Letters to the Editor
-
What a lame opposition party
It’s so very depressing that at a time when leadership is needed –- and when such a little effort would go such a long way -– that we get our current frontrunners. The viable candidates in the Democratic race are so feeble when it comes to defining values and priorities that, while rhetorically rich in anti-Bush indignation, all they can actually propose is a variation on Bush.
What they say:
- Iraq was a mistake and troops should come home – but Bush sure as hell better twist the arms of the Iraqi government until they privatize their oil
- Iraq has brought our moral reputation to new lows around the globe; but I’d be irresponsible not to consider bombing Iran.
- It’s a shame about the Palestinians, but fuck ‘em.
- Bush is using fear to manipulate politics, which is why I say we have to secure every port tomorrow to protect against major terrorist attacks.
- Only a fool would interpret our failure in Iraq as a reason not to project American power around the globe.
- I will increase "defense" spending. (When was it last used for defense?)
Of course, some will argue that these positions have to be taken now that Bush has so masterfully changed the discourse. Defenders of the front runners say that by imitating Bush on these issues it allows Democrats to push forward on positive agendas elsewhere.
Hmmm.
Well consider what none of the front runners are saying:
- I will repeal Bush’s tax cuts.
- I will sign Kyoto (or it’s next incarnation) and use US influence to make other natons sign.
- I will end billions in wasteful defense spending and use some of that money for civilian purposes and the rest to increase soldier pay, benefits and useful training.
- I will dramatically increase federal funding of poor rural and inner-city schools.
- I will replace federally-insured school loans with direct loans and grants.
- I will regulate interest rates on consumer loans/credit cards (did you know that Obama voted to kill an amendment to the sure-to-pass bankruptcy bill that would have capped interest on credit cards at thirty percent? Thirty percent wasn’t enough for Obama! Nice 'man of the people' there; explains why he got a lot of bank money.)
- My healthcare goal is a single-payer system.
- I will ban automatic weapons
- I will restore habeas corpus
- I will renounce all the new powers Bush has claimed for himself
- I will close Guantanamo upon taking office
- etc.
We’ve got a year and a half to go, and our democratic system has already filtered out anything but the most cosmetic of changes.
USA! USA! USA!
-
Ralph, is that you?
You're right, Reality, but you're also pissing into the wind.
Nader was right, too, in 2000, about the dems' timidity and corporatism, and gee aren't we glad the Supreme Court didn't fall for the Gore line the way the voters did.
Surely the last six years have proven that what a candidate promises - or doesn't promise - during the campaign has absolutely nothing to do with what he actually does after the inauguration.
Edwards actually did say he would repeal the Bush tax cuts to pay for his health care plan. While he may not have actually uttered the words "single-payer," that's the ultimate destination of his plan.
Look at the philosophy and principles (or lack of same) behind each candidates' poll-tested words, and you'll find the truth.
Combine that truth with electability, and you get the candidate who not only reflects your principles, but also presents the best chance of those principles becoming federal law and policy.
Dennis Kucinich captured my heart with his impassioned defense of peace and impeachment, but the principles-plus-electability equation puts me squarely in Edwards' camp.
-
Foxing the debates.............
Could we PLEASE for just a moment get away from the superficiality in analyzing these candidates. Talking about blowing kisses and glancing blows is not the kind of information I would hope ANYBODY is taking away from these debates, with the exception of the doofus who writes the RNC talking points.
While this forum is usually rife with smart-ass wit...which is what I like about it...it is also smart-ass and witty enough to zero in on the meat and potatoes of the issues and incidents at hand.
If I want glib cracks and stretching for negativity, while passing over the urgently important positions and opinions of the candidates who are vying to clean up the mess that is US, I could be watching Fox News.
Critical, ok. Clever, ok. Silly and trivial, not ok.
-
Debating the candidates
It's an odd situation, really -- a battle of competing strengths. Clinton's got institutional leverage and name recognition, but I feel she's really lacking as a campaigner. Obama's got charisma to burn and comparatively youthful vision, but will the whole lack of experience line bog him down? Edwards seems to be running hard on policy because that's the only way he can distinguish himself from the other two (He's more charismatic than Clinton, but less than Obama. I'm not an Edwards fan; though he's run from it, the DLC stain is still on him in my eyes -- it feels like he's being opportunistic in his single-payer talk). Maybe Edwards is shooting for the VP slot on either of the other tickets, although he'll give no bounce from the South, for sure.
They need to be more, they need to be bolder. Maybe they figure they can't lose in 2008 against the GOP, and so they don't want to risk themselves unnecessarily. But bold is good. Vision is good. The GOP will fight as dirtily as they can against any of the candidates, so I think a strongly-presented vision is vital, which is why Clinton's kind of stilted, arm's length campaigning isn't going to cut it this time around.
-
No more eating our young
I was gratified that the candidates didn't attack each other. I am with Nita; stop trying to create conflict between the candidates with fake "translations." There was a civility in the discourse that we haven't seen in years. Maybe they despise each other in real life, but please, let's distinguish ourselves from the dirty tricks brigade and focus on the issues alone!