Woohooo!!!!

Just checked the stat-counter....we set a new record yesterday...58 visits...unique...pretty good for a little county-wide blog huh?

About the Presidency.....

It's starting already....The run for the nominations. Today's news and views in both the traditional press and the blogosphere is full of little tidbit. For instance:

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill (cat-killer) Frist has announced that he will not seek the Republican Nomination.

Senator Joseph Biden (D) says he's still looking.

Retired General Wesley Clark says he hasn't "ruled it out".

Senator Barack Obama says he's exploring the possibilities.

Giuliani (spelling incorrect?) is listed as a Republican front-runner.


Saint Senator John McCain is pandering as hard as any man can to please the Republican Conservative (wacko) base for his bid for the nomination.

It brings back a lot of pre-2004 memories and causes me to think about an important difference in candidates. I offer it for your consideration.

What I think we are observing is a flock of people who are actively SEEKING OR PURSUING the Office of President. (before you post a "Well...DUH...." comment, hear me out.) It is not a case where The Presidency is pursuing them....that is, none and I do mean NONE of the present candidates have led such a life of service to the country that they seem to be natural and logical choices for the office of the Presidency. Yes, I will elaborate.

Teddy Roosevelt was a natural for his times because of his strong background as a reformer (remember he was Police Commissioner in New York too) Franklin D. Roosevelt was a natural choice because he showed he could lead at a time when America was in desperate need of leadership. Eisenhower was a logical and almost unanimous choice because of his demostrated leadership abilities and was actively sought as a candidate by both Republicans and Democrats.

Let me make this clearer by using Eisenhower as an example. He was a Four-Star General who put together the Allied Victory in Europe ending WWII. He is most known for his planning of the invasion at Normandy but his work and strategic planning in the years leading up to the invasion were brilliant. The important point is that he didn't run that war with a press agent or focus group telling him what to do to enhance his image for a distant run for the Presidency. He ran the war in Europe as a professional military man and in doing so demonstrated strength of character and leadership that would be unmistakable years later. It was, in fact because of his character and leadership that he was so actively sought for the nomination by both parties.

Contrast this with the made-for-TV-and-prime-time candidacy we are being exposed to now.

Issues and topics are carefully chosen to appeal to a "demographic" and images are masterfully sculpted to meet the desires of focus groups. As Teddy White told us in his first edition of The Making of a President, 1960, the candidate is packaged, labeled and sold to us in much the same fashion we purchase a jar of peanut butter.

Does it make a difference? Does it really matter if we choose someone who has chosen to run as a result of a lifetime of demonstrated character and achievement or someone who has been carefully groomed and sculpted for our consumption?

You're damned right it does!

For example, see this from today's Digby (Hullaballoo)

This all proves that it really matters who the president is. It matters a lot. We will be electing a new administration in less than two years and it's important to try to learn from this, beyond ideology, beyond partisanship. The Bush administration debacle is not, after all, confined to Iraq. There was Katrina as well, along with untold numbers of domestic, economic and foreign policy crises that have been put into motion and haven't yet come to fruition. The malfeasance wasn't confined to Don Rumsfeld or Doug Feith.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

George W. Bush is perhaps the best example of a pre-packaged President we will ever see. One of our (Democrats ) major complaints about him (okay, it was a complaint about Reagan too) was that he was an "empty suit" and it turned out to be tragically true.

In the next 18 months or so, we, the Wood County Dems, will start fractioning off to support different candidates for our party's nomination for the Presidency....consider these things as you choose...

it does make a difference.

Another Campaign Memory

Sigh..........it was a great experience...and DeDe has a nice souvenier picture to prove it.

Here's DeDe with Wisconsin's first Lady Jessica Doyle:



Thanks for the picture DeeDee!

Random thoughts on an open thread....

how's that for confusing....

actually I'm inviting all our friends to jump in here and have their say.....

Bush is at a NATO summit....met with German Chancellor Merkel...remeber what happened last time?

