Kevin Drum and I have known each other for a while; he’s one of the first other bloggers I met. I know I hold him in high regard even when we disagree, and get the same feeling from him (boy, do I have him fooled…).
He just blogged a snippet of our back and forth on my endorsement of Bush, with his own thoughts around them; go take a look.
He did leave out something from our dialog that I’ll toss up here; part of an email from me to him that pretty much sums up my position:
The difference is that you have to factor in the cost of the worst case, which in my mind is very bad indeed.
I’m 100% positive that Bush will damage the economy and polity in the next 4 years. But I’m equally positive that he won’t do anything that can’t be fought against and fixed.
I just can’t climb the mountain of doubt that I have about Kerry’s core values when applied to the current situation. At any other time, I wouldn’t be having this discussion, I’d just be bitching about how mediocre a President I felt Kerry would be. But this isn’t any other time…
I’m behind on ‘The Future of the Democratic Party’; I’ll try and have it up tonight.
But I’m equally positive that [Bush] won’t do anything that can’t be fought against and fixed.
I assume you realize that this is a statement you ought to expand upon in your next post? I don’t really understand it, since Bush has made plenty of decisions that can’t be easily reversed.
A.L.,
So you find Kerry’s core values are suspect? Bush is the only president I can think of with a criminal record. His DUI arrest (a Class D Misdemeanor) occurred at a time when George did not know what to do with his 30 year-old self. He was sorta buying and selling oil leases, but it wasn’t a business. He was a year out of grad school and it was a year before he would get a hold of some of his father’s friends disposable capital to found the ill-fated Arbusto Company. He was hanging out with a tennis star and driving drunk in Sept. of 1976.
Contrast that with John Kerry who passed the bar and went to work as a prosecutor during the same time.
Bush didn’t stop drinking after his conviction for ten more years. Prior to his conviction, rumors had dogged him for years about possible cocaine use but, interestingly enough, there is no record of such a thing. Just a lot of unanswered questions. He cleaned up his act when he was 40 years old.
By the time George Bush cleaned up his act, John Kerry had been elected to the Senate and was presiding over an investigation that led to the Iran-Contra hearings.
Kevin has linked to something you might be interested in, in considering your — in my opinion, unwise — decision:
http://justinlogan.typepad.com/justinlogancom/2004/10/christopher_hit.html
It gives you a good look into the character of one Dick Cheney — I wonder how you would feel if Kerry had been reported to have reacted the same way?
A lot of the doubt you express about Kerry seems to sewn from the Bush campaign, and not from Kerry itself. Doesn’t this strike you as bothersome? Your opinions about Bush doesn’t need their help does it? The facts alone support him right?
You kind of remind me of 2000 Nader voters: “The two candidates are not that different, but my lack of trust in the system, which they represent, is going to make me vote against it.” Substitute Kerry for system, and you’ve got a pretty arbitrary, naive and ultimately negative position. Because Bush isn’t good enough, eh? The fact that you doubt him should make you move to the other side… The candidates themselves present a clear choice, and that choice looms, but you’re pretty much forfeiting it. At least you’re aware that indecision is a decision!
Do you really run your life trying to minimize the worse possible outcome? That’s a really depressing approach to our gift of life.
What is your expected outcomes for each candidate?
Expected Outcome = Sum(Outcome_i * p(Outcome_i))
So on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being best, what is your estimate for each candidate on the country, for the best case, middle case, and worse case scenarios, and then for each candidate what is the probability of each scenario?
That is the base for how you might make your decision.
In other words, you know Bush would be bad, but not that bad. You think Kerry might be okay, but you fear he would be really really bad.
That’s fine, but take it one step further. Assign values, and probabilities to those values, and then, maybe you might be more informed about the decision to take.
Those two are right, AL
If you vote for Bush, you are clearly dumb. You do not belong the the “Reality-based” community. Your decision sucks, obviously you need to reweigh it and make it again. People voting for Bush are “Retro” and you obviously ought to be “Metro”. Again, just to make it clear to you, you thickheaded lunk, a vote for Bush means that you are the lowest form of rube and dunderhead and you will never be allowed into polite company again. God help you if you’re an untenured academic. Get it?
I *think* Matt’s being sarcastic…?
He is.
Politicians flip flop. They sometimes tell small lies. Sometimes their lies are bigger.
Core Values? Kerry came back from Nam and lied. He told the most grievous of lies as they reflected on the code of honor and service of others in Nam.
He told some whopper lies. His core vales are more than questionable. It wasn’t a whim of youth, an exuberance difficult for youth to control. Young men are always the warriors during times of conflict. But they are trained and disciplined and learn to respect the need for that in combat.
You don’t lie about what occurred. You undermine the whole code of how the soldier must rely on his fellows. To leave combat and then dishonor those still fighting, to lie about what they did and are doing, says more than a little about the “core vales” of John Kerry.
I don’t dispte he was a hero. The mess about the number of Purple Hearts or other honors received doesn’t interest me in the least. What I care about is how he brought dishonor to his fellows and, in doing so, mislead the nation as to the true situation in Nam.
Various individuals were highly critical of the war. Some were journalists. Many vets were critical of the war. But Kerry became embroiled in the most left wing and dishonest group which opposed the war. He was of great value to them as a hero. He was there, on the ground. His credibility gave him the right to be listened to, his words seriously consideed…. and he lied. He didn’t just tell a few lies. His characterizations of certain aspects of the war were vague, but they were still as damaging as his plain and simple lies.
Core values? That’s easy for me to decide.
SteveO, I assume you’re talking about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an organisation that did indeed turn sour…after Kerry left. Until then ,e was a moderating force, one that enforced verification guidlines in the Winter Soldier proceedings.
I recommend you find a source and review his testemony before Congress again. There is nothing I can find in his testemony that is patently false. Even Nixon was afraid to smear him directly, sent John O’Niell out to attack Kerry instead.
Kerry did break one code though, one that still was around when I was in the Army: officers never accuse other officers, no matter the crime. Kerry stood instead on the side of the grunts and the kids getting shot at, and the officer corps never forgave him for that.
I also stand by my assassment that Kerry is far better to lead the country and to combat terrorism. He brings the tenacity and ability I find so sorely lacking in this adminsitration.
I have severe doubts about Condoleeza Rice’s intelligence consolidation skills.
I have severe doubts about Rumsfeld’s ability to reform the armed services, or even get the generals to back him.
I have severe doubts about Colin Powell’s ability to deal with his colleages in Europe and Asia.
I have severe doubts about John Ashcroft’s ability to perecute crime and to find real terrorist threats.
It’s not just George W. Bush, but his entire team.
Armed Liberal: ” I just can’t climb the mountain of doubt that I have about Kerry’s core values when applied to the current situation.”
Armed Liberal: when Iraq Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi visited America, and John F. Kerry and his flunkies comprehensively delegitimised him, how heavily did that weigh with you in deciding whether John F. Kerry had a heart to fight for democracy in Iraq or not? Was it nothing, one factor among many others equally or more important, a negative indication that got bigger as you let it sink in over time, or a huge deal straight off?
Let’s see, that would be the Allawi visit to give a speech edited by a Republican operative. That’s self-delegitimization. BTW, Allawi hasn’t been elected to anything by a free election, ever, AFAIK. So I don’t exactly see the definition of “democracy in Iraq” that entails supporting him.
Andrew – Even if we accept your assumption that Allawi is anti-democratic, a questionable assertion given his push for the Jan. election date, who would you rather see in charge right now who would be a stronger advocate for democracy? Sistani? Chalabi? al-Sadr? I’m curious who your preferred alternative is from the available choices, if Allawi is illegitimate in your mind.
Otherwise, can we agree that Allawi is the best option available to get Iraq through to the election, and that trying to undermine him as the Kerry campaign did was at best classless and at worst acting against our nation’s interests?
I supported President Bush’s decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. At Wolfowitz’s request, I helped advance the case for war, drawing on my work in previous years in documenting Saddam’s atrocities, including the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. In spite of the chaos that followed the war, I am sure that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein.
It is my own country that is worse off — 1,100 dead soldiers, billions added to the deficit, and the enmity of much of the world. Someone out there has nuclear bomb-making equipment, and they may not be well disposed toward the United States. Much of this could have been avoided with a competent postwar strategy. But without having planned or provided enough troops, we would be a lot safer if we hadn’t gone to war.
Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, is a fellow at the Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. In the 1980s, he documented Iraqi atrocities against the Kurds for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/27/eyewitness_to_a_failure_in_iraq/
It is my belief that it is the moderate Democrat’s and Republican’s that keep our country from going down the tubes. Is there any real support out there for the moderates of each party to join as one and cut away from the extreme left and right. In my opion, it’s the extremist on both sides who cause the turmoil and strife that ails our country. I think it’s past time for the logical, clear thinking, reasnable moderates to say enough. Together we can find the solutions for everything from the economy to the environment.