SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who started this subject11/1/2003 5:17:53 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (2) of 793890
 
Another Democrat comes out for Bush.

Roger Simon
rogerlsimon.com

Let me begin by saying that there is not a great deal of domestic policy about which I agree with George Bush. I think taxes should not be reduced for the upper classes. I would like to see a lot more done for the environment, including the automobile companies being forced to build truly fuel-efficient cars as quickly as possible. I favor a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage. I’d like to see salaries raised for teachers. I could go on, but I think you get the picture—in many ways I’m a liberal.

Still, if the election were held today, like Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller, I would vote for George W. Bush without a second’s hesitation. That’s how bad I think the Democrats are on foreign policy, by far the most important issue of our day. I will go further. They are one of the sleaziest collections of low-down opportunists I have ever seen on one stage together short of that crowd of tobacco executives who testified “No, sirree, I didn’t know that nicotine was addictive.” These dudes and one dudette (Mosely-Braun) are downright dangerous. (Okay, Lieberman can be sane, but he doesn’t seem to have a chance in that bizarre atmosphere). And here’s why I think they’re dangerous—they’re acting like we’re still in Vietnam when we’re in a real war of civilizations. We’re on the right side this time. Haven't they seen the videotapes of Baathists chopping their own countrymens' heads off and pushing them off roofs? Haven't they seen the unmarked graves of children? What’s going on with these people? Do they think suicide bombers driving into the Red Cross are pacifist Buddhist monks? (Actually, I think some of them deep down know the truth, but are afraid to admit it because they’re trolling for votes—how pathetic is that!). Thomas Friedman has it absolutely right this morning:
nytimes.com

Let's get real. What the people who blew up the Red Cross and the Iraqi police fear is not that we're going to permanently occupy Iraq. They fear that we're going to permanently change Iraq. The great irony is that the Baathists and Arab dictators are opposing the U.S. in Iraq because — unlike many leftists — they understand exactly what this war is about. They understand that U.S. power is not being used in Iraq for oil, or imperialism, or to shore up a corrupt status quo, as it was in Vietnam and elsewhere in the Arab world during the cold war. They understand that this is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched — a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

So as an old radical-liberal, I'm sticking with my radical-liberal (just kidding) buddy Zell Miller and backing Bush until further notice. What I'd like to hear from the Democratic candidates is just how they propose to democratize the Middle East. Than I'll start listening. (And don't get me started on General Clark. That hypocritical yutz just might make me have to reconsider Camille Paglia.)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext