Go check out Daniel Drezner’s post explaining that he (along with me) is one of the last holdouts in this electoral cycle.
It’s a great post – I don’t agree with him (my p-value is nowhere near his), but it’s a good read. He has a great email from a former Clinton diplomat that’s worth noting. And the comments are great, too.
As to how I feel? Well this morning I wrote to a friend:
I don’t like any of Bush’s domestic policies that I can name (although I’m also not thrilled about Kerry’s). I do support the war in Iraq, and think that while Bush’s team has screwed some stuff up, none of it unrecoverable and he’s fundamentally on the right path. I don’t know what Kerry’s path really is, and if I knew, it’d make up my mind for me.
I trust Bush to do what he says, but don’t trust Kerry much in the same way. But I don’t want Bush to pick 5 Supreme Court justices…
I can do this kind of ping-pong all day. Then I remind myself that Kerry will win CA, it’s a winner-take-all electoral state, and I don’t need to trouble myself too much.
Then I talked to Tim Oren who told me I had a duty to make up my mind.
Sigh. Can’t we get a do-over on this and run McCain against Dean? Bueller? Anybody?
Isn’t the title here from some old song? I vaguely recall this lyric (and only this lyric) that my mom listened to, sometime in the 70’s…
Yup. The singer is annoyed at having to decide which of two women to be with.
Poor baby! I must admit I hated that song at the time and still do LOL. But maybe that’s because I’m pretty hot about the Mary Cheney thing at the moment.
Er, I probably shouldn’t have gone offtrack on this thread so early, since the post that AL links to is very very good.
I make it up by saying, “go read it”! When I have absorbed enough, maybe I’ll venture enough to offer an ignorant opinion…
If not McCain-Dean, how about Bush-Lieberman?
___________________________________________
Vote Bush: Take a Shower Afterwards
___________________________________________
Robin,
You know, if this were an informal gathering, and I knew you a bit better, I would make a very un-pc comment, regarding your last comment…
🙂
🙂
🙂
(Someone just tell me if I’ve gone too far – if so please delete this…)
Thanks, JC! [smile]
For me, it’s the following:
Bush:
Foreign policy:
1. Will actually fight the WoT.
2. May use multilateral approaches, but only as a tool for an objective. Won’t fetishize them as an end in themselves.
3. Is a known quantity. He’s stubborn, pigheaded, and can be vicious: not typically nice qualities, but I’ve never heard of effective wartime leaders that didn’t have these qualities.
Domestic policy:
1. Only a 2nd term president has any hope of doing about Social Security. Bush showed serious huevos by actually putting something on the table. Kerry’s approach is analogous to his foreign policy (as per the 3rd debate): wait for it to collapse, and convene a “summit” to figure out what to do. But hope like hell that nothing happens during his watch.
2. Trade policy: awful for two-and-a-half years, better since.
3. All other things: Education: OK, social policy: bad but not awful, environment: bad but actually better than I expected, partially due to Congress being uncooperative. Healthcare reform: I actually like the “health savings account” + catastrophic insurance notion, but it needs more work.
As far as I’m concerned, Social Security is a national crisis on the order of the War on Terror. Kerry’s serious wimpage on the topic is enough of a no-go for me.
Kerry:
Foreign policy:
1. Has a consistent track record as a peace-loving type, nearly a pacifist. May briefly be in favor of wars if they’re going well, but will backtrack quickly.
2. Loves process over substance. He hasn’t actually proposed anything of substance, except for appeasing Iran. But he loves the “the world community”, “diplomacy”, multilateralism, etc.
3. Makes protectionist noises on trade. But I suspect this stance would be ditched on election eve if he won – he’s actually been somewhat of a free-trader in the Senate.
Domestic:
1. Raise taxes, “raise SS taxes from $87K to $120K”:http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040925-102807-8965r.htm (funny how raising SS taxes doesn’t count as a tax increase as per the debates – even Bush missed it.) I’ll admit that as someone who makes in the low $100K’s and expects SS in its current form to fail by the time I retire, I’m not thrilled that Kerry’s plan will take an extra $3K or so out of my pocket.
