Looking down the pike to the Iowa primary come January 14th, democrats are scrambling for the party endorsement. While I find it difficult to imagine real change will come via the democratic ticket, we have reached a breaking point in this country, especially as it relates to foreign and environmental policy. The same could be said relating to education and healthcare, and although these too, are pressing issues, averting climatic catastrophe and nuclear annihilation are dire concerns in need immediate attention.
Speaking as a teacher, in fact, I think it can be said that a broken school system can be repaired; not so can our survival in the wake of a global thermonuclear winter. In any event, politics as usual will not set us on the right course.
Taking this into account then, who is going to ensure that the next administration will honestly implement change to reverse the negligence of the last several executives? The republicans dreamily think back to Ronald Reagan while democrats reminisce about Bill Clinton. Personally, I cannot for the best of my efforts, understand how republicans are not embarrassed by the policies Reagan signed off on− as president, the guy couldn’t even stay awake through cabinet meetings ; he funded the Muhajadin to give the Soviet’s “their Vietnam” and started an arms race that generations yet unborn will be condemned to clean up. Equally as bitter when he was the governor of California, he ran on a segregation ticket, promising to block equal access to housing. Then there’s Bill Clinton, under who’s orders we bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan under faulty intelligence, and who made certain that sanctions against Iraq would continue, despite the reported death of half a million children and who’s Secretary of Sate, Madeline Albright claimed were an acceptable means at punishing Saddam, who, of course, remained unaffected. Is this simply a case of collective amnesia?
Fortunately, more than three quarters of the country are under no illusion about the success of the Bush administration. How the 28% who continue to rally around his name can take themselves seriously is beyond my comprehension. I suppose the bulk of his support comes from readers of the Apocalyptic Left Behind series and the arms manufactures. What is hopeful is the rise in republican voices like Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel who oppose the neo-cons who are currently running the White House. While I don’t agree with all of their arguments on domestic issues, it is refreshing to listen to the dissent with republican ranks.
Then there’s the democrats. Currently, things appear predictably bleak with Hillary Clinton in the lead. To imagine the former First Lady as some way paving a new direction for America is a little like hoping a return of George Bush, Sr. to maintain the dynasty. It’s simply another case of “old wine in new bottles” not unlike her husband. Here is a candidate who signed off on the road to war in Iraq under the excuse that she was deceived. Please. Even as of this June, she praised the “accomplishments” of the war. Anyone who looked beyond the confines of pre-war US media reports understood that Saddam posed zero threat to the US or his neighbors by their own recognition. None of the so-called intelligence in support of state aggression have been validated. What has been tried and true are the arguments set forth by the anti-war activists who rallied in the streets in the largest world demonstration in history. What’s sickening about the whole deception copout is the fact that in all fairness was not the responsibility of the people in the street to read past the rubbish of the neo-cons; that’s the duty of the representatives. Granted, of course, the electorate should be informed, those charged with making policy decisions should be held to greater accountability. I suppose she can put forth the same argument regarding her vote for reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
Clinton’s candidacy thus far has been all about status quo politics. At the podium, she claims to be in support of a unifier of the Democratic Party but behind the scenes she’s planting attack adds and spreading false information about Barack Obama religious upbringing. During one of the recent debates, she lambasted Obama for his stance on establishing a dialogue with heads of state that we are currently at odds with. Her supporters on the right welcomed her diatribe with open arms. The National Review’s Rich Lowry exclaimed, "She excels ... Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president." What an endorsement! Go Clinton! The fact is, Clinton is a divider and will continue a politics as usual approach in Washington if elected.
To further demonstrate her uninformed, right wing credentials, she went on to include Hugo Chavez in her list dictators, including the likes of Kim Jong-Il, unworthy of diplomacy. Does she have the slightest clue as to who Chavez is or the accomplishments his reforms have had for the people of Venezuela? Is she blind to the fact that the Bush administration supported a military coup that temporarily ousted him, despite the overwhelming approval of the Venezuelan People and that is was only through the efforts of the people that he was returned to the executive office? Was she on vacation when Pat Robertson issued his fatwa to the Bush Administration to “take him out” or otherwise assassinate the president of Venzuela? In fact, Hugo Chavez is the only leader who has stood on the floor of the United Nations and demanded the same respect when addressing the assembly in regards to having the same time allotment as President Bush who spoke for 15 minutes beyond the time limit the previous day. Hugo Chavez represents about the closest thing to a democratic leader that the world has ever witnessed. That’s not to say he doesn’t have his faults but he does practice what he preaches and continues to rally massive support among his countrymen. Of course, the fact that Chavez has the audacity to declare independence from Washington and does so publicly, must really rouse the presidential hopeful.
Personally, I have not decided on any particular candidate− I am hopeful that some of those grappling over their party’s nomination will bring some important issues to the forefront before it’s said and done. Gore’s entry would add another dynamic but that’s yet to materialize. I wasn’t much impressed with his previous run or his performance as vice president but a lot has changed since 2000. (By the way, wasn’t Hillary Clinton going to fight for a dismantling of the electoral college?) All that is certain is that America is in desperate need for leadership and if it’s populace fails again at securing a competent leader, our future could very well hang in the balance.
