Darfur and the Candidates

The invisible genocide hasn’t made inroads into the 2008 election for most “major” candidates.  For those who have, you have the sane few who have stated policy on Darfur like Bill Richardson and John Edwards.  Then you have those on the insane side who think we can safely ignore the Darfur conflict because its just another civil war, like Ron Paul.

DarfurScores.org offers another window into those running in 2008 who are currently in Congress:

Barack Obama:  A

Hillary Clinton: A+

Dennis Kucinich: A

John McCain: C

Ron Paul: F

The conservatives seem to be stuck on one of two notes:  war or isolationism.  We either impose ourselves on the world or ignore the world and keep to ourselves.  These “solutions” do not work in the face of active genocide.  What we need are efforts to confront and engage all of the stakeholders in a conflict.  We need leadership.  John Edwards’ words on Darfur strike a chord:

“There comes a time when we must say, ‘Never again.'” — John Edwards

That is a clear reference to the Holocaust.  The scream of spiritual death that the Holocaust tortured out of humanity has been heard again and again throughout history.  Our response to that suffering must be an outpouring of compassion and the courage to take up responsibility and act.  A President must understand the urgency of genocide and be able to articulate it as an international issue the global community must address as one.

Advertisements

13 Responses

  1. I’m glad to see Obama get an “A.”

    Since I have endorse him, this is important to me.

    I am not surprised to see Ron Paul get an “F.” He’s terrible.

  2. All or Nothing – that seems to be the Neo philosophy. And the All happens only when giving it will reward us.

    Good one, ffto.

  3. I’m not surprised to see Ron Paul get an “F”. From a site that is biased, opinionated, and extremely one sided. Your site spews fountains of extrapolated facts, I am not surprised one bit.
    Your views are isolated.

    Hitlery stands and she deserves the name. The more I learn of her the more of a NAZI she becomes.

    Democrats or republicans or to whatever party or idea you proclaim your alliance, you are destined to live with your conscience (if you have one) by not voting it. Throwing your vote away is voting for evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils is the same thing.

    There is a game being played on us all. We are the pieces to be used up like an unlimited resource. When we decide to do no matter what to win the game then we become the game.

  4. Christopher,
    Me too.

    Thanks Mirth,
    A very good addendum. But I think that only applies for some of the neo cons. For others, the “true believers”, it really isn’t about rewards but rather about ideology. This might be the distinguishing difference between the trickster and the fools.

    Michael D,
    Well of course its biased, it has an opinion other than yours. Check out the site Michael. The grade is based purely on one’s voting record regarding Darfur. Is this another case of “why must the facts be so biased?!”?

    I can happily state that my views are far from isolated, although I am sure you wish they were. Plenty of people support human rights, and criticize the politicians who oppose them.

    Yet Hillary has actually done something right on Darfur, and opposed genocide. People like Ron Paul have done what they can to allow it.

    The issue of voting for the lesser of two evils is a painful one. Thanks to the Bush Presidency, it is all two clear that allow the greater evil to win has very real and deadly repercussions.

    There is a game being played using us all as mere pieces. However I think you fancy yourself a bit more aloof than you are. You are being played by Ron Paul, and gift him with a status neither his actions nor even his words deserve.

  5. “People like Ron Paul have done what they can to allow it.”

    Wow! Why don’t you just call him a dictator now? Your really that ignorant?
    His approach is to remain within the confines of his oath. You still don’t get it. The human rights issue is more important in other countries than this one is what your trying to say. The tax dollars that are spent on other countries interests are yours and mine not the governments. When we have problems at home licked then we may worry about other countries. If Uganda wasn’t a priority back when then why divert our attention from home yet again before helping the people of the good ole U.S. Your logic and approach frighten me.

  6. Michael D,
    He actively opposed any efforts, including sanctions, to take action on Darfur. At all.

    I am clearly not calling him a dictator. I am also not making any statements as to the value of human rights here. I don’t see how you could confuse this so thoroughly.

    What I am saying is when an issue of human rights came up abroad, Paul chose to stop those who wanted to do something about it. That’s why, on Darfur, he gets a well deserved F.

