Please read the comment here for context.
Derek,
I didn't post the supporter comment. My brother did. See the posted by "Tony" ;)?
I agree with your comments about Clark, generally, although opinions on Clark don't matter too much anymore. But opinions on Health Care and Taxes do.
The tax burden for Middle-Lower class Americans is overwhelming; I know I paid $8000 this year alone.
And one might think one could figure out a salary from the taxes paid, but I dare you to figure out mine. The tax percentages are too unclear and foggy. I do know I would much rather pay taxes for socialized health care than socialized war. But how indeed could we have socialized anything, without war to begin with? Another discussion for later I suppose.
Currently our Defense budget sucks up most of our ability to manage any of the dire needs of this nation or nations abroad.
I was looking at Wesley Clark's tax plan more from the overall perspective of taxing those who need to be taxed (Big Businesses and the extremely wealthy) rather than those who can't afford to be taxed. The upper-class in this country and around the world have indeed bitten and ridden the backs of the lower-middle classes for too long.
I saw Clark as a compromise of lesser evils, and unless a large enough body of people in this country, including you and I, are willing to stand up and FIGHT for our beliefs, be it through democratic or other change, we will not see the change we want very soon.
Supporting Clark I felt was the best decision to make. I wanted to get the conversation going with the people I know read this site, and you are one of 3 people who actually commented seriously, which doesn't really surprise me, we all are overworked and have little time for anything, beyond our little circles of interest.
I felt Clark could bridge the divide and truly swing voters, like I still feel Kerry can't. And that perhaps Clark could turn the Democratic Party back into the party of the people. Generals are familiar with leading regular people, more so than Senators, in my opinion.
More importantly I think even when going into a discussion or conversation about something one's interested in, it is important to have one's own opinion on whatever is the subject of discussion/debate. This still leaves room for one to listen and compromise, and perhaps change your opinion, which was the most appealing aspect of Clark to me. He seemed to listen, even though he had strong opinions. Good leaders listen and are willing to compromise based on the facts they understand.
I'd love to also have you write on this site, although I haven't had too many women that I've invited, contribute much to the site and that is starting to present more of a male voice, perhaps more opinionated less-paternalistic men like ourselves will get these women we know to offer their side of the world too.
Thanks for commenting Derek, and I'll write more on the election soon.
For those of you sick of the "Democratic Race" coverage, I really recommend
you read Dave Eggers serial over at salon.com.
1) I hope my comment was taken with a grain of salt. I wasn't seriously questioning Wayne or EmptyHighway's ethics.
2) I just watched the Democratic debates. I want Al Sharpton to be president!!! Al Sharpton 2004!!! Even if it is just to see AL Sharpton debate "dubbya".
3)What do folks think about Ralph Nader running? I didn't buy all the criticism he got in 2000. I really can't blame him for what happened, and I do think people should vote for who they want as opposed to the lesser of two evils. HOWEVER, Ralph Nader seems to really be playing with fire here. There is bound to be a lot of backlash if he runs.. resentment from 2000 that may really hurt him.. not just in this election, but his greater cause and credibility in many peoples eyes. Could he live down that resentment if he is perceived as helping Bush win (again?) or any resentment for endangering a Democratic victory at such a crucial moment. Not to mention we haven't seen much of him until now. Might he be doing more damage, in the long run, to his cause? This is beginning to look a little more like a personal battle than a popular cause. Perhaps it is time to consider that what is absolutely important now is that Bush is not re-elected. I am still on the fence, but my initial re-action is that this isn't the right time.
OK, so I posted a concern about Ralph Nader running in 2004. After reading, watching and listening to a lot of criticism coming his way I am no longer uncertain. Should Nader be criticized for running, absolutely not. I think he had every right to run in 2000 and does in 2004. To blame him for the loss(?) in 2000 is an exercise in scapegoating and slight of hand. The 2000 election was a complex and muddled election and for all that to rest on Nader's shoulders is ridiculous, leaving alone the falacies involved in the logical and statistical "evidence". He has become a scape goat, then and now. So I wonder why? He is one of the few people saying anything critical and tries to create a dialogue that runs deeper than rhetoric. If the democrats could stand up to a debate that is substantive then perhaps they would not be so worried. The complaint is not of Nader's ideology or direction but seems to be a complaint of his presence. Essentially the argument is that he is more appealing to some people and therfore shouldn't run so that their alternatives are limited. Why can't the democratic party run on a platform that is appealing instead of coerscive.
Beyond this, there is finally a person gettingsome attention who is being open and critical of the current government. He seems to me to be an individual that believes strongly in what he says and looks for ways to improve our country. He steers discussions to issues(as much as he can). He asks important questions. He makes people think and seems to be an example of integrity. For this people ask him to shut up and sit down. The democrats should be landsliding Bush. If they aren't it is not because of Nader it is because they have lost a strong guiding principle and popular platform. As much as I don't want Bush and would be relieved to seem him out of office I can't say I am excited about a Kerry presidency. Bush should be worried about being impeached, instead he is running for re-election. The Democrats neede to take responsibility for their shortcomings, lack luster platform, and address, then change them as needed rather than pass the buck and shift responsibility to Nader. Is it any wonder that a luke-warm candidate from a luke-warm party has trouble challenging a cold hearted presidency? Nader inisits on dropping the veil, put down the rhetoric and address the very fundamental issues. We know the Republican candidate cannot do this but shouldn't we expect Kerry to. If the Democrats are not comfortable with a truly open playing field, if they don't feel they are the best choice than how am I to as well. Instead of criticizing Nader for running how about explaining why I would rather vote for Kerry, and not simply because he isn't Bush. It is relying to much on that rational that has them in dire straights because many canidates can lay claim to that assertion. If the democrats were confident enough to focus on the election in a deeper manner I think they would be able to rediscover what it is they are running for and hopefully revitalize the party.