QandO

Doesn't the fact that the Dems thought Kerry was most electable stand as a serious indictment of their judgment? Why should we want this bunch of incompetents in charge?

Posted by: stan at August 31, 2004 12:11 PM

In other words John Kerry is nothing more than the Democratic Default candidate. Not the best, just the least loathsome of this year’s particularly rancid bunch.

I really do think that the problem most on the left have with GWB is two fold.

First, the Left not only thinks they should be in charge of everyone’s life; they have come to believe they have the right to rule. If that cannot be done at the ballot box, they will use the unelected courts to push their agenda on the rest of us. Watch as this becomes more of an issue in future years.

Second and this is best observed in Al Gore. It is often said that the times make the man. The news media used to bemoan the fact that there were no heroes' anymore, not really true. But, there were no popular heroes' because the times did not need heroes'. Al Gore and the cabal behind him just narrowly missed out on the one chance in the last 60 years to achieve true lasting Greatness. That prize went to GWB. No matter what happens now, he will be the one in the history books next to Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt, not Al Gore, not Bill Clinton, old Al is now an also ran lucky to even have his name mentioned a hundred years from now. In my view that’s the real problem the left has with GWB, the local yokel from Texas deprived them of their birthright at just the moment providence provided an opportunity for true lasting immortality.

Posted by: Tom from the Holy Suburb of Dundalk at August 31, 2004 01:09 PM

Tom from the Holy Suburb..."First, the Left not only thinks they should be in charge of everyone’s life; they have come to believe they have the right to rule." I believe it's the Right that wants to tell women what to do w/ their body and tell gays who they should marry.

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 02:14 PM

Heh ... you won't find me arguing against that point, Dannyboy.

Frankly I've always looked at this way: the right wants to be my daddy and the left wants to be my mommy.

My daddy wants to tell me who I can sleep with and who I can marry, who I can hang out with and what I can do.

My mommy wants me to turn over my paycheck and forever be dependent on her (health care, social security, well you get the picture)and there's no end to what she'll make her business in that regard (if I let her) no matter how much it costs or who it costs.

I'd prefer they both leave me to hell alone, get out of my hair, out of my wallet and out of my life. Government should be a nightwatchman, not Santa Claus, who's sole focus is the defense of my rights.

Of course because of that I'm a libertarian.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 02:23 PM

Today I read two stories about reporters questioning partisans on both sides about their opinions on issues that came to very different conclusions. The first was a conservative asking a young protester why he was protesting. The young man started spouting totally false nonesense on what Bush stood for. The other one was Michael Moore interviewing delegates about a list of issues that he contends are "Democratic" positions that led him to ponder why these people think they are Republicans, calling them RINO's (Republican in Name Only).

Now, a young liberal demonstrator is grossly missrepresenting the President's positions while a Republican delegate is honestly admiting that he embraces a pretty moderate platform. What is the underlying message here? 1) The Republican party is much more mainstream than the press or the Democrats will admit. 2) The "Bush" that the liberals are protesting is a lie being pushed out by Soros and McCauliffe. 3) The real Bush is so much more in synch with the vast majority of Americans that the media cannot spin hard enough to convince the electorate that Kerry is the candidate who represents their real interests.

PS - I am sort of listening to CNN on the TV as I write this, and heard some really really neutral coverage of the protests and convention speeches. First, a reporter right outside the garden reports how "peacefull and calm" the protests (that she can see from there) are, and that the police outnumber the protestors by a long shot. Riiiiiiight. That's how a police officer got his head kicked in last night, huh? Next, a commentator highlighted the digs that Juliani took at Kerry last night and underscored how John Kerry kept everyone at the Dems convention from personnally attacking the President from the podium. I'm sorry, but didn't Michael Moore and Howard Dean speak at the Dem's convention? Are we supposed to buy this tripe? It's no wonder that America is waking up to the fact that the media is trying to shove a leftist, way out of the main stream agenda down our throats and we are not buying it any more.

