Stop the Campaign
Submitted by Reg NYC on February 4, 2007 - 2:56pm.
2008 Presidential Candidates | 2008 Presidential Election | Civil Liberties | Current Events | Democratic politics | Education | Iran | Iraq | Middle East | Soapbox | Veterans & Military
Like most supporters of General Clark, I wondered why he hasn't announced yet. I wondered why he was being so down at the DNC Winter Meeting instead of trying to pump everyone up.
Then I saw Hillary Clinton's speech. "If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." We're in the middle of the greatest foreign policy disaster in our history, and here's my Senator saying that if she doesn't get around to doing anything about it while she's busy running for President, she'll do something in two years and only if elected President.
I'm tired of being told for six years that in two years, after the next election, that the Democrats will do something about George Bush. In 2002, it'll be okay. Don't worry, in 2004 all your prayers will be answered. In 2006... Okay, they've taken back the Congress, and now we get non-binding bullshit and are told that in 2008 something will happen.
We were attacked in this President's watch. We neglected the war against those that attacked us. We went to a war we didn't have to go into, and now it's turned into a disaster. We saw 3000 American service members and countless Iraqi civilians die, I don't know how many Americans and Iraqis horribly maimed. We're about to make it worse by sending in more troops. We're marching toward another war we don't have to fight in Iran.
We watched an entire American city get wiped off the face of the earth. We're watching our public schools be systematically dismantled. We're watching our Constitution be ripped up and thrown away. We're watching everything we stand for in this country being iradicated.
We all just sit here and watch, because in two years it will all be over.
Senator Clinton or Senator Obama or Senator Biden or Senator Dodd or any other sitting Senator, listen to me. Stop the campaign. Stop fundraising. Stop giving speeches. Stop telling us what you're going to do in two years. Get down there on the Senate floor and do something. Now.
Send this to her office and tell her to stop the killing now. Did you see the video I found at Fallow's blog I posted on the dead thread? You really need to watch it. It's a politcal show on Al Jazeera that turns into Jerry Springer on crack. I'll try and go grab the link for you. Be write back.
Here it is.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10903/180552#comment-180552
first on Quicktime, then tried Windows and it took me to the upgrade site and they have an upgrade for MS OS X 10.8.4 (which I have and you probably have too), so I uploaded and was then able to view it.
It does take a long time to load and I just let it sit for a while then it started automatically.
W. and Cheney's corruption and their own corruption and they're all lying liars.
In addition they are dealing with the terrible carnage and never know when they're going to be next. Karma can be very cruel.
Bush was so irresponsible to allow the show trial and execution of Saddam Hussein to take place in a way that was sure to ratchet up the violence.
I heard on Democracy Now that some of the surviving victims of Saddam Hussein wanted to have him testify about why he did what he did...to have some accountability and public record of what happened so they could have closure. The guest on Democracy Now said the trial was rigged so that Saddam could not testify to those events in which Cheney and Rumsfeld may have been complicit.
totally disgusted with the lack of guts that most of our political representatives have. Understandable that he didn't want to jump on the bandwagon with the men and woman who think they can fix things in 2009 - if they can talk us into giving them the opportunity.
It makes me even more sure that Wes will not do anything until after the UCLA Conference. It's an ethical thing as well, to complete his existing commitments before the light of the media turns his way. The Conference is going to be a good jumping off point, but he wouldn't wish to have the Conference be overshadowed by talk of his candidacy - speculation yes, but that's all.
I am with you on this one...I am tired of these Senators, who think we are so stupid, to realize THEY were voted to do the job, of Senators, not to advance their careers. I don't even want to go to Edwards..Its so obvious..he has been running since he was elected to the Senate...Obama, is too new...not ready...!! Wes is the only one...we know it, and THEY know it too...thats why they are stealing his points of view...to say...well I said that..on da,da,da...
NONE of them have the expertise to solve the ME crises. Why oh WHY, don't they line up behind someone who does, for the good of the Country...
I am angry too...
I was thinking of the same thing Reg, that his speech wasn’t as dynamic as his recent speeches were. When he said, “I am a soldier” that just indicated to me that he doesn’t want to be labeled as a politician because, from what I have seen, he just doesn’t want to promise and fail the people since that is what is 90% done in politics. Promises, promises for those who are poor and in the middle are always on the last list, that is just simply a reality check.
On the other hand, if he does become a president he can make good changes but at the same time he has a high chance of giving up what he did promise, and is Gen. Clark that type? Not from what I have seen and that can be a big challenge for him regardless how qualified he is. In politics, it's not about qualification it's about who you know and what favors you can do in return, political business!
