182 Comments

1. 88keyman:

I was about the same age during the Eisenhower/Stevenson election. I was for the old general because I dug his slogan: “I like Ike.” Never until now heard the “Gladly with Adlai” slogan or, who knows, I might have gone the other way.

I have to wonder whether most people of voting age think any more deeply than I did at age 5 before they punch the chad.

Oct 31, 2004 - 8:58 am 2. mcat:

Some of my hesitancy of speaking up in public, comes from the fact of be very out numbered here in the Bay Area, but also, I suffer from the same affliction that Bush has of not being able to quickly and clearly express my thoughts verbally. This makes me very hesitant to get involved in these types of discussions for all I would be able to do is, like Bush in that first debate, just stare at them and shake my head and make incredulous faces!

mcat

Oct 31, 2004 - 8:59 am 3. dr. sanity:

Roger,

I am also a blogger, and I can certainly empathize with your experience, having had many social encounters similar to yours in the last few months (I am on the faculty of a major University). These have not bothered me as much as what happened just this week. A very dear and old friend has been emailing me pro-Kerry jokes, literature; and hateful anti-Bush material. I have not commented or responded, just quietly deleted it. It annoyed me that she automatically assumed I would think as she does. Finally last week(I was in a bad mood because of the recent anti-Bush media strikes) I responded to a particularly obnoxious anti-Bush joke and emailed her. I told her not to send me anymore of this bullshit and I included a long quote from Kerry dithering about his position on Iraq and the WOT. I asked her, “can you really in your heart of hearts believe that this man will do everything he can to protect your children?” I haven’t heard from her since.

Oct 31, 2004 - 8:59 am 4. richard mcenroe:

Roger the difference is in WHY you support gay marriage and disposable income. Do you support them because:

1. you have come to a reasoned conclusion that they are deserving of your support, or

2. because, by gum, if we don’t support every progressive notion that comes along the religious fanatic Baptists will pray Richard Nixon back to life, overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny women the right to learn to read, just like the nice lady from NARAL told me on NPR/PBS/Meet the Press?

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:00 am 5. Piranha:

The part that bothers me most about typical Kerry supporters is that we are viewing the election on completely different terms, but they don’t think so.

Many Bush supporters (especially first-time Republican Presidential voters like me) are more concerned about Kerry’s character than anything else. Many of us, including me, just don’t trust him.

Because I don’t trust him, I never bothered to parse through his positions. If I felt that both candidates had the character to be President I would have analyzed this election in a completely different way than I have.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:03 am 6. Old Dad:

Roger,

How odd that none of your acquaintances were familiar with your blog. That suggests to me that they are unfamiliar with the blogosphere in general, which further suggests a surprising degree of cultural and political illiteracy.

On the other hand, why should that be surprising. It’s apparent that many many Americans are poorly informed. Or is it that we are “cocooned” in our own polital worlds?

It’s difficult to understand, though, how anyone who had even in a cursory way clicked through Drudge, had not discovered the political blogs in an election year.

No wonder Dan Rather thought he could stonewall. Maybe he can. No wonder Walter Cronkite can blather on about Karl Rove and OBL.

I wonder how many of your dinner companions will vote?

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:05 am 7. Ron Wrght:

AMEN BROTHER Roger!

Again blessed be for the Internet and the Blogosphere which nows converys the news of the day freely across political borders and without influenece of the editorial staff and conglomerate boardrooms.

The MSM because of the expense of the overhead must now pander readers and viewers. In short the news is distorted and sensationalized which is not in perspective and proportion.

This new medium can communicate human thought essentially free. When taken on average or the “bell curve”is applied, the middle point is a fairly accurate flash point of reality.

For further on this see a previous piece:

FREEDOM - Thx to The Greatest Generation for Preserving It

Link Here

Ron Wrght, Moderator

HSPIG Forums Sit

http://www.hspig.org

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:11 am 8. David Thomson:

Speaking of George W. Bush’s friends. I just found this on David Horowitz’s website:

ìAn email from Christopher Hitchens to my friend Ron Radosh indicates that Hitchens’s comments on the election in Slate, which we posted here, were actually intended as an edorsement of Bush not Kerry as the editors indicated. When my daughter first sent me the Hitchens comments I told her they didn’t look like an endorsement of Kerry to me, but then she sent me the Slate headline which indicated that they were. Now the record is clear. Hitchens is voting for Bush.î

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:11 am 9. chuck:

In a small way, I feel that we have become veterans over the past year. If I think back to the early discussions, we were like raw recruits, milling about and trying to figure out what to do and where we stood. Since then, we have been through the battle of Abu Ghraib, the NYTimes assault, and the Rather deception. We have become tougher and stronger. We have matured. Whatever happens, I think all of us have grown in ways that will stick.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:13 am 10. Roger:

Old Dad, that group was interesting to me becuase they were not familiar with this blog. I can assure you that many in THE TOWN (as it is known hereabouts) are. The latest issue of Written By (the Writers GUild’s monthly) features my blogging from the Republican Convention, quoted in its entirety (many pages of the magazine). I am pretty well out of the closet here.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:14 am 11. Oyster:

I too am concerned about the rate of political illteracy. I have carefully “babied” two acquaintances through this election who first started off with, “I think we need a change” or “anybody but Bush”. They both were shocked, even as late as two days ago at what was the cause of our vaccine shortage and the particulars of Kerry’s health plan. I just shake my head solemnly and say, “I know, I know. I thought you should be informed.” I’m pretty sure Bush has two more votes now.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:18 am 12. Kyda Sylvester:

I came to the party somewhat earlier having voted for Bush in 2000, perhaps having recognized those qualities which for many only became apparent post 9-11. Although I have declined to vote for the Republican candidate on many occasions, never once in over 30 years have I pulled the lever for the Democratic presidential nominee. You see, in hot wars, cold wars or times of relative peace, my first concern has always been national security and defense of this nation and its values.

It is my most fervent wish that one day the Democratic party will put forth a candidate for whom I can pull that lever. I have a dream that one day I will cast about in the nebulous realm of the undecided voter because both candidates would make such fine chief executives and commanders in chief.

Well, in the meantime, watch out for thunder bolts while you’re in the booth and let us know how it goes.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:38 am 13. jack risko:

Roger: Exactly the same thing happened to me at a lunch in Beverly Hills: a shrieking woman. I am fascinated by the similarity of experiences in the comments — the intellectual journey of many writing here, and the shock! and outrage! of the shriekers and the likes of dr. sanity’s emailer. Keep up the good work.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:38 am 14. Macker:

Dr. Sanity: I recently told off a former friend who has been a liberal and abortion rights supporter all her life. She blindlingly…and I mean that literally…sent anti-Bush/pro-Kerry e-mail to me all the time.

One day I got fed up and deliberately sent the link to Paul Johnson’s beheading to everyone on her list. They went ape-shit and I told them SEE! THIS is who you support with John Kerry. I don’t any more of your e-mails if all it entails is HateBushHateBushHateBush.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? I’d rather debate a liberal who will respect my opinions and let me speak them without being retaliated against.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:39 am 15. dunderhead:

Roger,

Along with many of your readers, I too will be voting GOP for president for the first time. Your experiences and those who have commented here are almost hauntingly identical to my own this go around. In 1972 I proudly voted for McGovern the first time I was eligible to vote. My family has been Irish FDR democrats for generations. Except for periodic forays into lobbying and law practice, I have mostly worked as a democratic staffer in the CA Legislature for the past 20 years. I have been reluctant to say much in public to democrat friends, but like a previous commenter, I couldn’t hold back when I got an email from a very close friend who is very partisan, asking me to join him at a moveon.org - sponsored candelight vigil on the occasion of the 1000th death in the war. I sent him a link to a Zev Chavets article in response, after which he unleashed the Hallibutron-Bush lied-Bush KNEW-blood for oil screed, then suggested that Zev was advocating that we kill all Muslims. I don’t think he is my friend anymore.

Next I went to a party at which everyone attending was employed in democratic politics in one way or another. I held my toungue until near the very end, when someone asked the host why so many Bush-Cheney signs were out in the neighborhood (great elite liberal stereotype material, I know) , to which the host responded that they had placed a UN flag (of all things) outside for a while just to rattle the neighbors. I could no longer hold my tongue and went off on Kofi et al, and figured at that point that I might as well go further. But I couldn’t even then say bluntly that I supported Bush (though I do very much). All I had the courage to say was that I “didn’t have a problem” with Bush, but I don’t like Kerry, etc. … Well suffice it to say that it was time to be going for me soon thereafter. It is always nice to check in at your blog by the way, something i do daily 3-5 times.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:43 am 16. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, for crying out loud:

“I don’t think any member of Red Sox Nation can afford four more years of a president who, in his former life as Rangers owner, voted against creating the wildcard slot,” David Wade said. “Just think, if George Bush had his way, there would be no Red Sox World Series victory.”

The Boston Herald.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:05 am 17. Peggy Kaplan:

Dr. Sanity - I’ve had your experience, too - from multiple groups. In one, I responded to all with a missive that said, “I’m delighted to debate the issues with whomever wishes to debate ISSUES. But statements like “George Bush doesn’t know what death is and doesn’t care about any soldiers who die” is blatantly false and has nothing to do with principle or position.”

The conservatives in the group individually responded to me and said, “Thanks.” The liberals were silent.

And that, to a large degree, is Roger’s point here so frequently. The liberals USED to stand for so many of the principles upon which we, the so-called “ex-liberals” still believe. And they say that they are still for them…. but their actions and the actions by our government that they support belie their words.

GWB is the one who is willing to fight the good fight today - mistakes, warts and all. That’s why he’s getting my vote, and why the “liberal” candidates have lost it.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:07 am 18. autumn:

I have found this strange double standard at play this election year. A lot of anti-Bush people have felt very free to comment about their views on the election. Presuming that I would agree. I don’t know why, possibly my age, attire or just my personality? Whatever it is, my husband, who actually looks fairly conservative, gets the same thing happening to him.

As always, we either say nothing and smile if it’s a client or we politely disagree. However, I think most Bush supporters don’t just make pro-Bush statements off hand as conversation starters and if we have opportunity to bring up our support we are not met with the same polite diagreement we employ in the reverse situation.

One guy that I work with, we are the same approx. age, said he’d have to move to Germany (his wife is German) if Bush wins. I have always had a good raport with this guy, so I said that if he got his way maybe I’d be the one moving and then I laughed at my joke. His jaw nearly hit the ground. I think his assumption of my political views was so shaken he did not know what to think. I know he respects me, maybe now he’s rethinking it. I really hope, though, that he is rethinking his assumptions about what a Republican really is. Not the materialistic, uncaring, religious fanatic stereotype.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:09 am 19. jack risko:

I just want to say to all the people posting comments how much I have enjoyed reading the rather similar intellectual, political, and spiritual journeys, as well as the careless outrage from those reflecting the dominant intellectual ethos. I like this community a whole lot better. Thanks to all, Jack Risko

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:12 am 20. nopundit:

Roger,

I, too, like many others in the comments have received email supporting Kerry. The latest was from a friend who emailed a photo montage of Bush facial gestures juxtaposed next to chimpanzee facial gestures. He then said, “You know who to vote for and it’s not the Republican.” I emailed him (and the twenty people cc:ed) Varifrank’s essay Blood Red Fury:

http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/blood_red_fury_1.php

I have not heard backfrom any one of them.

I did write an essay about coming out on my blog, and perhaps y’all may appreciate it.

http://www.nopundit.com/archives/2004_10/19/000123.html

I have come out with no (bad) consequence, even though I live in a heavily Democratic area (to wit: went to a costume party last night at a private club and the men’s trough urinal had pictures of Bush, Rumsfeld, Condi, etc. in it for your pissing pleasure). Coming out is important now more than ever. With two days left your car bumper, your lawn, and your mouth may do more good than you can imagine.

Kenneth Greenlee

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:12 am 21. Caroline:

I am a lifelong democrat who actually paid little attention to politics (just swallowing the standard democratic line about the party of the little guy and all that) until the run up to the Iraq war - at which point my attention became riveted to the news - a veritable obsession. I listened carefully to all the facts and I supported it and then I hung on every detail - all news all the time. In truth I think it was because I actually felt personally responsible for every death- as if I had authorized the war myself. I was still a democrat though and during the primaries I was a strong Edwards supporter because unlike Dean or Kerry he had not taken an anti-war position. Without a doubt Abu Ghraib - which broke after the primaries were over - was the turning point. Thats when I witnessed the MSM and the democrats show their naked political opportunism, despite the potentional impact on our success in the war. Thats also when my obsession switched from only Iraq to the blogosphere more broadly and soon it became a 4 hour a day obsession to read everything. My support for Bush has grown stronger into a real conviction. I also voted the other day for the NC Republican Senate candidate - Burr - because I want to insure a republican Senate as we continue the prosecution of this global war. My stance has cost me my relationship with my anti-war liberal sister in Portland and has actually shaken my marriage with my very liberal husband (between the endless hours blogging and my pro-Bush rants he has been at his wits end). However, I am happy to report that I think my husband is now a closet Bush supporter even if he can’t bring himself to pull the lever for Bush. But at least he will abstain from voting for Kerry!

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:19 am 22. RAZ:

Roger, My experience in these dicussions has been similar…how do you respond after you articulate what you think is a compelling logical argument in favor of Bush, and the very nice and well intentioned person to whom you are addressing this argument says, “That’s very interesting, but I am voting with my heart for Kerry”?

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:33 am 23. heather:

Mark Steyn sums up the Dem problem (money paragraph below) - and I truly hope and pray that the Republicans win so thoroughly that real change in the Dem party becomes possible. First, the left whackos will divide off from the sane Lieberman people… Hilary will come for the fore - it will be a long process, but an absolutely necessary one for America’s political health….

“It’s only a day or so now till the chad-dangling round of Campaign 2004 begins but, when the lawsuits are over and the bloodletting begins, serious Democrats need to confront the intellectual emptiness of their party, which Kerry’s campaign embodies all too well. The Dems got a full tank from FDR, a top-up in the Civil Rights era, and they’ve been running on fumes for 30 years. Their last star, Bill Clinton, has no legacy because, deft as he was, his Democratic Party had no purpose other than as a vehicle for promoting his own indispensability. When he left, the Democrats became a party running on personality with no personalities to run. Hence, the Kerry candidacy. Despite the best efforts of American editorialists, there’s no there there. “

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:35 am 24. Rhod:

I have no understanding of this sort of party committment. I’m almost 60, my parents were Northeastern Republicans but never fit the stereotypes assigned to us by most Democrats around us. We were neither better nor worse off than the machinists, casters and forge workers in our town. Some of them were more prosperous than we were.

My parents liked Stevenson and disliked Eisenhower (because he was a nullity). In later years I read that Stevenson’s appeal among Republicans was that he made being a Democrat respectable. A class thing? I’m not sure.

Anyway, whatever the struggle necessary to pull the Republican lever, I suspect none of you Democrats are driven by anything other than good sense, which has always (until now) been the mark of a good Democrat. No gloating from me.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:40 am 25. btorrez:

It is always helpful to hear what others have to say about a subject that many of us have experienced first hand, that is, “liberal intolerance.” For voting for Bush the first time I was called a “sex offender” by a shrieking woman. I was also challenged to a fight at my twenty fifth highschool reunion by a family therapist! (I have to admit that still makes me chuckle). I live in a very liberal area, the north side of Chicago. It is sad how many are so out of touch with what the real issue is in this election which is the war and eliminating those that want us dead. Bush has a lot a faults, but he understands that better than most. Kerry scares me greatly. Let’s hope Bush, and by proxy, the commenters on this site prevail.

BTW, I am a first timer here and really enjoy the site and the comments. Thanks.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:40 am 26. Rhod:

Correction on the last sentence. Obviously the “until now” is modifying the wrong thing and confusing everything. Good sense has, until now, been the mark of the old Democratic Party.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:43 am 27. Foobarista:

For my part, it has been tough as well. I live in the SF Bay Area, bastion of Bush-hating, and in numerous conversations the topic is always “Bush is dumb, Bush killed civilians to enrich Halliburton, Bush LIED!!”, etc., spoken by people who are clearly quite intelligent and who often pride themselves on seeing “past surface truth” to see “reality”.

I’ve also found that in these environments, discussion is hard, since many of them consider “deep analysis” to be Nightline and the NewsHour on PBS - and regard the idea that the media is in the tank for a particular candidate as being close to black-helicopter crackpottery. I’ve shown a few friends articles on the Internet, and have gotten some of them to think, but it’s hard, particularly with people you only meet occasionally. Sometimes you are forced to just nod politely and change the subject.

In my own family, we are a California branch of a conservative Texas family, ultimately from the same part of the world where Bush himself is from, and the problem for us is we’ve always been put off by the religiosity and casual racism of the Texas branch of the family (this has caused many un-fun holiday gatherings and such). Since we rarely met hard-core Christians who aren’t casual racists, this tainted our opinions on Bush. My softening of attitude toward Bush forced me to realize that I was stereotyping active Christians, particularly if they are from the South or Midwest.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:46 am 28. ricpic:

The Germans have a proverb (I hate to give them credit, but it is their proverb): When courage is lost, all is lost.

It does take courage to go against the tradition in which you were raised. And it takes courage to brave the scorn of your peers.

The payoff?

Self-respect. It is not lost.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:50 am 29. blogaddict:

I am part of this group of kindred spirits, although in “real life” I feel totally out of place. I’m also growing weary, because I first started speaking up every now and then over a year ago, and more so in the last few months.

I had an “Adlai” pin when I was a small child, and my first vote was for McGovern. All Democrats all the time, but not now. I cannot count the number of times someone makes a gratuitous anti-Bush remark (usually a quite venemous one) in my presence, assuming that I will of course agree. I don’t know why it is–some kind of demographics, the way I look, whatever–but the assumption is always made. It happens on a daily basis, and even those friends who know my position sometimes “forget” and say something.

Although I’ve always been scrupulously polite in my discussions with people, I’ve not always been met with politeness in return, to say the least. I’ve been called names and rejected–I have actually lost several friends over this, and perhaps might lose more. I’ve had close relatives attack me, and, even after knowing my position, goad me.

But the saddest thing for me is I have found, as I’ve become a news junkie, that most of these people are abysmally ignorant of the facts. The things they say are truly unbelievable, and they are all highly educated, well-meaning people. What’s more upsetting is that several of them who initially seemed respectful to me and receptive to what I had to say, and who even requested that I send them information about “the other point of view” through e-mail, have recently turned on me quite angrily. Apparently, there were receiving my e-mails (maybe 5 or 6 in all over the past five months, so I certainly wasn’t spamming them) in increasing but silent rage, and finally unloaded. And here I was, thinking maybe they were being convinced! And many of them have been circulating e-mail “lie” letters like the one about the draft, which they seem to believe. It’s very disheartening. Now I know, deep down in my gut, how populations–even intelligent and educated ones–can be influenced by propaganda to believe outrageous things.

I think I may have influenced a total of two people by my arguments. These are people particularly near and dear to me, people who had the patience to hear me out over a very long period of time, actually the last two years. I guess that’s what it takes.

I wouldn’t mind people disagreeing with me if they had their facts straight. But, over and over, when I try to present them with any facts that contradict their entrenched world-view, they are not interested–say they are “too busy,” or they get angry at me. I guess it’s just really hard to look at reality if it threatens an entrenched position–and don’t we all know it!! When I was first facing the things I was learning that were contradicting my deeply-held beliefs, it was frightening and shook me up, but it was exciting, too. And it’s good to be well-informed, although I’ve ended up quite frightened for the future of our country if our most well-educated people are uninterested in learning the facts, or are relying on a media that fills them with lies.

I’m so grateful for this site. And I’m very nervous about Tuesday. I hope we can come back here afterwards in joy rather than to comfort each other–but, either way, I plan to be here.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:50 am 30. Hermie:

Unlike some here who are voting for a Republican for the first time, I have generally voted Republican except for the one time I chose McGovern. Of course, I was much younger and foolish then.

Like those who have had to discuss our reasons for voting for Bush, Ive been astonished at the lack of knowledge about Kerry’s positions and the parroting of Michael Moore-like accusations about Bush.

One 20 year old I spoke to said that Kerry would take the troops out of Iraq. I asked here where she got that, and she just said that she had heard that.

Another person that I worked with said that Bush was going to cut Medicare. Like the 20 year old, I couldn’t get a source for this info and when I pointed out Kerry’s record showed that he voted for the 17% increase in premiums, she still said that Bush allowed it to happen.

What is scary, is that once this campaign is over, these same people will become used to being ignorant of the issues, and will be this easily manipulated in subsequent elections.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:53 am 31. Dymphna:

Our experiences are wide, aren’t they? I’m not a “new convert” and I came to conservatism through seeing the law of unintended consequences inflicted by Johnson’s War on Poverty. At the convention, when Bush said “liberty is transformative” he was quoting Frederic Bastiat, the patron saint of modern (read “austrian”) economics. This year’s winner of the Nobel Prize for economics is one of Bastiat’s progeny.

But that’s about me. What I find surprising is the element of the electorate that is bailing on Kerry. I can’t wait to see the numbers from Massachusetts. My former in-laws, in Wellesley, are close to ninety years old. For the first time in his life, my (ex)father-in-law is voting for Bush. So are some of his sons. These guys are old union people; worked for the Mass Bay Transit Authority (or whatever it’s called now). One of them even worked on the Big Dig, which is Dems corruption raised to New Jersey levels.

So welcome to Sanity Land, all. It’s a good place to live.

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:03 am 32. Paul:

Modern day “liberals” are extremely disturbing. The undercurrent of violent hatred, blind prejudice, an uncritical acceptance of the most outrageous accusations leveled against Bush in particular and Republicans in general reminds me of nothing so much as the Nazi’s views toward the Jews. There is no slander too vicious, no charge so egregious, that it won’t be eagerly lapped up and disseminated amongst the faithful. The big lie is embraced, propaganda is the righteous means to the end…where have we seen this before?

As long as they’re among fellow travelers they revel with abandon and malicious glee in their mutually shared hatreds, as many here will attest to, after having been assumed to be members of the fold.

Just like the Aryan supremists, the left sees themselves as the ‘best’ people, albeit based on ideological rather racial criteria. The effect in terms of their naked disdain for Bush and the Republican Party, as opposed to the Jews (although there is growing anti-Semitism as well), and the concomitant justification to level any charge or mete out any punishment in an effort to obliterate them is the same, however. I believe if they had the total power of the state, as the Nazis did, they would behave exactly the same. Unmitigated self righteousness leads to pure ruthless hatred and cruelty. Islamofacism, Communism, Nazism, and post modern leftism all are cut from the same cloth in this respect.

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:06 am 33. Barry Dauphin:

I had one of those moments with a longstanding colleauge and supervisor of my work (I’m a psychologist of the psychoanalytic persuasion). We have had a mutually respectful relationship all these years, and we did our level best to have a respectful disagreement. Her loathing of Bush was intense, and she kept telling me that if Bush got elected abortion would become illegal. I suggested that was completely unrealistic from my perspective.

She went on & on about the loss of civil liberties under Ashcroft although she couldn’t cite any when I asked for more evidence, except the usual vague references to library book checkout lists being looked at. She believed there would be a great erosion of civil liberties under Bush. She felt that Bush was peddling fear. At the end of the conversation she “joked” that maybe she would slash my tires on election day. I suggested that it was interesting that she kept saying that Bush is fear mongering when she’s telling me that his election will destroy civil liberties & obliterate the Constitution and that the primary response she can think of to my support of Bush is to” joke” about depriving me of my right to vote.

I may disagree with my friends & colleagues who are Kerry supporters. Still I realize that I am hardly omniscent and understand that people could disagree with me and have reasons for supporting Kerry. What bothers me a great deal is the shocked and indignant reaction one gets from many of these folks, that one would have to be crazy or stupid or evil for voting Bush. I think one of the reasons that Kerry will lose is that too many (but not all) of Kerry’s supporters not only hold Bush in contempt but hold Bush voters in contempt as well. That kind of support has a way of turning a lot of people off. It is ultimately a kind of support that contains the seeds of self destruction.

The election is likely to be somewhat close in the overall popular vote. How can many Kerry supporters say with a straight face that they will want to unite the country when too many of them respond as the woman at the dinner party Roger attended did?

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:22 am 34. Dan:

Roger, thanks so so much for this post. As a gay Jewish man living in West Hollywood who supports the president, I have until recently been reluctant to speak out because I fear how others will misrepresent and malign me.

But, I’m coming out now as well. On the blog I share with another GayPatriot, I have written about the vitriol when I “come out” as a gay conservative. And recently posted a anecdote about a Jewish friend who switched to Bush at the last minute.

Your post reminds me that I am not alone in my situation — of being a Bush supporter in a world of seemingly narrow-inded liberals. I appreciate your sharing this story with us.

Oh and I love your blog.

Thanks!!!

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:28 am 35. Caroline:

Blogaddict: “Now I know, deep down in my gut, how populations–even intelligent and educated ones–can be influenced by propaganda to believe outrageous things.”

Very interesting comment. Because of course its a major rant of the left that Bush’s supporters are succumbing to right-wing, militaristic, patriotic propoganda. The Patriot Act and all. They are very very concerned as well. However, with regards to who is falling for propoganda I do find it very enlightening to travel the blogosphere to both right and left wing sites. And what has struck me over time is the often sheer emotional hysteria on the left and their falling for the propoganda of Michael Moore, vs. what appears to me to be the much more calm and factually argued stances on the right. All of us who were born after WWII can look back to that time and wonder how anti-Semitism happened. Now we have a glimpse but simple party labels of left vs right are misleading.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my very liberal, anti-war sister in Portland before she headed off to “Palestine” to observe the Israeli checkpoints. She was quite in awe of the activists who went so far as to try to actually try to tear down the wall. Some months before she left she was almost tearfully describing the ordeal of a Jewish family she had read about who hid from Hitler during WWII. I said - well you know - anti-Semitism is really on the rise all over Europe today. Her answer kind of stunned me. She said, “Well maybe they disagree with Israel’s policies.” That was it. There was no condemnation, rather tacit understanding. Like alot of liberals she only reads leftist points of view. She is extremely well educated, a humane person who cares a great deal about “social justice” and she seemed oblivious to the import of her casual statement.

I feel strongly that the only solution is to read widely on both sides of the political spectrum. That means one Nation article for every article at Frontpage mag, it means a steady diet of Washington Monthly along with Little Green Footballs. The problem is that once we have taken sides it becomes very difficult to want to hear the criticism from the other side so we keep drifting towards confirmation of our own perspective. That is how propoganda takes hold. And we have to continually guard against it primarily by reading what we don’t want to hear.

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:33 am 36. Mark in Minneapolis:

I too have travelled the road from Adlai parents (in fact Henry Wallace ‘48 parents) through George McGovern to George Bush. I did not realize that there were so many of us and I’m trying to figure out what the common demoninator is. The best I can come up with is a common despising of the “new elite” as described in David Lebedoff’s new book “The Uncivil War.” Here in battleground Minnesota the Minneapolis newspaper has a poll showing Kerry leading by 8% while the St. Paul newspaper on the same day shows Bush leading by 1%. No wonder we are skeptical of the main stream media.

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:38 am 37. blogaddict:

Good point about reading on both sides, Caroline. One of the things I keep saying when I talk to my liberal friends is that I read voluminously on both sides. I’m not so sure they hear me, or understand the point I’m making and why it’s so important, because I am continually receiving e-mails from them with links to liberal articles they are asking me to read, as though I’m unfamiliar with said articles. Over and over I explain that I read that article when it first came out, and this is the rebuttal….

I think they think that I, like them, only read the news from one point of view, and that I’ve been brainwashed by that new point of view. I try and try to explain, and I would think my standing as once having been “one of them” would give me more clout, but I think they simply dismiss me as one who has gone over to the dark side, and is now lost.

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:42 am 38. Teresa:

Roger,

Welcome to the Republican party…..

I work in the arts, entertainment, media, etc. field, and I have voted Republican since I was 18 years old, which was the 1984 election. Believe me when I say I am in minority amongst my peers and will probably always be.

Shrieking and looks of disgust and horror are pretty accurate descriptions of the reactions that come from my liberal peers when the conversation turns to politics and this election.

And this confuses me. I thought the Democratic Party/liberals were supposed to be tolerant of other people’s viewpoints, beliefs and ideas. Any thoughts on this?

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:04 pm 39. Keith:

Good for you Roger!

I have often found that the ones that shriek the loudest are the least informed.

Just an unscientific observation on my part.

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:12 pm 40. Caroline:

Blogaddict - don’t let on that you’ve already read the article they send. Instead send them one from the right (VDH or Steyn is always good!) and say I’ll read yours if you read mine. If this partisan vitriole stretches into the next 4 years I can actually see the utility of national “Book Clubs” of the sort that were widespread when I was growing up but instead of reading fiction everyone comes to discuss articles from opposite political sides. “Article clubs”! The wave of the future! Who needs fiction when reality is so darned fascinating!

Sorry Roger. Hope you don’t go out of business. Had been reading your blog for some time before I realized you wrote “Enemies a Love Story” - one of my favorite movies (yes seriously! Along with The Unbearable Lightness of Being). It is interesting that the star of your movie - Ron Silver - has come out so publicly in favor of Bush. Do you two talk politics much these days?

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:14 pm 41. dr. sanity:

If you care to, you can go to my blog and scroll down a little to photos under the general heading of “Pre-Election Psychiatric Tips” where I consulted with my feline colleagues to get some suggestions for coping with the next few days.

I am more anxious than I supposed about this election. Having voted in many over the last few decades, I don’t ever remember caring as much about who won–except possibly for Reagan. Even then, I was not as worried about the Cold War as I am about the war on terror.

Thanks to all of you who comment here on Roger’s blog. Spiritual sustenance is always important!

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:16 pm 42. tcobb:

One of the really ugly things that began in the 60’s was the phenomenon of politics as a fashion statement. It became “cool” to espouse certain beliefs, even when most of the people who got behind the banner had not the slightest clue as to the theoretical foundations and implications of the politics they claimed to endorse.

But despite the uncertainties of those times we still lived in security. The Soviets were rational actors who knew that a war between us and them would result in mutual destruction. We could afford to indulge of games of politics as fashion.

Those times are gone. 911 shoved our collective faces into the cesspool of global reality. Some of us woke up. Many of us didn’t.

We can no longer afford to take a political stance as a fashion statement. We have enemies out there who would gladly kill every one of us if they had the power to do so, and its sheer madness to think that we can come to any sort of accomodation with them. Ideas of universal brotherhood and peace and love sound so good, but reality doesn’t care that you’re holding a happy thought in your head when you jump off a cliff to fly; it just hurtles you to your death on the mound of the remains of the idiots who came before you.

I just hope that enough of us wake up before its too late. The wake up call just might consist of a mushroom cloud over NYC.

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:33 pm 43. TedM:

I will throw in my two cents on trying to “educate” friends and relatives who fall into the category of the uncommitted.

I send them sensible articles, not hysteria. VDH is one of my favorites. After a while I find out from my wife that they tell her they just delete my emails unread. Either because “they don’t have time to read that stuff” or “they already made up their mind to vote for Kerry and don’t want to read “negative” things”.

I am past being furious with people who I once considered educated. Their intellectual dishonesty in passing on propaganda which they cant possibly believe is appalling.

I fear for the future of the civlized world if the Dems can get out a huge vote of the uneducated and ill-informed first time voters who they cater to.

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:37 pm 44. BeckyJ:

I am voting for my first Republican presidential candidate on Tuesday. I’ve been a registered Democrat since 1980; I changed my registration to independent last year. Like dr. sanity, I am an academic, untenured though, and receive many e-mails and listen to a lot of anti-Bush comments and jokes. I am constantly amazed at how so many well-educated people can avoid listening to or reading the opposite side of the issues. Since I’m untenured I don’t feel safe speaking up but somehow some have learned of my apostasy. It has made for some uncomfortable moments; I’ve managed to change the topic rather quickly. A bright spot has been one of my colleagues, a strong union-supporting, Democrat; he has commented to me that it must be difficult to have everybody simply assume that you agree with their views on the candidates. That is the first and only reasoned discussion I’ve had with a colleague.

My cousin, to whom I’m very close, and my closest friend are so strongly anti-Bush that I can’t even bring up the topic with either of them. They have an idea of how I feel so they don’t pass on the jokes etc. to me, but it is strained. For that reason among many, I will be glad when this election is finally over.

Like so many others here, I am grateful for this forum and to Roger for providing it.

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:41 pm 45. Charlie (Colorado):

Becky — I bet you don’t talk much about Bush in the faculty lounge, either.

(Sympathy: I’ve been a Repubican academic: I know what you’re dealing with.)

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:44 pm 46. TedM:

As far as the viscious cartoons and “jokes” are concerned. I sometimes reply to the sender that I consider him/her one of the more intelligent of my friends and “arent you a little embarassed sending out this tripe?”

It stops after that. They get the message. And as an old boss of mine once said “tell him to go fuck himself. BUT, don’t insult the bastard!”

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:48 pm 47. Connecticut Yankee:

Dr. S–

Thank you for the catblogging– I have three in-house feline therapists too. I also find your frankness reassuring– I was beginning to wonder whether the anxiety I’m feeling about this election is either misplaced or a sign of pathology. We certainly do need a gathering place for spiritual sustenance, and Roger’s blog provides that.

I’ve been moved by the accounts of personal re-examination and change that some of the regulars have posted here. I’m definitely in the minority here in that I’ve always been a registered Republican– which means that I’ve had to put up with snarky jokes and angry diatribes from the party of tolerance and inclusivity since the early ’70s. I’m sure Roger remembers the political climate in New Haven quite well. Meanwhile, I’m glad to have met some new friends through this online community–and many thanks again to Roger for making that possible.

Oct 31, 2004 - 12:54 pm 48. PJ:

I echo all the comments about fear of coming out as a Bushie and confusion as to really what is going on with me. I used to be hip! When did I turn into Jeanne Kirkpatrick?

No one at my university has so much as a Bush bumper sticker. One of my sisters shrieked at me when I asked her to please stop sending me moveon.org emails, “Don’t you read the newspapers?!??” Of course I do–that’s the problem.

These days it is the choice that dare not speak its name. But an old paradigm is dying before our eyes. What was once revolutionary is now kitsch, a trekkie-style fetish of tie-dyes and hating Daddy government. We are the vanguard. Do maybe Monday should be “coming out” day?

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:15 pm 49. blogaddict:

BeckyJ, I hope that I, too, will be glad when this election is over. I hope it will be because Bush has been reelected. My fear is that, if he is not, I will not be happy at all. I actually fear I will become profoundly depressed, because I will see it as the triumph of propaganda, hatred, sloppy thinking, ignorance, and a press that has become swollen with self-importance and lies. I fear for the future of America and the world, I really, truly do. I was very anxious for months after 9/11, and I thought I’d calmed down. But I fear my anxiety might be even greater post-Nov 2, if my fears come true and Bush is not re-elected (or even if he does and a sort of civil war ensues).