2. Lots of fancy new programs, which will mean even more taxes.
3. Only areas I agree with: social policy.
So, on balance for me, Bush wins, since the things he’s doing that I agree with are more important at this point in our country’s history than the things he’s doing that I disagree with.
Bah.
I could have voted for a Democrat — I have before. I even voted for Ann Richards when GWB won in Texas.
But ding-dang-nabbit, with yellow dogs being euthanized every day the Dems could have come up with something besides the Prototypical Masshole.
Regards,
Ric Locke
Well, you could wait another couple weeks until we’re pretty certain who’s going to win, and cast your vote for him. That way, at least the winner can say “I won the election AND the popular vote.”
Of course, if it’s down-to-the-wire like last time, you’re on your own.
Here in Arizona, Bush, McCain, and Kolbe are going to win decisively. There are local issues that are close, of course, but for the national election, I’ll just be one extra bit in the 60% margin.
Dan Drezner is a self hating Jew who wants to be loved by the liberal intelligentsia. He’s seeking tenure and it’s not wise to be known as a Bush supporting while trying to get to the finish line. Drezner can lie to himself, but I can easily see through his nonsense. Why do I charge with him with being a self hating Jew? That’s real easy to explain. A bare minimum of a third to perhaps even a half of all Kerry supporters perceive Israel as guilty of apartheid and other aggressions against the Palestinian people. Have you ever heard of George Soros?
The song was by the Lovin’ Spoonful.
The bumper sticker sums up my current feelings quite well.
David T. – ick.
Don’t be so hard on Drezner. He is totally screwed if he endorses Kerry, even flirting with objectivity in public is foolish.
=============================
Did You Ever Have to Make up Your Mind?
by The Lovin’ Spoonful
Album: Do You Believe In Magic
Date: 1966
U.S. Chart: 2
Did you ever have to make up your mind
Pick up on one and leave the other behind
It’s not often easy and not often kind
Did you ever have to make up your mind
Did you ever have to finally decide
Say yes to one and let the other one ride
There’s so many changes and tears you must hide
Did you ever have to finally decide
Sometimes there’s one with big blue eyes, cute as a bunny
With hair down to here, and plenty of money
And just when you think she’s that one in the world
You heart gets stolen by some mousey little girl
And then you know you’d better make up your mind…
Sometimes you really dig a girl the moment you kiss her
And then you get distracted by her older sister
When in walks her father and takes you a line
And says, “You better go home, son, and make up your mind”
And then you bet you’d better finally decide…
Songfacts
This was inspired by a pair of sisters whom John Sebastian met at a summer camp. The song’s question was fantasy – neither sister was interested in Sebastian, even though he taught himself the autoharp in an attempt to impress them.
*AL*
First thanks for the post because you got me thinking about what it really takes to seal a deal. Not just a car sale, not just a vote, but a solid deal without any reservations. You know sort of like unconditional friendship and unconditional love.
There are many here at WoC who have already contributed and I’d like to think I’ve contributed in some small manner myself with my own opinions. I do realize though that my contribution to discussions does little for how good I feel about myself afterwards because that is not what really matters.
I thought I might have some words of wisdom for you and lay out an argument for Bush to help you make a decision but I decided against it. After reviewing all the posts, all the evidence, and all the documentation that we can possibly get our hands on there’s not anything I can add that hasn’t already been discussed. There’s not anything I can add that hasn’t already been parsed. In other words what you see is what you get no more no less.
So I’ll leave you with one simple question.
Who would you implicitly trust (Bush or Kerry) without question with you and yours?
To me it’s that simple and if you think you could trust them both equally then flip a coin in the booth because whoever wins really doesn’t matter.
As for the song thanks for reminding me how old I am.
Well, the problem is:
that a lot of catastrophic wartime leaders (Hitler, Napoleon) had these qualities, too. And the fact Bush has on repeated public occasions asserted something resembling a belief in his own infallibility (in the face of his Administration’s prediction for the reconstruction of Iraq being manifestly over-optimistic) suggests that given the chance he will fall into the catastrophic category.
