I put up a new poll here yesterday, one that tries to get beyond the silly local obsessions of our district: The idea that we should elect a certain person to the United States House of Representatives who would likely remain there for a generation because we're interested in seeing Route 12 expanded, or we want the land claims dispute resolved in a particular way.
We owe it to our nation to have a bit of a larger view than that, and consider which Democrat is really best qualified to do the job of a member of the United States House of Represemtatives. It's a national post, after all, even if the election is regional.
So, the new poll question is this: Which Democratic candidate has the most credibility on foreign policy?
This is the kind of poll for which you ought to be willing to justify your answer. Take a look at the question, please, and don't just vote for your favorite candidate. Please, consider the three candidates, their experience, and their foreign policy positions as described so far. Which one, based on these considerations, has the most credibility in foreign policy?
Then, give your explanation in the comments section here. KNowing that we have a lot of people here who are particularly dedicated to one campaign or another, I'm interested in how people justify their answers. I'm genuinely curious, for example, what motivated one person so far to cast a vote in favor of Leon Koziol having the most foreign policy credibility of the three Democratic candidates.
I'm hoping that this kind of poll will get us to think about the race in more depth than just the horse-race question of which Democrat we suppose "can win." We would do well to remember that the Republicans chose George W. Bush as their presidential candidate in 2000 largely on the basis that polls said he could win against a Democratic opponent. In the long run, that choice led to disaster for both America and the Republican Party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Clearly Leon Koziol is the only candidate who can lay claim to having not only international but intergalactic experience...as you pointed out yourself, he is the only candidate actually from another planet!
Les Roberts isn't just the candidate with the most credibility on foreign policy, he is the ONLY candidate with credibility on foreign policy, and his credibility is considerable. His international policy experience already bests many sitting members of Congress, let alone any of the other candidates in this race.
It is laughable to me that anyone would suggest that either Leon Koziol or Michael Arcuri has more credibility on foreign policy than Les Roberts. In what possible world? On what possible basis does a D.A. from Oneida County have more foreign policy credibility than the one man in this race who has risked his life, quite literally, several times, to go into the most troubled and dangerous parts of the world to study and understand the situation on the ground, and help formulate policy to make things better? What is this experience, if not foreign policy experience? How is it that this sort of experience, in 8 war zones, including Iraq, including Afghanistan, including Rwanda, and Bosnia, how is it that this experience isn't the best in this race to yield credibility on foreign policy?
What sort of policy experience does any other candidate have to compare to being the director of health policy for the International Rescue Committee? (look it up.) How many hundreds of thousands of people have been affected by the life-and-death decisions made by any of the other candidates? How many of the other candidates have faced wards and wards of children shot in the legs and left in the streets as bait so adults would break cover to resuce them and be shot dead? How many of the other candidates have watched our men and women in uniform used in similar ways by our own military? How many of the other candidates have worked in concert with our military? How many of the other candidates have found themselves in the middle of another contintent with a gun to their head?
Let's be really blunt about this: how many foreigners have the other candidates even ever had conversations with, at any level, on any subject, aside from tourism and perhaps family gatherings? What do the other other candidates even know about other countries? Which candidate is known and respected all over the world for his work all over the world?
Which candidate's knowledge and experience will be most useful for doing the foreign policy work of Congress? Michael Arcuri? Leon Koziol? Please.
Arcuri supporters, in particular, tell us how, precisely, Arcuri has the most foreign policy credibility, if only to satisfy our curiosity. I will allow that there are many good things to be said about Michael Arcuri, and some of them even pertain to his qualifications in this race--but foreign policy credibility???
Which candidate do I want representing me on foreign policy? Which candidate is actually capable of hitting the ground running in Congress to bring the kind of knowledge and expertise our government so sorely needs?
How could it possibly be anyone other Les Roberts?
The most important foreign policy credential is a brain. With a brain, you can understand that Bush's War was a fabrication designed to vindicate his father's loss and perpetuate the neo-con agenda and control.
Bush's father thought his re-election was sewn up after the successful conclusion of Gulf War One. He thought the glow of that victory would be reciprocated by the public. He was the American Winston Churchill.
Karl Rove realized the problem was that the Gulf War had ended. That's all.
If it was still going on, the presidential election would be FDRian. Don't change horses in the middle of the stream.
The neo-cons aren't sure if they can change riders in the middle of the stream, but the constitution is going to make them give it a try.
This whole war on terror is designed to keep the American public terrorized so they are afraid to vote for peace again.
All you need to see through it is a brain. All we need in every Democratic candidate is a bit of moxey. A little courage.
Foreign policy is conducted by the executive branch as a long term professional obligation with some periodic infusions of political patronage in Ambassadorships. The Congress doesn't need to have huge expertise in foreign policy to oversee that. We need Congressmen with an actual working brain and a bit of courage for good measure.
It's a great question that strikes at the core of the difference between someone like Arcuri and a Les Roberts. Arcuri may be a competent D.A. and quite capable of representing people in local politics (go, Arcuri, run for State Senate!), but it's quite a different matter to represent a local community on the national and international scene and do so with the insight and authority that only real experience can bring.
To my knowledge, Arcuri does not have any international experience, nor does his background give us any reason to believe that he's particularly capable at dealing with matters of state or international affairs.
Electing Les Roberts would allow the voters of NY-24 to rest assured not only that their best interests would be served, but that they would have done the country the favor of providing Congress with a voice of reason and a voice of experience where it really matters.
in response to 4/8, 10:26 p.m.,
The best brain/mind in the race is Les Roberts, by a considerable margin. Put the candidates in a debate and this will become readily apparent to anyone who doesn't know it yet.
Courage? No candidate in the race besides Les Roberts should even broach the issue of courage, because on that score too, Les Roberts wins, this time by a million miles.
You have obviously never seen Arcuri debate and are in for a surprise.
Post a Comment