My Choice for Vice President

If I wasn't certain it would be like pounding sand down a rat hole, I would be taking out full page ads to tell the world I saw the man who should be the Vice Presidential running mate for either Barack Obama or John McCain. For John McCain because he calls himself a conservative. For Barack Obama because he said that in '06, despite his conservative credentials, he voted for Democrats who promised to end a war he had long seen as futile. For Barack Obama and John McCain because in this one-hour interview on Bill Moyers Journal (Friday, August 15 on your PBS station), Andrew J. Bacevich, graduate of West Point, 23-year Army veteran and retired Colonel, now an author and professor of history at Boston University, stood up with more strength, more historic context, and more clarity than any Democrat or Republican in the house or senate on all the front-burner issues.

Watch the interview here.

Comments

[Dap]

Dear Senator Byrd,

Thanks for sharing with us, I would like to share this with you, a must see interview with Bill Moyers and a couple of books by Andrew Bacevich.
Be well, Agape.

Norman Lear's post "My Choice for Vice President"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-lear/my-choice-for-vice-presid_b_119962.html

Andrew J. Bacevich's Book's "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" and "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War"

[Mario Almonte - Huffpost Blogger]

I just wanted the opportunity to say your're a genius and an innovator, and I'd vote for your choice of VP anytime...

[Whinger]

Nah! Keep military men out of the White House!

[zann]

I agree about Bacevich, though he's not alone in noticing that the empire has no clothes. He mentioned medicaire and social security as entitlements we couldn't, not shouldn't pay for without fundamental change. European social democracies manage to provide for their people without going broke. We've all been seduced by this magic show that "we" can have wealth without any material basis, that the self-interest of the rich serves the interest of society, that debt doesn't matter, that one man's wealth doesn't cause another's poverty, and that spending half our money on foreign wars makes us great. We all know better in our simplest and clearest of hearts, and we have to say so.

[DuganS1]

The "European social democracies" (as well as Japan) have a much higher debt relative to their GDP than the US and much lower rates of economic growth. Most those countries are trying to find ways to cut the entitlements and increase growth. We simply need a President who can make the bold moves to cut spending. Obama and Pelosi on the other hand will increase social spending dramatically. Even if McCain is elected he won't be able to cut anything because of the Democrats will control congress --- thus, we're doomed to put our enormous problems off to the future, probably when we're in the midst of catastrophe.

[Ken Allen - Huffpost Blogger]

The Bacevich interview on Bill Moyers' Journal was great, and I consider his book The Limits of Power to be essential reading. If you read it, though, you will understand why Bacevich could never be a VP candidate. His view of the possibilities of America constructively addressing its problems is so bleak he could never summon the energy to campaign in what he would view as a hopeless enterprise. His view of both McCain and Obama is very jaundiced, to the point that he cannot even see the virtues of Obama that should most appeal to him. (His philosophy of government and his book are heavily pervaded with the views of Reinhold Niebuhr, who is also one of Obama's favorites. Yet Bacevich assumes Obama's whole philosophy is contained within one paragraph of comments made in order to be comprehensible to a broad public audience.)

[TroubleNYC]

He seems to be leaning for Obama as well.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/

[frappe]

I was lucky enough to catch that particular interview on Bill Moyers Journal and, like you, I was very impressed with Andrew Bacevich, sufficiently so that I actually took the time to write down the title of his latest book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism", upon which the interview was largely based.

I completely agree with his view that the "war on terror" needs to be prosecuted as a criminal enterprise rather than having it compel us to transform our society into something approaching a fear-driven police state and where the only sacrifices Americans are being asked to make are those that negatively impact their Constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy. This, in my opinion, is very wrong and unnecessary and harms us in ways far beyond those envisioned by the terrorists.

