<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>You're right (to a degree), Reggie.</div><div><br></div><div>My write-in suggestion was merely to point out what many Dems have been shouting for quite a while now, that the Democratic Party needs a leader that stands his/her ground and will not sacrifice the hopes of the many for the whims of the few.</div><div><br></div><div>I know that I'll be criticized for what I am about to say . . . so what! Nancy Pelosi was/is such a leader. But she is a woman. As such she carries the adverse connotations of being a woman in a leadership position, and the criticism that accompanies it.</div><div><br></div><div>Just my two cents.</div><div><br></div><div>Tom Hansen</div><div>Moscow, Idaho</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div><br></div><div>"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">and the Realist adjusts his sails."</span></div><div><br></div><div>- Unknown</div><div><br></div></div><div><br>On Mar 27, 2011, at 13:54, Reggie Holmquist <<a href="mailto:reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu">reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><b>On Afghanistan:</b> You may be aware that there are an estimated 10,000 fundamentalist militants in South Waziristan (Pakistan, on the border of Afghanistan). Most foreign policy experts agree that failed states (see: Afghanistan) are breeding grounds for terrorism. If America leaves Afghanistan, those 10,000 militants will flood into Afghanistan, impose their will upon Afghans, and grow in strength and power. If that was the only problem, I would have less of an issue, but Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is kind of scary. It is well-documented that there are a significant number of fundamentalist sympathizers within the Pakistani military. I read an article by Seymour Hersh that talked about an actual terrorist attack (a suicide bombing I believe) that occurred <i>in one of the military institutions where the Pakistani holds nuclear weapons</i>. The scary thought to me is the idea that those fundamentalist militants will end up with the ability to launch a Pakistani nuclear weapon. I'm not saying it's an open-and-shut case in favor of Afghanistan occupation, but I am saying that there is not an open-and-shut case in favor of withdrawal. There are potential consequences we should keep in mind. Personally, I am vacillating. That said, I support the President in his decision and I don't know what I would do if i were in his position. I'm just glad I don't have to make those sorts of decisions.<br>
<b><br>On Drone attacks in Pakistan:</b> Again, a toughy. The Wikileaks docu-dump showed that Pakistan has been essentially working with America's enemies behind her back. If Pakistan would take care of the militants in South Waziristan, this would not be an issue. They either can't, or don't want to. Pakistani government "implosion" is unlikely and not really much of a concern, IMHO. And if sovereignty is such a concern, do you think we should stay out of Libya as well?<br>
<br>On Guantanamo: Yeah, well Obama signed an executive order to shut it down, but Congress passed a bill specifically forbidding him from using funds to shut down Guantanamo or transfer prisoners into America. You can't pin this one on Obama.<br>
<b><br>"He's doing his best to convince me he doesn't deserve my vote."</b><br><br>Unfortunately, in our system an Idahoan's vote for President doesn't matter a single Iota. If it did, I would be compelled to rant about how America's plurality voting system turns a vote for, say, Weiner, into a vote for whatever Republican candidate is opposing Obama. The system sucks, that is true. However, until we can (if we can) change that system, we must work within its confines. That means that the right thing to do is to vote for (and convince others to vote for) the least bad of the two viable candidates every single election.<br>
<br>My personal belief is that the President can only be slightly left of the Senate Democratic Caucus (hereafter SDC). It is the SDC that drives Democratic policy and it is the SDC that hold all the power. The SDC is unnaturally conservative as a result of the Senate system for many reasons (to name two: ID voters have 70 times more representation in the Senate than CA voters; Democratic metropolitan centers in swing/conservative states have no effective representation in the Senate). The reason the Pres can only be slightly left of the SDC is because to do otherwise is to put him at odds with the SDC. In that battle, the SDC is likely to come out on top every time, not because they are right, but because the optics of that potential situation would tend to "normalize" the SDC while "radicalizing" Obama. If the Republicans, for example, had a large "moderate" faction, the "moderate" faction would make the conservative faction look radical by comparison.<br>
<br>For example, if Obama had, say, vetoed the PPAFA because it didn't have a public option, two things would have happened. First, the bill would have failed, because the SDC would never have allowed the bill to pass with a public option. Second, this would have set up a dichotomy between Obama and the SDC. When Americans see internal strife within the Democratic Party, the tend to side (however wrongly) with the faction that appears more "moderate." This is an unfortunate reality, and it has more to do with the fact that most Americans don't really pay that much attention than the idea that Americans actually agree with the more "moderate" faction of the SDC.<br>
<br>Democrats are at a huge disadvantage because of the SDC. Even when Democrats had 59 Senators, 16 of those were "moderates." In a lot of situations, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a Democratic President to push for progressive legislation because he won't be able to get that legislation passed anyway, and the fight between the Pres and the SDC will only hurt Democrats.<br>
<u style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><br>The only solution I can see is for the State Parties (IDP, for example) to adopt a strategy of ONLY running actual progressives for the Senate. </u> Until we can get a SDC which is more conducive to our goals, attacking the President from the left is counter-productive to our own goals.<br>
<br>All that said, I do think it is fair to criticize the President over his silence regarding the coordinated attack on unions. Even the SDC is on the side of the progressives on that one, and it's not national legislation anyway. This coordinated attack on unions is mostly confined to state legislatures, but it would be really nice to see Obama use his bully pulpit to stand up for the rights of workers.<br>
<br>Regardless, all the other viable 08 (and potential 2012) candidates were (and are) much much worse than Obama. He was the best viable candidate then and he is the best viable candidate for 2012 as well. In America's plurality voting system, a vote for anyone other than Obama is a vote for the Republican nominee.<br>
<br>Rant over.<br><br>-Reggie<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Tom Hansen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
My sentiments exactly, Sunil.<br>
<br>
Obama lost my respect when he started caving in to Boehner.<br>
<br>
I'm voting for Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York as a write-in come election day.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Tom Hansen<br>
Moscow, Idaho<br>
<br>
"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change and the Realist adjusts his sails."<br>
<br>
- Unknown<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:29, Sunil Ramalingam <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com"><a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Does Dale say Obama represents the left (whatever that is) because he's intellectually lazy, or ignorant, or simply because it fits his narrative? He's not shown too much interest in facts or the truth. Perhaps he simply refers to the fact that many on the left, like me, did support him and vote for him. But his recent actions make it clear that if I thought he represented me, I was mistaken.<br>
><br>
> Obama is no leftist. He's a centrist who is ever moving to the right, much like Clinton did.<br>
><br>
> Is he a warmonger? Not one like Bush, but he's continued Bush's Iraq occupation, and is keeping his wrong-headed pledge to wage war in Afghanistan. We will not 'win' there, or in Iraq, and belong in neither country.<br>
><br>
> He's stepped up drone attacks in Pakistan. I don't know how any state can maintain legitimacy with its people while allowing a foreign power to bomb its people. We should not be surprised if that government implodes. Then of course we can pull out our hair worrying about what will happen to its nuclear arsenal. Maybe the time to worry is now, and we should not take these actions.<br>
><br>
> He's kept Guantanimo open, though if he was seriously interested in shutting it down, the Republicans are dedicated to keeping it open. He lacks the guts to take action to shut it down while they oppose it. And his recent statements about Private Manning's treatment were shameful.<br>
><br>
> I'm well to the left of Obama. His actions above do not represent me. I wonder why he keeps silent as a coordinated Republican plan to destroy unions and collective bargaining is waged across the country. A leftist would say and do something about it.<br>
><br>
> He's doing his best to convince me he doesn't deserve my vote.<br>
><br>
> Sunil<br>
><br>
> > Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 04:35:55 -0700<br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a></a><br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Say What? (local and recent)<br>
> ><br>
> > "Protests essentially stopped after the 2008 election. The left now have<br>
> > their warmonger in the White House."<br>
> ><br>
> > - Dale Courtney (March 26, 2011)<br>
> > <a href="http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2011/03/26/79725.aspx" target="_blank"><a href="http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2011/03/26/79725.aspx">http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2011/03/26/79725.aspx</a></a><br>
> ><br>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> ><br>
> > Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>
> ><br>
> > Tom Hansen<br>
> > Moscow, Idaho<br>
> ><br>
> > "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change<br>
> > and the Realist adjusts his sails."<br>
> ><br>
> > - Unknown<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>
> > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> =======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
> =======================================================<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. <br>
<br>Douglas Adams<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>