Re: The New Al Gore, Same Old; by Rich Lowry



Chris T Papaleonardos wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2006 14:38:55 -0700, Evolution <myname@xxxxxxx> wrote:


I like Feingold, but I don't think any senator can win; they'll crucify them with their own voting record, like they did Kerry.


But Kerry's problem was trying to have it both ways -- voting FOR the
war, and then portraying himself as the ANTI-WAR candidate. Feingold's
been fairly consistent.

True, but there was plenty of fodder to get him on, and any senator will be portrayed as a "liberal", especially one who is... :)


We need a leader, and we need someone who can unite the country. Much as I'd like to see Hillary as president, she is neither. She follows the polls and that is not what a leader does.

We need Wes Clark, who is both a proven leader and someone who can unite the country. He's southern, military, patriotic and he can appeal to all kinds of people. He's intelligent and charming.


So what if he's southern? I think it's time the Democratic Party
stopped trying to pander to the old 'southern democrats' -- first of
all, they're 'southern republicans' these days, and they ain't coming
back. Second, why does a nominee always have to be acceptable to the
South? Did the Confederacy win the Civil War after all? They are
given some sort of political veto over who can become President? There
are now other winning startegies that assume the South will remain
Republican for the next several electoral cycles at least, and put
together winning combinations that exclude the South. And it's about
time, IMHO.

I say "south" loosely. I guess I mean the red states. You have to win over some of that vote to win. Because he came from that background, and he is almost silly about his patriotism (Kerry stole his line at the convention about taking our flag back from the republicans), he can speak to those people. And they will listen (assuming he can get enough non-soundbite exposure)

But more to the point, I don't think it's just about "winning" a couple red states to win the election. Clark can truly bring the country together, rather than splitting it into red and blue. Like it or not, the red states have a voice in this country, and what better than to agree with them on a leader? Get them on the same side?

Let the Democrats nominate someone who is easily
distinguishable from a moderate Republican at best.

As for Clark being military and patriotic -- well, that was supposed
to be Kerry's strong point.

Yes, but Kerry protested the war, and his war record and patriotism could be attacked, unfairly though it may have been. Clark's record and reputation is impeccable; they won't be able to get him on that. You don't get to be a four star general without merit. My favorite story is one where (I think in Kosovo) a truck in his convoy went over the side of a ravine, and he personally grabbed a rope and rapelled down to see if he could save anyone. Didn't order someone to do it as a general. Just did it. And he's modest about it. Gave the story a paragraph in his book.

For more info:
http://securingamerica.com/

An excerpt from here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/607

"But one thing I learned in my experience is that if you want to fight, you can usually get a fight. If you're looking for a fight with people you can get one, whether it's in a bar in Manhattan or, you know, Friday night after a high school football game in Little Rock. All you have to do is go up to people and shove them, insult them and punch them, and most people have about the same amount of courage, about the same amount of tolerance, and most people can swing a fist about the same way. And when it's all said and done, you haven't proved too much and you probably haven't changed the situation.

"So if we want to move toward a larger war against a group of people who have different religious convictions, that's certainly possible to stimulate and create such a war. I think it would be a tragic mistake. I think the right framework for us, and the framework that goes beyond the QDR, is the framework of how do you help this country move forward in a global economy.

"You know, we've taken for granted the base of the QDR and the base of U.S. deterrence, and our whole national strategy in the 20th century was founded on an American superpower economically. We were the largest steel-producing nation in the world in 1900. We were the superpower in 1900. And we had the largest integrated market. We had enormous inflows of foreign capital. We were generating it ourselves. We had incredible untouched resources. And for a century, we were unchallengable economically.

"You can see that that's not going, necessarily, to be the case in the 21st century, and it's already having profound impact on the demise of the U.S. manufacturing industry, the loss of economic security for middle-class Americans across much of the United States, the change in employment patterns. And these changes will be even more pronounced, starker and more consequential in the future.

"We have to come to terms with this. The rise of China and to a lesser extent India as economic superpowers threatens America's idea and conception of itself. It threatens how we view ourselves, how we express our values. It could change our freedom of action diplomatically. It will certainly drive how we take actions with friends and allies around the world. That's the right framework in which you should address these problems.

"So to have a Quadrennial Defense Review that says, okay, we're going to put some special forces here and we're going to be prepared to fight this long war against these terrorists, we're going to kill them everywhere we can find them, we're on the offensive, and then get ready because the next opponent's going to be China -- please, this is not serious strategic thought. This is budget gamesmanship.

"It's true the United States should have military capabilities, but it's not the military capabilities that drive the United States' foreign policy. I certainly hope not."

Can anyone say that Warner or Feingold have this kind of insight and vision?

Laurie


Chris



Laurie


Dan wrote:


William Innes wrote:


I second that emotion about Feingold.
He's damn near the only one out there whom I'd enthusiastically support...and would gladly work my ass off to help get him into that office.



I agree about Feingold, but do you think he can win?




.

Relevant Pages

  • space travel or war
    ... preceded by military action in the modern age - from the Civil War ... 2001 - the United States suffered another devastating surprise attack, ... the top priority for the nation. ... States economy, and to harm the United States preimminent geopolitical ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: space travel or war
    ... Clearly 99.9% of Usenet wants war. ... 2001 - the United States suffered another devastating surprise attack, ... the top priority for the nation. ... States economy, and to harm the United States preimminent geopolitical ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Opportunists and human tragedy
    ... against opposition requires war -- steady, unrelenting, unending war. ... The United States today is rich and prosperous. ... On the contrary, with our domestic economy in the dumps, ... Nor is Bush's strategy necessarily irrational insofar as it affects oil ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT John Kerry a traitor?
    ... 'Yesterday, while searching for a bio on John Kerry, I noticed the ... whose names are now engraved on the Vietnam War ... officer of the United States, knowingly, willfully, deliberately, ... The Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (also ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT John Kerry a traitor?
    ... 'Yesterday, while searching for a bio on John Kerry, I noticed the ... whose names are now engraved on the Vietnam War ... officer of the United States, knowingly, willfully, deliberately, ... The Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (also ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
Loading