As a Republican, I hope Dean gets it. "Loose cannon" a pretty good description of what happens whenever he has a chance to ad-lib. But "best president" - hardly.
I just don't like (and don't trust) Clarke - his service record is questionable (and , tellingly, few if any of the officers he's served with or enlisted men who served under him support him). He's (IMHO) an opportunist of the first water.
Lieberman - I don't like some of his positions, but I respect him personally. Of the lot, I think he's the closest to presidential material, and would probably make a decent president.
That being said, I'm not thrilled about all Bush positions (I was a strong McCain supporter), but I think he's been a decent wartime president (did a lot better than I would have expected after 9/11) and for all his warts, think he'd do a much better job as president than any of the current democratic bunch. Swimming against the stream, I know, but that's my 2 cents worth.
OT: Democratic Primaries: the C&F Straw Poll
-
chas
- Posts: 7707
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: East Coast US
Brigitte, good for you to try and find an objective news source, and to recognize that the Washington Post is not one. It's a fine newspaper, which I read everyday, but it's laced with opinion masquerading as news.
A newspaper with a reputation for objectivity is the Christian Science Monitor. It can be accessed (AFAIK without having to register) at http://www.csmonitor.com/ .
I think many of the candidates would make mostly good presidents, but have some flaws that just scream at me. I have no idea whom I'll vote for in the primary, but will probably vote for a minor party in the election as usual.
A newspaper with a reputation for objectivity is the Christian Science Monitor. It can be accessed (AFAIK without having to register) at http://www.csmonitor.com/ .
I think many of the candidates would make mostly good presidents, but have some flaws that just scream at me. I have no idea whom I'll vote for in the primary, but will probably vote for a minor party in the election as usual.
Charlie
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
From the Christian Science Monitor (not complete):
World > Terrorism & Security
posted January 16, 2004, updated 12:30 p.m. ET
'A moral war'
Even without WMD, more than a few liberals support invasion of Iraq.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The invasion of Iraq was a good thing for the entire region. Even without the existence of weapons of mass destruction, ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a positive outcome. And it doesn't matter if the Bush administration may have come up with a completely different raison d'etre for the war after the first one (the existence of those WMD) didn't fly ? freeing the Iraqi people from years of torture and fear is reason enough. Normally this kind of pro-war statement is attributed to conservative supporters of President Bush. But these days one also hears these arguments from another group, 'liberal hawks.' They are not necessarily Bush supporters, but did support his invasion of Iraq. Slate.com is currently hosting several of the more well-known members of this group for a debate on the war . (Fareed Zakaria, Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Fred Kaplan, George Packer, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Jacob Weisberg.)
Recently, in an interview with Atlantic Monthly, Mr. Pollack (a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq") said he was rethinking his support of the war because he believed the Bush administration had "engaged in creative omissions" about WMD which created a momentum that led to war before Americans really knew if the US had to fight one or not.
But other members of the group continue to support the Iraq invasion, even if they may or may not support President Bush, or have some concerns about events in Iraq after the invasion. Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International and the author of "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad," argues that Iraq was a problem the world could not afford to continually postpone.
After 9/11 we came to realize that we couldn't let the Middle East keep festering in its dysfunction and hatreds. It was breeding anti-Americanism and terror. With Iraq in particular, business as usual was becoming increasingly difficult. Throughout this discussion we have assumed that there was a simple, viable alternative to war with Iraq, the continuation of the status-quo, i.e., sanctions plus the almost weekly bombing of the no-fly zones. In fact, that isn't really true. America's Iraq policy was broken. You have to contrast the dangers of acting in Iraq with the dangers of not acting and ask what would things have looked like had we simply kicked this can down the road. Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens also believes the WMD argument is illogical, according to the Jewish Forward. Freeing Iraq from "a genocidal tyrant" had been a long-held American policy objective , says Mr. Hitchens. In addition, he argued that recent conciliatory actions by Libya, Iran and North Korea were directly attributable to the removal of Saddam.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has said the main reason he supported the invasion was that the creation of a democratic state in Iraq would have a hugely positive impact on other states in the Middle East. In his latest column in the Times, Mr. Friedman argues that there will be two great trials happening in Iraq in the next few months. The first will be the trial of former dictator Saddam Hussein. The second will be of the Iraqi people themselves as they try to form a democracy ? not an easy task, considering the obstacles.
You don't want to miss this show. This is pay-per-view history. If, somehow, Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis, Turkmen, Christians, Assyrians and Shiites find a way to embrace pluralism, it will be a huge boost to moderates in the war of ideas all across the Muslim world. Those who scoff at the idea of a democratic domino theory in the Arab world don't know what they're talking about. But those who think this is a done deal don't know Iraq. If Iraq is going to be made to work as a decent, pluralistic, self-governing entity, noted Amatzia Baram, an Iraq expert at the United States Institute of Peace, all the key factions there will have to accept being "reasonably unhappy." All will have to settle for their second-best dream in order to avoid their first-class nightmare: chaos or a return to tyranny.
