Monday, October 25, 2004

more feigned outrage from the left...

I want to hear from our right wing crowd about how to explain our handing out weapons to all those terrorists in need. Does this bother anyone? Is there a line that George Bush can cross where you will no longer vote for him? I heard Democrats back in the 90s saying they wouldn't vote for Gore because of his link to Monica-gate. Who else is waxing nostalgic for those days?

Is the problem for right wingers really John Kerry? If Lieberman were running as the Dem nominee (using him as a conservative Dem), would you vote for him? Independent of wanting Bush over Kerry, does anyone honestly think Bush is doing a good job in Iraq? And isn't that not so small a campaign issue? For those standing by their man, keep pushing the 'freedom and democracy' line about why we went to Iraq because the 'making a safer world' and 'protecting our interests' defenses really are out of legs.

I appreciate Steve using personal experience because it opens up opportunities for me to do the same. Voting rights. In my discussions with campaign organizers, managers, and my own involvement, I'm hearing the same things over and over. People are getting calls that they will have to pay unpaid parking tickets when they show up to vote, that they can only vote if they filed income taxes, that they need to bring a passport or their social security number, that the police will be there making sure everyone voting is appropriate, that they will deport people who are not citizens. I'm not going to fight over this--and no doubt some of these rumors are exaggerations. So all I ask to those educated readers on our blog is that you volunteer to poll watch on election day. Knock on doors and make sure if anyone is too afraid to vote, that they go out, and that they don't get stopped on the way. Palooka, you too. Get out to vote whoever you want. I'm willing to take my chances with both sides being prevented from intimidation.

On a final note of feigned outrage, I live in New York City. Dorian lives in Chicago. Steve lives in Boston. These places are some of the biggest targets of terrorist attacks. We are the one's who really should be afraid (especially after losing all those weapons in Iraq). So, why don't the people in Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and places like it, let us make the decision of who we want protecting us. Its our self-interest, right? Not some symbolic fear that a terrorist is heading to Arkadelphia (a real place--I was there once--I bought a t-shirt with the name on it). The big cities are rightly being scared of being attacked and the big cities are voting for John Kerry. Why is that? Someone should run regressions after the election comparing likely possibility of being attacked with vote for Bush/Kerry.

11 comments:

Palooka said...

I guess you know by now that those munitios were removed BEFORE the war. Another little tidbit of info is that the US Army has destroyed 40,000 tons of captured munitions. So, the Army has destroyed around 100 times the amount of munitions which may have escaped BEFORE the invasion. Is that a good thing? No. Is it one of the largest blunders of the occupation, as Kerry said? Hell no!

I'd consider voting for Lieberman, though I'd probably still vote against him. I like him personally, I think he is a man of integrity, and I would not lose any sleep if he beat Bush.

No doubt dirty tricks occur on both sides of the political spectrum. But I also have no doubt that Dems have a distinct propensity to spout false or debunked accusations, while ignoring proven dirty tricks (e.g. accusing Republicans of fraud when there is NONE).

Your bizarre implication that metropolitan areas are voting for Kerry is nonsense. But it's oddly revealing. You really do believe in appeasement, don't you? You think if you elect Kerry that Osama will really leave you alone, don't you? That he will suddenly be filled with love and compassion, and recant his murderous ways.

The key to winning the war or terror is to deny state-sponsorship to those terrorists. The terrorists will always attack us--Bush or Kerry--but states can be destroyed and detered from aiding them. Kerry does not offer a legitimate determent value, and we know he won't be destroying any terrorist-sponsoring regimes, don't we?

Palooka said...

Correction:
***Your bizarre idea on why metropolitan areas are voting for Kerry is nonsense.

Dorian Warren said...

As Paul said, I live in Chicago, a definite terrorist target. I live in fear everyday, every moment I go outside and I know that electing a President will make me safer. Well, not really. This whole notion that Bush has and will somehow make this country safer is ridiculous. (And yes, I'd say the same about Kerry too. I won't feel any safer when he's elected.) Was the Bush Team (Rummy, Cheney, Bush I, Baker, Powell, etc.) thinking about our safety when Saddam and Osama were our friends in the 70s and 80s? Besides, I'm more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. (And Kerry is much better on auto safety regulations so he has my vote). And Palooka, your bizzarre idea that "The key to winning the war on terror is to deny state-sponsorship to those terrorists" is nonsense, a relic of cold war neo-con ideology mascarading as analysis. Right, as if terrorists can't inflict damage on us or anyone else without state sponsorship?