Wonder what he'll do to embarrass himself...and us...this time?

update: This picture looks like She told him to "Keep his hands to himself"....rofl

He's going to meet with Iraqi President Maliki later on....in Jordan...

IN JORDAN? Is Maliki defecting?

Meanwhile, Al Sadr's Shiia faction has withdrawn from Maliki's Government....ummmm...aren't they THE MAJORITY PARTY?.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2991704

Try answering this: There is no doubt we're going to leave Iraq. Do you think we should do it gradually or quickly? Post in comments.

Brief notes

I have a couple of meetings this afternoon/evening so this will be brief......

I'm glad I put the "statcounter" on this site...through Saturday there were 80 unique visits to the site and, get this, 48 of them were FIRST TIME VISITORS....so if you have something to say, this is a good place to say it.

BTW, Jenny sent me the web site info in late September but my email spam filter picked it up as spam and put it in the deleted items bin....I found the info there over the weekend...so I'll be updating the web site as soon as I can get to it.

see u soon

A different perspective

Etta Hulme puts a little different light on the subject of Iraq:

A few random thoughts....

I've spent most of the morning catching up on posts in my favorite blogs...surprisingly, it's been relatively quiet in the land of Left Blogsylvania.

Jesus General has an interesting post up that has me thinking a bit. This small "snippet" gives you a good sense of where he's coming from:

What happens, though, when we elect people who have no interest and/or ability to govern? What happens when we elect people who are more interested in their own personal power than in the general interests of society? We have been experiencing exactly that with the current Republican Congress and administration.

It may not be possible to document the full extent of Republican malfeasance and mismanagement of this country. Major crises, like hurricane Katrina and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, were addressed in ways that almost couldn’t have been worse. Minor issues have been dealt with in an even more incompetent manner. It might be easier to simply list the areas where Republican governance has been competent and effective.

(*crickets chirping*)

Aside from that, the news out of Iraq hasn't been good. Take a look at this compilation from The Raw Story.

Start with car bombs that kill 202 in one day, add to it, Sadr's militia taking over a major radio station, mortar fire into a US Base and the the Prime Minister getting stoned by his own supporters and I'd say you have....

what's that word?

Oh yeah, chaos.

I have to ask the question so many other bloggers have been asking over the past two or three weeks:

Exactly what does "victory" in Iraq look like?

What is our goal and is that an attainable goal? Bush said recently (on his trip to Viet Nam) that we will "win" in Iraq," ...unless we quit." Win what?

Here's an easy way out Mr. Bush. Remember that before the invasion of Iraq you changed your rationale for invading almost every day. Every time somebody contradicted your "reason of the day", you came up with another one. It was pretty tricky to do because you had multiple goals in your self-serving speeches.

You had to crank up your base with the USA! USA! USA!...KICK THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR GAS ..mantra...

You had to scare the crap out of Mr and Mrs Middle America and every Soccer Mom in the US...(that smoking gun = mushroom-shaped cloud line was a WINNER...kudos to Frank Luntz for that one heh?)

And, here's the tricky part...you had to refrain from mentioning to the United Nations that it had ANY thing to do with "regime change", so you spoke of "disarming Saddam". Slick. Absolutely slick.

So what does this have to do with getting out of Iraq now? Simple. Just pick one of the "excuses de jour" that you used in the run-up and declare "Mission Accomplished"...(maybe some different phrase would be better) .

For example: Try on the " If Saddam doesn't disarm, we, and a coalition of the willing, will disarm him."

Ta Daaaaaaaaaa! Victory. You sure as hell disarmed Saddam. And you didn't promise a democracy or a glowing republic or even a stinking rose garden afterwards. You didn't say what the cost of "disarming Saddam" was going to be. Who cares if you created another failed state or even another Islamic Theocracy or even another ally for Iran, you "disarmed Saddam".

Wooohoooo! USA! USA! USA!

See, it's that easy.

No charge for the advice Mr Bush.....