[AGL] Policies required for a successful HRC candidacy and/or presidency

[Wayne Johnson]

Well, I really like Nancy Pelosi.  She is smart, tough, a good organizer, a great speaker and she doesn't look like she is going to apologize to anyone about anything.  She is Dem Whip in House.  Boxer has good credentials and is probably a better Senator for CA than HRC is for NY.  Of course, she has nowhere near the "name recognition".  

Bottom line: we desperately need someone who can actually "fix" something which is almost broken beyond repair and I just don't have confidence in HRC's actual "ability" to get things done.  For one thing, the GOP will block everything it can, just as the Dems would fight Jeb down into the mud and beyond.  HRC might be a great choice as a candidate but I think she carries wayyyy to much ideological and personal baggage to be an effective president.  

Despite all my fears of the military, I still prefer Wesley Clark over most of the other Dems, excepting perhaps Kuharich.  The New Mexico governor has a "rough charm" that is tempting.  He certainly looks like a "populist"!  At one time I like Bayh, but lately I find myself scratching my head over some of his comments.  (No, I don't remember which one.  Drat.)

There is such an enormous wealth of problems, the number One of which, imho, is the growing separation of wealthy and poor and the establishment of a Permanent Uppler/Rulling Class in the US.  Right behind at number Two is the heavy-handed effort by the Chrisitian Fascists to abolish the separation of Church and State which must be stopped dead in its feral tracks.  Both of these are, I am convinced, absolute "culture/society killers"....and I mean killers.  Either policy will mean the absolute death of all this country has ever stood for...when it wasn't being racist and elitist, of course.   Combined they could start a new Christian Crusade against Islam.  Guess where that woud lead?

Then there is the absolute hatred of the US by almost everyone else in the world.  (Foreign Policy and US business practices.) No. 3
Then there is the almost absolute rule of the US by giant (and dare I say, evil) corporations. No. 4
Then there is the need to get the hell out of the ME. (This means making sure the Likkud Party sucks hind tit in Israel) .No 5
Then there is the need to have an "energy policy" which is not dedicated to consuming every park in sight. No. 6
Then there is the utterly ruinous and middle-class destroying tax policy which MUST be re-written ASAP  No. 7
Then there is the corollary of no. 6....environmental protection. No. 8
Then there is the need to completely overhaul, top to bottom, American Education from K1 thru K21. No. 9
Finally, there is NAFTA and the dumb-ass immigration issue. No. 10  (Paul Samuelson, MIT Nobel Laureate, has mde the best suggestion yet, to wit - permit ALL who are here to become citizens one way or another, crack down very hard on New ILLEGALS.  P.S. says there is no real need for "undocumented workers" any longer in the US because we have all the labor/person power we need to do this work...NOW)


Frankly, at this moment, I just don't think HRC has the depth of either character or organizational acumen to pull this off.  The biggest problem is that she is a life-time "politician" not a "real world" manager.  She hasn't run any business that I know of.  She was never in the military.  She isn't an economic whiz kid.  She has zero experience in "fixing" anything.  Simply "hanging on" and "looking resolute" and "being loyal"....well, shit, Colin Powell sort of owns that wretched territory and he has demonstrated once and for all how being a Good Soldier can lead to a completely immoral decision.

Gore's pronouncements are much better thought out than HRC's which are primarily "talking points" which try to keep from offending anyone.  At least that is how I hear them.  I am tired of the "don't make anybody mad" or "offend" some dim-bulb demographic.  That way lies sure defeat and eventual decline of everything the men and women of WW2, as an example, died for.   

If HRC ....or anyone else....wants my vote, she/he/it better have a clear platform that addresses the ten (10) issues I raised above with clear statements of their goals, objectives and ....here is the kicker...just how one measures their success and/or failures.  The business world understands the power of metrics but most politicians avoid them like the plague.  They lead to direct accountability which is unheard of in today's poliitical world.  HRC is too imbedded in that Beltway Logic and she would have to make a quantum level jump to separater herself from the samo-samo.

enough.

wgJ

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frances Morey 
  To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s 
  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [AGL] not negative about Gore


  Writer Reverend,
  That's too negatives--Gore's personality or lack thereof, and lesser known women Senators who are to the left of the Dempcratic party. I doubt that ticket will coagulate.
  I guarantee you that every woman (free woman) in America will vote for HRC, even if they have to do it with write-in votes. Her speechifying is getting more femininist, as opposed to feminist, and it is tapping a nerve in woman's world.
  Frances

  Wayne Johnson <cadaobh at shentel.net> wrote:
    How about a ticket of Al Gore and, say, Barbera Boxer or Nancy Pelosi?

    wgJ
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Connie Clark 
      To: BJ's List Ghetto 2 ; Ghetto List 
      Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:25 PM
      Subject: [AGL] not negative about Gore


      I think we have had posts about the new film coming up "An Inconvenient Truth", but here is a review.

      Richard Cohen, WP:
      "Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among other things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War - right both times. He is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, a man versed in the new technologies - especially the Internet. He is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good candidate. "


      A Campaign Gore Can't Lose 
          By Richard Cohen 
          The Washington Post 
          Tuesday 18 April 2006 
          Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on the most boring of all subjects - global warming. It is more than 80 minutes long, and the first two or three go by slowly enough that you can notice that Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems oddly out of sync. But a moment later, I promise, you will be captivated, and then riveted and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going to hell in a handbasket. 
          You will see the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting. You will see Greenland oozing into the sea. You will see the atmosphere polluted with greenhouse gases that block heat from escaping. You will see photos from space of what the ice caps looked like once and what they look like now and, in animation, you will see how high the oceans might rise. Shanghai and Calcutta swamped. Much of Florida, too. The water takes a hunk of New York. The fuss about what to do with Ground Zero will turn to naught. It will be underwater. 
          "An Inconvenient Truth" is a cinematic version of the lecture that Gore has given for years warning of the dangers of global warming. Davis Guggenheim, the director, opened it up a bit. For instance, he added some shots of Gore mulling the fate of the Earth as he is driven here or there in some city, sometimes talking about personal matters such as the death of his beloved older sister from lung cancer and the close call his son had after being hit by a car. These are all traumas that Gore had mentioned in his presidential campaign and that seemed cloying at the time. Here they seem appropriate. 
          The case Gore makes is worthy of sleepless nights: Our Earth is in extremis. It's not just that polar bears are drowning because they cannot reach receding ice flows or that "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" will exist someday only as a Hemingway short story - we can all live with that. It's rather that Hurricane Katrina is not past but prologue. In the future, people will not yearn for the winters of yesteryear but for the summers. Katrina produced several hundred thousand evacuees. The flooding of Calcutta would produce many millions. We are in for an awful time. 
          You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the man who beat Gore in 2000. The contrast is stark. Gore - more at ease in the lecture hall than he ever was on the stump - summons science to tell a harrowing story and offers science as the antidote. No feat of imagination could have Bush do something similar - even the sentences are beyond him. 
          But it is the thought that matters - the application of intellect to an intellectual problem. Bush has been studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control would be laughable were it not so reckless. It is similar to Bush's initial approach to global warming and his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol - ideology trumping science. It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000. 
          Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among other things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War - right both times. He is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, a man versed in the new technologies - especially the Internet. He is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good candidate. 
          In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes - and he travels incessantly - he finds time and an audience to deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave no doubt of the peril we face, nor do they leave any doubt that Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed and, having tried and failed to gain the presidency, he has raised his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore to lose again. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/austin-ghetto-list/attachments/20060424/4b5f92fb/attachment-0001.htm