Anonymous said...

Why is the claim that metropolitan areas are voting for Kerry bizarre? It is true is almost every instance: Boston; Chicago; New York; LA; San Francisco; San Diego; Portland; Seattle; Minneapolis; Cleveland; St. Louis; Atlanta; Miami; Houston; Dallas; Denver; Phoenix; Las Vegas; Des Moines; New Orleans; Orlando; Tampa; Little Rock -- honestly, what is missing? Rural areas and suburbs might be supporting Bush, but metropolitan areas definitely support Democratic Presidential candidates.

Anonymous said...

-- We are the one's who really should be afraid (especially after losing all those weapons in Iraq). So, why don't the people in Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and places like it, let us make the decision of who we want protecting us. --

Thank you for saying this. As someone who works in NYC (lives in N Jersey), it has made me angry for a long time that people in Wyo-ark-kansas seem to think they know better than people in cities what is going to make the lives of people in cities better/more secure.

When you make this argument, someone always says "Well, terrorism is all of America's problem, not just urbanites." True, but it sure affects those people a lot more than others. And when those people that it affects most are saying not only is not enough is being done, but the wrong things are being done to protect them, you would hope the president would be open-minded enough to consider that point of view. But he isn't- he make decisions based on his gut instinct, eschewing not only fact but the opinions of the population which is affected most, and his instinct has proven to be wrong. And that's why he has to go.

Anonymous said...

-- We are the one's who really should be afraid (especially after losing all those weapons in Iraq). So, why don't the people in Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and places like it, let us make the decision of who we want protecting us. --

Thank you for saying this. As someone who works in NYC (lives in N Jersey), it has made me angry for a long time that people in Wyo-ark-kansas seem to think they know better than people in cities what is going to make the lives of people in cities better/more secure.

When you make this argument, someone always says "Well, terrorism is all of America's problem, not just urbanites." True, but it sure affects those people a lot more than others. And when those people that it affects most are saying not only is not enough is being done, but the wrong things are being done to protect them, you would hope the president would be open-minded enough to consider that point of view. But he isn't- he make decisions based on his gut instinct, eschewing not only fact but the opinions of the population which is affected most, and his instinct has proven to be wrong. And that's why he has to go.

Thomas said...

I'm one of the right-wingers, so here goes:

Not aware of our "handing out weapons to all those terrorists in need." Is there some evidence we've done that? I've heard the now-discredited charge that we failed to secure a fraction of the explosives previously held by the regime of Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't sound like what you're referring to.

There is a line that George Bush could cross where I would no longer vote for him. There is absolutely nothing John Kerry could do, at this point, to persuade me to vote for him.

I often wax nolstagic for the late '90s. Those were good times. But events, not politics, have changed the world. There's no going back, and it concerns me more than a bit that so many Kerry supporters seem to think it'd be simply a matter of clicking our heels and wishing.

I don't have any idea what kind of job Bush is doing in Iraq. It seems to me that these questions are easily answered in the short term; we'll know what kind of job he did ten years from now. I'm certainly not someone so unsophisticated to believe that the task in Iraq is an easy one to execute. And I've become a bit jaded, since so many of the critics have been so wrong for so long--from the "quagmire" in Afghanistan to the difficulties in taking Baghdad, these critics have been wrong--without any doubt--again and again. So wrong so often that one begins to think that the critics aren't acting in good faith.

If Lieberman were running against Bush, I'd probably support Bush. But I can't say I'd be particularly excited about the contest. But Lieberman's views were decisively rejected by the Democratic party. I'm not eager to empower the wing of the Democratic party that can't stand Joe Lieberman.

I think the question of Iraq is an important issue in the campaign. Can anyone tell me what John Kerry's position on it is? Heck, even Jamie Rubin, who works as John Kerry's adviser on foreign policy, can't tell us what John Kerry's views are. Doesn't that concern you?

I'm hearing stories about voting too: Rumors that Republicans are trying to steal the election, which aren't anything more than rumors, but justify almost any tactic in response. And then there are the documented instances of registration fraud, and of the Democratic party's insistence that the ballot box need not be protected. I guess it's anti-Democratic, if not anti-democratic, to think that one should only vote once, and that only those eligible to vote should vote.

