Liberals

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

whiner-in-chief

That’s one election John Edwards CAN win. There’s something inconsistent about condemning Ann Coulter’s outrageous remarks against himself and other Democratic presidential candidates, and using those remarks to raise campaign cash. Everything that the Edwards campaign has done recently smacks of desperation.  They know that their chances are getting dimmer for mounting a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It would take a lot of self-restraint to ignore what Ann Coulter says and take the high road here, and it’s clear that John Edwards doesn’t have it.  He took the opportunity to continue to pander to his netroots base by attacking Ann Coulter, one of the left’s favorite targets.  I would have more respect for Edwards if he had taken on Coulter directly, rather than having his wife call into Hardball and confront her. He did make an appearance on Hardball the next day, but it’s not the same thing.

If I was a John Edwards supporter, I would be concerned about the campaign’s attempt to paint him as victim of the right-wing smear machine and powerful forces who are trying to stop Edwards from making necessary changes in Washington.  It makes him look weak.  It makes him look desperate. It also makes him look like a distant third-place candidate in the Democratic presidential field.

If he can’t handle people saying terrible things about him now, he probably doesn’t want to know what he would have to endure as President of the United States.  He would have to take much more abuse from foreign leaders opposed to our foreign policy, from the UN, and from terrorists looking to intimidate the United States into making bad decisions about how to deal with them.  Can he confront those challenges and be a strong voice for the United States and our interests around the world?  That’s a question we need to answer.

Tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Iraq, Liberals

fun with quotes

Who said this:

Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal. Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council.

It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world’s commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction… Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility.

That stirring defense of the war, helpfully provided by deputy assistant to the President Peter Wehner here, was made by none other than former Senator John Edwards. So not only did he vote to authorize the war in Iraq, he actually tried to convince others to do the same with the exact same arguments used by the Bush administration. I’m not sure a simple “I was wrong” should be sufficient for the anti-war left to embrace Edwards, but apparently it is.

Edwards calls the global war on terror a bumper-sticker slogan. You can deride the terminology, dismiss it as a useless Bush formulation, and disapprove of Bush’s handling of foreign policy. But no matter what you call it, the threat of Islamic extremism leading to terrorist activity is real, and we need to be proactive in dealing with that threat. John Edwards is doing what he has to do to keep his base on his side, even if that means saying things that the rest of the country does not agree with. This may win him a few netroots fans, but it’s no way to win a Democratic primary or general election.

Tags: , ,

4 Comments Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals

smackdown: the carter vs. bush edition

If I had former President Jimmy Carter’s dubious record of achievement, I would be more careful about calling another President’s administration the “worst in history”. Someone might actually call him on it, like Deputy WH Press Secretary Tony Fratto, who said, ” I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there…I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.” Indeed. He’s entitled to his opinion, but to suggest that Carter would have had more of a clue on foreign policy (especially Iraq) is to totally ignore his history. He might not want to give us an opportunity to look at it again. I’m just sayin’.

Tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Moonbats

random thoughts on the democratic debate

What Keith Olbermann oh-so-cleverly called “the spotlight dance” between Obama and Clinton (and those other people) failed to reveal anything that we didn’t already know. There was no compelling story in this debate, only the regularly scheduled Bush-bashing and an argument over which candidate would get us out of Iraq the fastest. That’s why all the buzz was around two (shall we say) lesser lights in the Democratic field, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.  (I especially liked Gravel’s accusation that Barack wanted to nuke somebody…)

Transcript available here.

Kucinich doesn’t buy the line that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time. At least he has what could be charitably called an Iraq plan.

KUCINICH:

I have a plan, H.R. 1234, a plan to end the war in Iraq, which calls on the international community to provide peacekeepers and security forces that will move in as our troops leave. But we can’t do that until we determine we’re going to end the occupation. And we will do that when we stop the funding.

