On the flip side, here’s Beldar’s appeal to folks just like me:
“What fundamental dilemma?” you ask. Well, look at your fellow Kerry voters. Look at the Democratic Party; look at its congressmen and senators; look at its policy wonks and think-tankers and fundraisers and likely appointees to key posts, on both domestic and foreign/military policy positions. We’ve established already that you’re not a barking moonbat yourself. Surely, though, you can see them around you in the Kerry queue, can’t you?
Then in your best-case scenario, my friend, you’ll be electing another man who’ll be immediately thrust into the position Lyndon Johnson was in as of January 1968 … a man who from the first day of his presidency will be faced by incredible pressures from within his own party, from many of his own advisers and fundraisers and legislators, to do exactly the opposite of what you are counting on Kerry to do.
I think he leaves out a better clincher: Kerry’s utterly wretched diplomacy.
Kerry’s promise to bring our “Allies” (whoever the hell these people are supposed to be) into the WoT is absurd, and contradicted by his own incredibly tactless statements, which are offensive to our actual allies.
As somebody put it, Kerry insults the allies we have, and chases after the ones we’ll never get. And in the case of France, he chases after one we absolutely do not need or want at this stage.
If this sounds like a Bush ad, it’s only because Kerry’s behavior in this regard couldn’t be more self-destructive if he were taking his orders directly from Karl Rove.
Beldar restated:
Too much of the Democratic party are “moonbatters”, that want “peace at any price”. Kerry won’t be able to stand up to them. Vote Bush!
I would like to thank AL for linking to this sober, thoughtful, well-reasoned post. It has profoundly impacted me – now my vote is up for grabs!
Did you hear what Ed Koch said on the Daily Show?
“”While I don’t agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has enunciated the Bush Doctrine and proven his ability to fight this war,” said Koch. “The Democratic Party just doesn’t have the stomach to go after terrorists.” …
“I saw Kerry [at the Democratic National Convention] surrounded by radical politicians like [former President Jimmy] Carter and [Sen. Ted] Kennedy. … I know Kerry will succumb to their pressure if elected. They are with Kerry not because they like him, but because their true candidate Howard Dean couldn’t get elected, and they wanted someone who they can have elected and dominate,” charged Koch.
“As long as Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and while we’re seeing radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as ‘Deaniacs,’ the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis and war like we face now.”
Lindenen,
Actually, in all seriousness – yes, I did see Ed Koch’s appearance on The Daily Show.
I guess it really does come down to that fundamental perception – the fundamental belief that Democrats are not going to go after terrorists effectively.
Koch saying this helped me to understand that all of “you” guys here, aren’t saying this for simply partisan reasons, but simply believe this to be true.
I disagree, of course. I, along with a host of others, believe that Democrats can and will do so.
But, that’s what it is about a democracy, right, in the best sense? You vote for the person you believe will do the best job.
Actually I think Kerry wil try to raid the top Republican foreign policy talent: McCain, Lugar, Hagel etc. for his administration. Along with Biden, Lieberman, Clark, etc. these are his friends, and the people he trusts. It would also, in my judgment, be smart to appoint an honest, competent Republican for attorney general in Kerry’s first term. Frank Keating, for example, would be a good choice. But then, I actually think the “moonbats” are good people, for the most part. There is no contradiction between believing it was a mistake to start the war in march 2003 and also believing that now that its started, we have to make it a success. You can find plenty of people in the Republican base who take a “nuke ’em all, and let God sort ’em out” approach to foreign affairs. To not vote for Kerry because of the “moonbats” surrounding him seems pretty weak, a kind of rationalization.
And, I’ll say again that I believe you’re profoundly underestimating the difference between electing a hardworking, conscientious member of the reality based community, capable of learning from mistakes and adjusting to facts on the ground, versus a basically well-meaning but somewhat immature man, unwilling to pay attention to details, unwilling to debate or to hear even constructive criticism, and who has an egoistic, self-destructive need to justify every decision or judgment he’s ever made.
Lets see now that supposedly dumb Texan has disarmed Libya, brought Democracy to Afghanistan, liberated Iraq, brought the NK to the negotiating table and he is running against a guy who thinks its just fine and dandy to have Michael Moore in a place of honor at his convention wow tough choice.
