Still, if the election were held today, like Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller, I would vote for George W. Bush without a second’s hesitation. . . . And here’s why I think they’re [Democrats are] dangerous—they’re acting like we’re still in Vietnam when we’re in a real war of civilizations.

This is identity politics at its worst -- it's the psychotic endorsing a psychotic, just because he's psychotic.

It's not a left v. right thing, it's not a conservative v. liberal thing. It's an eagle v. ostrich thing. I don't care what consonant identifies my president, as long as he or she apprehends the nature of the peril.

James Lileks: It's an eagle v. ostrich thing.

Yep.

Kimmitt: it's the psychotic endorsing a psychotic, just because he's psychotic.

That, my friend, is partisan politics at its worst.

I'd hate Bush just as much if he ran as head of the Reform Party, and if he ran as a Dem, I'd switch Parties. It's not about partisanship; it's about policy.

Sorry Kimmit; Bush has the best national security policy, by far, of any candidate for pres. It is more arguable if his other mistakes, er, policy are better; and it's arguable how important security is. Lots think it's most important (I do).

The positive side, Michael, might well be that self-proclaimed Dems for Bush can try to help Bush have better domestic policies; for instance policies which help more black kids learn to read before they're out of High School, etc.

Less corp. pigfare might be better, too. They might even start with helping Arnie out in CA with better policies.

Michael,

I'm sure conservatives feel like the cat that ate the canary.

I for one take no pleasure form the Democrats self-immolation. A healthy democracy requires at least two strong parties.

Of course I'm a Hayek, Friedman, Teddy Roosevelt, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith type liberal rather than a conservative.

A "Hayek/Friedman/TR/JS Mill/Adam Smith type liberal"? These days, that is a conservative. In the sense of conserving principles of classical liberalism from the bankruptcy and sheer lunancy of the left.

I agree with you about the two party system. I keep waiting for the Democratic party to show up.

Though I can't provide a URL, I believe that
former NYC Mayor Ed Koch is backing Bush also.

---Tom Nally, New Orleans

"A healthy democracy requires at least two strong parties."

Extra points if one of them isn't named after a color of the spectrum. Christ, that'd be the last thing we'd need right now.

You guys are going to get your wish -- next year, we are fixing for a few Republican pickups in the House; large ones in the Senate in 2004, and basically complete Republican rule in Congress until the next census.

When you're done gloating, please give me some solid evidence that Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, John Kerry and John Edwards are "ostriches" in the war on terror. Is there any form of dissent to Bush's foreign policy that you will tolerate?

You seem to ascribe to the Democrats as a whole that same views as supporters of Dennis Kucinich. Get something straight: Dennis Kucinich is not going to be the Democratic nominee, and not just because he can't win the general election. People who share his views are a very small minority of Democrats. 50% of Democrats in Congress voted for the war resolution, and if Bush had come in with a UN resolution or a Nato resolution and asked for war authority, he would have gotten at least 95% of the Dems to vote for use of force.

I think we're overreacting a bit here; Miller has always been a fairly conservative Democrat, so his endorsement isn't a real surprise. What I'm looking for are moderate to liberal Democrats remaining neutral. It's too much to expect of them to endorse Bush, but if, say, Biden or Lieberman (let's be honest here) were to not officially endorse the Dem nominee (or even do it half-assed), I think that'd be a pretty big deal.

Of course, Senatorial endorsements really don't count for much in the first place. It's the House and Governors endorsements which really matter, which makes the upcoming Gubernatorial elections all the more interesting.

"I'm sure conservatives feel like the cat that ate the canary."

As a conservative, it gives me no pleasure to see anyone endorse GeorgeW., simply because there is no alternative.

"That, my friend, is partisan politics at its worst." - Amen, Michael. It's this type of stupid politics that prevents real discussions of real issues. There should be honest disussions about national security and the role of State sponsors of terror and the U.N.'s role vs. our role. We need real discussions about Medicare and S.Sec, but politics and an upcoming election year prevent real conversation, ideas and action from occurring.

