I've been reading Tim Oren's blog for a while. To date, he's been entirely focused on tech / VC / networking / wireless. Right up my ally biz-wise. He's an OLD SCHOOL silicon valley VC and has a salty "seen it / done it" 'tude I really enjoy.
Well, he recently posted about politics (a first on his blog as long as I've been reading it). This quote REALLY resonates with me -
As for the Democratic Party, there are two memes that have moved me to a public declaration: ‘Halliburton’ and ‘New Draft.’ I know enough of business and the miliitary to recognize the arguments behind these as utter rubbish. If they were coming only from juvenile blog trolls, I would not be surprised. But to hear such tripe from the mouths of party elders and the heads of the ticket is different. Whether those statements are principled, or pandering, I will have nothing to do with putting a Party espousing fantasy ideology in charge of my country. This is a Party that deserves a long journey in the wilderness.
Andrew Sullivan
recently posted an arg I whole-heartedly agree with. One of the (hopeful) benefits of a Kerry Victory depends on whether you think we've already crossed the Rubicon w.r.t. Iraq. In other words, no matter how many Michael Moore fans Kerry puts in his cabinet, we aren't going to disastrously pull out cuz events have already unfolded and because a Republican congress, Fox News, Bloggers, etc. will be on his ass to keep him honest. *IF* you believe the biggest steps have already been taken, then perhaps draining the swamp of Dem idiocy would be a nice outcome -
FORCING THE DEMS INTO RESPONSIBILITY: It's a simple argument and it goes as follows. One reason to vote for Kerry this time is that, whatever his record, he will, as president, be forced by reality and by public opinion to be tough in this war. He has no other option. You think he wants to be tarred as a wimp every night by Fox News? Moreover, he would remove from the Europeans and others the Bush alibi for their relative absence in the war on terror. More important, his presidency would weaken the Michael Moore wing of the Democrats, by forcing them to take responsibility for a war that is theirs' as much a anyone's. As Bob Kagan put it recently,
There are many reasons why, in theory, the US would benefit from a Democratic victory. It is important for the Democrats to own the war on terrorism and not simply be the opposition. Also, we would have a fresh start with the Europeans and other allies, though they would quickly be disillusioned to learn that Kerry wouldn't be that different from Bush in some respects."
Max Boot, another neoconservative, echoes the theme:
I am not at all averse to giving a Democrat a shot. In fact, a Democrat might be better able to sell skeptics abroad and at home on the need for toughness. It also would be good for the Democrats to buy into this long-term struggle, just as Republicans bought into the containment policy with Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1952 election.
I'm not saying this is obvious. I am saying it is perfectly possible to be pro-war and pro-Kerry. Especially after the mishandling of the last year in Iraq, our frayed relations with important allies, and the president's fiscal undermining of our future military capacity.
Perhaps. But man, we're talking about rolling some pretty big dice here in the hopes of unifying the nation.
Comments [
] :: Main :: Archives