When did serious thought depart? Some say that 9/11 brought everyones score back to zero, that may well be true for issues of policy. But for issues of character we by needs must look past 9/11 as far into history as we can to discern everything about the choice that is ours in this election, and what we see with Kerry is very disturbing. Faked reports, overblown injuries, cowardice in action, Anti War activities that if not exactly treason are close enough to be kissing cousins, sat in on a session that talked about the murder of US Congressmen, swept under the rug POW/MIA questions. These are not the flights of fancy of a young man in search but the calculated actions of a man whose politics are significantly more radical than many are willing to admit.
And now we have people who claim that he will fight this war on terror? He will discard all the leftist baggage he has carried so fervently all these years? Even more outrageously they claim that he will actually bring aboard responsible adults to lead this war? Someone buys this? This isn’t mere policy differences he must change within him but his core beliefs. Not bloody likely.
He tries to say that he just found an inelegant way to express the reason why he voted against the 87 Billion Dollar supplemental and some believe this utter crap. The fact is he was willing to endanger our service men and women to make a cheap political point. In actuality that is far worse than the original complaint. He hated the Armed Services so long ago and he is still trying to screw them.
About the division in the Country, I also believe that the gulf between my position and those who believe in John Kerry is unbridgeable. I know I won’t move a jot to their side.
Pierre
Lyndon Johnson was “thrust” onto the world stage in 1963, not 1968.
Nixon beat Humphrey for the Presidency in 1968.
“that supposedly dumb Texan has disarmed Libya, brought Democracy to Afghanistan, liberated Iraq, ”
So you believe that re-electing the US’s puppet “mayor of Kabul” constitutes bringing democracy to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is not even a country yet, let alone a “Democratic” one, since the power of the “central” government does not extend beyond the boundaries of Kabul, while the warlords lord over the rest.
If you think Iraq is “liberated” I can find quite a few Iraqis willing to disagree with you, even if they die in the process. But I suppose you call the Iraqi insurgents “anti-Iraqi forces” just like the Orwellians in the State Department. Libya’s “arms’ were no threat and the rapprochment is based on expanding oil production for US consumption more than anything else.
Meanwhile, a “conservative” creates a record structural budget deficit and trade deficit.
Bush is not dumb, just divorced from reality. Read
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html
If that does not scare you, then you are not part of the “reality-based community”.
This whole either-is-okay shtick is so effete. We’re faced with 2 men with radically different philosophies for facing a world at war, how hard can it be? In this situation, fence-sitters like Sullivan & Drezner just look like twits.
Actually, I think it’s more that they look untrustworthy to continue saying they’re “undecided” while at the same time broad-casting their intention to vote for Kerry and trying to come up with a plausible-sounding rationale to justify it.
But I do agree that they’re both twits if they think they’ve fooled anyone.
“But I suppose you call the Iraqi insurgents “anti-Iraqi forces” just like the Orwellians in the State Department.”
Top reason to vote for Kerry:
To watch idiot lefties squirm, when Sec of State Richard Holbrooke talks about progress against “anti-Iraqi” forces.
Really, if Kerry IS going to take a Holbrooke/Biden tough but smart line, it would be delicious in a way a second term for Bush could never be. And this wouldnt be like LBJ – hed be succeeding a Republican in wartime, as LBJ did not.
OTOH, Im NOT confident it would only be smart centrists and democracy promoters in a Kerry admin. Wouldnt a Dean, a Gore, a Byrd, and others have influence? It would come down to Kerrys instincts, and conviction, and well …..
But I agree that a Kerry presidency isnt the end of the world. Its the beginning of the battle, for the soul of the Kerry admin, and thus for success in Iraq and the WOT. Count me in.
I might vote for Kerry (how lucky i dont live in a swing state:)) or at least not vote for Bush, just to have more credibility in that struggle.
“Most persuasive poll”:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041020/ap_on_en_tv/nickelodeon_president I have seen yet regarding who will be elected President.
“hardworking, conscientious member of the reality based community, capable of learning from mistakes and adjusting to facts on the ground”
“hardworking”? The guy who didn’t mention his Senate record once during his acceptance speech because he knows there’s nothing there?
“conscientious”? the guy who has completely ignored or been incredibly defensive about any criticism of his war record or antiwar activities? who tried to suppress all evidence of same, including threatening TV stations, refusing to allow “Winter Soldier” to be reprinted, or releasing his fitness reports? (Contrast with Bush, who has never threatened any showings of F911, which is filled with slander.) Who lied about Shinseki, Tora Bora, the draft, social security?
“reality based”? The guy who complains we don’t have enough allies with troops on the ground, yet sends his sister to persuade Australians to vote OUT the ally who put troops on the ground? Who wants to send nuclear fuel to Iran? Who puts his faith in the UN?
“learning from mistakes and adjusting to facts on the ground”
Bush: came in as an isolationist, learned fast after 9-11. came in knowing nothing about the Israeli conflict, learned fast not to trust Arafat. Postwar Iraq: seat of the pants empirical response. I know people hate that, say he should have planned. I could go on, but to me Bush is the paradigm of someone who learns fast and adjust to facts on the ground.
Gee, I’d like to have some of what you’re smoking.
“So you believe that re-electing the US’s puppet “mayor of Kabul” constitutes bringing democracy to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is not even a country yet, let alone a “Democratic” one, since the power of the “central” government does not extend beyond the boundaries of Kabul, while the warlords lord over the rest.
If you think Iraq is “liberated” I can find quite a few Iraqis willing to disagree with you, even if they die in the process. But I suppose you call the Iraqi insurgents “anti-Iraqi forces” just like the Orwellians in the State Department.”
I’m voting for Bush partly because Kerry supporters are people who believe this kind of crap. If the long lines of Afghan women and men voting for the first time didn’t move you, then fuck you. Seriously. You are my enemy and I pray your cynical snotty bunch of racist elitists do not take power in this country.
Just don’t even dare to pass yourself off as some kind of human rights advocate, you narcissistic piece of slime.
To see what I mean by “hard-working and conscientious”, see this Washington Monthly piece on Kerry & the BCCI
Yehudit,
The epithets you use say more about you than they do about me.
So, do you honestly believe Afghanistan is now a “democratic country”?
I acknowledge and applaud the advance elections represent, I am just not deluding myself to pretend that Afghanistan is now magically both a country and democratic.
Personally, I would support a much more serious military/civilian reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, in order to replace our rhetoric with reality.
But of course, empty rhetoric seems to be a specialty on the right. Personal attack when arguement fails also seems to be a right-wing specialty.
Tom,
Totally aside from any political disagreement I have with you, “personal attack when argument fails” is hardly a right-wing monopoly.
I don’t know if you saw my response to a post you made on another thread, but if not, let me reiterate. I never heard of Bush conducting insider trading or any cover up of same by his Dad. So picking up the gauntlet you laid in that thread: show me the money. And I’m not talking about links to left wing blogs or innuendo in the Nation or the Progressive or “investigative journalism” by Sy Hersch or newsclips by Dan Rather. I’m talking primary documents, accounts by disinterested parties, official court/govt agency records or reports. I want fingerprints, a smoking gun.
Fred,
“Does CNN count?”:http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/03/bush.stock/
From the article:
“At issue is Bush’s sale on June 22, 1990 of 66 percent of his holdings, 212,140 shares of Harken at $4 per share, a sale netting Bush nearly $850,000, at a time when Bush served on the company’s board of directors.
About two months later, the stock fell to $2.37 per share after the company disclosed it was carrying a larger debt and announced losses for its results in the second quarter of 1990. The stock eventually was trading at only $1 by the end of 1990, according to the Dallas Morning News.
Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, said that on the date of the sale, Bush filed a Form 144, also known as a Notice of Intent to Sell. However, he did not file the Form 4, the form reporting the sale, until March 1991, more than eight months later, which was a violation of federal law.”
and also
“”the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush… at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him.”
However, the letter went on to say that it “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result” from the investigation. ”
Note that at this time, GWB’s father was POTUS.
The rest of the article is full of GWB’s disclaimers.