  7. What I’m saying is his intentions to take care of the U.S. before ANY other country is more commendable than Hitlery attempting to take care of herself by voting for something so noble as remedying the situation in Darfur just to camouflage how detrimental her actions regarding the U.S. are.

    It’s a token gesture on her part to appear to be compassionate. She is not compassionate she is self motivated (much the same as George Bush).

    Of course it’s always easier to spend someone else’s money. So tell me fitness, should we spend money abroad before we cure what ails this country? Seriously. You would condemn Ron Paul on Darfur and ignore or slander his efforts for this country. Yet you praise Hitlery for just the opposite.

    Are you really saying that you support exporting the money needed here at home to Darfur or where ever else? Were you this concerned when Edie Amine was slaughtering his own people? Did you make a political position of that as well?

  8. Michael D,
    People are not black and white on issues of justice. Ron Paul has many noble positions. As does Hillary. I don’t see her positions on Darfur as contrived. But with regards to Darfur, looking at the practical impact of votes is essential. So on this issue, she succeeds where Paul fails.

    So tell me fitness, should we spend money abroad before we cure what ails this country?

    We can support sanctions. We can allow the UN to send peacekeeping troops. We are not always forced with a stark choice between having an impact abroad and having one at home. We can do both.

    I think we should find a unified position to take on issues of genocide and mass repression. China is another example.

    We should work on issues here, sure. But even if we take a fully selfish approach, to ignore the world is to expose ourselves to the world. Bush was absolutely wrong on Iraq, but the argument of “another hitler” is compelling for a very good reason. I’m not at all advocating going to war against every dictator who pops up. I do think we can do things like stop arm sales, support the UN and the international criminal court, and make non violent efforts to confront dictators and weaken their power.

  9. “We can support sanctions. We can allow the UN to send peacekeeping troops. We are not always forced with a stark choice between having an impact abroad and having one at home. We can do both.”

    You didn’t grade him on that. You graded him on not sponsoring or passing legislation and funding. Not a very honest observation on your part.

  10. Is not sponsoring or supporting something the same as opposing it? I don’t think so. Maybe you do. So if I don’t support gay rights you think I oppose them. That’s worse than the guilt by association tactic.

  11. Michael D,
    If you are in office, let’s say you are a state rep for connecticut, and a bill on your desk appears that would extend the same rights of marriage and benefits to all couples regardless of sex. If you not only vote against it, but argue against it, I’d say that yes, you were opposing it.
    Ron Paul argued against getting involved, at all, in the Darfur conflict. He even ignorantly likened it to our own civil war. He actively opposed efforts to help.

    You didn’t grade him on that. You graded him on not sponsoring or passing legislation and funding. Not a very honest observation on your part.

    Did you look at the link explaining Ron Paul’s grade? It lists the Acts he voted against, and those he did not vote for. He did not vote for divestment. Look at his record.

    (Interestingly enough, he did vote to send money over for humanitarian aid. I thought Ron Paul was for spending money here first?)

  12. The line is smeared by you again. You think for some reason that he is a heartless bastard. Voting for humanitarian aid is within reason. He doesn’t suggest that we abandon the rest of the world.

    Again by not voting for something does it mean you are against something? Arguing the contents and approving the aid. Hrmmmm maybe the contents were not as they seemed by the name of the bill or act. Did you read them (the legislation on Darfur) before you posted that foolish report card? Perhaps there was more to it than you know. I haven’t read them yet but I will be and I’ll let you know what I think of the provisions when I am informed. Not before!!!

  13. Michael D,
    I’ve smeared nothing. Your argument is just on unstable ground. Paul isn’t a heartless bastard. He just has the wrong position on Darfur: One of non involvement.

    Again by not voting for something does it mean you are against something?

    When you also argue against it, Hell Yes! You have simply ignored my point. If you take a public stand against getting involved in Darfur, and vote in line with that stand, it isn’t a huge leap of logic to suppose maybe you don’t support getting involved in Darfur.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: