GOP Team Leader

How anyone could feel like less of a chump for being a Kerry supporter than for being a Bush supporter is beyond me. Sounds like most of your friends need to get their heads checked.

Even better, Kerry is a multi-millionare because his wife is into ketchup. Kind of creepy.

Besides the fact that his wife's family's money (as opposed to her first husband, the ketchup guy), comes from being that sort of European colonist who came to Africa and got rich taking all the best land and natural resources from the natives, which is part of the reason why Africa is dirt poor.

This Land

Link is not working atm, but it is worth it if/when it does.

I agree. This is the most vicious election I have experienced. I have to say that liberals hate for Bush really outweighs conservative’s dislike of Clinton during his two campaigns. I am constantly reminded that what is taking place during this election is far more spiritual then most would want to admit.

You want creepy? This is creepy!

I've recently blogged on this subject.

http://www.inamays.com/comments.php?id=397_0_1_0_C

Here's my thing about Kerry, he's a politician.. not a leader. He's a senator, not a leader. Bush is a leader, not a politician. Also in my recent reflections while driving across america I've come to realize this: Democrats are people pleasers, they do what the people want because it makes them popular and gets them re-elected. (THis is a vast generalization but for the kerry/bush thing it works). Republicans (bush) are leaders, and do what they think is right regardless of who the piss off. They are true leaders (bush that is) may not be doing what the people want all the time, but he's doing what he thinks is best for this country which shows way more balls and guts than any democrat I've seen in some time.

And with every passing day I grow more and more proud that I'm voting for Bush! At least he's got some guts and doesn't pick a running mate based on how it will affect his election. I mean look at Cheney, he was by no means the popular pick for Vice Prez. Kerry just went with who would get him the more votes, some young punk from NC.

Republicans and Democrats are the same, as far as it concerns constitutionality. They both miserably fail.

But that's not why I wrote...

HEADS UP you Coptix people!
Gideon Strauss is looking to develop his site.

1) Not being supportive of Bush != being supportive of Kerry. Many Americans, myself included, aren't very excited about either possibility. Oh, who to vote against....

2) Presidents are supposed to be executives and leaders, true, but they are not supposed to be loose cannons. The whole reason we elect people is because we want their actions to reflect the interests of the country, not whatever the heck they happen to feel like doing that day. This is what makes being President so difficult. They have to lead, but they can't just act autonomously. What the people want is *vitally* important to what a president should be doing. Of course, this is where the whole Republic/Democracy debate comes in.

3) You know what I find creepy in a candidate? Ordering hundreds of people to their deaths for no good reason. You can complain about ties to the ketchup industry all you want; it doesn't give me near the pause as contemplating hundreds of dead Marines and many more dead Iraqis.

"Who to vote against..." indeed.

I've decided to do something odd: I'm going to pretend this is a normal election, not the bloodbath that it is. I'm going to watch the convention, then the debates, and see which candidate persuades me that he isn't a complete SOB. I'm going to do this thing old-school. Call me indecisive if you like; it's my vote, and I'm taking my time with it.

"hundreds of dead Marines and many more dead Iraqis"...hmmm....Are hundreds better than millions of dead Iraqis/Kurds killed systematically by their "leader"? Oh, the fact that Saddam Hussein had no visible WMD's means that we should not have taken him from power. What about Hitler? Should we have left him in power? Were the American, German, British, French, Russian, etc, etc, etc. casualities in WWII justified?

War is never pretty. Sometimes Presidents or leaders need to make tough decisions that may go against public opinion. This is one of those times. However, whereas the media during WWII praised the military for each of their successes. The media today vilifies every step the military makes. Have you heard anything in the media about the successes that have been made? About the roads that have been rebuilt or the electricity that has been restored? Yes, there is much to do, but I for one believe that we should help with the restoration of Iraqi. I agree with Holton, I think Bush has got some serious balls.

Bush certainly has the option to campaign under the auspices that he's not responsible for quite as many deaths as Saddam Hussein. It would certainly make a snappy bumper sticker.

