Home » Blog » The Surge, Mao's Rules & Progressives
Blog for America
The Surge, Mao's Rules & Progressives
Linked to groups: Blog For America
Claims the Surge is "succeeding" in Iraq appear to be confusing, even rattling some Democrats. John McCain is now mainly basing his campaign on it, and it seems to have boosted him in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, there are growing numbers of articles like neo-con prophet Bill Kristol's in The New York Times demanding to know why Democrats "can't admit we're winning the war in Iraq." The short answer is we're not. But this uncertainty is starting to have a serious effect on the Democratic primary race.From a long view, this race should've been in Hillary Clinton's pocket from the start-- a total non-contest. The reason it was not was because Clinton's support for the war created an opening for anti-war candidates like Obama and Edwards. The war split away the women voters who were long assumed to be Clinton stalwarts: they were repelled by her positions on Iraq.
Restoring some missing clarity on the nature of guerilla war is over due. A better understanding of guerilla conflict will put the surge in context and puncture the euphoria being peddled by war cheerleaders like Kristol. It would also clarify the position progressives need to take in the primaries. The best starting place is Mao Tse-Tung's Rules For Guerilla Warfare. They can be summarized as:
*When the enemy advances, we retreat
*When the enemy stands, we harass
*When the enemy tires & retreats, we attack
This cycle wasn't new to Mao-- resistance fighters have followed it throughout history. One example is the patriot campaign against the Royal Army in the South during the American Revolution. Mao's cycle is responsible for the normal ebb and flow of action and activity in a guerilla war, for instance, the period of relative quiet before the Tet Offensive. This ebb and flow is also one of the most striking features of the war that most resembles our incursion into Iraq, France's misadventure in its Algerian War.
Accordingly, it should not be a surprise that last summer, Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of what had been the most active resistance group in Iraq, declared a unilateral six month cease-fire. This act alone was responsible for the most of the statistics behind the claim violence is down in Iraq. Indeed, why wouldn't violence go down when the most powerful, active force just stops shooting for awhile?
In a sense, we were not responsible for this part of the decline in violence, and that part was due only indirectly to our actions, and-- very importantly-- it means we do not hold the initiative in that area.
Why would al-Sadr call a ceasefire? Because he is not an idiot. He understands what he is about: fighting an urban guerilla war. When his enemy advanced, he retreated, just as Mao stipulated. Al-Sadr has a satellite dish, an internet connection, and probably very good intel reports from his supporters in the Iraqi government inside the Green Zone (our supposed allies) and knows full well that the surge is unsustainable.
In order to create the surge, the Pentagon had to first scrape the bottom of the barrel to dredge up the man and woman power to find the extra brigades. Duty tours in Iraq were extended to 15 months, with the time back stateside to rest, retrain and rebuild war weary units slashed.
To put this in perspective, before D-Day the U.S. Army built up for two and a half years. But from D-Day to VE-Day, only eleven months passed. Each duty tour in Iraq is four months longer than the war in Northern Europe in WWII. And unlike WWII, some of these soldiers, marines, aircrew and sailors have already done multiple tours in Iraq, in some cases as many as two or three previous tours. The U.S. military is being ground to powder by over-deployments. 58% of new West Point graduates now do not reenlist after their first mandatory term of service. That means the future officer corps of the U.S. Army is being gutted. The Army is being broken by Iraq.
What's more immediately perilous, is that essentially all our reserves were thrown in to make the surge. The U.S. Army has almost never been "all in." It was all in during the Battle Of The Bulge-- there were no reserves. It was make or break. Gen. Washington went all in during the Battles of Trenton and Princeton. If he had failed, there was nothing to fall back and the Revolution was over. But other than that, it is hard to see where and when the U.S. Army was ever all in. It was never all in, in Vietnam: the Guard and Reserve was never even called up. Ditto Korea. In WWI 250,000 fresh troops were arriving in France every month. Even in the Civil War, only the Confederate Army was all in-- the Union always had plenty more troops available, particularly in the big fortification regiments up and down the coast and facing Canada.
The surge cannot be sustained, everyone in the Pentagon knows it, so does al-Sadr and the other Iraqi guerilla fighters. Why should he hurl his troops against a force that has to be withdrawn before long anyway? That makes no sense. No, instead, like a classic guerilla fighter, he can wait to shift to the next phase, as the surge is inevitably drawn down.
