -- small amounts from many people adding up to major donations. So I'm looking at candidates who 1) are out there, relentless, one-on-one and who 2) are successful in using the internet. So far Dean has got me -- obviously, as we've discussed, because of his campaign promises, but no less because of the way in which he's using new forms of communication to raise money and get his message across.
Politics sure can be dirty, but the presidency doesn't have to be. It depends on how the candidate gets there, who he/she makes promises to, who he/she is beholden to. This time I'm keeping a closer eye on process!
Oh, and I should have said -- I think the Iraq situation has been one of the biggest moral tests of the country in a long time, so how a candidate handles discussions of our invasion will make a big difference to me. If he has what I believe to be the right take on Iraq, that's important; but just as important is how he goes about persuading people to see his point of view. Because those are he tools he will take into the presidency and either they will be well chosen and clean, or they will be clever, momentarily effective, and virulent, like our Mr. Bush's.
Oh, tartarin, how I agree with you. This has been one of those days for me, although I've just gotten Dean's latest on the environment. I also like his approach - so far. If he is successful in speaking to small groups around the country, then he may have something going. This Iraqi invasion has been a big issue for me, and I suppose I've been bothered by a lot of the candidates' responses to it. I also see it as a major moral issue, something I feel intrinsically is so wrong.
I think I'll go to bed with a good mystery, and let tomorrow do its thing.
Mamajuana -- in the 4/28 issue of the Nation, John Nichols has a piece which unfortunately isn't available on line. I'll quote some bits and pieces:
Quote:To hear the corporate-friendly Democratic Leadership Council tell it, "there's an enduring tradition of Democratic support for the principled use of force," which includes support for the United Nations but that also preserves "America's right to enforce international law against Iraq, [..] Joe Lieberman and [...] Richard Gephardt, as former chairs -- complains that antiwar Democrats suffer from a "tendency to interpert any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam." The campaign of the most outspoken war for among Democratic contenders, Congressional Progressive Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, is dismissed as the "Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion."
Quote:[Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Martin] Frost and others who cling to the tired fantasy that Democrats will find a aroad to the White House that leads through the prowar states of the Old South may actually believe the DLC spin that says candidates who make antiwar statements speak only to "a persistent if small faction in the party." But Democrats who are spending time with the people who will decide the party's nomination know that there's nothing "small" about the antiwar faction.
Quote:[...] Many Democratic activists continue to look for a "full package" candidate who respects their ideals but can also dispatch Bush. Dean will evolve his campaign into a crusade for healthcare reform, which he hopes will position him as the most electable of the dissenting Democrats. But he may find himself blocked by Kerry, who seems to be succeeding in playing the war issue both ways -- just as Bill Clinton [...] did in 1992. [...] Kerry scores point with those same crowds by pounding Bush for committing a "breath of trust" against the UN, destroying international alliances and increasing the risk of terrorist attacks. In early April, Kerry grabbed the anti-Bush high ground. [...] He called it a "pleasure" to be attacked by the GOP attack dogs. Serious candidates have reconized someting the DLC doesn't yet understand: The people who will ick the party's nominee are not fans of George W. Bush or his war.
Of course one of the major mistakes has been not to notice that the "South" is now filled with all kinds of people who are not traditional southerners -- just as the demographics of the rest of the country are changing rapidly.
If Kerry continues to be pulled in the right direction thanks to competition from Dean, I'd certainly consider him. But for now, Dean's my man. At this writing I trust him the way I don't trust Kerry.
Today's NY Times carried an article about the plans for Bush's 2004 campaign, and republican reviews and estimates of the democtratic candidates.
"Even as Mr. Bush has remained silent, the Republican National Committee, at the direction of the White House, has methodically distributed information intended to discredit his possible challengers and has set up a full-fledged research effort into their backgrounds..
For example, when the Democrat that many of Mr. Bush's advisers see as the most likely to win the nomination, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in New Hampshire that it was time for a "regime change" in the United States, Republican organizations orchestrated attacks on Mr. Kerry. That forced Mr. Kerry to explain his remarks for a week.
