"Supporting the Troops"
Why have the Republicans been allowed to claim that they support the troops and Democrats don't?
Isn't the best support one could provide a rigorous level of discernment about a) when and where we put our armed forces in harm's way, b) clear objectives, and c) a plan for determining the next step, once those objectives have been met?
Are "good" Americans truly supposed to yield to the chief executive officer once Congress gives approval? For how long? How does that jive with the right we're all supposed to have, in a democracy, to demand that our leaders represent our views?
I don't mind that John McCain supported sending troops to Iraq. A lot of people did. We were all deceived about the premises for going there. I also don't mind that McCain spoke up about giving enough resources to the troops so they could do their job.
All I want to know is what the definition of "victory" is at this point, and what happens when we get there. I support the troops by applauding their efforts and also by questioning the success of the mission.
Friday, September 05, 2008
What's wrong with being a community organizer?
I watched the RNC convention this week, and I heard Rudy Guiliani and Sarah Palin both mock Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer after college.
Shouldn't Republicans, who favor a smaller government, applaud a college graduate who takes on such a job in the private sector?
Here's an article that quotes Obama's boss when he held that position, who says that Obama went on to direct the program. Isn't that "executive" experience?
And if "executive" experience is what a presidential candidate needs, isn't Palin more qualified than McCain, as well?