85 Comments

1. Knucklehead:

The Democratic Party has lost all track of moderation or centrism and is, therefore, Of Itself, By Itself, and For Itself. It functions for little reason other than self-love and recursive references to past glories. he would be aristocratic mega-wealthy telling themselves how much they care, “Leave everything to us and we’ll feed you cake!” and a declining gathering of former-warriors who have long since lost track of what ground has long since been gained and secured and what ground is now under attack.

It is pathetic to observe even when one is willing to “feel another’s pain”. In less empathetic moments it is simply disgusting to see.

Jul 28, 2004 - 7:40 am 2. OldManRick:

If a tele-evangelist has convinced the disabled old lady to hand over her quarters or the young girl to sell her bike, we would hear nothing but disgust for him. Yet, these people offer the almost the same “follow-me-and-life-will-be-better” tripe.

From Teresa Kerry,

“He believes we can, and will, invent the technologies, new materials and conservation methods of the future. He believes that alternative fuels will guarantee that not only will no American boy or girl go to war because of our dependency on foreign oil. But also that our economic security will forever become independent of this need.”

Note “I believe”. If you want to understand the true vacuousness of this statement, take a trip over to USS Clueless and learn a little about alternate energy sources.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/NomeansNo.shtml

Cheney was pretty much right when he said, “There’s coal, gas, oil, hydro, and nuclear”.

I loved the end of THK speech.

“With John Kerry as President, global climate change and other threats to the health of our planet will begin to be reversed.”

So John has a program to cool off the sun?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

Sure.

Jul 28, 2004 - 7:58 am 3. Samuel:

Roger

This is the most boring say/do nothing convention I have ever witnessed. I know that Democrats are playing it safe, but what about National Security? I am so glad I am not supporting the Democrats and John Kerry as I would be beside myself. I heard how Bush squandered a “united” world after 9/11. I heard precursors of the “Two America’s” and I had a similar reaction to Howard’s comments (though I did verbally mock him), my wife’s however was very different from Sheryl’s.

My 17 year old daughter who has a jar full of quarters said, “I’ll be back, I need to go get my quarters and to my part, or must I be sick to make it meaningful?” My wife suggested that we leave the room if we couldn’t be respectful. I retorted, “let me know when the Democrats become respectable again” and we watched it in another room. (I’ll spare you what my daughter said of Mrs. Kerry’s speach about her husband where she talked mostly about herself.)

The bar is being so lowered as to make it just a mere step for Republicans to out preform this. But no matter, the MSM will declare this a limbo contest and the Republicans too fat to get “under” that bar. Bush will somehow however of course will achieve this… he will cheat! (according to Democrats) :^)

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:04 am 4. PCD:

Why is it so hard to find truthful comments on the (lack of) substance to this convention? All I see is a lot of heat, anger, and noise.

Telling a reporter to shove it when asked for an explanation of a point you just made is not something a successful convention would be remembered for.

If this is the best the Democrats got, they’re going to run out of the Jim Jones kool-aid this fall.

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:04 am 5. Lapsed Randian 2:

The technical term for these comments, with credit to Mark Twain, is “assified remarks.”

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:06 am 6. Lapsed Randian 2:

I meant the comments at the Convention, not my fellow travelors on this website………..

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:13 am 7. Jay Rice:

It’s odd, but that moment in Dean’s speech when he spoke about the woman who sold her bike and sent money didn’t strike us as much as the disabled woman who sent $50.00 in quarters from her limited funds. My husband turned to me and said, “And he kept it??!!!”

We wondered why the Democrats keep talking about lost jobs as if oblivious to impressive by anyone’s standards 1.3 million job created this year alone. They aren’t talking about jobs for working families. /sheeze It’s unemployed Democrat politicians that has them truly indignant.

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:16 am 8. Goof®:

I hitched a ride with a vending machine repair man

He says he’s been down this road more than twice

He was high on intellectualism

I’ve never been there but the brochure looks nice

Jump in, let’s go

Lay back, enjoy the show

Everybody gets high, everybody gets low,

These are the days when anything goes

Everyday is a winding road

I get a little bit closer

Everyday is a faded sign

I get a little bit closer to feeling fine

Credit to Sheryl Crow

Thanks for the smiles.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis left the Democratic National Convention and went back to doing the job he had and there is a strong case to be made that, because he did, he lost. Democrats learned their lesson. Winning is the only thing and you have to convince people that you want to win and in this country that means taking the money and saying the same vacuous nonsense (because you want to offend as little as possible) day after day for month after month without respite. The main men of the last three winners have been Lee Atwater, James Carville and Karl Rove. Such are the trivial times in which we live.

As I’ve said before, this will be decided late (as in 1980) and it will be decided on whether or not Kerry can close the deal. All he and his supporters have to do right now is show the folks that they want to win and not make any really big mistakes. So far so good.

98 days to go…and I’m a little bit closer to feeling fine

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:40 am 9. Knucklehead:

Ginny over at Chicago Boys has yet another one of her very powerful blog entries

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002166.html#more

Her work is strong enough to stand for itself, but she also makes excellent use of referential work by others. I highly recommend reading her blog entry, but one of the works she referenced contained words that stopped my in my tracks. From Infandum, By George W. Rutler,

http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2001/feature5.htm

contained the following:

“On a train a few days after the attack, I sat next to a teenager wearing the ritual garb of his atomistic tribe; backwards baseball cap and such. When I recounted how rescuers had kept rushing into 240,000 tons of collapsing ironwork without any apparent thought for themselves, he replied in a voice coached by the sentinels of self-absorption: “They must be sick.” It will take more than one September day to humanize a generation.”

(Full disclosure: I have taken a small liberty with the above quote by changing a hyphen to a semicolon. I did so because I couldn’t easily figure out how to [revent the hyphen from being converted to a question mark.)

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:59 am 10. mrp:

I’m surprised Mr. Lifson didn’t mention the Kerry-Weld 1996 campaign “gentlemens’ agreement”. J. Kerry borrowed $1.7 million against the Louisburg Square house he co-owns with his wife. As a caveat, I don’t know what the ownership arrangements were in 1996.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:05 am 11. Sun-Tzu:

Roger:

Your comments crystalized for me who too many Democrats resemble:

The British upper classes in the period from 1939-1943.

Not really feeling the war was part of their problem, certainly not prepared to view it as a “war to the knife” between Germany and Great Britain. All too eager to find some negotiated way out of the war that they never really felt necessary in the first place.

John Lukacs’ “Five Days in London,” detailing the struggle between Churchill and Halifax might well serve as a template for the attitudes at work in Boston.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:06 am 12. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

“The British upper classes in the period from 1939-1943″…I’m kind of surprised by the time interval. I would agree that the British upper classes were oblivious throughout the ’30s, but was always under the impression that this turned around after Dunkirk. (See, for example, “The Last Ememy,” the memoir of a British fighter pilot who changed from cynic to warrior.)

Could you explicate this a bit?

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:27 am 13. mrp:

(via Drudge)

Joe Hagan has an interesting article in this week’s New York Observer that is devoted to J. Kerry’s short-film Thursday night intro.

Between Mr. Shrum, Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Kerryís campaign and massive collection of interested parties, Mr. Moll was getting his fair share of advice, to be sure. But Mr. Moll, an earnest, soft-spoken documentarian, “a serious, sober filmmaker for a serious, sober candidate in a serious, sober time in history,” and his reserved optimism, have remained intact. “The process hasnít been without its occasional frustration,” he said, in an e-mail, “although Iím excited to be working for a candidate I support.”

Can you feel the excitement?

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:30 am 14. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Also…I’m tired of hearing politicians congratulate themselves on their “public service.” While in office, they are well-paid..maybe not at the level of a top executive or entertainer, but still well paid. And the have the psychic income from power and attention, which is what many of them crave most. Finally, when they retire, they often make a great deal of money as lobbyists, speakers, etc…indeed, many of them manage to attract large sums of money (other than their salaries) while they are still in office, usually in some kind of legal fashion.

