Re: Anarchy
I got some comments on my last post, so here’s my reply:
On the plan:
It wouldn’t improve Iraq. It’s not a plan to improve Iraq. It’s a plan to help the people who really just want to live their lives without the pain that’s currently happening there, and are willing to give up their home to do so.
The problem with improving the police departments there is that democracies and organizations such as police departments that care about civil liberties and are there to help the people only work when an overwhelming majority of the people are willing to abide by those rules. If 50% of all Americans decided to start going 100mph on all freeways, there’s no way that even a large group of police could enforce the law. Historically, the only way for the anarchy over there to end immediately would be for a decisive, overwhelming totalitarian force to seize control and impose order through fear. However, that’s no help for anyone- least of all the inhabitants of Iraq. The only other way I can see this ending is just burning itself out- waiting until you have the overwhelming majority needed to support a democracy. Unfortunately, given the state of things over there I would predict this would take at least one or two decades, probably more. And that’s WITH international help.
So it wasn’t a feasible plan, and I said that. It’s far from perfect, and I know that. If it were a bill it would never become law, and yes as Zack mentioned there would be protests, etc. But the point was that I don’t see an end to the Anarchy coming soon, and there are some people over there just trying to live their lives that could probably use our help. I’d liken it to something like Roosevelt’s New Deal- a lot of it was unconstitutional, but it was designed as a stop-gap measure to simply help people while things worked themselves out.
On the candidates:
McCain is desperately trying to get at the niche that Bush found in 2000. But he’s not coming off as a true Bush successor, because he’s not. At least, I really don’t think he is. In 2000 he was much more moderate, so his pandering is so blatant that everyone can see what he’s trying to do. The moment that he agreed to give the commencement speech at Jerry Falwell’s college, people knew he was making a run for the White House. The ironic thing is that, with so many candidates in the field and none a true front runner I think he would have done much better if he’d just stuck to his 2000 platform. For Mitt Romney, I think that given how particular the religious right can be, that he’ll take a big hit when they discover he believes that Jesus walked in America. I still think Giuliani is too unknown amongst the republicans, and is still floating in a 9/11 balloon. And that won’t win him the election. Once that wears off and republicans really hear about his record, he’ll take a big hit. And I think this Fire Fighters ad is the first of many that will hurt him. And honestly I don’t know enough about Ron Paul yet to have an opinion.
I think that what hurt Gore in 2000 was that people saw him as too stiff and not likable, and that he had been stuck behind Clinton in the VP office and so was unable to bring a level of urgency and spirit to his different-from-Clinton campaign… the impression was more like “I’ve got this idea about a lock box, and I just thought of it now”. And yet he still won the popular vote. Even with Lieberman as a VP. Well in 2008 there is a lot of difference there- for one, Hillary is obviously going to be more associated with the Clinton name than anyone else. Also, Al’s loosened up, become personable (you know the whole “I’m the former next president joke?”, appearances at rock concerts, sold-out slide shows in sports stadiums, and a movie. All of which are even better than playing a saxophone on late-night tv.), and has really been out there promoting this issue of climate change and energy conservation that in the last few years has really seeped in to the public consciousness. Whether that’s due in part to his actions or not is irrelevant, because he’s there to ride the wave. But you’re right, there are people that wouldn’t vote for him, some simply because he lost the 2000 election. But that’s where Obama comes in- Obama brings a bunch of votes along with him, and with Obama in the VP slot he’ll bring even more votes, because the worst thing that Obama has so far is the impression that he’s too inexperienced to be Commander In Chief… and this has caused a lot of would-be Obama supporters to slide over to the Hillary camp.
I’d also like to point out the irony in the conservative phrase “Don’t trust the government to do anything the private sector can do.” - it seems, at least to me, that lately Bush has been giving the federal government as much power as he can figure out how to give, mostly under the banner of “Terror Prevention”.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
In regards to your last point, I think you would be hard-pressed to find conservatives that still back the president. Really the only ones left are the Hannitys of the world that would vote for a crap sandwich if it had a (R) next to it.
I really don’t think Gore can win. He’s got the Howard Dean very left-likability, but no one in the center and certainly no one on the right buys into him.
The best thing Obama has going for him is that no one knows who he is. They all have this mental image of him as each person’s perfect candidate and as long as he keeps his trap shut and doesn’t actually say anything of substance, he’ll do fine. Once the opposition (i.e., Hillary) forces him to play his hand, he is done.
It doesn’t matter in the end. We are each one vote with no money. I believe in my bumper sticker. We lose no matter what.