54 Comments

1. someone:

Wow. The Cat Stevens story is also telling, btw. I wonder if any of her doubts made it into her report?

Oct 17, 2004 - 9:35 pm 2. alan aronson:

Now I really know voting for Kerry is the right thing to do. Easy for her and she clearly feels so superior to those lefties she seems to be surrounded with in — LONDON!!! is she going to move back here and help pay when the piper calls? Single issue voters need to get a grip no matter what the issue. Besides Bush has failed on the single issue anyway.

Kerry will do just fine with the GWOT, thank you – couldn’t screw it up worse than GW and crew, and blessed divided government will bring a halt to the fiscal irresponsibility and payoffs like the prescription bill.

Oct 17, 2004 - 9:54 pm 3. Yehudit:

alan, are you John Clayton in a clever plastic disguise?

Oct 17, 2004 - 10:31 pm 4. chriss:

Thanks for the link Roger, it’s a brilliant article.

Alan, if your single issue is, say, prescription drugs, then yes you do need to get a grip.

If the fact that many thousands of Islamic fascists/terrorists (who are not condemned in any meaningful way and in fact are excused and even supported by a large chunk of the world’s population) want to see us all — conservatives and liberals alike — dead or forcibly converted… if this is not your single most important issue with no issue in second place, then you need to get a grip. War has been declared on us, not by al Qaeda but by a global Islamofascist movement. The only questions are, how bad will the war be and who will win? The longer it goes unfought in a meaningful way, the more it is fought their terms not ours, the worse it will be and the lower our odds of success.

And no, Bush has not failed in this. He has succeeded brilliantly and against staggering odds. A free and fair vote in Afghanistan, another on the way in Iraq.

My only quibble with the article in the post is the kneejerk willingness to say what a mess post war Iraq is. I think it’s a mess only as compared to our impatient expectations. When the history books are written what we have and will accomplish in Iraq in a span of 5 years will be seen as a truly remarkable achievement.

Oct 17, 2004 - 10:48 pm 5. PW:

Alan Aronson, I guess you didn’t actually read most of the article, or you’d have realized that the author lives in New York and that the trendy lefty party she writes above in the first few paragraphs didn’t take place in London.

In other words, not reading (or not understanding, whatever it was) this article has apparently strengthened your conviction to vote for Kerry. Doesn’t seem to take much to lull you in, which may explain your Kerry vote in the first place.

Oct 17, 2004 - 10:54 pm 6. Paul:

I must admit I had grave reservations about Kerry’s ability to forcefully and successfully prosecute the WOT, what with his history of slandering the military with outrageous charges of rampant war crimes in Viet Nam, voting to gut the military and intelligence agencies every chance he had during his utterly unremarkable twenty year senate career, cozying up to Madam Binh, the Sandanistas, and taking the Soviets side in the 80s by voting for a nuclear freeze, etc., dissing our allies in Iraq, calling it the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place and demoralizing-alienating the troops there, etc., but now I can rest assured that “Kerry will do just fine with the GWOT, thank you”, because ALAN ARONSON SEZ SO…

Yup I’m definitely gonna vote fer Kerry now. Thanks Alan for straightening me out.

Oct 17, 2004 - 11:15 pm 7. mwalls:

Given the that multiple polls of the military are returning 70% support Bush, In the event of a Kerry victory we might be looking at a draft – since troop retention rates will probably fall thru the floor. I find it interesting that the only group spreading draft rumors is the one most like to trigger it (especially if Kerry we to try to raise 2 more divisions at the same time).

Oct 17, 2004 - 11:37 pm 8. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I truly do not understand why anyone would vote for Kerry. I can understand voting against Bush, and voting for the Democratic platform (or more accurately, what Democrats always do, not what they say). Of course, I wouldn’t do this, but may on this board wood if it wasn’t for terrorism.

But Kerry has two things that should be fatal in a presidential candidate – he never should have made it past the primaries. I think only the failure of the media to investigate his past or report what they actually knew kept him from losing the primaries quickly. Either that or primary voters in critical states are nuts.

His behavior in and after Vietnam was appalling. A man who fights (reluctantly when it got hazardous) for his country, and then turns around and becomes one of the most radical and disloyal anti-war leaders is cannot be trusted or respected. He show both a terribly flawed opportunism and lack of responsibility or loyalty.

The other reason is that the man has never done anything noteworthy when it comes to the qualifications for the presidency. What has this guy done that is significant in political life other than oppose defense and intelligence spending almost always.

I think many of his voters are Bush haters. The rest are either idiots, suckers or lazy. And the Bush haters are misguided, of course.

We have this interesting situation where normal Democrat voters are picking Bush on a single issue: World War IV. Maybe at some point we can reach some compromises on social issues that would lead more Democrats towards more Republicans and away from the cynical bastards and idiotic intellectuals of the Democrat Party high levels.

Oct 18, 2004 - 12:23 am 9. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Damn… preview, john! I have gotten out of that habit. Sorry for the silliness (wood? how about would?)

Oct 18, 2004 - 12:24 am 10. Yehudit:

This is who is trying to get Kerry elected. Sarah sounds a bit older than this crowd, but it’s all the same.

Oct 18, 2004 - 12:51 am 11. David Thomson:

Another life long Democrat, Martin Peretz, is also fed up with John Kerry:

ìLike many American Jews, I was brought up to believe that if I pulled the Republican lever on the election machine my right hand would wither and, as the Psalmist says, my tongue would cleave to the roof of my mouth.

According to the Bible, of course, these are the feared consequences of forgetting Jerusalem. Now although there are many reasons one might want to vote for John F. Kerry, remembering Jerusalem ó remembering to stand up for the state of Israel ó is not among them.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-israel17oct17.story

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:23 am 12. alan aronson:

Gosh folks, saw the “Labour”, and read too fast over the next graphs. Sorry. Seems to be her first US election. Still she has the option of an easy out. I was born here and expect to die here and am fine with that but the piper is coming due on the irresponsible excesses of this Administration and if push comes to shove she can bail while most of us wil be stuck with the mess.

Re-read the article and the basics haven’t changed. Below sums up my problem. Bush has “conviction” while Kerry was being a “politician”. This is a little too feelings-based for me. On any objective basis Bush has lied more than Kerry and more egregiously in these debates and on the campaign trail.

She wrote: “When Bush said in last week�s debate: �We can be safe and secure if we go on the offence against terrorism and if we spread liberty around the world,� I felt he spoke with conviction. When Kerry said he was going to �hunt and kill� the terrorists, I heard a politician�s soundbite.”

I can understand “hunt and kill” and see how that can be accomplished. After 9/11 I assumed that a lot of small smoking holes would be appearing around the world. Instead we get these platitudes about “spreading liberty” and a besides-the-point war that even our author admits has been botched.

Oh, and with what army do we spread this liberty? Ours is currently overextended. Besides I thought one thing we all learned from the previous century was that social engineering, even for beautiful ends, often doesn’t work out.

BTW, does it bother any of you that Bush was willing to veto the $87 billion if it was funded out of current revenue instead of borrowing?

In my world when someone screws up as much as Bush they get fired. You all want to give him another chance – based on fine words and promises and an unreasonable and irrational loathing of his opponent. I don’t like to fire folks – never have – but enough has become too much.

Single issue? Yeah, sure. The prescription drug bill is important, both in itself and what it symbolizes. If you want to provide a stimulus in a recession you don’t do the type of tax cuts he wanted. Environmental and energy policy is a joke. One could go on and on.

If I was a gambling person I’d wish Bush another term. However I’m not and I do love this country so I’m voting for Kerry because the current President is in way over his head and hasn’t a clue.

Also I really do like the idea of divided government and the Republican Party is clearly as incapable of showing fiscal restraint as the Dems when it controls everything. The House is a done deal after the Texas redistricting. That leaves the Senate and the Presidency and it takes two to fully balance the House.

And I still find too many parts of the article to be smug, superior and catty.

