Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[Dirt Man]

I find it infinately funny as a Vietnam veteran that a man who never even fought in that senseless war, but managed to start his own senseless war, does all in his power to put down the man who did. Now if you think for one moment that the real voting public is stupid enough to allow another electorial brother enhanced blunder like the one that happened in 2000 then you are in for a rude awakening. As the saying goes fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Gore won the popular vote remember. And if you want to see another civil war in this country just try that sham in Florida again in 2004. As I predicted over a year ago before we invaded Iraq Bush won't last any longer in office than his daddy did, one term. Unfortunately it takes two terms to clean up their mess, and I can't wait to see what bullshit the republicans come up with to hinder Kerry once he's in office. And before you ask I'm an Independent, and no I didn't vote for either of the Bush oil barons. But I am now paying $2.00 a gallon for their gassoline.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The real story of what happened is here:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columni...ay13,0,7114735.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

The republicans, as is their wont, set the entire thing up to embarrass Kerry. If Kerry had shown up, all the republicans would have voted against the bill and killed it. If he didn't show up, they arranged for 11 of their members to vote with the democrats so that the bill would fail by 50-49, so they could use the vote to embarrass Kerry. Who ever heard of 11 republican senators--the exact number needed for a 49% minority--switching sides and voting against their party. Get real.

It is a characteristic of the Bush administration that Karl Rove's--the President's political advisor and reputedly the second most powerful man in Washington--politicize everything, even senate votes. In my opinion, the Iraq war was 30-40% politically motivated, and the only reason for the June 30th deadline for troop removal is so that they could have held Victory Parades in September down fifth avenue.

As for a 35% voting record. What's your senator's record? In Illinois we're in the ballpark.

If you want to back Bush, just come out and say it. Don't crawl around with that republican sleaze.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

So many flames, so little water.

I'm going to try and look at things a bit differently and see if this sheds some light on things. I've said above that I'm voting for Kerry, not because I like him, but because I'm dissatisfied with Bush.

Several posters have lamented the decline of the USA over the past thirty years or so, and have blamed various presidents for this. I think this may be looking at things from up-close. The fact is that after WW II the USA became an empire, dominating large parts of the world outside its borders, inheriting in many cases the colonial empires of Europe, which had destroyed itself in two major wars. This was also how the Soviets got much of their empire.

Now, one of the features of empires is that they consume resources disproportionally because they are powerful and can extract things from their subjects (Consider the example of Rome). They are able to do this because they are better organized and better armed than any would-be challengers.

The trouble is, imperial systems are inherently unstable, and have, historically speaking, a 100% failure rate. This is because it is impossible to maintain a technological and organizational advantage forever, and eventually those areas which are being exploited for resources will achieve sufficient power to resist the empire. Resource allocation will naturally even out, resulting in a loss in the standard of living for the citizens of the empire. In these situations the empire will naturally try to regain and sustain its original advantage, typically using military force or economic pressure, but also ideology. In the long run, such measures have never succeeded.

Applying this model to the USA, I think what we are seeing is the process of an evening of resource distribution. American presidents since WW II have kept the country on a war footing full time (first to protect the country against a rival empire, the USSR, but then simply because as war leaders it is in their personal interest to do so), and have struggled mightily to maintain America's dominant position in the world. But as we have seen since Vietnam, this simply isn't possible. Vietnam was an unwinnable war, not because the American military was beatable, but because there were no criteria for victory. It in fact did not serve American national interest to be fighting that war in the first place. But it did increase the power of the presidency, and so was in the interests of the power elites in Washington DC (assuming they could get control of the presidency, that is). With the exception of the Afghan war, which was and is a direct response to aggression against the USA, no war we have fought since Korea has served the national interest; rather, each serves the interest of the American empire.

A second feature of empire is that as they decline, they become more and more authoritarian against their own people as the elites struggle to maintain their power. Note how under the Bush administration attempts have been made to circumvent the Bill of Rights, and how anyone who disagrees with the administration is labeled as un-American. This same suppression of dissent has appeared before as presidencies resist challenges to their power.

But, as I noted above, the fate of the American empire will be no different than that of Rome, Byzantium, the Islamic empire, the British empire, and all the rest. In the post WW II period, the American economy was bigger than the rest of the world combined; this is no longer the case and within a few years the European economy, the Chinese economy, and possibly others will individually surpass the size of the American one (this due in large part to the fact that they don't spend nearly as much on weapons as we do). There are already countries in the world we could not, despite our military power, conquer (again, consider China or Europe).

So, in the big picture, it doesn't really matter whether Bush or Kerry is elected; I would argue that Bush's ineptitude in economic and military matters means that he will hasten the fall and make it more painful than Kerry would, but the fact is that the USA is at the end stage of its imperial phase, and can do nothing to stop its decline relative to the rest of the world. What worries me about Bush is that he seems to believe that America is at the height of its imperial power, and he is using our military to try and force his vision of the world on a world that, to be honest, doesn't have to listen. The debacle in Iraq is proof of this; here is a nation whose military we totally destroyed, and yet we still cannot control it.

Finally, it's a common feature of empires to believe that they operate under some sort of divine providence, that there is something special about them that means they will beat the odds. The Islamic empire felt this way, and yet despite its glory it did collapse. The Romans felt this way, as did the British. The fact is that the odds of failure are, as I said above, 100%. Our empire is falling, I believe, even as we speak. What I hope and pray for is that when it falls the USA will, by losing its imperial ambitions and responsibilities, return to the values that make it what I consider the most successful social experiment in history (yes, I'm biased, and am very, very fond of my country): a society based on law and on ever-expanding concepts of freedom, justice, and tolerance.

Such, at least, is how I see things.

Bump. Your point about the failure of empires is one that I wish the authors of Project for the New American Century had considered before they decided to expand ours. I wish more voters were students of history and could see the assaults on our privacy and the efforts to suppress dissent for what they are. The only point I disagree with is that the November election will make little difference. For this and the next generation of adults, what's at stake in November are domestic issues including gay rights, abortion rights and above all, our right to due process, all of which will be be decided by the Supreme Court. At least two vacancies will be filled by the next president and only one is needed to tip the balance so that all three branches of government are dominated by a single ideology.

I don't know whether that has ever happened in our history. The efficiency of gerrymandering has been increased by the use of computer-modeled voting patterns, to the point where it's become an almost error-free way for states dominated by one party to deteremine the future makeup of the House of Representatives. A stronger majority in Congress will almost assure the confirmation of a right-leaning Supreme Court nominee.

We are one or two court seats away from eliminating the essential freedoms that our generation ought to be safeguarding for the next one. I don't have children, I'm not gay, and I don't expect to need an abortion or to need due process in the criminal courts, but that doesn't mean I don't feel an obligation to the people who will be sitting at their keyboards 10 years from now. We have it in our power to determine whether they will be free to have discussions like this one without being afraid that someone's watching.

 

[Pure]

hi karen,

i agree with much of what you say, but 'decline and fall' of empires often takes centuries. further the means of retaining power are more sophisticated, making the methods of 1984 (which worked) quite amateurish.

When you say,

//by losing its imperial ambitions and responsibilities, return to the values that make it what I consider the most successful social experiment in history //

you're sorta thinking of Britain, still itself and reasonably strong after losing its empire. i'd point out that out losses of empire have gone along with changes, decay, even elimination of the center as place of civilization.

 

[shereads]

I can't get the link to work. But if you type in the url, you can get to the site just fine and it's easy to remember the url:

johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com



Note: No www after the http://

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Politics as usual. Democrats & liberals whining like stuck pigs because they aren't in power. Republicans on the attack, since they are in power and would rather point out their oppositions weaknessess rather than rely on thier strengths. Conspiracy theories, assigning blame where god himself would have a hard time finding a single culprit and the endless rhetoric.

No one deserves your vote. If one candidate deserved people's votes he would be such an oddity that he would win by default. The last man who held the presidency who probably could say he deserved people's votes was a Democrat. Harry S. Truman. He deserved people's votes because he took his opponents literally and proposed all the legislation they said they suported. Then sat back and watched them fail to pass it.

You give your vote. It's a grace that you and you alone can bestow on a candidate and that he did nothing to deserve. He didn't earn it. You give it. Unless he is from your state, was a doctor & saved your mum's life or something fanciful like that neither of these men have done anything that entitles them to a person's vote.

Each man is asking for your vote. What Sher, and the majority of liberals fail to recognize is that your party has a history. To many people, that history is a far better indicator of what to expect from them than Candidate Kerry's campaign promises. Many people will vote Republican simply because the alternative is voting Democrat and the ideals of that party, its platform, and its history do not hold any appeal.

Conversely, many will vote democrat, simply because their experience with republican presidencies have led them to believe their interests are better served by the Democrats. Nothing in the incumbant's resume, nor any promise he makes is going to change the way these people view it.

In the middle are a collection of moderates, independants, one-issue voters, and fringe elements that find both party's to be too timid in advancing their agenda. The green party scapped votes from the Dems because their one issue, the envorment, is a primarily Democratic party issue. Perrot scapped republican votes, because his issue, a more bussinesslike approach to government, is a prodominatly Republican issue. Without a third party, these people in the middle form the "swing" vote in most states where there is contention. Obviously some states will go to the GOP or Dems because a simple majority in those states supports one side or the other.

To these people, far more than party loyalists, their vote is something they bestow upon a candidates based on nothing more than their decision of who is most likely to serve them better.

To solid Republicans, Sher's and other's impassioned speeches are nothing but liberal clap trap. To solid Democrats they will get a hearty Amen from the chior. Similarly, to solid Republicans Godblesstexas & others will get a hearty attaboy, while Democrats scream lies, foul and whatever else comes to mind.

For those in the middle, those who can be swayed, each side has its points. Purely by his record, GWB can offer me only his solid if possibly misguided attacks on America's enemies. That must be counter balanced by what I percieve to be an anti-gay, misogynistic christian right agenda. While terrorism scares me, having my rights as a woman and my sexual orientation assaulted from within is a more immediate threat to me, on a personal level.

I do believe however, that the Democrats sold themselves on the idea of anyone but Bush being sufficient to get a Democrat elected this year. While it must tickle them to believe this, I assure you that anyone but Bush isn't playing that well. The anyone you have chosen, has a significant number of flaws, and the GOP is exploting them mercilessly. For me personally, I cannot give my vote to a man who protested the war. In the conservative southeast & midwest, there are a lot of people who feel that way and it is hurting his chances of getting crossover votes, reguardless of your personal feelings about his actions.

The population at large has a host of concerns. Every person in that homogenous group who has a vote will decide where to give it, based predominatly on which candidate seems to be prepared to do the most for them or which party seems to have more of their interests at heart.