That means the moment of greatest peril may well be approaching U.S. forces in Iraq, which is why U.S. commanders, as opposed to Bush himself, or his ideologically blinkered neo-con cheerleaders, are considerably more reserved about the future in Iraq.
In a widely overlooked but major story, on January 8th, in an address at the Heritage Foundation, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt said 2008 will be “far more difficult” than 2007 for the U.S. strategy because
“it depends far more on the Iraqis themselves to show progress on key legislation, on their economy, and reconciliation.” Kimmitt predicted only a mild chance that “surge” security gains will last: "2008 and beyond will be a success, the surge will be a success, if the gains in security can be translated into gains in stability…if I had to put a number to it, maybe it’s three in 10, maybe it’s 50-50, if we play our cards right."
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/08/pentagon-surge-succeed/
Maybe three in ten, maybe 50-50. Given the natural "can-do" spirit of military cultures, and the usual White House pressure to spin success, the real number is probably the three in ten. That's like playing russian roulette with a revolver with ten cylinders, seven of which are loaded.
Everyone in the Pentagon also knows Mao's rules by heart. And that brings up al-Sadr's ceasefire. As the surge is drawn down, not only will the various insurgent groups be facing a weaker U.S. force but, in a development completely different than at any point in the war so far, the insurgents will be facing a U.S. force that cannot be reinforced, precisely because the surge used those units up. The surge was a one-off. It cannot be repeated. The units that were sent cannot be sent back. If the U.S. Army and Marines get in trouble facing a big wave of attacks, there are no longer any forces to ride to the rescue. The force that will remain in Iraq is on its own.
Something else has happened along the way that could also increase the danger ahead: as part of its pacification strategy, the U.S. military has essentially been trying to buy peace by paying and arming the so-called "awakening councils." That is, they are trying to bribe their way to peace.
According to a recent story in The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/01/12/iraqs_tribal_sheiks_offer_peace_for_a_price/?page=full
"the funneling of money to Sunni sheiks has alarmed some US officials and members of the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government, who fear that the Sunnis could resume their attacks against either the government or Shi'ite militias if and when the cash dries up."
"They say the United States needs to develop a longer-term strategy to ensure that the sheiks continue to support the Iraqi government when the US funds disappear."
"We're not thinking through the impact of abetting further corruption and perpetuating tribal power," said a senior US military adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
What's interesting about this is that this is really a form of appeasement-- so it is amusing to see the neo-cons, who try to view every foreign policy issue through the lens of the 1938 Munich Conference, now supporting it.
We are arming men without gaining or conditioning their support on a political settlement. It's temporizing with guns and suitcases of cash, hoping something develops later. But, since there is no political settlement, and the prospects for one still seem very dim, there is nothing to stop those weapons from being turned on American forces. If this policy of appeasement fails-- and here the neo-con's long standing aversion to appeasement may be right-- the level of violence in the Iraqi civil war and danger to the remaining American troops will be that much higher.
Will this gloomy scenario occur? Will there be a bloody Spring offensive as the U.S. garrison inevitably shrinks? There's no way of knowing. It may not happen. But even top Pentagon officials seem gloomy about our prospects. In either case, the likelihood of a political settlement is low, because the parties in Iraq do not appear to want one, and this is widely conceded.
Could all this policy of bribery and appeasement be a final riverboat gamble by our gambler president, the last double-down, to buy a temporary lull, just to get the Republicans through the election before all hell breaks loose? Maybe. It would certainly fit the pattern of the last five years. However, the draw down will be complete by summer, well before the election but, unfortunately, after the primaries.
One thing is clear from this: progressives should not fear sticking to their positions against the war. What we are witnessing is partly the normal ebb and flow of guerilla conflict, the rest a perilous bet on bribery. Either way, the Iraq war is far from over, and, as an issue it is not "off the table."
That takes us back to the primaries.
If HIllary Clinton had come out against the original Authorization Of Force Resolution, she would have put the prestige and credibility of the Clinton White House against the war, which would probably have prevented it from happening. Her responsibility for this war is real, and far greater than other Senators who voted for it, because of her status as the former First Lady and self-proclaimed co-president, a status that is the basis of her current campaign. She cannot reduce her responsibility for the war without undermining her own claim to the White House.