I don’t think being a politician is any more “public service” than being a farmer who grows food, a railroad executive who helps get it to market, or a grocer who distributes it.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:32 am 15. WichitaBoy:

“…the rich, sometimes the mega-rich, offering to lead the multi-cultural.”

That’s one for the ages.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:42 am 16. JSinger:

In defense of:

Howard Dean: Maybe it’s because I’m well to the right of you but I respect the guy. Certainly I respect his forthright opposition to the war from day one, followed by support for victory once it started far more than Kerry waffling, triangulation and butt-covering.

Young people: Who does George Rutler think was risking their lives in the wreckage — pompous theocons or tattooed young men who wore backwards baseball hats when they weren’t wearing helmets? I know a few, and they all fall in the latter group.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:43 am 17. DennisThePeasant:

Having missed the speech, I have now had to read its transcript to get the context of Roger’s post.

All I can say is that I am reminded of Wilde’s comment regarding Dickens:

You would have to have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing.

Shouldn’t Howard have ended the speech by bringing out some little waif to say “God bless us every one”?

Oops. Democrats. No references to “God”. Never mind.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:48 am 18. Sun-Tzu:

Photon:

Well, the 1930s aren’t very parallel, b/c the Brits weren’t at war yet. Just as we ignored WTC ‘93, the Cole, Khobar Towers, Tanzania/Kenyan embassy bombings, so they ignored Spain, Rhineland, Anschluss, etc.

But the desire of Churchill to get Britain into an “unnecessary” war over the Sudetenland is, I think, where the parallel begins: the arguments against preemption, thinking about “root causes” (e.g., German rights to reunify their peoples in places like the Sudetenland). It’s useful to remember that there were no death camps (as opposed to concentration camps) in 1938-1939 just yet. (Dachau, iirc, was established in 1938.)

9-11, however, brings us to 1939 Britain. The war is here, whether you want it to be or not. And Britain was not unified, however much Brits would like to think it was in retrospect, any more than “everyone” opposed German anti-Semitism.

Indeed, as I noted in referencing Lukacs, the collapse of the British position at Dunkirk led to one of the first crises of the Churchill government, w/ Lord Halifax (and the British upper classes) arguing that this provided an opportunity for a negotiated peace with the Germans. Churchill, “war-monger” that he was, of course, opposed this.

Nor would this be the last time. While exactly WHAT was going through his mind is unclear, Rudolf Hess’ flight to Britain was apparently intended to extend some kind of feeler to upper class Brits in the hope that they might want to end the war sooner. (Interestingly, many novels have suggested that Edward VIII might have been willing to head such a regime, but it’s less clear whether that’s history or plot device.)

Nor was Churchill’s position all that secure. 1941 saw several disasters, including the collapse of British forces in North Africa, and much later the loss of British warships culminating in the fall of Singapore, all of which aroused serious questions about his wartime leadership. IIRC, Churchill faced an outright no-confidence vote then, and another in 1942 with the fall of Tobruk. Churchill enjoyed the support of the man in the street (interesting, given his patrician background and Conservative leanings), but not necessarily that of the monied upper classes.

Even today, some of the upper classes argue that Churchill was precisely wrong to have insisted on fighting, that a modus vivendi could have been reached. See John Charmley, for example.

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:52 am 19. Knucklehead:

JSinger:

“Who does George Rutler think was risking their lives in the wreckage — pompous theocons or tattooed young men who wore backwards baseball hats when they weren’t wearing helmets?”

I’m missing your point here. I read Rutler’s piece and missed any mention of “pompous theocons”. I did, however, get the impression Mr. Rutler is capable of distiguishing between those who put their lives on the line (even though they may be “tattooed young men who wore backwards baseball hats when they weren’t wearing helmets”) and those of similar physical attributes who remark, of the former, “They must be sick.”

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:54 am 20. thomas lifson:

Roger,

Thanks for your very kind words. From you, they mean a lot.

mrp,

I had completely forgotten about the earlier gentlemen’s agreement. Thanks for reminding me. I realize that Beacon Hill property has skyrocketed in value, but I wonder about the valuation placed on the manse by the bank making the mortgage loan.

Thomas Lifson

Jul 28, 2004 - 9:59 am 21. Knucklehead:

Photon and Sun-Tzu:

Interesting sub-topic you two have begun, IMHO. I keep wondering if there is something more to the Democrat “anti-war” position than a simple ABB reflex and a “NOTHING is more important than returning to power” mindset.

For some portion of the “anti-war” crowd (or its Cousin in Drag, the “For the war before the war but against in now that we’ve gone to war”) there may be (I’m not convinced yet) a semi-honest idea that there is no war and, therefore, no reason to fight any enemy.

Sun-Tzu makes an interesting analogy with the British upper classes during the early part of WWII.

I’ve been pondering a potential analogy with the British and French attitude toward the Barbary Pirates…

The British and French governments seemed completely unwilling to deal with the problem because they apparently felt it was cheaper and easier to pay tribute and ransom and lose some ships and cargo. Jefferson, on the other hand, seems to have thought the situation unacceptable and sent the fledgling US Navy to war to defeat the “pirates”.

There seems to be a certain portion of our “elites” (the leadership of the Democrat party machinery to be sure) here in the US (and most definitely in Europe) who believe there is no need to fight those whom you can pay tribute and ransom to. Almost certainly a weak analogy and I would really need to refresh my understanding of the world at the time of the Barbary Pirates, but its been rattling around in the spaces between the knuckles between my ears.

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:10 am 22. Ben:

I followed your link about good news in Afghanistan and found this:

“[I]n spite of repeated warnings from the Taliban that women should neither register nor stand for office, 2.1 million women have now registered to vote, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the body overseeing the process. This means that 38% of the current electorate are women, overturning predictions that few would register.”

That must be why the feminist Left has so strongly opposed the Taliban and so lavishly praised Bush. Oh, wait a mminute. . . .

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:12 am 23. Knucklehead:

Ben,

Apparently “Party Unity” is infinitely more important to folks like “feminists” and “environmentalists” than the achievment of goals that fit well with what they claim to want.

Is there any example of feminists who support the current administration’s efforts against Islamofascism simply because it holds some promise to break some women free of 12th century female bondage?

Is there any example of environmentalists who support the current administration’s efforts against Saddam Hussein because he was a criminal environmental defiler the likes of whom we’ve possibly never seen before?

Maybe its just me, but it would seem to me that among such “principled people” there would be some – at least a few here and there – who would stand up and say that sometimes the ends justify the means and freedom for women and the demise of a serial raper of the environment is an omelet worthy of breaking some eggs.

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:23 am 24. Ben:

IMHO, the refusal of some on the Left is part and parcel of the narcicism of the 68ers. They contend that they are engaged in the noble enterprise of trying to create a better world, but note how they phrase their “idealism” in terms of their own actions. Fundamentally, they are only interested in the outside world insofar as it affects them. Thus, we shouldn’t be fighting this war because it diverts resources from healthcare, education, social security, etc. The attitude seems to be that as long as the Islamofascists only launch a few attacks, we can ignore them and concern ourselves with other matters.

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:26 am 25. Ben:

Knucklehead –

Feminism is not about women and environmentalism is not about the environment. Instead, feminism is about overturning tradition and environmentalsim is about stopping development. At root, both are manifestations of the same impulse that drives the Islamofascists: opposition to liberal (capitalist) democracy. None of these people want the masses to have the freedom to make their own decisions, because all of them are so much more worthy to lead.

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:30 am 26. WichitaBoy:

Knucklehead

I think you’re misunderestimating the Democratic position. Almost all Democrats believe we should do something about the perpetrators of 9/11, i.e., Osama bin Laden and/or al Qaida. There is no agreement that we should have attacked Iraq however.

To my mind at least this is what it all hinges on. The case for war with Iraq is weak. Although we’ve found bits and pieces of forbidden weapons, we have not found anything that was a direct threat to the United States. Reasonable people in the same position would have chosen differently. That doesn’t justify all the Bush hatred of course. But it’s far from clear that Iraq was a clear and present danger. Many Americans believe that we do not have the right to attack other countries preemptively just because we feel like it, and a president whose own war experience is dodgy does not have the right to order other people to their deaths for a cause which is not a direct threat to the United States.