No one deserves your vote. If anything both candidates have shown they don't deserve your vote. So you will give it, as a gift. And the real decision is more which you feel more comfortable giving that gift to rather than which deserves it most. And if you find neither worthy of your largesse? Unlike many countries in Europe, where there is a wide range of viable parties, the delimma becomes one of trapped between the devil & the deep blue sea. There is no viable third party here. Casting your vote towards any of the small parties that run against the big two is bassically an unnoticed form of protest against both of the big parties. It gets notice only if your third paty choice manages to siphon enough votes to make one or the other feel they lost the election based on it. The result is usually a strengthening of their plank in that area, which effectively kills the third party in the next elections.

In truth I must give WildcardKY a great deal of credit. His title for this thread is most appropriate. Neither side is making much of an attempt to explain why their candidate deserves your vote. Both are going out of their way to explain why the other guy dosen't. But, if neither party feels secure in explaining why their candidate DOES deserve your vote, it must leave me wondering if either truly merits the gift of my vote. When you reach that point in examining the race, you face the very disheartening reality that you could find a hundred or a thousand or more people who you would rather give that gift to than either of the men you are presented with as a choice.

Perhaps the energy spent here running down Bush & Kerry would be better spent asking ourselves why our system has reached a point where neither of the candidates presented Is any more pallateable than a bowling ball.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Well put, Colly.

Your points are well taken, shereads. In the perspective I took in my post, this shift to a single ideology that may well occur if Bush gets a second term is a symptom of an empire in decay. For a historical example, let's consider Rome. The empire was decaying badly, and Constantine tried to hold it together by using Christianity. He had leading Christian theologians assemble a Christian ideology, and then he made this the official and only permissible form of Christianity in the empire. Within a generation pagans and unorthodox Christians were being officially persecuted to bring the population of the empire into line, not because of any real concern about their beliefs but rather because the empire had taken on a monolithic ideology.

And Rome still fell, as did the Byzantines. Christianity was no more effective at holding empires together than Islam would be a few centuries later, or Confucianism in China or communism in the Soviet Union. The religion or philosophy may last and may even define culture, but as a method of political control these simply don't work.

Pure, you are quite right that empires sometimes take generations to fall (the Byzantine empire took about 1000 years). As to the methods hypothesized by Orwell in 1984, I think the Stalinist model on which they were based showed quite clearly that they cannot last, since they are too energy intensive. Huxley's Brave New World model would probably have a longer lifespan, and there are features of it being used in America today.

And empires sometimes fall much more quickly. I did a little looking last night and found one example that was quite frightening: Assyria. They went from dominant world power to being wiped off the face of the earth in about a generation. So it can happen quickly, and with the existence today of WMD I think we need to be aware that we are not immune ourselves to catastrophic collapse.

I don't know if Kerry thinks this way; I'm certain that Bush doesn't. The problem is that we have become a society based on power, specifically military power. While we have been far more benign in our use of that power than many empires (anyone here want to live under Mongol domination? Assyrian?), we are still human and subject to human weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is the urge to be a bully, and since WW II those in power have benefited far too much from the use of force to achieve their ends, just as emperors and kings have done in the past. The system has become such that even moral, decent people are corrupted by it, and we as voters are often left with little choice but to do damage control.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Using your vote against someone you don't like is entirely as legitimate as using it for someone you do like.

As far back as I can remember it's been "hold your nose and vote", and that includes the Reagan years. The fact is that we're not electing a dinner date. You don't have to be in love with him or even feel affection for him. You vote for the person you feel will do a better job of representing your interests.

If you feel neither of them do that, then voting against the guy you think is worse is a perfectly good use of your vote.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Many interesting points, colly. Good posting.

On one key point:

Neither side is making much of an attempt to explain why their candidate deserves your vote. Both are going out of their way to explain why the other guy dosen't. But, if neither party feels secure in explaining why their candidate DOES deserve your vote, it must leave me wondering if either truly merits the gift of my vote.

I would not agree, here. IF the key to the process were voting and issues, I think the choice would be clear:

NOTE: I'm assuming the "Kerry" is a symbol of liberal democrats and republicans. If no others are elected, the Chief Executive will be almost helpless.

Kerry deserves your vote as a moderate republican (you and the other half dozen in the USA) because:

He likelier to appoint justices favorable to women's issues, including abortion rights. (Bush at best will smuggle in unknowns).

He's likelier to ensure a BIT more due process regarding the Patriot Acts, 1 and 2.

He has no interest in further narrowing the church /state gap, and intermingling the two.

He's less likely to use mere executive decrees as a way of governing--i.e., circumventing the EPA, for example.

POSSIBLY, he'd be less likely to get into foreign adventures, esp. involving troops. (Hard to predict).

Unfortunately, as your own posting shows, these issues, and probable acts do not matter to most. You and others want: Americanism and "Values."

Leaving you aside, most others want "strong leader" and 'decisiveness' and these have been sold as applying to Bush, as will stick unless there are MORE major fuckups. Further, most others want 'identifiable' enemies and moral high ground and a sense of God-chosenness.

IF they (the right wing) don't win, it's because: 1) too many sons and daughters have come home in body bags AND the goal of the war has become murky. 2) High gas prices and few jobs have hurt people, and the 'external enemy' routines, and the 'improvement just around the corner' routines cease to convince.

----
Notwithstanding the above disagreement, I find your historical view quite fascinating, and I note some areas of overlap to the above points (in the area of perceptions and what people think they want).

J.

 

[dirtylover]

deleted - too confrontational for my liking

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

There is nothing quite so edifying as a well-informed electorate exercising their democratic franchise.

So . . . do you want to know one of the reason’s why this election seems so WHACKED

 

[lucky-E-leven]

With all this talk about empires and their collapse, I was under the impression that while an empire could totally implode on itself, it still existed as an empire until it was overtaken by someone else. I mean, I understand that it might not be productive or as powerful as it once was, but in order for it to lose its status as an empire, doesn't it have to fall under someone else's?

I just wonder who, if anyone, is organized and powerful enough to accomplish such a thing. I admit, I'm a bit history stupid and could be totally off base, but this is a pretty solid presumption I have.

~lucky

 

[dirtylover]

There is nothing quite so edifying as a well-informed electorate exercising their democratic franchise.

So . . . do you want to know one of the reason’s why this election seems so WHACKED

Is this because your media is largely Republican? At least in the UK the government and media aren't in cahoots.

 

[dirtylover]

With all this talk about empires and their collapse, I was under the impression that while an empire could totally implode on itself, it still existed as an empire until it was overtaken by someone else. I mean, I understand that it might not be productive or as powerful as it once was, but in order for it to lose its status as an empire, doesn't it have to fall under someone else's?

I just wonder who, if anyone, is organized and powerful enough to accomplish such a thing. I admit, I'm a bit history stupid and could be totally off base, but this is a pretty solid presumption I have.

~lucky

China - they have oil reserves that they are using at a much slower pace than the US. Economically and military wise they are very powerful.

Europe - wealthier and more diverse, just too disorganised to do much useful.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Many interesting points, colly. Good posting.

On one key point:

Neither side is making much of an attempt to explain why their candidate deserves your vote. Both are going out of their way to explain why the other guy dosen't. But, if neither party feels secure in explaining why their candidate DOES deserve your vote, it must leave me wondering if either truly merits the gift of my vote.

I would not agree, here. IF the key to the process were voting and issues, I think the choice would be clear:

NOTE: I'm assuming the "Kerry" is a symbol of liberal democrats and republicans. If no others are elected, the Chief Executive will be almost helpless.

Kerry deserves your vote as a moderate republican (you and the other half dozen in the USA) because:

He likelier to appoint justices favorable to women's issues, including abortion rights. (Bush at best will smuggle in unknowns).

He's likelier to ensure a BIT more due process regarding the Patriot Acts, 1 and 2.

He has no interest in further narrowing the church /state gap, and intermingling the two.

He's less likely to use mere executive decrees as a way of governing--i.e., circumventing the EPA, for example.

POSSIBLY, he'd be less likely to get into foreign adventures, esp. involving troops. (Hard to predict).

Unfortunately, as your own posting shows, these issues, and probable acts do not matter to most. You and others want: Americanism and "Values."

Leaving you aside, most others want "strong leader" and 'decisiveness' and these have been sold as applying to Bush, as will stick unless there are MORE major fuckups. Further, most others want 'identifiable' enemies and moral high ground and a sense of God-chosenness.

IF they (the right wing) don't win, it's because: 1) too many sons and daughters have come home in body bags AND the goal of the war has become murky. 2) High gas prices and few jobs have hurt people, and the 'external enemy' routines, and the 'improvement just around the corner' routines cease to convince.

----
Notwithstanding the above disagreement, I find your historical view quite fascinating, and I note some areas of overlap to the above points (in the area of perceptions and what people think they want).

J.

Thanks Pure, I thik you are making my point for me.

I shouldn't vote for Kerry because he is anything that you didn't place in the context of as opposed to Bush.

He is less likely or more likely to do things, to represent things to support things, all in comparrison to how Bush might do it.

No one is saying John Kerry is a good man, a strong man, a principled man. With a 35% voting record you can't say he was a good senator or a good represenative of his constituency, unless you argue that only 35% of the votes taken in congress affected people from Mass. You can't call him decisive, he has waffled on several issues. No one is telling me what a good choice he is, except in the context of him or Bush.

Similarly, even strong advocates of the Republican party don't tell me anything about Bush. Not about what a good man he is, or a good leader, or a skilled diplomat. From them I get the same meliue of comparrisons to what he is compared to Kerry. He is decisive, as compared to the indescision of Clinton & Gore. He is this, or that, or the other, while Kerry is the opposite.

From both sides I get a long list of reasons Kerry is better than Bush or Bush is better than Kerry, but from neither do I get any sense of them believing their man deserves my vote on his own merit. It is all qualified by a comaprison to the flaws in his opponent.

Obviously there will be mudslinging and smear campaigns by both parties. Obvbiously they will go after each other's weaknessess. As much as I loath the man, Clinton's campaign made sure you knew he was a Rhodes Scholar, a man with a great intellect. Bush I was a man with strong ties to the inteligence community, strong foerign policy background and a decorated veteran shot down in the Pacific in WWII.

Al Gore was...the self proclaimed inventor of the internet? GWB was... a failed bussiness man? Owner of a loosing baseball team? John Kerry is...Not GWB?

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Using your vote against someone you don't like is entirely as legitimate as using it for someone you do like.

As far back as I can remember it's been "hold your nose and vote", and that includes the Reagan years. The fact is that we're not electing a dinner date. You don't have to be in love with him or even feel affection for him. You vote for the person you feel will do a better job of representing your interests.

If you feel neither of them do that, then voting against the guy you think is worse is a perfectly good use of your vote.

---dr.M.

And if you dislike both? If you find neither to be significantly less odious than the other? If you see neither as representing the majority or even a plurality of your interests? It isn't hypothetical. I'm there. A third party? or stay home in disgust? Does either significantly help me?

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

With all this talk about empires and their collapse, I was under the impression that while an empire could totally implode on itself, it still existed as an empire until it was overtaken by someone else. I mean, I understand that it might not be productive or as powerful as it once was, but in order for it to lose its status as an empire, doesn't it have to fall under someone else's?

I just wonder who, if anyone, is organized and powerful enough to accomplish such a thing. I admit, I'm a bit history stupid and could be totally off base, but this is a pretty solid presumption I have.

~lucky

An empire falls when the dependancies of that empire cease to pay tribute and allegience. An invasion is not neccessary to signal the end of an empire. The British Empire ended without an invasion of the UK.

There is no country that could invade the U.S. with any hope of success. Neither Europe nor China have the means to mount a campaign across the oceans. The U.S. Navy is simply too predominant, while the U.S. can and often has shown it's ability to project force around the globe.

That said, the U.S. is not an empire in the conventional sense. It does not have colonies that can be coerced into rebellion, nor does it suffer from the many other weaknesses of a conventional Empire. If the U.S. does constitute an empire, it is an economic one rather than a conventional empire.

An economically dependant, but theoretically free state is far more desirous than an actual dependancy. Rather than looking at the life spans of empires as a comparatory tool to the U.S., you would find more parallel to the lifespans of democrasies & republics. Sadly, the average on those seems to be in and around 200 years.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

And if you dislike both? If you find neither to be significantly less odious than the other? If you see neither as representing the majority or even a plurality of your interests? It isn't hypothetical. I'm there. A third party? or stay home in disgust? Does either significantly help me?

-Colly

A lot of people say that there's no difference between the two parties, and that it doesn't matter whether you vote or not. Whether you vote or not is up to you, but I just don't believe that there's no difference between the parties.

You may not get the candidate who does exactly what you want them to do on any one issue, but I think it's not that hard to see where the parties differ, and once that's perceived, I think it's pretty easy to align yourself with one side or the other. If someone doesn't see a difference, it's probably because they haven't looked very closely.

Shereads is right. This is a watershed election, if for no other reason than the selection of the next Supreme Court justices. If nothing else, think about what kind of Court you'd like to have and vote for that.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

With all this talk about empires and their collapse, I was under the impression that while an empire could totally implode on itself, it still existed as an empire until it was overtaken by someone else. I mean, I understand that it might not be productive or as powerful as it once was, but in order for it to lose its status as an empire, doesn't it have to fall under someone else's?

Actually, you don't often see empires trading hands. A more likely fate is that the colonies obtain their own independence, by one way or another. Rome wasn't taken over by anyone else, it just fell apart. You could say it was 'conquered' by the barbarians, but they weren't interested in or able to maintain the empire.

The British empire likewise dissolved when the colonies earned or were given their own autonomy.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A lot of people say that there's no difference between the two parties, and that it doesn't matter whether you vote or not. Whether you vote or not is up to you, but I just don't believe that there's no difference between the parties.

You may not get the candidate who does exactly what you want them to do on any one issue, but I think it's not that hard to see where the parties differ, and once that's perceived, I think it's pretty easy to align yourself with one side or the other. If someone doesn't see a difference, it's probably because they haven't looked very closely.

Shereads is right. This is a watershed election, if for no other reason than the selection of the next Supreme Court justices. If nothing else, think about what kind of Court you'd like to have and vote for that.

---dr.M.

I never fail to vote, I think of it as an obligation as well as a right. By your logic I should vote republican, but I just don't think I can. While they favor many things I do, they are also diametrically opposed to some that are important to me.

I have never said I see no difference in the parties. Nor do I subscribe to the men of power behind the scenes orchestrating everything. I am pretty up to date on where the two parties stand on issues. The issues that are important to me however don't fall solidly in either camp.

Even in the courts I don't see a huge advantage in liberal over conservative. Both would favor things I favor, but both would fight things I favor as well.

I envy you your assurance of which is best for you. I wish I felt that way about one or the other.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Hi colly,

I must say I'm mystified, I thought the idea was to show one candidate might, if elected be likely (or morely likely) to do some things that mattered to you, like, say protect reproductive rights.

No one is saying John Kerry is a good man, a strong man, a principled man. With a 35% voting record you can't say he was a good senator or a good represenative of his constituency, unless you argue that only 35% of the votes taken in congress affected people from Mass. You can't call him decisive, he has waffled on several issues. No one is telling me what a good choice he is, except in the context of him or Bush.

Similarly, even strong advocates of the Republican party don't tell me anything about Bush. Not about what a good man he is, or a good leader, or a skilled diplomat. From them I get the same meliue of comparrisons to what he is compared to Kerry. He is decisive, as compared to the indescision of Clinton & Gore. He is this, or that, or the other, while Kerry is the opposite.

From both sides I get a long list of reasons Kerry is better than Bush or Bush is better than Kerry, but from neither do I get any sense of them believing their man deserves my vote on his own merit. It is all qualified by a comaprison to the flaws in his opponent.

