Blogger Brawl 2007
by Kyle Michaelis
Welcome to Thunderdome! What began as a simple note of appreciation for Sen. Bob Kerrey's latest contribution to the debate of the Iraq War has quickly evolved in that article's comments section into a broader and much more heated discussion of where our nation's Iraq policy truly should go from here between myself and two highly-regarded contributors to Nebraska's liberal blog community.As much as I appreciate the views of TedK and Dave Sund - both with whom I have worked in the past and look forward to working with in the future - I see little evidence of progress in our deliberations - meaning that, as much as I might have hoped otherwise, the solution to the international crisis in Iraq won't be coming from the New Nebraska Network (at least, not yet).
Still, I'd be very interested in any third person's perspective (or fourth person's, as the case may be). Comment away. I'm going to be away from the computer until tomorrow afternoon, but will look with great curiosity to see if any further discussion develops.
Also, consider this my call for reinforcements in case Dave and Ted decide to gang up on me in my absence.
posted at 5:10 PM
5 Comments:
Let me know how this "time away from the computer" thing works out for you, Kyle. I might have to give it a shot.
I have nothing (much) more to add, but please check out the final comment by HumeanBeing in "Bob Kerrey Strikes Back". It would have taken me hours to research and write, so I'm glad I didn't have to. His analysis is spot on. We screwed up Iraq, but at this point in time the best option for everyone is to start withdrawing. We should not be sending more of our soldiers (and National Guard!!!) to their deaths.
Nothing gets me fired up quite like an Iraq debate, Kyle. (As I'm sure you know by now). Gotta agree with Ted that everyone should read the last comment in that thread, though.
Took me a couple weeks to get on board the Bob Kerrey bandwagon, despite my deep disagreement with his position on Iraq. In the end, I know he's got Nebraska's interests and the Democratic Party's interests at heart.
Sometimes the easy give-and-take of the "internets" can lead to some heated rhetoric, but in the end we've got the same goals in mind. Here's to reaching them.
I'll make a comment on this, I guess.
Here we go...
On the most practical matter, IE, who should run for Senate as a Democrat and why:
we all can agree that on a whole host of topics, even the Iraq war, it will be better for our country to have a Democrat (almost any Democrat) representing Nebraska than Jon Bruning or Chuck Hagel.
Having a larger majority in the Senate is imperative to the success of the future Democratic Congress.
Because of this, I think we should nominate any candidate that can win over any candidate (no matter how ideologically pure) that can't.
Because of this, I think Kerrey & Fahey are the only candidates I've heard mentioned so far that I am willing to support.
Kerrey would be, again, an amazing Senator and I would love to see him run.
-------------
But I do believe that Kerrey's position on the Iraq war is a severe liability. He will turn off the base, likely inspire a green-party candidate like Patterson (which will pull away 2% of the Dem vote), and he will never win over Independents on the issue of the day.
The reality is that Hagel is well liked by Dems & Indie's, and yet that Bruning likely to win this Primary.
So we need to nominate a candidate that can tap into Hagel's popularity, and the person to do that needs to have Hagel's position on the war.
I worry very much about Kerrey's ability to win, especially because of this issue.
I have not yet, however, had anyone prove to me that Fahey would stake out a better position on the Iraq war. As soon as someone does, I will be working the Draft Fahey angle pretty hard.
---------------------
As for whether Dems or the American people are reactionaries, or whatever, and all that stuff. I'm going to stay out of that for now.
Though I would like to point out that those of us on the 'withdraw the troops' side have several well thought out plans that explain why it will be in the best interest of the American People, the Iraqi People, and the middleast in general.
I highly encourage you to read the Center for American Progress issue paper on the topic.
Leaving Iraq is the best thing we can do for that country. Once we're gone, they will eventually stabilize, and we can offer assistance and normalize trade with them to atone for what we've done there. But the longer we stay there the longer we prolong their civil war, and the more American lives are lost.
I don't think Kerrey would be running if Fahey really wanted to run.
I have serious reservations as to whether that editorial was a smart move on Kerrey's part - my personal opinions aside. I don't believe that the position he took on the war is going to be a strength for him, but running against someone who is preaching the "stay the course in Iraq forever" policy, Kerrey can have a lot of wiggle room to criticize the administration. If he lays off the 9/11 references and the damn strawman arguments, I'll be fine.
Post a Comment
<< Home