Today in My Campaign - A Slow Day
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Tags: Bill Richardson, experience, Grassroots Organizing, history, Iraq, phone calls, qualifications, Volunteers
Tags: Bill Richardson, experience, Grassroots Organizing, history, Iraq, phone calls, qualifications, Volunteers
It was a slow day in my campaign today. I had expected to be tabling at Riponfest, but thanks to my incident with the Riponfest organizers (see blog entry from yesterday), I didn't have a lot to do. Fortunately, I had made some calls to some of the other volunteers in Wisconsin on Friday, and one of the volunteers returned my call. We chatted for forty-seven minutes and 56 seconds. I remember because I looked on my cell phone after we finished talking.
The woman to whom I spoke has a son who is stop-lossed in Iraq. I can never completely get that out of my head, and I'm beginning to think that somehow I'd be less than human if I could. Even in the midst of that phone call, we didn't dwell on the subject. We mainly talked about what is going on in the campaign, how to better reach out to people, about working with our local county Democratic party chairs, about all the things that go into making a campaign work. I can't imagine what she lives with on a daily basis. And the truth is, most Americans don't care.
While I was tabling on Thursday evening, before the Riponfest board even bothered to shut me down, I spoke with a gentleman with a child, a young boy in tow, who didn't think it was so bad that we are in Iraq for the oil. On Thursday evening, I let that slide, because I wanted to create a favorable impression for Bill. Now, in a way, I wish I could have that conversation back. I can't of course, and perhaps, had I spoken about the horrors in Iraq and that his young boy would be of draft age before he knew it, it is also probably true, that had I said such things, he would have regarded me as a bleeding heart liberal.
Well, maybe that's not such a bad thing to be regarded as a bleeding heart liberal, but I've always prided myself on my objectivity, or at least my attempts to be objective. And I prefer to look to history as a guide.
Well, if we look at the twentieth century, the United States was involved in six significant conflicts and numerous minor ones. I count the first Gulf War as a significant conflict because of the international effort involved. Out of those six conflicts, I can point to blunders made by administrations of the United States that led directly to our involvement, and in the case of World War II, which was, once it arrived a war we absolutely had to win, we probably could have avoided that war had we been more judicious and remained out of World War I.
With each so called "victory" in War, we have been set up for the next conflict. World War I set us up for World War II. World War II set us up for the Cold War. The Cold War dragged us into both Korea and Vietnam, and winning the Cold War directly or indirectly led us into Iraq; it certainly set the stage for international terrorism. What are we gaining by "winning" wars?
I can tell you what we're losing. We're losing, however gradually, our civil liberties. We're sinking ever deeper into debt, and we're no farther ahead in terms of security than we were in 1917. In fact, we may be worse off. Ironically, Germany and Japan, whom we "defeated" in World War II, are better off than they've ever been. They are more peaceful, more united, and stronger economically. Vietnam is better off than it was before our war with them. Only North Korea and Iraq, which continue to maintain belligerent attitudes are the same or even worse than before we fought them.
Meanwhile, our national debt, which was less than 1 trillion dollars when Ronald Reagan took office, is now more than $8 trillion dollars and rising. And what do we have to show for all that spending? Are we more secure now than we were in 1980. No. All we have to show for our past 27 years of militarism is several thousand dead American soldiers and $7 trillion in added debt. Like the compulsive gambler, we're "winning" our way into the poorhouse.
The funny thing is that during the call, this woman acknowledged her own bias. She said she was relieved that it wasn't just her who wanted us out of Iraq. She said that the fact that someone with Bill Richardson's obvious foreign policy expertise was calling for us to get out of Iraq was what convinced her it was a good idea. Some bleeding heart liberal mother there. Her son is stop lossed in Iraq, and she can still consider what is best for the nation. Damn. I'm proud to know people like that. And then I ask myself, where are George Bush's children? Where are Dick Cheney's children? Where are Donald Rumsfeld's children? I get angry.
That brings me back to one of the larger points of my phone conversation. We discussed an idea that occurred to me yesterday while I was tabling, and that is of all the candidates now running, who would actually make the best President? The media seems to be lost in the world of money and politics, but money and politics are only a means of getting TO the White House. Once there, who would actually be the best PRESIDENT?
Well, obviously, I believe that Bill Richardson would be the best President. Frankly, I believe he has the potential to be one of our best ever Presidents. As I look back on the 43 men who have been our chief executive, there are few who have been as qualified. I'm going to point out, in my own opinion, who the five most qualified Candidates for President were, and then I'm going to compare them to Bill Richardson. Then you decide just how qualified Bill is.
GEORGE WASHINGTON - Commanding General of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, President of the Constitutional Convention. While in terms of practical experience, Washington wouldn't be highly qualified today, he was able to lead men from what were essentially 13 different nations and combine them into a unified fighting force for an untested and untried ideal. In short, George Washington essentially invented the United States of America. To be perfectly honest, I don't think any Presidential candidate since has come anywhere close to Washington. It's no coincidence that he was the only Presidential candidate to be elected unanimously by the Electoral college.
THOMAS JEFFERSON - Author of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, Ambassador to France, Secretary of State and Vice President of the United States. A true genius and after Washington, the single most qualified man to serve as our Chief Executive. And not coincidentally, one of the founders of what would ultimately become the Democratic Party.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT - Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Vice President. Roosevelt was a progressive Republican, whose views, apart from his patriot-based imperialism would be considered "Democratic" positions today.
WOODROW WILSON - President of Princeton University, Governor of New Jersey. Woodrow Wilson holds the distinction of being the only American President to possess a PhD (in history and political science). In all fairness, while I consider the decision to lead us into World War I to be a faulty one, he did on the other hand call for the creation of a League of Nations (an idea that was later taken up by Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II) as a means of resolving international disputes. Clearly a man ahead of his time.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT - Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Vice Presidential Candidate, Governor of New York. At the time that both Roosevelts served as its Governor, New York was the largest state in the Union in terms of population and influence. Roosevelt truly had an uncommon feel for the common man, something very atypical of someone born to his wealth and privilege. It would be difficult to imagine how different the United States would be without FDR.
BILL RICHARDSON - Fourteen years in Congress, with service as the Chief Deputy Whip, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, and Governor of New Mexico. Numerous trips abroad as a special envoy of the US. In terms of breadth of experience, he falls short only of Thomas Jefferson. And his record in New Mexico speaks for itself. Is it any wonder I'm supporting him to be our next President?
Look folks we have the real deal here. We're not going to see another candidate this qualified, perhaps in my lifetime (I'm 43). So when discussing the issue of who should be our next President, challenge people to convince you that there is a better qualified candidate running. I say it can't be done. Nobody else can match Bill.
Nobody.
And that's one of my slow days. See you tomorrow.
The woman to whom I spoke has a son who is stop-lossed in Iraq. I can never completely get that out of my head, and I'm beginning to think that somehow I'd be less than human if I could. Even in the midst of that phone call, we didn't dwell on the subject. We mainly talked about what is going on in the campaign, how to better reach out to people, about working with our local county Democratic party chairs, about all the things that go into making a campaign work. I can't imagine what she lives with on a daily basis. And the truth is, most Americans don't care.
While I was tabling on Thursday evening, before the Riponfest board even bothered to shut me down, I spoke with a gentleman with a child, a young boy in tow, who didn't think it was so bad that we are in Iraq for the oil. On Thursday evening, I let that slide, because I wanted to create a favorable impression for Bill. Now, in a way, I wish I could have that conversation back. I can't of course, and perhaps, had I spoken about the horrors in Iraq and that his young boy would be of draft age before he knew it, it is also probably true, that had I said such things, he would have regarded me as a bleeding heart liberal.
Well, maybe that's not such a bad thing to be regarded as a bleeding heart liberal, but I've always prided myself on my objectivity, or at least my attempts to be objective. And I prefer to look to history as a guide.
Well, if we look at the twentieth century, the United States was involved in six significant conflicts and numerous minor ones. I count the first Gulf War as a significant conflict because of the international effort involved. Out of those six conflicts, I can point to blunders made by administrations of the United States that led directly to our involvement, and in the case of World War II, which was, once it arrived a war we absolutely had to win, we probably could have avoided that war had we been more judicious and remained out of World War I.
With each so called "victory" in War, we have been set up for the next conflict. World War I set us up for World War II. World War II set us up for the Cold War. The Cold War dragged us into both Korea and Vietnam, and winning the Cold War directly or indirectly led us into Iraq; it certainly set the stage for international terrorism. What are we gaining by "winning" wars?
I can tell you what we're losing. We're losing, however gradually, our civil liberties. We're sinking ever deeper into debt, and we're no farther ahead in terms of security than we were in 1917. In fact, we may be worse off. Ironically, Germany and Japan, whom we "defeated" in World War II, are better off than they've ever been. They are more peaceful, more united, and stronger economically. Vietnam is better off than it was before our war with them. Only North Korea and Iraq, which continue to maintain belligerent attitudes are the same or even worse than before we fought them.
Meanwhile, our national debt, which was less than 1 trillion dollars when Ronald Reagan took office, is now more than $8 trillion dollars and rising. And what do we have to show for all that spending? Are we more secure now than we were in 1980. No. All we have to show for our past 27 years of militarism is several thousand dead American soldiers and $7 trillion in added debt. Like the compulsive gambler, we're "winning" our way into the poorhouse.
The funny thing is that during the call, this woman acknowledged her own bias. She said she was relieved that it wasn't just her who wanted us out of Iraq. She said that the fact that someone with Bill Richardson's obvious foreign policy expertise was calling for us to get out of Iraq was what convinced her it was a good idea. Some bleeding heart liberal mother there. Her son is stop lossed in Iraq, and she can still consider what is best for the nation. Damn. I'm proud to know people like that. And then I ask myself, where are George Bush's children? Where are Dick Cheney's children? Where are Donald Rumsfeld's children? I get angry.
That brings me back to one of the larger points of my phone conversation. We discussed an idea that occurred to me yesterday while I was tabling, and that is of all the candidates now running, who would actually make the best President? The media seems to be lost in the world of money and politics, but money and politics are only a means of getting TO the White House. Once there, who would actually be the best PRESIDENT?
Well, obviously, I believe that Bill Richardson would be the best President. Frankly, I believe he has the potential to be one of our best ever Presidents. As I look back on the 43 men who have been our chief executive, there are few who have been as qualified. I'm going to point out, in my own opinion, who the five most qualified Candidates for President were, and then I'm going to compare them to Bill Richardson. Then you decide just how qualified Bill is.
GEORGE WASHINGTON - Commanding General of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, President of the Constitutional Convention. While in terms of practical experience, Washington wouldn't be highly qualified today, he was able to lead men from what were essentially 13 different nations and combine them into a unified fighting force for an untested and untried ideal. In short, George Washington essentially invented the United States of America. To be perfectly honest, I don't think any Presidential candidate since has come anywhere close to Washington. It's no coincidence that he was the only Presidential candidate to be elected unanimously by the Electoral college.
THOMAS JEFFERSON - Author of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, Ambassador to France, Secretary of State and Vice President of the United States. A true genius and after Washington, the single most qualified man to serve as our Chief Executive. And not coincidentally, one of the founders of what would ultimately become the Democratic Party.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT - Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Vice President. Roosevelt was a progressive Republican, whose views, apart from his patriot-based imperialism would be considered "Democratic" positions today.
WOODROW WILSON - President of Princeton University, Governor of New Jersey. Woodrow Wilson holds the distinction of being the only American President to possess a PhD (in history and political science). In all fairness, while I consider the decision to lead us into World War I to be a faulty one, he did on the other hand call for the creation of a League of Nations (an idea that was later taken up by Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II) as a means of resolving international disputes. Clearly a man ahead of his time.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT - Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Vice Presidential Candidate, Governor of New York. At the time that both Roosevelts served as its Governor, New York was the largest state in the Union in terms of population and influence. Roosevelt truly had an uncommon feel for the common man, something very atypical of someone born to his wealth and privilege. It would be difficult to imagine how different the United States would be without FDR.
BILL RICHARDSON - Fourteen years in Congress, with service as the Chief Deputy Whip, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, and Governor of New Mexico. Numerous trips abroad as a special envoy of the US. In terms of breadth of experience, he falls short only of Thomas Jefferson. And his record in New Mexico speaks for itself. Is it any wonder I'm supporting him to be our next President?
Look folks we have the real deal here. We're not going to see another candidate this qualified, perhaps in my lifetime (I'm 43). So when discussing the issue of who should be our next President, challenge people to convince you that there is a better qualified candidate running. I say it can't be done. Nobody else can match Bill.
Nobody.
And that's one of my slow days. See you tomorrow.