What adds to the problem is the estrangement from, and the very real anger and bitterness I now hold towards many–perhaps even the majority–of my friends and family. I can be still be friendly with some and civil to others, but I am pretty sure that things will never be the same for me in many of these relationships. So, although I felt I had company in my post-9/11 woes, I feel far more alone now. I love this blog, but bloggers can’t keep you warm at night (although they can keep you UP at night!)

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:16 pm 50. PJ:

Oops. “So maybe Monday should be…”

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:16 pm 51. notthisgirl:

Take heart ( a little anyway)!

Like I said the other day, although I do live in a Republican area, we’re seeing a trove of Kerry lawn signs. This afternoon, I happened to be at a local farm that features apple and pumpkin picking, and a nice store where they sell their all their goodies.

Anyway, a woman was sashaying around the store with an anti-Bush shirt and a Kerry/Edwards button on her sweater. As she approached the counter, the teenaged girl behind the register announced “I love your shirt!” Her reply was “Oh thank you I love you too! You would not believe how many dirty looks I’ve gotten today!!!” Another woman standing in line next to me said under her breath “Well, here’s another for ya!”

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:17 pm 52. Terrye:

Same here.

I have to admit though, I have lost patience. The last time I got one of those emails I told the sender that I was going to vote for Bush and I was sick and tired of having to justify this to people who obviously don’t respect my effing opinion anyway. I stopped the discourse. I refuse to even look at the crap anymore.

The shrieking women are usually silly, hysterical and uninformed. I had the same discussion about wmd that Roger did. I said well hell everybody including Bill Clinton thought they were there. No he did not she said. I said when he passed the Iraqi Liberation Act he made it plain he believed that…. did not she said. Total unabashed denial of reality.

And then the Patriot Act came up… I said the Senate was also involved and besides we needed to update our intelligence gathering techniques…. did not she said. Bush and Ashcroft did all by themselves in secret.

Now this woman has two degrees. I think the shrieking women and their ilk we encounter are ignorant people who want it to be easy. They are liberal snobs. They patronize the poor, say the right things, hang with the right people and think they are cool.

But they seem to forget that there are tens of millions of people in this country that do not share their narrow and simple minded view of the world and the day might come when we respond it kind. It is our damn country too God damn it.

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:21 pm 53. PeterUK:

Having been a visitor to Roger’s Bar for a while,I think the dichotomy in American politics can be seen in microcosm here.

On the one hand there are the post 9/11 realists of whatever political persuasion,between them the discussion is intelligent and respectful with only the occasional dust up or handbagging.Above all else it is adult.

On the other hand the liberal left,for want of a better psychologicsl epithet,kick open the doors and shout,”I can whip anyone in here”,then proceeds to sneer,jeer,snark and insult the proprietor in the manner of a drunken street punk.Without exception the are most whiningly agrieved when they wake up on the pavement outside.

To me it appears that the vertical conflict between the generations has has become lateralised into a political one.The liberal left is refusing to grow up and typically of youthful rebellion regards itself as being the sole repository rectitude and therefore able to dispense with courtesy.

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:38 pm 54. Rick Ballard:

“I’m trying to figure out what the common demoninator is.”

Mark, you might try willful ignorance for a starter. Barry Dauphin’s post strikes me the hardest of all that I’ve read here today. I know that pyschologists can get get wrapped around the axle of partisanship as easily as most people but I would hope that they could at least identify reality from propaganda. I have no problem whatsoever in debating positions with someone who holds an opposing view that can be articulated in a logical manner. What Barry describes in his supervisor is a conditioned response requiring no more intellectual effort than Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the sound of a bell. How very sad.

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:40 pm 55. notthisgirl:

By the way, although I’ve not gone through all the comments yet, I want to thank you folks who are Democrats (or former Democrats) who have had the guts to think for yourselves. I doubt I’d have the guts to speak out too much publicly - although some Vodka (like Roger), and constant waves of pro-Kerry blather might have had me blurt out at least something.

The Comments Section at this blog I truly enjoy reading. Very insightful and well-written.

I think Liberals such as Roger’s party-mates, have a tendency to look no further than the Dan/Tom/Peter hour, because their presentation of things aligns with how they view things - why look further??

Some truly are clueless that there are people who actually do think on a different wave-length. Case in point:

We live next to a country club. One summer, they were able to get some relatively well-known performers to come give concerts for our community. One weekend, Judy Collins appeared. My husband and I went to see her. As she got started, she began to give a rah-rah speech for Michael Dukakis. When she was done, the crowd was 90% silent. The woman sitting next to us leaned over and whispered “Does she know where she is?” After the pregnant silence, Judy said sheepishly “Well, I guess we’ll move right along!”

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:46 pm 56. PeterUK:

Terrye,

Higher education has changed a lot,they do degrees in “Stupid” now.

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:51 pm 57. notthisgirl:

Rhod: I know what you mean about NE Republicans (NJ here). When I was in 4th grade, my parents supported Humphrey instead of Nixon.

We are a different breed!

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:51 pm 58. chuck:

Terrye:

They patronize the poor, say the right things, hang with the right people and think they are cool.

Damn right. The Democrats are not the party of the little folk, they are the party of the elite, of the “smart” people. If Bush wins the election their contempt for the ordinary people who voted for him will know no bounds.

The rest of your comment is right on.

Oct 31, 2004 - 1:52 pm 59. Connecticut Yankee:

blogaddict–

Trust that you will find new friends and companions along the way if your present relationships are past repair. I’ve wondered from time to time too whether I’m likely to feel thoroughly depressed after 11/2 if the media and the lunatic Left succeed in swinging this election. And I’ve lost some friends too. But the very fact that there are people like you posting on Roger’s blog is reassuring– there are many more of us than we realize, and we can build all sorts of new friendships and working groups from the wreckage of the old. One wise saying that I often heard in Al-Anon meetings (which I attended for some years in order to cope with an alcoholic stepfather) is that “feelings are not facts.” You may feel very lonely at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that you are in fact alone. (I have to remind myself too).

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:00 pm 60. mbro:

It is an interesting phenomenon that the well informed people I have met who support Bush, find it necessary to qualify their views by elaborating on how well informed they really are- to the point that it becomes difficult to get past the “here’s how smart I am” and get down to the “here’s what I know.” And I think this goes beyond establishing the foundation on which an argument will have merrit. Perhaps it speaks to the common belief among the Democratic “intellectuals” (know-it-alls) that anyone who could support Bush’s policies must not be very smart or informed. Or maybe you feel you must establish your intellect because you believe that most of those who support Bush will do so, in spite of what they know- which is wholely irrational.

You are probably right in thinking that you didn’t change any minds last night. You are also likely to be correct in thinking that you are more informed than those you dined with. It is, however, quite presumtuous of Old Dad to suggest that your aquaintances posses “a surprising degree of cultural and political illiteracy” because they have not formed their opinions an a diet of political blogs.

When it comes to war and national security, Bush is not really all that difficult to understand. I’m not exactly sure what Kerry’s policy is, but I know it’s different, and that’s what most people who are voting for Kerry are looking for- change. All the rest of the information we can gather, only helps us to argue for that ideology. Either you believe in the man’s ideas or you don’t. How well you can articulate an Oil For Food spin, is practically irrelevant. It seems to be a nice bit of self-gratification to amass a huge arsenal of arguments for and against something you believe so strongly in, but all of this rhetoric seems a lot like showing someone a hand full of leaves and telling them how big and strong the tree they came from is. Show me the tree, and I’ll decide for myself how strong it is. I certainly don’t need a blog to “inform” me as to what those leaves look like.

Just as architecture transcends our need for shelter, our quest for information about politics goes far beyond a useful understanding of policy and its implications.

I am certainly not an advocate of being uninformed, but to suggest that people who simply know less than you are uninformed, is arrogant and preposterous.

That’s OK. We still enjoyed your company last night.

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:23 pm 61. M. Simon:

Mo WMDs? Uh, just what do people think all that RDX was for?

The RDX and the other associated explosives are the basic ingredients for a nuke program. Believe it or not getting the explosives and their triggers right is the most difficult aspect of a nuclear program. I discuss that at the link.

If you need a movie to help may I suggest “Fat Man and Little Boy”. Keep your eye on the explosives work.

Sheesh. It is interesting how we miss what is right in front of our noses.

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:26 pm 62. Old Dad:

MBRO,

I stand by my post. I did not argue that one must form his opinion based on political blogs, only that one cannot be well informed about politics without reading the blogs.

Moreover, the internet is a huge cache of political and cultural information on all sides of every issue. Search engines like Lexis-Nexis and Google have opened up huge data sets to indiviudal researchers. One can’t be well informed, period, without using these tools.

We simply cannot rely on the old media outlets. They are clearly biased and not really very informative. They represent a data point, certainly, but that’s all.

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:33 pm 63. Rick Ballard:

“I am certainly not an advocate of being uninformed, but to suggest that people who simply know less than you are uninformed, is arrogant and preposterous.

Mark,

Another common denominator is ability to engage in unconscious self parody. Some have raised it to the level of art.

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:34 pm 64. Caroline:

This does rather resemble a 12 step program for recovering liberals. Maybe its a good time to break for coffee and while we’re on break perhaps we should all contemplate this question:

Without doubt there will be another 9/11 type or worse - attack on our soil in the next 4 years. As Bush supporters who have by many accounts gone out on a limb with friends and family to support him - would you feel more comfortable if another major attack happened on Bush’s watch or Kerry’s watch? Even if it happens on Kerry’s watch are you prepared to deal with the inevitable fact that the left will most likely loudly proclaim that it is due to the recklessness of Bush’s policy - that his policy has made our enemies hate us all the more? And of course if it happens on Bush’s watch - there will be all sorts of claims about how he didn’t properly defend the homeland and so forth. Seems to me it will be construed as Bush’s failure either way. How will you feel about and respond to that?

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:38 pm 65. mrp:

In another thread, I stated that if we abandoned Iraq before a legitimate Iraqi government was establshed and functioning effectively, then the US-Coalition counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan would be untenable. I believe that even more so today.

The US force deployment in Central Asia is little mentioned but it is active and extensive. We have bases in Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan and Georgia, for instance. And they are there with the understated forebearance of the Russian government.

If Iraq falls to Islamic fundamentalism, the focus would shift immediately to Afghanistan. Zarqawi et al. would quickly target US-Coalition forces in the region. The Bush administration understands this, as does Vladimir Putin, but the moveon.org, Soros, Michael Moore crowd could care less.

Just a week ago, the Bush Administration formally stated that Russian special forces assisted the mass movement of Iraqi armaments during the onset of offensive operations in March 2003. A few days later, the Administration released satellite photographs clearly proving the efforts. One might have expected howls of outrage from the Russians after the accusation, but instead, we got hardly a peep from the Kremlin. Why?

I think that Putin understands to his fingertips the potential disaster to his country if Iraq and Afghanistan were to fall. The soft underbelly of the weak Russian state would be unbearably vulnerable to Islamic radicalism. Putin wants - needs - George Bush to be re-elected.

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:43 pm 66. Terrye:

mbro:

Oh come on. If I had a dollar for everytime I had to listen to some Kerry supporter who could not find Texas much less Iraq on a map call Bush stupid I could pay off my mortgage.

The left lost me with Michael Moore. That human slug who compares terrorists who behead people and caper about their corpses screaming God is Great at the top of their lungs with Paul Revere is like a poster child for the self righteous who rant and rave about Halliburton but think mass murder is just relative. They hate the rich unless they are the right kind of rich. Unless they are themselves.

You know Bush did not create this situation he inherited it. The fact that so many people are completely ignorant of that fact has a lot to do with the Bush bashing. It is easier. Get rid of Bush and the Eurotrash will throw rose petals in our path and the ME will be the happy place of kite flying children it once was. Kerry is a fresh start.

Gimme a break. There is nothing remotely fresh about Kerry, he has not changed since 1971.

Oct 31, 2004 - 2:54 pm 67. PeterUK:

The whole “change” argument comes accross as self indulgent consumerism,

“That Leylandii we got three years ago is blocking my view of the gazebo,we should cut it down and plant something else”.”The sofa clashes with the new curtains”,”We don’t like this president,lets have the other fellow,whatsisname,can’t be any worse”,”Drink anyone?”

Ignorance is my armour! They had the same conversation in the tumbrils.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:14 pm 68. Susan:

mbro,

By using the term, “oil for food spin,” you’ve truly pointed out the difference between yourself and many who post on this blog. It’s called the big picture. You and your peers seem utterly unable to see it in your quest for “change.”

I, too, am a lifelong Democrat. I will be casting my first Republican vote on Tuesday. I can easily put up with the things that irritate my about George Bush for the sake of supporting the Iraqis, John Howard, Tony Blair, and our troops who do NOT need the confusion that will follow with a president who has no convictions. Obvious to everyone but the ABB crowd is the fact that the terrorists will most definitely be emboldened after they convince the Americans to get rid of their biggest thorn. It’s amazing to me that you can’t see that past your distaste for George Bush.

Your reasons for voting for Kerry strikes me as nothing less than shallow and short-sighted. I’m sure other than that you are a lovely person.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:27 pm 69. Syl:

mbro

“I’m not exactly sure what Kerry’s policy is, but I know it’s different, and that’s what most people who are voting for Kerry are looking for- change.”

This is such an appaling statement I had to repeat it.

Assuming a change in policy is a change for the ‘better’ is dangerous at best, ignorant at worst when you don’t even know what that change represents!

It is a vote based on a shrug.

May the bluebird of happiness crap on your election fantasies.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:37 pm 70. RogerA:

Damn, Roger: this thread sounds more like an AA meeting! I sympathize with all the academics who are “conservative.” An anecdote: I went back for my PhD when I was 55. I sat in a class listening to a professor who was my age decrying the “fact” that Americans were undertaxed. He cited a NYT times article about the tax burden AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. I pointed out that that the tax burden also exists at the local level–there were these things called gasoline, sales and property taxes. My PhD cohort was thunderstruck–they had NO idea that people pay taxes other than a federal income tax.

But that is just an anecdote, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. My children who are both getting terminal degrees contantly regard me an Attila incarnate–I am struck by how little the “attentive public” actually knows. Have any of the commenters listened to a TV talk show and screamed at the screen–”hey doofus, that point was demolished on the web a day ago.” Our TV commentators are more ill informed than anyone who keeps up the blogs (left or right). A sad commentary on the American system.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:37 pm 71. pandaba:

I’m voting for Kerry this year, even though I live in a deeply red state where my vote makes little difference.

Bush did a brilliant job in Afghanistan and OBL’s recent video is a testament to how well his strategy worked there. But what happened in Iraq cannot be ignored. From undersupplied troops to rapidly changing motivations for war to prisoner abuses, its easy to see why one would conclude the war wasn’t a good idea and wasn’t executed well. And no one in this administration is willing to own up to mistakes and take the necessary actions to correct them. And the president seems to be living in bubble, unwilling to face information which is contradictory to his beliefs.

I remember Les Aspin resigning because troops in Somalia lacked necessary protection and weapons. Where is such an admission of responsibility from Rumsfield?

And then there’s the social issues. Admittedly, terrorism is a bigger issue but the social issues define what exactly we are defending in our struggle. The president is embracing the religious right, gutting our environmental protections, wants to stack the court with Scalia-clones (just look at his conservative appointments to lower courts), raises the deficit while cutting taxes for the rich. Moderate republicans are being shoved aside.

All in all, this is an administration which cannot be trusted. Yes they seem to have a really great and wonderful resolve regarding the elimination of terrorism. The problem is that this resolve is misdirected and they seem to have blinders regarding their mistakes. And then the social issues are just the poisonous icing on the cake.

Kerry is a douchebag, a liar, and relatively out of touch with America. However, he is slightly less disgusting than the Republicans and thats why he’s getting my vote.

May God smile on us and give us a decent choice for ‘08.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:49 pm 72. Terrye:

RogerA:

Well yeah. Bob Kerrey made an ass of himself on Meet the Press today. Started on the whole AlQaqa thing.

sheesh. He actually said the explosives were in the hands of terrorists now and in truth we don’t know where they are or even if they were there to begin with.

These guys make me wonder how hard it can be to be a US Senator.

I think Roger should run.

That would really get them going in Hollywood.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:52 pm 73. Old Dad:

Caroline:

My immediate response to another 9/11 type attack will not be political. It will be visceral. I will hope that whoever is in charge will bring the forces of hell down upon the perpetrators. I will hope for their complete and utter anihilation.

At some future date, I will hope that our political process might do a much better job of assessing what happened, why, and what to do about it than did the past 9/11 commission.

Oct 31, 2004 - 3:57 pm 74. flenser:

pandaba

Kerry is a douchebag, a liar, and relatively out of touch with America.

But he’ll stick it to those yokels in fly-over country, and thats what counts, right?

The entire “vote for Kerry” argument always seems to come down to that, in the end. “Kerry is one of us. Bush is one of them, those stupid rednecks. They actually believe in God!”

I’m sure you lack the self-awareness to realize what a stupid prig you come across as.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:04 pm 75. Frederick:

Caroline,

“How will you feel about and respond to that?”

If there’s another attack, and I share your view that one is inevitable, people will divide into two groups. One group, as you indicate, will want to talk about whose fault it was and to watch talking heads and NY Times op-eds offer reasons why it was President Bush’s fault. They then will bring out into the open what they really will care about, what the U.S. can give the Islamicists to stop attacking us. The response of the other group, which will include 85% of the population, will not be to argue with them, but to express contempt. The fate of the ostriches will be, at best, derision.