However, my point was that killing people is a weighty issue - far more weighty than who got money from which condiment. You might in the end conclude that Bush's actions are perfectly right and justifiable, and Halliburton receiving all that money to "restore Iraq" is perfectly right and justifiable, and that's fine. That's entirely your prerogrative, and many intelligent people have done so.

MY point was that it seems a little silly to talk about how John Kerry is "creepy" and his VP is too young when there are ENORMOUS moral and civil issues with Bush and Cheney's administration that someone needs to resolve before they decide it's a good idea to re-elect them.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't give much weight to any argument for re-electing Bush that began with, "We should have Bush in office because John Kerry..." Where are the positive reasons for having this guy in office? So far, the only positive reason I can see in these comments is that we should have Bush in office because he doesn't care what the American people think about his actions.

Like I said, I'm pretty disappointed with both candidates. I could always vote Libertarian, but then nobody would be happy.

Why do so many people believe in this false characature of Bush, that he woke up one day and carellesly decided "I think I will send hundreds of people to their deaths this year, and you know what, I am going to make this decision autonomously because I dont give a crap what the American people think." It seems pretty ignorant to hold onto such a pessimistic and uninformed view of the president. Which would make about %50 of Americans, well, ignorant. This election frustrates me most because so few people are able to avoid seeing Bushs actions with a straight head because of all the political rhetoric garbage that gets thrown around by guys like Kerry. Bush went into what he did carefully and surrounded by many councilors and advisors, and guess what else. He did the right thing. Holton nailed it on the head. Bush is a leader. Kerry is a politician, and a really crooked one at that if you ask me. I might be tempted to give Kerry a little more credit if he ever said one thing in the public eye that wasnt twisted to the utmost to his political advantage. The fact that Bush is willing to piss people off by speaking his straightforward mind is incredibly comforting to me. Sure, I would like to see him shrug off some of that Texas arrogance, but his honesty and courage are nevertheless inspiring in an age of corrupt politics. I still cannot comprehend the blindness certain people have to have to be able to look at a guy like John Kerry and say, "you know what, this guy seems really sincere and I truly believe he will carry this country into a better tomorrow." The sad fact is, I think Kerry probably will win. Like Holton said, he plays the political game better than bush, and most Americans have stopped caring or stopped believing that such a thing as envalued leaders can and do exist.

Quote 1: Why do so many people believe in this false characature of Bush, that he woke up one day and carellesly decided "I think I will send hundreds of people to their deaths this year, and you know what, I am going to make this decision autonomously because I dont give a crap what the American people think."

Quote 2: Holton nailed it on the head. Bush is a leader.

Quote 3: Republicans (bush) are leaders, and do what they think is right regardless of who the piss off. They are true leaders (bush that is) may not be doing what the people want all the time, but he's doing what he thinks is best for this country which shows way more balls and guts than any democrat I've seen in some time.

I'm confused as to how I'm supposed to simultaneously admire Bush for acting on his own accord regardless of the will of the people and also deny that he acts on his own regardless of the will of the people (because, evidently, the latter would classify me as ignorant and uninformed).

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not it is more ignorant to deny the law of noncontradiction, I still don't see how the issues raised against Kerry are more substantive and weighty than the issues with Bush. I'm still waiting to see what issue with Kerry is more important than committing Americans to die for the purpose of killing Iraqis. Whether Bush was "right to do so" still doesn't establish that this is somehow less important of an issue than Kerry's alleged propensity for finding out public opinion.

Let's face it: on the Bush side, we have to sort through a number of bodies, Cheney's profits from reconstruction contracts, two destabilized Mulslim countries, a military spread so thin that they are calling soliders out of retirement, more risk of terrorist attacks than at any point in history since they started recording such data.

On the Kerry side, we've got (so far): He wants to know what the American people think before he acts, his VP is young, and his wife is rich through some connection with the ketchup industry.

Now, even if you think everything on the Bush list is 100% morally and politically right and there is absolutely nothing morally or politically ambiguous about any of it, how can you possibly maintain that those issues are somehow less important to hash through than ketchup money? If you think John Kerry has as many, equally weighty questionable issues to debate, then by all means, show the man up.

