Look, maybe he should just hire some bloggers. I’ll suggest a few, if anyone from the campaign wants to email me and ask. Believe me, the blog brain trust that’s trying to run his campaign for free could not do a worse job that the clowns running it now (I’ll note that there was a Clinton transplant today – about which more later – and as much as I’d like to, I probably can’t blame them for this – yet).
Let’s go to the papers.
Here are three examples the campaign should consider when it’s deciding who’s going to eat the jar of jalapenos.
First, the stutter-step campaign staff replacement (I said I was going to deal with the Clinton transplant).
Kerry has taken the unusual step of dispatching campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, senior strategist Tad Devine and pollster Mark Mellman to New York to breakfast with political reporters today, just hours before Bush delivers a nationally televised speech accepting his party’s nomination for another four-year term.
The Cahill-led mission is to quell speculation that a major staff shake-up could be in the offing – much like the one that resulted in Cahill taking charge of an under-performing Kerry campaign last fall – and that the Kerry organization is troubled by the Democratic nominee’s slipping poll numbers.
…in a 90-minute telephone conversation from his hospital room, [Clinton] offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy, as Mr. Kerry enlisted more Clinton advisers to help shape his strategy and message for the remainder of the campaign.
…
The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry’s campaign and criticism that he had been too slow to respond to attacks on his military record or to engage Mr. Bush on domestic policy. Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said.
It’s not a shakeup, it’s not, it’s not (continued)…
Mr. Kerry’s aides emphasized that this was an expansion of the staff for the fall campaign and did not represent another upheaval of the Kerry campaign. Still, several Democrats outside the campaign said the influence of Mr. Clinton and his advisers could be seen over the past few days in Mr. Kerry’s attacks on Mr. Bush’s domestic policies. They said the Clinton team had been pressing Mr. Kerry to turn up the intensity of his attacks on those policies after a month spent largely avoiding engaging the president.
The installation of former Clinton lieutenants is creating two distinct camps at Mr. Kerry’s campaign headquarters on McPherson Square in downtown Washington.
Yeah, those kind of silent transitions make for clear lines of authority in any project team!!
Next, the counterattack. On the www.johnkerry.com website (wouldn’t it make sense to make it kerryedwards.com or something similar? And to brand it as Kerry-Edwards, instead of John Kerry for President?) a list of 143 lies told during the GOP convention. There are two problems here. As many have pointed out, it appears that the Kerry campaign has decided that it’s a good idea to include four statements by McCain in that – yes, to call McCain, who is for better or worse, the moral center of the Senate – a liar X 4. Smooooooove! Can I get the name of the staffer who thought that was a good idea?
And the page consists of a list of 143 claims made at the convention with the author of each claim. Example:
Franks Distorted Kerry’s Comments About Fighting War on Terrorism.
129. Franks: “Some argue that we should treat this war as a law enforcement issue. Some say we should fight a less aggressive war — that we should retreat into a defensive posture and hope that the terrorists don’t attack us again.” [Remarks at Republican National Convention, 9/2/04]
Other Countries Making Substantial Contributions
130. Franks: “Some have ridiculed the contributions made by our allies, but I can tell you that every contribution from every nation is important.” [Remarks at Republican National Convention, 9/2/04]
Martinez Said Bush’s Policies Helped All Americans.
131. Martinez: “Not only does President Bush believe in the American dream, but his policies are helping people across our country to realize their own American Dream.” [Mel Martinez, 9/2/04]
Martinez Said Kerry Wanted to Raise Taxes.
132. Martinez: “President Bush wants to cut taxes, and John Kerry wants to raise taxes.” [Mel Martinez, 9/2/04]
Holy crap. They don’t even know how to Fisk.
Would it have killed someone to have one of the interns who normally is driving around Washington looking for crack for the senior campaign team – and I can’t think of another explanation of how someone who is supposed to be playing at the top level of the toughest sport in America could do so incredibly badly – to just, say, make an argument, provide a link, suggest some reason why Tommy Franks is lying other than WE SAY SO?? How stupid are these people, and how stupid do they think we are??
I don’t want this campaign to be decided by ineptitude. It’s like watching a motorcycle race that gets decided because one riders mechanic forgot to put oil in the engine.
But the stupidity may not stop at the crack-using staff level, and that’s what worries me.
Kerry gave a speech yesterday, at Canonsberg Pennsylvania.
Under pressure from some Democrats to change the subject from national security — regarded by many as President Bush ‘s strongest issue — Kerry tried to focus exclusively on the economy and other domestic topics at a neighborhood meeting but supporters raised Iraq.
The Massachusetts senator, who has said he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force if necessary against Iraq even if he had known at the time that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, has struggled to draw clear contrasts with the president.
“I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq,” Kerry said.
He denied that he was “Monday morning quarterbacking.”
“I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, Mr. President don’t rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace.”
Kerry said Bush had failed on all three counts. He called the president’s talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops “the phoniest thing I’ve ever heard.”
