Reply #9: Tactical Disengagement is the hardest maneuver of all [View All]

[PurityOfEssence]

It's great to say that he'll just cancel it, but there would be immediate layoffs and unexpected consequences. This borders on recklessness, even if one thinks the thing should be ended.

Kucinich would be better off to express it as he does his plan with Iraq (U.N. in, U.S. out) which is a realistic plan to have a transition based on an assumption of duties and then a handover.

To walk in and flatly cancel something so thoroughly permeating our and others' economies is wrong for two major reasons: the abruptness will definitely cause major financial hardship, and it'll scare the crap out of people. The act of making such a grandiose and sweeping move like that is even beyond Dean's brand of flamboyance. Hell, a President has to have an even hand and realize he's steering a supertanker; he can't just take the wheel, turn hard a-port and floor it, not only will he spook everyone in sight, but he'll hurt people and diminish the trust in the administration.

Edwards is more cautious and methodical; you can see it in his platform. He's systematic and perhaps too gradual, but it more accurately mirrors human activity, whether it plays as well before the faithful or not. Government is supposed to be a source of safety and confidence as it goes about its business; most people don't want to be bothered about what its doing, they want to go about their lives. If you think that's pandering to the lazy, I submit that people are mostly that way and they'll never change. Mankind is not perfectable; we're as good and bad as we'll ever be. That doesn't mean that safeness is the best thing in the world, it means that the way one does things is very important.

I really hate simplistic answers; they don't work. Life is complicated and it needs to be addressed as such. Just because Edwards doesn't want to draw his sword on the Gordian Knot doesn't mean he's playing games, it just means that he has a different plan.