As you have stated, we have to answer the two questions: “what are we willing to kill for” and “what are we willing to die for”. The answers that one person will come up with are not the same as those that another will reach. It doesn’t follow that the person who decides this particular battlefield is not worth dying for is not patriotic and doesn’t see a problem. That characterization of the Democrats is just not reality.

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:43 am 27. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

A few brave souls in feminist-land have popped up their heads to defend George Bush’s actions, particularly as regards the Taliban. Phyllis Chesler is one good example, as seen here:

After the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, Ms. Chesler says, she privately implored several feminists to push for overthrowing the militant Islamic regime, which closed girls’ schools and forced women to wear the burka. “But no one took it seriously. Then George Bush does it,” she says.

“I didn’t understand Americans who are progressives, feminists, liberals and leftists, why the day after we invaded Afghanistan, everybody began treating this as if we had just invaded Vietnam,” Ms. Chesler says. “We were in a time warp, we were back in the ’60s.

“You would think … there would be some euphoria. Suddenly, women can go about and put their faces into the sun. It’s a good thing. And girls and women can go to school and become literate. It’s a good thing. And yet, the habit of criticizing one’s own government was so deeply ingrained that they could not see this invasion as a good thing, even momentarily.”

Ben–

Environmentalism is about far more than stopping development. It is about reversing progress in the name of saving souls. See Michael Crichton’s brilliant speech on the subject.

Jul 28, 2004 - 10:58 am 28. Sun-Tzu:

WichitaBoy:

I’d be more inclined to agree with you, but for the re-election of Cynthia McKinney (who said Bush knew about 9-11 and did nothing), the null reaction to Barbara Lee (who voted against going to war in Afghanistan), the NGOs/UN-lovers who accused the US of preparing to put millions of Afghan lives at risk in the face of the “brutal Afghan winter” ™, and the various Lefties who said, in a preview of Iraq “No Afghans were hijackers on 9-11,” “We hadn’t given the Taliban time to arrest ObL,” “We should rely on law enforcement and sanctions to get the Afghans to give up ObL.” That doesn’t even touch the “Afghanistan is the graveyard of armies, this will be a quagmire” crowd.

It’s very convenient to think that Iraq was different from Afghanistan, and for some, perhaps many in the anti-(Iraq) war crowd, that might even be true.

But there were plenty of Democrats (to their credit, I don’t think Kerry or Edwards falls into this group) who were pretty sure that going to war in Afghanistan was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:03 am 29. Knucklehead:

Witchita,

I would accept that as “opposition in good faith” if there weren’t so many counter examples. There seems to be ample evidence of the Democrat’s VP Nominee in Waiting having said that Iraq was an “imminent threat”. We have Kerry who voted to give the president the ability to make war but now says he was just supporting the “threat” to make war. We have Dem after Dem after Dem voting, over several years, to condemn and threaten regime change in Iraq until regime change in Iraq actually happens and then they start screaming it was wrong.

Is the Democratic position that all wars are wrong or that only wars run by Republican administrations (even if approved as US policy during a Democratic administration) are wrong?

I keep hearing some of those who do not like the current administration claim that its failure to make its case is damning. Yet I had no real trouble following the basic outlines of the administration’s case and looking at the world situation from my own limited perspective and with the limited information available to me and coming to the conclusion that there was a good case and, therefore, supporting the effort.

Yet on the Democrat side (the leadership) I have heard that they supported the effort up to the point that an effort was made and that now they have a better plan but for the life of me I just don’t see what that plan is let alone how it could be better.

What case are they making? Should we be fighting a war against terror/islamofacism? If so, how should we proceed (is there more here than “gaining allies” or “through the UN”)? If not, why not?

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:04 am 30. Fresh Air:

WichitaBoy–

You need to read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. The National Intelligence Estimate given to Bush is absolutely littered with hair-raising statements about Saddam Hussein’s weaponry (see p. 198 for example) and ongoing efforts at constructing and/or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. You can blame the CIA for supplying poor information, but I submit any president in office after 9/11 couldn’t look at that stuff and not conclude we needed to take action. Remember: George Tenet said “slam dunk.”

I won’t bother linking the document. You really should Google it up and read it, though. When Bush said “I had to act,” I think he truly believed he had to. And looking at evidence after the fact does not change the circumstances beforehand.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:06 am 31. Ben:

Wichita –

There you have it. I will freely acknowledge that there may not be a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. That doesn’t diminish my support for the Iraq War one iota. Our fight is not only with Atta (who is dead) and OBL (who may or may not be dead but who has definitely lost a lot of power if he is still alive). Our fight is with Islamic fascism: Iraq is (was) part and parcel of this. Remember, in WW2 we were not attacked by Germany on 12/7/1941, but we still went to war with Germany anyway.

Fresh Air –

Amen.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:07 am 32. tcobb:

As you have stated, we have to answer the two questions: “what are we willing to kill for” and “what are we willing to die for”. The answers that one person will come up with are not the same as those that another will reach. It doesn’t follow that the person who decides this particular battlefield is not worth dying for is not patriotic and doesn’t see a problem. That characterization of the Democrats is just not reality.

This is a valid argument, but my major concern with the “mainstream” Democrats is that I’m not sure that they think there is ANY battlefield worth dying on or for. For the most part it seems to me that the Democrats only real agenda is to turn the US into a copy of a European welfare state, with huge numbers of government employees that form a base of patronage that Boss Tweed could not even have dreamed of. Foreign policy does not interest them really, and at this stage in history such an attitude could make a lot of Americans very, very, dead in short order.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:13 am 33. Knucklehead:

Perhaps I misunderstood the point Witchita was making. As I read it his point – beginning to end – was that there is a “good faith” case for anti-(Iraq)war sentiment among the Democratic leadership. It didn’t seem to me (correct me if I’m wrong, Witchita) that he attempted to make that case.

I would be far more willing to accept the “honest disagreement” claim on behalf of the Democratic party leadership if it hadn’t been largely supportive before but so stridently anti after and if I had ever heard a sound case presented.

If someone here, Witchita or otherwise, can make a case (I’m not attempting to rekindle the right or wrong catfight) I’d like to hear it just for the sake of hearing a case that has more meat to it than “a Republican administration is doing it”. I suppose we can’t get to a “strong, good faith” case without hammering on the details, but what is the basic outline of the alleged case? Does it go no deeper than “we thought there were stockpiles of WMD but we haven’t found stockpiles so obviously the war was wrong and Bush alone bears the responisibility for acting upon somewhat incorrect information even though two previous administrations believed it as did an apparently large majority of congress over several years”?

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:19 am 34. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

That is the best run-on sentence defending the war I ever read.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:36 am 35. Knucklehead:

tcobb,

I agree with your assessment of what the Democrats are really after (assuming its something more than “power”). The Democratic Party’s Ideal Nation is the European model welfare state. And the way to get there is smothering bureaucracy and confiscatory taxation coupled with “corporatist” business policy and a overarching welfare program that touches every citizen’s life too deeply for them to even consider extracting themselves. And, of course, Democrats will be the bureaucratic elites who administer theis quasi-democratic-socialist-fascist state.

But apparently they are not willing to come right out and tell us that is their “vision” so they must dance around every issue. And the current dance they are doing regarding how to deal with Islamofascism is right out of some scene with the bad guys doing a fire and boiled heads soup dance in a Conan the Barbarian film.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:43 am 36. Goof®:

Timeline…

December 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, Philippines, and Guam; U.S. Pacific fleet crippled.

December 8, 1941 President Roosevelt addresses the Congress, asking for a declaration of war against Japan.

December 8, 1941 U.S. Congress declares war on Japan.

December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on U.S.

December 11, 1941 United States declares war on Germany.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:45 am 37. WichitaBoy:

To say that Bush knew about 9/11 and covered it up is, in my opinion, simply insane. To say that “Bush lied”–I’ve read the statement in the State of the Union address, I’ve read the supporting evidence pro and con–is a serious departure from reality, real alternate-universe stuff. Yes, there are lots of Democrats of this sort, and no, their actions can’t really be excused. Many of these people are caught in a time warp and do fervidly want to turn the clock back to 9/10–who can blame them?

But reality is complicated and hundreds of millions of people supporting a single political party cannot possibly be so easily categorized. Again, another strong thread running through the Democratic party is pure Sixties old-time religion: Amerika is Evil! It will take a long time to expunge that belief system; it may require that everybody who was alive in 1970 has to die before the country can get back to a reasonable position. But dogmatic anti-Americanism is not the whole story, probably not even the majority story, much as the Republicans would have it so. To believe that of the Democrats is a reciprocal departure from reality.

I’m not trying to make their case for them nor do I want to, particularly. I’m perfectly well aware of the way the world looked to Bush and others back then and how dangerous Iraq looked in particular. I’m also aware of the huge human tendency to mentally rewrite the past, believing that what’s obvious now (weapons hard to find) was obvious then. No one admits to voting for Nixon. Few Southerners admit to having Confederate ancestors and everybody’s descended from the Indians.

My point is that most Democrats I talk to, including my wife, mother, son, and all of my coworkers, want to toss Bush quam primum because they believe he did the wrong thing in Iraq and they want a regime change here at home as a consequence. One bumper sticker I saw the other day summed it up: “Four More Wars!”. People don’t want it, they want to get out of it, and they don’t really care which traitorous yellow dog they have to elect to do so. To characterize them as un-American or unwilling to fight our Islamofascist enemies is incorrect and will help our side not one whit, except insofar as we can form our own groupthink divorced from reality, which I do not believe is our intention.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:47 am 38. Roberts:

That was an incomplete timeline, Goof. It omits the facts such as that the US had already committed acts of war against Germany months before and had already agreed with Great Britain that Germany would be the first priority in the upcoming war.

Jul 28, 2004 - 11:52 am 39. Knucklehead:

Fresh Air,

Which run on sentence (I make so many!)?

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:02 pm 40. Roberts:

WhichitaBoy, it isn’t that much of a stretch to label Democrats with the views you describe as “UnAmerican” given Teresa Heinz’ standards for the term.

Nor is it a stretch when one notes how few of them objected to Bill Clinton – with even less of the illogical “right” given his complete lack of service – attacking Yugoslavia “just because he felt like it”. For at that point, it is clear that they are sublimating the interests of the US to their partisanship.

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:08 pm 41. Fresh Air:

Wichita–

I understand your statement, though I don’t agree that the case for war was “weak,” insofar as our level of tolerance for well-armed ME dictators has fallen precipitously since 9/11. I would point out to your Democrat friends that by fighting in Iraq we have disarmed not only Saddam, but also Libya–which did almost have nuclear weapons. (I don’t think we’ll being hearing much out of Boy Assad for a while, either.)

The trouble is logical consistency on foreign policy is absent across the entire left side of the spectrum. A unilateral war in Bosnia is hunky-dory, a multilateral one in Iraq is not. A humanitarian war in Somalia is fine, one in Iraq is not.

I really think it comes down to the difference between an “antiseptic” war (Kosovo, Gulf I, Grenada) and a messy one (Vietnam, Gulf II). If we aren’t prepared to go to war, why do we have a military? If we do got to war, do we expect some of our guys (and not a few civilians) to die horrible deaths as a result?

After 25 years without protracted conflict, we were slow to awake in this country. I think most Republicans heard the alarm and got out of bed. I think most Democrats have hit the snooze button. Twice.

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:28 pm 42. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

It was that run-on sentence you may made before you know the one it was long and had lots of verbs, nouns and adjectives am I sounding like PeterUK now?

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:29 pm 43. TedM:

If you want to get a flavor of mainstream Democratic thinking listen to cspan now. They are interviewing delegates

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:34 pm 44. Knucklehead:

Witchita,

I’ve been trying to find some way to distinguish between Democratic Party leadership and the rank and file – the ordinary folks who believe in the Democratic Party.

Since I know some of those people and they are, by and large, not particularly craven or insane, I would like very much to have some understanding of the rational or logically basis of their position. I just can’t find it. If I can get them to engage and remain engaged it generally leads to one of two conclusions:

- yeah, I understand, its pretty obvous that the Islamoids are bigger than OBL/AQ, doing Iraq makes sense, don’t really understand military or international affairs, the UN pretty much does suck doesn’t it… and so on till we get to the ever present BUTTTTT!!! which comes in two flavors:

- its too hard to think this much and stay informed, I’m a Dem and I vote Dem and we’ll just have to take our chances

- I hate Bush and I’m voting ABB

or the other big conclusion

- you’re just bending everything to support you’re beloved Republicans and while I can’t articulate the case I know there is one and, therefore, I hate Bush and I hate Republicans and I vote Dem.

None of any of that is particularly logical or rational – at least not to me.

Your statement is very much correct, I just can’t figure out why so many people hold it so tenaciously despite its lack of logic…

“Democrats… want to toss Bush quam primum because they believe he did the wrong thing in Iraq and they want a regime change here at home as a consequence.”

This is sort of a “punish the messenger” argument. To hold this the holder has to have some idea of how Iraq is a mistake or how the administration is botching it even if it isn’t a mistake. I can’t get at a solid articulation of the answers to that. What answers come out seem shallow. I know the people who give them are often fine people who don’t view the world shallowly, but they seem to insist on doing so in this case.

One bumper sticker I saw the other day summed it up: “Four More Wars!”. People don’t want it, they want to get out of it, and they don’t really care which traitorous yellow dog they have to elect to do so.

And the “shoot the messenger” problem grows worse the deeper into it we dig. I can understand if they don’t like Bush and hold him responsible even if they can’t articulate why. Its not particularly rational or logical or reasonable from my perspective, but let’s just accept it.

Then we have to move on to tossing one president they can’t tolerate and putting somebody they are unwilling to have a look at into his place. Surely (yes, I called you Shirley, get over it!) this can’t be seen as making much sense to them. If the other guy shows some signs of being OK or within a few kilometers of being OK it might make sense, but Kerry is such a TERRIBLE candidate. He really is awful. I don’t get it.

To characterize them as un-American or unwilling to fight our Islamofascist enemies is incorrect and will help our side not one whit, except insofar as we can form our own groupthink divorced from reality, which I do not believe is our intention.

Sometimes intent just doesn’t matter. Sometimes people need to look beyond their feelings and intentions and try to make some estimate of the effect of their actions and “do the right thing”. Having good intent or “not having any bad intent” just doesn’t cut it.

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:38 pm 45. Fresh Air:

TedM–

Sorry, I have some fresh paint I need to go watch while it dries.

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:39 pm 46. TedM:

Fresh air,

I watch so I know what it is I have to reason with (or against). Of course some of it is beyond reason.

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:44 pm 47. Knucklehead:

TedM,

Can we think of national convention delegates as “mainstream”? Doesn’t one need to be pretty darned active in a party to be sent to the national convention as a delegate? I suppose that in relationship to the party leadership or that portion of the party who is actively engaged, they can be “mainstream”. Does this match the mainstream of the non-activist portions?

I could be wrong about this, but anyone who is part of the party machinery itself is capable of absorbing the party line and regurgitating it whether they believe it or not.

Unfortunately I’m in no position to watch CSPAN at the moment.

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:48 pm 48. Katherine:

Wichitaboy, help me out here.

You say, ìPeople don’t want it, they want to get out of it, and they don’t really care which traitorous yellow dog they have to elect to do so. To characterize them as un-American or unwilling to fight our Islamofascist enemies is incorrect and will help our side not one whit, except insofar as we can form our own groupthink divorced from reality (..)”

I have two questions regarding the opinion of the anti-war party that you describe.

