According to a Plain Dealer op-ed piece, Rosemary Palmer is going to run against Dennis Kucinich for his seat in Congress in the 2008 Democratic primary. Palmer's son died fighting in Iraq so one would think she was running to support her son against Kucinich's anti-war position, but she is running as an anti-war candidate. Why run as an anti-war candidate against one of the most anti-war members of Congress? The article lists three reasons, but none of them make sense.
Reason 1: Kucinich's Presidential Run
I've written previously about people in Cleveland being upset about Kucinich's presidential run so I won't write about it again. The article doesn't state why Palmer is upset about Kucinich's decision to run for President, but I can think of only reason why from an anti-war point of view. Instead of running for President, he should be working in Congress to end the war. Sounds reasonable, right?
The problem is there are only two ways to end the Iraq war: the President can withdraw troops or Congress can cut off funding for the war. The Democratic Congress has shown they are not going to cut off funding because they are afraid of being accused of hurting the troops. Because Congress won't cut off funding for the war, becoming President is the only way Kucinich can end the war.
Reason 2: Kucinich Wants to Immediately Withdraw from Iraq
Apparently the problem with Kucinich's anti-war stance is he wants to end the war too quickly. Why bring the troops home now when we can wait 6-12 months to do so? Forcing another 500-1000 families to suffer the pain Palmer has suffered because an immediate withdrawal is "unrealistic" sounds insane.
Reason 3: Kucinich Doesn't Get Along with Congressional Party Leaders
Kucinich doesn't cooperate with high-ranking congressional Democrats, keeping him from being assigned to important committees. A more flexible Representative could get better committee assignments. This argument could be valid for many things (assuming Palmer could gain enough seniority and the Democrats still held the House when she gained the seniority), but not for ending the war. How is cooperating with Democratic congressional leaders going to end the war?
The Democratic leaders have shown they are not going to cut off funding for the war, and they have no interest in doing so. Rahm Emmanuel is more interested in cutting off funding for Dick Cheney's office than in cutting off war funding. The Democratic leaders want the war to continue so they can use it as an issue in the 2008 election. They would prefer soldiers losing their lives to losing an election. Cooperation isn't going to bring the troops home.
Conclusion
I'm glad Rosemary Palmer is running for Congress. We need competitive primary and general elections to keep our representatives alert. But Palmer needs to better explain how she would end the Iraq war faster than Dennis Kucinich. Criticizing immediate withdrawal isn't going to cut it with anti-war voters.
June 26, 2007
June 15, 2007
Lack of Respect
The NBA Finals are over, and as a Cavaliers fan, I found them to be disappointing. But what's more disappointing is the lack of respect the Cavaliers got nationally for their playoff run, which is something 28 other teams would have traded their seasons for.
Round 1: Cavaliers sweep Wizards. The national media was upset that this matchup even occurred. They were rooting for the Cavaliers to play the Heat in the first round and for them to lose to the Heat. The Wizards were without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler, but the Cavaliers swept them. The national media expected four blowout wins and ripped the Cavaliers for only winning by 15, 7, 6, and 7 points in the four games.
Round 2: Cavaliers beat Nets 4-2. There's not much to say here. To the national media, this was the second part of Cleveland's easy playoff road. I can't help it that the Raptors lost to the Nets. I didn't see anybody criticizing the Jazz's easy road when they got to play the Warriors instead of the Mavericks.
Conference Finals: Cavaliers beat Pistons 4-2. The ESPN NBA experts predicted the Pistons to win. When the Cavaliers won, instead of praising them, they talked about what the Pistons did wrong. Before the series, the Pistons were supposedly a dominant team. Greg Anthony even said they were better than last year's Pistons team that won 64 games. When the Cavaliers beat them, the Pistons transformed into a team with a lot of problems. The fact that Cleveland beat them meant that something was wrong with the Pistons.