Posted by: Dacotti at August 31, 2004 02:34 PM

"Government should be a nightwatchman, not Santa Claus, who's sole focus is the defense of my rights."

McQ, you keep on talking like that and this 30-year GOP'er may ultimately make the switch.

Posted by: Jumbo at August 31, 2004 02:36 PM

McQ, very good way to put it.
BTW, what is a libertarian? Not that I'm switching or anything but just curious. Don't really like labels so my label is Independent, lol. Somehow, someway, one will still be labeled, huh?

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 02:50 PM

Jumbo: Well I don't want everyone to lose sight that while I'm backing Bush in this election (I am a pragmatic person who knows the yahoo the Libertarian party is running hasn't a chance in hell), I'm not a Bush backer ... if that makes sense.

And besides, this is a libertarian blog (or a neo-libertarian blog, since all three of us reject the Libertarian Party plank which calls for the withdrawl and isolation of the US from the rest of the world ... sorry, that's just plain dumb).

On the whole, I think both these parties are taking us on a sled ride to hell. Its just that I think the Dems will get us there faster (they use rockets while the Reps use dogs. But if Bush doesn't change his way they'll be upgrading to a freakin' V8).

And, because of the war on terror, I think the Reps will do a better job, and that is the most important issue in this election to me.

But that doesn't at all mean I agree with much of anything else Bush and company have done the last four years. Its just that, in my opinion, we can't afford Kerry either financially or militarily. He'd be a disaster in both areas, but especially in the war on terror.

Oh that and I haven't yet forgiven the piece of crap for his VN anti-war smears.

But you knew that.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 02:58 PM

(I hate it when I post back-to-back: "Oh, I forgot!")

"Doesn't the fact that the Dems thought Kerry was most electable stand as a serious indictment of their judgment?"

Yes, Stan, but I think not merely because it looks like they may be on the losing side; we've all been there. Their judgment is suspect because they listened to MSM. Just think back: the media pack of the usual suspects was calling Dean's nomination a foregone conclusion, and a sign that Bush was in trouble even on the war. But when Dean yearrghed MSM tied itself into knots trying to overcorrect for their early coronation of Dean, calling him a nutcake, flake, etc. So we had the usual pack mentality conventional wisdom saying Kerry was the only one, and the Dems bought it. FWIW, today I think Joe Lieberman could wipe the floor with Bush.

I think there's something to be learned here, which the Denms obviously have not: you can hardly rely on MSM for an accurate assessment of anything. The Dems, assuming the inerrancy and superiority of MSM which is predisposed to spin the Dem line, may have drunk their own koolaid. GIGO, as the old tech heads said.

Posted by: Jumbo at August 31, 2004 03:08 PM

Dannyboy ... the most succinct way to characterize a libertarian is a government minimalist. Someone who believes in the absolute minimum of government necessary to protect the rights of its citizens and from acts of fraud, violence and coercion.

As stated, its a philosophy which considers the role of government as that of a nightwatchman. A protector and guard. Its about self-government.

Libertarians are not anarchists (all though in the utopian vein, I tend toward anarcho-capitalism).

If you're curious as to how you compare to libertarians, take this quiz.

If you're interested in some libertarian thought on various issues, check this place out.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 03:11 PM

McQ, thanks, now you've ruined it for me. I was running around calling myself an independent.

I agree with you, I ain't always happy where the Reps are going, but I grew up in the People's Republic of Massachusetts (yes, Teddy and John were MY senators, but not with MY help).

I've seen first hand where the Dems will take us as fast as we let them.

Posted by: looker at August 31, 2004 04:08 PM

Holy crap, I came up Libertarian. I knew I wasn't too different from you guys. BUT, lol, read this...Left-Liberals generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but support central decision-making in economics. They want the government to help the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Liberals tend to tolerate social diversity, but work for what they might describe as "economic equality."
I may have come up Libertarian but I definitely lean to the left as I agree w/ this left/liberal description. See, take welfare, I'm always oppose to getting rid of it because it helped me and my family. Of course, we did it the right way and got on welfare when we had to but once we could get out of it, we did. I know people will take advantage of such a program but getting rid of it will leave too many 'good-willing' people at a disadvantage. Maybe putting a limit (time or money) but I don't think we should get rid of it.
And McQ, you wrote "Well I don't want everyone to lose sight that while I'm backing Bush in this election (I am a pragmatic person who knows the yahoo the Libertarian party is running hasn't a chance in hell), I'm not a Bush backer ... if that makes sense." I'm in the same boat, more or less, but in the other side of the spectrum. I'm not too keen on Kerry but I've seen what Bush has done and I don't like it. Point being that the argument that I've seen alot (Kerry being the default demo candidate) doesn't hold much water while true, you're in the same boat. But you are a Vet and that I can't truly know about. So being 'pissed off' at Kerry can be understood. But, lol, I still think that calling his medals/hearts and all into question was uncalled for. Now everyone w/ a purple heart looks at it w/ a little less appreciation because of what American politics has done.

Posted by: DannyBoy at August 31, 2004 07:48 PM

"Now everyone w/ a purple heart looks at it w/ a little less appreciation because of what American politics has done."

D'Boy, I'm not sure you've thought that through: I think you'll find exactly the opposite. The general consensus from wounded vets nationwide has been that Kerry was the one who devalued their sacrifices by claiming his were equivalent; and by his actions and words Kerry was the one who caused the general public to fail to appreciate their service.

There's simply no way that the Heart wearers themselves have a lessened appreciation of what they gave. If anything, by exposing fraudulent wearers, the real holders are the more honored.

Posted by: Jumbo at August 31, 2004 08:30 PM

Left-Liberals generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but support central decision-making in economics. They want the government to help the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Liberals tend to tolerate social diversity, but work for what they might describe as "economic equality."

Heh ... Yup that's the "mommy" in you, Danny-boy. The fact is more gets lost in the pipeline than ever gets to the "disadvantaged." And its that "mommy" tendency which puts you close to the "left liberal" part of the equation. You need to fight that off.

But you are a Vet and that I can't truly know about.

That's fine. And that then doesn't give this the priority in the decision making process it does for me. That's fair. I'd just ask you to try to understand why this is so important to me.

I have no use for Kerry, but that's a personal thing and I recognize that and I admit it. But it wouldn't matter. Based on his record other than VN, I find nothing in it which would give me the warm fuzzy needed to pick him over Bush when it comes to security and the war on terror.

If you've got a compelling argument to the contrary I'd love to hear it.

Oh, and before I forget it ... looking a the spending programs Kerry has promised, he'd "mommy" us to death.

Posted by: McQ at August 31, 2004 08:41 PM

Jumbo:
Ok, I'll recant the statement that vets w/ purple hearts might not appreciate it but what I meant is that if you show me a purple heart now, the first thing to come to mind is not the actual fighting that was done for it but what the hoopla that is going on now and the bandaids w/ little purple hearts...I'm sorry, I feel as if all this devalued the purple heart. And I'm only talking as someone looking in from the outside (as a civilian).
"Yup that's the "mommy" in you, Danny-boy...You need to fight that off."
lol, I can't fight that off, I don't want to fight that off. That's what makes me...me.
And I do understand your attitude towards Kerry, obviously not from a Vet's perspective but just from the fact that I know it's a little more 'personal' to you. But my argument against Bush is that when I think of him, Rummy comes to mind, the 9/11 tragedy, this awful war, constant terrorist threats and warnings (complete w/ a color coded system)...I'm tired of being terrified, the terrorists are winning in that sense.

Posted by: DannyBoy at September 1, 2004 08:00 AM

But my argument against Bush is that when I think of him, Rummy comes to mind, the 9/11 tragedy, this awful war, constant terrorist threats and warnings (complete w/ a color coded system)...I'm tired of being terrified, the terrorists are winning in that sense.

