// Home // Klein

Klein

The Significance of 100 years

By DAVID ORTEZ on April 09, 2008

Republicans are concerned about McCain's claim stated multiple times about a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for 100 years. The National Republican Congressional Committee have issued a press release claiming that Democrats are "falsely accusing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of “promising” 100 years of war in Iraq." The NRCC justifies the claim as a desperate attack to capture the November election.

There is no secret that McCain stated that if required the U.S. should remain in Iraq if needed another 100 years, in fact he added 1000 years and 10,000. One only needs to do a quick YouTube search and they will find videos containing the clip.

These comments should enlighten the general voting population of McCain's distorted view of the Iraq War. It should frankly scare those that hear his comments into registering to vote in order to demonstrate their opposition to McCain's flawed opinion and perspective. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo adds, "McCain stipulates to the fantasy that Iraqis will be happy having us occupy their country forever and that the place will become like Finland. And none of our soldiers will ever get killed there and it won't cost any money. If that's the explanation for why we shouldn't be concerned that he's happy to stay in Iraq for a century, that just tells people that McCain is living in a fantasy world."

Joe Klein of the Time Magazine Blog claims that the issue at hand with McCain's point of view is that, "he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam." I concur with Klein's assessment of McCain's distorted view of Iraq. Unlike Germany or Korea, the reason why we are in this mess is the reason why we are in this mess. Our presence in Muslim nations is not appreciated by those that attack us. Until we understand that, their attacks will not cease. Iraq as nation has not been stable like Germany or Korea either. The Saddam Hussein rein was the longest time period in recent history in which the region was stable.

Steve Benen theorizes that this, "is a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts." That explains why the GOP is pro-active about the issue.

But, what is the true significance of 100 years? Just to put it into perspective . . . in the last 100 years:

  • Women gained the right to vote in the U.S.
  • Segregation in the U.S. was outlawed.
  • Cars, Radio, Television and Airplanes just to name a few were invented.
  • The World Community participated in 2 World Wars.
  • The U.S. has seen 18 different Presidents in office and prior to that 25 had served (almost half).

This list can go on and on about what 100 years truly mean. The U.S. has only been around since 1776, that just 232 years. The way McCain intends to scare us into accepting this scenario is by claiming that Muslim extremist will attack us at home. They love to use the recycled Domino Effect Theory (once applied to Communism) about terrorists and the reason why we should remain in Iraq. McCain apparently believes that if we depart from Iraq, the country will become a terrorist haven and then the whole middle east will fall prey to the ideology. According to McCain and the GOP, we should dedicate the next 100 years to Iraq, 1/3 of the U.S. lifetime, to combat such scenario. Don't get me started on his statements of a presence of 1,000 or 10,000 years . . . Jesus died just over 2000 years ago.

  • Add Comment

Democrats are Better for the Economy

By DAVID ORTEZ on April 03, 2008

Princeton University Political Science Professor Larry M. Bartel is causing a stir in the blogosphere with his new book "Unequal Democracy" which will be available June 2008. The matter at hand actually is a chart that visually plots the how the economy differs under Democrat or Republican Administrations. The books purpose is to show that the "increasing inequality [between the rich and poor] is not simply the result of economic forces, but the product of broad-reaching policy choices in a political system dominated by partisan ideologies and the interests of the wealthy."

The chart illustrates that income growth during Democratic presidencies is more beneficial to the poor but higher for everyone as whole compared to those of Republican administrations. Democrats as opposed to Republicans, are better on economic growth and distribution for Americans. It seems odd that there is data that supports this since the first lesson I learned in my American politics class was that the President has little control over economic policies. In fact, most policy does not have enough time to have a direct impact within an administrations tenure. This is perhaps the most perplexing issue with the chart.

Ezra Klein at The American Prospect theorizes that perhaps, "It may be that the election of Democratic executives happens, in general, in times when the culture is trending in a more egalitarian direction, and so the Democrat is being elected for the same reason distribution is improving. And, conversely, it can be the example set by presidents -- as when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers to usher in the era of union busting, or Bush cut taxes for the rich and opposed increases in the minimum wage -- that help steel the will of the greedy and lower the working class's expectations and estimation of their own power."

Whatever is the reason why Americans as whole do much better under a Democratic Administration, the real question is: How do Republicans explain that the economy suffers under their power? As Dick Gephardt once said, "If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for Democrats."

  • Add Comment