Split the vote. I’m going Republican for President and Dem for House and Senate.
The President may guide policy but a split executive/legislative scenario will usually prevent abuse (no matter which party is in power in which group).
Oh, and Robert? I already knew those lyrics. And that song will be running through my head for the rest of the night. Showing my age a bit, aren’t I?
“I don’t know what Kerry’s path really is, and if I knew, it’d make up my mind for me. ”
He’s been campaigning since March and you still don’t know – doesn’t *that* help you make up your mind?
Add to Kerry’s domestic policy:
trying to scare the public on outsourcing, showing no understanding of market forces.
trying to scare the public on the draft, also hypocrisy because he had a plan for compulsory national service, but took it off his website a few weeks ago. (Gotta keep holding them focus groups.)
Here’s more food for elective thought “from Iraq”:http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html#109796772942861120 .
”A new presidency with the right moves, the right language, the right outreach, the right initiatives, can dramatically alter the world’s perception of us very, very quickly….
****************************************************
Now THAT is true and the new perception could be summed up in one word.
TARGETS
I’m somewhat mystified by the concern that Kerry will “cut and run” in Iraq. I really don’t know where its coming from. Look at the people behind Kerry: Biden, Clark, Lieberman. He’s not going to cut and run. On a strategic level the way forward in Iraq is pretty clear: you start with legitimate Iraqi leaders of goodwill trusted by Iraqi people. You provide some mechanism for the Iraqi people to regularly hold these leaders accountable if they prove ineffectual and/or corrupt. And then you provide the military and economic muscle for these leaders temporarily, until the Iraqis can do it themselves. Easy-peasy;) On the tactical level, what can I say? Kerry is competent, hard-working, and will learn from mistakes, like Lincoln. Bush thinks he’s infallible and resents any criticism, like Jefferson Davis (cheap shot. sorry.)
The more I think about it, on national security, other than these ridiculous (to me) assertions that Kerry will “cut and run” in Iraq, this election is really a referendum on who you trust to handle Iran. One thing you can say about Kerry, he really really cares about the issue of nuclear proliferation. Bush has given no objective evidence that he does, and what exactly has been his Iran policy for the past 4 years? But that of course is not the last word on the very urgent and very scary issue of Iran.
Are “the people behind Kerry” the sober rationalists in the Democratic Party, or are they Soros, the Michael Moorish, Hollywood millionairheads, the International ANSWER Spartacists, and the assorted wierd-left moonbattery that saw in the past couple of years an opportunity to rediscover the “glory days” of 1968? While some people like Andrew Sullivan argue that actually winning may purge the Democratic Party of these wierdos, I figure that the gallows concentrates the mind far more than victory, and I don’t want any of these people near the levers of power.
If Kerry actually wins, I sure hope you’re right that the sober grownups are in command, but given that the real “life force” in the Democratic Party comes from its lunatics these days, I fear not.
AJL
bq. _”And the fact Bush has on repeated public occasions asserted something resembling a belief in his own infallibility (in the face of his Administration’s prediction for the reconstruction of Iraq being manifestly over-optimistic) suggests that given the chance he will fall into the catastrophic category.”_
Yet another claim that stands on false premise. It puts words and thoughts into the mind of our President. Words and thoughts that don’t belong to him but to others who play the woulda shoulda coulda game prefacing everything with if this and instead of this what would you have done. IE lets play pretend with history and then you give me an answer. Fact is things have happened the way they happened and fact is the President has stated that given a do over with the same information he had before he would do the same thing. Fact is you will never get a do over with premonition knowledge. Life isn’t a movie like “Back to the Future”. Some one explain to me how that translates to being infallible.
Asked if he’s made mistakes he’s answered yes and he will continue to make mistakes but the one mistake everyone wants Bush to admit is that he was wrong, wrong, wrong to go into Iraq with a given of what he knows today. Well in my mind he was right, right, right at the time because he could never know then what we all know now.
Now just to be clear even I understood what he meant when he stated in his public address that we will hunt down and kill terrorist and we will not tolerate those who harbor terrorists. As I’ve stated before and I’ll state it again that was justification enough for me. He made it clear either you’re with us or your against us. Negotiations concerning terrorism and terrorists acts are no longer an option. That window is now closed.
As for our congressional elections here in Va. Congressman Frank Wolfe gets my vote again Mr Soccas doesn’t have a plan he’s got nothing but complaints and no solutions.
Wow, isn’t this interesting. Andrew J. Lazarus who considers Israel to be an aparthied nation posts comments on this board. This is what he wrote awhile back on Daniel Drezner’s blog:
“David, if Israel wants to give the Palestinians citizenship rights like the Israeli Arabs have, that’s an OK solution by me. You knew perfectly well when you posted that their legal situations are not remotely similar, and also that for demographic reasons this solution commands very little support within Israel. As of now, Palestinians have no say in the development of the settlements, which are run on an apartheid system. Do you think Arabs can buy any house wherever they want like in the USA? No, you know better. So why are you wasting my time; you think I don’t know this, too?
As far as the assassination of Rabin—given how you think he endangered Israel, imagine how the settlers felt. You know, of course, that the extremist settler rabbis had placed him under a fatwa, nu? (The Hebrew term is din rodef if you want to Google it.)
Posted by Andrew J. Lazarus at May 28, 2004 12:49 AM”
Armed Liberal, you HAVE already made up your mind. In the face of the utterly irresponsible, diplomaticly absurd, and militarily inane way the so called “War On Terror” has been run, for you to claim George W. Bush is “on the right path” is evidence that you have simply turned off your cereberal cortex.
And that you have turned it off to avoid the responsibility for the choice your limbic system has already made: vote for the man who will make the biggest bullying verbal “show of strength” whether he has proved capable of the job or not.
Dresner made a fine post with the real doubts that anyone would have over ANY challenger’s capacities given the mess that has already been made. The uncertainty about Kerry is essentially uncertainty about the solvability of the broader strategic problem and the possiblity of having to cut irredeemable losses.
And, by the way, you are not “last holdouts” either. We would not be seeing 45%-48% overall poll scores for both candidates if doubts like Dresner’s were not real.
But your doubts aren’t real. The mere fact that you cannot recognize that the choice has been between systematic, sustained, and irresponsible failure, and a man and party with no promise of a magic wand to make it all go away, means you have already made your choice.
Now get out to the voting booth and honor it, please. No matter who “wins” California, Arizona, or Ohio (where I am fighting tooth and nail for my party and candidate of choice) It is time for ALL of us to quit dogging the responsibility of taking a stand in the polling place merely because any given candidate does not automatically dot all our “i’s” and cross all our “t’s”.
Just vote for Bush. This is really getting tiresome. Obviously you agree with his worldview and don’t think he’s nuts or incompetent enough to rule out, and neither candidate is a populist economically. If this and this don’t convince you to vote for Kerry, nothing will.
Praktike
bq. _“Come to the hustings on Labor Day and meet the base. In 2004, you know a candidate by his base, and the Bush campaign is harnessing the might of churches, with hordes of voters registering through church-sponsored programs. Following the news of Bush on his national tour in the week after the Republican convention, you could sense how a faith-based president campaigns: on a surf of prayer and righteous rage.”_
Shorter – don’t vote Bush he’s a religious zealot and what’s more he’s convinced all the religious zealots in the US to stamp out atheists and agnostics because they are the only ones who can think for themselves and everyone else. BTW if you vote for Bush be prepared for the Armagedon of civil war that will be waged against the American Populace.
Couldn’t get the second article because I’m not a subscriber could it possibly be more of the same?
At any rate it’s obvious to me that Ron Suskind would very much like to rid our “constitution”:http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html of Article VI clause 3. Makes me wonder if Ron Suskind will enlist his services as a general to fight such a war. Just to be clear though give Ron Suskind Kerry and he won’t follow through on his threat.
Mr. Suskind if you’re reading WoC, my vote is not open for compromise in lieu of threat.
