Yes, the ideal "purist candidate" is one without a record in office, who can continually pander to disgruntled leftists without ever having to explain a vote.Jesse Jackson? Check. Ralph Nader? Check.
The ultimate purity test is, of course, the question of Israel. This is a tricky one, since the progressives and the evangelicals make opposite purity demands -- and the evangelicals have far greater numbers.
Hard facts: The Palestinians are fighting for survival. No candidate can help them without first achieving the presidency. Sadly, no candidate can accomplish that goal without giving lip service to a fanatically pro-Israel stance. A citizenry raised on Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye demands nothing less.
Thus, we need a candidate who will bite his tongue and recite the usual speech -- yet who will, if elected, try to ameliorate Palestinian suffering.
Those of us hoping for humane and just treatment of the oppressed are reduced to something like tea-leaf reading: Which candidate sounds least convincing when he reads the "Our Friend Israel" script? Last season, John Kerry looked like he was having a root canal. This time around, I think John Edwards is the Democratic candidate best able to placate the Jesus voters.
But if he does, out come the purists, who tolerate no concessions to political reality. As always, their motto is: "It's not what you do, it's what you say." Their other motto (and we've already heard it a lot) is: "Better to let the Republicans take everything in 2008!"
Easy for you to say, Bub. You don't live under occupation.
4 comments:
You are, unfortunately, right about Israel. Anyone standing up for the rights of Palestinians in a political campaign will be trashed unmercifully.
Al Gore is certainly not pure but I'm not sure any candidate possessing reasonable qualifications could be pure. There are some tests, I would think, that are beyond political purity.
* Does the candidate believe in the Constitution specifically the Separation of Powers, and the Bill of Rights, and are they going to honor their oath of office?
* Does the candidate use reason and facts to make decisions or do they simply take a poll?
That doesn't seem too much to ask.
The New York Times | With Democrats Like These ...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102007A.shtml
The New York Times editorial board writes: "Every now and then, we are
tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of
Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic
leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and
failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way
that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without
undermining the Constitution."
anon 1:17, that is NOT the case. In fact, that scenario is at a 180 degree remove from the facts.
Jeez, what IS it with with NYT? Every editorial they've published on any aspect of FISA has been pure crap. If I were more of a conspiracist, I would claim that they are being paid to stir up purist dissension.
From now on, my readers are forbidden from bringing up the NYT's opinion page in any further commentary on FISA -- except, of course, if the purpose is to point up the stupidity of the NYT's editorialists.
No candidate can help them without first achieving the presidency. Sadly, no candidate can accomplish that goal without giving lip service to a fanatically pro-Israel stance. A citizenry raised on Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye demands nothing less.
Yeah right. More like a citizenry raised on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Time, Newsweek, US News, the New York Times, and Hollywood movies demands nothing less.
Post a Comment