The Candidate

(WARNING!!! Long-winded politics post below, proceed at your own peril)

In light of Dick's latest fear mongering, it got me thinking about the ideal 2006/2008 candidate - for any office - and what I really wish somebody would say (out loud!) in response to the current political climate. In a perfect world, that candidate would be a progressive Democrat, but I won't be picky; if he or she actually existed, then I could care less about party affliation. Somehow I always picture a John Edwards type, but maybe that's because he's so good in front of a crowd - Bill Clinton, but without all the baggage. Maybe it's Russ Feingold instead, maybe it's Chuck Hagel. Anyway, here's what that person's national security portion of a stump speech would sound like (bear with me, I'm not a speechwriter):

Many of you may have heard Dick Cheney's comments the other day, equating Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut last week with a victory for terrorists. I think that's it's a sad day in this country when the vice president suggests that a fair exercise in democracy is somehow aiding al Queda. Isn't this the same administration that claims that terrorists attacked this nation because they hate our freedom? The White House is going to have to make up its mind on this one, because it seems to me that they're trying to have it both ways.

This election can help put an end to this Bush administration tactic - using Fear as an instrument to scare the public into supporting a failed war, and a failed foreign policy in general. Using that Fear to bludgeon its critics, to brand them as unpatriotic. Citizens of this country don't trust their government simply because their government isn't honest with them! I hate to break it to them, but we're spending billions fighting a war that produces more terrorists, and billions more to prevent toothpaste from being brought onto an airplane. Why are we allowing this administration to force us to live in fear? Nobody's talking about this, not them, and not anyone in my party either, but all the Homeland Security funding in the world isn't going to stop another terrorist attack. All the billions spent on a pre-emptive war aren't going to guarantee a democratic Middle East.

They will no doubt use this speech to brand me as soft on security, or as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. But I'm just embracing a reality that they're not willing to accept - we won't ever be completely safe from determined terrorists, so let's take reasonable steps to protect our country, while still ensuring that people's rights are preserved! Reasonable steps like removing ourselves from the mess in Iraq, where every incident of torture, prisoner abuse, and stray bombs that blow up Iraqi civilians, just serves to create more terrorists. Steps like using our diplomatic muscle to bring together Israel and its neighbors for contructive negoitations, not the blind support for Israel practiced by this administration that often does more harm than good.

And what can we do with all that money that's currently going to military-industrial spending? Well, last time I checked, killers such as heart disease, cancer, even drunk drivers, have a much better success rate than terrorists. We could use some of that money to increase research into renewable energy, and the search for a technology-based solution to global warming. All real concerns and real threats, all just as worthy of our efforts, our considerable talents, and our tax money, as terrorism. That old line about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? I sure don't recall any mention about pursuing that happiness under a cloud of irrational fear. This world can be a frightening place, but we can't afford to let a relatively small source of danger paralyze our lives and undermine the spirit of this country, not when there's so much else to be done.