So I was taking a close look at the candidates lining up in my Congressional District in the seat being vacated by Ben Cardin to run for Senate in Maryland. Mind you, there are a lot of Democrats throwing their hat in the ring in this race, and quite of few of them are high profiles (Sarbanes' and Cardin's sons are among them).
But, as I looked at their websites, I really didn't get a sense of what their message is. This jumble, I think, is what many of us worry about as we head into 2006. What's the message? And do Democrats have courage to say what needs to be said?
Well, right or wrong, here's what I would say, if I ran for Congress:
1. Iraq: A lot of argument is bandied about regarding the Bush administration's lies, whether the intelligence was "ginned up", etc. The problem with quite a bit of the Democratic leadership is that they are compromised on the issue because they supported the war to begin with.
It's time to clense the party on Iraq, and on foreign policy. And the whole problem with Iraq is that Democrats, for the most part, accepted the neo-con premise that "preemptive war" is acceptable.
It's not. It's a massive violation of international law, and we have seen from Iraq, it's a failure in U.S. foreign policy as well.
As a candidate, I would say: dump the preemptive war doctrine. It doesn't make us any safer, it probably puts us in danger, and it doesn't endear us to our allies. We can defend ourselves without preemptive war.
On Iraq itself, I would pledge to support legislation to internationalize the recovery effort in Iraq and set a timetable to withdraw the vast majority of our forces by 2006.
2. Social issues: I think some folks are misreading Tim Kaine's win in Virginia as a push for more Democrats to go after so-called "values voters" with appeals to religion.
I don't think that's what happened in Virginia. What Kaine did was say, yes, I have strong religious beliefs, but NO, they will NOT influence the way I govern. That is a STARK CONTRAST to the wingnuts in charge in Washington.
And the tack here, I think, whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, family health care decisions, etc., is almost one of libertarianism: government should not be in the business of getting into your personal business.
So, while I have quite a few personal views on the so-called controversial subjects, I'm not going to support any measure that appears to be government butting into the people's business. I will not support legislation that gets into these issues...to me, such issues are not the business of government.
They are private personal matters, and they should remain as such.
3. Economic issues (the three that I care about):
Health Care: I would advocate a single-payer system. The current system is broken, and in order to save it, we need to scrap it and start over. So, you can chose to keep your crappy coverage at work, or pay into a single-payer system through your payroll. But noone will be denied coverage.
Taxes/Budget: Balance the budget by repealing the Bush tax cuts and getting rid of corporate welfare. And I mean get rid of it. Gone. History. No tax breaks, no funding of pork. Provide more targeted tax relief to the lesser 50%of tax payers, including expansion of the student loan interest deduction, increasing the amount of the standard deduction/exemptions for families making less than $50,000 a year.
Energy/Environment: Get behind a fully funded Apollo program for energy independence, getting our best scientific minds on the job to accomplish the goal of full engergy independence with clean sources of energy by 2025.
OK, it's a vague outline, but in my opinion, it's a damn sight better than what I've seen the candidates in my district come up with. So, what about you? What do you think?