I think we need to establish new laws within the White House between politicians, corporate leaders and any means that can be classified as “political corruption”, and that’s where national/international security begins and all the promises that has been made.
when the Iraqis just say, "nuke us now and get it over with."
snip
“I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all,” he added, “so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil — which is the core of the problem — can come and get it. We can not live this way anymore; we are dying slowly every day.”
snip
Yet some Shiites in the area said the truck could have been stopped at a checkpoint, decreasing damage from its payload. Hussein Ali, 57, said that Shiite militiamen were neighborhood volunteers who let drivers pass only if they recognized them. “They don’t have any system or apparatus to check the cars,” he said. “But they know from looking at the faces who is supposed to come to Sadriya to bring vegetables or fruits. They have a relationship with the merchants".
snip
The poor troops in the middle of all this don't "know from looking at the faces". This is the best reason for removing our troops or redeploying them.
when Reg climbs onto a soapbox! You go, girl!
WHAT AN ELOQUENT RANT!!!
Watch and listen...
I agree completely. She's a senator NOW. I'd like to see her actually working in the senate rather than campaigning.
Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark
the presidency, surely she would resign her Senate seat.
Perhaps we should get into the practice of asking prospective Senators that they are expected to work for their salaries and stay the term they've been elected to and that we have no intention of helping them seek higher office unless they do.
We could also start a write in campaign to MSM and see how many other bloggers from the sites we visit would join in - might cook some geese with that.
"A "strong statement of disapproval" is needed to end the war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton said Sunday"
"It is for President Bush to extricate the United States from Iraq before he leaves office, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday"
----
Are you kidding me? In essence, Hillary Clinton's policy is to expect George Bush to do the right thing.. In the right way? And what we need are more "Statements"?
from the old dynasty to the one in ascendance...
that is the duchess' "entitlement"
as she sees it
such are the scribes reporting
and apparently the under-class is
buying
(Go Bears!)
Watch and listen...
is that she'd end it when she's the president, yet she backed that up with no sort of plan or ideas on how to do that other than implying that she could just order the troops to just pack it in and come back the way they came. How disturbing is it that someone who so utterly fails to understand just how far from simple it would be to do that is considered a viable candidate for president. At least Kucinich stood up there and gave an overview of his plan and where we could learn more about it and that it was with McGovern that he came up with it.
P.S. On Cspan tonight, Edwards was talking to a college crowd and said, "in the senate I was at war, literally, with the Bush administration over the clean air act."
When Clark debates Edwards, all he has to do is say, "Senator, with all due respect, I was greatly troubled to hear you say xyz, literally. It's vital for a president to communicate with clarity, and the fact that you don't know the difference between a literal war and a figurative one does not inspire confidence, to put it mildly."
Why don't you e-mail your article to newspapers and shows like Hardball, Lou Dobbs, etc. Well done.
I expect to read this in the NYTimes. Bravo Reg!
"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark
Stop giving speeches. Stop telling us what you're going to do in two years. Get down there on the Senate floor and do something. Now.
Stop giving speeches. Stop telling us what you're going to do in two years. Get down there on the Senate floor and do something. Now.
Edit:
EXCERPT
"Prominent liberal Democrats" in Sen. Hillary Clinton's "home base of New York City privately express the opinion that she has unsolved political problems," according to Robert Novak.
"These critics note that Clinton's negative national ratings remain high (around 45 percent). She also generated similarly low ratings for her Senate re-election bid in New York last year, but she won in a landslide against token Republican opposition. Clinton's performance in Iowa last week received poor reviews from liberals at home, who did not laugh at her little joke aimed at husband Bill Clinton when she was asked about her ability to handle 'evil, bad men.'"
Stop giving speeches. Stop telling us what you're going to do in two years. Get down there on the Senate floor and do something. Now.
...some families can't earn a paycheck at all - Wes Clark 2/2/2007
In what universe is it not highly inappropriate to make a G D joke about dealing with evil tryants who threaten civilization? I mean, the joke had no bearing on reality since she in fact has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER IN DEALING WITH SUCH MEN. So basically she just lied straight to our faces about her qualifications.
Second, Clark is someone who COULD make that claim with a straight face and we all know his resume backs it up.
President. They want a rock star like Obama or a handsome man like JE. Serious candidates are boring to them. Qualifications be damned, Americans want a movie star or a rock star in the WH, or a cowboy, or somebody they'd like to have a beer with, or somebody they'd like to smoke dope with. They absolutely do not want a QUALIFIED candidate. Too boring.
You want proof you say? Al Gore, qualified, but too stiff, boring, too serious, "lock box". Environmental extremest.
John Kerry, Too stiff, too dull, too military, too serious, BORING.
GW Bush, "he's like us", Fun, energetic, down to earth, steadfast, honest, cristian. It's funny that he garbles the English language. who cares if he's a little mentally challenged, he has good advisors, he's strong on security, his stubborness shows he sticks to his guns., etc, etc,. etc.
Bill Clinton, he's a playboy, "the most corrupt ever", he's a rapist, a murderer, a crook. etc, etc. etc.
G Bush Sr. He's a foreign policy expert, good man, honest, trustworthy.
(who cares that he traded arms for hostages, lied about it and then pardoned the only person who stood to testify against him -- before the trial date could be set.
Ronald Reagan -- Well, I won't malign a dead President, but it was always my belief that he wasn't all there -- even when he was in the WH. Did the media or anyone else care? NOPE!
Republicans love to elect puppet's and malign serious candidates the Democrats nominate. They hated Bill Clinton because he could not be manipulated.
Hi Joyce,
Qualifications be damned, Americans want a movie star or a rock star in the WH, or a cowboy, or somebody they'd like to have a beer with, or somebody they'd like to smoke dope with. They absolutely do not want a QUALIFIED candidate. Too boring.
This "Masses Are Asses School" of U.S. politics is the standard response of the side that lost the last election. But we Dems shouldn't buy into it, as it reinforces the GOP portrayal of us as "sneering liberal elitists." What's more, it's not true.
Was Al Gore more qualified (in terms of life experience) than George Bush? Yes. But voters don't evaluate complex lists of issue positions. They look for authenticity. Al Gore has said publicly that he avoided talking about the environment in 2000 -- the issue that has always been most important to him! -- because his advisors told him he'd be portrayed as "Mr. Ozone," etc. That broke the rule of authenticity and, in conjunction with Nader's candidacy, turned what should have been a Democratic landslide into a tie.
Was John Kerry more qualified than George Bush? Yes. But Kerry wasn't able to articulate a clear, comprehensible vision that he was fully committed to. Again, that compromised his authenticity and turned what should have been a landslide into a tie.
The GOP's "ground game" -- both in getting out GOP voters and in shutting out large blocs of African-American voters -- meant they "won" those ties. Neither of those two elections should have been "close enough to steal." Both were, because both of the Dem candidates lacked authenticity.
Crissie
Crissie, where is your earlier discussion about this issue? Looked for it yesterday, to no avail!
Thanks
Hi Ellen,
Maybe it was the Seig! Pater! essay? The link in there -- to George Lakoff's Thinking Points -- has more about authenticity.
Crissie
I don't want a President that's like me. I'm an idiot. I want a President that's better than me - smarter than me, more hard working than me, more qualified than me.
I think there are a lot of people who are too insecure to handle someone who is smarter than they are. However, I think that it can be handled in a way that doesn't turn people off. Gore's problem wasn't that he was smart. It was that he was a little impatient about it. Kerry's problem was that he came off as aloof.
Gen. Clark is smarter than the rest of us, but he doesn't have an attitude about it. He explains things in such a way that lifts people up. People can understand him, and it makes them feel smart. He doesn't talk down to them and make them feel dumb.
but also:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/569
What are our good Senators doing about the challenges brought up in that video?
And then, for those Senators who really want something to do to break the boredom of the rubber chicken circuit, there's always that little matter of climate change.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
Tega is right too. This would make a great Op-Ed. Send it around...more need to read this.
Way to speak out! Take it another step. :)
Reg: Thanks for your powerful writing.
If for no other reason, General Clark needs to get involved in 2008 presidential politics to expose the others for what they are: Either lacking in experience, knowledge, or character, or a combination of these.
We are in a state of crisis. If something doesn't happen soon we face catustrophic leadership failure in this country. Besides General Clark, none of the people who spoke at the DNC have the leadership qualities and management abilities to be President. BECAUSE IT IS PRESIDENT. NOT AMERICAN IDOL. Hillary, in the lead, is right out of Willa Catha. Barack Obama is now a marketting brand: when I bought gas yesterday there was an Exxon ad of a man who looks almost identical to Obama pumping his gas with the bright Obama smile - you had to look a second and third time to see that it was not Obama, just someone marketted to look like him. Positive momentum awakened with Jim Webb's great rebuttal to the President last Tuesday, and then the DNC meeting was THE CRITICAL TURNING POINT: The person who took the initiative then would take the momentum, and did. Unfortunately it was John Edwards with a dust bowl speech which in no way lucidly addressed poverty and work in this country - indeed, it was in denial of the real issues; a speech which appealed to the most simplistic of sentiments (we call this transference). It is a poor reflection on the Democrats that this grabbed their imagination. SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAS TO HAPPEN NOW (or MIke Bloomberg, rightly so, will start his own party).
