Dick Gephardt – his trae/economic policies are not in line with the GOPs but he usually seems serious on security matters (and culutral before he became a national Dem. politician – a throwback to the old Scoop Jackson liberal hawk?). No mangement experience but probably would have good relations with Congress.

Leon Pannetta – seems like a serious guy, as Clinton’s Chief of Staff and senior Dem congressman he knows how to get things done in Congress and excutive branch.

Lee Hamilton – on 9/11 commission he seemde less flaky and less intersted in partisan point scoring than Bob Kerrey, still the 9/11 commission’s partisanship and he lack of mnagement experience make him a questionable choice.

James Woolsey – Clinton’s first CIA director but perhaps more of a neo-con these days, but seems to get along with many in the administration

If you wanted to look outside the usual government types, a Silicon Valley CEO might be a good place to look to get someone familiar with managing fast growing organizations and familair with hte challenges of adapting to quickly evolving technologies – God knows there are always computer system problems in intelligence/law enforcement.

I think I know exactly where you are coming from when you accentuate the “I”.

I use more words to poop out simple ideas than almost anybody I know…but even I haven’t made a public case for “what needs to be said” because the policy makers we’ve elected clearly doubt that a majority of the electorate is ready for it yet.

I, too, loathe violence. I’m bang on necessary violence, though. You cannot capture a Kamikaze.

Fifty-plus-whatever percent of us are resolved to fight and win, as measured by November’s election. That’s well and good, if far from representing the level of public awareness of the true nature of the threat and the necessary lengths we must go to in my (there’s our “I” again) opinion, based on my experience and study.

If a large portion of our majority that voted to continue the war based their choice solely on preventing another 9/11, hunting down that particular organization, and nothing else, so be it.

I think the interconnectivity of all the jihadi movements all the way back to the Wahabbi tea rooms in Saudi and the halls of Tehran lends a lot of latitude to our definition of ‘organization’ when it comes time to declaring victory. So be that, too.

Perhaps you haven’t read the story of the Kerry’s pleading in Newsweek. Kerry promised McCain that “if he went on the ticket Kerry would make him solely responsible for Defense and Foreign Affairs.” McCain’s response was “John are you nuts? I don’t even think that would pass a constitutional test.” You are obviously uninformed.

Tell me, where do today’s socialist oriented mainstream Democrats policies overlap with Republicans? Not on defense, not on taxes, not on social security or terrorism. Certainly not on court appointees. How do you propose the Republicans reach out? By giving the Democrats final say on who gets to be a judge? Bush was cooperating with the Democrats before the 2002 midterms. After the Dems lost they switched tactics to blockade and became the modern equivalent of the Civil War Copperheads. If Bush was for it, then they were against it.

Grow up, you lost. Go into the opposition put together a program and bring it before the people. If they like it then you win.

1) I have no idea what you mean by “patently unconstitutional”. Which part of the Constitution would have been violated by a Kerry-McCain ticket?

2) As for center stage, do you think Vice President Cheney is “window dressing”? Blind, cartoonish assertions aside, why would McCain have been any less integral to Kerry than Cheney is to Bush? McCain & Kerry have worked closely together on a number of occasions, difference of opinion & all.

3) And finally, saying things like “mainstream socialist Democrat” just makes you sound even more silly & cartoonish.

This is what comes of the rise of Right Wing Media. You get this ridiculous, cartoon view of the world.

Tim

Kerry wanted McCain for window dressing only. McCain told him he was nuts for proposing a patently unconstitutional arrangement. Kerry labors under the misconception that since they are friends McCain agreed with him. Kerry can’t imagine a situation where friends can have different political views. McCain would not have left the Senate to be in the cabinent. He wants to be center stage not a dummy in the shop window.

The Democrats view of bipartisanship is for Republicans to accept left wing positions. Since, the Republicans aren’t socialists their legislation can appear to reject bipartisanship if you are a mainstream socialist Democrat

It’s become a cornerstone of the Bush Administration, Hastert House & Frist Senate that for any measure or bill, success is measured not by its passage but by ensuring that no Democrats are allowed to be in favor of it. There are a number of ways they’ve found to accomplish this, they’ve turned it into a science.

“Bipartisanship is date rape” – Grover Norquist

I’m not sure whats with all this “reaching across the aisles” crap. I can safely say there would be no republican anywhere near John Kerry’s cabinet if the election results had been different.

John Kerry was so committed to bipartisanship that he approached John McCain numberous times with an offer to run as his Vice President.

I know that life is simpler when you ignore the facts, but Oceania has not always been at war with Eastasia. Saying it has doesn’t make it true.

Tim

Oh no, not Wes “the Gladius” Clark. The man is insufferably arrogant, dishonest and a poor administrator to boot.