Matt Gonzalez: Good is the Enemy of Great
It's not a particularly fine distinction but some on the left still don't seem to get it. Gonzalez, a failed Green Party candidate for San Francisco Mayor, can't see the difference between opposing the decision to go to war and supporting immediate withdrawal.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?
To regard them as the same strikes me as Bushian Manicheanism. But then again should one expect finer parsing from a political party that could not distinguish between Al Gore and George W. Bush?
Speaking of which, is Ralph Nader completely out of touch with contemporary political reality? The question answers itself. The truth is that if Nader were actually a good organizer he wouldn't need the MSM air-time that is the sole reason he keeps running for President.
UPDATE: Matt Gonzalez becomes Ralph Nader's running mate.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?
To regard them as the same strikes me as Bushian Manicheanism. But then again should one expect finer parsing from a political party that could not distinguish between Al Gore and George W. Bush?
Speaking of which, is Ralph Nader completely out of touch with contemporary political reality? The question answers itself. The truth is that if Nader were actually a good organizer he wouldn't need the MSM air-time that is the sole reason he keeps running for President.
UPDATE: Matt Gonzalez becomes Ralph Nader's running mate.
posted by hellisotherpeople at 9:25 PM
<< Home