Look, I have nothing against religious people. My dad is the chair of the board of my parents’ church. My mother has a master’s degree in theology. But this is something altogether different: a man hubristic enough to believe he’s on some kind of divine mission from God. If anything, it’s blasphemous.
prkatike –
a) as a Democratic organizer, I’ve spent an amazing amount of time in black churches. Does this mean that we should worry about a takeover of the levers of policy by gospel choirs in the event that Kerry wins? That’s just silly. There’s a broader question – about the clash for power between two powerful cultural groups in America. One reason I’m still on the fence at all is the notion that Bush is giving too much power over social issues to evangelicals. But that’s ‘too much’, not ‘all’.
b) The term ‘campaign promises’ has the normative meaning – the negative normative meaning – that it does because we all expect candidates, much like eight year olds, to say whatever they expect us to want to hear in order to get what they want. I’m much more interested in track records, and Kerry’s strongly suggests that he does see the UN as a major bulwark – as opposed to obstacle – to world progress.
A.L.
I’ve spent an amazing amount of time in black churches. Does this mean that we should worry about a takeover of the levers of policy by gospel choirs in the event that Kerry wins? That’s just silly.
I agree. That would be silly. And it’s not a serious argument, because the evangelical grip on the Bush administration is far greater than anything that black churches have on Democrats. Karl Rove believes that he can win this election with evangelicals because 4 million of them stayed home in 2000, and there are only about 2 million persuadable swing voters. So, yeah, it matters.
I need more evidence than a New York Times article and a TV documentary to convince me that Bush is a zealot on a hubristic mission from God.
It’s clear to me that Bush’s faith plays a big role in his life and he has certainly been willing to restore to public life things like references to faith that many have worked to remove. That by itself does not make him a zealot in my book … he’s not alone in feeling as if a concern for civil liberties has edged into an attack on any public reference to religion at all.
It’s also clear to me that faith can go so far as to be destructive zealotry. I have no intention of giving up my civil liberties to fit someone else’s religion — but neither am I frightened at expressions of that religion so long as they are not trying to enforce it on me.
I just don’t see all the signs of fanatic “mission from God” I would look for, in this case, based on public evidence at least. It is true that many Christians have felt called to take on difficult tasks in the face of public disapproval and opposition — and their faith is part of what keeps them going. Not all of them are dangerous fanatics. vol Moltke and the German Christian resistance to Hitler are examples. of public officials whose faith and sense of mission inspired courageous acts in the face of evil.
I recognize the concern about Bush’s faith and his desire for closure, but I also recognize the reflexive horror many intellectuals and journalists have of anything that smacks of language about piety or prayer — a horror that distorts their interpretation of motive and reporting of envents in some cases.
I wish I had more insight on which to form an opinion. What is out there right now doesn’t convince me — or set all my concerns at rest for that matter, either.
praktike
bq. _“a man hubristic enough to believe he’s on some kind of divine mission from God”_
I can certainly tell from the article that this may well be Mr. Suskind’s opinion but it certainly is not one that I agree with.
bq. _”Karl Rove believes that he can win this election with evangelicals because 4 million of them stayed home in 2000, and there are only about 2 million persuadable swing voters. So, yeah, it matters.”_
So are you and Mr. Suskind advocating these people shouldn’t vote at all? Are you advocating that these people pose a threat to our government and should be silenced?
In either case, neither is a swaying argument for me to vote for Kerry.
I asked AL a question in my earlier post and to make a point I’ll supply my answer.
bq. _”Who would you implicitly trust (Bush or Kerry) without question with you and yours?”_
If I had to leave my grandson for an extended period of time with either Bush or Kerry for what ever reason, I’d choose Bush.
I could rest easy knowing that when I got back to my grandson Bush would still have him in his possession and that Bush would have made absolutely sure of his well being. Bush would have made it a personal commitment and stuck with it.
Kerry on the other hand I believe would ship him off somewhere else to become someone else’s responsibility.
That should be ‘von Moltke’.
praktike:
You mean like Woodrow Wilson?
From Louis Auchincloss’s Woodrow Wilson
I don’t like Woodrow Wilson, either.