Their world, for better or worse, died on 9/11. The truly remarkable hostility that surfaces whenever anyone dissents from their anti-Bush pieties, and objects to joining in their vicious liturgies, must arise from a deep fear that that might be true. I’ve had my own experiences like our host’s and yours. You get a reaction that is not adult. It’s as if you interrupted a group of children at a performance of Peter Pan, clapping to make Tinker Belle come back to life.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:05 pm 76. MichelefromLA:

I live in Los Angeles, was a Democrat in 2000 and am voting, passionately, for Bush. I, too, have had so many amazingly odd experiences since the beginning of my political evolution.

I remember having a dinner party where one of my guests asked all the Democrats to raise their hands and I was the only one who called myself an Independent, so I kept my arm down. I was also the only one at the party who saw the importance of going into Afghanistan. Yes, that’s how far left my friends are; they felt pitty for the Taliban. Ugh! I passionately pleaded with them to understand how incompassionate their views were. I don’t know if I convinced anyone. But I began to realize, then, that what I thought was common sense, wasn’t so common.

There was my daughter’s birthday party, where I thought we were just having a conversation and because I was apalled that some Berkeley students tore up Republican students’ newspapers - my friend told her boyfriend she couldn’t listen to me any longer and wanted to go home. Because her boyfriend wanted to stay, she put her head between her knees and stayed that way until I returned from driving a birthday guest home. Her head remained between her knees for over half an hour.

Then I got into it with a guy that began spewing vitriol about Ronald Reagan just as Mrs. Reagan was laying her head on his coffin (the T.V. played in the background.)

The weekend of the Beslan massacre I knew to cancel a barbecue we were planning; I would have gone bezerk if I heard one Bush bash, when real horrors were committed just a day before. My friends never talk about the horrors of the terrorists, they can only whine about the evils of corporations, Bush, Republicans.

Because I’ve educated myself about what’s going on in the Middle East and around the world, it pains me to have to hear party guests blather about minutiae and praise Michael Moore. It physically pains me that I know longer fully respect these people anymore.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:09 pm 77. Robert Schwartz:

Roger:

My family was a bit like yours. My mother drove around with Stevenson posters on her car when I was a child. In 1976, she was Carter’s finance chairman in Ohio. She is still a hard core Democrat.

In 1975, I moved to New York straight out of law school. New York was going bankrupt and social pathology reigned supreme. It was like living in the third world.

I was single. I spent a lot of my spare time walking around the city and thinking. By 1978, I was convinced that the democrat party, Jimmy Carter and their versions of liberalism had failed. I did however learn to smile instead of argue at parties.

Only 60 more hours. I can’t stand it anymore.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:10 pm 78. Bravo Romeo Delta:

mbro,

I certainly appreciate your commentary - it takes no small measure of confidence to “beard the lion in it’s den” and then thank the lion for it’s company, even if you disagree on some fundamental issues.

That said, I echo the point made by an earlier commenter (and hope to flesh out some of the confusion I feel):

I’m not exactly sure what Kerry’s policy is, but I know it’s different, and that’s what most people who are voting for Kerry are looking for- change. All the rest of the information we can gather, only helps us to argue for that ideology. Either you believe in the man’s ideas or you don’t.

Nuking Fallujah is different. Throwing babies into meatgrinders is different. Before you become enamored with change for it’s own sake, be aware of what the change is.

Furthermore, when you get to the “either you believe in the man’s ideas, or you don’t”, I presume you speak of Senator Kerry. If so, then you really need to sit down, and reread that last paragraph to yourself, out loud.

You are, from your own words, essentially saying, I don’t know what this guy believes in, but… you either believe in it or not.

That’s sort of a very Yogi Berra-esque meets Jaques Derrida kind of political statement. I do not begrudge you your support of Kerry, but I hope, wish, and pray, that you have a better basis for making your vote for the Commander-In-Chief than “I don’t know what this guy wants to do, but I believe in it, while you don’t.”

And thanks again for bringing some very cogent points to this debate in a very reasonable and succinct manner.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:12 pm 79. Terrye:

pan:

The fact that Bush is a Methodist is not a crime. He does not speak in tongues.

He is not “gutting” our environmental laws, some of which have not been changed or updated since the 70’s. We do have a legislative branch that has some responsibility here as well.

And why go after him for troops not having what they need when you intend to vote for a man that voted against supplying those troops? About 70% of the troops support Bush. Kerry says he will bring in another 40,000. I am not sure he will keep the ones we have because most of them despise the man.

Kerry and the rest of Congress voted for the war resolution. Regime change in Iraq was after all our national policy. The UN resolutions were explicit and numerous. Congress and the UN are every bit as responsible for the reasons we went to war as Bush is. Kerry has stated numerous positions on this very subject himself. He has been oppurtunistic on the subject.

And as far as Iraq is concerned I am always amazed that people seem to think that ousting a man like Saddam and fighting terrorists like Zarqawi is supposed to be easy. We lost more men in training accidents leading up to DDay than we have lost in Iraq. We just didn’t have the TV to see it on every day.

So if supporting the troops and rationale for the war are the problems you have with Bush, why would you ever support Kerry?

And why give the terrorists what they want by caving in Iraq? They are watching us and when they hear Americans say Iraq is hopeless they feel vindicated. Those young Americans who have lost their lives deserve better than our going belly up.

Support for Bush in Afghanistan is said to be about 90%. They are afraid Kerry will abandon them. Why is that? What is it in his character that leads both Afhganis and Iraqis to fear for their future if he wins and Bush loses?

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:14 pm 80. Sandy P:

Kerry’s Iraq policy isn’t different, it’s the desert version of this, via Lileks:

î…Because that would lead to helicopters on the roof and boat people and reeducation camps and mass deaths, and God knows the world has never seen anything like that.î

He’s a communist sympathizer, appeaser and to millions, traitor. Hasn’t changed.

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Gulf War #1 had the coalition of his wet dreams and UN blessing to boot and he voted…..NO.

From a recent Washington Post article on Kerry: …..Kerry’s belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, “If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.”

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:16 pm 81. blogaddict:

My name is Blogaddict, and I am a recovering liberal.

MichelefromLA, boy did you hit the nail on the head for me when you wrote, “what I thought was common sense, wasn’t so common anymore.”

That has been a slowly dawning realization for me. The journey I was on through reading, reading, reading, post 9/11, was so exciting and interesting–although sobering and frightening–that I didn’t realize that very few other people were on the same journey. When I poked my head up around a year ago, and started having political conversations from friends with whom I’d never before discussed politics, I was stunned beyond measure to hear what was coming out of their mouths. Was it that I had changed so much, or had they? Or had none of us really changed, and the difference was that we’d never talked about politics before? The profundity of the disillusionment I feel on a very personal level is something I find it hard to express or to deal with.

A few friends have come through–some, by agreeing with me; some, by disagreeing in a reasonable, logical, and respectful manner. The rest have not. The other day I was thinking about the expression “common sense,” because it struck me that so many of my friends seem to lack it, or seem to have lost it. Why, if common sense is supposed to be common, does it seem rare nowadays? And then I thought of Orwell’s statement, “some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual can believe them.” It has taken on a whole new meaning to me. I have come to the conclusion that “common sense” doesn’t just mean “common” as in “possessed by the majority of people;” it means “common” as in “more likely to be held by people who haven’t been educated out of it by absurd Derrida-spouting professors.” In other words, in some paradoxical way, the spread of higher education, which seemed to me always to be a very good thing, has its downside–and that’s the spread of the rot of arrogance and elitism combined with laziness, ignorance, and post-modernist claptrap. It makes “common sense” something only for “commoners,” something to look down on.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:35 pm 82. Moonzoo:

I hope you dont mind me being blunt. It is wonderful that you have recently had some insight. That is a good thing.

It is just as wonderful that you share this insight with your friends.

Can I make a suggestion, tho? There was an article by Andrew Sullivan three or four years ago, published in the Sunday Times. It was the most unintentionally hilarious article I have ever read. Ever.

Andrew wrote about his (bogus) attendance at a Christian Coalition dinner. They didnt know who he was. But more to the point, he did not have the faintest idea who they were. With a sort of breathlessness, Andrew reported how these folks were kind, and gentle, and witty, and intelligent, and not at all the monsters he was hoping to report.

My suggestion to you, is to find the article and to read it.

I am not a Christian. I approve gay marriage (for example).

But the rarified atmosphere of the wealthy and insulated, the bag-breathers, is a ridiculous sight to the many average folks in this country, Christian or not. The many average folks actually have an amazing amount of wisdom, knowledge and judgment.

I have the belief that even wealthy, insulated folks can touch base, sooner or later, and realize we are all in this together.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:36 pm 83. Silicon valley Jim:

I guess I fall into the same general range of experiences and history as many others here. My first presidential election was 1972. I had been somewhat active in opposition to the Vietnam War in years previous to that. I voted for Nixon, because it was clear to me that McGovern just didn’t get things about national defense or the importance of creating wealth. The only election in which I’ve voted Democratic for President was 1980. I had bought the line that Reagan was a dangerous warmonger. I was wrong.

I get some of the same incredulous reactions as Roger does. “But Jim, you’re an educated man. You did your graduate work at Stanford. You’re a substantial supporter of classical music in Silicon Valley, and you’re a classical guitarist yourself. How can you vote for Bush?” My answer is always the same: “Because I’d like to be alive a year from now.”

I’m constantly amazed at the simple bad manners of many of these people. I grew up in Illinois, learning that it’s impolite to inject my political opinions into discussions. I continue to think that that’s true. A couple of weeks ago, I was talking with the head of an arts organization around here, and, out of nowhere, she started bashing the President, assuming that I would agree. I made it clear that she was talking to the wrong guy. I’m now torn between a desire to support the arts and a desire to make it clear that I don’t stand for bad manners.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:39 pm 84. Terrye:

Folks I hear that a story on Kerry may break tonight. Something to do with his military discharge.

Could this be true??

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:39 pm 85. Almiranta:

I’m one of the converted liberals. I describe my Old Self as “an unexamined liberal” which always gets someone to ask me what that means. And I can then tell them that liberalism is so easy, such a short cut to the higher moral ground, that I found it irresistable. I didn’t have to know anything, or even believe anything. I just had to be AGAINST poverty, AGAINST war, AGAINST suffering, AGAINST killing the whales, AGAINST poisoning the environment, etc., and I could instantly feel morally superior to those who did not agree. Because if they were not also liberals, then they clearly were FOR poverty, etc. I didn’t need a coherent philosophy, or an understanding of history or politics.

Bill Clinton made me a conservative. Well, his female supporters did, anyway. The “feminist” mantra of always believing a woman if she says she was raped, not accusing her of ‘asking for it’, not looking at her sexual history, and so on, had impressed me as fair. When the Clinton groupies started in on Paula Jones, the hypocrisy drove me right out of the Democratic Party—and what I learned, once I got out into the real world, has me frightened at the blatant brainwashing that goes on in our society, day in and day out.

I find it marginally more effective to merely state that I am now FOR things. If someone is voting for Kerry because he or she truly believes that Kerry has a clear vision for the country, and the character and strength to carry it out, there is nothing to talk about. But you know what? I haven’t met that person yet. All I have met is the Kerry supporter who is not FOR Kerry at all, but just AGAINST Bush. HalliburtonpipelinesheikinfluenceAWOLstupidpuppetCarlyleGroupsecretsocietynewworldorderbloodforoil

Another tactic to ask questions. “Have you ever wondered why the press has concentrated so much on Bush’s National Guard record but never asked how Kerry managed to meet his Ready Reserve requirements while he was campaigning against the war?” or “Have you noticed that the newspapers and TV have just ignored the oddities in Kerry’s discharge record? They just don’t seem to think there is anything odd about him signing up for a six-year hitch in 1968 and not getting his honorable discharge until 2001. Have you heard anything about that?”

But mostly I just say that if I got all my “news” from Dan, Peter, Tom, and Michael Moore, I’d probably agree with them—but as I don’t, I can’t.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:39 pm 86. blogaddict:

Caroline, to try to answer your question: I too feel another terror attack is likely on a major scale. I hope I am wrong about that. But, whoever is president, I’m convinced many people will blame Bush. He has become their all-purpose scapegoat, bete-noire, villain, what-have-you. If it’s on Kerry’s watch, then it will be because Kerry came too late to undo what Bush did; if it’s on Bush’s watch, well, it will be even easier to blame him. I never could have predicted the insanity, but here it is, it can’t be denied. The only question I have is how much of the population will subscribe to it. My guess? About 50% (and, in the town I live in, 80%).

I myself am amazed it’s been three years and we haven’t had one; I expected many by now. But people refuse to acknowledge this and give Bush any credit. If there had been another attack, it would have been his fault; now that there hasn’t been, it means the threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated, according to those who hate Bush.

I know it’s been said here before, but Bush-hatred and anti-Americanism both remind me quite a bit of anti-Semitism in their lose-lose mentality towards the hated object.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:41 pm 87. mbro:

Let me clear up a few things about what you all seem to have concluded, based on my post.

My disdain for this administration does not stem from a lack of information or a short sightedness in seeing the big picture (to the degree that any of us can foresee the future).

I do not beleive that knowing everything there is to know will necessarily preclude making the “right” decision. There are very well informed people on both sides of this election. I, unlike our President, would never assume prople are stupid.

Placing a botched attempt to secure hegemony at the top of my “reasons to vote for” list will never happen.

I happen to agree with many of this administrations ideologies.

I do not think they are executing those ideas well enough.

I do not think that John Kerry will make our situation worse. I do think that there is a slight possibility that he will make it better.

I do not think that Bush has enough support to resurrect what is being perceived as a failing policy.

I do not like being presumed so incapable of supporting his policy, that I must be mislead.

I am not a lovely person.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:50 pm 88. PeterUK:

Why this child like faith in change?

The election of Kerry plunges your nation into unknown territory,Bush has had his 9/11 Kerry has not.Al Qaeda knows what the reaction another strike would bring from Bush,they have not tested Kerry yet.Do you think they won’t?

If Kerry is elected there is a window of opportunity for a strike during the confusion of the administrative change over and before the new president has got hold of the reins.

Change make you safer, on the contrary it is far more dangerous.

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:53 pm 89. Sandy P:

And what has Kerry said that you think he will be able to make it better?

Oct 31, 2004 - 4:58 pm 90. pandaba:

Flenser,

I happen to be one of those yokels in fly-over country. So I really don’t want it “stuck to me” by either candidate.

I could care less whether or not people believe in God. I just don’t want the religious right having a strong voice with the ruling party. What’s wrong with that sentiment?

I wouldn’t have a problem with the religious right if they weren’t trying to impose their will on everyone else. They’re welcome to whatever beliefs they wish to have. I simply don’t want those beliefs enshrined in the government.

I don’t care about Bush’s personal religion. What concerns me is his embrace of the religious right and their socially conservative issues. Bush personally seems to be moderate on social issues, as does Cheney. However, his actions have strengthened the socially conservative side of things with only cursory stabs at the center.

Being a libertarian on social issues, I think this stance by the republicans is bad for the country and bad for me.

And how am I a prig? Simply because I think your candidate is the worse of the two bad choices we have? As I stated, Kerry doesn’t excite me. But he’s the lesser evil, if only by a hair.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:09 pm 91. Fresh Air:

Terrye–

The rumored story is supposedly by Tom Lipscomb of the New York Sun. I heard on another blog that either a member of the Swiftvets and/or Lipscomb interviewed either former Secy. (now Sen.) Warner or former Secy. Lehman, and was told Kerry had received an other than honorable discharge for his anti-war activities. This should come as no surprise to anyone given Kerry’s failure to sign Form 180.

The thread on the subject was pulled at SwiftVets.com and the story has gone undergound as far as I know.

The veracity of this rumor is confirmed by the frequent CQ poster and SwiftVet known as “River Rat.” Apparently the Swiftees were going to have some sort of press conference on the discharge today, but canceled it out of fear it might backfire on Bush.

My guess is the story is true. Whether it will run in the Sun tomorrow, who knows? Whether it would afect the race is also hard to tell.

P.S. Where the hell is Goof? How will I know how many more days there are until the election?

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:10 pm 92. Sandy P:

pan, one thing struck me reading your response. Take the marriage initiative, for example. Is it social conservatives or the study(ies) which verify children are better off in 2-parent families?

But we’re kind of going OT, here.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:12 pm 93. flenser:

mbro

I don’t care whether or not you are a lovely person. I’ll take your word on the matter. I do care if you are casting a vote for president based on little more than petty spite.

I, unlike our President, would never assume prople are stupid.

Eh? If the president has a shortcoming, perhaps it is that he assumes people are more intelligent than they actually are, and does not slowly and patiently explain himself over and over for the benefit of the less gifted.

Placing a botched attempt to secure hegemony at the top of my “reasons to vote for” list will never happen

Our mission is not to secure hegemony. And our mssion has not and is not being botched. This charge is made repeatedly by your side, in the teeth of all evidence to rhe contrary. Just a few months ago I met posters online who assured me that our mission in Afghanistan was a complete failure, due to our wasting resources in Iraq. Now that Afghanistan has had successful democratic elections, the response from the reactionary left is complete and utter silence. These same people will continue to insist that Iraq is a failure right up to the instant that their view collapses. After all, they read it in the NYT. It simply must be true.

Rather than insisting that you have a right to your opinions, may I suggest that you attempt to make arguments in favor of them? Claiming that policies that are very obviously succeeding are actually failing only serves to make you appear delusional.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:18 pm 94. ROA:

MBRO,

Re the president assuming people are stupid.

It was John Edwards on October 4th who said “I’d say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you’ve lost your mind.”

Not what I would consider the most diplomatic statement to make if you actually plan on governing us “mindless” people after the election.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:19 pm 95. flenser:

Freah Air

My fear is that, on November 3rd, Goof will reset his clock.

