View Story | 126 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
As a committed Deaniac, I agree. frankly, I don't want Clark anywhere near the ticket.
You'd think you'd want to stop drawing attention to Clark's weight on that issue.
I don't think Clark is any better positioned on the issue than the other leading candidates and he may be in worse shape. Once the Mighty Wurlitzer cranks up with all his ex-colleauges pounding on the "doesn't play well with others", "ambitious". "ego driven", etc themes, that mothballed uniformed will be air-conditioned.
Howard is fine on national security. He makes it appropriately an economic issue and ties it to his rollback of the Bush tax cuts and his public sector jobs program. All he has to say is that he will secure our ports of entry with adequate personnel and rigorous inspections and point to the fact that Dubya's homeland security expenditures have bought us a pretty, color-coded chart and cornered the market on duct tape.
by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:36:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
it probably wouldn't work, but the Wurlitzer is going to mash anyone, and Clark has already been gunning for it on a couple occasions. he can handle himself if he gets the nomination, veep or otherwise.
who's gen. zinni? anyone have a link to stuff on him?
a sometimes genius
by skaiserbrown on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:51:06 PM PDT
I wonder how "appropriate" it is to make national security into an economic issue? There are economic dimensions to it that are being buried in current public discussions, but it is a mistake, I think, to reduce it to an economic issue. The Democrats have tried this for too long (turning everything into an economic issue) and because their economic policies are so muddled and have no vision behind them other than fixing problems the Repubs create, I'm not so sure this is the greatest of strategies. Not only is it ineffective, its also inaccurate: there are plenty of issues that need to be addressed that aren't economic -- criminalization of dissent, elimination of civil rights, dismantling of regulatory systems, destruction of international system, continued governmental secrecy. None of these are economic in the first order, but the Democrats seem so afraid of taking a position that they hold on to the economy by pretending its a "pragmatic" rather than "ideological" issue.
This hasn't worked except for Clinton (and then it only worked short term). The Democrats need a position, they need an ideology, they need something to stand for other than "being practical" and the implied understanding that being practical has no specific interests.
Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel
by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:46:43 PM PDT
To the extent that national security must be paid for, it's appropriate. It helps diffuse the idea that one must have a warrior background to have credibility on the issue. And it helps shine light on the Bush regime's weakness in national security.
To wit, he hasn't secured our ports and airports because he was too busy running up deficits to give hand-outs to his rich cronies. Bush's economic policies are the foundation of why we aren't safer today than before 9/11 and remain vulnerable to attacks on American soil. His Iraqi misadventures are just the recruitment ads for the army to carry out those attacks.
Bush can stick out his lower lip and posture in his own inimitable macho shithead way, but it doesn't alter the fact that shipments by sea are still entering the country uninspected and that airport security is no better than before 9/11. Dean can certainly match Dubya for backbone plus advance a plan that improves our lot on three fronts - deficit reduction, jobs and security.
While I don't think we should try to reduce everything to economics, where there's an economic factor to an issue and we have ideas that address that, we shouldn't be afraid to call the Bush regime on those economic failures.
by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:12:10 PM PDT
That's where I'm differing with you. Bush has no "economic" plan, only an ideological one; he sees the economy as an tool for an ideological plan, not the other way around. The Dems need to counter his plan for what it is and present a different ideology. By consistently talking about everything as an economic problem/issue, the Dems miss the opportunities that the Repubs are set up to exploit.
Economy is important, but the Dems lose far, far too much ground concentrating only on that and letting the rest go as "inconsequential". The "inconsequential" part is where the Dems lose every time.
by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:23:19 PM PDT
by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:34:47 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 126 comments