Powered by Gregarious (42)
i know that just about every post i write lately seems to center around politics. i guess it's inevitable, since we're in an election year and currently under the rule of the most authoritarian regime this country's ever seen. for someone who said he was going to be a uniter and a champion of the people, he sure seems to have rustled up a massive hornets nest of independents and political apathists (myself included) all now dead-set against him and his party.
see, before "Dubya" charged into power–with the assist from his brother's administration in Florida, and the slam dunk by the Supreme Court–i was largely a non-partisan liberal socialist whose only agenda was that the big people should help the little people, and the large corporations should not be allowed to hurt the little people or wield any type of power over the government or its citizens. for the most part i didn't care about politics, and i was of the firm opinion that my one voice didn't count for much of anything. i didn't bother to vote, or even to learn about the candidates or delve into the issues of the day. i knew from a philosophical standpoint what type of society i wanted, and i knew that the pursuit of *my goals* in the context of this society full of idiots and greedy bastards would be a futile endeavor. so i contented myself with the idea that i could do things better, but without the responsibility (in the face of certain defeat) to attempt to actually attempt to do so.
all this changed when bush was running for president. for the first time, i felt compelled to do a little research and go to the polls to exercise my civic duty. see my post from Nov. 2000 and the two emails linked to from that post it is interesting going back to the stuff written nearly four years ago, especially the passionate political stuff and seeing what and how i was talking about the issues when i was really *just* seriously delving into them. it's also gratifying to note that i still hold the same opinions to this day, pretty much point for point, issue for issue.
i certainly railed against the Democratic party as being too centrist and in the pockets of the large corps. and lobbyists. that's one thing i've been rather pleased to have seen change with the candidates for this year's Democratic nomination–they are more liberal (except Lieberman) and there are at least a couple candidates who are non-career politicians and beholden to no industry or special interest groups (Clark & Sharpton, though Edwards & Dean may meet the latter qualification). and they are all passionately talking about the issues that matter, in no uncertain terms, and making plans that can make a difference.
now, i'm pleased to say that i'd be proud to count my voice among the supporters of most of the potential Democratic nominees, all of whom (except Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich) i think would make great presidents. having studied the issues, the candidates, and their positions and qualifications, i proudly say that i whole-heartedly throw my lot in with Gen. Wesley Clark. He's got all the qualifications one could hope for in a Presidential candidate, his positions on the issues coincide with mine on many levels, and usually moreso than the positions of the other candidates. but don't just take my words at face value, see how he stacks up (in my mind), and take an opportunity to get yourself an education while you're at it.
as a side note, of all the people who said they'd enjoy filling out one of the blank score sheets, not a one has actually done so. there's still time, if you want to put yourself through the paces and weigh in. '04 ScoreSheet
now, i was originally going to write this post in response to President Bush's first stump speech of the 2004 election campaign (A.K.A. the State of the Union address). in lieu of that, i'll just mention that i thought it was a huge pile of crap, pandering to his conservative constituents while taking direct adolescent stabs at those who disagree with his opinions and policies (a "uniter" indeed). but rather than attempting to debunk the speech myself and recreate the wheel, i figured i'd let those more qualified point out the more obvious flaws, misleading statements, and outright lies in the State of the Union Speech.
i'll also refrain from doing anything other than mentioning the inappropriate and inapplicable moral and religious grandstanding.
finally, i've been pleased to see Wes Clark (though i strongly support separation of church & state, and am loathe to see anyone in or seeking public office touting their religion, especially touting it over someone else's) answering the long-standing and wholly inaccurate Republican idea that liberals are amoral atheistic people (this is me greatly summarizing the point). it really is time that we liberals stand up and point out that the religions we grew up with preached tolerance, brotherly-love, self-sacrifice, and the obligation of the strong to protect and/or help the weak. It was Jesus who said "Love your neighbor as yourself"(Matt 5:43-8; Lev 19:17-18; Matt. 19:18-19; Matt 22:37-40), "as you do unto the least of these my brethren, so also you do unto me" (Matt 25:40), who healed the leprous though they were outcasts, and who instructed the Apostles to go out and preach his word to the Gentiles though they were considered unclean and less than human. In favoring the rich and powerful over those not so fortunate, and in castigating and denigrating those whose race, gender, or sexual orientation differ, the Republican party takes this country in a direction entirely opposite that which was set forth by the very figure from whom they claim to draw all their inspiration and guidance.
ok, so i meant to save that whole religion thing for another post. oh well. extra fuel for the fire, i guess.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Follow this post via RSS 2.0
paul said:
at least it was the first s.o.u. address in three years that everyone was not standing and cheering everytime bush proposed something. we're finally going back to a two party system, instead of the one party we've had since 9-11.
i've finally decided to get behind ol' wes, myself. he's seems to be the one canidate i have the least reservations about, and it doesn't hurt that i agree with alot of his policies.
m@ said:
yup. it's good to see people finally taking a stand (or keeping a sit, as the case may be) against bush's indecorous posturing.
glad to have you in the clark camp! he may not be able to take New Hampshire, but i've a feeling he'll make strong showing. and i think he'll be able to take a good number of the Feb. 03 states.
if all else fails and Clark doesn't get the nom… hell, i'd vote for Harriet for President before i'd let Bush keep the white-house, so it goes without saying that whoever the Dems pick will be a tolerable substitute.
Holly said:
My first post on Bipolar!
I agree. I think that Clark is not likely to be the favorite amongst Democrat loyalists, like myself, due to his Republican past but he's the favorite among the swing voters. And let's face it, that's where this election, and all elections generally, will be won. I think that given this hyper-"patriotic" time we're currently in many people will feel less "unpatriotic" by voting for a military man. Furthermore, his Republican past works for him in that regard. The moderates can relate to that. Does that make him the absolute best candidate? Not necessarily. However, he may be the only one that can get the fence riders to join us on this side. Because when push comes to shove, even if you're a loyalist who is not particularly hyped about Clark, you're still not going to vote for Bush. And sad as it may be, I sympathize with a bumper sticker I saw the other day…"Anybody but Bush". I'm sure there are worse people even than Bush, but I don't think any of them are running for president of this country at this time.
m@ said:
Hi Holly, and thanks for joining us!
Unfortunately, people frequently get caught up looking at a single piece of the puzzle, and they can't figure out where to place it because they are convinced that it fits somewhere else.
If you look at Clark's statements, and his positions on the issues (which are clear, complete, and consistent), there is no place better suited for him than the Democratic party. He is a Democrat, certainly he's more of a Democrat than Joe Lieberman, but that's not really saying much.
I want someone who can beat George Bush, but mostly i want a candidate who most fully stands for what i believe in, who i think will be the most capable to lead this country in the best direction. If i can't have that, then i'll take Kerry, Dean, or Edwards. If the candidate who best represents me also will bring in moderates, independents and even Republicans (like the 13% in New Hampshire who voted for "Other" over George Bush) then all the better.
also, just so you can get the best impression, Clark is best when he's answering questions. The man is whip smart and on the ball. his stump speech is good, but he's no politician, so he can be a little stiff at times.
connor said:
a. wesley clark is far from a liberal i would like to see in office, but then again, so is everyone but kucinich maybe.
b. it doesn't matter who the candidate will be because i think many people will rally behind whoever stands against bush…insert here…fucking depressing, but…gotta get this ape out of office.
c. people think too much about the swing voters possibly, but i think even after all this shit that's happened maybe i'm still a little idealistic. regardless, i think bush has done such a bad job that a lot of non voters out there are saying…'sheesh, i guess there is a president who can actually fuck this place up even worse'. bottom line, i think voter turn out will be higher than ever maybe, and at least we can thank bush for that…despite it not being his intent. once again, i probably have too much faith in the american people and it will take another win by bush to completely crush my ideals, hopes, and dreams in life.
d. i'm also hopeful that many republicans will see how bush has even done things that are not in line with their party. it will be important that the opposition will point this out to voters who may be in that 'swing' category. bush is a fucking rogue who is such a bastard that he's below even a republican.
and kudos paul for pointing out how nice it was to at least see some dissent from the opposition rather than this unified war mongering hate machine that the gov. has been since 2001. i still think almost all the democrats are ALMOST as big of tools as republicans.
my realistic hope will be for a dean/edwards ticket…edwards gets the south with his charm, and dean's (mostly) honest approach will gain the liberals out there.
am i the only one who is more turned on by dean following that crazy speech? he's showing some fucking energy and passion at least…i think that should be applauded.
connor
m@ said:
a) kucinich is certainly the *most liberal* of all the Democratic candidates. unfortunately, he's a bit too liberal. his first act as President would most likely be to withdraw all our troops from Iraq, then drastically cut defense spending–an irresponsible position at best. we are in Iraq already, we have to see it through, we have to attempt to keep their country (which we've destroyed) stable until they are capable of running it on their own. to do anything other than this would be reckless, and would leave Iraq in a worse position and more of an enemy than they were before we started this stupid war.
b) luckily, all the candidates are good enough that even if the people are voting *just* to kick bush out on his ass, we'll still get a good president out of it.