The big cities are voting for John Kerry for the same reason they voted for Al Gore and Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis: because he's a Democrat.

It seems to me that citizens from around the country were killed on 9/11, even if the majority were from the big cities.

Anonymous said...

Breaking news: Big cities aren't supporting John Kerry because they think he can protect big cities from terrorist attacks.

More: Most people living in low income inner-city neighborhoods don't give a hoot about terrorism. They don't see themselves as part of the fight. To them it's just an abstract government-created preoccupation -- re-enforced by the asininity of some of these rap artists and Michael Moores accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11. And you can't accuse me of bias; I live in inner-city Los Angeles and I grew up listening to Rap music.

To answer your question, yes, John Kerry really is the problem. Joe Lieberman was a great candidate. He was not a blame-America Democrat and didn't talk about global tests (incidentally, neither did John Kerry until Howard Dean started whipping up support among every Marxist, Anarchist, wack-job on the US terrorist watch list). When the DNC destroyed Lieberman for daring to support America's battle against Islamofascism, they destroyed any chance of winning my vote. In protest, I changed my registration from Undeclared to Republican.

Sure I've got my gripes with Bush -- his disgusting anti-gay agenda, his lack of real support for renewable energy, and his abominable border policy. But compared to a flat-out liar, traitor, class-war monger, and UN appeasing tax-raiser, the choice is still a simple one.

Solomon Wolfson
www.solomonwolfson.com

Rahul Sinha said...

A previous poster mentioned that Lieberman, unlike Kerry, was not a "blame-America"[-first] individual.

It strikes me that people who use that sort of rhetoric have the opposite problem. They really, truly believe that America is somehow "more democratic" than other liberal democracies (and any way you cut it, we are not. If majoritarian efficacy is your bag, the UK cleans our clock; if seperation of powers/federalism/local governance is you thing, Switzerland and Germany both have "better" constitutions that devolve more power more explicitly.)

They really believe that as we discriminate against people based on their choice of sexual partners, as we pass laws that allow wiretapping without warrants, detention without charges, lawyers or courts, and random inspections of racial subgroups simply based on their heritage, that we are the beacon of liberty and freedom. They honestly believe we "love freedom" more than others, and so have the moral obligation to define and enforce freedom on random societies.

They truly believe that we have a unique moral insight that the rest of the world does not, generally because their Christian God has annointed us thusly. Clearly these people have no real understanding of their own religion; it is not for them to judge others' faith, nor to set themselves above others because of a higher display of piety. If they really believe the Nazerene cult they should remember that according to their faith there does not exist a person on this planet who is not so morally flawed as to leave moral judgements of others beyond their ken. This is to be seperated from ethical judgements. We may be able to tell someone their actions are wrong, but we have no way of telling and thus no right to claim that they are morally inferior. The net impact of this is that we cannot claim that we have no reason to listen to our allies; we are so hopelessly lost without any reasonable sense of moral direction that we rely on our friends to criticise us, and correct us when we are rationalizing bad acts.

I am not saying we are uniquely morally compromised, nor uniquely undemocratic, nor the legitimate peers of Saudi Arabia and Iran. I simply feel, (as do most of those tarred with the "blame America first" label, I would suspect) that we should, perhaps examine the mote in [our] eye before pointing out the beam in [our] brothers'.

We are not the City on the Hill. We never were.

Anonymous said...

Another point on the idea that Kerry and his ilk are "blame America first" liberals:

States that have no mechanism for self-criticism are authoritarian.

We have the mechanisms and the failure to use them, the failure to evaluate succees as well as failure, the failure to question our own actions is to be derelict in our duties as citizens and leaders.

Acting as if Kerry's criticism of our government's foreign policy is "un-patriotic" (and "blame America first" is just a euphamism for calling him un-patriotic)is to show a profound disrespect for America's form of democracy and for our ideal of freedom. It is therfore no wonder that with our nations leadership in the hands of people who have no respect for democracy at home that we are failing in our efforts to bring freedom to Iraq and the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

If John Kerry's criticism of America's foreign policy was based on principles and conviction rather than a scorched-earth scheme to someday have his mug placed on the five dollar bill, it would be worth serious consideration.

I don't play the "unpatriotic" game, but I also don't play moral equivalence with Jihadists. Read MEMRI and educate yourself.

And if you're going to slam me, at least sign your name.

Solomon