Email Exchange

Following is an exchange I had recently with a very esteemed colleague at work. He's an incredibly bright guy, and he occupies a different "political space" than I do. We both share a deep interest in politics and world affairs, and I started a missive which ended up in an exchange of ideas which, in retrospect, I thought would be worthy of the blogosphere. Of course, his identity must remain secret, and will only be revealed when he dies.

***START OF EMAIL EXCHANGE***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:38 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: Point of Agreement

I think we can both agree on the following: The 2008 presidential primaries of both parties will be out-and-out slugfests and (at least to we politico-phyles) loads of fun.

Ds
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Wes Clark
John Edwards

Rs
John McCain
Sam Brownback
Bill Frist
George Pataki

Any others?

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:41 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I hope you are right,but we've not had a tight primary race since when?--the repubs when reagan was second to ford in 1976,and on the dem side since 1972?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:48 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

'84 was actually a pretty stiff contest b/t Hart(pence) and Mondale. But that ended with some "Monkey Business".

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/ElectPandC.html

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:00 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I think donna rice won that one---who do u think will win the two contests?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:06 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Rs
Depends who splits the vote. If both Brownback and Frist run, I see the possibility of a McCain victory. He could probably beat any Dem on the list right now, but the Neandrathal wing of your party may not let him get the chance.

Ds
Hillary looks tough to beat if she runs. Kerry still sits on a lot of campaign cash. Wes Clark will have a tough message. I doubt Edwards will run. If it's those three, Hillary wins.

McCain beats Hillary beats Frist. Clark will be the Ds VP choice.

***
From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:17 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Condi over hillary here.it appears to me you don't consider rudy g. as likely,whereas I think he'll be strong.fortunately the repubs have many candidates who've been correct in their judgement on the major issues,while the dems have only joe lieberman.

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:22 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Neither Condi nor Rudi will run. And don't get partisan here--you're wrong about Rs and major issues, and I might be forced to show you why, point by point. Rather keep it agreeable.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:23 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

You expect a neanderthal to be non-partisan?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:26 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

U bet. And stop dragging your knuckles on the ground, while your at it….

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:41 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Standing upright now……my point is that enough time has elapsed since the two major issues have been dealt with that one can empirically determine political judgement---the major domestic issues of the bush admin have been terrorism and economic revival---so anyone who voted in favor of the patriot act whether dem,repub or independent cast the correct vote,since we have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since the act passed.the most important aspect of the move to revive the economy was the reduction of income tax rates,and obviously the reduction has worked so any vote in favor of reduction was right.turning to foreign policy,the major issue has been the attacks against the taliban and saddam,and since both of those countries are now democracies,at the cost of relatively few lives,any person who supported the invasions was correct in their judgement.

***
From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:58 PM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

1. Terrorism - the only reason there hasn't been more terrorism is because Al Qaida hasn't yet decided to cause any. To hold otherwise is to demonstrate a hubris that is both frightening and totally unsupported by historical example. Be it the IRA, the PLO, ETA, Chechen rebels, Tamil separatists or some other violent group, governments far better schooled than ours in terror have only learned how to fight it--not how to stop it. If and when AQ decides to strike again, they will. I'd put Ariel Sharon's terror fighting skills against GWBJr.s any day, and AS has had only minor success.

2. Economy - your definition of "worked" is not very expansive. Bankruptcy rates are at all time highs, pensions promised by major corporations are vanishing at a rate higher than ever, gasoline prices are at historical highs, the Republicans have taken our budget from surplus to an enormous deficit, but apparently you think the economy has revived because wealthy people got huge tax cuts. To quote a favorite of yours, "I respectfully disagree".

3. Foreign Policy - "I respectfully disagree" with the characterization of 1,865 lives as "relatively few". And I thought the President said we were there for WMD? Apparently our mission changed. I was one of the people "correct in [my] judgement" by supporting the invasion. But that judgement was based on our Presidents apparent lie that Saddam had WMDs.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I won't bother citing all the facts to make my case,just a few--relatively few compares to the 31,000 we lost saving south korea and the 50,000 we lost in vietnam,while saving countless other asians from communism through our efforts---we have freed millions directly in afghanistan and iraq,with many more to come by indirect means in lebanon,egypt,palestine……as far as the economy goes,just read steven wieting---and on terrorism---by your measure there is no way any administration could be judged successful……consider this………if everything that has taken place since sept 11 had happened under a democratic admin….i think dems would sing a different tune----and as far as being right on the war…..i'm talking about possible candidates,not your esteemed self

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:36 PM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I stand on my earlier words. Especially #1. And you're right--there is no way to judge success in war on terror. Te genie is out of the bottle; as I said, we can only fight a war on terror. Only a fool thinks we can win it. The winning is in the fighting. It will now always be about waiting for the next shoe to drop, so you were were at least right about that. Leaving for the day. We can continue tomorrow, if you wish. Cheers.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:43 PM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

You've twisted my words---I said that by your measure no admin cud be judged successful---becuz if the only reason that we've not had an attack is because the terrorists have decided not to,then the admin never is credited for its actions.

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2005 8:45 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

… I wasn't going to respond (had actually deleted in hopes of starting a new day), but just had to, b/c I think this is a very important point psychologically in our war on terror.

I credit the administration for its efforts in the war against terror. But our war on terror goes back either to Reagan (Marine barracks) or, domestically, to Clinton (Oklahoma City). Pre-9/11 Presidents (including 43) fought terror with less stridency than is needed now--and, in retrospect, with tragic results.

But a pause in domestic terrorist acts doesn't mean success--unless you are measuring with a stopwatch something that history tells us should be measured with a calendar. There were nearly eight years b/t WTC attacks. Were Clinton's actions in the war on terror successful post-WTC attack #1, only to be undone by Bush's failures? Of course not.

"Success" isn't a dynamic concept. It either is or it isn't. The only variable is whether there can still be a terrorist strike on US soil. God forbid there were, that would no more mean this administration's actions failed, then it means now they have succeeded.

We fight the battles as they materialize with the expectation eventually of winning the war--but that will only come when the constant threat of terrorism is eliminated, which is to say maybe never.

This is our Hundred Years War. I think short-term characterizations are illogical and dangerous.