You should point out that Braun and Sharpton were opposed to the war. That's clear. Really much clearer than the opposition of Clark and I would argue Dean as well.
For all the candidates,
Project Vote Smart has a good collection of speeches, statements and interviews with a handy search feature.
Here's an older statement by Sharpton from a
Face the Nation interview:
First of all, I would try and heal the rift that we have cause with allies in the United Nations and those that may not be allies. I would aggressively move toward trying to find common ground with those that are members of the United Nation to have a multinational strategy toward reconstruction. I think that the rhetoric we've heard from the president this week is the exact opposite of what we need. In fact, I will be calling on the president today to apologize to the American servicemen and their families for what he said.
As you said, I'm in Los Angeles. For the president to say, 'Bring it on,' almost like daring and provoking Iraqis to kill American soldiers, he sounds more like a gang leader in South Central LA than one that is trying to institute a policy of democracy and reconstruction in the world. I think what we must do is show the world we want to be partners in progress, not bullies in warfare.
Yeah, it's not directly about the about the $87,000,000,000.00, but it's not the Rev.'s fault reporters haven't asked him this and reported it, and since he was marching today with Conyers you can pretty much imagine what he thinks. Anyway, although some anti-war protesters have made an issue of it, the question of the $87 is not the same question for each candidate in the primary, and I guess you realize that from like the way you've used Clark's statements. So if it's generally about exit stragety or future plans, then you should quote Sharpton too on that, and perhaps think of framing it more generally to be fair to all the candidates, if that's your goal.
Finally, if you're going to paraphrase, and you care about being objective and fair, you've got to be extra careful. For instance, your readers might not know that Braun opposed the war, and honestly, whenever she's asked, that's like something she
always says. And like there was a big "however" preceeding "We don't cut and run" and it reads like that on her web page, which you linked to.
Now if $87,000,000,000.00 is the question you really want to have asked and answered by all the candidates, here's Braun's full response from the debate at Pace University:
I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are in the desert in Iraq and who, right now, are in a shooting gallery without even sufficient supplies to sustain themselves. And so it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we not just blow up that country and leave it blown up. We have a responsibility. Following in on that responsibility means we will have to vote some money. The estimates vary as to what that is. Almost a year ago, I called on this president not to go into Iraq, and I called—I called on the Congress not to give him the authority to go into Iraq. And at the same time, asked the question, 'Mr. President, how much is this going to cost?' He didn't answer the question then. He's not answering the question now. But I believe it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.
Notice the beginning "I stand with the mothers." This was a point highlighted in the Braun campaign's press release, so if you want to be fair, I think, you have to consider that as a critical aspect of her reply. And notice the last bit, "the folly of preemptive war." Say that you want to focus on what's in the middle. If you strip out rhetorical points of emphasis like openings and closings, and still want to be fair about it, then you should be careful in your paraphrasing that you don't totally omit those points or present an argument as something other than what it was.
This is tricky. Dick Gephardt has also said "American's don't cut and run." The key is context. IIRC at one debate that was like the first phrase out of his mouth in answer to a question about the $87,000,000,000.00 request. So I think it's something that he has emphasized, and Braun of course has emphasized that point, but how would you characterize their telling differences?
I just noticed for instance on the Gephardt page some really outstanding quotes highlighted:
I'm seeking the presidency because foreign policy isn't a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones and then everything fades to black.
That actually sounds like some of the other things he's been saying since "Enough of the phony macho rhetoric." But, at that time as you note he was still calling himself quite honestly I believe a supporter of the war. Hmmm. What to emphasize, what to emphasize.
I don't know Maha, you've done a good job of finding some relevant statements and bringing them together. You characterizations of the candidates could be fairer in my view, but it is very difficult, and at least you have provided links and a springboard for further discussion.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
