Tag: Courtney Lynch
My initial response was simply to ask whether there was any reason I should take this candidacy seriously in any way. Among other things, I asked my friend the following questions about Lynch:
1. Who is she and what has she done?
2. Does she have any money or access to any? Kaine will have a ton.
3. Does she have any grassroots support, or likely to grow any fast?
4. Does she have any party support, or likely to gain any?
5. Does she have any support from any significant quarter?
6. Does she have any real rationale for her candidacy, like a strong progressive challenge to Kaine?
I added that, to me, #1 is important, #3 more so, and #6 is crucial. I also wrote that, if I saw a Democratic candidate who I thought a strong progressive and a serious individual with a real chance at beating George Allen, I'd strongly consider supporting them in a primary against Tim Kaine, given Kaine's far-less-than-progressive record as Governor on issues ranging from the estate tax (he signed its repeal), the environment (he strongly supported a new coal-fired power plant in Wise County), the "transportation monstrosity" (he signed it, complete with "abuser fees" and unconstitutional "regional taxation authorities"), etc. Perhaps, I suggested, I could get behind someone like Bobby Scott, but with money (Scott's got none, basically) and a much more serious commitment than Scott seems to have to building a strong campaign and running hard.
Tony Macrini gave Lynch her own lead until a caller provided the catalyst that sent this episode into a spiral. It might have gone there eventually. It was a welcome relief from the pablum delivered by the print media. Responding to a question about Libya, she looked back at a strategy abandoned by the Bush administration. Under the old construct, national strategic planning recognized the constraints of military resources (aka, reality). America always planned for two major contingencies with the approach of "Win-Hold-Win." That meant that if there were simultaneous threats, resources would be dedicated to win one while holding the other at stasis. Then, upon the winning the one, turn our focus to the other. The idea was to avoid two stalemates, or worse, two simultaneous losses. It was a strategy employed for six decades. Lynch went on to comment that we have to look strong and hard at where we involve ourselves. For a glimmering nanosecond, one thought she was going somewhere with this line of discussion. Then she opined that:
Lynch: "...to protect the liberty and rights of innocent civilians as we are doing in Libya is consistent use of American armed forces. But I do believe we have to be careful..."
Macrini: "Ms Lynch, do you know for a fact that these people we are protecting in Libya are not al Qaida, they're not terrorists, these rebels? Do you know for a fact that they're innocent civilians we are protecting?"
Lynch: "I don't know for a fact anything. I am not on the ground in Libya."
Macrini: "All right. That's what you said. That's what you said. You didn't know it for a fact; why'd you say it? You said we're protecting the people in Libya."