Issues are so diverse and every person assigns theirs with very different prioritization. The simple fact is that there is no universal measuring stick for assigning labels that can simply frame anyone's complex political makeup.
Is there any candidate in existence with whom you agree with completely on every single issue? That's practically an impossibility. We are left to favor those candidates whom we agree with most, or perhaps disagree with the least. But every single one of us holds positions that are considered conservative or liberal, and certainly are perceived as such by some other people, particularly those who may assign a high priority to a political position of yours that is in opposition to theirs.
Add in the fact that liberal and conservative ideals change with time and may even switch positions on the political spectrum depending on the era, and you have an even more convoluted task of defining political labels.
Kerry is right. Labels are a red herring. That's why I'm a registered independent. But right now, I am allied with the democrats because I oppose Bush's policies.
The neocons know this. All throughout the election campaign Bush was consistently "stay resolved / til the job is done". However, is it any surprise that despite the Sunni boycott, increasingly effective insurgency, and resulting dismal turnout expected, that the US and puppet Allawi refused to delay the elections to increase security? Or delay for any reason for that matter?
Why would Bush be so adamant that elections be held ASAP? Do we really buy that excuse that delays would only serve the interests of the insurgency? Please.
Free elections, no matter how much of a disaster they turn out to be -- low turnout, bombed polling places, assassinated candidates, Sunni boycott, lack of visible campaigning by 2000 candidates, etc -- finally give Bush a straw to grasp for declaring the invasion of success. "Look! Iraq has it's first freely elected government! We won!!"
This is nothing but political cover for beginning a phased withdrawal, "at the wish of the newly elected Iraqi regime" of course, just in time to remove a few of the largest obstacles to pursuing our new target: Iran.
The military option for Iran is no longer so impossible if the majority of troop strength in Iraq is withdrawn and we no longer have to worry about Iran fueling the insurgency in retaliation for a strike on its nuclear sites.
So sure, as expected public support for the war is waning, as it does for any war waged by a democratic nation. The people have only so much patience, even when they've been deceived. But this is still playing into the Administration's cards. Watch the propaganda campaign begin anew as people are prepared for accepting Iran intervention.
Dean would have faired worse than Kerry. He might as well could have chosen Nader for a running mate had he been nominated. Sure he's a favorite for the grassroots and blog activists, but electable? I think not.
If it wasn't for his pioneering of online fundraising, he wouldn't have made scarcely a blip on the radar screen. Both campaigns have him to thank for breaking new ground in using the internet.
DNC chair is a good place for him. They ought to select him just to keep him out of 2008. Use his ideas but don't lose another election. Kerry would have won had it not been a wartime election in the post 9/11 world. The mere fact that red America still believes there were or are WMD in Iraq by 75% tells you all you need to know. GOP won the propaganda war...against the American public.
Kerry performed worse than Gore? Um, no. Kerry received 56 mil votes. In any other election previously, if someone returned those kinds of numbers you would have assumed that person would be the next president elect.
Kerry lost simply because the GOP won the GOTV battle. Every monday morning QB with the benefit of hindsight loves to criticize a losing campaign. Had Ohio when blue, the reps would be doing the same, talking about how lousy their campaign was.
The number of cons that came out to vote surprised everyone. Not even ABB, 2000, and 4 years of hell could counter all the red staters who apparently were more scared of Kerry than we were of Bush.
Private savings accounts is simply about enriching the huge Wall Street investment firms. Your Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, and such companies are going to make riches once billions of taxpayer dollars are diverted into their portfolios. This strategy is consistent with conservative trickle-down theory.
Your logic is almost spot on with that of a neocon. One of their central arguments is that American power should be leveraged in order to position the US as a "benevolent hegemon" (see article linked in my post below).
Let's see. Various estimates by humanitarian organizations put the number of Iraqi's murdered/purged under the 20+ reign of Saddam at around 350k - 500k. These same organization estimate that since the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation, 100k Iraqis have been killed.
Seems like we're far more efficient than Saddam ever was. I'm of the belief that Iraqis were actually better off WITH Saddam in light of the situation in that country today.
I'm a centrist and when it comes to military interventionism, I believe Wilsonian idealism which famously posits that "America must make the world safe for democracy" is a nice thought, but not realistic or possible. In this vein, I would tend to side with the conservatives of the 1960s-1970s. I'm also a Kosovo vet -- a war done right and with zero US deaths, thank you. So there are times when it can work.
This world is riddled with tyrants. Many of them propped up by our own government as Saddam once was and Musharraf is today. Do you suggest we go knocking off every one of them? Well, that would be a good 60 tyrants give or take so might as well get started!
Well I couldn't find the PBS article since they took down some election topics, but here's a good summary of conventional wisdom regarding neocons. I'd differ on the point of reagan conservatives -- sure today's neocons may think they are, but I'd argue that Reagan would beg to differ. Grenada was a far cry from Iraq. For all Reagan's posturing in his first 4 years, he engaged in less military intervention than either Bush. To the contrary, he was quite willing to change tact once it was clear the whole evil empire deal was basically a monumental misunderstanding.
"The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans. "
It's common knowledge that today's neocon movement originated from a collection of disenchanted liberals. Wolfowitz, Rummy, Feith, and their ilk believed since the 1980s that it was a waste for America not to leverage its overwhelming military might in ways that forward American ideals, spread democracy, and increase that dominance in the world.
Conservatives back then and into the late 1990s considered neocons to be a bunch of crackpots. Why? Because they harken back to Wilsonian idealism. Traditional Goldwater/Reagan conservatives like Pat Buchanan chafe at the notion of military interventionism abroad, nation-building, fiscal liberalism, government expansion and oversight, etc. But these are all necessities to forward the neocon strategy. Unfortunately, the traditionalists have been marginalized in today's politics in quite the coup.
There was a great piece on PBS regarding this, I'll see if I can find the link.
The way I look at it, it's like taking the worst qualities of each party and creating a monster.
So they are going to take Kerry's "feelings" into consideration. Sounds like a formality for the party's most recent presidential nominee. Al Gore was likely paid similar tribute after his defeat. Remember that Kerry is probably the closest thing to a party leader that the democrats have right now, thanks to the presidential campaign and his exposure to the public.
Show me a politician that does not make political moves. It's a pre-requisite for the job. Nader's utopian world where American politics and democracy functions like a well-greased wheel with no squeaks (no cynical politically motivated decision-making) will never exist, and that's a fact of life.
Funny, I don't recall Hillary ever "taking" the lies and smears. What would you suggest she would have done? Cry about it? Sue Kenneth Starr? IMO, she handled an all-out assault to destroy her husband (and her future political career) over a very personal issue quite admirably. She rose above it, kept her eye on the ball, and much to the GOP's irritation, is now a Senator -- perhaps a future president. Revenge is a dish best served cold, and trust in the fact she will have it if she is ever elected president -- on that merit alone.
And when has she EVER been a partisan leader of the party? She's a junior Senator. She may be a party "star", but that's it.
Recall that what Newt and the rest of the GOP during the 1990s hated most about Clinton was his skill at "stealing" their issues and claiming them as his own. This, in my view, is a great part of why he was so successful. Over and over again, he'd reframe the issues in a way that favored him. It drove them mad. And it worked.
What the far left wing of the democratic party doesn't understand is that any platform that any exclusively liberal or populist platform will ultimately fail because you will alienate all of the right and some of the center. Clinton knew that moderation is something that MOST Americans can live with and that is the formula for success.