But because the war issue is has been slowly drifting off Democrat's front burner, many voters, including women voters, are beginning to forget these facts. The exit polls on New Hampshire appear to indicate women voters have started gravitating back to Clinton. That opened the path to her victory in New Hampshire. Candidates like Edwards, Obama and Kucinich need to keep reminding voters, particularly women voters, of Clinton's role in this bloody mess.
Governor Dean showed Democrats the way back five years ago by speaking out strongly against the war.
"What I want to know... is why in the world the Democratic party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?"-- DNC Winter Meeting, February 21, 2003.
Amazingly, what he was saying then is every bit as as relevant today. There can be no Great American Restoration that Dean talked about, no Taking Back America, that is, returning America to its original priorities, without taking on the war and the political forces that back it. Progressives must continue their attack on the Iraq war, keep its failures fresh in everyone's mind, and the culpability of those responsible. Indeed, there is nothing to be gained in slacking off, and little to be risked in keeping up the pressure.
Show: Expand All Reply
Susan, I like BO very much as a person..as a prez, I prefer JE. And if Sitka bashed BO as much as he does JE, I'd be objecting. We're all supposed to be in this together.
JE has a hard time of it on this blog as well in in the CM. I've always admired the grit of underdogs, if that's what he is. I wonder how BO fans would be reacting if BO's and JE's positions were reversed when it comes to money and popularity. Would you still be BO fans?
Would you (gen'l you) enjoy being told that your candidate, BO, should drop out?
All three cands plus the CMW's have ignored the death still continuing. I hope JE or BO bring it back up front, if it's true that HC is getting the women back who have the attention span of ???.
And if Sitka bashed BO as much as he does JE, I'd be objecting. We're all supposed to be in this together.
Give us a break, Sea. You and some others bash Obama for trivialities MORE than I repeat Edwards' sorry Senate Record.
"We're all supposed to be in this together," indeed. Good grief. There's nothing you wouldn't say to hurt him.
We could all be together if we all wanted to stop Clinton. There's a good way to do it, and Phil talks about it.
We could all be together if we all wanted to stop Clinton.
The only way I've seen suggested by some is to fall in line behind the guy in 3rd place.
Scrolling the trolling..............LOL
Calling your smears out into the open isn't trolling......LOL
2.
seashell :-)
Fri, 01/18/08
I vote by mail so I've already voted but I want all the candidates to campaign all over California. For the first time in a very very long time Californians are going to actually have a choices in the primary election. Hopefully it's going to be a great turn out of voters.
Susan, you may be right about Trippi ruining JE's chances. Releasing that misquote was a bad boo-boo.
And speaking of Edwards' record......
<>Edwards' lifetime voting record on the environment, determined by LCV's scorecard, is 63 percent (that would be a D-)Is it really "bashing" to post a fact? Only if one thinks facts should be kept in the dark.
have a choices s/b have choices
I,too, would love to see all 3 cands. in person. I'd love a close-up and personal of BO.
2.
seashell :-)
Fri, 01/18/08
...Would you (gen'l you) enjoy being told that your candidate, BO, should drop out?
What makes you think I'm an Obama supporter?
Trippi ruining JE's chances. Releasing that misquote was a bad boo-boo.
This is the first I've heard of Trippi being involved. Here's what was linked to on the previous thread.....
So where, exactly, did the Edwards campaign get the quote? An aide to the Senator acknowledged that they had lifted the material from an entry on the progressive blog, Daily Kos. And Matt Stoller, writing for the site OpenLeft, identified Mark Kornblaut, a spokesperson for Edwards, as the one who had done so.
Lifted from an entry on DK? Talk about bush league.
We need an English word for plural *you.* How about *youse?*
An Open Letter to Senator John Edwards: The Constitution Prohibits Secret Vote Counting! Will You Take Action? By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA (3 comments) Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina states, "the ballots shall not be counted in secret." Computers count inside their case, with n...
Would you (gen'l you) enjoy being told that your candidate, BO, should drop out?
I've certainly seen it suggested that Obamites should get behind Edwards in order to stop Hillary -- which amounts to almost the same thing.
But who has told Edwards to drop out? I've read most of the posts here lately and have seen no such thing.
15.