I don't know what this 'good man' thing is. Nor the 'own merit' approach. He's a guy who'd likely put some abortion rights judges in, including the supreme court. Period. I needn't refer to flaws of W, just that he wont do that.

I don't think an election is about taking a God-like view. Prove Kerry is a 'good man.' What would such a proof look like? Time in an African leper colony? There's no criminal record, including DUIs, but that's pretty minimal. Number of elderly persons helped across the street?

Prove he's decisive: Well he commanded a swift boat. He got recommendations for leadership. Hasn't had a chance at 'commander in chief', so that's unknown, except by inference.

Even if I could, how would that help a voter. Lots of Republicans are 'good men.' Hell, in a less powerful setting, GWB is probably 'good' in the ordinary senses, looking after family, etc.
A bit of a chucklehead, but affable enough. A bit rigid in some areas, but no more than my dad was.

So I say,

//Thanks Pure, I thik you are making my point for me.

I shouldn't vote for Kerry because he is anything that you didn't place in the context of as opposed to Bush.//

Back at ya.

My point was that no core issues mattered to you or most voters.
All rational comparisons of A and B do not move you. It's like I try to sell you a Jaguar, when you're thinking of a Corvette. I prove to you the Jag is better *in key areas YOU specify*. Then you say,
"But you haven't shown it's a GOOD car."

This would apply even if I showed *comparative mechanical breakdown rates. You could still say, "that's comparison; how do I know it's good?"

My point was that Kerry was rejected as not "American" enough, and not having proper 'values' or qualities like (perceived) 'decisiveness'. Your claim of a lack of 'goodness' is of the same ilk.

Your faithful debate opponent, and admirer.

J.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

The real story of what happened is here:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columni...ay13,0,7114735.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

The republicans, as is their wont, set the entire thing up to embarrass Kerry. If Kerry had shown up, all the republicans would have voted against the bill and killed it. If he didn't show up, they arranged for 11 of their members to vote with the democrats so that the bill would fail by 50-49, so they could use the vote to embarrass Kerry. Who ever heard of 11 republican senators--the exact number needed for a 49% minority--switching sides and voting against their party. Get real.

If you want to back Bush, just come out and say it. Don't crawl around with that republican sleaze.

---dr.M.

I had already seen that link today. It's one of the bigger crocks I've ever seen. I e-mailed Ms McCarthy about it today. If I get a response back, I'll forward it to you Dr. M.

You present that article as if it's fact. You call it the story of what "really happened". Does McCarthy offer any proof? Nope. She throws out a hypothesis and asks the opinion of a Democratic senator and an un named democratic Aide. So by asking two people on one side of an issue, you think this must represent the factual truth. If McCarthy were actually seeking the truth on what happened, she would have at least gotten a Repub on record as denying it. She presented one side of a story, and expects the minions to approve of it as gospel truth.

One thing in there that I do agree with her about. She made this statement:

If I were Kerry, I think I would have shown up for the vote as a matter of principle, since this is really his issue.

She's as obvious a democratic homer as I've ever seen, yet even she admits that Kerry should have been present for the vote. It's his issue, and it's a matter of principle.

As far as your statement of if I'm wanting to back Bush, I just need to come out and say it. I've already given my stance on him. I don't care for him at all. I was wanting Edwards, and I may well write Edwards in given that my only two choices might be Kerry or Bush. If I have to pick between Kerry and Bush, it would be Bush. Kerry is about the last person I would want to see in that office.

Is all of that clear enough for you? Why is it that when someone like me doesn't like the candidate that one party is offering, so many people assume that I must be staunchly entrenched in the other sides candidate? I get so tired of people trying to pigeonhole everyone into being a Repub or a Dem. I'm neither. I have my own thought process, and I vote for the candidate that most closely matches my beliefs.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi colly,

I must say I'm mystified, I thought the idea was to show one candidate might, if elected be likely (or morely likely) to do some things that mattered to you, like, say protect reproductive rights.

No one is saying John Kerry is a good man, a strong man, a principled man. With a 35% voting record you can't say he was a good senator or a good represenative of his constituency, unless you argue that only 35% of the votes taken in congress affected people from Mass. You can't call him decisive, he has waffled on several issues. No one is telling me what a good choice he is, except in the context of him or Bush.

Similarly, even strong advocates of the Republican party don't tell me anything about Bush. Not about what a good man he is, or a good leader, or a skilled diplomat. From them I get the same meliue of comparrisons to what he is compared to Kerry. He is decisive, as compared to the indescision of Clinton & Gore. He is this, or that, or the other, while Kerry is the opposite.

From both sides I get a long list of reasons Kerry is better than Bush or Bush is better than Kerry, but from neither do I get any sense of them believing their man deserves my vote on his own merit. It is all qualified by a comaprison to the flaws in his opponent.

I don't know what this 'good man' thing is. Nor the 'own merit' approach. He's a guy who'd likely put some abortion rights judges in, including the supreme court. Period. I needn't refer to flaws of W, just that he wont do that.

I don't think an election is about taking a God-like view. Prove Kerry is a 'good man.' What would such a proof look like? Time in an African leper colony? There's no criminal record, including DUIs, but that's pretty minimal. Number of elderly persons helped across the street?

Prove he's decisive: Well he commanded a swift boat. He got recommendations for leadership. Hasn't had a chance at 'commander in chief', so that's unknown, except by inference.

Even if I could, how would that help a voter. Lots of Republicans are 'good men.' Hell, in a less powerful setting, GWB is probably 'good' in the ordinary senses, looking after family, etc.
A bit of a chucklehead, but affable enough. A bit rigid in some areas, but no more than my dad was.

So I say,

//Thanks Pure, I thik you are making my point for me.

I shouldn't vote for Kerry because he is anything that you didn't place in the context of as opposed to Bush.//

Back at ya.

My point was that no core issues mattered to you or most voters.
All rational comparisons of A and B do not move you. It's like I try to sell you a Jaguar, when you're thinking of a Corvette. I prove to you the Jag is better *in key areas YOU specify*. Then you say,
"But you haven't shown it's a GOOD car."

This would apply even if I showed *comparative mechanical breakdown rates. You could still say, "that's comparison; how do I know it's good?"

My point was that Kerry was rejected as not "American" enough, and not having proper 'values' or qualities like (perceived) 'decisiveness'. Your claim of a lack of 'goodness' is of the same ilk.

Your faithful debate opponent, and admirer.

J.

I wasn't really looking for a debate this time J. My point really wasn't that Kerry or Bush were the better man for the job. It was that neither is being presented to the public as the best man for the job based on his accomplishments. They are both being presented not as the right man for the job, but as a better option than their opponent. Which I guess makes sense, when you only have one man to beat.

But it still begs the question of how we ended up with two people who have more to say about their opponent's failings than they do about their own accomplishments and qualifications. I suppose that's a better rehtorical question than one to be discussed.

-Colly

 

[Wildcard Ky]

He didn't "blame" them, he cited information about how the voting had been negotiated. Do you think they don't have a count in advance of who is going to vote for and against on something that's been debated for months? The country and the world are on the brink of something even more important than one vote in a losing battle. The republicans fought the unemployment extension, but you don't blame them for defeating it. You call Kerry a liar and hypocrite as if the lies of the people in office right now hadn't led to the deaths of thousands of people in the service of a pre-election agenda.

This doesn't make sense. Please consider the consequences if you help reelect the man who got us into this. Everything that Bush's opponents predicted before the election - and with no knowledge that 9/ll would happen - has happened. We are at war; not just a war based on lies but the most incompetently planned war anyone could imagine.

Your assertion that Al Gore would not have responded to 9/ll by going after bin Laden is baseless. The Clinton Adminsitration did bring some of the original World Trade Center bombers to justice and they DID notify the incoming justice department and administration that Osama bin Laden was the Number One threat to the United States. They also gave iinfomration that confirmed bin Laden had been responsible for the Cole attack, and that proved the link (so that the real culprit wouldn't go free if they went after the wrong one, like Bush did, thyey had investigated the Cole attack and it was now up to Bush to pick up the ball, the way Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush I. ALL of this information was disregarded because, in the words of Richard Clark, the slogan in the new White House was "anything but Clinton." Pure arrogance made them ignore the information they were handed on a silver platter. Additionally Clinton's administration conducted its military operation in Bosnia with as much efficiency as anyone could have, and helped bring about an end to Milosovich's reign - and was criticized by Bush when he was running for office for "nation building" and "wasting American lives in another country's civil war."

God, please read the Vanity Fair article this month called "The Path to War." If you dare to know the truth about the trail that led us to this day - if you can set aside your distrust of Kerry long enough to learn the incredible betrayal of trust that has been inflicted on this country and the world by the Bush white house - please read it. It's the longest investigative article Vanity Fair has ever published, and it took two years and four writers with sources in the Clinton and Bush White Houses, the CIA, the UN, and insiders in Tony Blair's office, to put together a step-bby-step trail that CLEARLY shows that Congress was lied to, deliberately, and with the goal of invading Iraq which Paul Wolfowitzh had been askng the Clinton adminsitration to do for over two years.

Wildcard, John Kerry who got his WMD information from the same place the rest of Congress did: the president of the United States. Foolishly, Kerry believed the Commander in Chief. He supported his decision, at a time when everyone who didn't was beiing accused right here in this forum of being unpatriotic.

The Bush commercials that list everything Kerry voted against seem to assume that we don't know there was always an alternative option that Republicans defeated.

Kerry has so much less money for his campaign that I ahve seen exactly 3 of his commercials in Miami and Bush's have been running dozens of times a day on every TV channel, so there is no way he can counter the misleading commercials with any explanation of what those votes were about. THAT's why Kerry couldn't spare a day of fundraising to return to Washington to cast a vote that he already knew was going to be lost.

Blame the party that fought to stop unemplyment compensation from being increased, not the man who fought to help. His one vote would not have made a difference this time. It's just a fact.

Your vote might.

I wish I liked Kerry better than I do. I was a Howard Dean fan, because he was the only candidate who dared to be called unpatriotic by saying "No, America is not safer with Saddam Hussein out of power." But Dean is no longer an option. And a write-in vote or other symbolic gestures is the same as a vote for Bush.

Wildcard, I'm not crazy about Kerry, but this is no time for a symbolic protest vote for the green party. Don't you see what's at stake? Generations from now, people will be paying for the way Americans voted in 2000. It could not be worse. Gore could have come into office with a lobotomy and could not have done worse than this. The tradedy is, the people who made it happen will benefit in the end. They already have.