I need more time to respond, time I do not have right now, but here are some initial thoughts.

I hate the attitude that says that the American soldiers who have bravely given their lives for a just and worthy cause are just a "number of bodies" that serve as political weight against Bush. Bush didnt send these men to their deaths. They gave their lives for you. Your comments are frankly demeaning to their memory and kind of insulting to me. Although a minority of military dissenters do exist, I think you would be hard pressed to find many people in the military who dont believe in what they are sacrificing themselves for. I wish the citizens at home could believe in them as well.

Also, calilng Afghanistan and Iraq "destablized" because of Bush is a profound miscalculation of the work that is being done there. Those are two countries that are readily stabilizing themselves and helping to stabilize the world each day. You seem to forget that those countries were formally ruled by the Taliban and by Sadaam Hussein, two of the most unstable forces at large in the world at one time.

Oh yeah, do you really think we will be "more at risk" from terrorists attack with Bush than with Kerry. Just think about that one for a long while. Changing an entire adminstration that understands and has learned through experience how to protect our nation from terror and replacing them with a bunch of guys that have spent the past three years criticizing Bush rather than learning how to deal with these issues would be a pretty stupid mistake if you ask me.

And this may be a cheap shot, but back to the "number of bodies" issue, lets not forget that kerry is the abortion supporter, which would make his death toll a lot greater than Bush's in a very small amount of time.

I am sorry that I am venting so much steam here, but somebody put me in line if I need to be straightened out.

Oh and finally, I dont think you understand the definition of a contradiction. Regardless of the fact that you are using statements by two different people (so nobody is contradicting himself) the three statements are independent of each other and bear no causal relation to one another and so could hardly be called a contradiction.

I really don't think it's an issue of insufficient time; I think you have overextended your position with a confidence and a bravado that is unwarranted by your knowledge.

It is certainly your right to be insulted. I confess to being a little insulted myself when you opened the discussion by saying Josiah's friends who weren't on the Bush bandwagon needed to get their heads checked. In fact, your opening ad hominem is why I'm even in this discussion, to some degree. I do not believe voting for Bush is a no-brainer issue at all; I believe the issues he has raised call for any voter to carefully consider all the facts. It isn't a black and white issue at all, and it is certainly off-putting to be called ignorant because I do not see the issues as simplistically as you.

I served in the military, although only 2.5 years (medical discharge), and the ease with which you paint over the deaths of soldiers in the cause of changing Iraq's government leads me to believe you have not served, thus. I think that if you actually lost your father or brother in Iraq, you might at least appreciate that making sense of the issue there is difficult. Those soldiers did not give their lives for me. Iraq doesn't threaten me. They gave their lives for a man who gave us reasons that have universally proved false. He admitted it himself in his speech three days ago. I fully support our soldiers; I do not support politicians who send them to die over half-cocked schemes, but it was a very nice attempt on your part to paint me as demeaning their memories. You don't even know me. You just feel threatened because I am clearly demonstrating that all you have are assertions and ad hominem with no argument or historical evidence to back them up.

Afghanistan is now under control of warlords. As for Iraq, the Prime Minister was attacked by missile fire last Wednesday with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (not Al_Queda) threatening more. Usama Kashmoula, new governor of the Ninevah province was assassinated today, and a suicide bomber in Baghdad just killed 7 civilians and 3 National Guard members, wounding 40 civilians and 1 soldier. Those last two just happened TODAY. I hate to refute your claims with actual events, but there they are.

I am more at risk from terrorist attacks, at least according to the report released by Bush's own appointed committee. I got my statement about the highest point since they started recording from THEM, not the top of my head. This is, of course, the report they were forced to revise after initially releasing one full of incorrect data.

As for Kerry and abortion, AT LAST, a good point. And I mean that: it is a good point and not a cheap shot. However, it appears to me that, after 4 years of Bush, abortion is still legal. What's the difference between him being in office and Kerry as far as abortion goes?

Thank you for enlightening me on the definition of a contradiction. You might refer back to your original comments (specifically, Quote 2) when you said that you agreed with the position expressed in Quote 3 and lauded Bush for it, right after you called 50% of America ignorant for not realizing that Bush listens to all kinds of people before deciding what to do. I've always thought a contradiction involved asserting two, mutually exclusive things, but perhaps I'm just not Zen enough to follow you.

Maybe you just need some new friends...

You know what, I'm sick and tired of people knocking Bush for Iraq, because Clinton sent plenty of soldiers to their deaths in Kosovo, which he did without any UN approval. And you know what? There are still troops in Kosovo thanks to Clinton, and they're still dying from time to time. Iraq and Afghanistan are way more justifiable than Kosovo was, yet I've never heard a single Democrat condemn what Clinton did. So, until I see Democrats admitting that they were wrong in how they handled Kosovo, I don't give a flip about what they have to say about Iraq.

OK a few more things before bed.

First off, I was definitely blowing off a little steam at the beginning of this conversation and so I want to apologize for any way that I triviliazed the complexities of this election. It is not a "no-brainer." There are plenty of good reasons for being dissatisfied with Bush and seeking answers for things he has done. Emotively, I just feel that people need their "heads checked" are people who automatically accept that Kerry would be a better choice than Bush. I dont feel that Kerry has said or done anything to prove he would be a better candidate, and I personally feel that one needs to do some serious reexamining if he or she thinks it is the "cool" thing to be a Kerry supporter. This doesnt necessarily mean there is no intelligent reason to dislike Bush. But I guess I kind of do mean there has yet to be an intelligent reason shown to me as to why someone would support Kerry over Bush. Bush does have a proven, positive track record that should be commended, despite certain criticisms against him. Kerry has the worst voting record in Senate history and offers nothing to the public but exaggerated political rhetoric and empty promises.

I do have to sincerely and humbly apologize for any way that my arguments have been ad hominem and therefore personal. I feel too much freedom in this blogging thing to blow off steam without realizing that there are actual people reading this. I dont see you as "ignorant" for disagreeing with me. I see the nameless, faceless masses as ignorant because I frustrated with the public consensus and there is nothing I can do about it. But on the personal level, when people give their reasons for why they feel the way they do, I am much more sympathetic and eager to hear.

I do respect you for having served in the military and it automatically allows you to silence any presumptions I would make in that category so I should just shut up. I did not mean to demean you in that regard. Nevertheless, I do stand by my statement that it is offensive to me when people act as if Bush merely sent people off to be killed and that they had no say in the matter. That seems to demean in my mind why many of those people are in the military in the first place. They are giving their lives because they believe in their country and they believe in their country's cause because many believe in and stand behind our commander in chief. I am sure that there are many soldiers who have died over there who would not appreciate having their memory used against Bush in a reelection. So lets keep a balance on this issue. Bush needs to be a responsible president and not be careless with soldiers lives, but just because soldiers do die and give their lives for a cause does not make Bush a careless, irresponsible president. I believe he has been responsible. He is human, and in a position like his, human mistakes can have fatal consequences. But I dont think there is any good reason to believe he has been careless and irresponsible.

My opinion that Iraq and Afghanistan are more stable today than they would be under Sadaam and the Taliban still stands, despite your facts.

The fact that Bush actively works against abortion and Kerry actively supports it makes their accountability for its continued existence much different if you ask me.

And finally, I did not mean to talk down to you. I know it sounded that way, because I was kind of careless. But I still think you are not probably perceiving what a contradiction is. The statements you give are by no means mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe that 1) Bush cares about what the public thinks and makes his decisions wth that carefully in mind and 2) that Bush is a good leader and that 3)Leadership sometimes requires that you be decisive and go against popular opinion. You can have all three of those. Please explain in better detail what you mean there.

So in conclusion, I think you are probably right that I am not smart enough about these issues to carry out this debate with you without a lot of missteps. As I tried to suggest earlier, I am a frustrated guy venting off steam on one of the few forums that allows me to do so without making a complete jerk of myself. Josiahs blog gives me a certiain amount of independence, perhaps too much, in that regard. I hope there will be no personal animosity.

