Thursday, August 31, 2006

Choices regarding the War in Iraq

Here we go again. The rhetoric has started as presented by the Administration and espoused by President Bush. Are the choices as explained by the President our only choices? Let's examine them in detail.

Choice: The President said today that, "The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq. So the United States of America will not leave until victory is achieved."

If this is true, then why aren't we using overwhelming force, the Powell doctrine, against those fighting us and the Iraqi government forces? The fact is that Iraqi government officials can't even leave the Green Zone without fearing for their lives. Today, the comparison made by the President, was that the war on terror and the war in Iraq compared to WWII and the fighting of Nazi fascism. Then why aren't we mobilized as a country to win? Seems like the choices are as follows:

1. Stay the course with no real end in sight and continue to say it's hard work

2. Cut and run with a timetable to leave and stick to it

3. Have a strategy and execute on it that all Americans know we are going to win by overwhelming force until we have won and the Iraqis can stand on their own.

So far no one has had the courage to stand up and choose #3.

But the question is why, if the President believes that this is the struggle of the 21st Century, why is he playing the game with fewer players and no clear strategy for gaining control of the situation. That is what frustrates all Americans. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, wish this war could be won. Most experts have said time and time again, that we don't have enough troops to do that. If the Administration had the guts to admit we don't have enough troops to win, they would solve the problem. How would they solve the problem? It would take reinstituting an unpopular decision and using an old tool: the DRAFT! With the Draft reconstituted, they know full well the American people would be out in the streets marching against it. Why would Americans object if this is what it took? Because there is a competence issue surrounding Donald Rumsfeld. Why doesn't Rumsfeld just bite the bullet, so to speak, and ask for enough troops? Because he was the one who convinced the President and Vice President that this war effort didn't need that many troops, as it is a "different" war. In fact, he convinced everyone that this war was not like conventional wars but was an "asymmetrical" war. Hmmm, remember that phrase? What does that mean? Well according to Wikipedia, "Asymmetric warfare is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal strength interact and take advantage of their respective strengths and weaknesses. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare."

Does this now explain why the President was wrong today, when he compared this to WWII. Because it is very clear the person responsible for taking on the war, Mr. Rumsfeld says so. He's supposed to be the expert. Can you see the dilemma for the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? They would have to admit they were WRONG and they are too busy, trying to get us all to believe, they were right back then and are RIGHT now. Ego is a terrible thing because it can get in the way of real progress on issues. Too bad there is more than enough to go around in this Administration for a lifetime.

What do you think? Please comment on what choice you would make and I will try to keep a running total as an Update at the bottom of this Blog post. Choose one of these below, or add another:
1. Stay the course with no real end in sight and continue to say it's hard work

2. Cut and run with a timetable to leave and stick to it

3. Have a strategy and execute on it that strategy so that all Americans know we are going to win by overwhelming force until we have won and the Iraqi's can stand on their own.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

The real power of America - See Update

Much has been written about the USA and its place in the world. It seems we have polarized and alienated our friends, while uniting our enemies. The Administration tells us what to believe and how to feel and admonishes us for feeling or thinking differently. Many wonder as to the real strength, reach and power of the United States, especially in light of recent comments about Iran and whether we should stop the Iranians from building Nuclear bombs by a preemptive strike. Some suggest militarily it is an impossible task as our intelligence is weak and we can't possibly get them all and it would only postpone the inevitable, while angering the Iranians and the rest of the Middle East in the process.

And so the dialogue goes on unabated with no progress made in any and all fronts. But I have concluded we are looking at the wrong things and using the wrong metrics for how we are doing. I recently saw the documentary on the 50 year anniversary of the writing of Profiles in Courage by JFK. I was inspired by him and read his book several times. I knew of the Award recipients and the true courage they displayed on behalf of a better country in the face of great odds and possible personal harm to them.