Years ago I proposed an idea which was adopted by George Kennan in his later years: I proposed a "Council of Elders" - it would be like a college's Board of Trustees or Board of Visitors - it would make recommendations and suggestions and give advise. THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO CHANGE COURSE RIGHT AWAY: Dems need a new internal voice a neew internal dynamic. Off the top of my head come five names of Democrats today who would be great Presidents: Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Mike Easley, Kathleen Sebelius, Ed Rendell. There are plenty more, but they do not look that good pumping gas. The 2008 race is the most critical race since post-war; possibly since the 1850s. WE NEED AN ALTERNATIVE VOICE TO AMERICAN IDOL POLITICS AND NEED IT RIGHT NOW. WE NEED ADULTS. We need a new group to advise on Presdiential profiles and we need it right away. Leadership failure in our country would shift the benchmark currency to the Euro or Yen. It would force a Constitutional crisis. Anything could happen. This at a time when China is about to enter the world.
who would do the job they were elected to do instead of posturing for the MSM in their incessant dreams of owning the WH.
Wes 08
You have to admit it's easy for us as Clark Supporters to tell the Senators running for President that they should not be conducting campaigns, etc. The General holds no office now, so he's free from such problems. If the arguement is simply that you want them to not ignore important votes and other business in the Senate then fine, but if you want them to stop campaigning completely that's seem a bit unreasonable. Unless your position is that anyone who is an office as a Senator should not be able to run for President at all.
for prez, then they should be required to resign from the Senate. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. Taxpayers and voters elected them to the Senate and if they choose to spend their time campaigning for another job, they have the moral obligation to resign. However, these people are career politicians and they'll never do what's right.
That's the one thing I'll give Edwards credit for. He didn't run for the Senate again and with no need to earn a living, will spend the rest of his comfortable life running for President every 4 years.
Wes 08
General Clark is not running yet. This piece is my realization as to why. He's concerned with what is going on in the country right now. The troops surge and the invasion of Iran must be stopped now, not to years from now.
You're implying that the only choices we have are the perpetual campaign or no campaign. That's simply wrong. There is plenty of time for campaigning without the next one starting immediately after the previous one ends.
All of the candidates have gotten caught up in their own press without stopping to realize that it's much, much too early to start campaigning, and without realizing that the press has created a diversion so that they don't do their jobs as Senators.
I simply said that if we allow Senators to run for President it's not realistic to expect them to not campaign. Should they be doing their jobs, casting votes, etc? Of Course. Some people here have said they should not be able to run for Prez - I'm not sure if I agree but that position is consistent. Like it or not the Presidential campaign season does start now - blame the press, blame whomever you like. My guess is that General Clark will be entering the race soon. And you know what he'll be campaigning a year before the primaries - because he has to.
Like it or not? I don't like it, and I don't have to accept it. It's simply wrong.
This troop escalation and the build up to war with Iran needs to be stopped now. Our legislators have a responsibility to stop it that is more important than their personal ambitions. They should stop campaigning and do something.
Senator Clinton has just said here that she may or may not get around to doing her job as Senator. She doesn't have to run now. The rest of them are running now beacuse she is. She can stop.
Is it too much to ask my Senator to put in 6 months of a 6 year term?
If Clinton or any Senator ignores their job they should be condemned for it. But if you think we're going to go back to the days when campaigns ran for a couple of months before the primaries, well you're going to have alot of frustrated days.
but it's not like saying you can change a particular policy on a certain issue. Sure, that can be done - if I didn't think that was possible I would not be here all the time, I would not waste my time with politics. But to get the kind of short, concise political campaigns that you (AND I) want would mean turning back the clock to the days before 24 hour news channels, before the Internet - the very BLOGS we go on could be construed as part of the problem. So I'm not resigning myself to nothing ever changing - I'm just being realistic.
My feelings exactly. I thought that statement by Sen. Clinton was odd -- it just highlighted the fact that our Congress has simply rolled over during this tragic Bush presidency, and seemed to indicate she expected that to continue.
That's it exactly.
The founding fathers gave the
House of Representatives the remedy
and the way they're acting about
what's been done, you'd think
the opposition party had the
majority.
I'm watching, but I'm not seeeing
much duty, honor and country
when it comes to the very unpleasant duty to do what is
indicated and, apparantly necessary to
stop what the Executive branch
has been doing to us ---we, the people.
Clearsky