I

Todd, that took a lot of guts to write what you did. How can I not respect that? Thank you for your apologies and accept mine in turn where I was rude as well. Of course, there are no hard feelings on my end, and I hope the feeling is mutual.

You explained yourself very well. I am glad you appreciate that there are valid reasons why an intelligent person might not want to vote for Bush, or at least have reservations about it. This doesn't weakne your position at all. You don't find those reasons compelling, and that's great. My object was never to prove to YOU that YOU shouldn't vote for Bush, but merely that it is quite possible to have legitimate reservations about it.

I love it when people can say of their candidate, "I think my candidate is the best person for the job. I know they've done some things that are controversial and need to be sorted out. I think they were in the right on these matters, but I can understand why people would have a different take on them and not vote for my candidate. Personally, I do not find those reasons compelling and I will gladly tell you why I think you should not find them compelling, either, but I can see why people would."

Basically, in politics, you have a lot of zealotry, and zealotry often interferes with our jobs as Citizens of the Republic - to scrutinize, evaluate, and weigh all factors involved with a representative and, ultimately, come up with the best choice realizing that everyone will have their weak points.

In conclusion, I do want to say that I honestly don't think this is a matter of you being smart enough. I think you've clearly demonstrated that you are an intelligent person. I think it just shows that the issues are numerous and complicated - much more complicated than Bush or Kerry prospectively being chumps.

Thank you, again, for your acknowledgement of the difficulties in this matter along with your clear explanations of why you still favor Bush. That's the sort of political dialogue by which I could stand to be educated.

P.S. Kathryn, I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not thrilled about Kosovo, either. Of all the decisions in life that lack a definitive black and white, going to war is certainly a big one, in my book.

We should vote for the candidate who we believe will be the best president. I think that's our only criterion for this decision. Because of this, any considerations that play into the character or personality of a candidate can be important for voting reasons. This is because the president is most fundamentally a person, and anything that tells about who they are as a person tells about the way they will comport themselves in office. Contrast this with the often manifest implicit assumption that the president is the set of issues he endorses, or the sum of his past decisions.

Therefore, dissing Kerry because he married into ketchup wealth--if you think that reveals something about his motivations and, therefore, character--is perfectly legitimate. For the same reasons, dissing Bush simply because the war in Iraq turned out to be a disaster (assuming it was) is not relevant per se--unless you believe that is telling in regard to his character.

So which candidate--Bush or Kerry--is closer to the sort of person we want leading, and making decisions on behalf of, our country? I think this is a ridiculously easy question.

I don't agree with all of Bush's positions on the issues, but I don't have a clue what Kerry's actual positions are on anything. Every time I've read what Kerry's said, or heard or seen him speak, I come away with a forceful impression that he is disingenuous to the core. Kerry is a skilled debater--I saw a debate of his from when he was only 22. He's a fox in the verbal play of arguments. But he's also a fox in his moral fibre. How do you think Kerry would have responded in Bush's situation of deciding what to do about Iraq? Be honest with yourself. Do you think Kerry would do what he thought was right (regardless of what that might be), or what he thought was popular? The popular decision is not always the right decision. Do you think Kerry could make the unpopular decision?

To be sure, Bush does his share of posturing--but that seems to usually be in form of softpedalling his stance on controversial issues. You always are aware of what Bush's position is, even if he's trying to downplay it.

In conclusion, I think Bush has things he believes in that will motivate him to make decisions based on what he believes is right. I cannot say the same for Kerry. I believe this is a reflection of the types of people they are. So while I may not always agree with Bush, and though he has obviously made his share of mistakes, I believe Kerry desires nothing more than to be a mirror of the majority. I want our president to pilot by conviction, not by poll. I want a leader, not a follower. Come November, if I could vote 100 times, they'd be 100 votes for Bush.