Shereads: Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I am only able to get onto this site while at home in the evening. Filters at work won't allow LIT. So please don't think I'm ducking out on anything you ask since it takes me a while to respond. Now on to the questions you asked of me:

The republicans fought the unemployment extension, but you don't blame them for defeating it. You call Kerry a liar and hypocrite as if the lies of the people in office right now hadn't led to the deaths of thousands of people in the service of a pre-election agenda.

You're missing my point of Kerry's hypocrisy with this one. He has championed this cause, yet when the time came for him to act, he chose not to. The Repubs did what they said they were going to do, they voted against it. They didn't lie about it, or act hypocritical about it. They did what they said they would. I call any liar a liar. Bush has lied, and I've said so. Clinton was a liar, and I've said so. You still seem to be proceeding on the assumption that I have a pro Bush agenda. That's not the case. I do admittedly have an anti-Kerry agenda. Because I am against Kerry, doesn't mean that I'm pro Bush. I like to think that I am a bit more open minded and intelligent than to be forced into one of two cubby holes.

Your assertion that Al Gore would not have responded to 9/ll by going after bin Laden is baseless. The Clinton Adminsitration did bring some of the original World Trade Center bombers to justice and they DID notify the incoming justice department and administration that Osama bin Laden was the Number One threat to the United States. They also gave iinfomration that confirmed bin Laden had been responsible for the Cole attack, and that proved the link

I don't think it's baseless at all. You freely admit that Clinton/Gore knew that OBL was the single biggest threat to the U.S. They confirmed his involvement with the WTC and the Cole. (they also confirmed his involvement with the embassy bombings in Africa and with Somalia). All of this is 100% correct. Now, with all of that knowledge in hand, what did the Clinton/Gore administration do to stop him and AQ? Nothing. They did nothing. OBL free reign to keep planning attacks against us because he was safe in Afghanistan, and he knew that the US wouldn't come after him. He was right. I think my assertion about Gore is right on. He had plenty of other chances to go after OBL and did nothing, even though he had the evidence that you referenced.

Additionally Clinton's administration conducted its military operation in Bosnia with as much efficiency as anyone could have, and helped bring about an end to Milosovich's reign - and was criticized by Bush when he was running for office for "nation building" and "wasting American lives in another country's civil war."

I agree with most of that except the efficient part. However, let me ask you this. If Bosnia and Somalia was okay, why isn't Iraq and Afghanistan okay?

John Kerry who got his WMD information from the same place the rest of Congress did: the president of the United States. Foolishly, Kerry believed the Commander in Chief. He supported his decision, at a time when everyone who didn't was beiing accused right here in this forum of being unpatriotic.

You are absolutely correct. Kerry got this information from the President. The only problem with your argument on this is that Kerry went on record as saying Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam must be removed in 1998. Bush didn't come into office until Jan of 2001. Clinton was the one saying Iraq had WMD's and Saddam needed to be removed. Kerry was a staunch supporter of Clinton in this assertion. This isn't a form of Clinton bashing, so please don't take it that way. Clinton had a belief, and Kerry supported him. I have no problem with that. When it came out that the WMD's weren't there last year, Clinton defended Bush. Clinton said he thought they were there as well. Clinton admitted that he was wrong. Kerry hasn't done that. Kerry is now being hypocritical in criticizing about WMDs, when he was already on record as thinking they were there. It falls into the old "I voted for it before I voted against it" category. Kerry is a liar and a hypocrite of the type that I simply can't stomach. Had Kerry said "At one time I thought they were there too. Now that we know they aren't we need to find out how two administrations got this much bad information" I would have accepted that answer with no problems at all. It also would have gained him some measure of respect in my eyes. Instead he blames the whole thing on the current president, without acknowledging that both he and the former president were just as wrong.

It still really saddens me that Edwards is out of the race. This November election day will be a sad one for me. No matter which of the two wins, I won't be happy with it.

I do enjoy this conversation with you shereads. It is nice to have a pleasant, civil political conversation with someone that I disagree with. That sounds weird I know, but it's true. You present me with a different view point, and you make me think while keeping it civil. That is a rare thing in political conversation, and you have my compliments on it.

 

[KarenAM]

Regarding empires:

I wonder if a good analogy for the American empire is the Athenian empire of the 5th century BC. Athens was not a dictatorship, and did not absorb those it dominated, but used its superior military in the form of its navy to extort materials and money from its dependencies. This was the golden age of Athens, the age that produced the democracy, philosophy, and art that the western world today regards as its origin.

And yet if you asked an Athenian "ally" in this period what they thought of Athens, I doubt the appraisal would be favorable. Pericles and his ilk were perfectly happy bullying the Greek world to pay for their golden age, but in the end, this caught up with them and after a long, bloody, senseless war, Athens' empire was destroyed.

Of course, as the British example showed, empires don't have to be conquered or their homelands destroyed when they come to an end. Just as there are countries the USA cannot conquer, so to there is no one who could conquer even a much weaker America. Unless it tears itself apart (something I wouldn't have believed could happen until recently) the USA will remain at the least a regional power.

The real question is this: As Colly noted, democracies typically don't last long on the world stage. The American experiment is not a sure thing, for all its brilliance. The fall of our empire is inevitable, but what is up in the air is whether our democracy will survive the next few years. Tolerance and freedom and the rule by law are on the decline; we are more polarized than ever. Will the USA be a regional power that is a democracy based on law and the principles of the Constitution, or will it be a regional power that is a dictatorship or an oligarchy based on wealth, power and influence?