Democratic Presidential Debate Tonight

[Sazar]

Uh, Kucinich and his extreme isolationist views would destroy the world economy if brought to fruition.

his discussion about gay marriage made excellent sense compared to the wallowing responses of kerry/edwards.. and I don't remember what sharpton said...

not all his ideas are great but the same goes for most of the others...

 

[Natoma]

Gotta agree with that. Sharpton is damn funny and he makes great points. Kucinich, wow.... Not even Kerry could stop laughing at him. And even the moderators were making fun of him. Hell Larry King wasn't even paying attention to him at one point, and all you see is Kucinich going "Larry... Larry are you paying attention?"

hysterical.

Kucinich really isn't being given a fair chance. He's been repeatedly cut out from the major media debate, and this was evident during the televised debates here. He was repeatedly cut off mid-sentence without being given the opportunity to finish his points. Both Kucinich and Sharpton have fared well in several states, but this has always been downplayed by the media, because, afterall, we know the only *serious* candidates are Kerry and Edwards.

Natoma, I've seen you come out pretty harshly against both Kucinich and Nader, but from what I can tell you align more closely with them politically. Could you explain some of the differences you have with them? I'm curious, here.

Realistically, Kerry and Edwards are the only viable candidates left. Sharpton was never a viable candidate because his history has frankly been too scandalous (good or bad, he's a too much of a lightning rod). Kucinich became a non-viable candidate the instant he called for immediate removal of troops from Iraq and unilateral removal from all our trade agreements.

I've bashed Bush for his unilateralist administration, but Kucinich would be almost as bad, if not worse, especially when it comes to our national security. Do I have serious disagreements with the manner in which we were dragged into war? Certainly. Do I believe we can leave now and let things sort themselves out? Certainly Not.

And as much as I'd love to support Nader and Kucinich because of their support of civil marital rights being extended to gay couples, my politics is far more complex than just one single issue, as important as that issue is to my personal well being.

BTW, with regards to the media cutting Kucinich and Sharpton out of the race, (and Dean before them), this isn't the first election where this kind of thing has happened. There's an excellent documentary available on the internet called Spin, which documents similar incidents happening in 1992. Above it's coverage of that issue, this is perhaps one of the absolute best political documentaries ever created. I'd highly recommend checking it out, (and it does poke fun at both "sides" of the political spectrum). Best thing about it, is it's available for free on the internet: http://www.illegal-art.org/video/popups/spin.html

It's huge, at 600 mb or 1.2 gb, but it's well worth the wait. You'll probably never see anything else that offers a similar "insider's perspective" on the U.S. political machine.

As much as one can bemoan how Dean was treated, frankly he did it to himself. I love what he did for the democratic party, but he overplayed his hand, and I feared he was going in that direction long before the "I Have a Scream" speech in Iowa. Even his staunchest supporters on the blog were writing about this back in September before anyone really caught wind of it in the media and the public.

I don't doubt that the media has biased elections against certain candidates, but when you look past the media bias and actually see what's going on, it's actually pretty accurate imo.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's huge, at 600 mb or 1.2 gb, but it's well worth the wait. You'll probably never see anything else that offers a similar "insider's perspective" on the U.S. political machine.

Don't you mean the U.S. media machine?

 

[Clashman]

Not simply the media, because it focuses on how politicians use it as well, through things such as the Satellite tour, etc. It's really very interesting.

 

[Clashman]

To Natoma: Kucinich called for neither an instant nor unilateral removal of U.S. troops. In fact, removal of U.S. troops would be predicated upon U.N Approval and the transfer of peacekeeping role to the United Nations until the Iraqi people were able to handle the security situation themselves. Also, with regard to trade, Kucinich hasn't been calling for the U.S. to tuck itself into a hole and withdraw from the international trade community. Rather, he's demanded that trade take place in a just and equitable manner. Edwards on the other hand, seems to be copping out to me, saying on the one hand that he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA if he would have been in office to suck up labor votes, and at the same time saying that if he got into office he would only seek to restructure it, which would seem to me to be a perfect way to wind up doing nothing once he got into office.

Kucinich on Iraq: (Admittedly the timeline might be overly optimistic, and any UN force would likely contain U.S. troops, but the general idea is fairly solid, at least compared to the ghost plans of Kerry, Edwards, and Bush).

"If we stay the course it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in and it's wrong to stay in. The demands of an occupation are overstretching our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces makes us vulnerable at home. The reserve call-ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for hometown security. Americans are asking, is there a way out? I say there is. This is my plan to get the U.N. in ... and the U.S. out of Iraq! This plan will bring our troops home within 90 days of U.N. approval, and strengthen American security.

"The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President that will quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq.