1) How exactly the Iraqi war inconvenienced these people that they want out? Are we talking about families of troops who currently serve or people in reserves? If yes, I can understand. If notÖ. What exactly was lost? Franco-German ìfriendshipî that never really was there in a first place? True, price of gas is high, but how much it is due to our presence in ME and how much to such factors like unrest in Venezuela and lack of refinery capacity? I have not noticed any appreciable hardships that population of our country has to endure, other than increased security at places such as airports. Neither gas prices nor airport security measures will disappear because an cowardly appeaser sits in the Whitehouse.

2) How are we supposed to fight terrorist without use of some military force? Terrorist training camps happen to be located somewhere, usually in countries whose sovereignty in no less ìsacredî than that of Afghanistan and Iraq (yes, there were terrorist camps in Iraq). Are we supposed to only use SF? Or bomb targets a la Clinton (the ìmillion dollar missiles aimed at an empty tent and hitting camel in the buttî strategy). Wouldnít that also be violation of sovereignty? Would not governments of countries so violeted protest our involvment there? Or do these people really think that somehow our fine law enforcement will manage to hand subpoenas all around the globe and the terrorists will meekly surrender to stand a trial in Hague?

It seems to me that people that you describe may be fine patriotic Americans, but I have to disagree that they are willing to fight jihadis. Paying Danegeld or shutting eyes and hoping that the danger will somehow magically disappear has nothing to do with fighting.

ìIt takes only one to make war and those who refuse pick up swords can still die upon themî

Jul 28, 2004 - 12:50 pm 49. Knucklehead:

Katherine:

I can have a crack at answering your first question even though I am not anti-(Iraq)war…

How exactly the Iraqi war inconvenienced these people that they want out?

There are two strong historical “American” undercurrents at work here.

Americans were like the Japanese and Germans long before the Japanese and Germans were like the Japanese and Germans. Part of us wants no form of foreign involvement in fighing – we NEVER want to send our kids away to die. This is not a pacifist feeling – its more a “let the other assholes kill each other, its not our concern” feeling. Naturally this undercurrent gets overcome when the need arises.

The second is a hybrid developed from Vietnam Syndrome and sort of did a DNA insertion into the Powell Doctrine. For ordinary Americans there are these two simultaneous fears at work. One is that we are making a mistake and shouldn’t be killing whomever we’re killing let alone dying. The second fear is that we aren’t following the Powell Doctrine – we’re not putting overwhelming force on site and aren’t letting the military run the war.

If you layer on top of this a sort of myopic hyper-empathy I think you’ll have a good feel for the general anti-war feelings of Americans. By myopic hyper-empathy I mean that Americans (and people in general) often have a hard time putting scale into perspective. They can’t quite distinguish between losing 500 of your boys per week in Vietnam and losing 900 in a year+ in Iraq. The hyper-empathy part is explained by thinking of the enormous success Bill Clinton had with his preposterous “I feel your pain” schtick. Americans are – as you may know – very caring in many ways. But we don’t always know when its best to put that aside. Have you ever seen somebody come close to wrecking their car and harming themself or others to try and avoid hitting a ubiquitous squirrel in the road? That’s hyper-empathy for the squirrel and can can lead to bad decision making.

Jul 28, 2004 - 1:06 pm 50. Knucklehead:

Katherine:

To try to better make my point… there is a sizeable portion of the American population (I don’t know how big it is) who simultaneously are “mad” at Bush for going to Iraq and for not obliterating Iraq once we went there. They don’t want us involved and they can’t understand why we didn’t make it look like Grohzny. Odd, but its there.

There is also a significant portion (and this overlaps with the one I mentioned above) who aren’t really isolationist (in the xenophobic sense – they don’t hate or fear non-Americans or other countries, but they have some idea that it is high-time to let the rest of the world go screw itself. Sand bag the borders, build a missile defense system, and let the rest of the world go down the toilet.

Jul 28, 2004 - 1:16 pm 51. WichitaBoy:

Have you ever been out drinking with your buddies but couldn’t drink because you had to be the Designated Driver? Today I guess I have to be the Designated Democrat. I’m not a Democrat, so take everything said with some salt (or more wisely, just throw it out entirely!). And I agree with what Knucklehead wrote in response to Katherine’s questions.

How exactly the Iraqi war inconvenienced these people that they want out?

The answer is, they haven’t. But being inconvenienced is hardly the point. The belief is widespread that this war has made the situation worse, not better. They haven’t been inconvenienced but they have been made far less safe. That’s arguable, but the point is that it’s a matter of opinion, not fact, and their’s is not an entirely unreasonable opinion to hold.

What exactly was lost?

The wider war cannot be fought by the United States nor by military means alone. We do need the cooperation of our various “allies”. If the French or Canadians are no longer willing to check passengers on planes coming to the US or to share intelligence information with us then we have a much worse problem. Goodwill is intangible but real and should not be so readily thrown away for what, to many, seems to be no purpose.

How are we supposed to fight terrorist without use of some military force?

No one is arguing for that. The argument is over whether this particular use of military force at this particular time was appropriate. Although most people would agree that Saddam Hussein was evil, most Democrats would argue it wasn’t our problem and that by making it our problem and throwing away allied goodwill in the process and stirring up even more Jihadis in the process, we have gone from bad to worse.

Are we supposed to only use SF? Or bomb targets a la Clinton?

I think it’s fair to say that, short of an actual invasion of our territory, most Democrats would answer “yes”.

Do these people really think that somehow our fine law enforcement will manage to hand subpoenas all around the globe and the terrorists will meekly surrender to stand a trial in Hague?

They believe that we have become completely distracted from the real issue, which is getting bin Laden and gang. They don’t necessarily believe that he’ll stand being subpoened, but they do believe that he wasn’t hiding anywhere in Iraq.

It seems to me that people that you describe may be fine patriotic Americans, but I have to disagree that they are willing to fight jihadis.

They’re willing to fight, but only at the times and places that they deem appropriate, not the ones chosen by that arrogant election-stealer of the upper class. How dare he sacrifice other people’s children for a pointless distraction to help his papa?

Jul 28, 2004 - 1:30 pm 52. Hepzi:

Does anyone else have a hard time relating to the whole Iraq War gestalt at the Convention? So what if the Iraq War is like the Viet Nam War?

Maybe I’m too young and just don’t get all the hand-wringing. Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not minimizing the trauma for the Vietnam War contemporaries, but ALL war is hell. Safe to say the 100 Years War was a “quagmire” too.

It just seems to me a strong case could be made that we could not have won the Cold War without the Viet Nam War.

The VietNam War seems to have stopped the spread of Communism in SE Asia; bled China down while forcing them to discussions with Nixon; which then allowed us to focus on the USSR for the next 15 years. And it sure sent a message that the US was not going to roll over. I guess I’m not convinced it was the horrible mistake that is broadly assumed.

Maybe Viet Nam WAS the right thing to have done….

I have a feeling that we will be fighting, like the Cold War, a protracted battle with these Islamicist countries over the next 15 years…until some free markets, democracies and liberal (in the classic sense) muslim theologians get going…

But we gotta do it. I just wished I had appreciated the Peace Dividend a little more….

Jul 28, 2004 - 1:32 pm 53. Old Dad:

Witchita:

Let me describe a particularly virulent form of local antiwar Dem. I have no way to assess their relative strength, but I’m guessing that very few of them vote.

They are well educated, mostly female, work in a “caring” profession, divorced and angry. Bush reminds them of their first husbands–arrogant, masculine, egotistical, unbending, stupid, and yet the SOB is somehow inexplicably successful.

This group is trendy left, but not political. They talk about Amnesty International but would never join. They favor universal healthcare but bitch about their current premiums. They worry about the environment but drive small SUVs. They know nothing about John Kerry but hate GWB.

These women oppose the war because (insert any lefty lame excuse). When confronted with a logical explanation, they argue that war is part of the patriarchy and that terrorism is an overblown threat, merely an excuse for the boys to play war.

Mosy grating of all, they resent that the world, especially the French, now seem to hate us, but they speak only English and have never travelled.

These were briefly Deaniacs, and are now vocally Kerry, but rest assured, most will not vote.

Jul 28, 2004 - 1:35 pm 54. WichitaBoy:

Old Dad

I appreciated that vignette, which matches up with some of what I see, but only some.