Journalist William Shawcross is another well-known liberal who strongly supports the war. In fact, writes James Traub of the New York Times, Mr. Shawcross has penned a polemic ("Allies: The US, Britain and Europe in the aftermath of the Iraq war") ardently endorsing "the Bush administration's aggressive use of the doctrine of pre-emption, Donald Rumsfeld's distinction between old and new Europe, the neoconservative case for regime change, the perfidy of the French, the indispensability of the Americans and much else to gladden hearts in Washington."
Shawcross only briefly touches on the administration's manifest mistreatment of Blair [in his book], and in any case blames Jacques Chirac, rather than George Bush, for endangering the international order. Indeed, Shawcross hates the French president the way many of his former comrades-in-arms hate the American one. He writes that Chirac donned the anti-American mantle in order to distract French voters from his budding reputation as the "Super Menteur," or "superliar"; that he outdid even the Kremlin in his eagerness to do business with Saddam Hussein; and that since he "must have known" that his threat to veto a second United Nations resolution would make war inevitable, he has "the blood of American and British soldiers on his hands."
World > Terrorism & Security
posted January 16, 2004, updated 12:30 p.m. ET
'A moral war'
Even without WMD, more than a few liberals support invasion of Iraq.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The invasion of Iraq was a good thing for the entire region. Even without the existence of weapons of mass destruction, ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a positive outcome. And it doesn't matter if the Bush administration may have come up with a completely different raison d'etre for the war after the first one (the existence of those WMD) didn't fly ? freeing the Iraqi people from years of torture and fear is reason enough. Normally this kind of pro-war statement is attributed to conservative supporters of President Bush. But these days one also hears these arguments from another group, 'liberal hawks.' They are not necessarily Bush supporters, but did support his invasion of Iraq. Slate.com is currently hosting several of the more well-known members of this group for a debate on the war . (Fareed Zakaria, Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Fred Kaplan, George Packer, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Jacob Weisberg.)
Recently, in an interview with Atlantic Monthly, Mr. Pollack (a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq") said he was rethinking his support of the war because he believed the Bush administration had "engaged in creative omissions" about WMD which created a momentum that led to war before Americans really knew if the US had to fight one or not.
But other members of the group continue to support the Iraq invasion, even if they may or may not support President Bush, or have some concerns about events in Iraq after the invasion. Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International and the author of "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad," argues that Iraq was a problem the world could not afford to continually postpone.
After 9/11 we came to realize that we couldn't let the Middle East keep festering in its dysfunction and hatreds. It was breeding anti-Americanism and terror. With Iraq in particular, business as usual was becoming increasingly difficult. Throughout this discussion we have assumed that there was a simple, viable alternative to war with Iraq, the continuation of the status-quo, i.e., sanctions plus the almost weekly bombing of the no-fly zones. In fact, that isn't really true. America's Iraq policy was broken. You have to contrast the dangers of acting in Iraq with the dangers of not acting and ask what would things have looked like had we simply kicked this can down the road. Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens also believes the WMD argument is illogical, according to the Jewish Forward. Freeing Iraq from "a genocidal tyrant" had been a long-held American policy objective , says Mr. Hitchens. In addition, he argued that recent conciliatory actions by Libya, Iran and North Korea were directly attributable to the removal of Saddam.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has said the main reason he supported the invasion was that the creation of a democratic state in Iraq would have a hugely positive impact on other states in the Middle East. In his latest column in the Times, Mr. Friedman argues that there will be two great trials happening in Iraq in the next few months. The first will be the trial of former dictator Saddam Hussein. The second will be of the Iraqi people themselves as they try to form a democracy ? not an easy task, considering the obstacles.
You don't want to miss this show. This is pay-per-view history. If, somehow, Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis, Turkmen, Christians, Assyrians and Shiites find a way to embrace pluralism, it will be a huge boost to moderates in the war of ideas all across the Muslim world. Those who scoff at the idea of a democratic domino theory in the Arab world don't know what they're talking about. But those who think this is a done deal don't know Iraq. If Iraq is going to be made to work as a decent, pluralistic, self-governing entity, noted Amatzia Baram, an Iraq expert at the United States Institute of Peace, all the key factions there will have to accept being "reasonably unhappy." All will have to settle for their second-best dream in order to avoid their first-class nightmare: chaos or a return to tyranny.