Sitka
Fri, 01/18/08
Like is said before. It sounds like a Trippi move. Very nasty stuff. He's raised up those young interns of his to be real hacks. So much for the spirit of low expectations.
It sounds like a Trippi move
I remember him bragging on TV back in 2004 about a dirty trick he pulled while working for Gary Hart in 1984. So I'll defer to your opinion in this matter.
18.
Sitka
Fri, 01/18/08
I've heard Edwards say that he's in the race all the way to the DNC Convention. I've also heard him say that he would give our party back to us. He's no DLCer that is for sure. Saying that will make him very unpopular among the DLC/DC insiders.
Stephen Lendman: Institutionalized Spying on Americans (1 comments) It's no longer science fiction. Big Brother really is watching in Police State America. This article is an update with new information from that one written in December.
I've heard Edwards say that he's in the race all the way to the DNC Convention.
What else can he say -- "If I don't win soon I'll drop out. So don't send me any more money until I do."???
I've also heard him say that he would give our party back to us.
Hillary and Obama also have their own lofty rhetoric. Does Edwards' record back his up? I don't think so.
He's no DLCer that is for sure.
He was.....and he sure praised them 5 years ago.
Saying that will make him very unpopular among the DLC/DC insiders.
When Nixon visited China in 1972 Mao told him that even though they had to continue criticizing the US, they no longer would mean it. Draw your own inference to Edwards and the DLC.
Huge New Diebold Disparities Found in Manchester, Ward 5 During NH Hand Counts Scores of Votes Mistallied for Every Democratic Candidate...As mentioned last night, in this disturbing article, the early results of the hand counts of the Diebold precinct in Dennis Kucinich's election contest in New Hampshire are now being posted, as they come in, at this New Hampshire SoS page.
And thank you, Monica, for your work and reporting!
by Mary Lyon: The Knives Come Out I don't know - we must all just be crazy. It's not bad enough that slams of sexism and racism are flying through the air between the Clinton and Obama camps. That's just a little bit of it. But all of it bothers me. We Democrats are on the rough end of what could be the most revolutionary, history-making, and and earth-shaking presidential election ever.
How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative Allen Raymond worked inside Republican election circles for years, until he was convicted of illegally jamming telephone lines to New Hampshire Democratic Party offices on Election Day in 2002.What we are really talking about in the book is how messages are created and delivered to the voting public, in a way that orchestrates and manipulates response. It's all about feeling an emotion; it's not about raw issues and logic.
I've always like spinach. It's very green and full of the right stuff that wards off any cancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnDBoaqtx...
Allen Raymond was on Stewart tonight. Yikes! What chance do we voters have in choosing anyone?
***************
Patterns of Thought by Andrew Bard Schmookler | January 17, 2008 - 4:28pm | permalinkarticle tools: email | print | read more Andrew Bard Schmookler
I'm attempting in this opening set of SEEING THINGS WHOLE postings to lay out --through illustration-- a number of the many dimensions of interconnection.
In the previous posting --"Connection Through Time"-- we looked at how, in human cultural systems, there are patterns that endure or recur over time, and that serve thereby to perpetuate aspects of the culture. In that way, the dark spirit brought into our times by Karl Rove can be see as a conjuring up of an old pattern that, as I wrote in "The Concept of Evil," can lie dormant, hardly detectible, in the system, waiting for an opportunity to spread into the cultural system and shape it according to its own spirit. (Not all interconnectedness, it should be noted, is benign.)
Here's another kind of pattern. At least I think it's a different dimension of how patterns work in our world. It's suggested by the line:
The minds of those who conceived this process of turning grain into bread had themselves been cultivated by generations of experience turning earth into crops of food to eat.» article continues...
23.
Sitka
Fri, 01/18/08
I've not heard Obama or Clinton say that. And I've been listening.
Gore was in the DLC but he got out. Way out.
Susan, you might like a powder called "Nano-Greens." Good tasting too.
28.
seashell :-)
Fri, 01/18/08
I saw this author on the Daily Show tonight. It sure is time that ALL the hacks need again to go through another reform process.