That's precisely what comes to my mind ... but what I see in Bush is someone who is both consistent and persistent. He's going to do his best to run them down and destroy their ability to strike here. Kerry, otoh, has declared the way to do that is through "internationalizing" the problem. What that means is allowing others to determine our national security priorities.

Sorry but that scares the living hell out of me. I want someone in office who realizes his first and only priority is the protection of this country and who further recognizes that it is HIS decisions which should set and execute those priorities, not those of some international body.

That's not to say that international cooperation isn't important, but it should not displace the role of the president's decisions when it comes to national security issues. Kerry is a self-proclaimed "internationalist" and that just ain't gonna cut it in the next few years.

Posted by: McQ at September 1, 2004 08:22 AM

I wouldn't put too much stock in the results of that little quiz. The way the questions are worded will make the results tip toward the libertarian side. But there are other quizzes out there you might try.

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at September 1, 2004 08:39 AM

I was going to put something about 'internationalizing' on my last post but thought I might be going off topic but here it is...
on national security, I agree wholeheartedly. But, the situation in Iraq desperately calls for other countries to be involved. As has been pointed out, we're not fighting an army, we're fighting people. As long as we have the majority (an understatement) in Iraq (and don't give me that coalition of the willing argument), we have a big ass US of A stamp on the country. This is not going well w/ the people there as they see it as an occupation by us and only us. Putting the rest of the world in there and relieving us of having 140,000+ of our soldiers there will help us tremendously.
Like the war w/ Afghanistan, I felt it was just. But the one in Iraq was way different as it was us preemptively (did I spell it correctly?) striking someone for what they might have had. As it turned out, nothing was there and a hotbed of terrorists was definitely created. And yet Iran and NK are practically flaunting what they have and Bush is taking the diplomatic approach. So the Bush policy, in that sense, doesn't make sense, not consistent w/ itself. So I'm all for protecting my country (why wouldn't I, I lived in NY for five years as a kid and never visited the WTC, now I never will, a regret that I will never get over) but I think Iraq is an international problem, not only ours.

Posted by: DannyBoy at September 1, 2004 09:44 AM

A couple of points about Iraq.

In the big scheme of things concerning terrorism, the nation most likely to provide aid and support in the form of WMDs, in my estimation, was Iraq. It was also the only country actively taking pot shots at our aircraft everyday. Now it appears that the WMD issue was a clinker despite the fact that the entire international community had the same take on that country. So I saw Iraq as a just and necessary war, regardless of the fact that we later found no stockpiles of WMD.

The war with Iraq was and is an American action, even with the attempt to get the UN involved. The good news is there were some who agreed with the level of the threat and agreed that they too were threatened and joined up. But I do not regard the number of allies we might sign up as the sign of a good war or a bad war. Who does or doesn't sign up and in what numbers has zip to do with that as far as I'm concerned.

What I was interested in is was there a case for a threat to US security which could be made as regards Iraq. In the aftermath of 9/11 and Iraq's intransigence as well as their rhetoric, not to mention their previous use of WMD and their documented ties to terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, I agreed it was one which could NOT be left to fester and grow. Even the UN agreed with its 1441 resolution. The fact that, as usual, the UN fell way short in enforcing its own resolution doesn't make the US's move "bad" or "wrong". Or unjust.

As for preemption. Kerry has said he'd use preemption as well. And we've used preepmtion in the past (like Panama and Grenada were both preemptive strikes. Clinton was prepared to strike preemptively in Haiti and had the 82nd Airborne on planes headed there when the Haitians capitulated). Its a fallacy to believe that preemption is new and/or wrong. Again it has to do with each situation, but in the terms of Iraq, I think it was justified. Iraq had ample time before it happened to back off and open up. To live up to the conditions they'd agreed to in the first Gulf War. They chose not to.

While Afghanistan has more international members they've not been able to do much more there than the US has in Iraq. Secondly, the only reason they participated in Afghanistan is they could positively link al-Qaeda to that country. Well here's the deal Danny ... al-Qaeda isn't the be all and end all of muslim terrorism aimed at the US. And it should go without saying that, as we saw in Afghanastan, they HAVE TO HAVE state sponsorship to survive (they have to be SOMEWHERE). With Iraq's proven links to terror organizations (and subsequent proven links to al-Queda) it was quite logical to go after Iraq.

So while you see Iraq as ill-advised, I see it as the next logical step because of the reason's I've outline. While you see Bush going for a bridge too far, I see France and Germany as being short-sighted with the little drama we see today with the kidnapped French journalists proving the point.

And you're right, Iraq was an international problem. But the international community bailed on its responsibility just as it is in Dafur.

Tell me, should the US do nothing in Dafur to relieve the suffering and death there if the UN refuses to act?

Of course not. Same principle with Iraq.

I see what Bush did in Iraq, based on the available information as doing what was the right thing as concerns the security of the US and to his credit, whether you agree with Iraq or not, he was not held hostage by those who disagree and he kept as his priority the saftey of the citizens of the US and NOT the opinion of the rest of the world.

That's the sort of leadership I want.

Posted by: McQ at September 1, 2004 10:24 AM

While Afghanistan has more international members they've not been able to do much more there than the US has in Iraq.
That's my point, though. The USA stamp isn't on that country (everywhere people and/or terrorists look around Iraq, they see us). So the arguments that terrorists make as the USA as an occupying entity doesn't hold. They can't rally or recruit others on the premise of "THEY are occupying our land." Besides that, any other reason they use is invalid. People believing their country is 'occupied by the big satan' obviously holds a lot of water in those cultures. As you see, the recent French kidnappings for headscarves, that is like the worst reason to do anything. Not to excuse the other kidnappings, don't get it twisted. But I can see how people can get caught up on the basis of others occupying their land.
"al-Qaeda isn't the be all and end all of muslim terrorism aimed at the US"
No but we should've went after Osama and al Qaeda w/ unrelenting force and conviction and finished them off for good. Now they are the 'model' for other terrorist groups. We, no...Bush turned his attention to Saddam. And while Saddam is a threat in his own right, he had nothing to do w/ 9/11 or al Qaeda or Osama. So we lit up Iraq and caught Saddam. Hooray. But al Qaeda and Osama are still running loose. The ones who brought us that devastating day.
Now, at the convention, "September 11, 2001" was prominently displayed on the back of the stage. Guiliani (who I like) couldn't say "9/11" enough in his speech. I mean, in all, as Iraq had NOTHING to do w/ 9/11, it doesn't feel like we did anything in retaliation. Yes, we went to Afghanistan, but the job was never finished. Now we have our hands full w/ Iraq, who again, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. And I'm not saying that we're better off w/ Saddam in power (that's a question that gets thrown at me when I make the case against attacking Iraq) but the timing was way off. We had perpetrators to apprehend/destroy but we let them slip our grasp and the attention was turned to Iraq, leading us to today's quagmire.
And that doesn't mean that I suggest pulling our troops and getting out of dodge (another assumption when making the case against Iraq). We're knee-deep in this and this administration doesn't know how to get out of it.
How is Kerry going to handle it, you ask?
I don't know, honestly. But Bush, in my eyes, failed. If so does Kerry, in four years he'll be gone too. And I thought about changing Commander In Chief in the middle of a war and if that was a good idea. And if we don't have any others besides Bush who are fit for command in this country, jeebus, we're in deep s**t.
If I'm not mistaken, WE told the inspectors in Iraq to get out because of the upcoming bombing campaign. They were there. Saying they hadn't found any WMDs but to give them more time. Now, still no WMDs and countless loss of life.
Honestly, I think...I know Bush is doing this for the good of the US but it's just not working. If the US was a company, he'd be fired, that's the way I'm looking at it.

Posted by: DannyBoy at September 1, 2004 12:11 PM