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:49 am 13. Goof®:

From the “superbly written” column…

With limited means of his own, he has a fondness for heiresses that Jane Austen would have recognised. His first wife was from a family worth $300m. When they separated, Kerry was forced to live on his own relatively meagre salary. Thus began his years as ?Cash and Kerry?: he has the distinction of having taken more money from lobbyists in Washington than any other senator, Democrat or Republican.

Only when he wooed and won the hand of Teresa Heinz, the billionaire baked beans widow, was Kerry again able to indulge in the agreeable elite life to which he feels entitled.

I don’t think she much likes the Senator. I’m curious as to where she came by what she’s written here. Anybody know?

15 days to go.

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:55 am 14. David Thomson:

Martin Peretz appears ready to vote for George W. Bush. But guess what? Andrew Sullivan may also be ready to do likewise! Am I becoming overly optimistic? Well, see for yourself.:

ìMonday, October 18, 2004

†

THE CASE FOR BUSH: Belgravia Dispatch makes a powerful argument. I’ll respond in detail soon. I should say that, despite the assertions of others to the contrary, I haven’t endorsed Kerry – and the fact that I haven’t, after my dismay at the staggering mis-steps of this administration, is an indication of how troubling I find his record in foreign policy. I take all Greg’s points in this regard.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Oct 18, 2004 - 2:36 am 15. Matt Evans:

Sullivan will do whatever it takes to keep his hit count up. He’s been hemoraging readers since gay marriage became his single voting issue, as many gravitated to his blog due to his formerly hawkish stance on the war. Now, he’ll try to keep readers hanging on, like most of us have nothing better to do then wait for GASP Andrew Sullivan’s endorsement of a presidential candidate.

He made up his mind months ago that he’s a single issue voter.

Oct 18, 2004 - 4:26 am 16. Ricky:

Roger, I can’t fathom how anyone could read the essay by Ron Suskind and vote for Bush.

I suspect many jihadists would actually prefer a Bush victory. A “crusade” is what they are living –and dying — for.

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:32 am 17. jerry:

Mr Aronson:

Pray tell, what knowledge and experience do you have that allows you to say that Bush doesn’t have a clue? Now it is possible that Bush really doesn’t know what he is doing but as far as I can tell from what you have said you might not have enough smarts to show me that you could figure this out on your own.

So please show me that you have a clue by (a) by telling us what we should be doing, (b) why we should do it; and (c) what experience you have may have actually developing plans and policies to implement your recommendations.

My guess is that you won’t respond because (a) you can only parrot what you have read in some Bush bashing editorial or Kerry talking points, (b) see a; and (c) you probably have no experience.

What you have is an opinion that is perhaps backed up by some [I hope] balanced reading. However, your lack of specifics beyond you trust Kerry would seem to indicate that you have little to back up your comments.

As you can tell from some of my latest posts that I have gotten tired of anti-Bush posters whose argument boils down to ìKerry smartÖBush stupid.î To steal a line from Mr. Mondale, ABBers ìwhereís the beef.î

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:32 am 18. flenser:

alan aronson

In my world when someone screws up as much as Bush they get fired. You all want to give him another chance – based on fine words and promises and an unreasonable and irrational loathing of his opponent. I don’t like to fire folks – never have – but enough has become too much.

I don’t know, alan. I’m an unconvinced swing voter, and it seems to me that Bush is doing an ok job. Can you tell me what you see as being his screwups? I,ean, it seems that things are going pretty well in Afghanistan and Iraq, right? And the economy has been growing at a pretty good rate, unemployment is low, etc. What do you see as the reasons to replace Bush?

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:43 am 19. flenser:

ricky

Are you suggesting that if we don’t fight them, the won’t fight us?

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:45 am 20. Marky Markov:

It bothers the hell out of me that she says “kaffir” when she means “keffiyeh”, but I guess you can’t have everything.

Paragraph 6, here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1312869_3,00.html

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:55 am 21. Cecil Turner:

Sullivan: “I haven’t endorsed Kerry – and the fact that I haven’t, after my dismay at the staggering mis-steps of this administration, is an indication of how troubling I find his record in foreign policy.”