c) as i mentioned in my last comment, Bush has done such a bad job, that 13% of the registered voters of Bush's own Party voted against him in his supposedly uncontested primary, and you can't just vote from your easy chair, so you know these people had to go out of their way to do it. who needs the swing voters when we've got the Republicans? (but seriously, i also think previous non-voters will come out of the woodwork as well)
d) we're already hearing rumblings of some of the Republican party big-wigs complaining about Bush's irresponsible economic policy. the Republican's prided themselves on being the party of fiscal discipline… Bush has picked up the remains of that falsehood from where Clinton ground it under his heel, and shoved it through a shredder.
i think the democrats are finally starting to pull together as a party (thanks in no small part to Dean, but mainly due to the strong brace of candidates) and actually cobble together a coherent platform.
as for Dean's "outburst," i'm constantly appalled by the unapologetic news-fabrication perpetrated by the media. Dean delivered a rousing and passionate speech, and the news media twisted his passion into some farce. it's all bullshit. but y'know, what sells papers and advertising better: "Dean delivers rousing speech after disappointing showing in Iowa", or "Dean Screams at Supporters!"
the media pisses me off.
Holly said:
Speaking as someone who actually heard all of the media hype *before* seeing the actual "outburst" itself, I have to say that that was blown way out of proportion. It was no big deal. It seemed like the logical end to the rallying speech he was giving at the time. Would I have done the same thing? No, but that doesn't make it wrong. If that's his personality, there's nothing wrong with that. It's better than being some shit-eating-grin wearing, cocky smartass/dumbass like the one we currently have.
(Thought to ponder: how is it that "smartass" and "dumbass" have similar connotations, if not meanings? )
Is it just me, or does anyone else want to slap that grin right off of his face sometimes? I can be patronizing myself at times, but I know better than to do it in front of a camera and to millions of people at once!
connor said:
kucinich has never proposed anything as irresponsible as just leaving. though the annoying mantra that seems to be what people remember is the whole 'get the us out' thing, his plan of course is hinged on the fact that through diplomacy he could get the un in, in place of a largely (ok, hell, basically all) us force. he clarified this rather than his normal short mantra in the new hampshire debates i believe and i'm sure has done the same elsewhere. no one would be so crazy as to have no more detailed a plan than just to get out immediately. but i do agree, if someone did have that plan it would definitely be irresponsible.
i too saw the media blowup before 'the speech' as myself and two history prof. today in the dept. decided it was known as haha…but yeah, quite disgusting how the media, who is supposed to be reporting the news, is shaping the future of the world in many ways…
peace,
connor
m@ said:
and now, after the Feb. 3 Primaries, with Clark's (99% certain) win in Oklahoma, and his 2nd place finish in 3 other states… there's almost no mention of him in the media… it's still Kerry & Edwards, Kerry & Edwards…
CLARK MOTHERFUCKERS!
ahem. sorry.
seriously though, Edwards won one state, but only placed second in two states. I'd say Clark would take 2nd overall in the Feb. 3rd battle. Of course Edwards got more delegates than Clark, so i guess technically he did better… ah well. this shit's too complicated. I'm just glad Clark showed well, just wish the Media would give him the time of day.
connor said:
clark's positions are wishy washy, he was a republican for a long time…i dunno, he seems like a decent fella, but i have a feeling he's got no chance. military experience alone will only get you so far…i don't think he's got much to say of value that i've heard yet.
connor
m@ said:
i certainly haven't seen his positions as being wishy-washy, in fact, most of the candidates are fairly similar policy-wise, and i think if you read Clark's policy papers, you'd see there's no bet hedging going on.
As for his Republicanism, i think he simply voted for who he thought was the most qualified candidate… like when he voted for Clinton, then Gore. If anything, i'd say he was an independent. also keep in mind that he was government property for 34 years… and it took four years of that to get me liberal-ed up real good ('course, college helped quite a lot there too).
this whole nomination thing certainly is, unfortunately, out of our hands… unless it keeps running so close. i mean, Kerry's in the lead, but Dean's second and still all but beat. Kerry's got a big lead on Clark delegate-wise, but there're a lot of states to go yet. if it keeps running the way it's been, and if Kerry keeps taking hits like he's been, Kentucky's primary might actually matter after all. who knows!
to say that Clark's military experience is "alone" is to ignore the fact that his military experience covered the gamut from domestic policy to foreign policy, and that his other qualifications are just as compelling. (Rhodes scholar with triple Masters from Oxford in Economics, Politics, and Philosophy)
if you get the feeling i'm trying to sell you on something, you'd be right. i'm convinced he's the right man for the job.