> Well, I don't know how many people follow
>politics, but I was watching the State of the
>Union address last night and it brought up a lot
>of questions for me. Usually I don't follow
>politics too closely. The whole Bush presidency
>worries me, so I've been kind of trying to avoid
>the issue. The last real political news I heard,
>besides of course the very blatant news on the
>Iraq and terrorist issues, was that Al Gore was
>not running for the presidency in 2004. I
>considered that a good thing, because honestly,
>I don't think he could carry it. As a sort of
>liberal, I'm hoping the democrats can at least
>come up with someone who has a chance.

This is sort of off-topic, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, so I thought I'd post anyway.

The thing I think most of today's politicians lack and, ironically, the one thing that most of today's voters look for in a candidate is principles. Convictions. Opinions on an issue that are based on something that person considers solid and are nigh unshakeable.

One thing Bush has, something even his father seemed to lack, is principles. By saying that I don't imply that he is moral or ethical or "right" necessarily (nor by adding this disclaimer do I imply that he is *not* those things, either), but simply that there are certain things that he believes in that he will not compromise.

Most politicians today seem to sway with the wind. They "believe" in whatever they think their constiuents want. If one day they think being pro-this or anti-that will help them get elected, then indeed they are pro-this or anti-that. And tomorrow, they may flip-flop and be anti-this or pro-that if the wind changes. With the possible exception of Joe Leiberman, I don't see any of the Democratic hopefuls who strike me as anything but "sway with the wind" type politicians. (And I don't mean that as a slam of Democrats either, although my personal opinion is that Democrats tend towards that behavior more than Republicans. But without a doubt there are a thousand thousand Republican politicians who are basically the same way.)

Bush clearly has principles. Many of them are predicated on a belief system that he and I do not share, but that I can never-the-less agree with many of the conclusions of. One of these convictions is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who runs an evil regime that is very capable and willing to spread that evil and he needs to be dealt with. And Bush feels that, as the strongest nation on the planet, we have an obligation to ourselves and others to be the ones to spearhead the effort.

Some would say that Bush only wants Saddam's oil, or only wants revenge on Saddam for plotting to assassinate his dad, or only wants to be the one to end the fight his dad "started" (although those who say that seem to forget that it was Saddam who started that fight by invading Kuwait.) And I'll not deny that some or all of those things might be a factor. But I don't believe for a moment that they are the true basis for what Bush is gearing up for. I think when it comes to brass tacks and you strip everything away and look at what is left at the core, the fact is that Bush thinks Saddam is one bad mofo and needs to be taken care of. And rather than hide from or shirk what he sees as a responsibility, he is going to take it on. And I, for one, have to agree with that stance.

Stephen and I chatted while watching the State of the Union address last night, and he expressed a little shock that Bush didn't back down at all from any of his rhetoric on Iraq. And I was uncomfortable with the fact that he didn't back down from any of his rhetoric on North Korea. But the fact that he didn't do either of these things, the fact that he *won't* do either of these things, shows to me that he is truly acting on closely held principles. Pretty much the entire world wants him to back down on both of those issues. People within his own administration council toning down the rhetoric. The easiest, perhaps even the most politically prudent thing to do would be to back down a bit. The fact that he won't do it isn't just stubborness or pride, I don't think. I think it's principles. And I have to admire that, even if I don't 100% agree with it.

If Gore were President, I have to believe we would not be gearing up for war with Iraq. Had the attacks of 9/11/01 happened on his watch, I have to think he would have done much the same as Bush did with Afghanistan, but beyond that, I don't see him carrying the fight to Iraq. Perhaps this would be the more politically prudent thing to do. Perhaps it might even be the right thing to do, although I have to believe that we can't leave Saddam unchecked forever no matter what happens, and if the lessons of history teach us anything, it's that appeasing a dictator is not the way to handle things (See: 1937, Europe). Is this the right time to do it? I don't know. I do know for certain we'll never know exactly *when* the right time to do something like this is until it's already passed us by, unless we are very lucky indeed. In fact, I think the right time already *has* passed us by, in 1991. Does it need to be done? Certainly. Saddam, in his own way, is principled too. He's showing that by continuing to play games with the UN inspectors instead of simply coming clean and revealing everything and complying fully with the UN. He won't back down, and he won't go away. He'll have to be dealt with at some point, and I have to believe it's better to deal with him now than to wait until he actually *gets* nuclear weapons.

But I stray even from my own off-topic tanget. Bush is a man of principles, and if the Democrats are to have any hope of unseating him in 2004 (barring a disasterous war with Iraq or a massive blow to the economy) they have to dig up someone who is likewise principled. Joe Lieberman, as I said, is a man who strikes me as having principles--principles I share and agree with much less than those of Bush, in most respects. And at the risk of sounding anti-semitic, I have to think this would be the *worst* possible time to be electing our first Jewish President. Who among today's prominent Democrats can convincigly be said to be principled? I don't know. But they'd better find one fast if they want to have any hope of beating Bush in '04. Americans like men of principle. Our greatest Presidents were men who had deeply held convictions that either defined them as men or defined their Presidency (Lincoln, Roosevelt (both), Kennedy, to name a few.) Maybe it takes a war or other such crisis to bring such leaders to the forefront (or to reveal the inner convictions and leadership ability of those in power) but either way it's going to take a great show of inner strength (or some great external catastrophe that can plausibly be pinned on Bush) for any Democrat to unseat Bush in '04.

-- Dave