“There are only 1460 days left…”

“There are only 1459 days left…”

The Horror!!

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:21 pm 96. Loki the Dog:

Very therapeutic conversation!

I’m at a loss for how to carry on rational conversation with so many friends and family. My dad finds a way to inject his hatred of Bush into every conversation. And, try as I might to try to debate the facts I can’t get beyond “Bush hates the poor, doesn’t care about old people, and wants to destroy the environment for his buddies in business.”

Similarly, I exchanged several emails with an Uncle–a judge of all people–who tried to educate me on how the attack on Afghanistan was planned years ago while Bush was governor of Texas.

Or there is the brother-in-law who refuses to read my blog, because it is too upsetting. He’ll admit the Michael Moore twists the truth, but then go on to tell me how “sometimes the video can’t lie.” This from someone who went to school for film!

But, at least I can argue with family. And, we may have blow out arguments, but there are rare moments when we do find some common ground. And, I don’t doubt that all of these people are patriotic and care deeply.

It is co-workers that are the most difficult. When a designer wears a “Fire Bush” t-shirt to work, or people call me over to show me anti-Bush videos they assume everyone will find funny. Sometimes it is even clients. I’ve been in meetings with non-profits, and even government organizations, in which sarcastic comments about the No Child Left Behind Act or Bush malapropisms were met with knowing and approving nods.

A co-worker who supported Bush once said to me, “Well, you don’t like him, right? You’re just voting against Kerry?” As if that was the only justification.

In many ways, it was the frustration of the knee-jerk hatred of Bush that led me to want to start a blog. I had been emailing several articles to friends and family every day–news that most people didn’t see but that I thought was important to know. One thing led to another, but hopefully I am starting some dialogue.

Anyway, interesting to read other people’s experiences! Thanks!

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:31 pm 97. Assistant Village Idiot:

Pan, don’t forget the religious left and its imposition of values. The words “candlelight vigil” are often a trail marker. Up here in unitarian/congregationalist New England, we’re pretty familiar with fire from that side.

I came off the 60’s-70’s socialist left, and though my move to the right was in the 80’s, I can identify with many stories here. As a psychiatric social worker, I can assure you that mental health staff tends to be about 95% left-liberal, often outright marxist. It was a tough crowd for a fledgling conservative to learn to speak up in. My usual first instinct is to simply blow uninformed people out of the water with a barrage of information. It is, uh, not particularly effective. When I am thinking before speaking, I have found several more effective approaches. To those horrified by some conservative view, I humorously overrespond: “It’s even worse than you think! Not only do I support Bush, I prefer Cheney!” or “Pull out of Iraq? I hope we invade Iran!” It just frees you up to make full-throated claims rather than endlessly qualify your remarks. And it really frees up the closeted others who are present.

Alternatively, when underplaying seems more appropriate I have said about the popular wisdom on many subjects, “I think that’s less true than people make it out to be.” I find I get partial, and idiosyncratic agreement with that. When people claim Iraq is a chaotic disaster — it’s less true than people make it out to be. Outsourcing costs us jobs? It’s less true than people often suppose. It casts doubt rather than contradicts. A comment like that once prompted a woman in the crowd to say “Look, I think any woman should be able to have an abortion, no questions asked, but some of those women are just cowards and should be having those babies!” That prolife/prochoice argument proceeded along different lines than any I have had before or since.

It’s great advice. Would someone remind me to take it more often, like at maybe 10% of the time? Sigh.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:50 pm 98. Tej:

Thanks for your post Pandaba as it is a good example of what this discussion is referring to. Alot of opinions and little facts to back it up. The religious notion is rediculous as is the sending our troops in harms way unprepared. If you believe what Kerry said recently that he would have invaded Iraq and you think his record indicates he would have prepared the troops better then you are disillusioned. I’m not religious at all and feel no threat from the far right. The socialist left scares me considerable.

As for me I have run into these Kerry groupies just like many others here and I choose to ignore it with types like Pandaba and discuss it with those who are able to listen between their ramblings.

I haven’t been on the fence in this election and to keep my own sanity I gave up the MSM months ago and choose to read the blogging of both sides mostly out of curiosity. I wish more people who are on the fence would take the time to go direct to each side and decide for themselves rather than have the media explain each side to them. Unfortunately, the media puts a left angle to both sides so many Americans don’t even know the difference and are unable to make a sound judgement.

I’m sure that the left would blame Bush for any further attacks whether he is president or not but that really misses the point. If Bush is gone it accomplished nothing but it frightens me that Kerry won’t be able to handle it without a popular opinion poll. If Bush is here I am quite confident he will deal with it rationally like I believe he has in the past and he gets my vote.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:52 pm 99. flenser:

pandaba

Don’t be obtuse. There are plenty of religious types in LA and NYC. The point is that you and yours detest them regardless of where they live, and will vote for a lying douchebag (your own words) simply to spite them.

I just don’t want the religious right having a strong voice with the ruling party. What’s wrong with that sentiment?

Is that a serious question? The “religious right”, whatever they are, are just as entitled to participate in the political process in this country as anyone else. What is wrong with the sentiment is that it is bigoted. Substitute some other group in your sentence for “religious right” and see how it sounds.

I just don’t want the unions having a strong voice with the ruling party.

I just don’t want the Jews having a strong voice with the ruling party.

I just don’t want the blacks having a strong voice with the ruling party.

As a conservative, I happen to think that stigmatising people is a useful social tool. But the people in question should be ones who are engaging in some rather anti-social behavior. I can’t even begin to imagine why you are so incontinent with fear of the big bad religious right, but I suggest you engage in some soul-searching (heh!) on the issue.

I know plenty of people on both sides of the religious divide, and I’d have to say that on balance, the religious types are better people and better citizens. I’d even say they are more intelligent than the typical anti-religious sort.

Before you bring it up, I personally am a feverent agnostic. But I do not share the weird hangup that so many have about religion.

As for enshrining beliefs in government; the people of the United States are free to enshrine in government whatever beliefs they choose. If those happen to be religious beliefs, fine. These beliefs have been “enshrined” for the lifetime of the country, and it seems to have done all right with them. And we could do so much worse. For example; we could, as you suggest, vote the Michael Moore Democrats into power and enshrine their beliefs. Now there is a prospect to give a sane person nightmares.

Oct 31, 2004 - 5:59 pm 100. Charlie (Colorado):

It is fascinating to read this thread.

There is a saying that “a miracle is just a change in perception”.

I hope you-all will forgive me a moment’s smugness; the long timers now know how much I love being right, and I can’t resist a little bit of it. I had an AuH2O button in 1964, then like most every other 11 year old I came down with socialism.

I broke from my childhood socialism much earlier than most of you: I lost it when I read Atlas Shrugged in eighth grade. That would have been 1968/69.

I was helped in this by having relatives who had been in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, some of whom who had escaped from Kadár Janós and the Russians in 1956.

By the time I was really interested in politics in 1971 I had already begun to notice that my libertarian leanings, and the whole notion of “liberty”, was considered … ill-mannered, maybe? However one might phrase it, it was a social faux pas to admit to anything but Jane Fonda leftism.

Even then, though, I was aware that there was an essential point these folks were missing, which was that all of the things they claimed to be fighting for were things they wouldn’t have in the places they claimed to admire, like North Viet Nam, Cuba, the “People’s Republic” of China, and the Soviet Union.

Oh, and I noticed that damn few of them moved to those places unless they did so on the run from the law.

The confusing thing, for me, was that we all claimed to admire the same values: individual liberty; freedom of speech; religious freedom; racial and sexual equality. Why couldn’t they see that the place that offered the most of these — not perfection, but the best environment — was the USA?

Hence a certain feeling of smugness now, as my cohort of 50 year olds has these people seeing, at last, that if we don’t have quite the “shining city on the hill”, we’ve at least managed, unlike most other places in history, to begin to drain the goddamned swamp.

Now, please don’t be insulted by my moment of smugness: it’s just a passing thing. Instead, realize what an astounding, awe-inspiring step you’re really taking: what you’re seeing is how few people ever really do manage to learn to think for themselves, and unlike some of us old “conservatives”, you’re doing it relatively late in life.

This is really an astonishing thing, and you should all take a moment for deserved self-congratulation.

What I like best about Bush, over anyone other than Reagan in my lifetime (and I figured this out about Reagan far too late) is that he’s the candidate who is continuing to argue that buying people cans of mosquito repellant isn’t enough: to be safe, we have got to drain the damned swamp.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:09 pm 101. Caroline:

Pandaba: “I wouldn’t have a problem with the religious right if they weren’t trying to impose their will on everyone else.”

No doubt this is a huge reason why many will vote against Bush but really - compared to those masked guys yelling Abu Akbhar (whatever!) before taking a sword to someone’s head - do you really see Bush’s conservatism as that much of a personal threat? Or maybe you just entirely take it for granted that you live in a world where you can rent XXX rated videos at any hour, cop a little coke or pot off some friends, have nude sex on the beach (OK - at night) pretty much with impunity - knowing that your girlfriend won’t wind up with a white shroud over her head buried up to her waist in the sand with large rocks pelted at her. In my mind that pretty much puts Bush’s much dreaded conservatism into perspective.

I too am a recovering liberal. I agree with Almiranta: “I didn’t have to know anything, or even believe anything. I just had to be AGAINST poverty, AGAINST war, AGAINST suffering, AGAINST killing the whales, AGAINST poisoning the environment, etc., and I could instantly feel morally superior.” How true is that?

And I’m still laughing over Bravo Romeo Delta’s line (when not chuckling over the moniker):

“Nuking Fallujah is different. Throwing babies into meatgrinders is different. Before you become enamored with change for it’s own sake, be aware of what the change is.” The whole change thing is really quite funny coming from the Kerry supporters. Clearly many of them would actually prefer to turn back the clock - when Saddam did have shredders if not meatgrinders, even as Kerry says - it isn’t NECESSARILY true that Saddam would still be in power if he were president. IMHO a Kerry presidency would be characterized by utter paralysis. He would conference himself into complete indecision. The Botox is the perfect metaphor. Change indeed. The only change I can picture is the world moving on rapidly past him, out of his control.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:11 pm 102. Terrye:

pan:

Oh yeah. Christians are such a strange breed. Never know what they might do. Like go to church. Raise their kids. Pay their taxes.

I hear this crap from Kerry people all the time.

Are you under the impression that gay marriage is the law of the land? And as for Roe vs. Wade it will stand, but I don’t doubt that states will have their own laws dealing with such issues because most people want them to. This is what Kerry folks fail to understand. I am a woman. I resent the silly people from NOW out there accusing Bush of rape and all kinds of stupid crap. They do not speak for me.

That is the problem with the left, they take it upon themselves to speak for people that do not wan to have a frigging thing to do with them. For most Americans guys like Michael Moore are a lot freakier than some nice little old lady like my Grandma who goes to church every Sunday. The Democrats owe half their base to people voting out of sheer force of habit. But keep treating them like freaks and that might change.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:24 pm 103. notthisgirl:

Terrye, you asked: Folks I hear that a story on Kerry may break tonight. Something to do with his military discharge.

Could this be true??

There was something bumping around a couple of the other blogs Friday night that one of the Swift Boat guys had uncovered proof that Kerry had been less-than-honorably discharged from the service.

Nothing has materialized since then however. If I see anything I’ll let you know.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:38 pm 104. richard_223:

How sad you sound ashamed to be voting for Bush. For me, Bush epitomizes my own Scots Irish background of willingness to make war, without hestitation, apology or excuse on those who would harm us or violate our code. We are often mocked by the elite media for our simple taste in country music, NASCAR and flag waving patriotism, but when duty calls, it is we who volunteer for military service. See how many of the Iraq casulties hailed from places like Paducah Kentucky or Morristown Tennessee. I was reared a yellow dog Democrat and voted for Carter in 1976, but when he showed cowardice with the Iranians and would not stand up the the Soviets in Afghanistan, I voted for Reagan, no apoligies, no regrets. I pray the spirit of US Grant and Andrew Jackson still find resonance in the American soul. I want to chase the Islamofascists to the very ends of the earth to rub them out.

John Wayne Richardson

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:38 pm 105. Charlie (Colorado):

JWR, I think you mistake Roger: he’s not ashamed to be voting for Bush.

Merely astonished.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:46 pm 106. notthisgirl:

mbro: You said: I do not think that John Kerry will make our situation worse. I do think that there is a slight possibility that he will make it better.

I appreciate the points you’ve made, but I think you’re making a big mistake.

Iraq as a whole, surely has not gone to our liking - Phase I was about as close to perfect as you can get. But Phase II has been very difficult. My SIL works at CentCom, and has had some involvement in running the war. He is of the belief that we didn’t have enough troops, and is not entirely pleased with how things have gone during Phase II. HOWEVER, he has said to me on MANY occasions that we are not hearing the whole story. With all the horrible news you do hear, your’e not hearing quite a bit of the good news, and we are getting the Iraqis on their feet - they are better able to defend themselves and things are progressing.

He emailed me the other day to ask me to encourage anyone I knew to vote for the President as the forces against us over there are hoping that Kerry wins. They aren’t stupid. All they have to do is look at Kerry’s record and inconsistencies.

Furthermore, wouldn’t you rather have the troops fighting under someone they believed in and trusted in rather than someone they don’t?

mbro, Kerry is a hand-wringer. During a time of war, that is the last thing we need. And the UN is a freaking joke.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:54 pm 107. Terrye:

John Wayne:

The other day I was driving through a little town called Worthington In.

On a corner stood a white house with a wrap around porch and black trim. In the yard stood maple trees.

And under those trees was a flag, a Bush/Cheney sign and a newly painted 64 Chevrolet pickup. Next to the truck there was yet another sign, handwritten. It said Welcome home to our American hero.

Their boy was coming home from Iraq to the little town in rural America that most people will never hear of.

Oct 31, 2004 - 6:55 pm 108. Catherine:

Haven’t read the thread, but I will! (Halloween, new deadlines, dog ate my homework—–)

I, too, will be voting for my first Republican candidate for president on Tuesday, a big day!

My own astonishment, though, is that I seem to have retained all my old friends and even made some new ones throughout this period, in spite of the fact that I’m more or less out of the closet.

By ‘more or less,’ I mean that if I’m surrounded, as I was at dinner the other night, I don’t say, outright, ‘I’m voting for George Bush.’

I just make it clear I’m not voting for John Kerry.

Reading Roger’s post, I was wondering why this should be: why should people give me a pass, but not Roger?

Then I realized that without ever quite thinking it through, I hit on the strategy awhile back: when challenged, I chalk my shocking political views up to my Red Stateness.

I say: I was raised on a farm, my parents were Republicans, of course I’m not voting for John Kerry, what do you expect?

The answer is: nobody expects someone raised on a farm whose parents were Republicans to vote for John Kerry.

Thinking about it now, it’s a little shocking how well this works. I’ve always been “Red State,” from a farm, etc.; that’s my core identity, and everyone knows it.

So when I point out that in changing my politics I’m simply returning to my roots, it makes sense.

I’ve always been more conservative than anyone I know, and that’s always been one of the reasons my friends liked me: if one of my friends had a boyfriend who was sleeping around on her I could be relied upon to perceive him as a piece of lying, cheating evil scum, and I was perfectly capable of expressing this opinion to his face, too. None of this Blue State nuance for me.

People like that in a friend.

It’s a little amazing when you think how tolerant people actually are in some way, how much affection we feel across our differences, and, sometimes, because of our differences.

Roger doesn’t have this route open to him, and his vote for George Bush can only feel like a betrayal to his friends, family, and friendly acquaintances.

He has ‘turned,’ where I have returned.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:19 pm 109. jerry:

Pandaba:

I think you have fallen into the “failing toward victory” syndrome that has become prevalent in the Iraqi discussions. You said:

“From undersupplied troops to rapidly changing motivations for war to prisoner abuses, its easy to see why one would conclude the war wasn’t a good idea and wasn’t executed well. And no one in this administration is willing to own up to mistakes and take the necessary actions to correct them. And the president seems to be living in bubble, unwilling to face information which is contradictory to his beliefs.”

Do you really know what you are talking about here. American troops under supplied…that’s MSM?DNC propaganda. Do you want to know what under supplied is? We sent our armored forces into France in 1944 with obsolescent Sherman tanks when we could have been producing the M-26 Pershing, which was as good or better then any German tank, by then. But the powers that be determined that it would take too much shipping. Task Force Smith in Korea was under supplied without any effective anti-tank weapons to face NK armor. American forces going to Iraq were as well supplied as any force could be.

The DNC/MSM propaganda machine says we are failing. But the facts are that all but the Sunni triangle is ready for elections. Too many casualties? The number of dead in Iraq is about the same number as American dead on D-Day. Set backs? The surprise German offensive in the Ardennes cost 80000 American casualties in a month.

You say that the President is unwilling to face information that doesn’t fit his view of reality. What information is that. 370 tons of explosives that may or may not have ever been there. If anything that description fits John Kerry who continually talks about get “real” Allies” involved. You know, the French and Germans who keep telling him that they won’t help and in the case of France were on Saddam’s payroll and worked hand-in-hand with him to prevent any action?

You refer to the success in Afghanistan as a plus for Bush, but a few short weeks ago, just prior to the Afghan elections. The MSM/DNC/Kerry Camp was calling Afghanistan a failure. Some were even claiming that the Taliban were back in control. What makes you think the MSM based view on Iraq is more accurate.

This the problem with Kerry supporters. Without an historical reference point you are awash in sea of misinformation and propaganda. You actually believe the Kerry critique. So Ask you, if Bush is failing in the GWOT why have the world’s terrorists and their sponsors want to see a Kerry victor. And yes the OBL tape is an endorsement of Kerry.

This election is the most important since the Civil War. If Americans choose Kerry then we are sending a signal of surrender to radical Islam. When OBL talks about Sweden, he is talking about a country that will be majority Muslim by mid-Century. However, Sweden will fall under Muslim control in less then 20 years. So if the future you desire is to fall under Sharia law by all means vote for Kerry, Otherwise you no other choice then to vote for Bush.

I apologize for this low quality post. Itís a football Sunday and I want to get back to the Bears game.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:21 pm 110. Catherine:

OTOH, my mom’s folks loved Adlai Stevenson. They knew him; my grandfather had worked for him, I think. He was a professional magician–my grandmother was his assistant in their show–and he performed at some of Stevenson’s events.

Never heard the line “glady with Adlai,” though.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:22 pm 111. Catherine:

Anyone who hasn’t seen this, should:

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/002445.php#002445

It will make you cry.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:22 pm 112. Frederick:

John Wayne,

The “Scotch-Irish,” as they were called where I grew up in the Appalachians, are the part of America that Europeans just can’t understand. They came from the lawless frontier between England and Scotland, and many settled in northern Ireland (whence the Irish part) before moving on to America. Always to the frontier and the outskirts of the more settled areas. Always feared and scorned by those in the cities. Andrew Jackson and US Grant? Yes. And also Sherman and Patton and many others. America’s warriors. The most prominent Scotch-Irish politician in early America was Patrick Henry. His “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” was a more self-focused version of the more common Scotch-Irish attitude, “Leave me alone or I’ll kill you.” There is a great book explaining how America is the product of the interacting influences of the Scotch-Irish and three other English settlement groups, David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, which you might enjoy.

Terrye,

Worthington, Ind. A beautiful portrait in words. It’s too bad you couldn’t take a picture and send it to our host. I think many of us would enjoy seeng that.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:24 pm 113. Jimmy's Attack Rabbit:

Interesting posts this evening. As a life-long conservative, it’s always startling to read that someone voted for McGovern.

Anyway, for all the newbies, if you want a good political ‘Rule of Thumb’ I have found that the 180 degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says is the best course to take.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:27 pm 114. PeterUK:

The worry is that the enemy will have got a better measure of Kerry than his supporters.This is evidenced by bin Ladens talking points,or a least those not edited out by al Jazeera.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:39 pm 115. Sandy P:

– From undersupplied troops to rapidly changing motivations for war —

So, you didn’t enjoy the peace dividend in the 90s and would have preferred the NG to have the platinum card like regular army????? That’s what you’re talking about. The Pacific Theater felt they were short-changed, too, during WWII.

As to rapidly changing motivations for the war, some things are better left unsaid, but he did tell you the ultimate goal a long time ago.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:41 pm 116. Sam_S:

Best! Thread! Ever!

Sorry to combine topics here, but I can only get through the Great Firewall every so often.

I “turned away” in the early-mid 70’s because of some of the nasty characters in the Movement, and because individual liberty wasn’t as high a priority as I’d thought, then “turned against” later, when I had friend’s friends being machine-gunned by the darling Sandinistas.

But the Repubs won’t have me, except at voting time (too libertarian, but that’s another argument; I’ll pound on Bush AFTER the election)

This feels like an honest-to-god peer group, and a damned smart one, too!

Terrye, you said something weeks ago about not having a blog. Wanna post something on my tiny picture-postcard-of-a-blog? I’d love to have a drop-in, as I’m too busy to write most days. In fact, there are a lot of good writers here–I’ll host any “turned lefty” who wants to write a piece or two, long as it’s reasonably civil and sane. It’s US-hosted.

Cheers, everybody, and don’t be scared to speak out at those parties. You might actually encourage someone else who’s been too polite and/or intimidated.

Oct 31, 2004 - 7:58 pm 117. richard_223:

More on the Scots Irish warrior tradition. My father was a WWII veteran, fought Rommel in North Africa, landed on Normady and crawled across France to Germany. He came home with a Silver Star, Purple Heart and never much talked about any of it, that was his way. Oh, and yes, I am reading Albion’s Seed about the early settlers and what Walter Russel Mead calls Jacksonian Democracy.

I fear if we are unsuccessful in democratizing Iraq resurgent Islam will continue its predations. Then we will summon neither a Kerry nor a Bush, but a General Phil Sheridan (the only good Indian is a dead Indian), a Bomber Harris or Curtis LeMay who will destroy Arab civilization, such as it is. Think about this, we fire bombed Toyko and Dresden in WWII, neither main military targets, both full of women and children, we set these cities on fire, that happened only 60 years ago.

I pray democracy and freedom will take root in Arabia. Elites, chatters and diplomats will wring their hands, lament our losses and despair. The Scots Irish, like Davy Crockett will not go down easily. My hope, and belief, is this culture still prevails in America, Bush knows this and much of his campaign rhetoric speaks to us, that’s why we love him.

John Wayne Richardson

Oct 31, 2004 - 8:23 pm 118. cristym:

I live in L.A. and work in the entertainment industry. A few weeks ago a situation developed at work where I had to “out” myself as a Repubican. Every person in the room was utterly stunned that I could be so supportive of the prez - in fact, they were sure I was kidding, until it became clear after many iterations that I was serious. When things began to get a bit hot, the producer quickly turned the discussion back to more mundane matters and we haven’t spoken about politics since. But I feel a burden has been lifted and I’m quite happy to be the lone conservative in the bunch.

Oct 31, 2004 - 8:35 pm 119. M. Simon:

Pandaba,

Social issues are critical for me too.

So I ask myself which is more important:

Afghani women get the vote or the hoo ha in America over gay marriage.

Do gays get walls tumbled on them as government policy in Afghanistan?

I’m willing to delay a few social advances in America to get some more fundamental social advances in the world.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:19 pm 120. pandaba:

I’m not sure why my aversion to the religious right has generated such a response. And I don’t know why I’ve made you so angry flenser, when I have only written politely to you, sans any insult.

Nevertheless, I believe the religious right have the right to participate in the political process. I believe the Lakers have the right to play in the NBA. And I fervently hope neither one wins in the big game. (Go Jazz!)

Just because I wish a group to lose power and influence, doesn’t mean I want them to lose their voice. If a Kerry gov’t started rounding up Baptists and putting them in camps, I’d be the first on the front lines with my mossberg, even if I personally can’t stand what the Southern Baptist Convention has become.

They have a right to speak, just as I do. I wish for them to lose political influence, just like they (and probably most of you) want my side to lose political influence.

Thats the nature of the game. Thats why I’m voting the way I am. Thats why you’re voting the way you are.

And no, I’m not some liberal who only knows about conservative religion from some biased documentary and the typical hollywood ridicule of Christianity.

My affiliation with the religious right goes back thirty-five years. I was raised a Southern Baptist in the Bible belt. I went to a private Christian school so conservative that we had Falwell, Oliver North as speaking guests and I can remember a couple of field trips to see Reagan speak. Most of my family are still in the church. I’m still very close to my family, despite their view that I’m going to hell. I don’t take that part personally; its just business.

So I’ve seen up close what they are, what they want, where they want to be. And I didn’t like it. Therefore, if a politician forms an alliance with the religious right, I usually vote against them.

As individuals, members of the religious right are often great people. As a political movement, I think it sucks. I’m sorry some of you took that personally, but its just what I think from my neither left nor right perspective.

And, in the long run, if they get their way, I think they’ll be bad for freedom. Thats my opinion. Sorry if it pissed you off.

But no, there’s no reason to extrapolate the worst from my comments. I dislike Bush, and I think I made it clear that I dislike Kerry. But Bush is not the moral equivalent of the Taliban or Hitler or any of the other pejoratives of the Left. Bush is just another American politician, with all the good and bad that implies. I believe he loves this country, freedom, mom, and apple pie. I believe he’s doing what he thinks is right for the country. I just believe he’s misguided and its time for a change.

Somehow, I don’t think that makes me a prick, a Michael Moore loyalist, a blind person with no self-awareness. You complain about the left jumping to conclusions and attacking Bush supporters left and right, and then you do the same to me? Oh well. Whoever wins, I’ll fully support, and I hope (Bush|Kerry) won’t take us to hell.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:19 pm 121. pandaba:

M.Simon,

Glad to see someone here agrees with me on social issues.

And if you’ll note in my original post, I supported (and support) the Afghan War 100%.

But, freedoms lost often have a tendency never to come back without a lot of effort and blood. As the old chestnut from B.Franklin goes, I don’t want to sacrifice our freedoms for security.

I think we can have both a strong defense and a government which stays out of our bedroom. Thats why I’m voting for Kerry, even if I think he’s a pretentious douchebag. I think he’ll be just as good as Bush (probably better) on defense and he’ll be much better regarding issues on the home front.

If I could have a moderate republican who is fiscally conservative, doesn’t care what you do in your personal life (so long as it doesn’t scare the horses), and is strong on defense, and tells Falwell/Robertson to take a long hike on a short pier, then I’d vote for them in a heartbeat.

Any hope for such a creature in ‘08 or do you think the GOP is going to keep marching rightwards for the forseeable future?

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:28 pm 122. M. Simon:

pandaba,

As a former Libertarian I understand your point.

However, I am not sacraficing my liberty for security.

I’m sacraficing a very tiny bit of my liberty for other’s libery. I am in fact getting a net advance of liberty in the world even at the cost of some of my own.

In terms of getting that liberty back I must say I trust the American people. Because if I don’t trust them there is no hope anyway. The goal of this country has always been the expansion of liberty even if we have reversals from time to time.

In that respect I’m a Marxist. I believe in the forces of history. Not for the same reasons mind, but I do believe.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:38 pm 123. M. Simon:

pandaba,

I believe the fracturing of the Democrats has already begun.

The fracturing of the Republicans will begin after 3 Nov.

I do not know if the new coalitions will be fully formed by 2008. I do think by 2012 they will be there.

Lieberman was my kind of Democrat. Pro war, capitalist, but socially liberal. Now he does kind of fall for the “spending programs to cure problems” spell of the Dems but at least he would be a move in the right direction.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:45 pm 124. pandaba:

M. Simon,

I’m a centrist, leaning heavily towards libertarianism on many things (with huge disagreements with them on defense and the environment), and I completely understand your point.

Maybe I panic too easily about the religious elements in the GOP. But, having grown up with them, they frighten me and I don’t want to encourage them at all. So I feel like its worth taking a chance.

Considering the many screwups the Bush camp have made, I don’t think Kerry will be worse. I believe him when he goes into he-man mode and says “Kill em! Kill the terrorists dead!” And he’ll agree with me on the majority of social issues. (I do wish both parties would give up on the drug war but that will probably never happen in my lifetime.)

But you’re right. The Bush administration, even if it gets a full eight years, won’t curtail american freedoms much more beyond some of the nastier parts of the Patriot Act, an FCC which won’t let you say ‘poopyhead’ on national tv, and possibly restrictions on gay marriage.

But I don’t quite have the same faith in the dead hand of history that you do. I used to think history was inexorably moving us towards greater and greater freedome but, as I get older, I’m getting more pessimistic. I think an eight year Bush administration would lay the groundwork for a conservative hegemony which both you and I would strongly dislike.

Oct 31, 2004 - 9:52 pm 125. sammy small:

M. Simon,

Not sacrificing Liberty for Security? Just think back to 1963. What happened to our collective sense of security on Nov 23? It was devastating, probably as much or maybe more than 9/11 in some regards. We were never the same as a nation again after either day.

There have been creeping liberty encroachments ever since. How about baggage screening after the first airline hijackings by D.B. Cooper. How about the increasing use of metal detectors to the point where some public buildings and schools now use them. They will probably never go away. They are all small nuisance items, but it used not to be that way. I suppose its a tradeoff of liberty for security in the changing society. The same will ultimately apply on the world stage. I don’t see any way to avoid some of it. It just becomes a balancing act. But to do nothing would be foolish.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:04 pm 126. pandaba:

M. Simon,

Agree with you about the fracturing. I’m just not sure where everyone will go. The disgusted Demos I’ve seen fit in well with the Bush wing of the party. The moderate Republicans would probably fit in well with the centrist Democrats.

If they’re smart, the GOP will provide a moderate candidate in ‘08. They’re in a much better position to unite the country than the Democrats. I think if they had someone who was strong on defense, said the right things about the environment and would be somewhat flexible on choice (they could be pro-life but non-dogmatic), fiscally conservative, with some occasional bits of true compassion and at least some lip service to the working man, and takes a Democratic approach to religion (attend church regularly but don’t let it appear the church dictates your policy), I think such a GOP candidate could take the center, force the Demos leftward to protect their base, and win with record landslides.

I even think such a candidate could take California and maybe even New York. Both states have already rewarded moderate Republicans with top offices.

That sort of upset victory would probably be worth angering the religous right and various wingnuts in the GOP.

Such a candidate would make red/blue the non-symbolic colors they were meant to be.

Oh well, its good to dream.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:05 pm 127. Old Gunny:

Any Kerry voters who get this far into this thread ask yourself why more than 70% of the military is backing the president. The 70% figure is low for those troops who are deployed in either operational theater.

John Wayne:

When I enlisted in 1960, if you said “Farmers and coal miners take one step froward”, you would have been trampled. Keep the faith.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:09 pm 128. M. Simon:

This bit from Jessica’s Well says it all.

It is a picture of women willing to die for 1/10th the liberty we have in America.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:24 pm 129. aebrain:

I’d feel a lot happier if the comments had more people like mbro and especially pandaba.

You’re preaching to the converted, much like the Hollywood Fashionistas were. You need to attract more liberals, more Democrats, and people who disagree with you *but are willing to debate the subject* as so many aren’t. How you do this, I haven’t the faintest idea. That the species even exists is doubtful, most are just satisfied to watch Micheal Moore.

I’m Australian : before the election, I had no idea who John F Kerry was. So I did some independant research, not affected by either left- or right- wing MSM. In the US, I’d vote Democrat (I’m only right-wing by Australian standards, by US ones I’m well to the left).

My impression of Kerry is less than favourable, for reasons I won’t go into here. You can read some of the reasoning over at Op-Eds at The Command Post. I think he’d be a disaster, but I could be wrong, at best he’d be Carter Mk II.

G.W.Bush on the other hand is a radical who’s liberated more people from Fascism and oppression than even FDR. Ironic that while the Democrats talked the talk, it took two Texas Republicans, father and son, to walk the walk.

But that’s my opinion (backed by facts, evidence, examples, etc), and is obviously *not* the opinion of at least 45% of the US’s population. I’m saddened that so many right-of-centre don’t read left-of-centre articles, and vice-versa.

Oct 31, 2004 - 10:29 pm 130. Fresh Air:

Their boy was coming home from Iraq to the little town in rural America that most people will never hear of.

Damn, Terrye! You win the O. Henry Prize for blog writing. You pack the largest amount of impact into the smallest amount of pixels.

Forget posting a photograph. We’ve got the image just fine without one.

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:26 pm 131. docweasel:

The only hope is a total Bush blowout. I went to the rally in Tampa and took quite a few pics 10/31/04 Legions Field Tampa, FL Bush Rally Photo Essay

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:55 pm 132. docweasel:

The only hope is a total Bush blowout. I went to the rally in Tampa and took quite a few pics 10/31/04 Legions Field Tampa, FL Bush Rally Photo Essay

above address is wrong

Oct 31, 2004 - 11:56 pm 133. WichitaBoy:

Roger, Thank you for carrying the torch. It helps me to stiffen my own spine.

Nov 1, 2004 - 12:04 am 134. BarCodeKing:

I’m a postal worker living in Florida.

I got a “get out the vote” call yesterday from someone in my union (American Postal Workers Union) in New York. He asked if I wanted to take part in union-organized poll action. I told him no, because I know that the APWU endorsed Kerry.

“You’re not voting on Tuesday?” he asked. I replied that I was, but not for the guy he wanted me to. “You’re voting for Bush?” he asked incredulously.

“Yes, I am,” I told him. “I’m a single-issue voter: the war on terror. I voted for Gore last time based on selfish economic considerations, but 9/11 changed things. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, I might have voted differently this time, but Kerry doesn’t get it on the war on terror. Bush does. And that’s all that matters to me.”

“But Bush could have prevented 9/11…” he started.

I cut him off. “Bulls***! Look, we both have our minds made up and I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you. Have a nice day. Goodbye.” He replied with “Have a nice day” and we ended the call.

Nov 1, 2004 - 1:23 am 135. hm:

This is amazing, every single comment I have read on this thread could have come from myself. I am not American, I don’t really consider myself to be from any one country because I have lived all over the world for all of my life.

Right now I am in Australia and since moving here 3 years ago, I have come across just ONE real-life person (ie. excluding local bloggers) who wasn’t anti-Bush (or just wasn’t interested in politics). And that includes my Australian friends and childhood friends, most of whom pride themselves on being tolerant and able to dig beneath the surface, see the real issues… These are the same people who, when we debate politics it never lasts long, because they either stop talking to me right away, or they just keep repeating “Bush lied, it’s all about the oil,” even “Bush organized 9/11 for his own publicity stunt, to scare his people.” This reminded me of a cute joke I read, and it’s so spot on:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Democrat.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault.”

Anyway, these people read maybe one newspaper if any at all, they don’t blog, they watch the evening news just every once in a while.

Everyone at my university hates Bush and I have received a lot of bad feedback in political subjects because teachers didn’t like my opinions. Not to mention the looks I get in every tutorial when I just as much question something someone else has said. Sad to realize now how many ignorant people there are in the world.

Wherever you’re from, global security is the biggest issue we face today. With Kerry as Commander in Chief, our world will be in serious danger. For the first time ever, a small group of people can attack entire states. The Establishment needs to whither and rot.

