Today on www.commondreams.org, Thom Hartmann has published a very compelling piece outlining his view of the Republican strategy for 2008. I urge you to read the article in total but essentially he makes the case that the purpose of the Iraq war was nothing more than consolidating political power. Not for oil, not for peace, not to fight terrorism but as a device to maintain control.
Well this makes perfect sense to me.... I have been searching for some sense in this madness... and all this time it was the most simple of plans: Focus the masses, exploit it for as long as you can then change strategies... First it was lead us towards war now "morphing" again... Suddenly the responsibility for the war is shifting to the Democrats... The media is playing it up...the republicans are working the angle and the Democrats are working their way toward a stunning defeat in 2008...
Yes, put away your Hillary Stickers... forget about Barach... and let Al sleep; because as the economy of thought evolves and the "shape shifter" conservatives get "fuzzy", we should get ready to wake up one dreary November morning to yet another republican landslide. The reason is quite simple actually, the Democrats are working last elections angles while the Republicans have moved on. They started this war and now they are getting ready to end it...on their terms...on their time frame.
The Democrats had their chance to take back control and initiative... They could have just not funded the War PERIOD!....That is, let the funding run out...no vote...no veto... no more deaths.
Instead we have more fear...fear to take a stand...fear to be painted as non patriotic... ultimately: Fear to take control. I think this crop of Democrats are so used to being number 2 that ever since they took control in November they have been doing nothing but try to give it back. They want the titles, they want the roles but they fail to embrace the true essence of leadership...To paraphrase JFK they should do these things "not because they are easy...but because they are hard"... The Democrats believed, I think, that they would be "greeted as liberators"... That the remaining republican legislators, tired of the tyranny imposed on them by Delay and company, would greet Pelosi and Reid with flowers. That the votes would pile up and the war would end soon....or not.
Maybe they don't want to end this war...maybe they just want power and are really hoping for their own Rove to ride in with a blue shade of psychological Jiu-Jitsu to use the people's own power against them...maybe they don't really care about us either...
Maybe we the voters are the one's really afraid of success.
I voted for Nader in 2000. I guess, looking back, it was a wasted vote (and I take responsibility for that vote!) but at the time I was fed up with the 2 party system which seemed to me like 2 sides of the same coin. All about power..all about lobby money, all about maintaining things as they are.
Now I am starting to believe that it is we the people who do not want change. It is we who are afraid of success. I hear the phrase bandied about so frequently in terms of Iraq.."the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over but expecting different results". Well maybe we are insane to believe that voting Democratic will make any more difference in 2008 than it did in 2004. Or that this time it will be different...they will try and break our oil addiction...that we will address address global warming...that health care will be recognized as a right...that the middle class will not only be salvaged but revered!
Thom Hartman thinks the war will end in September... Well it should have never started and what about all those soldiers who have died?...What do we say to their families? Sorry about that?
I fear that if we trust the Democrats we will end up back in the hands of conservative social "craftsmen" who play Black against White and the Middle against the bottom in the service of transferring more power to the powerful...
I fear that if we do not make better choices in the voting booth then we can then look forward ....to more of the same.... the next war... the next crisis ... the next illusion.
Or maybe we can stop acting insane.... Maybe its time as voters to finally succeed....Third party anyone?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Endless Presidential Debates... The new "Excess of Believal"
I am already tiring of the Presidential debates... I ask you; could they be any less Presidential? In fact could they be any less of a debate? I was present at the Charleston Democratic "forum" and I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed the evening. I was entertained by the banter but in terms of debate... as John Stewart might say.."not so much". If anything the questions asked were mainly concrete and frequently impossible to answer in any meaningful way. To her credit Senator Clinton gave the most obvious answer to the now famous "would you meet with the (bad guys) question". Although her answer was cleverly framed to score political points, she accidentally or otherwise exposed the intellectual process actually exposed these "what if questions" as the lowest intellectual common denominator. This type of question seeks to dignify the answer. Remember the "what if" question that hurt the Dukakis campaign? What would you do if Mrs. Dukakis were assaulted? Better yet, do you remember the old Saturday Night Live sketch.."What if Napoleon had a B52 at Waterloo?" Can you explain to me the difference in the two"? What would you do Governor Dukais if your wife were assaulted and you had a flame thrower?