When I look back at the Kennedy years I remember the Peace Corps, the Civil Rights quest for millions of Americans and the plan to put an astronaut on the Moon. These all have something in common: the nurturing of hope. And when I think about America's power, it has always been that we were looked at by many people around the world as the country that gave them hope for a better life, the country that inspired them to see what was possible and to believe in the goodness of mankind. That was the real power of the United States. That has been lost the past 6 years, although in the best days of the Clinton Administration, it was there too.

So what is the solution to this dilemma. We must regain the admiration of the world again. We must turn the clock back on the acceptance of torture as an approved method of interrogation of prisoners. We must always choose diplomacy over war or preemptive strikes and we must always be willing to look at what others in public office do in our name and we must hold them accountable even when they come from our midst. This is what the Republican party has forgotten. Thank God every day voters haven't forgotten because they will be speaking loudly this November. And to quote a phrase George Bush used while standing on the embers and rubble at the site of the World Trade Center with bull horn in hand, when Mr. Bush tried to speak, the crowd kept shouting, “We can’t hear you.”

The president responded: “I can hear you. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” And I end this post with a similar phrase, "the rest of the world will hear our voices through the ballot in November. We must return hope to the world. It isn't with the "Might" of the United States, it's with being "Right" with the world and providing leadership through example that will turn people to Democracy! And it is with your voice that this transformation can start. Wake up America, Speak up and Vote! Register to Vote if you haven't, otherwise you have no right to complain. And yes it takes courage to speak out and to question authority as JFK has said. But it's good for the country and therefore you must.

UPDATE: Aug. 31, 2006

Yesterday, in an interview from a Blogger, Tom Friedman of the NY Times made a similar point about real American power. Here it is and if you want to read the entire interview go to this web site.

Tom Friedman: "We've also really, in this war on terrorism...gone from a country that exported hope, that was seen as the country most important to the world in exporting hope, in the feeling that tomorrow can be better than yesterday and that the future can bury the past, to a country that exports fear. When you export fear, you import everyone else's fears. And we need to get back to being the America that exports hope, not fear."

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Presidential Candidates for 2008?

I have had a Mini Poll on the topic of candidates for President in 2008. I have had this Mini Poll for about 6 months and wanted to give readers more choices. I have dropped VP Cheney 8 votes, Sen. Bill Frist 3 votes and Sen. Sam Brownback 1 vote. I have replaced them with Sen. Evan Baye, former Gov. Mark Warner of VA, and former VP Al Gore. Of course the other choices remain, with top contenders John McCain, Rudy Guliani, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Take a minute and vote.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Democrats in disarray?

I keep hearing how the Democrats are splintered with their messaging, that they don't have a coherent policy on Iraq, and that the Republicans are much better at the use of this political tool than the Democrats because they speak with one voice (sort of). All I can say is Bah humbug!

As I have recently said, "the Democrats are exploring points of view rather than being dogmatic and insisting every Democrat drink the same Kool-aid. The Republicans have been drinking their Kool-aid now for 6 years and look what it has brought us." I like the fact that Democrats have individual views and aren't afraid to voice them. This midterm election is more about local politics than national politics but the media will want to extrapolate the results nationally. There's nothing wrong with that either as themes will emerge. But l would advise those that are worried about the Democrats this election to look at the choices: More of the same and Stay the Course or change. I'll take any change right now, won't you?

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Drinking the Republicans Kool-aid isn't working any more

Watching ABC's George Stephanopoulos' This Week show this morning and their Roundtable, I was reminded how every comment made today is aimed at politicizing every concern. We can thank Karl Rove for that. He has turned America into a partisan’s machine, the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetime. Even when watching comments on the Katrina aftermath one year later by commentator Donna Brazile this morning, the White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace slammed Brazile's positive tone on rebuilding efforts, into an examination of the Democrats (not Bush), when there was no mention of politics by Brazile. But this White House has us always thinking about the Democrats and off the eye of the Republicans and the President's incompetence, at every turn they can. It doesn't work on me anymore and I am turned off to even listen to the White House's latest pronouncements. It's just a distraction from reality. But come November, we have a chance to start to change all that rhetoric and get back to conversational interaction and dialogue.