The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.
The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The U.N. must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The U.N. must assist in developing free and fair elections.
The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.
The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.
The United States must contribute financially to the U.N. peacekeeping mission.
The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
U.N. troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.
The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the U.N.
"I will work tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action, bring all U.S. troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the U.N. community to participate. Such a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan.

"As President I will go to the U.N. and announce America's intention to abide by this plan if approved by the U.N.

"I will ask the U.N. Security Council to ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under U.N. mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives U.N. support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my plan that within one month, the first U.N. troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first U.S. troops will be sent home. U.N. peacekeeping troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the U.S. In place of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.N. will open an office to direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by U.S. invasion. In two months, the U.N. will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person, one-vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding between the American and U.N. force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. By the end of month three, all U.S. troops will have returned home.

"In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing Council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

"In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

"The U.S. owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the U.S. invasion. The U.S. will also owe a contribution to the U.N. to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, highly visible manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering top-shelf technology from U.S. corporations for Iraq, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. This is precisely what corrupts the Administration's reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and U.S. taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the U.S. invasion, including compensation for its victims. U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to furnish Iraq with what we do not have here!

"The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price America has paid is the loss of our moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost us our credibility and done serious harm to America's standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment throughout the world.

"America must make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the U.N. move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for all Americans.

"We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home in 90 days, transfer authority to the U.N. with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and save billions of dollars. It will enable the U.S. to think creatively about how to deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorists and criminals who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on our nation, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, my plan will also enable the U.S. to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America."

Kucinich on Trade:

So what I'm saying is that the people of Ohio and the people who labor in industries and do high tech work all over this country ought to know they only have one candidate in this race who not only understands the issues, but who is politically independent enough to be able to stand up for the economic interests of American business, of the American men and women, and of the American future. Because this is not about separating us from the world, this is about setting standards for ethical commerce.

We need trade. Trade is the essence of human interaction. We need countries to be able to talk to one another. We need the chance for trade to serve as the basis for peace in the world. But there's another thing we need. We need trade that's based on principles of equity. We need trade that's based on principles of social and economic justice. We need trade that's based on human rights. We need trade that says there shall be no child labor, nor prison labor, nor slave labor. We need trade that protects the environment. We need trade that protects our society. We need trade with a vision of social and economic justice. Oh yes, we need trade.

 

[DemoCoder]

In other words, we need protectionist trade that protects anarchronisms like American textile workers. The whole point of trade is that someone else can manufacture or supply a resource better or cheaper than you can. Otherwise, there's no point, no gain, in the transaction. "Fair trade" has often meant protecting inefficient American production from overseas competition. It's meant idiots with bulldozers symbolically crushing Japanese VCRs and DVD players because there's something unfair about no one wanting to buy RCA's shitty products. Or that Japanese don't want to buy Fords with steering wheels on the wrong side, or big bulky American cars, with bad aesthetics.

Now the rallying cry of "fair trade" is outsourcing and third world markets, but in the 80s, it was focused on asia, particularly Japan and the tigers. Yeah, I'm sure the American labor market is concerned most with the "exploitation" of IIT graduated Indians in the high-tech sector that handle IT/Call center outsourcing, and not the fact that Americans are losing these jobs to cheaper markets simply because the U.S., because of modern technology, has no comparitive advantage in running a call center anymore. I have lots of friends who went back to India and work in the IT industry there. Despite the fact that they make 1/5 of US wages, it's enough in local Indian purchasing power to hire chauffeur drivers, maids, cooks, and to live a pretty good lifestyle. Exploitation my ass.

 

[Clashman]

And "free trade" Libertarian dogma has meant 6 year olds working on sewing machines. If I had to pick which is less destructive to society, I'd say it's the idiots with the bulldozers.

 

[Natoma]

To Natoma: Kucinich called for neither an instant nor unilateral removal of U.S. troops. In fact, removal of U.S. troops would be predicated upon U.N Approval and the transfer of peacekeeping role to the United Nations until the Iraqi people were able to handle the security situation themselves.

It's unfortunate that Kucinich didn't have you as his speechwriter in the early days of his campaign when it actually mattered what he said. Kucinich's views on the Iraq war have morphed significantly over the past year in large part because of the presence of Howard Dean. When Kucinich first began speaking about the Iraq war, and throughout 2003, his plans in short were always:

"Get the US troops out and get the UN Peacekeepers in, immediately."

Then:

"Get the US troops out and get the UN Peacekeepers in, in 90 days."

Then:

"Get the US power out and hand over authority to the UN, with the US troops under the control of the UN authority as part of a large multinational force."

The 1st instance was his stance from January 2003 through roughly October/November 2003. He changed his stance basically after the Administration brought out the June 2004 deadline, and now he's saying the last over the past few weeks.