We all project what we want to see onto political candidates. There’s a woman in Denver who is a very successful oil magnate (yes, oil!) who held a $1000/plate dinner during the last congressional election to help Hillary win her seat. Hillary swept into town surreptitiously and was out again as soon as possible within a few hours, cash in hand. The oil magnate projected her own view of herself as a strong woman surrounded by a hostile world of men onto Hillary.

I project various things onto Bush and (what’s his name again?, oh yeah) Kerry. But what do I know? I don’t know either one of them personally. I don’t even know anyone who knows either one of them. Samuel claims to know Kerry, but I dont’ know Samuel, maybe he’s lying? And I don’t have too many illusions that most of what I see in either of them is very tightly scripted by both sides. One has to read between the lines, particularly with Pravda on the Hudson (aka NYT). My reading between the lines may not match your reading between the lines, and then how do we know who’s right?

Your portrait reminds me of a story my mother told of a ladies luncheon she attended in the Fifties. The women all came dressed in fine clothes including gloves and splashed out for an expensive meal. None of them worked, except my mother. And this was a much poorer era–no trustfunders–they were all supported by their husbands who were off at work. These women spent the whole time extolling the virtues of their perfect children and denigrating their awful husbands who weren’t, apparently, worthy of their wives, not worthy in the least. Before departing for good, my mother asked them whether it didn’t seem a little strange that such worthless husbands were able to sire such perfect children.

I think one piece of the human puzzle is that there is a significant swathe of women who are never happy with their lousy husbands. The husbands are just never good enough. In the Fifties these women complained to other ladies in luncheon before returning to their suburban homes, now they become divorced and bitter and vegetarian. Different times.

Jul 28, 2004 - 1:58 pm 55. DennisThePeasant:

Maybe I’m too young and just don’t get all the hand-wringing. Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not minimizing the trauma for the Vietnam War contemporaries, but ALL war is hell.

Hepzi-

What you are too young to understand is that when it comes to the “60s Generation/Baby Boomers”, war may be hell but navel-gazing is heaven.

Jul 28, 2004 - 2:00 pm 56. Knucklehead:

Hepzi,

You are looking at this in a dispassionate sense. I’m guessing you are 30 or younger.

For anyone much older than 35 or so Vietnam is never viewed dispassionately. Some people believe it was the right to be there and resent those Americans who undermined our efforts. Some people believe it was entirely wrong and for them it forever puts their nation into the category of a Germany or Japan which launched a horrible war that killed far too many people. Other people believed it was right and came to the conclusion that it was wrong. It literally split families apart.

It was, also, quite a large war. One of my Eureka moments in life came when I was talking with an assistant police chief for a significant metro area – a medium sized city. At the time (roughly 15 – 18 years ago?) the whole “face on the milk carton” routine was getting started because there were people who were, no kidding, screaming that 50,000 American children were disappearing every year. This number always struck me as odd, but I was young and even more knuckleheaded. I asked this police guy about it and he looked at me like I was, well, a complete knucklehead. Then he patiently led me to my own answer. “Do you know how many Americans died in the Vietnam war?” Of course, 50,000+. “Do you know how long it lasted?” Of course, roughly a decade. “Do you know anyone who died or lost a family member?” Of couse, I could think of three without even trying. “Do you know anyone who has had a child kidnapped?” No. “Well, think about that. If 50,000 children a year are disappearing, how come you don’t know of a single case?” And, of course, he went on to explain that the number of “real” kidnappings was 300-400 per year and that there were another few thousand “divorce kidnappings” but the total rarely rose to even 10 or 15% of 50,000.

But the point is that it was a large enough war that those of us beyond a certain age at least know people directly touched by it.

Put all that together and there is just no way that it can be viewed dispassionately. Unfortunately there are many who can’t get beyond it at all.

Last, but not least, it happened in an era of other big changes that just get jumbled up into the “Vietnam Era” for many Americans and they just can’t seperate them out. The ugly fashions, the music, the sexual revolution, Martin, Bobby, and John, Watergate… They all get lumped together in people’s minds and “blamed” on the Vietname war. Those of us old enough to remember the times and then a president resigning followed by Ford and Carter and how downright crappy things were in 1980 are, sometimes, pretty amazed about some of the whining going on today. The country was a real mess by the time Carter finished his term.

So anyone who remembers those days and buys in to any notion that we are heading into something similar is going to be angry about it. Its not a particularly rational anger and it isn’t arrived at by much thought, but it is there as plain as day.

Jul 28, 2004 - 2:05 pm 57. TedM:

Much truth has been written here today.

And we all know that on another blog, we could read some reasonable(there are a few) people on the other side making reasonable arguments. As someone here has pointed out, there are some people who disagree with us (they are mostly wrong) who make heartfelt pro American arguments.

And that is what we have an executive branch for. Hear the arguments made for and against any issue and MAKE THE DECISION. And my friends, there is always an argument to be made on the other side of any issue. But issues have to be decided on the weight of the arguments. And there is where our opponents refuse to budge. They only seem to see their side as the only side and the right side. Issues are easy to them. They have the only answer. A long time ago I realized that people who have an easy answer to a complicated problem, do not understand the problem. And that statement, to me, sums up much of the opposition to the war. These people just dont understand what the tide of history has brought to us in this 21st Century.

Jul 28, 2004 - 2:14 pm 58. Kevin P:

Roger:

The conventions have become infomercials that pretend to have gravitas.The political handlers take polls, conduct focus groups, and mold their message around what they think will sell.Both parties do it. They are aimed at the uncommitted voter and so they hide all the sharp edges of their political philosophys and gild them with warm fuzzy images that make people feel good.They can be a good indicator of what the general mood of the party is and what we can expect from there leader.

Kerry can say he won’t cut and run from Iraq but his party will leave him no choice. Personally I think he wants to scoot but he knows he can’t come right out and say it.If you took a secret poll of the delegates at the convention I am sure that they are closer to the Dean -Nader get out in 6 months mentality then they are to the lets finish the job ethos. I can understand that “feeling” because war is always horrid, it always brings loss and suffering, it never feels good.

What is Kerry’s plan? He says he is going to get more international support.I am sure that many countries will call him up and tell him that they support him, they just won’t send any troops.He says we can’t leave, but how do you argue that it was a war of choice and that it was the wrong choice, but that we are going to continue to fight it.If Iraq was not a threat then lets pull out and let them settle it.Kerry will stay in long enough to patch together some sort of UN force and then pull out. The fact that it will be ineffective won’t make any difference.Kerry has an exit strategy, get out however he can do it. We will sign a treaty with the government of Iraq similar to the Paris peace accords with South Vietnam.We will pledge economic and military support and then we will scoot. When North Vietnam invaded south Vietnam in direct violation of the Paris accords Kerry and Kennedy had no problem with cutting military aid to the South even though we had promised to defend the accords.He won’t have a problem with leaving Iraq in the lurch and his party will punish him if he doesn’t.

Jul 28, 2004 - 2:25 pm 59. TedM:

alert. Here comes La Raza to the convention.

Jul 28, 2004 - 2:26 pm 60. JB:

The trouble with many Democrats is that, like Jack Nicholson said, “they can’t handle the truth.” They just want the scary things to go away and believe if they click their heels and repeat “Kerry” thrice, it’ll happen. It’s a childish response to an adult situation.

They don’t want to face the situation we find ourselves in after 9/11 and their party knows it and has been milking it for all it’s worth.

“We are not safer” is sheer nonsense, which only plays because we have an election every 4 years and everyone must suddenly pretend to be an idiot as to the big picture. We aren’t going to be “safer” for years, not until W.’s strategy starts paying off.

So please, it’s one thing to discuss how to manage childish delusions; it’s quite another to pretend you’re interacting with adults.

Jul 28, 2004 - 2:41 pm 61. Knucklehead:

TedM,

Here’s a mildly interesting look at the Mainstream Dem Delegates (see pretty darned lock step to me):

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/delegates_dems.pdf

(discovered on NRO).