Journalist William Shawcross is another well-known liberal who strongly supports the war. In fact, writes James Traub of the New York Times, Mr. Shawcross has penned a polemic ("Allies: The US, Britain and Europe in the aftermath of the Iraq war") ardently endorsing "the Bush administration's aggressive use of the doctrine of pre-emption, Donald Rumsfeld's distinction between old and new Europe, the neoconservative case for regime change, the perfidy of the French, the indispensability of the Americans and much else to gladden hearts in Washington."
Shawcross only briefly touches on the administration's manifest mistreatment of Blair [in his book], and in any case blames Jacques Chirac, rather than George Bush, for endangering the international order. Indeed, Shawcross hates the French president the way many of his former comrades-in-arms hate the American one. He writes that Chirac donned the anti-American mantle in order to distract French voters from his budding reputation as the "Super Menteur," or "superliar"; that he outdid even the Kremlin in his eagerness to do business with Saddam Hussein; and that since he "must have known" that his threat to veto a second United Nations resolution would make war inevitable, he has "the blood of American and British soldiers on his hands."
-
TelegramSam
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
It's been said, and I forget by who, that people under a Democratic government get exactly the kind of government they deserve. I think that's about the long and short of it. We do support and put up with these clowns after all...
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
-
Lawrence
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:48 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Spokane, WA, USA
- Contact:
It's unfortunate, really.Walden wrote:Neither do the ballots at the real poll... the question just pertains to the available candidates.NorCalMusician wrote:You don't have NONE OF THE ABOVE????
Lawrence
"Well, Scotty, now you've done it!" - McCoy
"Aye. The haggis is in the fire for sure." - Scotty
"Well, Scotty, now you've done it!" - McCoy
"Aye. The haggis is in the fire for sure." - Scotty
-
glauber
- Posts: 4967
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: I'm from Brazil, living in the Chicago area (USA)
- Contact:
The problem is that i also get the government that they deserve!TelegramSam wrote:It's been said, and I forget by who, that people under a Democratic government get exactly the kind of government they deserve. I think that's about the long and short of it. We do support and put up with these clowns after all...
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
--Wellsprings--
--Wellsprings--
Clowns got us through the cold war alive,
when people of ability and principle
would probably have got us all killed.
Clowns want to be alive tomorrow,
they don't believe in anything enough to
die for it. We have more control over
wheelers and dealers than we would
over the likely alternative. Send in
the clowns! Democracy depends on
them.
What troubles me about complaints
about our government is that they seem
to be self-actualizing: special interests
run everything, so what's the use?
Get enough people believing that
and special interests will run
everything. Persuade enough people
it's a plutocracy and the rich will
end up running the show. Get enough
people believing this isn't a democracy
and it won't be one.
The brilliant, wise, principled people who
folks hanker after probably don't exist,
or, if they every do, are as rare as hen's
teeth. No viable form of government
can depend on their arriving. It's
clowns all the way down, likely, and then
how do you arrange a government to
run on clowns? democracy.
I feel that the greatest political wisdom
is the ability to count the obvious.
I take it now to be obvious that
individual votes can have extraordinary
repercussions. The people who turn their
backs on this awful, imperfect system
are silly; sure it sucks and it's as good
as anything is likely to get in a country
this size. No point
waiting around for Abe Lincoln
or the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
The more we're involved, the better
it will be; the less the worse. Obviously.
Sorry for all this passion; needed to get
this off my chest. Best
when people of ability and principle
would probably have got us all killed.
Clowns want to be alive tomorrow,
they don't believe in anything enough to
die for it. We have more control over
wheelers and dealers than we would
over the likely alternative. Send in
the clowns! Democracy depends on
them.
What troubles me about complaints
about our government is that they seem
to be self-actualizing: special interests
run everything, so what's the use?
Get enough people believing that
and special interests will run
everything. Persuade enough people
it's a plutocracy and the rich will
end up running the show. Get enough
people believing this isn't a democracy
and it won't be one.
The brilliant, wise, principled people who
folks hanker after probably don't exist,
or, if they every do, are as rare as hen's
teeth. No viable form of government
can depend on their arriving. It's
clowns all the way down, likely, and then
how do you arrange a government to
run on clowns? democracy.
I feel that the greatest political wisdom
is the ability to count the obvious.
I take it now to be obvious that
individual votes can have extraordinary
repercussions. The people who turn their
backs on this awful, imperfect system
are silly; sure it sucks and it's as good
as anything is likely to get in a country
this size. No point
waiting around for Abe Lincoln
or the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
The more we're involved, the better
it will be; the less the worse. Obviously.
Sorry for all this passion; needed to get
this off my chest. Best
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
-
NicoMoreno
- Posts: 2100
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: I just wanted to update my location... 100 characters is a lot and I don't really want to type so much just to edit my profile...
- Location: St. Louis, MO
I think it was Churchill who remarked that Democracy was the worst possible form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.
It ain't perfect. It's messy, people make mistakes or pursue their own narrow interests. But if we all do our part - get in there and *vote*, even if our favored candidate *doesn't* win - we have a form of government that, warts and all, beats any alternative *I've* seen or heard of. History is a hobby of mine - and the more I read the better our system looks in comparison.
Pol Pot, anyone? The Ayatollahs? Heck, compared to 150 years ago in the US, England, or France we're far better off, in my rather biased opinion.
It ain't perfect. It's messy, people make mistakes or pursue their own narrow interests. But if we all do our part - get in there and *vote*, even if our favored candidate *doesn't* win - we have a form of government that, warts and all, beats any alternative *I've* seen or heard of. History is a hobby of mine - and the more I read the better our system looks in comparison.
Pol Pot, anyone? The Ayatollahs? Heck, compared to 150 years ago in the US, England, or France we're far better off, in my rather biased opinion.
-
Darwin
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:38 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Flower Mound, TX
- Contact:
Wow, Jim! You're rapidly becoming my favorite C&F philosopher.jim stone wrote:No point
waiting around for Abe Lincoln
or the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Personally, I'm torn between the advantages of competent leadership (good at dealing with other countries and domestic problems) and the advantages of incompetent leadership (bad at undermining the Constitution). I guess that if I had to pick one or the other, I'd go with the latter.
Mike Wright
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
--Goethe
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
--Goethe
-
Celtoid
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Brownville, New York
- Contact:
I agree with Jim, and would like to add that our system really, really sucks, but compared to all the others it is a truly remarkable miracle, and I hope we can hold on to it.
Dean, Edwards, Clark or Kerry.............all OK
Lieberman talks like a lobbyist for Israel.
Kucinich is not grounded in reality.
Of course like Pat Buchanan so I must really be nuts.
Dean, Edwards, Clark or Kerry.............all OK
Lieberman talks like a lobbyist for Israel.
Kucinich is not grounded in reality.
Of course like Pat Buchanan so I must really be nuts.
-
TelegramSam
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
I never said that there was a better system out there. I just find it pathetic that this is the best that we as human beings can do to govern ourselves. *shrugs*
The ideal government would be a benevolent monarch, but, alas, human beings are too easily corrupted by power for that to ever occur on any long term basis.
The ideal government would be a benevolent monarch, but, alas, human beings are too easily corrupted by power for that to ever occur on any long term basis.
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
-
susnfx
- Posts: 4245
- Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Salt Lake City
Will run everything? Um, they already do.jim stone wrote:...special interests run everything, so what's the use? Get enough people believing that and special interests will run everything.
Will end up running the show? Um, they already do.jim stone wrote: ... Persuade enough people it's a plutocracy and the rich will end up running the show.
Not here. I live in a state that is so one-party, candidates for national office of any party don't even campaign here. Voting for a candidate in any other party is an exercise in futility. The one area that held hope of any diversity - Salt Lake City - was redistricted before the last election to remove any chance of another party winning any election. It's a very helpless, hopeless situation. Involvement? It's laughable.jim stone wrote: ...I take it now to be obvious that individual votes can have extraordinary repercussions. ... The more we're involved, the better it will be; the less the worse.
Susan
Sorry about Utah (sounds frustrating)susnfx wrote:Will run everything? Um, they already do.jim stone wrote:...special interests run everything, so what's the use? Get enough people believing that and special interests will run everything.
Will end up running the show? Um, they already do.jim stone wrote: ... Persuade enough people it's a plutocracy and the rich will end up running the show.
Not here. I live in a state that is so one-party, candidates for national office of any party don't even campaign here. Voting for a candidate in any other party is ajim stone wrote: ...I take it now to be obvious that individual votes can have extraordinary repercussions. ... The more we're involved, the better it will be; the less the worse.
n exercise in futility. The one area that held hope of any diversity - Salt Lake City - was redistricted before the last election to remove any chance of another party winning any election. It's a very helpless, hopeless situation. Involvement? It's laughable.
Susan
but I take to be plain that individual votes
cast by ordinary people
had big consequences in the last election.
It follows that the rich don't run everything, nor do
special interests.
To the extent that special interests or wealth have
too much effect in our country, the chief reason
is that people aren't politically active. To the extent
that people aren't poliltically active (e.g. voting)
something else is bound to determine the
outcome. It makes no sense to point to the
consequences of our political inactivity
to justify political inactivity. That something
other than our voice is having too large an
effect is a reason to get involved, not
walk away. Best