Unless Sully’s filled out a citizenship application recently, his endorsement of a candidate is completely uninteresting to me. And I suspect there are more than a few of us who’d point up the hypocrisy if he did so.

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:56 am 22. Ricky:

Flenser,

I absolutlely do not believe that if we don’t attack them they won’t attack us. I supported the Iraq war, though knowing what we now know, I think it was unfortunate. This is not an issue of “justified” vs. “unjustified”, but one of opportunity costs. Given Iraq’s state of WMD readiness, we would have been far better served concentrating our forces elsewhere at this particular time.

I was shocked, however, at the inexplicably inept execution of the occupation phase of Iraq. I believe Suskind’s portrait of Bush sheds some light on this. Sometimes doing even the right thing ineptly is more damaging and inexcusable than shamelessly avoiding action altogether, particularly in a war that was at the time of our choosing.

It is ironic to me that our first CEO-style president pays so little heed to principles of accountability amongst his top team. The evidence of insularity and the whiff of messisanism portend a second term that has frightening implications for our republic.

Oct 18, 2004 - 6:43 am 23. flenser:

Ricky

Two questions.

Where, particularly? This question implies “Why?”, of course.

And given what we knew in 2002 about Iraqi WMD, as opposed to what we know now, how can you claim that our actions then should have been different?

There are lots of other problems crammed into your second paragraph, but one step at a time.

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:04 am 24. legion:

Thanks, Roger. This is a powerfully written article. It’s nice to know that I am only one of many people who are coming to their senses in time for this election.

The danger from extremist muslim fanatics might be an embarassing inconvenience, or “nuisance”, to Kerry supporters, but to those who are more discerning, it is something to be dealt with.

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:10 am 25. mrp:

Roger -

Thank you for posting the link to Ms. Baxter’s brilliant essay. Considering the vociferousness of the ABB partisan posts in this thread, it must hurt ‘em, a lot.

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:22 am 26. Knucklehead:

Alan Aronson:

Apparently your definintion of “Bush’s Screwups” are that we haven’t left enough Smoking Holes in the Ground (SMIGs).

How many SMIGs would be sufficient to satiate your SMIGlust? Of those places where there should, in your opinion, be SMIGs but are none, please give us you top 3 priotities.

Your are not alone in your SMIGlust. In fact, I share it. It’s probably just my own namby-pamby, touchy-feely, can’t we all just get along nature, but since I don’t have a full and deep understanding of 21st century military capabilities, strategies, and tactics, but do have a growing sense that we have some truly fine people currently leading our military efforts and some astonishingly capable young men and women executing them, I defer to them. If they believe, as they seem to, that it is better to take the time and suffer the pain of training indigenous people, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, to stand up and slowly but surely deal with their own problems and fight for themselves.

I’ll forego my SMIGlust and let those who put their lives on the line and apparently believe they can win more battles and, ultimately, the war, with fewer SMIGs than some of us might prefer.

As for Kerry and his promise to increase US forces by 40,000 troops (call it two divisions), there are at least factors wrt to this that make it clear it is an empty campaign promise.

First is that it is clear that Kerry has no respect for those who serve in the US military. The troops know that. Having served under one such president (Carter) there is no doubt in my mind that a Kerry presidency would result in something greater than 40,000 trained and potential career enlisted servicemen, and more than whatever number of officers it takes to staff two divisions, would basically say “Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take my chances in the private sector.” The DoD, under Kerry, would have to find some way to replace at least the number of troops Kerry claims he would add before they could even begin to increase troop levels by 40,000.

Secondly is the time and effort required to recruit, train, equip 40,000 troops. Anyone who believes Kerry can wave some magic “secret plan” wand and increase our troop levels by two divisions does nothing but demostrate their ignorance of military issues. And anyone who believes the special forces can be increased dramatically in some short-term demonstrates that they are painfully ignorant of the what goes into bringing triple volunteers to the level of being able to function effectively as special forces.

A president who does not respect the military and does not believe we are at war in the first place, will have neither the support nor the will to fulfill this promise. He couldn’t pull it off if he wanted to and he doesn’t want to.