Speaking as a teacher, in fact, I think it can be said that a broken school system can be repaired; not so can our survival in the wake of a global thermonuclear winter. In any event, politics as usual will not set us on the right course.
Taking this into account then, who is going to ensure that the next administration will honestly implement change to reverse the negligence of the last several executives? The republicans dreamily think back to Ronald Reagan while democrats reminisce about Bill Clinton. Personally, I cannot for the best of my efforts, understand how republicans are not embarrassed by the policies Reagan signed off on− as president, the guy couldn’t even stay awake through cabinet meetings ; he funded the Muhajadin to give the Soviet’s “their Vietnam” and started an arms race that generations yet unborn will be condemned to clean up. Equally as bitter when he was the governor of California, he ran on a segregation ticket, promising to block equal access to housing. Then there’s Bill Clinton, under who’s orders we bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan under faulty intelligence, and who made certain that sanctions against Iraq would continue, despite the reported death of half a million children and who’s Secretary of Sate, Madeline Albright claimed were an acceptable means at punishing Saddam, who, of course, remained unaffected. Is this simply a case of collective amnesia?
Fortunately, more than three quarters of the country are under no illusion about the success of the Bush administration. How the 28% who continue to rally around his name can take themselves seriously is beyond my comprehension. I suppose the bulk of his support comes from readers of the Apocalyptic Left Behind series and the arms manufactures. What is hopeful is the rise in republican voices like Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel who oppose the neo-cons who are currently running the White House. While I don’t agree with all of their arguments on domestic issues, it is refreshing to listen to the dissent with republican ranks.
Then there’s the democrats. Currently, things appear predictably bleak with Hillary Clinton in the lead. To imagine the former First Lady as some way paving a new direction for America is a little like hoping a return of George Bush, Sr. to maintain the dynasty. It’s simply another case of “old wine in new bottles” not unlike her husband. Here is a candidate who signed off on the road to war in Iraq under the excuse that she was deceived. Please. Even as of this June, she praised the “accomplishments” of the war. Anyone who looked beyond the confines of pre-war US media reports understood that Saddam posed zero threat to the US or his neighbors by their own recognition. None of the so-called intelligence in support of state aggression have been validated. What has been tried and true are the arguments set forth by the anti-war activists who rallied in the streets in the largest world demonstration in history. What’s sickening about the whole deception copout is the fact that in all fairness was not the responsibility of the people in the street to read past the rubbish of the neo-cons; that’s the duty of the representatives. Granted, of course, the electorate should be informed, those charged with making policy decisions should be held to greater accountability. I suppose she can put forth the same argument regarding her vote for reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
Clinton’s candidacy thus far has been all about status quo politics. At the podium, she claims to be in support of a unifier of the Democratic Party but behind the scenes she’s planting attack adds and spreading false information about Barack Obama religious upbringing. During one of the recent debates, she lambasted Obama for his stance on establishing a dialogue with heads of state that we are currently at odds with. Her supporters on the right welcomed her diatribe with open arms. The National Review’s Rich Lowry exclaimed, "She excels ... Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president." What an endorsement! Go Clinton! The fact is, Clinton is a divider and will continue a politics as usual approach in Washington if elected.
To further demonstrate her uninformed, right wing credentials, she went on to include Hugo Chavez in her list dictators, including the likes of Kim Jong-Il, unworthy of diplomacy. Does she have the slightest clue as to who Chavez is or the accomplishments his reforms have had for the people of Venezuela? Is she blind to the fact that the Bush administration supported a military coup that temporarily ousted him, despite the overwhelming approval of the Venezuelan People and that is was only through the efforts of the people that he was returned to the executive office? Was she on vacation when Pat Robertson issued his fatwa to the Bush Administration to “take him out” or otherwise assassinate the president of Venzuela? In fact, Hugo Chavez is the only leader who has stood on the floor of the United Nations and demanded the same respect when addressing the assembly in regards to having the same time allotment as President Bush who spoke for 15 minutes beyond the time limit the previous day. Hugo Chavez represents about the closest thing to a democratic leader that the world has ever witnessed. That’s not to say he doesn’t have his faults but he does practice what he preaches and continues to rally massive support among his countrymen. Of course, the fact that Chavez has the audacity to declare independence from Washington and does so publicly, must really rouse the presidential hopeful.
Personally, I have not decided on any particular candidate− I am hopeful that some of those grappling over their party’s nomination will bring some important issues to the forefront before it’s said and done. Gore’s entry would add another dynamic but that’s yet to materialize. I wasn’t much impressed with his previous run or his performance as vice president but a lot has changed since 2000. (By the way, wasn’t Hillary Clinton going to fight for a dismantling of the electoral college?) All that is certain is that America is in desperate need for leadership and if it’s populace fails again at securing a competent leader, our future could very well hang in the balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment