When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Friday, September 26, 2003
What I read about Gen. Clark today [NY Times 092603 ]does not make it seem like he is a viable Democratic candidate.
As if to make up for his lack of experience in government, he insisted 'I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health.' Well, hey, so am I, but that doesn't make me a good candidate for president.
It's annoying to me when candidates (or officeholders!) hem and haw on issues that have been around a long while. I can perfectly well understand taking some review time when something new comes up. Issues being debated for eight years shouldnt be that hard, however, and a guy who wants to run should develp a few positions before jumping in, in my opinion.
Gen. Clark has shown that he doesn't know much about the issues (or care?) facing America today, and therefore isn't ready for the job. Possibly he would comport himself well if thrust into it (especially compared to the present incumbent); possibly I would too. But you have no reason to vote for me, and I have no reason to vote for Gen. Clark..
One thing I learned in graduate school is that just because you know a lot and are a respected professional in one field doesn't mean you know a lot and ought to be respected in any other field you decide to dabble in. At most it means you have potential -- not 'actual.'
I recall the last general-president we had, Eisenhower. I saw his smiling face beaming at us from the wall of every classroom in my elementary school. (Ike wouldn't last a minute in today's politics, because his wife was a loyal but mature-looking woman with a dopey, old-fashioned looking hair style. It was only much later we found out he had been cheating on her.)
You may remember that because of the General's popularity, both parties wooed him for the nomination, and although he leaned toward the Dems, he accepted the Repubs offer, because he was worried that there had been a Democratic president too long already (from 1933-53) .
Do you also recall that Ike spent a lot of time on the golfcourse (don't forget, he was retired!). I learned late in his 2nd term of a joke going around among Democrats. There had been a flurry of wind-up doll jokes. His was: Heard of the Eisenhower doll? You wind it up and it just sits there for 8 years!
In retrospect his inactivity seems a boon compared to the activity coming out the the current White House.
Our Democratic president, however, will not preside, as Ike did, over a period of astonishing economic vitality. No, our president will be picking up the pieces of a shattered economy and a foreign policy with four years of broken treaties and hard feelings to mend. We need an activist with a clear vision.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
General Clark??
What I read about Gen. Clark today [NY Times 092603 ]does not make it seem like he is a viable Democratic candidate.
General Clark, whose views on several issues are something of a mystery, even to his supporters, sought to reassure Democrats that he was in line with some of the party's basic positions....
At several points, General Clark noted that he was new to the game. He declined, for example, to offer health care plans to match those that had already been suggested by most of his opponents.
As if to make up for his lack of experience in government, he insisted 'I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health.' Well, hey, so am I, but that doesn't make me a good candidate for president.
It's annoying to me when candidates (or officeholders!) hem and haw on issues that have been around a long while. I can perfectly well understand taking some review time when something new comes up. Issues being debated for eight years shouldnt be that hard, however, and a guy who wants to run should develp a few positions before jumping in, in my opinion.
Gen. Clark has shown that he doesn't know much about the issues (or care?) facing America today, and therefore isn't ready for the job. Possibly he would comport himself well if thrust into it (especially compared to the present incumbent); possibly I would too. But you have no reason to vote for me, and I have no reason to vote for Gen. Clark..
One thing I learned in graduate school is that just because you know a lot and are a respected professional in one field doesn't mean you know a lot and ought to be respected in any other field you decide to dabble in. At most it means you have potential -- not 'actual.'
I recall the last general-president we had, Eisenhower. I saw his smiling face beaming at us from the wall of every classroom in my elementary school. (Ike wouldn't last a minute in today's politics, because his wife was a loyal but mature-looking woman with a dopey, old-fashioned looking hair style. It was only much later we found out he had been cheating on her.)
You may remember that because of the General's popularity, both parties wooed him for the nomination, and although he leaned toward the Dems, he accepted the Repubs offer, because he was worried that there had been a Democratic president too long already (from 1933-53) .
Do you also recall that Ike spent a lot of time on the golfcourse (don't forget, he was retired!). I learned late in his 2nd term of a joke going around among Democrats. There had been a flurry of wind-up doll jokes. His was: Heard of the Eisenhower doll? You wind it up and it just sits there for 8 years!
In retrospect his inactivity seems a boon compared to the activity coming out the the current White House.
Our Democratic president, however, will not preside, as Ike did, over a period of astonishing economic vitality. No, our president will be picking up the pieces of a shattered economy and a foreign policy with four years of broken treaties and hard feelings to mend. We need an activist with a clear vision.
Palema
5:21 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|