As with Kerry, I'm not concerned with what the candidates are saying now. I'm concerned with what they've been saying over the course of the entire campaign. There's a reason that nearly every single candidate (and myself as well with many others) discussing this issue with Kucinich have painted him as someone who wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. That's simply irresponsible, and Kucinich has commedably modified his position. But the fact that he even considered removing ourselves from Iraq immediately and pushed that as credible policy, pardon my bolds, scares the living fuck out of me.

Also, with regard to trade, Kucinich hasn't been calling for the U.S. to tuck itself into a hole and withdraw from the international trade community. Rather, he's demanded that trade take place in a just and equitable manner.

Kucinich has stated over and over, "Cancel WTO. Cancel NAFTA." Is the description of that behavior unilateralist? Is that the same as Bush cancelling the 1972 ICBM Treaty? Pulling out of Kyoto without any discussion on the matter with anyone else?

A Unilateralist manuever is a unilateralist manuever imo. What he called for in their stance were bilateral agreements with each country. Either way, the policy proposal is unilateralist.

Edwards on the other hand, seems to be copping out to me, saying on the one hand that he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA if he would have been in office to suck up labor votes, and at the same time saying that if he got into office he would only seek to restructure it, which would seem to me to be a perfect way to wind up doing nothing once he got into office.

I call Edwards position realistic. Just as with Iraq, we're in the "NAFTA world" now. We can't just "pull out," "go home," and hope for the best. We've got issues that we must deal with on the world stage. Iraq is a huge problem that this administration got us into. But we have to deal with it now. NAFTA has problems, yes, but we have to deal with them. Not run away from them.

Edwards interests me for one main reason. His honesty. He's said quite clearly, I cannot get your jobs back for you. These jobs are gone. But what I can do is try and make sure that going forward, the trade agreements we've got in place make it more equitable for companies to invest jobs in America rather than overseas, by editing the trade agreements we've got today. That will help stem the tide. It won't stop it, nothing will, but in the meantime while we're doing this, we can divert funds back to american workers who have been laid off and help them retrain, and move up to different jobs.

These are his words, his policy proposals. And frankly, in the world of today, I think the most realistic.

Kucinich on Iraq: (Admittedly the timeline might be overly optimistic, and any UN force would likely contain U.S. troops, but the general idea is fairly solid, at least compared to the ghost plans of Kerry, Edwards, and Bush).

Edwards has the same plan as Kerry. We deal with the problem by moving toward a multinational force, but our troops must stay there in order to keep the peace and keep the stability of Iraq. Iraq must not fail, and at this point, I trust our 130K highly trained troops moreso than a ragtag group of UN peacekeepers who would be taking over a very volatile situation with almost no experience on the ground with the natives, the lay of the land, etc.

Frankly I don't even know if the deadline idea was a good one. Because what happens if June 30th comes and goes, and the situation in Iraq is the same, or worse, than it is today? What then? The situation is an organic one. We're there, and we've got no choice at the moment. But cutting and running as Kucinich made his policy position (probably to differentiate himself from Dean when Dean was rising fast) for most of 2003, is not smart either. All imo of course.

 

[Humus]

And "free trade" Libertarian dogma has meant 6 year olds working on sewing machines. If I had to pick which is less destructive to society, I'd say it's the idiots with the bulldozers.

In the end of the 1800s Sweden was a poor country. Child labor was common. Working days were at least 12 hours, usually more. Fortunately, that didn't keep England and others from investing here, otherwise we'd still be largely a agriculture society. Child labor continued to exist a good deal into the 1900s. Starvation came to an end around 1920. Around 1970 we were the fourth richest country in the world.

The countries that are poor today will have to go through the same pain, only they can get through it faster. What took us 80 years they can do in 30 years. 1950 south korea was poorer than most african countries. Starvation all over the place. Today they are comparable to some west-european countries. I'd say the bulldozer idiots are way more destructive to society. They are removing the poor people's only chance to grow.

 

[Sazar]

Edwards has the same plan as Kerry. We deal with the problem by moving toward a multinational force, but our troops must stay there in order to keep the peace and keep the stability of Iraq. Iraq must not fail, and at this point, I trust our 130K highly trained troops moreso than a ragtag group of UN peacekeepers who would be taking over a very volatile situation with almost no experience on the ground with the natives, the lay of the land, etc.

its a bit erroneous to claim that UN troops do not have experience on the ground

un peacekeepers have been deployed succesfully in many regions of the world and have done their job... they are made up of troops TRAINED in peacekeeping... our troops are not... the UN has a good standing as well in the region... recall sistani has been calling for greater UN involvement to legitimise aspects of the current occupation...

iraq must not fail... that goes w/o saying... but its not proper to call our troops superior to other nations or the UN's wrt peacekeeping... our lads are trained for war.. not the post-war..

 

[Natoma]

No experience on the ground with the natives of Iraq.

 

[Sazar]

No experience on the ground with the natives of Iraq.

they have dealt with similar situations the world over... iraq is not going to be much different... we been there a year and still have issues... the brits otoh don't...

 

[fbg1]

Forgive me for jumping in late, but...

Edwards may not be comfortable engaging in attack politics, but I know the bush campaign will have no compunction doing this. One big reason why I think Kerry is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think Edwards is not comfortable attacking fellow Dems, but I think he'd have no compunction about going balls out against GW in a general campaign. He's trying to be an optimistic Clinton redux, trying to appeal to a Dem electorate who doesn't want to see their eventual nominee too damaged by the primaries to beat Bush, and may be trying to keep his VP options open. It seemed to be working in Iowa, though that may have been a red herring that caused him to decide not to go on the attack in following primaries and caucuses.

Of course, November could very well prove me wrong if Kerry wins the democratic nomination (please if there is a god please please please don't let that happen).

Oops, too late...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040303/D812IVIO0.html

Well you can always vote Libertarian...

 

[Natoma]

I'm getting ready to turn in my democratic registration after tonight.

 

[L233]

In the end of the 1800s Sweden was a poor country. Child labor was common. Working days were at least 12 hours, usually more. Fortunately, that didn't keep England and others from investing here, otherwise we'd still be largely a agriculture society.

In the 1800's child labour was common everywhere across Europe, and England was no exception. Hell, it was the atrocities of English "Manchester Capitalism" that spawned redical ideologies like Marxism because the whole economic concept was just too damn explotive.

Foreign investments rarely happened because all countries were protectionistic and mercantilistic. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Swedish history except that there were Vikings and Vikings are cool but I somehow doubt your version of it.

The situation in highly protectionistic economies with independent currencies is a whole lot different than today's gobal free trade with an international standard currency and international trade organizations bullying third world countries into doing a lot of dumb things that are bad for them. See Argentina, Turkey, Brazil etc. etc.

This simplicistic theory that those countries just have to go through their own Manchester Capitalim hell and they will somehow evolve into a modern industrial society is naive superstition into the mystical healing power of a free market.

If I look at those countries I meantioned I see countries that were a whole lot better off 30 or so years ago before they opened up their economies, tied their currencies to the US Dollar and let foreign companies ruin the domestic economy and giving them sweat shops in exchange.

 

[Humus]

In the 1800's child labour was common everywhere across Europe, and England was no exception.

Yes, and that's because it was needed to get enough income for the families. It's the same in poor countries today. If you ban child labor, you're cutting the poor people's income. When the economy get up enough to sustain living without child labor, then it can be banned, not before. And you should certainly not cut back investment in countries because they have child labor there, it will only ensure the problem remains even longer and cause further starvation.

Foreign investments rarely happened because all countries were protectionistic and mercantilistic. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Swedish history except that there were Vikings and Vikings are cool but I somehow doubt your version of it.

Uhm, yes, in the end of the 1800s the Vikings came around with their swords and wooden boats invading England and large parts of Europe. They english guns and cannons couldn't do anything about it. Vikings invading the industries, killing workers and destroyed their machines. Yes, the Vikings and the car came around about the same time.
Hint: You're about 800 years off.

You better reread you history. In the end of the 1800s and the beginning of 1900 was a true globalisation era. Unfortunately, there came a WW1 and a WW2 that destroyed all that. No until 1970 were the globalisation back at the level of 1913.

The situation in highly protectionistic economies with independent currencies is a whole lot different than today's gobal free trade with an international standard currency and international trade organizations bullying third world countries into doing a lot of dumb things that are bad for them. See Argentina, Turkey, Brazil etc. etc.

This simplicistic theory that those countries just have to go through their own Manchester Capitalim hell and they will somehow evolve into a modern industrial society is naive superstition into the mystical healing power of a free market.

Or rather it's a reflection of the actual healing power of a free market. The problem is that WTO and IMF have done lots of stupid things, but that's their problem, not a problem with free trade. Usually the problem is that they have lended money to countries without corrupt governments that have just filled the dictators' pockets. They haven't been strong enough on demanding actual reform first. Of 26 studied countries only 6 had made any true reforms. That's the problem.

If I look at those countries I meantioned I see countries that were a whole lot better off 30 or so years ago before they opened up their economies, tied their currencies to the US Dollar and let foreign companies ruin the domestic economy and giving them sweat shops in exchange.

Tying the currency to the dollar is not the brightest thing to do. There was a time when governments tried to stabilize the financial markets by locking currencies to each other. The problem with that is that when economies grow at different rate you're opening up for currency rate speculation as some currencies become overvalued. Again, even here the solution is free markets. Let the market decide the value of the currency. It's the best way to protect yourself against currency crashes.
If all cases, it's not the opening of countries that have caused problems. If I establish an sweatshop in Europe I wouldn't get any workers if there are other better alternatives. Most financial crises have been caused by other underlying problems in the economy, not by globalisation.