<p>I heard Republican commentator David Gergen speak two nights ago. He had praise for Clinton, McCain and Obama, and also gave his view of the weaknesses (in terms of this election) of each: Clinton is Washington as usual, McCain is more of a hawk than Bush, Obama’s government service resume is thin. But overall, I heard the greatest praise for Obama, for his ability to catalyze the nation to solve the great problems that lie before us. Gergen said that the next president, whoever is it, will inherit the greatest problems any president has faced since FDR: global warming and the global economic crisis it will create, the Mideast, and Medicare (due to baby boomers). He said one thing about Bush: We’ve had enough of government by hunch.</p>
<p>I think we should cut 1of42 some slack on this. While not a citizen, he is a resident and he is obviously very tuned into politics which is a good thing. When conversing with peers who are predominately US citizens it is easy to get carried away and begin to think and express yourself as if you are also a citizen. </p>
<p>I’d much rather see a non-citizen express himself as if he were a citizen than what happened at the original rallys for illegal immigrants where they were waving Mexican flags and making demands on the US government. One is the first step toward assimilation, the other is a rejection of assimilation.</p>
<p>I’ll say a couple of things:</p>
<p>1) As a citizen of Canada, the US president has almost as much effect on me as on US citizens.</p>
<p>2) I plan to become a citizen eventually, and therefore have an active interest on how good the current President is.</p>
<p>3) America and Americans have absolutely no qualms about telling other countries how they should vote, how they should direct their policy, etc. etc. What exactly makes you all so America-centric that it is all right to be telling other countries how to vote, how to run their domestic and foreign policy (great example of that would be the US’s constant riding on Canada to not decriminalize marijuana, despite population majorities in BOTH countries populations wanting it done)?</p>
<p>While I can’t vote, I see no reason to be less engaged in politics - would you discourage a 14 year old from discussing these things merely because they cannot vote until some time in the future? - and no reason to not hold and express my opinions about it. If you don’t like it, ignore what I say. Sorry to be blunt, but I will continue to express what I think. If you don’t like it… sorry in advance.</p>
<p>vossron: David Gergen is one of the best in the business. I miss him from his days at PBS- Gergen and Shields was great with McNeil & Lehrer. Ah those were the days…</p>
<p>Gergen may be a Republican but he was also an advisor to Bill Clinton. He is pretty moderate, I think and I deeply respect his opinions. Very candid guy.</p>
<p>The six of us Democrats who went to the lecture together came away wishing Gergen were running for President.</p>
<p>“What exactly makes you all so America-centric that it is all right to be telling other countries how to vote, how to run their domestic and foreign policy (great example of that would be the US’s constant riding on Canada to not decriminalize marijuana, despite population majorities in BOTH countries populations wanting it done)?”</p>
<p>The huge amount of money we pass along internationally and the market we provide for other nations’ goods, as well as the security our armed forces provide to other nations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but the fact that America buys a lot of stuff doesn’t suffice as a justification for telling other countries how to run their own business. As for the “security” American troops are providing, you’re going to have a hard sell on that one in light of the events of recent years, when America’s armed forces are widely seen by many countries to have become a force for aggressive nation building.</p>
<p>Trying to influence the political affairs of a country getting a lot of direct US foreign aid could be said to be justifiable, but the countries America attempts to heavily influence often get no support from America.</p>
<p>This is the arrogant attitude that has America so resented around the world. The countries that America supports should listen to America’s requests. But that is not carte blanche to try and influence every country around the world according to the American government’s goals. That’s just arrogant to think, and it is this longstanding policy of seeking to maximize America’s best interests at the direct expense of other nations and people that has so many people so angry with America.</p>
<p>"This is the arrogant attitude that has America so resented around the world. The countries that America supports should listen to America’s requests. "</p>
<p>Yes they should listen. Comply? Not necessarily, but definitely listen. I think it is very important to leverage our positions in places like Pakistan and South Korea, as well as others. Feel free to disagree.</p>