Jul 28, 2004 - 3:07 pm 62. TedM:

Thanks for the link Knuck. The only thing which surprised me was the apparent lack of wide support for McAuliffe(sp?)

ask some of your friends or relatives the same questions. Framed as they are, you might be surprised at how well the answers will reflect how those people will vote.

There are many strongly held opinions, not based on fact, based on an illusion.

Among some of the people I talk with, there is the, “If Bush is for it, then it is wrong and I am against it” syndrome. Change Iraq to Bosnia and the answers will change. Change No Child Left Behind to the bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy and the answers will change. We all have quotes saved in our files which our friends will attribute to GWB, but in fact were made by leading Democrats. All we can conclude is that a lot of votes are based on personal prejudice, whatever that may mean.

This week is the Dems week for building a framework to support those prejudices. In NY the Reps will have their chance. And I think , some event which we can’t predict today will sway the final election result.

One last comment. The picture of M. Moore sharing a box with J. Carter and wife made me promise myself that I will never ever again vote for a Democrat for any office.

Jul 28, 2004 - 3:42 pm 63. WichitaBoy:

It’s interesting that the most important issue on that list posted by Knucklehead is “Economy and Jobs”–51%, with the next one down–”War in Iraq”–getting only 14%. Here’s a clear case where the Democratic delegates differ from almost everyone on this blog.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but “Economy and Jobs” looks to me like advantage Bush. Things have been picking up for a year, jobs are being added every month, people are feeling more secure, and people are spending more money. Existing home sales just hit an all-time high with records set or tied in every region.

The only way I can see for the Democrats to make hay out of this is for the MSM to completely misrepresent the facts. Sure, we don’t feel as comfortable as we did during the boom and we can’t just spend money like water, so there’s the perception that things are worse off than under Clinton and that may hurt. But things are definitely getting better and I think people will respond to that.

Jul 28, 2004 - 3:52 pm 64. TedM:

Wichita

My sister in law (ABB) insists the economy is “going down the tubes”. No amount of discussion can elicit an explanation. She justs knows that is so.

She also HATES Halliburton. I asked her if it wasnt irrational to hate a company. She huffed and puffed at that one. She would vote for Al Sharpton before George Bush. And she has a 15 year old grandson who she doesnt want drafted.

That is what we face gang.

Jul 28, 2004 - 4:15 pm 65. Katherine:

Knuckle and Wichitaboy-

Thank you for your answers. I understand the points that you are making. I understand the fine American tradition of not getting involved in foreign wars. I understand it, because I whenever I hear mindless criticism of America coming from, say Europe, my reaction is: ìthe hell with them all, pay for your own defense and donít come asking for help when you get in troubleî. I am perfectly satisfied to be sitting pretty in the States, making money and doing all the ìvulgarî American things like watching movies, shopping, and eating out and devil take the rest of the world. I understand why for such a long time we did not want to get involved in Kosovo. Why we are not in Sudan and thousand other places where there is tyranny and human suffering. We do not have infinite resources, we are not omnipotent, (though hearing our critics one often wonders) and we cannot be everywhere around the globe delivering oppressed from injustice.

But I still donít get it why so many have chosen to be blind to the danger of militant Islam – to us. We were attacked. There are lots and lots of jihadis who would literally die to kill as many of us as possible. We already know that. We lived through one such event, 3000 of our civilians paid the highest price for this knowledge. Deadly plans are probably being hatched this very moment, and we may not be lucky to thwart them all. Is it so difficult to imagine that next time the target may be Wichita, Boulder, LA, Chicago or San Francisco?

Terrorist will not go away by passing UN resolutions and consultations with ìalliesî-again, 12 years of sanctions against Iraq already prove it. We have the words from the horse’s mouth, Osama, telling us that his thugs follow the “strong horse”. We cannot afford to play the part of a weak horse, it isan open invitation to terror and more deaths on our shores. Something concrete must be done. Current administration is going about it in a way that inflicts minimal inconvenience on the majority of the population. Yet the ìisolationist party ì finds it too difficult to endure watching negative coverage of the war on their television screens. A war, which in mind was a stunning success: 3 weeks of fighting, liberation of 25 million people, transfer to local power within a year, at a cost of 900 + casualties.

If a nation is that weak, how will it survive?

Jul 28, 2004 - 4:24 pm 66. TedM:

Katherine,

I rarely find any fault with what you write.

I would add one thing to your comment though.

The world economy is very important to our way of life. It is also important to most countries. This war is in part to protect the world economy. It is in our interest to do so. It is also in the interest of most of the countries who oppose our action. They can oppose us and also know that we are protecting their self interest at the same time. Without committing one cent or one life, they benefit from that which they oppose. Parasites.

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:10 pm 67. Knucklehead:

Witchita:

The only way I can see for the Democrats to make hay out of this is for the MSM to completely misrepresent the facts.

Watch how this is presented. Anxiety over job security is presented as if it were unemployment. Rises in self-employment are denigrated as desperate people who’ve given up on finding “good jobs”. The numbers for job losses are presented in absolute terms rather than percentages so that they can make the ridiculous claim that the situation is the “worst since the depression” when, in fact, during that period there were less total people in the nation than there are people in the workforce today and we live in a world where children are not expected to work to help a family make ends meet.

TedM

She would vote for Al Sharpton before George Bush. And she has a 15 year old grandson who she doesnt want drafted.

And I suppose that the fact that the administration has indicated no support for the draft but it is Dems like Charlie Rangle and Jessie Jackson and, maybe Al Sharpton (don’t know if he is a “draft” suggester or not) who are talking about bringing back the draft. The administration and the Pentagon want a volunteer force.

Katherine

But I still donít get it why so many have chosen to be blind to the danger of militant Islam – to us. We were attacked.

Because the MSM, the “elites” and the political machine (both parties) are not explaining this. The MSM and the “elites” will not tell about it because it goes against their “noble brown savages” worldview that believes all the world’s problems are the fault of the west. And how can they continue to bash the “Cristian” right and Jews if they admit that Islam has a huge segment that wants to murder infidels wherever and whenever possible.

Also, the MSM and the “elites” also have an underlying supposition that ordinary Americans are one little push away from becoming murderous bigots who will burn down every mosque and kill every muslim in the country if provoked in any way.

The Democratic machine won’t explain this problem to the people because they are in full agreement with the elites.

The Republican machine can’t explain this problem because they MSM, elites, and Democrats will tar and feather them as bigots and racists and lunatic Christian fundamentalists. They can’t afford the political fallout of telling the truth in this case.

Terrorist will not go away by passing UN resolutions and consultations with ìalliesî-again, 12 years of sanctions against Iraq already prove it.

The Democratic Party, which is favored by roughly half of Americans, and the elites cannot admit this because it invalidates what they have been saying and working toward for decades.

Republicans are the only ones trying to explain this but they have to be careful about it for the reasons listed above. The MSM is still enormously powerful at shaping public opinion, or at least framing the terms of public debate.

If a nation is that weak, how will it survive?

There’s two issues here. One is weakness of will, the other is actual weakness. Subtly different. Clearly we are not a weak nation in real terms. The extent of our weakness of will is a matter that, IMO, will be largely settled come Nov.

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:11 pm 68. Rick Ballard:

Katherine,

I’m curious as to how many elections you’ve observed here. I’ve been watching for 40 years and this one is not a closely run race. Barring “unkowable unknowables” the outcome is certain. ‘Not a Clue’ is possibly the weakest candidate proposed in the last 100 years. His record is ephemeral, he can be found on both sides of any issue at any time. He is actually weaker than Dole in ‘96 or Dukakis in ‘88. The closest I can come to this election in terms of recent history is ‘84. I don’t think that JohnJohn will be able to surpass Mondale’s success. He just ain’t gonna draw a crowd. I actually anticipate a lower total turnout than in 2000. I doubt that more than 100 million will turn out and my bet is that the drop will be between 4 and 5 million on the Dem side.

The true campaign will start on Sept. 1 as it always has. McAuliffe’s ploy to destroy the ‘04 Dem candidate through early exposure will have worked to a tee. The big Dem problem now is to minimize downticket losses. I don’t have a feel for that yet.