Any plan that primarily depends on the international community for its success is doomed to failure.  There should be collaboration with the international community, but I’m not sure what makes Kucinich think that he can do what much more skilled politicians have failed to do. What would convince those countries who had previously promised their support to actually provide it? I don’t know the answer, and Kucinich probably doesn’t either.

That said, he is committed to getting the US out of Iraq, for better or for worse. He calls out the other candidates for continuing to pay for this war that they don’t support.   He has been the candidate who takes unpopular positions on issues, and that’s something you can’t say about most of the Democratic front-runners. He could be the most hard-left candidate the Dems have…except for Mike Gravel.

Mike Gravel said some unbelievable stuff…like this:

We need to find another way. I really would like to sit down with Pelosi and with Reid, and I would hope the other senators would focus on, how do you get out? You pass the law, not a resolution, a law making it a felony to stay there. And I’ll give you the text of it.

And if you’re worried about filibuster, here’s what you do tactically. They can pass it in the House. We’ve got the votes there. We’ve got the votes there.  In the Senate, let them filibuster it. And let Reid call up every — at 12:00 every day to have a cloture vote. And let the American people see clearly who’s keeping the war going and who’s not.

Good luck with that, Mr. Gravel. Did you catch that? He wants to make it a FELONY to stay in Iraq. Left unclear, of course, is WHO Gravel wants to put in jail.  I’m guessing it’s the President of the United States, but maybe I should ask him the question just to be sure . It’s quite difficult to be left of Kucinich, so I give him credit for succeeding with that.

Even though I have no doubt that both of these men believe everything they said in the debate, these statements weren’t entirely made out of conviction.   They were made out of necessity —  a need to distinguish themselves from their fellow travelers…and maybe in the process steal some inhabitants of nutroots nation. What we saw from them in this debate is Exhibit A why third-tier candidates, whether they are Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or the Vampires party, haven’t yet attained that credibility that one must have to break into the top tier in any presidential race.

Another reason these candidates can’t seem to get any traction is that choosing a presidential candidate has become more about image than about substance.  Image consciousness drives the process in both parties.  In the non-political world, we would be more impressed with Joe Biden and Bill Richardson and their experience/ qualifications than we are with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Republican or Democratic presidential nomination is no longer given to the most qualified, but to the candidate whose family looks the best on a Christmas card.

Continue reading →

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

“alternative foreign policy”

that’s how representative tom lantos (d-san mateo) has described his diplomatic efforts with speaker pelosi to syria, and now this successful duo is considering bringing their road show to misunderstood iran. but wait a second…i thought that pelosi and her delegation were merely passing on the views of the bush administration. that’s what pelosi has said she was doing. no harm in that right? it shouldn’t be a secret at this point that speaker pelosi doesn’t approve of the way the bush administration is handling foreign policy, and especially iraq. if that’s the case, then what would be the point of pushing said foreign policy (which she derides as a “poverty of ideas“) in meetings with assad (and possibly ahmedinejad)? the bush administration has made its case why syria isn’t interested in making the kind of concessions the united states wants it to make in order to facilitate any serious negotiation between the two countries. now there are more reports that iran is actively helping the iraqi insurgency. these two countries aren’t interested in concessions unless the concessions are made by the united states. this shouldn’t be a hard concept to grasp, even for democrats like pelosi.

i am not suggesting that pelosi did something unprecedented in taking meetings with foreign heads of state without the approval of the white house, but it does raise a few red flags for me because of lantos’ comments about having an “alternative foreign policy”. it wouldn’t make sense for her to push what she sees as failed administration policies, so what exactly is she discussing with assad? i think it’s fair to ask questions about that, and if there are transcripts and audio clips available of their discussion that prove pelosi’s claims about that conversation, then there is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to get them and decide for ourselves.

tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

john edwards: victim?

poor john edwards. everybody is picking on the aggressively photogenic presidential candidate. first ann coulter. now roger ailes. his strategy is rather curious, considering that his base would applaud any condemnation from two of the left’s main enemies. doesn’t he understand that whining isn’t a very attractive quality in a potential nominee? i can understand why he might want to take a swing at ann coulter. many on the right sometimes feel the same way about her. on the other hand, he’s allowing fundraising letters to be sent out that accuse the right of having this orchestrated plan to destroy him. that’s a crazy charge, and that kind of accusation didn’t work for hillary either. (remember the “vast right wing conspiracy” line?) ann coulter doesn’t speak for the bush administration or for vice president cheney. there’s no conspiracy here. why would the right need to destroy john edwards? he can self-destruct without our help.

i don’t understand why john edwards still thinks he needs to win the lefties over. he’s got them already. he gave them what they wanted when he decided not to fire his controversial bloggers. he admitted that he made a mistake on the war. he is even calling for cutting off the funding for the war. (that’s easy for him to propose…he doesn’t have to vote on it.) he said no to the proposed nevada presidential debate because fox news was airing it. is it possible that there’s not much else he can do to keep the lefties happy?

maybe this is all part of the grand plan. i don’t see it working. if he considers these personal attacks to be extremely rough treatment, he doesn’t want to know what will happen after hillary gets done with him. if i’m a average democrat who is seriously looking at edwards as a potential nominee, i would want him to take the high ground more often and stop whining about every single criticism he receives. what i have seen so far from edwards doesn’t show me that he’s a leader. it shows me that he’s a follower, and that he might just follow the netroots right over the cliff.

tags: john edwards

10 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

john edwards and the angry left

it’s becoming a trend for republicans and democrats alike: trying to win the favor of influential bloggers.  there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.  a successful outreach program could not only get your candidate positive press in the blogosphere, but it could also net your guy or gal some already plugged-in local activists willing to assist on the grassroots level. the danger in hiring bloggers, as john edwards has now discovered, is that bloggers have a virtual paper trail, and everything they had previously written is out there for the world to see. pandagon’s amanda marcotte wrote some pretty offensive stuff on her blog, and the responsibility for those posts rests with her, not john edwards.

candidates can only control those they employ. that said, before john edwards’s campaign staff hired ms. marcotte, i would have expected that they would have looked at her previous posts and fully vetted her work before she got the job. if they didn’t, it’s fair to accuse the edwards campaign (at the very least) of negligence. she was hired to represent the edwards campaign and put in charge of his campaign blog. surely they must have known that hiring someone who has written some controversial things in the past could be problematic for the campaign, even if the hire temporarily gained the favor of the angry left bloggers.

i am unconvinced that ms. marcotte would have written anything controversial as an official member of the edwards team. if she had written something controversial in that capacity,  then it would definitely be something that could damage edwards’ campaign. the edwards campaign, as far as i’m aware, hasn’t officially fired her yet. politically i think that it would be a smart move. 

however, they have a right to hire any blogger they want to hire, and if they are willing to deal with the fallout, why should it matter to us on the right? why are we giving edwards advice?  it’s almost like we are trying to save him from himself.  that’s really not our job.  let him make his own choices and deal with the consequences of those choices.  get out of his way and watch the show.

tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

another left turn

our pal dennis kucinich now has company in the dark horse category of democratic presidential candidates.  we know very little about kucinich except that he’s a socialist nut with a gorgeous wife, and he is also someone who favors immediate withdrawal of our troops from iraq. we know even less about fellow dark horse candidate former senator mike gravel. that’s why he faces even longer odds than kucinich (if that’s even possible). so why does this guy deserve a whole post?  i think that some of his ideas are interesting, and even though i disagree with some of those ideas, i think they are worth discussing. i’m also fascinated by his willingness to call out pretty much every democrat who voted for the iraq war right in front of them at the DNC winter meeting.

here’s part of what he said(any italics are mine):

History teaches us that nations fail when leaders fail their people. The decision to invade Iraq without provocation and fraudulently sold to the American people, by a President consumed with messianic purpose, sadly confirms this lesson of history.

The Democrats controlled the Senate on October 11, 2002 and provided political cover for George Bush to invade Iraq. The Senate leadership could have refused to even take up the resolution, or a few Senators who opposed it could have mounted a filibuster.

But the fear of opposing a popular warrior President on the eve of a mid-term election prevailed. Political calculations trumped morality, and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost in the election anyway, but the American people lost even more. It was Politics as Usual.

Given the extreme importance of any decision to go to war, and I am anguished to say this, it’s my opinion that anyone who voted for the war on October 11––based on what President Bush represented––is not qualified to hold the office of President.

he’s partially right. the senate leadership could have done more to stop the iraq war from happening. they didn’t do so, because they also believed that saddam was a threat. they had every reason to think so. hillary even did her own research and came to the same conclusion her husband and president bush did — that regime change was necessary in iraq. political calculation wasn’t the motive for the democrats when they let the president invade iraq.  it is the motive for democrats calling for immediate withdrawal from iraq (like dennis kucinich and mike gravel for example). there is another contest going on with all these candidates…who will win the favor of the netroots? how else do you explain this incredible shift to the left by many of these democratic candidates?

Continue reading →

Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Liberals

who said this?

fire up the delorean and check out this blast from the past.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

yes, that was the golden child of the left, president bill clinton, in a 1998 statement on H.R. 4655, also known as the “iraq liberation act”.  so even as far back as 1998, there was support for regime change in iraq. president clinton said nothing different than some of bush 43’s past statements. president clinton came out in favor of freedom for the iraqis, believed that it was possible regardless of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, and even suggested that iraq’s leadership needed to change. it’s easy to question whether clinton did this out of political calculation instead of genuine belief that saddam was a threat.  i’m giving him the benefit of the doubt in the case, since he ordered U.S. strikes on iraqi military and security targets on december 18th, 1998. it should be a serious consideration for any US president to order military strikes, and i would hope that the same was true back then.

there have been previous posts by me and by other bloggers documenting past statements by democrats which show that this “bush tricked me” meme is absolute nonsense.  hillary shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this line. the right doesn’t buy it. neither does the left.

i suppose that senator clinton could be forgiven for not believing anything her husband had previously said or written about iraq, but that’s not what she said to codepink in 2003. (yes, i know it’s a link to rush limbaugh’s website…i would be happy to provide an alternate link if i had one.)

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can’t, based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

she did her own homework.  she consulted with people she trusted. she carefully reviewed the information.  if she got it wrong, i don’t see how she can blame bush for that.  besides, we are in a different place now in the iraq debate.  second-guessing isn’t useful to the current debate on what to do next in iraq. maybe that’s the point for all these revisionist democrats. they want to keep dealing with the past so they can avoid dealing with the future.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

another WHO? candidate

governor bill richardson of new mexico thinks he wants to be president of this country, and so he’s going exploring with his committee.

why not bill richardson for president?

i’m serious. i really am. he’s certainly got the right kind of experience for the job. besides being the governor of new mexico, his resume includes a stint as a former congressman, as well as a UN ambassador and an Energy Department secretary. that’s a quality mix of foreign and domestic policy experience. i will leave it to policy wonks smarter than myself to determine his effectiveness at said positions, but it’s not a bad place to start for a candidate. a factor certainly not lost on governor richardson is that he would also be a candidate who could get significant support from the same pool of voters that obama could possibly draw from. minorities would have several choices of who to support on the democratic side. he’s a relative unknown to most of america, and that will be a major hurdle to overcome with the three major players (hillary, barack obama, and john edwards).

another daunting challenge for him would be fundraising, especially in a competition with so many big dogs clamoring for every last bone. somehow i just don’t see how richardson can get enough money to make himself a contender.

governor richardson is a quality addition to the democratic presidential race, even with the obstacles he faces. only time will tell whether he has the charisma and the political savvy to take some ground from the frontrunners. i hope he does.

(i’m not endorsing any democrats and do not intend to…i just think they should take a serious look at this guy before rejecting him as their candidate.)

tags: , ,