Mike Gravel anyone? Please tell me why he’s crazy or wrong or unrealistic(by the way, he’s NOT).

Mike Gravel, anyone??

Shame on every last mother-effing one of them.

Tim,

THANK YOU!

What Hillary says depends on what ” FACE ” your talking too.

Can we measure in a dash of reason here Monday morning quarterbacks notwithstanding? There was such a ‘go to war’ zealotry throughout this country, had any of the Dems NOT supported it, they probably wouldn’t be in office now, likely replaced by some War Hawk from the right.

Which would mean that Congress would still be in the grips of the right. Which would mean there would be no investigations. Which would mean that Bushney would have probably ALREADY invaded Iraq.

It’s one thing to stand on your convictions when there are no repercussions for your actions, but when you’re a U.S. Senator, you have to think of a bit more than your ego.

Don’t you dare suggest that it was better for the democrats to allow this country to go to war unjustly because it might have hurt their popularity.

I’m sure that’s how they made their decision, but that is not the kind of person I want representing this country.

With the exception of people like Gravel and Paul, most of these politicians were either incompetently misinformed(see patriot act on that one) or sick and evil. They all need to be washed away.

DD-
So, Senators should not be guided by a sense of morality, but instead, pragmatism? Is this not the ultimate endorsement of the realpolitik that you have repeatedly argued against?

Ole,

Please show where I argued AGAINST pragmatism? It’s just my pragmatism and yours are of a different harmony.

Point Given the evidence presented, a case ‘could’ be made for war, albeit small.
Point Given that the vote would have passed regardless of Dem votes, the GOP had a majority in both houses, ‘moral pragmatism’ dictates that a supporting vote ensures that they will live to fight again, fighting the ‘good fight.’

Anti,

Please elaborate on just what you want a) pristine purists who will be ravaged by wolves or b) tough minded pols who can see the big picture? As for Paul, he’s got NO problem getting re-elected, he has to please, what, several hundred thousand folks? A U.S. Senator needs millions of votes, generally, for re-election.

You can certainly use a person’s vote as a factor in considering their qualifications, by all means, but don’t make the vote on one, polarizing, misrepresented event a litmus test.
No one would survive your criteria.

Nice try, but I don’t bite for fallacious arguments.

I suppose I am referencing your distaste for pragmatism that lacks moral courage.

Ole,

I never said anything about moral courage. I said morals, plain and simple. As to voting against a popular war, a vote that would in all likelihood deny re-election and would more likely see someone replace you who was REALLY pro-war, I don’t see how that demonstrates ‘moral courage.’ You could argue that it takes more ‘courage’ to vote FOR the war, knowing your own party’s lamebrains, that would be you, dicho, would turn on you.

I KNOW you agree with me Ole and you’re merely baiting me for argumenative purposes, something I will address later. But for the ‘others’ who disagree with my position, a) point out the fallacy and b) you would sacrifice control of congress so you could thump your chest with pride? Pride goeth before a fall. Please return and discuss after you’ve lived a little life. This is the REAL world. Ask Ole. If you’re going to fight the Cons, you have to be a member of congress to do so.

With fuzzy-brained logic like that, no wonder Bushney thinks he can get away with anything. Let me try one more time, slowly, if all those folks listed above had voted against the war, the war would have taken place anyway and most of them would have been replaced by Cons. And Congress would be still in their control. And we’d probably be fighting in Iraq now. What about that don’t you understand?

Okay Ole, you seemingly are having fun at my expense, but that’s because you’ve framed the argument to your suiting. Our ‘other’ discussion was about geopolitics, NOT national politics. You may think them one and the same but I do not. Your ‘pragmatism’ has thousands of people dying, mine has arguments over meaningless votes. I trust you don’t equate them the same.

Both of my senators voted for it, i didnt agree with it. Historicaly the biggest mistake a country can make is to invade and occupy a middle eastern country,every country that tries comes out weaker than when they went in.

For the record, Dennis Kucinich voted “No” on that.

“You could argue that it takes more ‘courage’ to vote FOR the war, knowing your own party’s lamebrains, that would be you, dicho, would turn on you.”

Which party would that be Dennis?

DD-

“If you’re going to fight the Cons, you have to be a member of congress to do so.”

The flawed assumptions behind this statement are what I find so problematic in the line you’ve taken with respect to this issue.
This kind of thinking is counterproductive for two very important reasons.

First, it undermines the democratic process by removing accountability to the principles on which a candidate was elected. It gives carte blanche to politicians to justify any position they take for the sake of preserving a hold on power. No way a democracy can function for very long with these standards before some unscrupulous strongman siezes absolute power indefinitely.