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:22 am 27. Sandy P:

–Kerry will do just fine with the GWOT, thank you—

Whose troops is he going to use?

69% of troops and families support W. Are they going to re-up for Kerry especially w/his anti-war record and actively painting a picture of the US soldier which still exists today?

He’s already tossed Iraq to the wolves.

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:44 am 28. Knucklehead:

Andres Serrano, the artist responsible for Piss Christ, one of the iconic images of the late 1980s culture wars, was rooting for Kerry. Wedged between two beautiful women, he enthused: ìThe debateís going well. Kerryís winning over the audience here.î

Indeed. There were laughs and applause for Kerry, groans for Bush. Jeff Koons, the celebrated pop artist, was standing by the bar. ìThereís got to be a change for the future of the country,î he told me soberly.

Yes, there needs to be a change for the future of the country. We need a future where hateful, snerdish, poseurs such as Andres Serrano are not glorified by “…millionaires in tuxedos with their Botoxed and bejewelled wives, graceful daughters with flawless skin in evening gowns, members of the Kennedy and Hearst dynasties…”

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:53 am 29. richard mcenroe:

Separated at Birth? The wrinkles are a dead giveaway…

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:57 am 30. richard mcenroe:

Ricky ó Since nobody has done what we just did in Afghanistan in 3000 years, and since no one has ever TRIED to do in Iraq what we are doing there, what model exactly did we have to refer to fpr getting it right?

It took 75 years to check the spread of international communism, and it still flairs up in Venezuela and Columbia University. It’s been 60 years since we crushed fascism, and it still erupts in Syria, France and UC Berkeley.

This is going to be a long-term struggle; most of us will not live to see the end of it. But what we are trying to do is create an environment for a self-sustaining and self-propagating crusade for freedom. This is an heroic and visionary dream for the future and I for one am humbly proud to ive in a time offering such an opportunity…

Oct 18, 2004 - 8:12 am 31. MichelefromLA:

Hi -

Someone just told me about your site. I want to thank you for posting this excellent article. As a Democrat for Bush myself, I could relate.

I had a similar evolution and have written about it on a writing site, I had hopes of convincing other Democrats to come out of hiding. But, to my frustration, some refuse to see what’s going on.

Thanks again!

If anyone’s interested, here’s my own evolution as a lonely Democrat for Bush in Los Angeles -

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/889257

Oct 18, 2004 - 8:23 am 32. flenser:

Michelle

Thanks, that was a very interesting piece you wrote. As a matter of fact, I have shown many of these pieces to people myself. And the reaction is always the same; they don’t care.

Have we removed the Taliban, a group that shielded bin Laden and skinned it’s opponents alive? Yes, but they don’t care. Have we instituted the first democratic elections in Afghan history? Yup. But they don’t care. Are millions of formerly displaced Afghans returning to their country? They don’t care.

Is our project to alter the culture of the middle east and replace these terror spawning states with countries that will more resemble Brazil or Vietnam proceeding according to plan? Actually, it is. But these people don’t care.

Making the case to these people that Bush’s policies are good or sound is besides the point. They do not oppose Bush because they oppose his policies; they oppose his policies because they oppose Bush.

The reasons they oppose Bush are probably very interesting, in a psychological sense, but they have essentially nothing at all to do with anything the man actually does. So I think I can predict with a high degree of confidence that your article, as well written and sensible as it is, will not sway any of them. They are making their decisions with the hind-part of the brain where reason does not apply.

Oct 18, 2004 - 8:58 am 33. Knucklehead:

Michele:

Thank you for a well written piece and also for trying to convince those who cannot see the world for what it is. I was once a bonafide “independent” (30+ years ago) and began a long, slow, journey to become an anti-democrat. There are many reasons for that transition. The behavior of the Dem party during this election cycle has finally pushed me to abandon what had become nothing more than a pretense of independence. I am now a Republican. I no longer hold any hope that the Dem Party will offer a viable alternative within my lifetime. It is nothing short of seditious and corrupt.

Flenser:

They do not oppose Bush because they oppose his policies; they oppose his policies because they oppose Bush.