[wingnutslayer]

America is well down the road previously followed by Great Britain and every empire that preceded it. As noble, but flawed, an experiment as the United States has been our arrogance, vanity and supreme overconfidence has already done us in. The military and war itself has become nothing short of a cash cow, a business opportunity for corporate America. The lives spent mean nothing, just business units used to fatten the offshore bank accounts of those who have found in America the greatest means for attaining personal wealth imaginable. These same entities that pay practically nothing in taxes but just can't beat their addiction to whining about paying any taxes at all are leaving America for greener pastures. Our once proud free press is now nothing more than a slightly more authentic reality show. Our educational system, once the envy of the world, is now a pitiful mediocrity. And on and on and on. Col. Bacevich is an admirable man, but as stated above, our country is now thoughtless and inarticulate, with no insight into anything greater than a supersized sandwich. Oh, did I mention our national obesity epidemic? Why bother? Forgive the unbridled pessimism, but all I see in this election year is a country in defeat. When a pop-pastor (also obese) can actually command the attention of a nation over which candidate can stumble all over themselves trying to play the god card, well, what's left to say. Get out the forks.

[LiberalLo]

I saw Col. Bacevich on Bill Moyers Journal last Friday night. I was very impressed that a conservative seemed more like a progressive than a a lot of people who call themselves progressive. He is a very thoughtful, insightful and articulate man.

[sufi66]

"He is a very thoughtful, insightful and articulate man."

The public has shown no desire for this type. None. Nada. Zip.

So what's the point?

[BCubedReg]

Exactly. Half the electorate is considering electing another "C-" student after GWB did such a great job over the last 8 years.

You are absolutely right, "The public has shown no desire for this type. None. Nada. Zip."

[GuyRC]

"He is a very thoughtful, insightful and articulate man."

Worse, it makes him an elitist, and the public hates that.

[killmenow]

I saw the interview with Andrew Bacevich. It should be required viewing for all Americans. It really did highlight how inadequate all of the contenders have been for the Presidency, and how immoral the American people have been where moral thinking really counts.

[highlyamused]

I absolutely agree it should be required viewing for every American. Now, how to go about doing that?

[JBS]

Yup. Oughta' be mandatory for everyone to rush right out and purchase a brand-new, made-in-China, 52 inch plasma, flat-screen HDTV so they can watch it.

[Dots]

Bacevich (or darn near any of Moyers guests) would be great.
Better yet, how about BILL MOYERS himself!

[dadw5boys]

MC CAIN / LIBERMAN

[recruitgal]

Lieberman, schmeberman...

[MourningDude]

Why can't we balance the budget? If you ask BHO how we can possibly balance the budget, he essentially has no answer.

'Well, if the economy grows at a surprisingly strong rate, and if we stop spending any money on any wars anywhere (ain't gonna happen with me though), and if we raise taxes on Exxon and the evil rich then maybe we have a shot...'

In the last 30+ years, the budget has been balanced for a grand total of 2 years, and that was only after 8 straight years of peace and prosperity, ending with a tech bubble that had to inevitably pop. What that tells me is that our system of government is fundamentally incapable of balancing the budget.

This guy was close, but he missed the mark. It all goes back to Medicare and Social Security. After Medicare was implemented during the LBJ's administration, our society shifted into a consumptive, debt based society. There was "all this money" coming in (but not really, since 'all that money' couldn't even make the books balance for the future), and it had to be spent. So Congress has dutifully spent the trust fund surpluses year after year, running up trillions of dollars of future unpaid bills in the process.

We need to address the root cause of this problem by reforming Medicare and Social Security. And it's going to be painful for many that foolishly bought into the Ponzi scheme for decades, but it had to be done.

[DixieMelody]

Okay, so according to you "BHO" has no answer.

And how exactly is that worse than McCain throwing out empty words born of delusion that he "will balance the budget by the end of my first term," without one word as to how he will do that.

At least "BHO" has some ideas he shares with us.

Why do you choose to nail "BHO" and give Teflon John a pass?

[SaltySaltillo]

Why do you care about a balanced budget? You want a balanced budget? How is this for a solution: slash spending and raise taxes. That will give you a surplus in a hearbeat, but why? Why this fixation with balanced budgets as the key, the end all, the holy grail of proper governance?

[MourningDude]

Because the budget imbalance from the last 30 years is costing us over 400 billion dollars per year in interest alone.

I'd sure like to have an extra $400 billion every year to play with, wouldn't you?

Iraq PALES in comparison.

Where do we slash spending? More than 80% of the budget is non-discretionary. That throws a huge monkey wrench into the works, doesn't it?

[BAM47]

....as salty says in his/her over mortgaged house filled with items bought on a credit card that is nearing its maximum.

[jahzilla]

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
The root problem is not the structure of either of those programs . . . it is that Congress has dipped into those programs' accounts (robbing Peter to pay Paul) for almost 30 years. Had a "hands-off" rule been invoked, we wouldn't have to listen to so many who spew simplistic (GOP/Libertarian, pro-privatization) talking points . . . which leave the "nuance-free punditry" feeling like they are qualified to pull "CliffNote­s-Economic­s for Dummies" out of their butts.

[MourningDude]

If Medicare and SS had been allowed to invest in the market, none of this would have happened. Instead, Congress forced them to take a measly 1-2% interest rate from a special class of government security, slated only for these trust funds. So you've got a big pot of money sitting there at 1% interest, while you would have to sell bonds at 6-10% interest. Which is better for the country? Borrowing from the trust funds, obviously.

Even today many libs screech over how investing the money elsewhere is too "risky". They gulped it down, all right. I can't think of anything more risky than letting GWB and Congress spend the money today.

[BAM47]

This is partly on the mark....government agencies (Congress and Exec Branch) have been borrowing. But there are also many people who collect from Soc. Sec. who have never paid into it. Additionally, it pays the spouse and children benefits when the payee dies. I don't think any of these things were part of the original design. I really wish someone would give a good look to the entire pension issue. Some states, like Illinois, have been raiding pension systems for years without ever contributing to the systems the funds they are committed to contribute. As a result, eventually the funds go bankrupt and the people who have been paying in lose everything. This should not be allowed. By the way, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Both parties share in the plundering of entitlements. Remember, the taxpayers are paying into these systems. They aren't a government handout. We shouldn't feel guilty expecting them to be safeguarded.

[pithy]

So Gore WAS right all along - we should have put Social Security in a lock box.

Be very wary - extremely wary - of any "privitazied" social security ideas - those proposing it only mention once in a while that there will be a SELECT group of Wall Street products you will be allowed to purchase (they floated the idea of 10 choices at one time), there will be assigned insurance companies and banks with whom you can deal and all of it will be so tightly regulated (so you don't lose all your money, dotcha' know) that the only people getting rich will be the companies chosen to let you "independently" manage your own retirement money.

Now that will be a scheme, believe me.

[MourningDude]

Too little, too late. We already owed over $4 trillion to the trust funds by the time he got around to that idea.

The system is too broken to fix now, and needs to be scrapped. People need to pay for their OWN retirement, instead of paying for grandpa's and forcing the grandkids to pay your way. A self-funded system is the only way it can be self-sustaining, and actually contribute to the economy instead of sucking it dry.

Grandpa and grandma will need to sacrifice as part of the solution, too. They buttered their bed, and now they need to sleep in it.

[Chapmanp2]

I'm gonna stick w/ Obama/ Clark
Besides fitting in every other way, it has the perfect roll off your tongue marketing appeal that levels out Obama's name. Clark is about as American as they come & a 4 star general w/ bi partisan credentials, National security chops, foreign policy heavy weight, Rhodes scholar, & Economics degree all spell putting voters at ease. Not to mention a strong Hillary supporter.
Obama/ Clark 08'
Securing America's Future

[Doofus]

Oh, please. Make this guy the National Security Advisor
and leave it at that. VP is basically a political job, and
it needs a person who's been in elective office.
The inexperienced need not apply.