Second, your position seems to imply that government is the most important source of social change and energy. Certainly, it is a cornerstone in the foundation of our society, but good government is just a white elephant without the added value that institutions and culture create.

If the war truly was not good for American and the World, then I should expect public servants to make their voices heard on this issue at the risk of being voted from office. Had this been the case, the candidates opposing the war, and the party they represent, would have had far more credibility on this issue and could lead a much more effective campaign to end it. The public demands a certain degree of consistency and is willing to switch affiliations at any given time to serve its interest, but it demands that public servants not be so fickle – this is the only way to ensure that public servants do not aspire to be more than mere instruments of the will of the people.

Blood for oil of olay,

“If the war truly was not good for American and the World, then I should expect public servants to make their voices heard on this issue at the risk of being voted from office.”

Most Americans risk nothing right now by sponsoring this war. This is an intentional move by the Bush administration to keep up support for the war. Most Americans aren’t going to fight in it and they won’t realize the monetary consequences for another few years.

Also, because most Americans didn’t have to sacrifice the push for war in 2002-03 was more cerebral to voters than physical. The absence of sacrifice allowed people to support the war simply because they wanted to seem strong and feel protected after 9/11; it was a chicken hawk’s war.

It was strength voters were after in 2002 and 2004 because of 9/11; they wanted a general feeling that whoever was in power would further protect them. It had nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with generalizing and confusing the issue to manipulate voters in to voting for the “pro-war” candidate.

This is why 40% of Republicans still believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11, and why most of the U.S. population has become confused about why we are there in the first place.

“If you’re going to fight the Cons, you have to be a member of congress to do so”

Technically the people ARE congress. If there’s a problem here it comes about because of distance between the people and the representatives they elect. Simply put, the money donors give to candidates corrupts the entire process. Not helping is the two party system, long term limits, pork spending, etc…

Ole,

I can’t argue with a thing you say. It’s what I heard in my high school civics class. What I LEARNED over the next 50 years, however, is quite something else. I could elaborate but your ideologically-based argument leaves no room for real-world experience. Which I find ironic, given that you limit your ideology to national matters whilst applying realpolitik to geo-political issues.

First, just what ‘principles’ are candidates elected on? And please, no poly-sci rhetoric. Members of the house are elected to bring jobs and civic improvements to their district. Senators are elected for their popularity and $$$$.

‘White elephant?’ ‘(V)alue … institutes and culture create?’ Wow, spoken like a true elitist and the Con you are. Would the institutes you’re referring to be political think tanks or universities exploiting their athletes? Hollywood? Oh, right, art museums. Now, wait, EXXON.

Perhaps if you hopped in to your high-speed elevator and came down from your ivory tower, (or is it a gated community?) you might discover that the ‘culture’ of this country includes tobacco, chewed and inhaled, C&W, pick-ups, rap music, cell phones, low-riders, drugs, People magazine, ‘reality’ TV and sports.

You WISH gov’t’ was a white elephant. The truth is this country wouldn’t be what it is if it wasn’t for the gov’t. There’s a lot NOT to like about the gov’t but that speaks to just how good we’ve got it. Americans will NEVER be satisfied with what they have. NEVER. Read history books. Manifest Destiny does NOT end with the Pacific Ocean.

Real,

Good rebuttal for Ole. Not so good for me. (There’s a shocker.) Again, ideology vs reality. Since we’re a ‘democratic republic,’ Ole’s term, it is, in fact, our reps who wage battle for us. If they’re not there, we’re screwed even more.

In review, I do NOT want Left Congresstypes falling on symbolic grenades so they can receive dubious praise from bloggers. I want them in office and, hopefully, controlling Congress. In all the ideology-based rebuttals to my position, not a person has addressed the consequences of having the people listed above voted out of office. That speaks volumes.

Not surprisingly, I would like to register my disappointment with Mr. Obana for attacking his fellow party members over their vote for the war. It would seem he, too, is hitching his wagon to the ideology-base, a double-edged sword if there ever was one. I fear the Dems will always be the party of opposition because of their self-destructive ways. Mr. Obana is willing to sacrifice the Dems chances next year for his own political gain. I realize he’s not the only player in that sandbox and perhaps not even the worst, but as one of the frontrunners, his attack smacks of selfishness and is counter-productive.

Of course, if it’s a ploy to set the stage for a grand entrance by Al, then it’s brilliant. Why don’t I think that’s the case.

That real life experience should have shown you that your civics warnings were deadly accurate. The apathy towards corruption(as shown by real world experience, not ideological argument) and politicians whoring for votes by the cheapest means is partly why we are in this mess. You’ve missed the point that this ideological stance is a response directly from real life, not in spite of it.

The democratic party is not significantly different than the republican party and we have seen it time and again in the way these front runners vote. Unfortunately, these candidates have people like yourself willing to rationalize away their horrid voting records in favor of their rhetoric and lies.

I do not disagree with your ‘real world’ assessment. I am pointing out that we are best-served when we hold our public servants accountable to the maintaining a system that resembles what we all learned about in civics. Any permissiveness that we show at the ballot-box towards power-politics only invites more of the same, which ultimately would spell disaster for representative government. Concerning culture in America, I think that it is regrettable that you underestimate the actual strengths of our culture by focusing on its weaknesses. You identified examples of what I am assuming you are representing as low-culture – i.e. rap, pick-up trucks, drugs. I am not isolated from this stuff, I spent a lot of time touring with the Dead and Phish, as well as an ENLISTMENT in the Marine Corps. To make a long story short, I have always found myself amazed by the seemingly endless reservoir of talents and perspectives on the loose in America. Of course that’s not entirely what I meant before, but I append it now. I was mainly referring to corporations and other business firms; religious institutions; academia, and the press. Our cultural interaction with these institutions should not be underestimated. Take blogs for example, these are an increasingly important part of the culture, shaping public opinion. Look at Al Gore’s or Michael Moore’s use of motion picture to raise awareness. You can point out plenty of weaknesses, but I wonder if you are truly considering strengths. Maybe you’re just a tired-old man and have given up on optimistic thinking.

Real/Ole,

And you suggest what? Ideological posturing? In my youth I was an idealist; I thrilled to the excitement wrought by JFK. Since then I have witnessed a parade of abuses, to which you allude, that lead me to the cynicism you now witness.

Provide me an option and I’ll gladly accept it. DDE notwithstanding. ALL the GOP presidents and most of the GOP congress have revealed themselves to be either arrogant, mean-spirited, stupid, selfish or all of the above. Do I somehow think that Dems are pure as the wind-driven snow? Of course not. But when compared to the GOPers, they fairly glow with dignity and character.

We have an imperfect system and the choice(s) are simple: the Left or the Right. I make my choice based on personal experience. I hope you do as well.

I’m optimistic about the future, always have been, always will; I subscribe to the tenets of Desiderata. But, we’re NOT talking about the future. We’re talking about now.

“arrogant, mean-spirited, stupid, selfish” I don’t think those traits necessarily disqualify a person from being a good leader. Johnson, Ford and Clinton could each be accused of manifesting a few, or at least one, of those traits. Anyway, I think you can make a good argument for labeling any of the 43 presidents of the USA as one or all of those things -but would that get you any closer to understanding the actual nuances of the president and presidency or the historical significance. I think that when you make statements about a political party in terms of your impression of the personality traits of its membership, you are divorcing yourself from your own better judgement for the sake of a convenient generalization. Of course, this is something that many of us, myself not excluded, are guilty of, from time to time. It is not intelectually satisfying under scrutiny, but I do understand the temptation; nevertheless, I try to avoid it all costs.

Quite a distinction between a leader, and a good leader. David Duke was the leader of the KKK,he exhibited all those qualities… was he a good leader?
It depends on who you want to lead you I guess, Olay seems to be quite comfortable being lead by someone who is “arrogant, mean-spirited, stupid, selfish” as long as they put a few measly bucks in HIS pockets. I believe that to be self deteating greed.

He recuses his ‘heroes’ by saying… hey, others were bad too.
Personally, I always thought we were suppossed to strive for betterment, not matching past transgressions.
That type of logic does explain the reasons why our congress and their business partners have prevented us from making the advances we should have made by the 21st century.
I prefer a leader who is successful without being arrogant, intelligent without being presumptuos, powerful without being meanspirited, idealist without being stupid and ambitious without being selfish. While these may seem like an impossible pipe dream to some and like insanity to others, I prefer to think there are people who reflect these qualities out there and we should not accept those who display the qualities desired in Olay from his leaders.

It is time we expect and demand more from our leaders than ‘arrogant, mean-spirited, stupid, selfish’

Now put up the GOP signers!

And who provided the phony material that Bush Used to excite the Congress into the Iraq mess!

Obama looks great!

Where is anyone with courage and not so enamoured with their job security, that they have the Independence to speak out and stand up to what is immoral and false!