“You’ve about 500 troops here, 500 troops there and it’s American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties and it’s American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war,” he said. “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Kerry, like Bush, promised that the United States would stay the course in Iraq until the country is secure, saying: “We have to do what we need to do to get out and do it right.”
He pledged to internationalize the forces in Iraq and do a better job of fighting “a more effective, smarter” war on terror that he said would actually make Americans safer.
Although he declined to set a precise timetable for pulling out U.S. troops, Kerry said it would be possible if certain conditions were met, such as bringing allies to the table to help with security and reconstruction.
He also said Washington should make it clear to the world that the United States had no “long-term designs to maintain bases and troops in Iraq.
“We want those troops home and my goal would be to try to get them home in my first term and I believe that can be done,” he said.
I’m so un-nuanced that I not only don’t see a clear policy in this, but see an amazing straddle – we’ll stay until the country is secure, but I’ll promise to try and get them home in the next four years. A message designed to both piss of both sides of the issue here, but on the other hand, at least he’s not sending a clear message to the other side wither.
Sheesh. Hire Kevin Drum, will you?
AL, I wish you’d shit and declare for Bush or get off the pot of appearing to agonize over your choice while parroting Bush talking points like Instahack.
Ah, sorry – suggesting that Kerry’s running a bad campaign – which he is – and that he hire a smart liberal like Kevin Drum is somehow … what? Not supporting Kerry enough?
Can you bring a cup of your Kool-Aid over to my house?
A.L.
So Kerry is trying to fix his problem of seeming indecisive by being unable to decide what faction’s in charge of his campaign? Brilliant …
A.L.,
So to re-ask klaatu’s question, but this time with an actual, substantive basis – how could you support Kerry to run the country when he can’t even run his own campaign?
And how can you support a party whose energized base is happy to call you a fascist and a warmonger?
Note I’m not being rhetorical here, or looking to score points, I’m quite serious. This year of all years I wish the Democrats had fielded a better candidate.
I’m asking these questions not because I don’t think you have an answer, but because I expect that you do.
I don’t lose sleep over much, but this is coming close. I disagree – strongly – with almost every domestic policy Bush and his team have implemented or are proposing. I think that Bush is failing to grasp core policy issues that will have profound negative effects on me and my sons. I think there is a strain of – laziness – in his team that has led them to assume the postwar peacemaking would be as easy as defeating Saddam’s army, and he has – two year late – finally begun to address the core theory behind what we’re fighting for.
But I don’t like Kerry’s domestic proposals much more, and I think he’s profoundly clueless on the issue of the war with the Islamists and their supporters, and the competence he’s demonstrating isn’t filling me with warm confidence.
I think that events will constrain Kerry’s foreign policy, but I’m not sure that I’m prepared to trust that.
So I’m spending an increasing amount of mental energy trying to figure this out…
A.L. – confused…
Straight up let me say that I’m a moderate who will be reluctantly voting for Bush this time. I just wanted to say that our country needs a solid discussion of the issues right now, and it is crushingly disappointing that the Democrats have nominated a candidate who seems incapable of doing that.
In any case, Kerry’s inept handling of his campaign has been making me feel less bad about having to vote for Bush. For what it is worth. Moreover, I don’t see anything Kerry could do to change my mind about what I have learned about the quality of his leadership abilities.
My plea to you all is to keep the howling down if Bush wins, and to work hard to build up and sustain credible, committed, and competent politicians. The whole country needs a strong Democratic party… one that is a voice of wisdom rather than sputtering rage.
Maggie – couldn’t agree more. This ain’t ’68, it’s more like ’72 where McGovern was “right form the start” (not) and “1000% behind Eagleton, til he dumped him.” Both parties seem to have a death wish some times (think of the Reps in ’64), but this is one year I hope the Dems go off to the EU to die, rather than doing it here, and dragging the rest of us down too.
Better an inept handling of a campaign (if minor hiccups and adjustments are a really a sign of ineptness) than an inept handling of a war (Iraq, screwed up in multiple aspects).
AL, I sent you an email.
k –
Got the email, will reply.
I’m waiting to be convinced that Kerry might do better – which requires two things: a) a theory of what he’d do (yes, I’ve read all his position papers, and they’re all doodoo); and b) something to convince me he has the capability to carry it out.
I’m looking, I really, really am.
Longer reply by email and maybe worked into a post…
A.L.
My, my, such hand-wringing. You’d have to have served in Democratic Party politics long enough to accept this as old hat. Stupid campaigns, clueless politicians led by even more clueless consultants — more on this later — platforms so mushy you’d need pontoons to stand on them. But I do have to take a line from Robert E. Lee and say, It is well that politics are so terrible. Otherwise we’d grow too fond of it.
Maggie. Being a good campaigner doesn’t necessarily mean being a good elected official. There’s Bill Clinton, or, God help us, Gov. Gray Davis of California, a formidible campaigner but not a distinguished chief executive. I know; I’ve worked in California Democratic politics. And even Bill Clinton was the exception that proved the rule: a likeable (if roguish) campaigner with a brilliant campaign manager (though I remember that Jimmy Carville, unlike Karl Rove, didn’t stick around after the election).