Palestinian prisoners of war have called on the international community, to see to it that the administration of the Ketziot detention camp in the Negev desert are prosecuted.. ...More
Edwards camp takes aim at media Edwards is taking aim at the media for acting as if there are only two Democratic candidates running. (Photo Credit: Getty Images.) WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Edwards' campaign is launching a full-on assault on the media for what they claim is inadequate and unfair press coverage of the former North Carolina senator's presidential bid. "For the better part of a year the media has focused on two celebrity candidates,” Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis said Thursday. “And they continue to act as if there were only two candidates in the race, even after John Edwards beat Senator Clinton in Iowa and poll after poll show competitive races in Nevada, South Carolina and other key states." On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It also includes recent statistics from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just Discuss (59 posts) | CNN 
I can't believe he said this, but he's on tape. However, it's taken outta context...was that taken from the same clip we already saw?
Was this already posted? Have we become a rogue state under putz?
Olbermann: Canada Puts U.S. on its Torture List (w/ Syria, Iran)
06:15
Fri Jan-18-08 01:03 AMOriginal message Krugman: Don’t Cry for Me, America
Mexico. Brazil. Argentina. Mexico, again. Thailand. Indonesia. Argentina, again. And now, the United States.
The story has played itself out time and time again over the past 30 years. Global investors, disappointed with the returns they’re getting, search for alternatives. They think they’ve found what they’re looking for in some country or other, and money rushes in.
But eventually it becomes clear that the investment opportunity wasn’t all it seemed to be, and the money rushes out again, with nasty consequences for the former financial favorite. That’s the story of multiple financial crises in Latin America and Asia. And it’s also the story of the U.S. combined housing and credit bubble. These days, we’re playing the role usually assigned to third-world economies.
For reasons I’ll explain later, it’s unlikely that America will experience a recession as severe as that in, say, Argentina. But the origins of our problem are pretty much the same. And understanding those origins also helps us understand where U.S. economic policy went wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/opinion/18krugman.htm...
It will be interesting to see if either BO or HC join this good man and Chris Dodd, another good man (damn, I wanted to vote for him)
Senator Feingold just posted http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/10... this piece over at Kos.
I suggest adding a comment and telling him thanks for this filibuster, and suggesting he filibuster the war funding unless it requires the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops and contractors from Iraq.
It's Not Just About Immunity
by Senator Russ Feingold
Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:00:21 AM PST
When the Senate reconvenes next week, legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will be among the first issues we address. I am as determined as ever to use all procedural tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to try to stop the FISA legislation if it doesn't protect the privacy of law abiding Americans or if it includes immunity for telecom companies. I am also deeply grateful for the energy this community has put behind stopping this assault on the rights and liberties of Americans - it gave a huge boost to our successful effort in December to stop a bad FISA bill being rammed through the Senate. But while we had some temporary success last month, we face an uphill battle to fix the bill, particularly since the Democratic leadership still seems intent on bringing the flawed Intelligence Committee bill to the floor, rather than the better version approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Much of the debate so far has focused on the issue of granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the president's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. But as this legislation moves forward, a critical part of our battle is going to be making people understand how dangerous and flawed the proposed FISA legislation is, even beyond the issue of immunity.
Thanks goodness we have some excellent talk radio personalities.
Randi Puts Wexler Over 200,000 Posted by davidswanson in General Discussion: PoliticsThu Jan 17th 2008, 03:59 PM The Randi Rhodes Show worked its magic today just as it used to do for www.afterdowningstreet.org almost three years ago. Congressman Robert Wexler came on and discussed the need for Cheney impeachment hearings. His petition at http://wexlerwantshearings.com passed the 200,000 mark before the show was over.
I live blogged this:
3:25 Randi just said that Conyers phoned her last night to chat, and she brought up impeachment, and he refused to talk about it, said that he'd just called to chat. Apparently he's trying to make friends with people he was friends with two and a half years ago when he was pushing for impeachment. He's feeling the pressure bad and hasn't figured out what to do.
3:27 Randi is playing part of Wexler's floor speech on impeachment from Tuesday evening...
-- commercial break --
3:34 Wexler is on. He and Randi are both promoting the need to get www.wexlerwantshearings.com over 200,000. It's now at 199,600.
Wexler says he'll put the names of signers into the Congressional Record. Kucinich had planned to do this too but never did it.
3:37 Randi is going over the areas for Cheney impeachment investigation.
********************
I'm off to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and Judy should be here soon.
HI, JUDY!