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:16 pm 69. Homer:

Katherine- We are dealing with people who’s respone is to rationalize their own irrational behavior. As Knucklehead and WichitaBoy pointed out, this is like a fever which is running though our body politic at the moment. It will burn its self out.

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:20 pm 70. Knucklehead:

Rick Ballard,

I’ve used similar phrasing. John Kerry is an absurdly weak candidate. I can’t fathom how the Dems arrived at him as their candidate and I don’t see any hope for him surviving the scrutiny and pressure of the final 6 weeks of the race. Not against the man who had the composure, focus, and self-control to continue reading to children after having the fact of 9/11 whispered in his ear and has had the gonads to tell the UN and France to go pleasure themselves.

Kerry doesn’t stand a chance. And with a VP choice who is an ambulance chaser… Good grief! The dislike Americans feel for lawyers is often overstated, but ambulance chasers are particularly reviled.

The only way I can understand how polling suggests a neck and neck race is to get into silly conspiracy theories about the MSM and, well, I really don’t like going there. Let’s just say I’ll give the MSM a pass here and assume that they want this presented as a tight race purely for business reasons – to keep eyeballs tuned in. If the thing were already shown to be as lopsided as it seems to me it should be, then the MSM loses a bunch of eyeballs from now till Nov. So the good ol’ business boys just rig their polls to show what they need.

(I can hope, can’t I sometimes that’s all us knuckleheads live on, but we muddle through OK ;>).

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:45 pm 71. WichitaBoy:

Rick Ballard wrote: I’ve been watching for 40 years and this one is not a closely run race. Barring “unkowable unknowables” the outcome is certain. ‘Not a Clue’ is possibly the weakest candidate proposed in the last 100 years. His record is ephemeral, he can be found on both sides of any issue at any time. He is actually weaker than Dole in ‘96 or Dukakis in ‘88.

I agree with all that. The problem as I see it is that “Not a Clue” isn’t the candidate on the Dem side. Rather, it’s “ABB”. ABB may not be the weakest candidate in a century. I don’t know how Bush is going to do against ABB, I really don’t. Particularly when nothing that Bush or the Republicans say, or even basic economic fact, ever gets through to the populace without lots of negative filtering performed by the MSM.

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:49 pm 72. Knucklehead:

Wichita,

Good point about ABB being the candidate rather than Kerry. When it comes down to undecideds and battleground states, however, there are hopefully enough people to understand that ABB and Kerry are one and the same. I don’t see the rout that Kerry deserves but I do think Samuel is probably accurate.

Jul 28, 2004 - 5:54 pm 73. Katherine:

TedM-

I agree. That is why after the impulse ìto hell with the rest of the worldî always comes the cold calculation: ìbut we really cannot do it, can we?î- for the reasons that you give. Still, it gets tedious to carry so many free riders, who in exchange for our money and protection brand us a menace to the world.

All-

What I am getting nervous about is the national will. Until this spring I was pretty confident that the strong survival instinct and common sense of Americans will prevail, but I guess all the negativity peddled by MSM and the ìelitesî is finally getting to me. Believe me, living in San Fran does not help in this respect.

I have been here for 88 election; but I have to say that the first election that I was really very much engaged in and which I followed in detail was the 2000 election. I was scared to death by Gore because I saw that he had all the characteristics of an ideological fanatic, and I most of all fear ideologues.

Thank you all for your calming words. Maybe I need a vacation.

Jul 28, 2004 - 6:02 pm 74. Rick Ballard:

WB,

Excellent point concrning ABB’s. Just remember that voting is a duty. The ABBer’s aren’t the duty bound types. Hell, in ‘88 6.5 million fewer Reps showed up for Bush I than showed up in ‘84 to give Ron his ride to glory. If all the people who voted for GWI had done it again in ‘02, Bubba would be a distant memory. W could conceivably lose this election but ‘Not a Clue’ can’t win it.

Jul 28, 2004 - 6:09 pm 75. Knucklehead:

On topic, at least for how this thread has evolved, some may find Novak’s piece interesting:

http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200407230845.asp

Jul 28, 2004 - 7:02 pm 76. Knucklehead:

Here’s another link (Jim Miller’s site) where there’s a presentation of poll numbers comparing Dem delegates to general Dems and all voters. I don’t know that a similar poll of Rep delegates wouldn’t show a similar disconnect.

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/

Jul 28, 2004 - 7:52 pm 77. Knucklehead:

And what to make of this? Another extremely rich (and Hollywood) fatcat coughing up huge dollars to the Party of the Little Man. This one allegedly has mob ties. Wonder what he wants for his money?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/convention_stephen_bing_040728-2.html

Jul 28, 2004 - 8:03 pm 78. MeanOkie:

Certainly it would serve justice to impeach George W. Bush.

As many have commented, there is a mountain of evidence to see to this…but the fallen condition of the Congress assures that it’s politically impossible.

In other words his crimes are overwhelmingly sufficient and easy to demonstrate and prove, but there is insufficient political will to prosecute them.

Another term granted this fool might give us, finally, enough political will to go after him.

Myself, I’m for handling the matter domestically at first, and then handing G.W. and several of his inner circle over to some international tribunal for trial as war criminals. In terms of justice, the case for doing so is clear.

As for those who continue to support this regime, I count only two types. In the more forgivable case, some blinding combination of ignorance and stupidity coupled with the evil that is the acceptance of or even the enthusiasm for those many evil deeds accomplished by this criminal elite must allow many that horrible and soul threatening mistake.

In the unforgivable case—well, you already know well enough who you are. And thereís no point in worrying about your souls.

Jul 29, 2004 - 11:11 am 79. Kevin P:

Mean okie:

OK, I will snap at the troll bait.Exactly what is the impeachable offense, what proof do you have and don’t send us to some op-ed link.Tell us in your own words what legal basis do you have for President Bush’ suppossed crimes. Soldiers dying is not an impeachable offense.What is the crime and what proof do you have.Remember Moore has been debunked and the 9-11 commision has stated that Bush did not lie and the CIA info, although incorrect, was what Bush stated it was. relying on faulty info is not a lie nor is it a crime.If it is then Clinton should go to jail for the asprin factory bombing and kerry should go to jail for authorizing the war while relying on the same intel that Bush used. If you are saying that Clinton and Kerry should be punished too then you may have a point.

Jul 29, 2004 - 11:41 am 80. Knucklehead:

MeanOkie,

Did you miss your meds today? Track down your little plastic box and find the slot marked “TH” or “Thur” or something similar and swallow whatever is in that slot. Hopefully you’ll feel better then. As we say in the trade, “Love Ya, bye!”

Jul 29, 2004 - 11:42 am 81. PeterUK:

I ist one thing for a girl to sell her bicycle for democracy,quite another for Kerry to sell his soul for power.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:25 pm 82. PeterUK:

It is one thing for a girl to sell her bicycle for democracy,quite another for a man to sell his soul for power.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:27 pm 83. Kevin P:

mean okie:

Since you brought up the notion of “war crimes” do you think that Kerry’s self confessed war crimes should be prosecuted?Now some say that Kerry never did the things that he confessed to and that it was a self serving political sop to the political climate of the time but as far as his own confession he stated the he himself committed transgressions of the Geneva Convention. Is this the man that you want to lead your country? I don’t think the statue of limitations has run out on these actions.

Jul 29, 2004 - 1:49 pm 84. jerry:

Wichita:

You may never see this because I am late to the disucssion but here goes anyway.

This idea that France, Canada, Germany, et al, are not cooperating with the US in CT is a product of Kerry propaganda. These countries, whether they like our policies or not recognize the this cooperation is necessary for their own security. I can assure you as an intelligence professional that this cooperation happens on a daily basis. You, like most people of good will, who believe that this isn’t happening should spend less time paying attention to the shills in the MSM.

Jul 29, 2004 - 7:00 pm 85. Percy Dovetonsils:

All I have to say is that I want to buy some dope from mean okie. It is obviously some seriously powerful stuff.

Jul 30, 2004 - 6:35 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: