Fellow right-wing tool Marc Cooper has a gut-bustingly funny (and sad) column in this week’s LA Weekly that sums up my view of the election pretty neatly (and funnily). It begins…
THE IMAGES I HAVE in my head are not pretty. Bill Clinton, prone in a backless hospital gown, his eyes fixed on the muted TV above his head, a CNN graphic showing Kerry down in every poll this week. Clinton’s left hand lazily plays with and curls his tummy hair, his right hand presses the hospital phone tighter to his face. John Kerry, on the other end of the line, sitting down on his bed reluctantly peeling off his windsurfer’s wetsuit and straining to be respectful. With the pungent odor of smoking firewood drifting in from the beach, Kerry’s got images of an old-fashioned Nantucket clambake dancing in his head and nagging at his appetite, but when the former president calls, especially when he’s about to enter the ICU, you take the call. If he can hustle Clinton off the phone quickly enough, he figures he can squeeze in one more round of lacrosse before chowing down on some steamers.
I can imagine Clinton’s first question: “Hi, John, say, is Teresa there with you? What’s she wearing?”
…and just gets funnier and truer (in the manner of good fiction) from there.On a more serious note, I keep trying to write a better explanation of why I’m paralyzed over this election, and then I read Josh Chafetz’ and realize I don’t have to – he’s written it for me. His conclusion?
These are serious questions to me. By and large, I prefer Kerry on domestic policy. On some domestic issues that I think are very important — gay marriage — I very strongly prefer Kerry. I’m also distressed (as I was writing before 9/11) by the Bush Administration’s love affair with secrecy. But the most important issue to me right now is the war on terror, and I see the war in Iraq as an essential component of that. I’d love for Kerry to convince me that he will lead that effort capably. If he does that, I’ll vote for him. But he hasn’t yet. And, as I said above, I’m not convinced that Bush has so mismanaged it as to lose my vote. So, for now, I remain undecided, but Kerry will need to convince me, and he hasn’t yet.
I keep looking for a policy I can buy into, but instead, I just keep smelling steamers.
Based on today’s WaPo/ABC polls (check out the trust on terrorism and certainty levels), I’m not alone.
Come on, John!! The games not over yet!! Sack it up and play a little, will you?
AL-
I am in a similar state of mind, remain on the fence. I have two problems with Kerry: (i) he hasn’t convinced me that he has the right policy on Iraq and WoT (or any policy at all), (ii) the Democrats are too close to the Michael Moore wing of the party (to the point of having him sit at their convention next to an ex-president) – that may have been the tipping point for me.
I have a question, for A.L. and Joe – it’s a what if? question.
What would you guys recommend if the Kurds attempt to claim Kirkuk? I doubt that it would happen, but check out the link:
Kurdish Leader Ups The Ante Over Disputed Iraqi City
Given the worst case scenario – (not that it would necessarily happen, but like Boy Scouts, we should always be prepared) – what would you do if, basically, civil war breaks out, between Sunnis (which is already basically the case, e.g. Fallulah, Samarra, etc), the Kurds seize Kirkuk, this enrages both the Shiites and Sunnies, thus getting the Shiites to commit to violence against the Kurds.
Again, probably won’t happen, and I assume we are working VERY hard to make sure it won’t happen. (At least I hope).
But what’s the fallback position on this? I’m assuming you guys would be committed to attacking the Pesh Merga, if this happened, and forcing them out of Kirkuk? Where would the troops be drawn from, or would this be only air power?
Along a similar vein (and I’m sure you have answered this) what statement that Kerry would make WOULD commit you to voting for Kerry?
Kerry not only has to convince me on Iraq, it’s Iran and Syria too. And every difficult step after that.
JC – I covered “the Vietnam half of it a while ago”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005415.php – then he’s got to come up with some coherent explanation of what he does now. “Getting the allies involved in Iraq means – what Allies? What involvement? What do we trade away?
How do we deal with the Islamist networks? Do we wait for them to attack and then go after them (as was suggested by his speech?) If so, how do we decide who to go after?
That’s a start…
Here’s a question for you. If Kerry reversed field tomorrow and suddenly said something that sounded sincere about standing firm in Iraq – would you believe it? Really, in your heart of hearts?
Or would you have a nagging suspicion that he’s only saying it as a means to an end…telling you what he thinks you want to hear in order to win your vote?
It’s going to take some sort of magical contortion to pull that particular rabbit out of it’s hat.
Since you mention Josh at OxBlog, I cc you what I emailed him:
Dear Josh,
The main thing that’s missing from your explanation of your undecided status is Senator Kerry’s unreliability to say what he means, or mean what he says, or to at least vote on any national security issue consistently. The term flip-flopper has stuck to him because he deserves it. So why wait around to see if he can get slick enough, smooth enough, smart enough to say just the right words in just the right order with just the right tone? Personally, I wouldn’t care if he did a Vulcan mind-meld on me and then promised me face to face that he would do exactly what I wanted on every issue. I can’t trust him.
So to write what you did on your excellent blog about your ambivalence is, I’m sincerely sorry to say, dumb. I feel a little funny telling a Rhodes scholar whose work I respect that he’s being dumb, but … Dammit, Josh, you’re just asking to be duped. I might be just a carpenter but I can recognize a snow job when I see one.
On the issue you mention being in strong disagreement with the President, gay marriage, hasn’t the Senator also said he’s opposed? I know I’ve read that, but I’m not sure of my sources. Anyway, to repeat the above, what makes you think Senator Kerry, if he has been solidly in favor of gay marriage for all of the votes, is telling the truth about this? You simply can’t know. As to the President’s position, I’m not against gay marriage but I am very much against judicial tyranny. A constitutional amendment is a very long hard road, it will probably fail, and it’s out of the President’s hands. If 2/3’s of the Congress and 2/3’s of the states can pass it in the limited time period allowed, then it is well & truly the will of the republic and your argument should be with the People, not the President.
Keep on bloggin’, and I’ll keep on readin’, but for God’s sake, man, get a hold of yourself. You’re a genius — start acting like one.
pedro
http://happycarpenter.blogs.com/the_happy_carpenter/2004/09/its_not_working.html
Give it up on Mr. Kerry. He has no vision on the War on Terrorism. If he has not clearly articulated one by now, surely he has no passion about one he might finally settle upon in the next two months. And would you truly trust him to stand by it?
Sure Mr. Bush has many faults. But domestically, other than the deficit, his program, while headed in the wrong direction, has been modest. Gay marriage.. the FMA as proposed will never pass. Stem cell research.. there’s no ban on fetal research, just no federal funding. Environment.. no radical relaxation of regulation. And on and on.
The issue this election is the War on Terrorism. The key to this war is the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. Mr. Bush is committed to the idea. Yes, it has been messy, but the process moves forward. But the Iraqis have tasted freedom. I don’t believe they’ll relinquish it easily.
Let’s look at the situation politically. Say Mr. Kerry wins in November. Do you really want to consider his reelection in 2008? Not me. If Mr. Bush is reelected, the war moves through a critical period with solid resolve if not finesse. Sure, some regression occurs in domestic policy. But, just as importantly, both players are out of the presidental game in 2008, clearing the way for two more dynamic personalities.
In a nutshell… Vote Bush, the thought of another Kerry campaign is just too painful.
I’d love for Kerry to convince me that he will lead that effort capably. If he does that, I’ll vote for him. But he hasn’t yet. And, as I said above, I’m not convinced that Bush has so mismanaged it as to lose my vote. So, for now, I remain undecided, but Kerry will need to convince me, and he hasn’t yet.
Kerry said Iraq is wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. He has stated that he will begin withdrawing as soon as 6 months and will be out within 4 years. This time frame is too long for his base.
Kerry and his supporters are advocating that we cut and run. This is a pattern we see throughout his life. He wanted to cut and run from Vietnam. He wanted to cut and run from Nicaragua. He wanted to cut and run from the Cold War. He is a weak apppeaser going back over three decades.
How can anyone who cares about our national security EVEN CONSIDER voting for Kerry?
BillyB, That’s my problem with Kerry in a nutshell. It doesn’t really matter what he says he will do. I’m much more of a Democrat than Republican and despite that I don’t really feel I could predict what Kerry would do. Bush and his crew are much more predictable. I fear the Democrats are more likely to get into a UN style type of analysis paralysis, which really makes me crazy, and could cost soldiers and our Iraqi allies their lives.
Pedro,
Obviously, if one supports gay rights issues in general, the Republicans are not the way to go. It is a major obstacle for me in terms of seeing Bush as a man I could vote for. You correctly point out that Kerry, along with many frightened Dems I might add, has handled this issue like a true politician, i.e. he’s banking on people having my reaction. He gets it both ways; we know Democrats are better on the issue so many don’t blame Kerry for not wanting to alienate Democratic homophobes and undecided voters by openly expressing support for gay unions. It’s not my style to play like that, but then I would make a terrible politician.
And, on a side note, the world is full of carpenters who have done much more for mankind than your average Rhodes Scholar. By that’s just my opinion.
No offense to the people at Oxblog intended. They are impressive and fine people, clearly.
*JC*
bq. _”Along a similar vein (and I’m sure you have answered this) what statement that Kerry would make WOULD commit you to voting for Kerry?”_
Sorry I know the question was not directed at me but I had to chime in. If you tell me to butt out I’ll certainly understand.
*Pedro* said it all.
_“I might be just a carpenter but I can recognize a snow job when I see one.”_
Think about it a carpenter that’s as mainstream America as you can get. Here’s what I don’t understand JC. Your position on the fence seems to indicate that you want your cake (socialist domestic policies with a strong interventionist defense concerning the WoT) and you want to eat it to. You are so concerned wringing your hands over domestic social policies that you have yet to attain or even more so lose. What is more important protecting the policy that gives you a future to attaining the social agenda or opting for the social agenda in the face of destruction. If I were a betting a man. I’d lay my bet on the protection of future elections to attain an end goal.
Pedro
In case there is any doubt. I am not against carpenters or mainstream America. These are the people who sweat and toil to make life more pleasurable for all.
USMC, do you really think we are on the verge of destruction? I think that’s overstating it, so explain your choice of words to me. And I’m not trying to minimize 9-11 in ANY WAY.
Yehudit, I think the teach-a-man-to-fish argument you make in your last paragraph is compelling, but I think Bush’s view is screw-him-if-he-can’t- fish-because-I-can. Between the two, I’ll take Kerry on that one, although I prefer we teach independence.
I’m so confused about who to vote for. I really wish someone would supply me with that eureka moment so I could stop thinking about it. I’m really concerned about Bush eroding the separation of church and state and his anti-gay stances. He also spends like a Democrat and taxes like a Republican, which doesn’t compute. But Kerry is too unpredictable on foreign policy. Is he hawkish enough for me? I fear not. But he would do better on protecting individual rights, preserving sep. of church and state, funding education, environment, just to name a few. But how long will it take for some wackjobs to get their paws on some seriously bad nuclear weapons? Ten years? Thirty years? Could they already? BUT, we have shown that we will use our nuclear weapons. (And I’m glad about that. I agree with the decision to use them in WW2.) Won’t terrorists take that into consideration? I know it’s not a perfect analogy.
Alice
At this stage I certainly don’t believe we are the road to destruction. We are on the road to solidifying and protecting what we hold near and dear to our hearts.
If Kerry on the other hand is elected he has made it clear we’ll move more to a defensive posture than an offensive one. (Of course all this depends on what crowd he is talking to at the time.)
It is also evident to me that the European community will not take the drastic actions necessary to rid themselves of the cancer that has spread. Their appeasements will eventually lead to their own self destruction. Europe better be prepared for a life of Israel but they aren’t due to their submissiveness. When we pull the troops we will see how confident they feel about their convictions. Then they can truly blame America first for letting them suffer.
Kerry on the other hand would extend an olive branch to France and Germany? Oh please help us we can’t do it without you. What makes him think he will change their minds on this particular subject? Better yet what makes you think we’ll get a different response with Kerry in office? I hear it now. What do you mean they still wont help rid the cancer? Now I’m just down right flabbergasted. I guess I’ll go cry in my Post Toasties. Hogwash. France and Germany are already lost. If they were so adamant in their convictions about our irresponsible acts as they see them then surely they would have taken up arms against us by now. Because surely in their eyes we must be the scourge of the earth that must be eradicated.
Finally I’ve already seen the results of a defensive posture that has failed miserably. A defensive posture puts us in a position of living in fear. If this were not so a defensive posture would not be required. Would it be we could become a Switzerland? Highly doubtful. Am I in favor of a unilateral strike? If we must then yes. There are those of us who understand too well the towers and the pentagon are just the tip of the iceberg and nothing short of removing the cancer will prevent future atrocities. I don’t think anyone doubts that the attacks will continue. I don’t think anyone doubts containment is futile. I don’t think anyone doubts isolationism is lunacy.
If one thinks they are losing personal freedoms now be prepared to lose more when the next attack occurs regardless of an offensive or defensive posture. I certainly don’t want to live in Israel but that’s where we are headed if we don’t draw a line in the sand and take a proactive instead of reactive position. If that proactive action is a military strike then so be it. Let me make it clear I am not adverse to acts of diplomacy. I am adverse to consistently failed acts of diplomacy that do absolutely nothing to resolve this particular matter. To consistently feed a dog that bites your hand one must begin to face the fact that a) I can be humane about it and put the dog down or b) I can let it starve to death.
The fact is they are here already and more are coming and they are if nothing else persistent in their goal.
As for social policies you can forget about any of them if the terrorist win because you wont have a government structure to hear your voice. As for your concerns about separation of church and state, gay rights etc. These are laws passed by congress and the president can do absolutely nothing to change what is there. He can make all the suggestions he wants, he can veto bills he doesn’t like and the congress can pass them with a 2/3 vote without his consent so what’s the beef? My answer they can be voted on at a later time. Nothing but nothing says any of those are going away in this election.
“Yehudit, I think the teach-a-man-to-fish argument you make in your last paragraph is compelling, but I think Bush’s view is screw-him-if-he-can’t-fish-because-I-can. Between the two, I’ll take Kerry on that one, although I prefer we teach independence.”
What evidence do you have that this is Bush’s view? Is that just a liberal stereotype of Republicans? Bush said “ownership society” and gave some examples of policies he would enact which support that. Kerry said “help is on the way.” You say you prefer “teach a man to fish,” even though Kerry says nothing to support that.
An apology: in the course of removing the latest round of comment spam, MT-Blacklist erroneously identified and deleted Yehudit’s first post.
I should have caught it among the “marked for death” list, and by the time I did it was too late. Mea culpa.