Nite, Susan, if you're still here.
re: Feingold - I read this quote from him yesterday re: who he would support for Pres. in trying to be fair he wouldn't say as far as dems go, but he did say he could see McCain as President. needless to say I was extremely surprised and disappointed - he thinks McCain can work across the aisle - I don't. McCain is pushing war - does it make sense that Feingold would be praising him? guess it was that legilastion they passed together...
"I'm torn," Feingold said in a visit with the Daily Register between rounds of listening sessions with area constituents. "I'm having trouble with this one."
Feingold said he is weighing issues of experience vs. change. He said he can envision Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well as Republican John McCain in the White House.
... Feingold said that should McCain build on his primary win in New Hampshire and get the Republican nomination, he would represent a bipartisan attitude as a candidate who voted against President Bush's tax cuts and is against drilling in Alaska.
"I certainly would not be supporting the Republican nominee, but it would be easy for me to see McCain as president," the Democrat said. "He's been pretty gutsy and consistent, by and large. … He's got solid judgment."
The blogs are saying HRC is going to be on Tyra Banks show, that she will have a sensitive moment, Bill's cheating, and she will have another misty moment. The day before NV caucases.
6:27 am Burlington, VT time...
rae - that interview was earlier this week - I think one of the cable news has a 'special' on it coming up - I saw a lot of previews of it last night but wasn't paying attn to when it would be on - just not interested!
nite all you sleepy heads... sweet dreams of a better America!
did anyone hear tweetie's 'apology' to Hillary last night? it was rambling and full of BS excuses for himself. hope this tamps him down a bit, but he'll probably be a Clinton cheerleader for the rest of the primaries.
here we go!
You are looking at a picture of the solar power plant now being developed all over the American southwest by a company called eSolar. Notice: no smokestacks; no coal chutes; no rail lines stretching to the horizon for coal trains to approach. It's a beautiful sight.
Notice, too, all around the powerhouse containing the steam turbine and generator are the thermal receiver towers and mirror arrays that make this thing work using only the abundant heat energy of the sun.
...Has the myth of "clean coal" met its match? Google is betting $10 million on eSolar. It's looking like awfully smart money.
2 - I wonder how BO fans would be reacting if BO's and JE's positions were reversed when it comes to money and popularity. Would you still be BO fans?
yes - I've studied the two and would still be behind Barack.
Would you (gen'l you) enjoy being told that your candidate, BO, should drop out?
no - and I haven't ever said that. who IS saying that on this blog? but then, telling Obama supporters to get behind JE is the only way to beat Hillary amounts to the same thing - and yes, I do not like being told THAT. I know it's just the passion that you have for this, but please, do you really think we're that stupid?
well, I was sticking around to say hi to Monica - but she must be all worn out from her vote tallying yesterday. thanks again for the update last night, Monica!
Jo
It was Joan that told us Edwards supporters to get behind Obama but we aren't buying it. But I always say vote your heart, and with three people in the race everyone in America will get the chance from Oregon to West Virginia.
Rest assured Edwards won't throw his delegates to Clinton, and most wouldn't go if he did. But besides the one solid DLC candidate there are distinctions between the others and I invite voters to go to the issues page of the web sites, besides just the media noise. Obama is a solid person at his core and will probably resist the cult of personality temptation. There are three movement candidates now and two had a small undecerning constiuency handed to them by the historic nature of their quest, but that isn't enough reason for most people by itself.
So this being a three person race keeps them all honest and being about something more than slogans or symbols.
The longer there are three choices the better off the party is in the long run because it will be about ideas and personalities come and go.
hi Phil - good morning to you! we're getting some of your snow this morning!
I've been thinking a lot about this and I wish our primaries were all voted the same day - even out the power among the states a bit. take a year to campaign, 1 full week in each state for all the candidates (all there at the same time - good comparison factor, $$$ for every state's coffers). public financing paying for the ads on tv and radio, network television using our airwaves for debates - one a month, with all the candidates present - if it takes 3 or 4 hours each time, so what?! every state cashes in on some of the dough, gets a closer look at all the candidates. not exactly the retail politics you currently get in IA and NH but a bit more balanced, yes? it would get people paying attention and engaged in the process a lot sooner. then at the end of the year - all states vote the same day - take away that 'mo' factor somewhat. yeah, I know this is a bit of a pipe drea
-
By seashell on Jan 18, 2008 12:53 AM ESTHoward and all progressives are first.