Finals: Spurs sweep Cavaliers. The national media held two simultaneous views. First, the Spurs are a great team, a dynasty approaching that of the Bulls in the 1990's and the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980's. Second, the Cavaliers are terrible, the worst Finals team. Every Western Conference playoff team except the Lakers would have beaten the Cavaliers.
For these two views to both be true, the Spurs would have to blow out the Cavaliers all four games, the way the national media expected the Cavaliers to play against the Wizards. A dynasty should blow out a terrible team, right? But the Spurs didn't, winning by 9, 11, 3, and 4 (technically Game 4 was a 1 point game, but the Spurs gave the Cavaliers a wide open 3 point attempt at the end) points.
Either the Spurs aren't as great as the national media says (for letting a terrible team hang around) or the Cavaliers aren't as bad as they say (for hanging around with a great team). I take the second option.
National media, instead of ripping the Cavaliers and LeBron James for their poor performance against the Spurs, I have two other targets for your criticism. First, the Dallas Mavericks, your regular season darling. They won 67 games and had the league MVP, who you should expect more from than a second team All-NBA player like LeBron. But they lost in the first round to the #8 seed Warriors in 6 games, and were lucky to get a 6th game. Second, the Miami Heat, defending NBA champions. I know Dwayne Wade was injured, but a player who supposedly is better than LeBron shouldn't get swept in the first round of the playoffs. But why criticize your favorites, when you can rip LeBron?
Round 1: Cavaliers sweep Wizards. The national media was upset that this matchup even occurred. They were rooting for the Cavaliers to play the Heat in the first round and for them to lose to the Heat. The Wizards were without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler, but the Cavaliers swept them. The national media expected four blowout wins and ripped the Cavaliers for only winning by 15, 7, 6, and 7 points in the four games.
Round 2: Cavaliers beat Nets 4-2. There's not much to say here. To the national media, this was the second part of Cleveland's easy playoff road. I can't help it that the Raptors lost to the Nets. I didn't see anybody criticizing the Jazz's easy road when they got to play the Warriors instead of the Mavericks.
Conference Finals: Cavaliers beat Pistons 4-2. The ESPN NBA experts predicted the Pistons to win. When the Cavaliers won, instead of praising them, they talked about what the Pistons did wrong. Before the series, the Pistons were supposedly a dominant team. Greg Anthony even said they were better than last year's Pistons team that won 64 games. When the Cavaliers beat them, the Pistons transformed into a team with a lot of problems. The fact that Cleveland beat them meant that something was wrong with the Pistons.
Finals: Spurs sweep Cavaliers. The national media held two simultaneous views. First, the Spurs are a great team, a dynasty approaching that of the Bulls in the 1990's and the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980's. Second, the Cavaliers are terrible, the worst Finals team. Every Western Conference playoff team except the Lakers would have beaten the Cavaliers.
For these two views to both be true, the Spurs would have to blow out the Cavaliers all four games, the way the national media expected the Cavaliers to play against the Wizards. A dynasty should blow out a terrible team, right? But the Spurs didn't, winning by 9, 11, 3, and 4 (technically Game 4 was a 1 point game, but the Spurs gave the Cavaliers a wide open 3 point attempt at the end) points.
Either the Spurs aren't as great as the national media says (for letting a terrible team hang around) or the Cavaliers aren't as bad as they say (for hanging around with a great team). I take the second option.
National media, instead of ripping the Cavaliers and LeBron James for their poor performance against the Spurs, I have two other targets for your criticism. First, the Dallas Mavericks, your regular season darling. They won 67 games and had the league MVP, who you should expect more from than a second team All-NBA player like LeBron. But they lost in the first round to the #8 seed Warriors in 6 games, and were lucky to get a 6th game. Second, the Miami Heat, defending NBA champions. I know Dwayne Wade was injured, but a player who supposedly is better than LeBron shouldn't get swept in the first round of the playoffs. But why criticize your favorites, when you can rip LeBron?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)