While that is clearly true it tells less that half of the story. They will debase and corrupt themselves and tolerate any horror, throw all integrity to what they claim to be the very values by which they once defined themselves, all because of their shallow, sneering hatred of one man named George W. Bush. They should be ashamed of themselves the their derangement has rendered them shameless and, quite honestly, irrational.

They will tolerate – no, they will welcome and celebrate – mass murder and brutal, midieval levels of misogyny and the mistreatment of human beings that would have made all but the sickest of the nazis and stalinists blush with shame. The most heinous crimes against the environment and truly ancient, peaceful cultures are ignored by these people. They look at these things and toss over them a transparent cloak of “cultural difference” or “noble savagery” and thereby turn a blind eye to murderous religious fanaticism.

And they do this for no other reason than that George W. Bush, the President of the United States, is less articulate than they would like and is (the horror!

Oct 18, 2004 - 9:45 am 34. Knucklehead:

PIMF!!!! Let’s try again, first verse same as the last…

…)the horror!) openly Christian.

Oct 18, 2004 - 9:47 am 35. Sandy P:

Openly Christian and American – not a one-worlder.

Oct 18, 2004 - 10:24 am 36. thibaud:

Alan,

After 9/11 I assumed that a lot of small smoking holes would be appearing around the world. Instead we get these platitudes about “spreading liberty” and a besides-the-point war that even our author admits has been botched.

Does “small smoking holes” refer to the after-effects of yet more cruise missiles lobbed from a safe distance? Clinton tried that, for several years running. It failed.

What’s your view on Afghanistan? Do you really think that we have not “spread liberty” to that country, or that we could have somehow “surgically” eliminated the rampant cancer that was the Taliban without staging a ground war there and then sticking around to ensure the success of elections?

Or do you oppose the Afghan war as well?

Btw, we’re not “social engineering” Iraq. As in Afghan, we’re eliminating a toxic regime and those who would profit from its continued hold on the citizenry. And we’re going to succeed in Iraq as we’ve done in Afghanistan: you wouldn’t guess so from reading the NY Times or Andrew Sullivan, but Iraq’s elections will be held as scheduled, just as Afghanistan’s were.

I think the anyone-but-Bush crowd would be much more persuasive if they could advance a more balanced and judicious critique. I’m willing to hear an argument– if you can make one– spelling out how Bush did things right in Afghan but not in Iraq. However, it seems to me that these pestilent nations required a similar treatment, though on a different scale, of course. And the fact remains that both projects are succeeding, despite the MSM’s determination to bury the exceptionally good news from Afghanistan.

BTW– here’s a pre-emptive strike: Please don’t talk about how Saddam was not a threat– we know by now thtat the alternative to overthrowing him, ie containment, had shrivelled by late 2002 because the French and Russians had shot holes through the sanctions, were already doing massive oil deals with him and his charming sons, and were also (via OFF) laundering their money and putting them in touch with rogue Russian elements with their hands in the nuclear cookie jar.

Oct 18, 2004 - 10:32 am 37. thibaud:

Andrew Sullivan’s playing Hamlet with us. Frankly, that act lost its appeal for this voter a long time ago.

Three years ago, Sullivan was celebrating Bush’s character, vision, genius etc. Two years ago, he was breathlessly dispatching his discoveries that Saddam was in material breach. And then Sully completely lost his composure with the increase in violence last fall and the Abu Ghraib affair early this year. Day after day he posted lamentations about how we had “lost the moral high ground”, lost the PR war etc.

Sullivan apparently thinks that this is some kind of spiritual combat in which the winner claims some kind of animus mundi. Too much time spent with both the Church and the chattering classes.

The man is about as calm and measured as a chihuahua. Absolutely unreliable as a guide to fighting and winning a long, complex and difficult war.

Oct 18, 2004 - 10:45 am 38. jerry:

Thibaud:

I don’t expect Aronson to respond. With one lone execption [that be you] my experience is that when critics are asked a simple question like what’s your plan and how did you acquire your knowledge to come to that conclusion the poster disapears. I expect the same thing here.

Oct 18, 2004 - 10:46 am 39. Percy Dovetonsils:

“began a long, slow, journey to become an anti-democrat.”

I like that phrase. It sums up my political evolution well.

Oct 18, 2004 - 11:00 am 40. Kay in CA:

Hi, Michele. Glad you checked out the site – I knew you would like it!

Kay in CA

Oct 18, 2004 - 11:12 am 41. Sandy P:

For anyone who argues one reason they are voting for Kerry is hoping for fiscal gridlock, doesn’t remember the gov’t shutdowns under RR and Bubba.

RR got away w/it. I would think PATCO helped, showed he meant business.

Bubba vilified the pubbies and that’s one reason they lost seats in the 96 election.

Hell of a way to see if they learned their lesson.

Kerry’ll do the same. Pubbies will fold.

Oct 18, 2004 - 12:03 pm 42. Charlie (Colorado):

Goof®— That story’s been around a long time; Google gives a ton of hits.

Oct 18, 2004 - 12:26 pm 43. chris_m:

So if all these Brits are voting for Bush, how many are voting for Kerry? (I wonder).

And how can I get involved in voting for English(and French, and Canadian, etc, etc) elections?

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:11 pm 44. Kevin P:

Roger:

Thank you for the two fantastic articles. President Bush has made many errors in this war,(find a war that has never had bungled battles and some economic shenanigans and I will vote for Kerry) The reason that some Labour and Democratic voters are voting for Bush is not because the wars are being conducted perfectly but because they recognize that President Bush recognizes the threat of Islamo-Fascism and plans to defeat it. Kerry has his head in the sand and thinks he can go back to the pre 9-11 world and use police actions and diplomatic negotiations to turn the problem into a minor problem and not a war.

One of the previous posters made a fine laundry list of all of Kerry’s ignorant stances on virtually every major foreign policy issue of his Senate term and then procedes to say that he will vote for him because Bush is so terrible. After 50 years of democratic and republican administrations maintaining the status quo in the middle east Bush has brought democracy(not perfect but when compared to the Taliban and Saddam a miracle) and still many want to hand it back to a corrupt, and feckless UN that hasn’t shown the ability to handle a hot war since South Korea.Many in Iraq may not be fond of the US but I doubt that they want Kofi and company back to steal another 20 billion from a country starved for money and security.Remember the UN was in Rwanda and Yugoslavia “keeping the peace” when those genocides were taking place. Note that while we are busy bringing Democracy to Irag and Afghanistan the UN is doing nothing about the tragedy in Sudan and in fact have that country on the Human Rights commision. And Sen. Kerry wants to hand the middle east over to these over stuffed desk jockeys.

Both articles also point out the love of the left for special envoys and negotiations. It doesn’t matter if the envoys produce results, it just matters that talks are being held. It doesn’t matter how despotic the leaders are, or that they have no intentions of keeping any agreement that they sign, it just matters that the champaign glasses are clinked and that some signatures are signed. If the papers don’t produce results or if they are broken on the very day that they are signed does not matter, the appearance of doing something is more important then the results. As long as you are struggling for peace it doesn’t matter if war and repression are the result of those efforts.

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:15 pm 45. MichelefromLA:

Flenser & Knucklehead -

Thank you so much for reading what I wrote. I, too, have made similar conclusions: No matter how much information you provide, some people just don’t care; they seem to want the U.S. to fail. And the Democratic party, most likely, is not a party I will ever vote for again. Sometimes I wonder why It took me so long to see that the Republican party isn’t evil, after all.

And Kay!! Yes, thank you for telling me about this site. I’ll keep it on my favorites bar. As I may have mentioned yesterday, my mother lives in France but and is voting for Bush (due to me providing information she has been lacking in Europe), though ALL of her ex-pat friends HATE Bush.

I e-mailed her this article by Sarah Baxter. She just e-mailed me back to say she will keep it as a reminder that she is not alone.

Thanks everyone!

Michele

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:16 pm 46. ricpic:

Sarah gets it. It’s either resistance or dhimmitude for us. No middle ground.

Oct 18, 2004 - 1:39 pm 47. Terrye:

alan:

I am another Democrat for Bush and I think Kerry will be a disaster for the War on Terror. First of all Kerry does not believe there is a WoT and neither do the cavier socialists that have taken over the party.

I also think it is absurd to talk about Bush’s errors when it is obvious that the Democrats failed to see this coming or guard against it in the eight years Clinton was in Washington. It can be argued that there would be problems in Iraq no matter what plan the Bushies followed, but it is also obvious that the Dems do not have a plan, other than bitching about Republicans. That does not inspire confidence.

Oct 18, 2004 - 2:51 pm 48. Paul:

Kevin P.

“One of the previous posters made a fine laundry list of all of Kerry’s ignorant stances on virtually every major foreign policy issue of his Senate term and then procedes to say that he will vote for him because Bush is so terrible.”

If you are referring to my post near the top of the comments section please rest assured that I am absolutely voting to reelect President Bush. My response was pregnant with sarcasm, which I thought was pretty obvious.

If you are in fact not referring to my post you may ignore this.

Oct 18, 2004 - 3:04 pm 49. Kevin P:

Paul:

Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa. My brain is so flooded with ABB toxins that I have dificulty seperated tongue in cheek from the real thing.

Oct 18, 2004 - 4:05 pm 50. Paul:

Kevin P.

Ha ha, no problem. I read so much everyday my brain is mush. I forget half the content and can’t remember the sources. Nevertheless I’ll make sure my wife gets me to the polling station to pull the lever for Bush, by wheelbarrow if necessary.

Oct 18, 2004 - 4:42 pm 51. Mork:

My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bushís defeat.

How is voting for Bush on the basis of the likely emotional reaction of our enemies any less stupid than voting for Kerry because it will please our allies?

I think I’d rather case my vote where America’s best interests lie and let the rest of the world sort it out for themselves.

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:23 pm 52. flenser:

I’m looking for a few good men, and women, for a little election project. I’d rather not discuss it here, but if you drop me an email I’ll tell you what I have in mind. All email address’s will be kept confidental. Thanks. PS Former Democrats preferred, though not required.

Oct 18, 2004 - 5:34 pm 53. Paul:

Mork:

Just a wild guess I suppose, but the rejoicing of our enemies might indicate that their reaction was based on bad news for the good ol’ US of A, and good news for them. Those of us on this side of the isle look at that as a BAD thing, though the LLL might be inclined to disagree.

Oct 18, 2004 - 7:24 pm 54. KarenT:

What worries me is Kerry’s flair for carelessly adding drama to world politics. Remember his Christmas in Cambodia fiction? My favorite line from the Peretz article is:

“As a response to militant Islam and to encourage moderate Muslims, the presidential aspirant proposed that ‘the great religious figures of the planet’ — he mentioned the pope, the archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama — hold a summit.”

Mr. Diplomacy apparently has the Faith of a Child in the power of assorted religious leaders to join together to magically rehabilitate the reputation of Islam so that everyone will trust each other enough to “isolate those who are (a threat).” Visualize this summit and concentrate on World Peace. Wait – is the problem that people are thinking bad thoughts about Islam?

Does Kerry really believe that the head of his own church is going to follow his proposal after his public disagreements with church policies? Has he considered that if he promotes the Dalai Lama on the world stage it might tick off the Chinese? They are the reason the Dalai Lama is in exile, after all. Can Kerry afford to risk losing the cooperation of the Chinese in negotiations with North Korea? Why would Muslims look favorably on statements by the Dalai Lama (not even a monotheist) about their religion?

Maybe the archbishop of Canterbury could “encourage moderate Muslims” on his own. But would moderate Muslims still feel offended that an outsider was being asked to sit in judgement of their religion? And would the archbishp of Canterbury dare say anything substantive, given the radical Islamists in Britain who talk about the day when the flag of Islam will fly over #10 Downing street? Did Kerry ever consider asking the advice of the principals before suggesting this fanciful idea?

Oct 18, 2004 - 11:43 pm

Write a Comment

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