Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richard Holbrook thinks 18 candidates in Afghanistan is not a sign of democratic progress.
Foxnews - September 12, 2004 ^ | September 12, 2004 | mcconnell

Posted on 09/12/2004 4:26:22 PM PDT by mcconnell

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FORMER U.N. AMBASSADOR on Foxnews thinks 18 candidates in Afghanistan october election is a sign of instability. Sunday, September 12, 2004.

Holbrook - "And Afghanistan itself, despite what Secretary Powell just said, is not in good shape. It's deteriorating and the Taliban is advancing. And the fact that, as he put it, we have 18 candidates running for president doesn't strike me as proof of progress."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; election; richardholbrook
Now, are 18 candidates too many that does not strike as progress on Democracy in Afghanistan? Richard Holbrook may need a lesson on U.S. history when it comes to the number of parties in the U.S. The U.S. have 55 political parties of which only 5 parties have ballot status for its presidential candidates in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning, now, the 2004 presidential election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Historical_political_parties

Also, we mustn't forget the number of candidates running for governor of California ranging from former child stars to porn stars. Now, how many was that? What other countries have as just as many candidates ( or parties) running for President? How many believe 18 candidates running for president a sign of instability? Compared to what? Saddam the murderous dictator??

1 posted on 09/12/2004 4:26:22 PM PDT by mcconnell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mcconnell

Of course nothing that would give Bush any credit can be admitted. This is part of why the Kerry campaign is crashing and burning.


2 posted on 09/12/2004 4:27:33 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcconnell

A nation with many parties is on the right path as far as I'm concerned.


3 posted on 09/12/2004 4:29:24 PM PDT by cripplecreek (The economy won't matter if you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcconnell

Oh, hell. If we'd forced a two-party system onto Afghanistan, Holbrooke would be bleating that "Having only two Presidential candidates in such a diverse nation doesn't seem very democratic to me."


4 posted on 09/12/2004 4:30:00 PM PDT by ScottFromSpokane (Re-elect President Bush: http://spokanegop.org/bush.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcconnell

The democrats literally prefer having the Taliban in charge there, just like they prefer that Bush never passed the medicare bill or the NCLB act. We should grant there wishes ,except for the Taliban and then say but you guys didnt like them.


5 posted on 09/12/2004 4:52:41 PM PDT by aft_lizard (I actually voted for John Kerry before I voted against him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcconnell

I saw this guy. He's an advisor to Kerry on foreign policy, and the rock he crawled out from under has U.N. stamped on it. Big suprise, huh?

And of course he's just drop dead wrong on Afghanistan.

I would have puked on him if he were in range.


6 posted on 09/13/2004 2:31:05 PM PDT by planekT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson