Steve outlined his reasons for voting for Kerry as follows:
I'm voting for Kerry because: a) I'm furious that Bush screwed up a war that was justified and could have been a serious step for transformation of the Middle East; b) I'm still pissed off about the Bush tax cuts and; c) I'm much more confident in the sort of people that Kerry will appoint to the thousands of positions under presidential control.
I agree completely with that and would add that Bush's support for the federal marriage amendment is an outrage. Let me also add that I've always voted Democratic and never before had reason to seriously consider doing otherwise.
So why am I ambivalent about Kerry? Because the biggest issue for me is Iraq. The U.S. will make it through the next 4 years regardless of whether Bush or Kerry gets elected in November. But consequences of this election for Iraq are far more extreme. I'd love nothing more than to punish Bush for the way he's screwed things up there and, perhaps more importantly, his seeming unwillingness to acknowledge problems and attempt to put things right going forward. I'm afraid that the only way Bush will wake up to reality is if he loses the election.
But I'm not sure electing Kerry will put things right in Iraq. His varying statements have let me uncertain about exactly what he would do to try to improve things. I also think the pressure on him to pull out quickly will be enormous. First, the sooner he gets out, the easier it will be to blame Bush if things go to hell. Second, the Democratic left will give him about 6 months to a year before they start talking about "Kerry's War" or "Kerry's Occupation." If he doesn't begin pulling the troops out by then, the latter day versions of Gene McCarthy will start lining up to take him on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"You all had unreasonable expectations about Iraq. Blame yourselves, not Bush."
That's like telling a battered wife that being abused is her fault.
Bush mislead American's about the true cost of the war both in dollars (he never has come clean on how much it will cost...he just keeps asking for more money) and in lives. And more importantly he mislead American's with his rationale for going in the first place.
It's a lot easier to accept the costs and the ongoing turmoil if Iraq had indeed been a clear, present and immediate danger to the U.S.. It turns out it was not. It was George W. Bush's sole responsibilty to determine the level of the threat and to make the appropriate judgement. He miscalculated and now there are over 1,000 dead Americans and coutnless dead Iraqi's and we cede ground to violent insurgents every day. Stop blaming war supporters, it's not their fault that Bush is incompetent.
I happened to be against the war from the start and as you said in your post the war was a mistake...so I guess that make me right...gosh my Mom will be proud
Here's your quote...just to keep you honest...
"Ever hear of a sunk cost? It's stupid and emotional to want to somehow punish Bush for mistakes made--especially since you supported those mistakes. Regardless, the past is the past. Those are sunk costs."
And on a final note...
I could list lot's of ways other than banning gay marriage to protect American family's. They all have one thing in common ECONOMIC SECURITY. That means health insurance for all, stronger protection of overtime regulations, more forceful federal oversight of corporate honesty, tax breaks on college tuition, A LIVING WAGE...
You see strong emotional bonds are nice, but they don't pay for groceries or clothes or health care. You want to save marriage...go ahead... just be honest...it's not homosexuals who threaten it...it's economics...
You're right I don't know...gosh I don't want to use that vulgar word....about economics. I can't imagine how keeping WORKING AMERICANS(that means people who work full time and then some) in poverty is good for our nation or our economy. Making sure there's a nice healthy population of poor WORKING AMERICANS must be good for us as you suggest.
I guess the personal pride and satisfaction of having a job is enough to sustain them. "Gosh, honey I know were poor but it's so great to be out of the house 16 hours a day, away from you an dthe kids...in fact I think I'll get a third job...Mrs. Walton needs her share price to go up by another half cent this quarter if she is going to get that new House."
You are happy to talk about liberating oppressed people in Iraq but you won't do the same for your neighbor.
Dude, you're a hero to the children. A pillar of the self-righteous conservative establishment.
Hello,
I disagree with this point. I don't see why Kerry is likely to cut and run if elected. His rhetoric has been to attack Bush for the decision to go to war, and to promise to try to reduce troop levels after four years, if conditions make it possible. But I haven't seen anything from him pushing unconditional withdrawal; certainly not in the near term.
As for outside pressure, if he does leave Iraq early, he will be blamed for any negative outcome. The right will be dying to blame somone other than Bush, after all. We could have made a difference if only we'd seen it through. On the other hand, if he sees things through, I think most people will be more forgiving because he didn't get us into this situation in the first place. I think most people know we're stuck in an extremely difficult situation where there are no obviously good options.
As for the left, there are a few liberal sites that are calling for quick withdrawal, but they're not in the majority. I think most moderate to left sites will give Kerry a lot of room; we've had four years of Bush afer all, and there will be plenty of partisan attacks from the right to keep us focussed. Also, I think a lot of us honestly aren't sure what the right thing to do is at this point.
As for "putting things right in Iraq," I don't even know if that's possible. But if it is, I think the chances of that happening are far far better under a Kerry administration under a Bush administration.
--RT
Excellent post.
Post a Comment