My Choice after the Debates

Well, it looks like the Democrats are at it again. They debated each other in Iowa over the weekend, with Lieberman absent, and Kerry and Edwards in Washington, ready to vote anytime on the Medicare bill. I watched the replay of the debates to determine which I like best. There were some good moments.

Ramsey Clark named incident after incident where George Dubya Bush turned off people both in this country and out and concluded that "He has not learned how to get along with others."

Dennis Kucinich emphasized that if it was illegal to go in there in the first place then it is illegal to stay there, and he pulled up a Washington Times (a Republican-leaning newspaper!) and showed four whole pages of pictures of servicemen that have lost their lives in Iraq.

Howard Dean said it was time to slow the tempo of the debates after Kerry kept hammering him on the Medicare theme and how Dean pushed through cuts in the Vermont legislature when he was governor.

Carol Moseley Brown said it was time to take the "Men Only" sign off the White House Door.

So which ones do I like now? Keep in mind that I would prefer even last place on this list to Bush and that if it came to a last-place to Bush contest for the Presidency, I would vote for last place easily. With that in mind, here is my preference:

1. Dick Gephardt. He is one of the older candidates, and it shows. He shows the best experience of any of the candidates. He has been through it all and apparently knows how to use that knowledge to help improve the lot of us all.

2. Tom Kucinich. He looks like one of these scrappy young candidates, but I like what he has to say. He voted against the war in Iraq, even while other Democrats were voting for it, and he expresses a world view rather than a parochial American view.

3. Howard Dean. I have seen some flaws in him, but he may be the best chance to defeat Bush next November. He was my choice earlier, and clearly expresses a choice separate from the President.

4. Joe Lieberman. He, like Gephardt, shows a lot of experience with the government. However, his being Jewish may be a liability. He will need to be careful not to show any favoritism for Israel and to show to Arabs that he is on their side as well as the side of Israel - a hard act to pull off. From what I have seen, he will be able to do this.

5. Al Sharpton. This candidate gets points for being more expressive with his beliefs, more so than with the other candidates. He expresses the same points as the others, which I mostly agree with, but he does it more forcefully. I think if he gets elected he will get things done but may have to tone down some of his passion.

6. Ramsey Clark. He expressed a belief in God in these talks, making me think he may not support such issues as taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance before allowing it in the schools. His initial waffling on the Iraq war concerns me a little. His background is that of a military general, which may not go well as the chief executive of a civilian government. He may have some charisma but not enough to topple the challenger-charisma Lichtman key.

7. Tom Edwards. He does not seem to offer anything unique that the other candidates don't have, and so as President he may be more cautious than some and let his Cabinet and Congress have more of a say than they would with a stronger President. He is said to have charisma, but in my opinion not enough to topple the challenger-charisma key.

8. John Kerry. I didn't care for his pressing Dean on the Medicare issues, and his initial support for attacking Iraq concerns me.

9. Carol Moseley Braun. She alone of the candidates would keep the soldiers in Iraq simply because we have them there. Al Sharpton offered a contrasting viewpoint.

And so there it is. I hope that Dean or Gephardt gets it, and that whoever it is will defeat Bush next November.

The Greatest Decision

I heard documentaries and other stories about President John F. Kennedy's life and his assassination. What struck me about it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Looking back at what Kennedy did, I conclude that he made one of the best decisions ever made by a US President. Further, in so doing, he turned back demands on him that could have likely meant my early death at age 17 - and maybe yours, through a nuclear holocaust.

The problem started when Nikita Khrushchev wanted to counteract the presence of missiles in Turkey and Europe that were pointed at his country, the Soviet Union. He made the impetuous decision to put missiles in Cuba with the intent of rectifying that balance, knowing full well that the US would react strongly to such an incursion. It turned out to be his biggest blunder. But he went ahead with it, and started building missiles in Cuba.

This was soon discovered by US spy planes - satellites were up but not the type that could take aerial photographs of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported this to Kennedy and said that there was only one way to handle this - invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. Kennedy did not want to do this. He felt that this could cause the Soviet Union to retaliate with nuclear missiles. In fact, there already were missiles in Cuba that could have hit US targets. He did not want to do something which might cause the world to explode in thermonuclear holocaust.

But he did not want to back down. To allow Soviet missiles in Cuba would have seriously damaged our security. So he wanted to stand up to the Soviets but not cause a nuclear showdown. An invasion was not the way. Neither was doing nothing. He found a way of standing up to the Soviets that had the best chance of dealing with the situation. He ordered a blockade of Cuba. This did two things: it told the Soviets to stop building missiles in Cuba or else; and because it took time for Soviet ships with equipment to get to Cuba, and this is what made the decision so great, it gave Khrushchev plenty of time to think about what he was doing. Just as the ships got to the brink of the blockade, sure enough, Khrushchev backed down, allowing a treaty to be formulated and signed. I feel it was one of the most brilliant decisions ever made by our Chief Executive. Another fine point of this decision is that Kennedy rejected the advice of his military. In his previous endeavor with the military, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the brand new President listened to the Joint Chiefs and created a big fiasco.

The decision also humiliated Khrushchev and exposed to the world his mistake. He paid for it a year later when the Kremlin threw him out as Party Boss. The decision by Kennedy was a courageous one to make. There still could have been a nuclear holocaust. But by doing what he did, he took the best chance of preserving the existence of our civilization, and it still exists in part because of him. Hope that we have more leaders and decisions like his in the future.