Other than him, who tends to be a Democratic candidate? Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, and now this. How do they get to be such towers of Jell-O? (I don’t where the GOP gets the idea — see Michael Savage, et al, passim — that they’re Mephistopheles incarnate?) I did get a clue about this fatal blandness in seeing the 1994 governor’s race here, where Kathleen Brown seemed like a bright executive type in 1993 but, after we paid $1.2m to a campaign consultant to re-make her, ended up over-programmed (face to face in August 1994 and she’s saying, “i am the candidate of jobs i am the candidate of jobs …”). 30-point lead ending up in a 20-point defeat.
California supposedly is the predictor of future trends. What I’m seeing here is a GOP state party that has managed to drive large blocks of the electorate — Latinos, gay people — into the other party and managed to lose every state office in 2002 even with Gray Davis as a drag on the ticket.
Arnie’s different. Of course, he, like Gov. Reagan, like a number of former actors in our legislature, was trained in Hollywood and keeps his message, image and voice under his control. He also doesn’t value polemics over practicality — RNC take note — and he’s very definitely in charge. While his party, which used to rule this state (only 4 Dem. governors in the 20th Century, and 2 of them were named Edmund G. Brown, Kathleen Brown’s father and brother respectively) is drifting into the margins.
A.L., I don’t know if you are indeed waffling. All I can say is this: Don’t be so dismayed because Kerry is so unlikeable! You’re supposed to vote for a candidate, not marry him, and if he doesn’t work out you can vote for the next one. I can’t vote for W., simply because the national GOP is mutating the way the California GOP has. (Yes, I saw what they did to the Log Cabin people, that was emblematic.) I might have voted different if Rudy G. or John McCain were the nominee; they’re not; the reason they’re not — which would take a whole post to explain — is one reason. Another reason is that I know what clumsy leadership is like, and John Kerry might be far less so than W.
And the war on terror is another reason. “… finally begun to address the core theory behind what we’re fighting for … ” I think you said, AL? That’s the final cluelessness: the debate has shifted to which candidate will or won’t fight the war on terror, the sort of Certs-is-a-candy-mint no-Certs-is-a-breath-mint debate the GOP is good at. The debate, if Kerry had any sense, would have been over which candidate is botching it. Kerry won’t; he may very well lose; I’ll vote for him and not lose any sleep over the result. I believe that God does look after fools, drunkards, and the United States of America. No matter who is President.
I see a difference here — Kerry sees that his campaign is having problems, and shakes things up. Gets some fresh blood in there.
Bush sees that the postwar planning for Iraq was shabby and … what? Feith is still there, screwing up as usual. Everyone knows the troop level was inadequate, except Donald Rumsfeld. The director of USAID, Andrew Natsios, is still there, having botched his job horrendously. Bremer was a disaster — even hardcore true believers like Michael Rubin will tell you that. Sanchez should have been fired in November. Richard Armitage says the NSC policy process is “broken” and that Condi doesn’t know how to do her job. The CIA has declared all-out war on the Pentagon. There is no policy on Iran, which is nigh to developing nuclear weapons. North Korea has likely increased its arsenal while the Bush administration fiddled and put together its regional group to offer the same deal that could have been on the table in 2001.
Then we have the economic team. As far as I can tell, Karl Rove is setting economic policy for the Bush Administration. John Snow gives photo ops and babbles nonsensically about the Yuan, and parrots insane and false talking points about the deficit. Mankiw and Hubbard are too ashamed to defend the administration for fear that their reputations will be forever ruined.
Yeah.
Bush is a real top-notch CEO.
Does anybody notice about the Kerry press release that if you take out the title and a few words here and there, it reads exacty like a press release from the Republicans giving you the highlights of their convention?
praktike,
Well then, if Bush is so bad, it should be Kerry’s race to lose. If he does, he had no excuses.
A.L.,
Think Saigon, ’75. Think hard.
Bob –
Well, since I worked for Edmund Brown (Jr.) and had Pat Brown as a tenant in the building where I worked four years later in Beverly Hills – which meant I got to have coffee with him & his driver a few times – I think I’ve been around California Democratic politics long enough to know what I like and what I don’t like.
A.L.
lewy14-
I think that policy and campaigning are different skills. Bush obviously enjoys and is good at the latter — I’ve read numerous accounts of him getting heavily involved in commercials and polling numbers in swing counties and so forth — but I don’t think he has any sort of chops for the former. And it shows.
The campaign is not being decided by ineptitude. It is being decided by Kerry and the Democrats. What’s the difference? I don’t know!
Please explain how Kerry can keep together the pro-war and anti-war factions of his base?
Please explain how Kerry can keep together the pro-capitalist and anti-capitalis factions of his base?
There are too many contradictions. And you know – when there are too many contradictions things don’t hold together well. At least that is what the Marxists taught me.