Nov 1, 2004 - 2:49 am 136. Loki the Dog:

Catching up on the commentary, and the excellent discussion continued. Catherine has a good point about people’s expectations.

While arguing with my father over business, I asked him where his hatred for business came fromÔøΩhow he had this absolute distrust. In a moment of utter honesty, he said that he must have been raised with it. That growing up with a father who was a minister and college professor, distrust of business just came naturally. Interestingly, I don’t remember this distrust or cynicism coming out in anything my grandfather said, but I suppose the idea that you were doing something better by teaching, writing books, etc. helped to instill this thought.

Then, since I myself decided to join the evil business world, I find myself at an ad agency–where, it is expected that a creative guy (not a “suit”) would naturally never support Bush.

This also ties directly to the religious discussion, because most people also assume that because I do not believe I must naturally share their anger and fear of those who do. And, while some who simply dislike the religious may be reasonable, I have found many who are not. And, this fear of religion spreads beyond Bush and the Republicans. When I told my brother in law that I wish the Democrats had nominated someone reasonable so that I could feel secure no matter who wins the race, and that I would have seriously considered a vote for Lieberman, he responsed that he doesn’t trust Lieberman because he is too religious. And, this is by no means the exception–numerous people get visibly upset and angry over the religious issue.

I’ve often struggled with my lack of religion–and how I will impart values to my daughter without the same social institutions that I believe benefited me even thought I have left them (I wrote a post on this on my own blog: http://www.houseofthedog.com/2004/10/the_religious_m.html )

Religious people tend too be decent, upstanding people. I’ve worked for some born agains, and they may not have understoood me, but they were fair and were open to discussion. I upset them far more than they ever upset me.

I’d much rather support a born-again in Bush than someone who constantly lies aboout his beliefs and uses religion as a tool to try to appeal to the masses. Given these choices, who is more trustworthy?

Anyway, off to work! Would love to stay and read blogs and comment the day before the election, but alas have to earn a living!

Nov 1, 2004 - 3:47 am 137. Charlie (Colorado):

But the Repubs won’t have me, except at voting time (too libertarian, but that’s another argument; I’ll pound on Bush AFTER the election).

Sam_S, I don’t know where you are, but at least in Colorado there’s a surprisingly large libertarian contingent in the RP. You might be surprised.

Nov 1, 2004 - 4:04 am 138. Terrye:

pan:

I grew up in a southern Baptist home as well and I am not born again. In fact I rarely go to church. But Bush is a Methodist and many Christians are not even protestants. I think you are letting your personal experiences color your views. We all do it from time to time.

I don’t think Bush screwed in Iraq and I will not vote for Kerry if Osama is hoping he will win. I have a more realistic view of the world than that and I think we need to reform the UN and treat our real allies, like the Aussies with the respect they deserve. I think Kerry will ignore the corruption in favor of sucking up to Kofi and he will abandon John Howard to kiss Chirac’s ass.

But thanks for being reasonable.

Nov 1, 2004 - 5:58 am 139. notthisgirl:

Terrye: Here is the story about Kerry’s discharge; today’s dateline. http://www.nysun.com/article/4040

Nov 1, 2004 - 6:48 am 140. notthisgirl:

Of course, if this were George Bush, the entire world of broadcast news would come to a stop - and they would focus on nothing but this story for just under 24 hours.

Nov 1, 2004 - 6:50 am 141. iceman:

i too am a first timer who has voted dem my whole life.

from left wing parents, nyc school teachers, womens strike for peace, atheists, ny jew, nyt every sunday with bagels and lox and cream cheese

my dad recently said, “if that bush gets in they will put me in a concentration camp”

he is retired and not politcally active, so that might be an exaggeration.

i will pull the lever for bush in Mass. not that i makes any difference here in Kerry country

maybe there should be a thread for first timers for bush or republicans along the line of the campari ad that was satirized in hustler to the dismay of jerry falwell

for those of you that dont remember

a precis of the case

http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/hustler.shtml

the actual disputed ad

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-conflicts/print/falwell.html

Nov 1, 2004 - 7:21 am 142. Knucklehead:

This thread has probably long since run its course but…

While I haven’t been able to read all the commentary here there is something in particular I am very curious about.

At least one commenter (pandaba? - sp?) mentioned the matter of lost freedoms (specific to the Patriot Act, IIRC, but that isn’t particularly important) under the Bush and/or Republican Administrations in particular. I’m hoping those who are seriously concerned about such things will take the time to discuss, or at least enumerate, what freedoms they have lost or feel they are in significant jeopardy of losing.

We the People, through our representative republican variant of democracy have frequently denied specific portions of our population the most basic of freedoms. Skipping the obvious cases of slavery and women’s rights, consider for a moment wartime drafts and matters like rationing. We’ve had many drafts and it is hard to imagine a more complete removal of the freedoms of a segment of the population (remember, we’re skipping slavery and women’s rights). Consider other restrictions or reductions in “freedoms” that have happened over time - zoning laws, various forms of taxation and licensing, etc.

Our history has been an odd but relentless march expanding some freedoms and restricting others. What freedoms are in jeopardy today particularly from Republican administrations in general and Bush in particular?

Nov 1, 2004 - 7:30 am 143. richard mcenroe:

iceman ó It makes a difference. Every vote for Bush helps to neutralize the popular vote/electoral college bushwah we got in 2000…

Nov 1, 2004 - 7:35 am 144. Charlie (Colorado):

Knuck, I’d be very interested in that project. The biggest thing I can think of is some loss of privacy, and the “no notice search” rules.

More generally, folks, I would love to see this thread turned into an extended article or even a book. I’m a couple of books behind at this point but there are a number of good writers on this bunch.

Nov 1, 2004 - 7:43 am 145. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

What freedoms are in jeopardy today particularly from Republican administrations in general and Bush in particular?

The freedom from having to reveal your stinky feet at airport security checkpoints. The horrror!

Richard Mac–

Beat me to it: Every vote counts this time. I want to see Judy Woodruff’s face when she says Bush has a margin of 5 million votes.

Nov 1, 2004 - 7:45 am 146. susie:

I think the phrase on the button was actually “All the Way with Adlai”. I had three of those buttons that I proudly wore. They actually changed the picture when you wiggled them — from the slogan to Adlai’s face. I remember being shocked when I saw a fellow classmate wear an Eisehower button. How could such a person exist? For my fellow Jews, liberalism is a religion, deeply held. It has replaced the religious God with a new secular god. A challenge to these beliefs is a challenge to the depths of their soul and identity. It’s a form of psychosis. That’s why they shriek.

Nov 1, 2004 - 8:08 am 147. Knucklehead:

Fresh Air:

The freedom from having to reveal your stinky feet at airport security checkpoints.

It figures you’d focus on that one!

I don’t mean to go pre-emptive on the “loss of freedoms” discussion because I am honestly interested in the topic, but almost everything I’ve heard from people about this so far falls into the categories of “increased inconvenience” and “there never was any such ‘freedom’”.

I put the sniffing of shoes and screening of baggage at airports into the first category. Ashcroft’s Rampant Ransacking of Library Records, to the best of my knowledge, falls into the second category. I’m sure this group will correct me if I’m mistaken, but I’m pretty sure library records have always been subject to subpoenas just as all quasi-personal records are.

Nov 1, 2004 - 8:16 am 148. jerry:

Iceman:

Unfortunately, there are too many people like your father. A person who hasnít noticed that the Party that seems to have a membership that would be inclined to consign Jews to the camps is the Democrats. A party that honors the Rev Al, a man who actually instigated a ìpogromî, is a party that tolerates the new-neo-Nazis. You should remind him of that.

Susie:

My fatherís side of the family all immigrated to the US from Germany between 1860 and 1895. There are no lefties in his generation [all long since deceased]. I have to admit that my Dad was a Democrat but he was a Henry Jackson/LBJ Democrat. I doubt he voted for Eisenhower because he was always a Patton man from his WWII Army days. The rest of the family was staunchly Republican. My aunt was the long time secretary for Mayor McNichol in Denver. The Cincinnati Jewish community, which is overwhelming German [at least in the old days] is one of the most reliable Republican constituencies in Ohio.

Nov 1, 2004 - 9:10 am 149. blogaddict:

susie–I have that same button!! Exact same button, the one that changes when you wiggle it, and shows a photo of Adlai! I was trying to figure out how to describe it to those who wouldn’t know what I was talking about, and I gave up, but you did a good job.

I know this thread is probably dead, but you sparked some more memories for this fifty-something ex-New Yorker. In 1956 I was in second grade, and we had a straw poll in my classroom. Every adult I’d ever known in my life was a rapid Adlai supporter, and I assumed that he’d lead in my class vote by a margin so wide as to be nearly unanimous. Unbenownst to me, I lived in a rather conservative part of New York, and the results of the poll (I still remember) were 30 to 3—for Eisenhower! It was a puzzlement quite the equal of Pauline Kael’s at the election of Reagan, and it came to me at the age of eight.

When Clinton won in 1992, I was so surprised at the election of my candidate, after so many years in the wilderness of Republican presidents, that I proudly wore my Adlai button the next day. I had such hopes for Clinton–hopes that, alas, did not come to fruition, to say the least.

And now here I am, about to vote for my first Republican. What a long strange trip it’s been.

Nov 1, 2004 - 9:10 am 150. blogaddict:

Knucklehead, I’m not sure whether either of these is anything like what you’re looking for, but they are discussions of the Patriot Act:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13430

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mccarthy200311130835.asp

Nov 1, 2004 - 9:15 am 151. jerry:

Blogaddict:

You have to remember that with few exceptions Eisenhower was a “god” to the WWII generation. My appreciation for his strengths as Supreme Commander have increased with maturity.

Nov 1, 2004 - 9:38 am 152. Charlie (Colorado):

Looks like we can add Tom Wolfe to the list.

“I would vote for Bush if for no other reason than to be at the airport waving off all the people who say they are going to London if he wins again. Someone has got to stay behind.”

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:09 am 153. Knucklehead:

Blogaddict,

The sort of things highlighted in the links you gave may, indeed, be the types of “loss of freedoms” people here in this thread have bemoaned. I can’t say and they weren’t (as far as I read) specific.

I’m no lawyer, but for the sake of discussion, this from the FrontPage link is representative from my experience

[The Patriot Act] lets the government find out what a person has been reading in a public library, what they keep on their home computer or in their office financial records. The targeted person does not have to be informed of the searches before or, in some cases, afterward. Nor does the targeted person have to be a terrorism suspect.

which gets the following response

…peerless examples of Patriot Act demagoguery, whose two most essential strategies are ìHide the Judgeî and ìIgnore Legal Precedent.î Critics denounce the provision governing the FBIís access to business records during a terror investigation (section 215). What they donít tell you is that the FBI can only obtain business and other records upon permission of a federal court. In fact, section 215 arguably protects rights more than the legal powers which preceded it. [Anyone] under investigation for a federal crime, his fellow citizens, sitting as a grand jury, could subpoena his credit card or library records on their ownówithout having to persuade a judge that those records are relevant.

These points/counter-points pretty much sum up my very limited knowledge of the Patriot Act (taken mostly from some quick reading at some of the legal blogs such as Volohk). The rest of the debate at Frontpage covers similar ground.

The NRO link is, from scanning, similar stuff. I fail to see how the Patriot Act (or other activities by this or any other Republican administration) is a major threat. But it is possible I’m mininterpretting or are unaware of other things. I’d also point out that the JD under Janet Reno brought down the wratch of Uncle Sam on a whacky religious cult for no good reason I ever detected (not defending whacky religious cults, but short of significant illegal activity it seems a bit heavy handed for Uncle to laying siege to them) and also took pretty heavy-handed action regarding a child-custody issue.

I’d like to hear from those who fear for their civil liberties what it is they fear. Another thing that I’ve heard about is the small handful people arrested and, allegedly, denied due process. I’ve read about at least two of those cases (can’t recall the names) and the arguments on both sides has some legitimacy and were working their way through the court system. Again, I fail to see how a VERY small number of cases within a nation of 280+ million people in the midst of a war provoked by multiple attacks represents egregious dangers to our civil rights. I’d be interested in hearing the arguments otherwise.

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:28 am 154. SuzeQ:

Here are my vitals: Studied Arabic in college, have a kuffiyeh from my Arabic professor stuffed away in my closet, long ago refused to say “Israel”, thought Arafat was “cool” and admirable, voted for Nader in 2000, always voted for the democrats prior to that, currently work for the federal government, and have always worked in the “public interest” sector of the law. I agreed with my mom in a discussion last night that I will probably cry if Bush loses. Yes, September 11th changed everything. Everything.

George Bush understands this. The other twat doesn’t even come close. I’ve had to bite my tongue here at work many, many times. Perhaps liquor would loosen things up a bit. A colleague here won’t apply for a promotion (15-20k raise) because she “refuses to play any part in applying the regulations of the Bush administration.” The onion-like layers of self-deception lurking there is almost too much for me to stand, but I do and I suffer quietly here at work.

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:32 am 155. SuzeQ:

Here are my vitals: Studied Arabic in college, have a kuffiyeh from my Arabic professor stuffed away in my closet, long ago refused to say “Israel”, thought Arafat was “cool” and admirable, voted for Nader in 2000, always voted for the democrats prior to that, currently work for the federal government, and have always worked in the “public interest” sector of the law. I agreed with my mom in a discussion last night that I will probably cry if Bush loses. Yes, September 11th changed everything. Everything.

George Bush understands this. The other twat doesn’t even come close. I’ve had to bite my tongue here at work many, many times. Perhaps liquor would loosen things up a bit. A colleague here won’t apply for a promotion (15-20k raise) because she “refuses to play any part in applying the regulations of the Bush administration.” The onion-like layers of self-deception lurking there is almost too much for me to stand, but I do and I suffer quietly here at work.

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:33 am 156. SuzeQ:

Here are my vitals: Studied Arabic in college, have a kuffiyeh from my Arabic professor stuffed away in my closet, long ago refused to say “Israel”, thought Arafat was “cool” and admirable, voted for Nader in 2000, always voted for the democrats prior to that, currently work for the federal government, and have always worked in the “public interest” sector of the law. I agreed with my mom in a discussion last night that I will probably cry if Bush loses. Yes, September 11th changed everything. Everything.

George Bush understands this. The other twat doesn’t even come close. I’ve had to bite my tongue here at work many, many times. Perhaps liquor would loosen things up a bit. A colleague here won’t apply for a promotion (15-20k raise) because she “refuses to play any part in applying the regulations of the Bush administration.” The onion-like layers of self-deception lurking there is almost too much for me to stand, but I do and I suffer quietly here at work.

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:33 am 157. SuzeQ:

For the love of god, I’m so sorry about that.

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:35 am 158. Terrye:

Charlie:

God Bless him. It seems Roger is not alone after all.

Nov 1, 2004 - 10:35 am 159. susie:

Jerry,

Your Cincinnati relatives are certainly the exception. In my part of the Bronx where I grew up, Jews voted overwhelmingly Democratic. (Of course, they still do. Even American Jews in Israel reportedly will go over 60% for Kerry this time.) When Lindsay was running, my mother would only vote for him on the Liberal line. In some parts of the Bronx, the Socialists got many more votes than the Republicans.

Blogaddict,

Do you think the buttons are worth anything?

Nov 1, 2004 - 11:01 am 160. Bill:

I’m another academic (at a midwestern university). Fortunately, I’m insulated in the science and engineering community professionally (which is far more diverse than the social sciences and arts area we have out Republicans up through program chair and I’d wager higher) but my SO and I are in the social circle of the more LibArts-friendly crowd who are solidly, rabidly, ideologically and fashionably antiBush.

She’s voting for Kerry, I’m voting for Bush, and from there, we’re are splitting the tickets at state and local by candidate. We’re “OK” with each others choices as we both have different drop-dead issues (I’m a marine brat small-L libertarian reluctant hawk who dropped any hope for looking seriously at Kerry when he talked about student “volunteer” service and blamed Bush for NK’s default that started before he took office, she’s more social issues driven). But I honestly don’t know if I/we want to come out in front of our “friends” given the level of moonbattery we both hear. I don’t want to come off as a more attractive version of the Matlin/Carville couple and then there are the more negative effects. I have much more sympathy for hard money untenured positions like Becky and Sanity (I’m a soft money - scientific mercenary but at the rank of Associate Prof & established here and in my community so I’m on better ground that most). I’m not worried for my job, but I more worried about passive agressive retaliation from some of the highly intelligent tenured teenagers that I find myself around. Right now, I don’t quite smell like them, but imagine when I say “you can call me ‘Flower’ if you want to.” (hat tip to Bambi)

Nov 1, 2004 - 11:05 am 161. davic:

I live in the Rancho Park area of West Los Angeles. My wife, who is very brave, decided to put Bush signs prominently on our lawn. She said

she was tired of cowering to the sanctimonious

Kerry supporters, and that if any people she knew would not like her, she just wouldnít care.

She is far braver than me. While I went trick-or-treating with my son and friends, my wife stayed home and passed out candy with our 3 year old assisting. She was shocked to find that the

majority of visitors expressed support for Bush. Many commented that they wish they had the courage to place a Bush sign on their lawn. Even

many children, young ones and teenagers, expressed approval. A couple of our friends who

came by were shell-shocked to find we are supporting Bush, but again, most expressed approval and support for Bush. We did have one egg thrown at our house and why I was cleaning it up, I heard a Dad comment to his children who just visited our house (with a voice sounding

surprisingly like Al Frankenís) ìA bush house, what did you get ñ sour lemonsîñ I chuckled and thought that was funny.

Again, this is the heart of liberal West Los

Angeles, Rancho Park. I always assumed one would find more support for Ariel Sharon in the Gaza

strip than for Bush in this neighborhood. I only

hope on election day our informal Halloween polling is accurate.

David Victor

Nov 1, 2004 - 11:16 am 162. Catherine:

David Victor

I live in the Rancho Park area of West Los Angeles. My wife, who is very brave, decided to put Bush signs prominently on our lawn. She said she was tired of cowering to the sanctimonious

Kerry supporters, and that if any people she knew would not like her, she just wouldnÔøΩt care.

OK, that’s brave.

She was shocked to find that the majority of visitors expressed support for Bush. Many commented that they wish they had the courage to place a Bush sign on their lawn.

I know Rancho Park, and this is the most surprising thing I’ve heard during this election.

Warms my heart.

I wish to heck I could read the Mark Steyn article on hidden Bush supporters Roger mentioned. I went ahead and subscribed to NR purely to read that article, and I can’t get access until they send me my hard copy and I can register online with whatever my subscriber ID turns out to be.

Damn.

Nov 1, 2004 - 11:32 am 163. ray_g:

Follow up on Loki’s comments on Democrats and religion:

I am a long time, hard core atheist, and I don’t have a knee-jerk fear/hatred of any candidate that professes a belief in some deity. I think it is a left/liberal thing. In fact, as an atheist I find the left/liberal attitude inconsistent and hypocritical, because (1) almost every Democrat candidate for any office that I have heard campaign at some point states their belief in god, so what is the big deal when a Republican does it; (2) why are the Reverends Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etc. (who I find real scary) such darlings of the left; (3) and why are they so reluctant to fight a group of people (the Islamofacists) who have publicly stated their wish to impose an Islamic theocracy on the world? I have a hard time taking seriously people who will get almost apoplectic over public nativity scenes but refuse to see the danger of the Islamofacists.

Nov 1, 2004 - 11:41 am 164. jerry:

Susie:

I have only relatives by marriage from Cincinnati. My maternal Grandmother’s side of the family first moved to Denver and backfilled to Chicago. Military service has always been looked upon favorably in my Dad’s family. His father served in the Kaiser’s Army and his first cousin was a Navy Academy graduate and retired in 1968 as a two star. My father was pre-war [thatís WWII for the younger set] regular. One of the ironies of history is that from Frederick the Great until the end of WWII Prussia and later Prussian dominated Germany was the place for Jews to be on the continent.

Nov 1, 2004 - 11:59 am 165. jerry:

WWII should have read WWI.

Nov 1, 2004 - 12:00 pm 166. Loki the Dog:

Ray_G:

Agree with your points entirely. Hope I didn’t imply I felt this was a Democratic thing. One unfortunate aspect about the current political tension is a tendency to over-generalize. I do think it is more of a left/liberal thing. And, it is often paired with a desire to impose a secular set of values (i.e., political correctness or wealth “equity”) that currently present more of a danger to our society than any perceived imposition of morals from the religious right.

Nov 1, 2004 - 12:22 pm 167. blogaddict:

Today in the mail I got something from my friendly state Democratic Party headquarters. A nice glossy postcard (very very large, and I bet the mailings cost them quite a few bucks). On the front were the words “George Bush’s Plan to Privatize Social Security will Cut Benifits,” and on the back, in huge letters, “George W. Bush Turns His Back on Seniors…Bush’s Social Security Privatization Plan Would Cut Benefits by Up to 45 Percent.”

So, this brazen lie is now considered important enough that everyone in my state needs to hear of it from the offical Democratic Party headquarters, the day before the election. Of course this is the same crap I’ve heard before (see http://factcheck.org/article283.html for the truth).

I was so angry that I called the local Democratic headquarters and teed off at the woman there, something I never do ordinarily. I was surprised at the rage I felt; I was actually shaking with anger as I talked. I told her I was in my fifties, lifelong Democrat etc. etc, how I was voting a straight Republican ticket because of shameless brazen lies like that, how betrayed I felt, how the Democratic Party would have to answer for its lies someday, and that there are many many more people like me!!

Oh, yeah, she did say she’d check out the factcheck piece–on WEDNESDAY. I guess she’s afraid to learn anything that might challenge her belief in her Party. I hung up on her (also uncharacteristic of me). I still am trying to calm down. I don’t know why this pressed my button so very much, but it did.

Nov 1, 2004 - 12:29 pm 168. blogaddict:

PS–I’m afraid that I sounded not unlike O’Donnell about the Swift Vets–shrieking “Lies, liars, lies!!. At least I wasn’t on TV at the time.

Nov 1, 2004 - 12:31 pm 169. Charlie (Colorado):

Not that this will be news to any of the regulars, but CNN has a story today on Ron Silver the 9/12 Republican.

Nov 1, 2004 - 2:28 pm 170. WichitaGirl:

Sorry to bring this issue back, but…

Flenser wrote:

_____The entire “vote for Kerry” argument always seems to come down to that, in the end. “Kerry is one of us. Bush is one of them, those stupid rednecks. They actually believe in God!”

I’m sure you lack the self-awareness to realize what a stupid prig you come across as._____

Well, after lurking for quite a while, this post by Flenser finally made me mad enough to say something.

Flenser, you clearly think the question of whom to vote for in this election is a very simple choice. Everywhere I go, I talk to people who see it your way, except that they have chosen to vote for Kerry. They have taken up extreme positions, and believe that if I don’t see things their way, then I must be missing a few brain cells. I get this from both sides, and it’s reached fever pitch now that election day is tomorrow.

Frankly, from where I sit, anyone who can cast a vote tomorrow for either candidate without feeling at least vaguely queasy is kidding himself. Kerry is (as the Economist put it this week) a badly flawed candidate, to say the least; but, even if you see eye to eye with Bush on many things — even if, with Bush, you take the terrorists very seriously, and think the invasion of Iraq was more than justified; even if you admire Bush’s resolve not only right after 9-11 but the fact that he still holds it to this day, and even if you think the whole Abu Ghraib thing was a tempest in a teapot, and even if you appreciate that there are things he has done to thwart terrorism in this country that will never reach the headlines; if you think voting for Bush is an easy and painless decision to make, I can’t help but think that you must be a fool. Bush has had to do a lot of harsh things, and make a lot of questionable decisions — and I don’t mean invading Iraq, I mean sequestering those prisoners at gtmo; he has not done his part to win Americans’ hearts and minds, and that’s probably because he has been too certain of himself and his vision. i am troubled about voting for Bush because I cannot influence him to change; if he loses, that means Kerry wins and we are in trouble; if he wins, he may reasonably feel mandated to carry on as he has been.

But the biggest worry I have about this election has nothing to do with who wins. My fear is that it will be decided in the courts; that twice running, people will contest the results of a fairly held election because they don’t like them. That doesn’t lead anywhere good.

The campaigns end tomorrow; after tomorrow, I sincerely hope we will know who the next president will be. You all seem, from what I’ve read, to understand the threat that a divided America represents.

So I ask you: are you all going to spend the next 4 years grousing and poisoning the well, a la Michael Moore, if it isn’t your candidate?

Nov 1, 2004 - 3:09 pm 171. Cybrludite:

SuzeQ,

If I were you, I’d snag that promotion from your cow-orker. Folks that dogmatic are proof that Darwin was right. Passing up 15-20 large per year because you don’t like the guy who happens to be way at the tippy-top of your org-chart? Bizarre!

Nov 1, 2004 - 3:10 pm 172. mamapajamas:

I’m seeing a thread of commonality here among both the Democrats who are for Bush for the first time, and long-time Republicans.

That common thread is that we all seem to be old-time liberals in the original political sense. Are we who we are because we’ve remained true to the ideals that the “progressive” (read: Socialist) wing of the Democrats have long since abandoned in favor of one-issue causes de jour?

Nov 1, 2004 - 3:26 pm 173. jerry:

Withitagirl:

You said: “Bush has had to do a lot of harsh things, and make a lot of questionable decisions.”

We are at war and so far Bush has not had to face the level of harshness as a Truman, FDR or Lincoln. He has never had to suspend Habeas Corpus for American citizens. He has not had to intern Americans as a cover to protect the nation’s secrets. [See Michele Malkin] and of course he has never had to make decision on the order of magnitude of Harry Truman in 1945.

War is uncertain many questionable decisions will always be made. As an example provided in another thread. General Marshall made a tradeoff between shipping efficiency and quality of armor. Many American tankers died because of it. General Bradley ordered Patton to halt an arbitrary stop line at Falise and thereby allowing 50000 Germans to escape. They came back to haunt us in the Fall. General Eisenhower decided to let Montgomery try to grab the Arnhem bridge to bring the war to a close sooner. It was a disaster.

You also said: ” and I don’t mean invading Iraq, I mean sequestering those prisoners at gtmo;”

Some of these ACLU released prisoners have gone back home to commit more terrorist acts. Willie Horton on a grand scale. GITMO detainees are unlawful combatants who have very limited rights under the Geneva convention. In past wars they were legally subject to summary execution. So by historic standards they aren’t being treated harshly at all.

You go on to say: “he has not done his part to win Americans’ hearts and minds,”

We are at war. The Commander’s job is to win the war not the love of his men. General Patton was a first class SOB. But his seeming detachment masked a desire to make sure as many men would get home safely as possible. In the end he was the most beloved combat commander since Robert E. Lee. Only Eisenhower exceeded him popularity. Bush has won the hearts and minds of half of the nation. The other half is probably out of his reach. Just as Lincoln could never win over the South, Bush can never win over the socialists.

Finally, you said: “and that’s probably because he has been too certain of himself and his vision.”

He is in good company then. The same could and was said about Lincoln.

Leadership is not a popularity contest but in the end great leaders always achieve great popularity.

Nov 1, 2004 - 3:51 pm 174. ScottP:

christym-

I too was in the entertainment industry in LA, for almost 20 years. 2 years ago I was at an awards dinner when several letters from dignitaries were read, one of which was the President. After the letter was read I clapped warmly, as we all had for each letter but the rest of the room was silent. Talk about crickets! Not a peep from anybody but me. The looks I got were indescribable but you all can imagine.

My now ex-business partner turned to the rest of our table and sheepishly said “We’re a 2 party company,” like I was a pedophile. Over the first few months of the war I lost 7 out of 10 of what I thought were best friends. We dissolved the business, I sold my house and very happy to be living in Phonix, where W has a very comfortable lead.

Nov 1, 2004 - 5:01 pm 175. Bostonian:

WichitaGirl:

So I ask you: are you all going to spend the next 4 years grousing and poisoning the well, a la Michael Moore, if it isn’t your candidate?

The problem with Michael Moore is not that he represents the political opposition. It is that he is an extremist, lying demagogue who panders to the basest anti-American sentiment and bask in the ensuing applause. If there is an equivalent figure on the Right, I don’t know who it is, and that person would not be welcome here at Roger’s, if my observations serve me correctly.

It is possible to have meaningful political opposition, but Michael Moore ain’t it.

To answer your question, if Kerry were to be elected, I personally would oppose whatever moonbattery he came up with, but I would not resort to lying to do so.

For instance, I don’t know what Kerry’s current position on Iran is, but if he is elected and he proposes giving uranium to Iran (as his web site said), I will “grouse” about that, you betcha.

Nov 1, 2004 - 5:48 pm 176. WichitaGirl:

Jerry, thanks for answering. I do understand that historically such combatants were subject to summary execution, and please try to understand that I am not mindlessly demanding that they be set free. I know they aren’t nice people.

I don’t think detaining the gitmo prisoners without charging them is right, but I don’t think releasing them at the behest of the ACLU is right either. It’s the lack of any rules that apply to them that is the problem; in fact, that’s what allowed the release to happen. We are going to see more and more combatants of this sort in the future, i.e., countryless, non-uniformed soldiers, and they are not the first countryless combatants the world has ever seen, either. Had we even proposed a set of rules that applied to them, even something very simple, we could at least claim in good faith that we were trying to codify the rules of the game.

I’ve heard the Lincoln-did-it-so-it’s-probably-okay argument, and I just don’t buy it. It’s an appeal to authority. I do admire Lincoln, but not everything he did was okay. Lip service at least ought to be paid to the rules, and if there aren’t any, we have to make them up.

Of course it’s necessary to keep these combatants when they can still go out and rejoin the war. But under what circumstances are we going to allow ourselves to keep them indefinitely? It had better be some extreme ones.

Nov 1, 2004 - 6:35 pm 177. Charlie (Colorado):

WichitaGirl, the thing is, there are rules for this situation, and we’re not following them.

The rule is: if we catch you fighting us, and you’re not wearing a uniform, we shoot you.

We don’t follow that rule. Lots of other countries do, but we don’t. It is, however, the rule as stated. It goes with the one about how using civilian installations for military purposes (like putting an anti-aircraft gun on top of a hospital) is a war crime.

(If you look into it, you’ll find that Saddam, the Serbs, and the North Vietnamese were fond of this one.)

In any case, though, you miss the other point about Guantanamo: in this context, internment is not punishment for a crime: it’s a humane way to remove combatants and irregular combatants from the battlefield instead of shooting them. As such, you keep them locked up until the war is over.

As we’ve already seen from Gitmo, if you release the irregular combatants, they tend to go back to fighting you.

Nov 1, 2004 - 8:50 pm 178. Fool To Himself & Burden To Others:

I’m an Australian who has just found this site and have read the thread right through. I am greatly impressed by the standard of debate.

In particular I am impressed by the dissenters like mbro and pandaba. I disagree with their sentiments but they are certainly not moonbats and the site would be even better if there were more from the left wing who could also engage in (mostly) polite discourse. I have seen many other blogs but it has always been 99% one-sided discourse with the occasional troll who gets a bath and is then banned.

Your election from this distance feels eerily similar to ours with the MSM pushing a leftwing agenda but completely missing the popular sentiment of the masses who understand that this time around mere politicking just doesn’t cut it. This is not a rehearsal. It is the real deal.

Nov 2, 2004 - 4:20 am 179. Damian:

Not to belittle the courage it takes to come out as a Republican in a Democratic town like LA, but if you think that’s tough, you should try being a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada for a day. Otherwise polite fellow Canucks will not even talk to me once they find out where my political loyalties lie. So I blog.

Oh, and for anyone out there who thinks voting for Kerry will somehow improve the perception of America worldwide, let this little ol’ Canajun disabuse you of that notion. America will be hated by envious and petty people around the world no matter whether it’s JFK or Dubya parked in the Oval Office. If you don’t trust me, read this and follow the links.

I disagree with GWB on gay marriage, trade protectionism (don’t get me started on BSE and softwood lumber!), budget deficits, and a whole host of other issues. And if I were American, I’d vote for him anyhow, because he’s dead right on the one issue where he can’t be wrong.

Please know that there are a few of us outside your borders who want a strong America as a positive influence in the world, and who know that GWB - warts and all - is the best choice to achieve that goal.

Nov 2, 2004 - 1:27 pm 180. ShriekingWoman:

I also attended Saturday’s party. In fact, I am the woman who shrieked. And though I am not surprised by your condescending tone — it appears to be the only one you have — I am disappointed that you have so misrepresented the evening’s people and events.

First of all, the party was better than glamorous. It was a warm gathering of friends. And though you dismissed our hosts and everyone else as “workaday,” they are in fact successful writers, producers, designers and actors.

Secondly, you offered no more information than anyone else. Indeed, the crux of your argument was that you are really smart and lost the use of your finger to a racist cop some 30-odd years ago. I will take you on your (repeated) word that you are smart (though insulting the parents of your child’s friends on the internet seems plainly stupid). But neither that nor the finger you wave like a badge changes the facts. Whatever additional information you know, it does not alter the following:

– Bush portrayed a link between Iraq and Al Quaida in order to build US support for war when no such link existed.

– He alienated the US from the world by first rushing to war without a real alliance (and, yes, before inspectors had finished looking for the WMDs Bush has himself acknowledged were not there) and then precluding those outside his “alliance” from the rebuilding effort. He has even alienated career intelligence and diplomatic personnel, who have resigned in protest.

– He completely miscalculated every aspect of the war, including Iraqi resistance, human and financial costs, the complexity/plausibility of implementing a democracy in Iraq, and the length of time required to do any of it. And neither he nor anyone in his administration has taken any responsibility for these grave mistakes.

– His administration is made up of ideologues who are widely known (and reported by respected press such as the Washington Post) to refuse to subject their policies to the rigorous examination, such as white papers, considered standard by previous presidents.

– The combination of his war and domestic policies have turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit.

– Haliburton (whether they are one of four such companies in the world or not) continues to get non-competitive bids even when top army officials oppose it.

– He still doesn’t have a viable plan to “win the peace,” implement democracy and get us out.

Because we seem to agree on social issues (on which Bush is in full agreement with the radical religious right), I will not list these grievances here. But as a result of the above listed points, it is fair (even if all of my fingers work) to conclude that Bush has put the US at greater — not lesser — risk of terror. As I stated on Saturday, Kerry never impressed me as a good alternative; simply the only one available.

Nov 3, 2004 - 10:12 am 181. Bostonian:

ShriekingWoman, if you detected condescension in what Roger wrote, you need to adjust your hearing.

I’d have to agree other posters here that it was over the top to shriek in horror in response to what more than half the voters ended up choosing. I can’t imagine shrieking so myself, but then I’m maybe a little more used to hearing reasonable, opposing points of view than you are. (Tip: That was condescension.)

Nov 5, 2004 - 1:11 pm 182. ShriekingWoman:

Bostonian, like everyone else who voted for Bush, including Roger, you are unable to address my points. And if endorsing a war built on a pack of lies isn’t worth shrieking about, I don’t know what is.

Nov 6, 2004 - 8:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: