A very good friend of mine has recently pointed out that it won't matter how many people oppose the war since it is highly unlikely that Bush is interested in reelection. Still, one really has to wonder what Republicans are going to do when their constituents are among those who are opposing the war.
Aides to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) counted 5,614 phone calls over the past six weeks, only 136 of which indicated support for unilateral military action, with letters reflecting about the same division. Phone calls to the office of Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) were running 8 to 1 against war, a Frist aide said. Rep. Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.), who represents a hawkish district, said calls and letters were running overwhelmingly against a unilateral strike until Bush's speech to the U.N. earlier this month. Now, he said, they are about 50-50. Only a couple of the offices reported a majority in favor of military action, although some questioned whether the communications accurately reflect their constituents' views.
Friday, September 27, 2002
This is a bad idea.
IS Sen. John McCain going to quit the Republican Party and become the running mate of Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race?
Don't be fooled simply because McCain portrays himself as a GOP rebel, lone champion of campaign finance reform and the environment. He's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
I was pretty sold on Kerry too. Oh well. Hopefully this is just a rumor. It's troubling though. Have we become so preoccupied with beating the Bushies that we're willing to sell out completely?
IS Sen. John McCain going to quit the Republican Party and become the running mate of Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race?
Don't be fooled simply because McCain portrays himself as a GOP rebel, lone champion of campaign finance reform and the environment. He's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
I was pretty sold on Kerry too. Oh well. Hopefully this is just a rumor. It's troubling though. Have we become so preoccupied with beating the Bushies that we're willing to sell out completely?
You think Daschle took a hit of whatever Gore's been smoking? All kidding aside, FINALLY the Democrats are showing signs of life. Why are they so late in learning what the rest of us have known since the 2000 Election; the Republicansdon't play fair? My guess is a lot of Daschle's indignance yesterdays was repressed frustration at always being the wimpy compromiser. Mediawhores has an email link if you want to congratulate him on finding his voice.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Interesting analysis of Iraq debate by
Saletan on Slate,
although I think he misses some rather vital points in
Gore's argument.
Each school has its problems. If you believe in good will, you
risk being manipulated and abused by foreign governments that don't. Say
you want Russia's help to pass a U.N. Security Council resolution
returning weapons inspectors to Iraq. Russia, which has a huge
commercial stake in Iraq, says it will go along, but only if you remove
the clause authorizing the immediate use of force in the event that Iraq
blocks the inspectors. Russia also wants a free hand to crush Chechen
rebels by means that will probably entail extensive civilian casualties.
The price of good will turns out to be not just a weakening of the
policy for which you seek support, but fear and misery for third parties.
I'm not sure that this argument directly applies to the issue at
hand. This situation in Russia exists whether or not one uses Gore's
approach or Bush's. Moreover, if you take the moral high ground with
Gore's approach you can argue that there is a huge discrepancy between
taking out the clause authorizing immediate use of force in Iraq and
giving Russia carte blanche to massacre rebels in Chechnya. With Bush's
approach you run the added risk of pushing Russia further away and
losing all influence. Diplomacy is like that. You can't make omlettes
without breaking eggs. The trick is to break as few eggs as possible.
Saletan goes on to say:
Another problem with the party of good will is its implicit
attitude of passivity and relativism. Describing the resentment of
foreign leaders toward Bush's Iraq policy, Gore stipulated, "Now, my
point is not that they're right to feel that way, but that they do feel
that way. And that has consequences for us." This preoccupation with
consequences others might impose on us, rather than with consequences we
might impose on them, is lazy and self-debilitating. And Gore's
suggestion that we should let that resentment affect our policy without
judging whether it's right or wrong is irresponsible.
I really don’t think that a policy of good will is nearly as
do-nothing as all that. For one thing it’s a misrepresentation of what
Gore actually said. He didn’t say that we should let international
resentment lead the way in dictating our foreign policy nor is he
preoccupied with the consequences that terrorists might impose on us.
What he’s pointing to with these points is that fact that in our history
of waging war in the Middle East we constantly miss opportunities to
build relationships with nations and therefore reduce the risk of
terrorism against us. He specifically points the example of the U.N. as
a case for winning the peace as well as the war. If anything an attitude
of goodwill requires a more active approach to diplomacy and far more
vigilance than a policy of fear. Waging war without fear of consequences
is far more irresponsible.
Saletan does come out more or less on the side of Gore. “Purchasing
the good will of other regimes risks morally ugly consequences,
embracing the exploitation of fear makes such consequences far more
likely.” And he is right in welcoming the debate it opens. But he would
do better to take a more evenhanded approach to Gore’s policy.
Sunday, September 22, 2002:
Saturday, September 21, 2002:
Friday, September 20, 2002:
Thursday, September 19, 2002:
I think I’ll dive right in with this little gem from The Washington Post. I especially love that it closes with this: Democratic consultant Peter Fenn, who advised former Vice President Al Gore in his 2000 campaign as the Democratic presidential nominee, said Democrats should avoid looking at the war as a campaign issue. "This is the new third rail of politics," he said. "Touch it and you die." Personally, I have issues with those who blame Gore for “losing” the 2000 Election. But I very much hope that come 2004 this guy Fenn is not on the Gore payroll. This quote smacks of the wishy-washy kind of thinking that tends to get the Dems in trouble. And I am so sick of the word “nonpartisan.” Why must the Democrats always meet the Republicans halfway when the Republicans have never been compromisers?
I’m not sure how this will end up working. This won’t be a personal blog, mostly because a personal blog about my life would be intensely boring. I am starting this blog not for the greater good of blogistan but to keep my head from caving in.
Lenora1:45 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