<p>"Sorry, but the fact that America buys a lot of stuff doesn’t suffice as a justification for telling other countries how to run their own business. "</p>
<p>Could you tell us how the US TELLS Canada how to run its own business? You mentioned marijuana laws. What pressure is the US exerting on Canada? What would the US do to Canada if Canada changed its marijuana laws? Also, is that any different than other countries trying to tell the US what to do with repect to capital punishment?</p>
<p>ff: Every time the marijuana issue comes up, Canadian government officials get rather strongly suggestive communications - often from the US ambassador. It’s not exactly “telling” in the sense of direct orders, but it is far more than giving an opinion.</p>
<p>The irony is that whenever Canada suggests anything - like when Harper suggested that Maher Arar (who has been found decidedly innocent of any wrongdoing) be taken off US no-fly lists, the US ambassador to Canada got all huffy about Harper “telling America how to run its own affairs”. The irony is palpable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree. There is a certain quid quo pro involved in foreign aid, especially military aid. My point is, America tries to interfere with the inner workings of all kinds of countries that are not directly supported by it, which breeds a great deal of resentment.</p>
<p>That the US government pressures other countries toward certain policies and vice versa is not what I’m talking about. That kind of pressure happens all the time in both directions, and I’m fine with it. It’s called ordinary international diplomacy.</p>
<p>But elections are little different. For foreigners to insist that candidates do or not do something, or say or not say something seems out of line. And it’s not because they are foreigners per se; it’s because it is none of their business. They are throwing punches when it’s not their fight. </p>
<p>I would feel exactly the same way about say Texans or New Yorkers sounding off about what they expect of candidates for governor of California. Or residents of neighboring towns telling the voters in my town what they expect of candidates for my town’s office of mayor. In all of these cases it’s none of their business.</p>
<p>It sounds like Gergen hit the campaign nail on its proverbial head. I like him too–one Republican who didn’t drink the unreality-Kool-Aid that many other GOPers seem to have imbibed.</p>
<p>vicariousparent…I was really upset when Gergen left NPR too, but don’t you agree that David Brooks is an adorable replacement? :)</p>
<p>Maybe President Obama (I like how that sounds 
) will find room in his stable of advisors for Gergen, I wouldn’t be surprised!</p>
<p>coureur: I disagree, but thanks for stating your opinion respectfully. I think, for the reasons I gave above, and because so many things are now so interconnected, that it is not particularly out of line to want to see something from a candidate. Sorry to say that I"m going to keep posting, but your opinion is noted. :)</p>
<p>“David Brooks is an adorable replacement?”</p>
<p>If you like David Brooks, you’ll love his book, Bobos In Paradise. </p>
<p>Here is the partial chapter on the rise of the educated class and the NYT wedding page. Hysterical.</p>
<p>[Amazon</a> Online Reader : Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684853787/ref=sib_sip_pdp_pg?ie=UTF8&keywords=weddings%20page&p=S00E&checkSum=TNAAC%2FKd0w5aIRj5ktXGBbOSeGaLE4KEMo7qvMZ7mDs%3D#]Amazon”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684853787/ref=sib_sip_pdp_pg?ie=UTF8&keywords=weddings%20page&p=S00E&checkSum=TNAAC%2FKd0w5aIRj5ktXGBbOSeGaLE4KEMo7qvMZ7mDs%3D#)</p>
<p>Click on view then continuous to see all the pages.</p>
<p>Or residents of neighboring towns telling the voters in my town what they expect of candidates for my town’s office of mayor.</p>
<p>The difference is that the mayor of Yourtown has little effect on the residents of Neighborville. But consider if a mayoral candidate advocated dumping Yourtown’s garbage into the Neighborville river.</p>
<p>erewhon–thank you I am ordering right now from Amazon! Man he really nailed those wedding pages…as a family lawyer, I have to confess I read through them looking for chinks in the armor of happiness…</p>
<p>patient: I’m afraid I dropped out of TV around that time. What with the baby and then the internet and now Netflix, I can’t stomach TV (esp commercials) any more. I am watching a bit more now that this is election season. But I will look out for Brooks, thx for the tip.</p>
<p>Ah, Gergen as an advisor? That would be good. I would love to see a centrist advisory team that can actually propose reasonable solutions.</p>
<p>Well, Lehrer is commercial-free (during, not before and after but at least it’s not about Boniva and Cialis!). Fridays, and election nights, are when they are on. He is very very cute. He also articulates the conservative philosophy in the most palatable way I’ve ever heard, not that I agree with much of it.</p>