by KevinH, Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:59:26 AM EST
He's "the guy with the resume." That's his angle, even more so than the "Hispanic," since he has explicitly stated:
But I wouldn't run as a Hispanic candidate. I would run as an American, proud to be Hispanic, proud of my heritage. It's a growing, dynamic community in this country. But I wouldn't just be focusing on Hispanic issues or trying to get the Hispanic vote.
Questioning the choice of using "Hispanic" versus "Latino" aside, he is a "bio" candidate, running on his credentials and experience. Though I have certain issues with the way he has handled his work, the list of titles are undoubtedly impressive: congressman, Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy, and Governor of New Mexico.
Past experience, however, is once removed even from past votes, and even past votes or legislation don't predict how candidates will act in a new office in the future.
by Edger, Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 05:52:58 AM EST
In the nineteen sixties and seventies the western world was in the throes of a cultural and psychological revolution of awareness that at times threatened to bring down the governments and destroy the societies of some of the most powerful countries on earth, and terrified many who were unable to step outside of the structure and limitations of the worldviews they had constructed for themselves in the course of their lives.
Questioning culutural norms and prejudices and searching for alternatives that better respected and valued human beings and their relationship with the larger society and with the natural world as the basis and reason for societies actions and existence rather than society and the state and the status quo as the determining factors of how people should interact with each other, were the drivers behind this revolution.
by Astyanax, Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 05:41:39 PM EDT
It isn't enough for us to be against the Bush White House. It's easy, but it's not good enough.
We have to be for something. They led us into an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq, without a real plan or mission. To leave right now would be suicide. Isn't it enough to say that we want to change the way the war is run, and let the government of Iraq know that this committment has a limited life span, without specifying a limit? Don't let them call us the "cut and run" party without a response. Ever! On any day they say it. I am so sick and tired of being a Democrat and watching them name the tune. They didn't pay for the quarter in the jukebox, so why are we letting them pick the tune. The Clinton campaign in 1990 realized that to let anything they say go unanswered for more than 24 hours is suicide. And the Kerry campaign should have learned that too. But it seems that we have not. We need strong national spokesmen that are willing to go on any news or talk show, radio or TV, and speak strongly against them as well as for what we believe.
We believe in a strong anti-terrorist policy of defense of the homeland while maintaining an aggressive policy of intelligence that will protect us, without violating the very freedoms that make us Americans. They have been inept in protecting us, they only know how to scare us for their political advantage.
Our people, like Kerry, Cleland and Murtha, are veterans where they never served a day in uniform. Say that! In World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the war in Viet-Nam,our Commander-in-Chief was a Democrat. How did the Republicans capture the reputation for strong defense?
In order to beat them, we have to become them in the best sense. Only better! It is time to us to take the field and command the news cycles and the national conversation. It is time to tell the country what their motives really are. And how we are paying for them. It is time to give this country a real choice. It is time to become the patriots of the real democracy America was meant to be. We are not the "Democrat Party", but the real democratic party. That's what they are avoiding saying. And that's what we should be proud of.
by dpANDREWS, Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:34:17 AM EDT
It seems that the hold that was placed on the Dubai ports deal earlier this year was only to allow public attention to migrate elsewhere. Bush is not set to approve the transfer of US port facilities to a Dubai company. This move you will recall raised serious objections earlier in the year from both sides of the aisle.
Democrats should grab this bull by the horns again and make it an issue. It is a loser for Bush.
by drlimerick, Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EDT
20 years ago, I'd have bet I'd never say this, but I think we should take a moment and thank our stars for USA Today. They haven't exactly been crusading journalists, but from the beginning they have been consistently the most likely of the majors to publish, on the front page, important stories that reflect badly on Busholini, Count Dickula, or one of their GOP minions. And, USA Today's national circulation sends this information to percolate through the heartland, where the local newspapers are even worse than the WaPos and NYTs.
Compared to the WaPos, NYTs, and CNNs hiding under their desks, USA Today's simple willingness to do its job counts as a kind of heroism. Bravo.