The Democrats don’t have a Kerry problem they have a structural problem.
I thought I explained that on 16 May 03. On this very blog.
If any candidate could have bridged the gap Kerry was best placed to do so. The perfect candidate for the Dem base. Perfect.
The Democrats are history. I said so on 16May03. I’m more convinced than ever.
The post war plan:
Elections.
All the rest was adapting to events and local circumstances.
From the stand point of elections the plan is on track.
Sound plan. Simple plan. Execution not severely hampered by enemy action.
Now you might not like elections as a plan but as a step towards bringing democracy to the region it seems to fit in well with Bush’s stated strategic goals.
Same plan appears operational in Afghanistan.
I keep hearing the plan is not working. So tell me have elections been postponed?
There’s a very good and not polemical guest post at Daily Kos on the specifics of how to improve Kerry’s campaign.
Maggie, I don’t think you’ll find a Bush win moves the Democrats to whatever “moderation” you are looking for. So far, the Republicans have made most of their capital out of Kerry’s lack of moderation in opposition to the Vietnam War 30+ years ago. Whatever his campaign’s skills would have been in a vacuum, they were tested by the Swift Boat Liars whose naked animus arose from events in 1971. (I say liars, since even their own stories conflict in fatal ways, and they simply change them to fix the problem.) Whatever merit the Swift Boat crusaders have in their argument that Kerry asked for it by emphasizing his Vietnam service, it is not about “moderation”. Indeed, it would seem to me that Kerry is attempting to discount charges that he is “moderate” on American security. Nor, I think you will agree, has the Republican Party seemed eager for a discussion of the issues. I hear that Bush has hired one of his daddy’s friends to bail him out (again…) of at least the third scheduled debate (or will they call it a debate deferment?).
A vote for Bush is a vote for the politics of personal destruction. We didn’t get it after Dukakis, but I think we’ve got it now: lies work.
A vote for Bush is not a vote for a safer America. Nothing in his the last year makes it look like Bush understands threats to American security except for the banal observation that force will be required to meet them. How much, or where, or how to pay for it, has eluded him from the beginning.
A vote for Bush is a vote for an economic policy founded on writing checks that can not possibly be cashed. Do you remember Bush promised at the 2002 SOTU, after 9/11 and the recession, that the deficit would be small and temporary? Why not take Bush at his word, that half-trillion dollar deficits are insufficient, and we should make further tax cuts and run them into the $750 billion range?
A vote for Bush is a vote for Chalabi, Feith, Walker, and a war policy whose every step after the initial military campaign was designed by the Three Stooges. We are no longer even pretending that anyone is liberated, except as a rhetorical point towards Mission Accomplished’s re-election.
A vote for Bush, far from “moderating” the Democratic Party, is a vote for extremizing the Republican Party. I mean, they’ve run the least accomplished president in at least a century (the American military managed to push two Arab despotic movements out of their capitals and into the countryside: is there anything else?) on a platform of extremism and a cult of the Leader that’s getting rather worrisome. And if you vote for the Republicans, that’s the government you’re going to have for many years. Stem cells? Forget it. War whenever we feel like it? No problem. Keeping faith with the American people? Don’t worry; we’ll find something in the other guy’s past and let Limbaugh and Hannity tear him to pieces while the mainstream media look on in fake objectivity. Your logic here has the same flaws as the Naderistas’. Nader is not the alternative. Joe Lieberman (whom I don’t esp admire but much better than Bush) is not the alternative. Four more years of job losses, deficits, overtaxed troops, purpose-free firefights on the outskirts of one Middle Eastern city after another, environmental destruction, sowing fear of homosexual marriage, Al Qaeda recruitment, disgusted allies (even Blair), that’s the alternative; if you see anything moderate in this, we aren’t speaking the same language.
A.L. — I haven’t worked for Jerry Brown, though I did work for Gray Davis’ campaign, organizing fundraisers and stuff. I can also claim service as party vice chairman in Marin County and as a member of the state central committee, as well as two runs for city council in my own right. So I’ve been around.
And the war on terror does factor into my vote. I don’t want to see it bungled, I find Christian fundamentalists as threatening as Islamic ones, I don’t like the GOP tendency to confuse polemics with policy, I’m not willing to repeal the Bill of Rights, and I’m finding Jacksonian notions to be dangerously naive in matters of military policy.
And, on top of that, I would like to set up a legal household, after 21 years, and the GOP seems implacably hostile to the idea. Certainly the hate I witnessed from the GOP, just getting a county partners’-registry ordnance passed — and it was partisan — suggested that the animus has nothing to do with W. and everything to do with the rank-and-file. Kerry’s little better than W. on this issue but I don’t sense the same menace from the Democrats that I do from the other party.
So, that leaves me with Kerry. Pity. I fit the GOP profile — churchgoing, former military, living on investments, yet the GOP is definitely hostile territory. Process of subtraction, I suppose. That leaves Kerry, so I don’t sweat the stupid campaigning or incoherent message. We’ll survive the second W. administration. Somehow.
A.L. — I haven’t worked for Jerry Brown, though I did work for Gray Davis’ campaign, organizing fundraisers and stuff. I can also claim service as party vice chairman in Marin County and as a member of the state central committee, as well as two runs for city council in my own right. So I’ve been around.
And the war on terror does factor into my vote. I don’t want to see it bungled, I find Christian fundamentalists as threatening as Islamic ones, I don’t like the GOP tendency to confuse polemics with policy, I’m not willing to repeal the Bill of Rights, and I’m finding Jacksonian notions to be dangerously naive in matters of military policy.
And, on top of that, I would like to set up a legal household, after 21 years, and the GOP seems implacably hostile to the idea. Certainly the hate I witnessed from the GOP, just getting a county partners’-registry ordnance passed — and it was partisan — suggested that the animus has nothing to do with W. and everything to do with the rank-and-file. Kerry’s little better than W. on this issue but I don’t sense the same menace from the Democrats that I do from the other party.
So, that leaves me with Kerry. Pity. I fit the GOP profile — churchgoing, former military, living on investments, yet the GOP is definitely hostile territory. Process of subtraction, I suppose. That leaves Kerry, so I don’t sweat the stupid campaigning or incoherent message. We’ll survive the second W. administration. Somehow.
Bob Harmon,
Well, that makes two of us. I count myself among a group which has been called chickenhawks, warmongers, imperialists, digital brownshirts, Zio-Nazi’s, you name it. I think the true face of the Democratic party is pretty close to the Andrew’s spitting screed above, which doesn’t exactly invite discussion, and won’t get any from me. Pretty much anyone who supports Bush is a fascist or an idiot. Right. Got it. Moving on.
Ah, but your issues with the GOP affect you personally? True, but Bob let me tell you something. Bear with me. I ride my bike alot, maybe five, six thousand miles a year. Most of the great roads around me are in rural hill country. Most of the folks are fine but a substantial minority take offence at my lycra clad butt being on the road at all, and they let me know in no uncertain terms. I’ve been run off the road several times and was knocked down by a pickup last month. I’m on a mailing list of a thousand other bike racers and hear about what goes on out on the road. The fact is, I stand a much better chance of getting killed by a local pickup driver than I have of getting killed by Al Qaida. And no, I don’t find the GOP very sympathetic to my cause, either, or the cops or local officials. It affects me (and millions of other bike riders) as to my rights and my (lack of) skin. Or life. It’s serious as cancer.
But I would never, ever write a sentance like this: I find pickup drivers more threatening than Al Qaida. I mean I could, it would be literally true in fact, but I would consider it substantively irresponsible and unserious. And so when you write I find Christian fundamentalists as threatening as Islamic ones, sorry, that’s just not a compelling statement to me. I know what you mean, but to the actual victims of Islamic terror that will come across as pretty self involved and narrow.
I’m an ideal Democrat, a cyclist, ex greenpeace, software guy. I was until recently. I voted for Gore. I put up with alot of stuff in my daily life but in my opinion jihadi terror is the issue of our age, and our greatest threat. I wish I were convinced that Kerry got this but I’m not. The Democrats as a whole do a fine job of convincing me that not only do they not get it, but that they think I’m a warmongering racist bigot for even thinking it. Duly noted.
I find Christian fundamentalists as threatening as Islamic ones
There are two problems with this statement:
One, fundamentalists based their religion on the literal interpretation of (what they consider to be) divinely-revealed literature. In the case of the Quran, there’s plenty of literal passages that give Muslims permission to kill non-Muslims with extreme prejudice. For one to be a fundamentalist Christian, you have to have at least as much faith in the New Testament as the Old Testament, and I don’t think you’re gonna find much in the NT that justifies killing non-Christians. Believing in only the harsh judgment of the OT doesn’t make one a fundamentalist Christian because there isn’t a Christian religion with the OT. The extremists that use Christianity as a reason to kill often have so many other beliefs that are irreconcilable with even the weakest interpretations of Jesus’ character.
With that said, the second problem the “threat” that fundamentalist Christians pose is being able to work the American system either legally or socially. They know how to manipulate public opinion and they know how to work the law. Yet, if you have your beliefs, you can fight back and not worry about your life being in danger. I dare you to go to most any Muslim country in the world and do the same. It’s not the same threat.
One slight adjustment to what I said… in paragraph two:
Believing in only the harsh judgment of the OT doesn’t make one a fundamentalist Christian because there isn’t a Christian religion without the NT.
>> [Maggie]: The whole country needs a strong Democratic party… one that is a voice of wisdom rather than sputtering rage.
> [Oscar:] couldn’t agree more.
I couldn’t disagree more. Sure, the country needs a strong second party, but I can’t see any reason why it has to be the Democratic Party. A country where the real political competition was between the Republicans and the Libertarians would suit me just fine…
And Bob Harmon, please get back to me when you find a recent example (the last 100 years will do) of Christian fundamentalists in America committing anything like 9/11, Beslan, or Madrid; or executing homosexuals by flambouyant methods such as the Taliban used.