In assessing Mr. Bush's potential opponents, Mr. Bush's advisers said Mr. Kerry could be presented as ideologically and culturally out of step, both because of his liberal positions on some issues as well as his Boston lineage and what some Bush advisers described as his haughty air.
Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, said recently that Mr. Kerry "is going to have a hard time translating out of New England." Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, "He looks French."
Several said that another leading Democratic contender, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, could be the one Democrat who could compete with Mr. Bush in the South. But they argued that Mr. Edwards was open to attack both for his close ties with trial lawyers and for his lack of experience in government.
Mr. Racicot said Mr. Edwards could be portrayed as "slick and shallow," while another Bush associate described Mr. Edwards as the Breck Girl of politics, a reference to the shiny-hair model for a popular shampoo in the 1960's."
No reference to Dean, or the others. But they clearly see Kerry as a contender. I paricularly like that "looking French" point. So there some of it is. And looking at it, a lot of personal, nasty attack. What will the dems answer? After all, some of the most polished, nasty, PR political minds are at work with the repubs. And I would watch for Sharpton. Because he has less to lose, and is used to it, he can and does come out with some sharp, biting remarks, to the point. And shouldn't be written off, because he has more of an audience than most people think. Which he knows and uses.
How 'bout that $200M they've raised for a Bush media blitz during the final days of the campaign?
That's a $200 Million Campaign Fundraising Goal, Tartarin ... not a deposit slip. Of course, there is little reason to suspect the goal will be unmet. As for the timing of the convention, playing it that close to 9/11 is gonna be tricky to bring off without seeming cutesey, but there is great media savvy shown in choosing to follow the Olympics. I don't see any disadvantage to the Democrats from having to spread their final $75 Million over a few more weeks. With a little media savvy of their own, they can effectively play that to their advantage by creating "News" without significant expenditure of Campaign Funds. I rather suspect that has occurred to some of them.
Diverging from one digression to another:
Quote:Did Ralph Nader and the Green Party put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000? There's only one more hotly debated question on the American left these days: Will Nader and the Greens do it again in 2004?
Nader, who many Democrats and progressives blame for tipping the last presidential election to Bush in key states like Florida (where Nader won 96,000 votes), has not yet announced his decision about 2004. But according to national Green Party officials, Nader probably will run. "I'm getting that sense," says Ben Manski, one of five national Green Party co-chairs. Juscha Robinson, a member of the party's presidential exploratory committee, agrees: "The co-chairs of the committee met with Ralph a couple weeks ago -- it was a very comfortable discussion. It does look like he's leaning in that direction."
The surprisingly bellicose and hard-right direction of the Bush administration has given many Greens pause about running a third-party presidential campaign next year. One prominent Green Party activist -- journalist and former Nader confidant Ronnie Dugger -- has publicly and privately pleaded with his old friend not to run for president, urging him instead to run for senator or governor. Dugger argues that the extremism of the Bush presidency has created a "national emergency" that requires a unified effort on the left to beat the Republican ticket in 2004.
Salon.com (reg. req.)
Yes. Nader took the numbers from Gore.
Perot took them from Bush, Sr.
The third parties are having a real effect, and not the one they would want.
It's a shame, because I like a third choice, but I don't think they will ever amount to anything other than spoilers.
Or Nader's votes didn't make a whit of difference -- the vote was in. For those of us who live in areas where voters are separated by party, they do things like switch the Democratic voting site without telling anyone. Have experienced that twice since moving to where I now live. Ooops.... just a slip-up....
i am a Green and i voted for Nader-i have to admit to being on the horns of dilemma. any other Greens here?
I am, Dys. I was on the trade system with someone in Oregon until the Cal. Atty. General blitzed the trade system, so I voted Dem (which had always been my party) in '00. That was the first time I experienced the problem of having nowhere to vote. I'll only vote Dem this time if there's a good candidate.
I'm almost sure the Nader votes didn't give Bush the election -- I think voting procedures (and the refusal to reexamine them) did the trick.
