|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Vince's reply to my reply to Vince's reply
Hi Redeye,
Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you; but with
the campaign, I've got two full-time jobs now. On to
the fun:
>Good point... but that's what I was talking about,
>sort of. There's a difference between talking about
>the economy in terms of issues, such as the issue of
>lower taxes vs. higher social spending, which can be
>a pretty good wedge, and talking in managerial terms,
>such as Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid." The
>latter will not work if the GOP has real issues to
>respond with; Bush Sr. didn't, but given the voting
>pattern of WI-5, Sensenbrenner will. For instance, if
>you talk too much about the USA's failure in Iraq,
>you'll probably get responses such as "but we were
>right to liberate the Iraqis" or "what better idea do
>you have?"; I certainly got them from would-be
>freepers* (freepers in their fascism but not in forum
>membership) and other conservatives in arguments. It
>would be much better to attack Bush on Iraq in more
>ethical terms, such as saying "Why bomb the people
>we're trying to liberate?" Clark tried that last
>approach with Kosovo when he tried to persuade
>Clinton to let him invade from the ground, but
>Clinton would have none of this.
I'd say you're damn right it's good that the Iraqis no longer live under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Getting rid of Saddam was a noble goal, a goal I have believed in for a long time. Were there ways of getting rid of Saddam WITHOUT bombing civilians and putting so many of our troops at risk? Yes. Did Bush & co. pursue them? No.
Although you're right. I don't intend to talk too much about Iraq. That debate is best framed in my district as "Jim Sensenbrenner votes to cut veterans benefits, therefore Jim Sensenbrenner does not support our troops" (true). Perhaps "Jim Sensenbrenner does not want a thorough investigation into the act of treason which exposed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, putting her, her family, and our national security in danger; therefore, Jim Sensenbrenner is not a patriot" (also true).
>Again, this is exactly what I was talking about. I
>myself am strongly anti-patriotic, but I also realize
>that, say, William Pitt is not much less patriotic
>than Jim Robinson, if at all. Patriotism, too, is a
>thing that needs to be reclaimed. The danger is that
>if you talk too much about one thing then it can be
>spun against you, for example with patriotism,
>Sensenbrenner might try and paint it as collectivism.
Sensenbrenner might TRY anything. He's not going to get a free pass from me, though. I will run a clean campaign, but will pull no punches in my ongoing mission to speak truth to power. I will not play dirty, but I WILL put forth the truth (confronting Republicans with the truth is often confused with mudslinging, as the truth tends to be unflattering to them).
As an aside, the reason that I am a patriot is precisely because you have the right not to be one. Patriotism is not the same thing as nationalism, no matter how the pukes try to paint it.
>Actually, there is an excellent motive why someone
>might want to participate in a government of a
>coutnry he doesn't thing it is very good: to make it
>better. I don't understand why to partake in the
>administration of a country you have to love it,
>really.
I guess I see your point, but that's not the way I operate. If I didn't love the U.S., I'd probably leave. I certainly would NEVER say "love it or leave it" to anybody else, but that's probably what I'd do. I hated my old job, so I quit. It's not a hard decision for me.
>I agree, apart from the part about a revolution every
>two years (in pol-sci 101 I learned that revolutions
>are defined as radical changes in countries and are
>almost always violent; in that sense not even the
>Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 can be
>classified as a revolution). The USA does indeed have
>a high potential of greatness, probably more than any
>other country in the world. The problem is that
>potentiality and actuality are not the same thing.
>The USA has many structural problems and liabilities,
>and unfortunately it doesn't do enough to mend them.
>On the other hand, sometimes they are strengths,
>which give the USA its potential: for instance, its
>size on the one hand creates huge problems of
>regionalism, but at the same time makes it an
>economic powerhorse and is also the reason why
>Harvard and Princeton are what they are.
Definitions are tricky things. I don't see a revolution as inherently violent; but yes, they are radical departures. I should have said that we have the POTENTIAL for bi-annual revolution.
As far as greatness, I look at the whole package. Harvard and Princeton? Oxford and Cambridge are just as good, but don't think for a second that the U.K. doesn't look up to us as guiding example.
>Exactly. It seems that we only disagree regarding the
>effect of the qualifier "when we act as a beacon of
>freedom."
Well, that's what I'm here to work on.
>That's one reason why there is hunger along with food
>surpluses overall, but it's also the thing about
>which that the USA can't do much, or at least not
>near as much as Europe with its crop-destruction
>programs can. But then again, note that even in the
>third world, there is enough food - the problems are
>that subsistence farmers often face famine and that
>non-subsistence farmers can't sell their crops at a
>sustaining price. The only solution to the former
>problem that will work in the long term that I can
>think of is birth control, but it will take it at
>least 6 years to take effect. The latter problem,
>however, has a more immediate solution: increasing
>demand for third-world crops by making first-world
>crops less competitive. But then again, it won't work
>everywhere, and the only way to help in, say,
>Somalia, is crop distribution.
Well, I do believe that the first obligation of a Representative is to his or her own country; but I also recognize the moral imperative to ease suffering everywhere, when possible. This is a much more complicated issue than the others in your letter, frankly, and involves much more than simply ag. subsidies and food distribution. I'll tell you now that I take seriously my duty to my constituents and my countrymen and countrywomen, but I also take seriously the awesome power held by the United States to ease the suffering of impoverished people globally.
>As far as the huge majority goes, think of it this
>way: 14% of Americans are atheists, and thus you'd
>expect that 14% of the members of Congress (61
>members) would vote against the condemnation. In
>practice, only 5 did. If a similar thing recurs and
>you vote against such a popular but unconstitutional
>measure, then in essence you'd be representing the
>people, just not those in your district. But that's a
>completely different debate - proportional
>representation vs. districts - that we shouldn't get
>into.
You're right, we shouldn't get into it, because I support PR in theory as an electoral standard, but saying so publicly would cost me more than a few votes (if you post this letter on your website, please replace the preceding paragraph with "la la la la la la la la la").
>Good point, actually. One small counterpoint,
>however: some Democrats, such as Lieberman and
>Miller, are pretty fundamentalistic - Lieberman
>ensured that I'd never vote for him by saying
>"atheists have no morals," and Miller said he'd only
>approve judges if they believed in god.
Well, I'm not running for the Senate, so I have little power over Lieberman and the soon-to-be-departed-and-replaced-with-a-Republican-but-who-will-be-able-to-tell-the-difference-anyway Miller. I'll just say that I've known plenty of atheists with very strong moral standards, and I've known plenty of religious folks who were immoral. And vice versa, for good measure.
>I'm sorry if my letter looked like throwing darts at
>you. The only point that was really intended to be a
>dart was 3) :-).
Not darts? Damn! I was hoping to use the "attacked from the left" angle as a "see, I'm not too liberal for my district" strategem. Oh well.
Cheers,
Vince
=====
Vince Whitacre
Democrat for U.S. House of Representatives
Fifth Congressional District, Wisconsin
http://www.vince4congress.com
* Freepers are members of Free Republic, an extreme conservative American forum. Back.
Click here to read my final reply.
This site has gotten
hits since 2003-12-25.