If you check out Tradesports, you'll find an interesting tracking poll which you can use to follow the election. These kinds of polls are historically more accurate than normal opinion polls, because they are actually futures markets where a person places a bet on some future event (like the price of wheat or pork bellies). Only here, it's stuff like whether Martha Stewart gets more than 14 months in prison, or whether Tiger Woods wins the British Open. They've got the entire Nov. election breakdown by state, so you can see a good predictor of how these battleground states will go. New Hampshire is in a dead heat, but Ohio goes to Bush just barely. At this point, Bush is expected to by approximately 51% of the people who've bet (that's what the stock price reflects). He was at 56%, but Kerry picking Edwards took it down 5 percentage points.

You know, it's quite surprising that this has been such a vicious election so far, and yet Bush is still ahead. I don't know what else Democrats have up their sleeve to throw at Bush (which may be why you're seeing more attacks on Cheney right now). If I were a Democrat, I'd be worried. It seems like the American people aren't nearly as angry at Bush as the media sometimes is presenting it as being. I even read the other day that Farenheit 9/11 left some people believing that Bush was good on defense. It'll be an interesting race, for sure.

Incidentally, does anyone know why Alaska is skewed so far towards Republicans? Does anyone know how Alaskans feel about oil drilling in Alaska? I don't follow politics, but was surprised to see that Alaska is expected to overwhelmingly go to Bush by something like 98%. In light of Bush's proposal to drill there, it made me wonder if Alaskans actually do want to open that land for drilling. I mean, maybe that's a no brainer, though.I just never gave it any thought.

I've only talked to one Alaskan about drilling there, but she indicated that her opinion was similar to a lot of Alaskans, which is that they tend to support drilling and think that the environmentalists haven't a clue about just how big of a place Alaska is.

Now, the one factor that may or may not come in to play in the election is Kerry's support of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Most Floridians are opposed to it, a few years ago when it came down to Bush the governor of Florida's position on drilling and the Whitehouse position, which was a holdover from the Clinton era, Jeb's position won out and the Bush administration ended up tightening the rules and allowing less drilling than Clinton did. It might be possible for Republicans in Florida to play the oil card against Kerry here, if they do it right, though it will be difficult what with ANWR and all. (the environment is a big swing issue for Florida voters, and is actually one of the reasons that the infamous Katherine Harris got elected secretary of state to begin with)

Fascinating. It makes sense that they would oppose offshore drilling, which could potentially harm the tourism in that area. Alaska, on the other hand, is a different state entirely. Most of the state doesn't even have electricity, whereas Florida is a mature economy.

The net benefits from drilling for oil offshore in florida could even be negative (I mean, presumably) if it hurt the tourism trade at all (since water is so vital to the recreational uses of water in Florida). The best use of that part of the country might actually be to preserve the water and shoreline (and therefore the coast), since it's more valuable to Floridans for that purpose. But it doesn't seem like tourism, and even environmental aesthetics, are a huge pressing concern for most people. Not to say that some, or even a considerable portion, of Alaska wildlife and land shouldn't be preserved - undoubtedly it should - but maybe not as much as is currently being preserved.

Tourism can't entirely explain the strong environmentalist streak in Floridians. Where I live, an awful lot of people are opposed on environmental grounds to a proposed luxury condo project which would likely draw more wealthy winter residents into the area. Where they want to build is on one of the few barrier islands that still has large undeveloped areas, and despite the economic benefits, people would rather it stay natural.

With the offshore drilling, it tends to get couched in economic terms, since oil covered beaches isn't exactly good for the economy, but the primary reason that people are opposed is because they don't want the risk of an environmental disaster. Back when Jeb was trying to get the drilling regulations changed, the negative impact of drilling on Florida's economy had to be used because the governors of several other gulf states were supporting it because of the economic benefits in their states, and you couldn't very well say that we in Florida wanted to go take money out of those states' economies without providing a pretty darn good economic reason ourselves.

One thing I do like about Kerry is his wife. She strikes me as a very cool, very funny, very intelligent lady. She seems like the kind of person who would be a real blast to have over for dinner - not at all stuffy. She seems to really counterbalance Kerry, who reminds me of Lurch. The cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution drew Kerry as an Ent. But his wife adds a lot to his campaign, in my opinion - far more than she detracts.