I agree completely. Most of the problems I have with the Republican Party as it stands today are as a result of it having to compete with the Democrat Party for votes or a result of having a divided government for most of Bush’s first term which gave us things like agricultural subsidies, increased federal involvement/spending in education, the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which was a lot smaller until Democrats successfully threatened a filibuster), and steel tariffs. Frankly the stronger the Democrats become the worse the GOP gets on issues like spending and if we’re going to have a strong second party it ought to be one the puts pressure on Republicans to cut spending and reduce the size of government.
Bob –
For my take on gay marriage, look “here”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/004291.php
I share both your and lewy’s views – which is why I’m struggling so hard with this. Then again, since I live in CA, it doesn’t really matter who I vote for…
A.L.
To play devil’s advocate for a moment: when I’ve made this argument to friends of mine in the Middle East, one comeback used is that Timothy McVey (sp.) was raised as a Christian, was a believer in the “Christian Identity” movement (the Aryan nation), and therefore Oklahoma City is an example of Christian terrorism. Extending that argument, Christian Identity is to Christianity as al-Qaeda is to Islam, and if one is going to judge Muslims by al-Qaeda, one also must judge Christians by the Aryan movement.
Sorry, that’s in reference to the bottom paragraph of Kirk Parker’s post: “please get back to me when you find a recent example (the last 100 years will do) of Christian fundamentalists in America committing anything like 9/11, Beslan, or Madrid; or executing homosexuals by flambouyant methods such as the Taliban used.”
Let’s see, some rejoinders:
To Swallowing Hard, I might suggest that, while the Islamic-fascist movement is the prime threat right now, and the Christian extremists in this country have yet to present us with similar atrocities, I might suggest lack of opportunity, as well as the ability of past conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan to manage them but not be subsumed by them.
What they would like to do is another matter. Try reading something of the Reconstructionist school of Christianity, for example.
Some of the others point out that the Democratic party isn’t presenting much of an alternative. True enough, and perhaps a strong libertarian party would be a better alternative. That’s not the choice we have.
Lewy14. It’s not so much a personal issue between me and the GOP as I’m getting the notion they don’t even want us in the room with them. The Log Cabin people, poor fools, keep getting shoved out; Dick Cheney’s family moment on the convention rostrum excluded his daughter (never mind her partner). I would like to contribute to the economy, the war effort and society but I can’t very well do it in a party that would deny me the ability to participate in party operations, the war effort or any kind of social order. It’s as if Lincoln, in 1864, anathematized the War Democrats instead of co-opting them into his ticket.
Maybe on the party state central committee I can push things in a better direction. I sure would not have that opportunity in the California GOP. Here I stand, I can — literally — do no other.
Tagryn wrote:
Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh an atheist?
Bob,
Hey, I’m not suggesting you change your opinion or your vote. You’re right about the GOP, and right to be disgusted with Bush, and I am to. No defense necessary.
But I know for a fact that the Democrats don’t want me or anyone like me in their room, either.
Too many Democrats who claim to be concerned about social issues seem more interested in flaunting their moral superiority over neanderthal warmongers than dealing with Islamic terror on a substantive basis and forming a coalition of moderates to deal with all the issues.
To lewy14, you’re on to something here, and it has less to do with the Bush- or Kerry-bashing and more to do with the animus each side’s base (not necessarily each party’s activists, see below) has for the other. I see it in the Bay Area from a “peace” movement that is implacably hostile to anybody to the right of Leon Trotsky — especially Jewish people, even the pacifist variety — and I see it from Michael Savage, another Bay Area resident (read his book “The Enemy Within”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785261028/qid=1094589059/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-7309731-6479013 — real eye-opener, though not necessarily as he meant it) and I see it when dealing with real-life GOPers, even longtime friends.
I’m willing to break with the Party on issues of war, and certainly the war against Wahhabism is the supreme issue of our time. Trouble is — A.L. please take note — if you vote with a party you’re saddled with their followers, certainly all their Schedule C appointments after the inaugural. My own experience in the Bay Area is that the left wing nutjobs have left my Party to go Green, or maybe to the mother ship. I won’t be seeing them at next weekend’s state e-board meeting. The GOP equivalents seem to be in charge on their side, at least in my county and my state and in large segments of the Administration.
Oh, and a caveat, it would be nice if we do remember that the more we see each other as enemies, the less we’re able to fight the real enemy. Worth suggesting to the next person who talks about a culture war.
“I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, Mr. President don’t rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace.”
Implication being that the current coalition is illegitimate.
From the list of GOP ‘lies’:
Bush Lies About Kerry’s View of Coalition.
143. Bush: “In the midst of war, he has called America’s allies, quote, a “coalition of the coerced and the bribed.” That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.”
Ahhhh. Now I get it. Kerry was misquoted when he said the coalition was bribed and coerced, Bush was lying when he repeated the quote, then Kerry said Bush was lying, then Kerry implied the coalition was illegitimate.