President Bush, and his Republican machine, points out how the Democrats are all over the map when it comes to Iraq. Well when you think about it, the Democrats are exploring points of view rather than being dogmatic and insisting every Democrat drink the same Kool-aid. The Republicans have been drinking their Kool-aid now for 6 years and look what it has brought us. However, a few brave Republicans have spoken from a different playbook recently, like Senator Hagel and Congressman Chris Shays. Can't wait, as I have said many times here, for the Silent Majority to express themselves in droves this November. All indications are that voters are going to the polls in great numbers this primary season and that is keeping our eye on the ball and the prize. The polls state very clearly this Republican gang is in trouble for the lack of true oversight of this President and Vice President over their abuse of power. Distractions from President Bush and the likes of Rove aren't working anymore with Americans who are awaking to the fact that their record doesn't match the rhetoric, as the strategy in Iraq has failed and there is no connection to the war on terror to Iraq. And it is fine if Democrats explore positions to see what the choices could be and what the implications of those choices might be. Keep it up for Democracy's sake. And Wake up America!

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Iran's Nuclear ambitions: What's all the fuss?

So Iran wants to have Nuclear technology, maybe even a few Nuclear bombs. What's all the fuss about? We have thousands of Nuclear bombs and stood successfully against a powerful Soviet Union in the Cold war. If you can remember back that far, it was the strategy of "Mutual Assured Destruction" that kept the weapons in check. Seems to me the same strategy would work here. So let's stop all the huffing and puffing and falling into the neocons mind trap that has been baited lately to get all of us scared and willing to consider a first strike option on their facilities. Don't be fooled by the scare tactics. It didn't work in the Cold war and it won't work here either. Preemptive strikes are now going to be a thing of the past. As Iran and others get the bomb, we are going to have to use diplomacy to work with the world and that means that Israel will have to change its approaches too. It will take a different mindset than the arrogant one we have displayed during the Bush/Cheney years, which by the way should be considered the worst Presidency in the history of our great nation. Looking back, the "Silent Majority" fell asleep during these past 6 years and are just awakening in time for the mid term November Congressional elections. Can't wait to hear their first yawn! Goodbye neocons. :)

Friday, August 25, 2006

Russia and France on Iran and sanctions

Russia rejected talk for now of sanctions against Iran and France warned on Friday against conflict with Tehran, raising doubts whether it will face swift penalties if nuclear work is not halted by an August 31 deadline. This was quoted from CNN.

Well, I wonder if Bush still feels he can work with Putin and still see into his soul. I can tell you I am not impressed with this President of Russia as he has at every turn voted against our position. Maybe Bush should look into the mirror first and see if he can see into his own soul.

France, belligerent and teeth less, lacks spine and backbone to be the world leader it wants to be. Can't wait for Chirac to go either. We in America use to make fun of the French’s arrogance as they now make fun of ours. But one thing is true here; we have never let down the French as they have us. We protect and shelter them so they can make us look more like fools. We make ourselves look like fools too. But someday, the French are going to look to America to help solve something for them. I just hope at that time we have someone in the White House that can truly look into leaders souls and act accordingly based upon what they see.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Katrina, one year later

WE ask the Hardball question here: Are New Orleans and its former citizens better off today than a year after the catastophe? What's your guess? I wonder whether New Orleans will ever be rebuilt and I think many others think the same thing. But no one in government has the courage to make the decision except by ignoring the City and its former residents, they make the decision in silence, hoping the problems and the memories will fade away.

Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) and the political race of his life

Curt Weldon, Republican running for reelection after 19 years in Congress is in a tight race for the first time of all his Congressional years. You might remember, I have said that Curt Weldon deserves the Medal of Freedom for his unwavering pursuit of the truth as to what our government knew and when it knew it regarding the attacks of 9/11. He is most known for revealing the story of the special group named "Able Danger" who were mining data and looking to connect the dots prior to 9/11 and that it is claimed they had identified the terrorists well before the attack of 9/11. Curt Weldon claims the government, knowing of this in advance did nothing and tried to have Congressional hearings to get those of Able Danger to testify. The Administration forbade the officers from testifying under the threat of severe penalties and they could not testify.

Now Curt Weldon faces the daunting task of fighting for his seat in a race that pits him against Joe Sestak , Democrat, who as recently as January, retired as an Admiral from the Navy, and who was also former National Security Council senior staffer in the Clinton Administration. This Democrat has pulled no punches in his position in Iraq. He states unambiguously that we have to get out of Iraq by the end of 2007 and that if we stay there we'll be there for decades and our national security will be imperiled. These are very strong statements from someone very close to the decision making process and someone who really knows the consequences of our actions abroad and at home. Listen to Admiral Sestak's reply to President Bush's weekly address by clicking here.

I like Curt and normally would be positively disposed to hype his reelection. But I must say it is time for a Democratic Congress. It is too important for the future image of our country to allow even one good man to stand in the way of this happening. In a previous piece I have clearly stated the stakes to restore America's image is in our hands if we have the courage to go to the polls in great numbers to protect our country, its image and our freedoms. This is serious business my friends. I am sorry Rep. Weldon. I cannot endorse your candidacy this time. It is less about you and more about the stakes of this game. Good luck, Rep. Weldon, in your next job.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Open letter to President Bush- Moral equivalency?

Square your position on refusing to use Federal money to fund Stem Cell research, Mr. President, because you see it as a moral issue regarding the sanctity of life of these embryos. The facts are that you choose war over peace at every turn in your decision making with little regard to risking the lives of our brave young men and women of the Armed Forces. You chose to go to war in Iraq rather than allowing U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their job. You chose to go to war without truly building a world coalition, as your father did in the first Gulf War. You chose to not get engaged in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict over the past 6 years of your presidency, even though many wanted peace there. You chose to wait for almost a week when the Lebanon/Israeli conflict first started to give Israel enough time to pursue Hezbollah and inflict much anticipated damage on them. When you realized that Israel was having great difficulty in doing this, you sent Dr. Rice to start discussions with the French to resolve the problem through diplomacy at the U.N. And you have warned Iran that you will not stand by and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. This carries the implication by the U.S. of the use of military force to prevent them from acquiring any nuclear weapons.

It appears to many, Mr. President, that you lack integrity on your stand on these competing issues. Please square these positions with us and, yes, you may check with your alter Egos, Karl Rove and VP Dick Cheney for their spin on things. Oh, and one last thing, Mr. President, regarding the sanctity of life, why is it that one year after hurricane Katrina, most people are still scattered across 26 states, there still is no plan to rebuild New Orleans and those that are in New Orleans still have not received the help they need from your government? You can't blame Brownie on this one can you but you would sure like to! This will get much media coverage and focus in the coming 2 weeks, so be prepared and start rehearsing your responses with Karl. Only 78 days left before the November elections for Congress and the Senate and we can throw the bums out.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Bigotry, racism and terrorism - Is there any hope?

I just returned from a trip away from California and used air travel to go to and from my trip to Nevada. This was during all the heightened airport security in the aftermath of the London foiled terrorist plot to blow up airplanes. Security was tight, passengers were cooperative and things seemed to go more smoothly than I had expected. There was some inconvenience but it was worth it to fly feeling safer.

I did notice something strange while waiting for my flight near the Gate, since I had much time to sit and watch people come and go. In the stream of passengers from Gate to Gate, I noticed several people who looked like they could have been from the Middle East. What I noticed was nothing particular about them, but I did notice other people looking at them in a way that seemed less than hospitable and friendly towards them. I can understand people are afraid as they travel, as they have been sensitized to be more fearful by the President, Vice President and others preaching from the same fear bible. I thought to myself, Is anything good going to come out of this in the future or is there anything good coming out of this now? I did notice something else that was a breadth of fresh air and possibly the most transformational societal change I have witnessed in the past 50 years. It is a problem we have been dealing with most of my lifetime and here was a side benefit of all this fear of Islamic Fundamental terrorists.

What was this event? As I had noticed others focusing on these people of possible Middle Eastern background, I noticed also several black people who blended into the stream of passengers, also waiting at Gates, but where others were friendly and warm towards them and engaged in apparently congenial conversation. Could it be that the Black community in America might finally be accepted and embraced. There were no stares, no avoidance, no mumblings, just good energy. I thought for the first time in my life that racial bigotry of blacks might actually have a chance of remission. God, I so hope so. Unfortunately, others are taking their place on the bottom rung of the bigotry and racism ladder, those being anyone looking like they might be Middle Eastern. That's what fear breeds. That's where the poorly planned peace and constant instability in Iraq, have taken us. Wake up America. Stop the fear by voicing your opposition to these tactics and instead replace the feelings with HOPE. Vote in November to make a real difference.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Terrorism and the Republican scare machine

The full court press is on, to use a basketball metaphor. Every official of the Bush Administration is using fear to whip us all up into being scared about terrorism and to take our eye off the "Inconvenient Truth", to use an Al Gore movie title. And what is that "Inconvenient Truth"? It is that President Bush and the entire Administration have failed us in every possible way, but especially Iraq. The only connection to the war on terror is that this Administration created an infinite supply of terrorists and has helped make us all more vulnerable. As you watch the news, don't be distracted into being scared. Instead get mad at the Republicans you see trotted out to sell the party line of this Administration. Remember they created most of this hatred by the invasion of Iraq and they have lost their way in capturing Osama Bin Laden.

Stay grounded and remember there is only 85 days left until we can throw the bums out!

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The high price of silence that could be paid by Muslims in Europe & America

As a country, we are very reactive in implementing defensive measures to prevent attacks from terrorists. We are doing it again now in stopping carry on liquids on airplanes, as a result of the attempted plot to blow up 9-10 airplanes flying out of Heathrow Airport in London. If we want to have a more Proactive defense system, we are going to eventually have to use practices that will offend many but may prevent attacks and that is to use ethnic/racial profiling to screen passengers on airlines. We may also need to do this in the area of employment practices to determine what employees are allowed to work in sensitive areas of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear related professions as well as vital Transportation areas such as Airlines, our Ports. rail systems and Amtrak.

It happened after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, with the incarceration of Japanese American citizens in Internment camps all across California. It is the inevitable reaction to fear and the feeling of the powerlessness of humans as they react to situations they feel they are losing control over. I am sorry to say, there is only one way to eventually avoid this. The solution was revealed in Britain, although not much has been made of it. But a Muslim in the neighborhood of these terrorists notified authorities of a suspicious acting group of individuals. This over a year ago, turned authorities attention to investigate and infiltrate the group.

The only way this fear reaction is going to be prevented is if moderate Muslims realize their future is at risk with ours and that the only hope we have of ensuring our freedoms as a society are intack is to cooperate in rooting out the bad guys. This position, to take back Islam from the radical Fundamentalists, has been advocated by Dr. Wafu Sultan. Let's hope many listen to her message as the future is bleak. I do not want this to happen to the Muslim community in America and the EU. Islamic people of conscience must wake up, show courage by speaking out and seizing back control of their religion, clerics, education of their children and their religious shrines before it is too late. If not, human reactions are both predictable and inevitable.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

The politics of terrorism

Why Bush's arguments on Iraq and terrorism are meant to confuse!