From the Boston Globe (I’m not sure if this is acceptable in your world since the Globe is liberal anyway, but I had no luck on FoxNews website) “Article is in archives.”:http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=Harken%20AND%20memo%20AND%20Bush&s_dispstring=Harken%20memo%20Bush&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
“Published on Wednesday, October 30, 2002
by the Boston Globe Board Was Told of
Risks Before Bush Stock Sale Harken memo
went to SEC after probe
by Michael Kranish and Beth Healy
WASHINGTON – One week before George W.
Bush’s now-famous sale of stock in
Harken Energy Corp. in 1990, Harken was
warned by its lawyers that Bush and
other members of the troubled oil
company’s board faced possible insider
trading risks if they unloaded their
shares. The warning from Harken’s
lawyers came in a legal memorandum whose
existence has been little noted until
now, despite the many years of scrutiny
of the Bush transaction. The memo was
not received by the Securities and
Exchange Commission until the day after
the agency decided not to bring insider-
trading charges against Bush, documents
show.
It appears that Mr. Bush had insider
information, that he was told that such
insider information could be considered
material, [and] was given express
warnings about what the consequences
could be.
Michael Aguirre California securities
lawyer The memo, a copy of which was
obtained by the Globe, does not say
directly whether Bush would face legal
problems if he sold his stock. But it
does lay out the potential for insider-
trading violations by Bush and other
members of the Harken board, and its
existence raises questions about how
thoroughly the SEC investigated Bush’s
unloading of $848,000 of his Harken
stake to a buyer whose name has not been
made public. ”
“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/16/politics/main515266.shtml”:http://windsofchange.net/
“CBS MarketWatch) Two and a half months
before George W. Bush sold his stock in
Harken Energy Corp., he signed a
“lockup” letter promising to hold onto
the shares for at least six months,
according to internal company documents
obtained by the Washington Post.
The Post reported late Tuesday that the
letter, signed by Bush on April 3, 1990,
is now being compared with the account
his lawyers gave federal securities
regulators who examined the stock sale
as a possible insider trade.”
From my liberal perspective, the above is a “smoking gun”. Much more evidence of unethical and illegal conduct than Whitewater ever found, but the response depends on which ax you want to grind.
Oops,
Sorry I guess I blew up the page width again.
I will try to restrain myself.
I would certainly agree that personal attack is no right wing monopoly.
My observation is that the left tends to reserve personal attack for public figures, while the mere act of disagreement tends to bring out personal attack on the individual who dares disagree with a right wind true believer.
On the above subject, I have no evidence of a coverup on the part of GWB’s father. I merely note that he clearly broke the law and was not prosecuted by the SEC at a time that his father directed the administrative branch of government. I have no way of knowing what pressures and loyalties may have led to his “featherbed” treatment, especially as compared to Martha Stewart or other unlucky examples.
Tom, it’s not a matter of restraining yourself, but of following the instructions at the top of the Comments section and using words as live hyperlinks instead of the full path.
Please do this in future… my time is getting more limited, and I’m seriously considering just deleting offending comments in future rather than spending time fixing them.
Tom,
I’ve just looked at your links. More on that later when I’ve had a chance to examine them closely and meditate on them. About left v right wing personal attacks, you’ve obviously never worked in an academic humanities department (or if you have, you haven’t disagreed politically with anyone in it). A true believer is a true believer.
One other quick point. The comment to which I responded about the insider trading was in its turn a response to another commenter who asserted Bush was more “moral” than Kerry and the democrats. I agree with you that that’s foolish. I would however add this: we live in a fallen world. Wherever there is power, there is abuse of power. The trick is to mitigate or prevent the worst abuses of power without rendering that power impotent to maintain order. As a man of the left you (I assume; correct me if I’m wrong) would probably choose to err on the side of preventing abuse at the risk of disorder. As a man of the right, I would choose to err on the side of maintaining order at the risk of abuse. It’s a matter of temperment, philosopy, and faith that is probably not completely resolvable. That’s not necessarily to excuse any abuses W may have committed (I’m still not convinced, though as I said, I have yet to examine your evidence closely). It is to put it in perspective and claim we better be careful about demanding pristine cleanliness in our politicians. Jimmy Carter was, after all, one of the most honest president we’ve ever had.