Riiight.
For all the talk about Bush’s speaking, at least his message is coherent.
Bob Harmon,
Yes, some of the “wingnuts” on the Left have bolted the party (Michael Moore’s presence next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC notwithstanding). But it’s the people appointed in the first ranks, and Kerry himself, that I worry about.
I’m afraid that Kerry and his fellow travelers ultimately sees American exceptionalism as a bad joke, that he believes we really have nothing to offer the world. This is critical as the only effective long term solution for the problem of terror is democratic reform, strong institutions and a civil society based on universal norms. I don’t think Kerry believes we can do this, or that we should even try. Josh Marshal wrote a piece in the Washington Monthly to the effect that Kerry’s foreign policy would be “realist”, like that of GHW Bush. “Realism” denies the possibility of changing the world for the better. That’s too bad because it’s the only way out – unless you like Jacksonian endgames.
I think that Kerry will follow though on his attempt to “internationalize” the Iraq problem, and once he fails (as he inevitably will), will abandon Iraq to some combination of tyranny, anarchy, theocracy. He will lay the blame on Bush and move on, and no Arab or Muslim society will ever take us at our word again. The Iraqi blogger’s like Zeyad will go silent, meeting their final betrayal, and the only viable strategy in the war will be lost forever. I’m not sure Kerry sees this or understands this, perhaps preferring to measure the authenticity of Arab leaders by the degree of their hatred for America.
I may be wrong and if Kerry is elected I hope that I am.
And a further thought, from Dan’s Beslan thread: there is plenty of reason on Putin’s part to be suspicious of American’s role in Islamic terror – support for the mujehadeen in Afghanistan, for Saudi Arabia as an “ally in the war on terror”, for Kosovo against the Serbs, etc. Getting on the same page with Russia is now absolutely imperative. I wonder how Putin will receive a Secretary of State Richard Hollbrook from the Kerry administration…
lewy14:
And a further thought, from Dan’s Beslan thread: there is plenty of reason on Putin’s part to be suspicious of American’s role in Islamic terror – support for the mujehadeen in Afghanistan, for Saudi Arabia as an “ally in the war on terror”, for Kosovo against the Serbs, etc.
I never thought I’d quote the West Wing on foreign policy, but:
You don’t get to put the bomb in Iran. There are no other issues.
Colt, agreed, there are reasons we have to be suspicious of the Russians as well. I hope Putin realizes the blowback loop from a nuclear Iran will be pretty short and severe. Still, all the more reason to hang together (with Russia), rather than hang separately.
lewy14:
I hope Putin realizes the blowback loop from a nuclear Iran will be pretty short and severe.
He’s no idiot. OTOH, the gamble he’s making is obscene compared to the return. Russia is making dumptrucks full of money on oil to the Chinese.
If I were President I would have flown to Russia, like, yesterday.
“I think there is a strain of – laziness – in his team that has led them to assume the postwar peacemaking would be as easy as defeating Saddam’s army, and he has – two year late – finally begun to address the core theory behind what we’re fighting for.”
The Bush team has never assumed the postwar would be easy and has never said so. Bush has always addressed the core theory of why we are fighting. There is little foreign policy in his acceptance speech that he hasn’t said before in SOTU and other speeches. It is telling that the dems have to lie about Bush’s previous statements to make their contrast.
Lewy14’s post #28847 hits the nail on the head. That’s the best reason to NOT vote for Kerry.
“Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh an atheist?”
Not only that, the instances of Christian terrorism are very few and far between compared to Islamist terrorism, they don’t do suicide bombings period, and are far more on the fringe. Wahabism isn’t really the fringe anymore in their culture. It’s comparing apples and oranges. you have to wonder how out of touch with reality people are whn they compare the two.
If the GOP gave Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain, and Frank such prime spots, regardless of the platform, these people have some clout and can call in favors by reminding the right wing that they helped deliver the vote to Bush. G, S, M, and F are not known as gullible dupes. They chose to campaign for the R Party with their eyes open. If the R religious rightwing doesn’t scare them, it doesn’t scare me.
“Whatever his campaign’s skills would have been in a vacuum, they were tested by the Swift Boat Liars whose naked animus arose from events in 1971. (I say liars, since even their own stories conflict in fatal ways, and they simply change them to fix the problem.)”
That’s a better description of Kerry’s response to the SBV than their actions. So far Kerry has admitted he wasn’t in Cambodia, and some of their other charges are borne out by “Tour of Duty,” which Kerry authorized. And no one doubts Kerry’s Senate testimony, the only question is how do you feel about it? Are you going to tell me that 5 former POWs, whose captors played Kerry’s testimony to them, don’t have the right to challenge Kerry’s fitness for CinC? You certainly can’t call them liars, all you can do is make a case that Kerry’s actions were right.