The politicing of terrorism has begun by none other than President Bush, VP Cheney, and Karl Rove. This comes from the fallout of Ned Lamont winning the Democratic primary over Joe Lieberman in CT, and the uncovered terrorist plot which was foiled by a British government that hasn't taken its eye of the Al Qaeda threat. It has emboldened the Bush team to frame the debate to scare everyone into voting Republican again in the November 2006 elections.

Ask yourself the basic question: If fighting the war in Iraq is suppose to make us safer ultimately, because of the argument "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here", how come all these terrorists were connected to Pakistan and bear the signature of Al Qaeda, not the Sunnis nor Shiites from Iraq?

Here's another question: If we kept our eye on Al Qaeda all along instead of diverting attention to Iraq, captured Osama Bin Laden and his #2 man, would Iran be flexing its muscle in Lebanon, Iraq and the U.N., with Saddam still in power but in check from the U.N. Inspectors and a united U.N.?

So the purpose of their arguments are to confuse voters and raise fear to keep their Republican control of Congress and the Senate and continue the "stay the course" strategy indefinitely. This is to be done not by sound reasoning but the reasoning of the other guys (Democrats) aren't tough enough. Don't be fooled by the political shenanigans of the Bush/Cheney Karl Rove team. Use your common sense and not fear to decide what we should do and speak out!

UPDATE: Aug. 13, 2006

It is now known that the Bush Administration pushed the Brits to arrest the plotters at least a week earlier than the Brits wanted to move forward. The Brits had claimed that a number of the suspects had not yet purchased tickets, did not have passports and had not purchased the bomb making materials. In my opinion, the nervousness of the Bush Administration may have caused the premature arrests of these suspects and that might jeopardize the legal proceedings against them causing charges to be dismissed on some to plan more attacks when they are released. With all the blustering by Bush over the past 5 years for us to trust him, you would think he wouldn't be so nervous and let the Brits do their proper job here. Maybe he isn't as fearless as we think. In any event I believe we made a huge blunder in this investigation by intruding and insisting the Brits move to arrest the suspects. Yes we helped by intercepting the calls from Pakistan but we may have acted prematurely.

Evaluating the Bush Administration on Homeland Security

If there is anything we can be grateful for, with the current High Alert because of a plot to blow up airplanes in flight between the UK and the USA, it is this, finally the Dept. of Homeland Security has had to wake up and improve security at the airports. This shows that Al Qaeda is looking at our vulnerabilities and starting to exploit them.

So when do you think we will start to secure our borders and screen cargo at our ports? If you look at what is going on here, the Dept. of Homeland Security is always in a REACTIVE mode versus a PROACTIVE mode. Al Qaeda is definitely always PROACTIVE. This is all brought to us by an Administration who flaunts to us that they are the ones protecting us. I don't need this type of protection and neither do you. We need a PROACTIVE Dept. of Homeland Security that is competent. Maybe we should ask the British to help us? They seem to be doing a very good job. Congrats Brits!

Do you think this will prompt any action on Border Security? Do you think the rules of engagement for the National Guard will change so that they help stop illegal aliens border crossings by using force instead of doing paper work for Border Patrol support? I don't think so! Do you think we are safer today because we went to war with Iraq? I don't think so! Do you think the Republican Congress is working to enact legislation to make us safer? I don't think so! Do you think the Democrats are working on building alliances with some Republicans to do the job? I don't think so! What I do think is something I learned working with first responders when I became a Certified Emergency Responsiveness Team member. Plan to be on your own as there is no help going to come in a major disaster for probably 10 days. Yes folks, we are on our own all the time and it is an illusion our government is truly protecting us. It is time for a change in this country and you have a chance this November election period and again in 2008. If there were ever a time where your vote mattered it will be this year. Wake up, register to vote and vote for change instead of "staying the course!"

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Hassan Nasrallah- a Clergy? No way!

So these are the words from a clergy, who just happens to be the head of Hezbollah:

"We will transfer our land into graveyards for Israeli troops!"

He is not in the image of any Clergy I know, but this, so called, Clergy, who uses hatred of others as a motivating force for his political (and I claim not spiritual) purposes is NOT a clergy and should not be referred as such. He is a terrorist. I so don't understand this level of hatred for people. What ever happened to the principle of turning the other cheek. Even an Eye for an Eye principle, which appears to be the prevailing method, by now, should have left all of the Middle East as Blind people wandering in the Desert. The fact that someday he will be happy he is dying is unimaginable. But they say he will. I wish we could help him along.

UPDATE: Aug 28th, 2006

Well it has been weeks since the war and it is clear now that Nasrallah is now confirmed definitely as a loser! Reading the piece by David Schraub today and his interview with Tom Friedman of the NY Times (see here) Hezbollah lost big time with the Lebanese people and the rest of the world.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lieberman vs Lamont- What's the message?

The Lieberman/Lamont race in CT is being looked at for guidance to making a national political statement.

If Lieberman wins, what is the message? If Lamont wins, what is the message? Please comment below.

This is truly the only real election happening this year as so much is riding on the outcome for many.

UPDATE: Aug. 9, 2006

Lieberman lost by a few percentage points. Most commentators believe he lost for two reasons, the first being his position of support of the war in Iraq and the Bush Admininistration. The other reason he lost they say was because he had lost touch with voters.

Well isn't that interesting. I thought being out of touch with voters was normal for all politicians, as they don't listen to voters anyway. Sounds like Lieberman will fit back in the Senate as an Independent just fine. Come to think of it, both Democrats and Republicans should change their Party too, to being called Independent because none of them listen to voters!

Friday, August 04, 2006

Upcoming 2006 elections

The Republicans and Democrats are making the Iraq war "the issue" that is front and center in the debate for the November elections and possibly setting the stage for the Presidential elections of 2008. In order to help facilitate the discussion on whether we should "cut and run", as the Republicans say the Democratic position is, or if we should "stay the course", as the Democrats say the Republican position is, I have provided a suggested series of consequences for voters and those elected.

Here it is:

In both 2006 and 2008, any State, which votes Republican and sends their candidates for Congress and the Senate to Washington, will be required to send all the troops from their State to Iraq to fight the war. Any State, which votes Democratic and sends their candidates for Congress and the Senate to Washington, must bring all their State's troops home from Iraq. In addition, those States who vote Republican would have their taxes increase to pay for the war and those voting Democratic would have their taxes reduced.

Can you see the benefits of this proposal?

Not many in the Congress or the Senate have their children fighting this war in Iraq. So the next best thing is to send their constituents' children, since they truly supported the election of their candidates and endorsed their positions. They would be required to also institute a military draft in only those States, to provide appropriate consequences to teach voters there are consequences to their votes that have a direct impact on their communities. True, the contribution of troops will fall all on the Red States rather than the Blue States, however, it may bring the country together in a non-partisan way. If the Democrats win and their State’s troops come home, then maybe Democrats will join Republicans and call for "staying the course" with Red State troops filling the void. This could garner unanimous votes in Congress and in the Senate, which has been a rare event.

Of course, if the Republicans win and must send all the troops from their State to fight the war in Iraq, the citizens of the State would be compensated as follows: the Estate tax would be repealed exclusively for those States sending all the troops to Iraq, as compensation for their ultimate sacrifice. They would most likely need their money to pass directly to their heirs without taxation so that they would have enough money to pay for the increased War tax.

There is a down side to this idea. Republican voters might "flip flop" on the issue and decide it's time to leave Iraq and bring the troops home, voting against the ideologues. This could also unfortunately have the effect of wrestling the Republican Party away from the ideologues and closer to the center of the political divide. This would cause the Religious Right to have to take a good look at whom they support for office and cause some unexpected review of to whom they provide financial support. :)

In any event, we would return to those boring days, when no one could tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat because there was bi-partisan support for good ideas and for solving our pressing problems.

Bi-partisanship can return, if we are creative!

What do you think?
Technorati Profile