These forums are just opportunities for candidates to state what they say are their beliefs...about everything! Now stating belief is OK to a point; and I guess it is important to know if someone believes in the Easter Bunny (or other myths?)... but I would prefer to hear a debate about the issues of the day. To categorically say you are in favor or against something because of your "beliefs" does little to advance the conversation, in fact; it stifles it. On the other hand to debate the merits of a policy or program, in the context of projected outcomes for the country, forces we the electorate, to think about it. After hearing the arguments we would then apply our own reasoning to these arguments and then decide which candidate we can support. I "debated " this issue with an acquaintance recently. He asserts that these issues are too complex for most people, that they can't make reasonable decisions about these important issues. "That is why we elect politicians" he said.
Every day citizens in this country conduct one of this Republic's most sacred "rites". They sit on juries and listen to argument. They weigh those arguments and then render decisions as best they can - important decisions - life altering decisions. I think we are more than capable of "figuring" out if it is in our best interest as a country to pay for children's health care, to build a wall along the Mexican border or to continue occupying another country.
I would love to see a format of debate where 2 or 3 of the candidates take on an important topic of the day: let's say Universal Health care. They then state the facts (as they see them), the short and long term cost/benefit and any other alternatives. They debate point and counter point, building an argument... and the only real rule would be - you can't just say "because".
Wouldn't hearing this type of conversation, covering all the important topics of the day be a help to us as an electorate? Wouldn't it also give the candidates a chance to think through how the issues relate to each other? And... wouldn't this format expose the "Ideologue"? - The person who really is only interested in cultural manipulation and not the advancement of the state of the Republic and it's people.
Finally wouldn't it be fun! It would invigorate the process. Let me also add that I am not against injecting some "theater" as well. I suspect the Lincoln - Douglas debates had their dramatic and perhaps light moments. Nothing wrong with injecting humor or gamesmanship it is the American way. A sense of humor is not a bad thing either. I think a person who takes the job seriously but not themselves, has a better chance of success during adversity. Entertain me if you like but please give me something to think about... not just something to feel about, because as it stands now we are all certain to be numb by November 2008.
What do you think?
These forums are just opportunities for candidates to state what they say are their beliefs...about everything! Now stating belief is OK to a point; and I guess it is important to know if someone believes in the Easter Bunny (or other myths?)... but I would prefer to hear a debate about the issues of the day. To categorically say you are in favor or against something because of your "beliefs" does little to advance the conversation, in fact; it stifles it. On the other hand to debate the merits of a policy or program, in the context of projected outcomes for the country, forces we the electorate, to think about it. After hearing the arguments we would then apply our own reasoning to these arguments and then decide which candidate we can support. I "debated " this issue with an acquaintance recently. He asserts that these issues are too complex for most people, that they can't make reasonable decisions about these important issues. "That is why we elect politicians" he said.
Every day citizens in this country conduct one of this Republic's most sacred "rites". They sit on juries and listen to argument. They weigh those arguments and then render decisions as best they can - important decisions - life altering decisions. I think we are more than capable of "figuring" out if it is in our best interest as a country to pay for children's health care, to build a wall along the Mexican border or to continue occupying another country.
I would love to see a format of debate where 2 or 3 of the candidates take on an important topic of the day: let's say Universal Health care. They then state the facts (as they see them), the short and long term cost/benefit and any other alternatives. They debate point and counter point, building an argument... and the only real rule would be - you can't just say "because".
Wouldn't hearing this type of conversation, covering all the important topics of the day be a help to us as an electorate? Wouldn't it also give the candidates a chance to think through how the issues relate to each other? And... wouldn't this format expose the "Ideologue"? - The person who really is only interested in cultural manipulation and not the advancement of the state of the Republic and it's people.
Finally wouldn't it be fun! It would invigorate the process. Let me also add that I am not against injecting some "theater" as well. I suspect the Lincoln - Douglas debates had their dramatic and perhaps light moments. Nothing wrong with injecting humor or gamesmanship it is the American way. A sense of humor is not a bad thing either. I think a person who takes the job seriously but not themselves, has a better chance of success during adversity. Entertain me if you like but please give me something to think about... not just something to feel about, because as it stands now we are all certain to be numb by November 2008.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