“I would like to contribute to the economy, the war effort and society but I can’t very well do it in a party that would deny me the ability to participate in party operations, the war effort or any kind of social order. It’s as if Lincoln, in 1864, anathematized the War Democrats instead of co-opting them into his ticket.”
Again: Guiliani, Frank, Schwarzenegger, McCain. The first two are campaigning hard for Bush. The last refused to cross over for Kerry. (I’m not adding Miller in here because he is extremely conservative already.) I would say Bush is doing a good job co-opting liberals.
I agree with how you feel about the Rs in general, but I don’t feel any more accepted by the Dems these days. In fact, now that I’m hanging out with some Rs, I am enjoying being with them more – even though we disagree on sical issues – than with my liberal Dem friends, who are rage-filled and clueless about what the most important issues are. I would have liked to vote for Lieberman, but I saw how the Dems ruthlessly marginalized him. Therefore they make me unwelcome.
Bob Harmon seems to express the absurd faith I see from some Dem hawks: Kerry is clueless but somehow he’ll figure it out and act like the hawk I wanted to vote for. Sullivan and Jarvis also exhibit this touching faith, in the absence of any evidence to that effect. It is the same touching faith many Dems exhibit in assuming we have some allies “out there” that Bush hasn’t already tapped, or that Wahabist fanatics are amenable to negotiation. All the evidence points in the other direction, but they just ignore it and cling to pre-9-11 beliefs about the international order. Apparently even 250 children dead in Russia doesn’t change their mind.
God looks after those who help themselves, Bob.
“Believing in only the harsh judgment of the OT doesn’t make one a fundamentalist Christian because there isn’t a Christian religion with the OT.”
Finally, I want to take exception to this bit of antisemitism which I see frequently in comment threads. It seems to be one of those truisms that trips lightly off the tongue of supposed liberals that “the OT is harsh and judgmental and the NT is loving.” This is, of course, Christianity’s view of the distinction between it and Judaism.
However it isn’t true. There is just as much loving and kindness from God and btwn humans in the OT (not to mention repeated injunctions from God to treat each other kindly and lovingly), as in the NT, and mjust as much hell and brimstone in the NT as in the OT. This is antiquated Christian antisemitism of the same type as supercessionism, some Christian groups which do interfaith work have recognized this and spoken out about it. Please don’t repeat this canard. Thank you.
The thing that strikes me as interesting is the growing set of people who feel unmoored and unwelcome in EITHER party.
While I lean strongly Right, Bush’s central campaign strategy of increasing the religious Christian vote will not improve Bob’s situation. The sharp growth of the Democratic Party’s Dean-Moore wing certainly doesn’t impress Judith, either.
Bob may hold his nose and vote for Kerry. Judith may wince a bit and vote for Bush. But I’m less interested in the votes than I am in the cringes.
M. Simon has been talking about major splits in the 2 parties for a while now, as the neo-liberals are forced out of the Dems by the Left and the religious right clashes with its liberty wing. I still think that his scenario is unlikely.
But I’m not as sure of that as I used to be.
When are we going to start that Eagle party that was mentioned here and there last year. I’ll be a charter member.
To yehudit, let me say first I have no illusions about Kerry’s abilities, but I do believe that his first- and second-level advisers may — may! — present a better array than Ridge, Ashcroft, Powell, Rummy and the rest, whose actions so far seem more destructive than productive. The military command leadership will continue even if their orders shift, and anybody who has been through Command & General Staff should have some idea of translating natioal strategy into somehow-reasonable military strategy. Despite the foibles of the former. Those people I do trust.
Second, my “situation”, status, whatever, also leads me to consider who my enemies might be.
Islam seems a seamlessly hostile world to someone like me or to any woman who doesn’t like burqqas and female genital mutilation. It’s also a basis for my being a fairly ardent Zionist.
(The fact that Arnie, Rudy and McCain saluted the nominee doesn’t suggest unanimity, simply deference. The 11th Commandment, and all that. Hedging bets.)
It’s a pity, in a way. I would like to see the war on terror go on, albeit with more precision. But I can’t vote for a party that considers me an enemy. Yes, I am aware that Kerry and Clinton were only marginally less destructive on my issues. (I lobbied DC on the 1993 military issue; now there’s a war story to tell sometime). At least it seemed like stupidity, not malice.
If it doesn’t entirely make sense, it’s because this is politics. Maybe I can garner enough influence in my party’s leadership that I can push it a millimeter or two toward common sense. I know for damn sure I wouldn’t get in the front door at the GOP. I can only play the ball from my line of scrimmage.
PS to Joe Katzman – The reason Howard Dean was so popular at Democratic Party gatherings was that he was the first one in a while who didn’t talk like a Disney robot or look like a store mannequin. He really is a brilliant speaker and he doesn’t talk like a party platform. After years — decades — of Mondale mayonnaise it was nice to get a little salsa in the dip. That is one explanation for the “Dean-Moore” phenom, Joe, people wanted entertainment. At least the GOP had Reagan and Arnold. Frankly, conventions, from the floor, tend to look like show biz anyway (more war stories).