Too often we vote for the lesser of two evils rather than a good solid candidate. I'm sick and tired of it.

Kimmitt:

Calling Zell Miller "psychotic" is patent nonsense. I haven't lived in Georgia for a long time (my mother lives there) But Miller is a popular, relatively moderate former governor who is respected on both sides of the aisle. He successfully fought off arch-conservatives for the Georgia governorship more than once. If he's psychotic, so are Richard Lugar, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton.

Markus:

I'd agree that most Dems don't hold views similar to Kucinich's (if they did, they'd poll less than the Green Party). But Dean, one of the leading Dems in a cast of thousands, has called George Bush "the enemy." A number of the Dem candidates are tripping all over themselves not only to say Bush is wrong about Iraq (fair enough), but that he's the head conspirator in some sort of nefarious plot (how many times does the "BushCo" meme come up?) Is this really the level of rhetoric that mainstream candidates should adhere to? Frankly, I see weakness on security issues as the kiss of deqath for the Democrats, one which is only heightened by their internecine warfare.

I'd like to see a stronger Democratic candidate emerge who could challenge Bush on the many substantive issues where he ought to be challenged. But it may take an election debacle, similar to the Goldwater debacle of 1964, before the Democrats can clean house and reorganize their party.

Michael, I hope this isn't considered untoward, but I'd like to repost here a comment I made on Roger Simon's site, because as you'll see it's addressed to you as well:

[begin quote]

Roger, I feel sorry for you. Really, I do.

When I see folks like you, or Michael Totten, or Gabriel Gonzalez here, I think of how depressing it must have to be to divorce yourself from the party you've loved and belonged to for decades. And, even worse, I can only imagine the barbs and cream-pies-in-the-face you're catching from other leftists - I can only imagine the ad hominem "you're not a real liberal, you're a traitorous turncoat!" crap that's being slung at articulate and angry folks like you three.

I used to get that all the time when I was a Democrat (because I was too 'conservative' on issues like gun control), and prior to 9/11 I sometimes got the same in reverse from Republicans - "you're a RINO!" - for my stance on gay rights and abortion, etc (less so, for what it's worth).

It's no fun having to strike out as a nominal 'heretic' from your party because THEY and not YOU have moved away from the liberal and humanitarian values which you both used to cherish.

Finally, I just wanted to quote the fellow Foo above:

"i'm a conservative. because of my hawkishness, i'm considered a right wing wacko, but i'm the right wing wacko who is pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti-copyright, anti "one nation, under god" and a whole host of other positions that make the more fundamentalist in the conservative wings scared.

I wish the dem party would be sane because it would make my conservative candidates better. They'd be forced to adapt. They'd be forced to have their policies improve.They'd be forced to fire people at the CIA. They'd be forced to shut down corporate welfare. They'd be forced into a real debate."

I cannot improve upon that at all, really.

[/end quoted post]

The comments of TBogg here and (to a much lesser extent - I really do appreciate his willingness to engage on substance) Kimmitt really hammer home the first part of what I said, about the agony of being labelled a turncoat by your former colleagues.

I just want you to know I (and many others) have a lot of respect for the self-examination you've been engaging in. It can be a lonely undertaking at times. I don't want you to become some Republican-bot (no danger of that happening!), and I welcome the fact that folks like you and folks like me will disagree on any number of important domestic issues - that ongoing debate is crucial to American progress.

But as another commentator on Roger's site said, "We can argue about whether the top tax rate should be 35 or 40 percent, whether gays should marry or not marry, but this is like arguing about interior decoration and kitchen privileges while the barbarians are outside trying to burn down the house."

I dunno. Is it reasonable to write of the Dems and endorse Bush before there's even a nominee?

I'm waiting to see who gets the nod before I commit myself.

As an American-Israeli living in Israel, it's already pretty damn clear on which side my bread is buttered as far as ensuring my physical safety.

I foresee a huge inner battle. I'm still, as Roger puts it, a "virgin" -- never voted Republican.

Daniel --

I've had my problems with some of Dean's rhetoric too, but the fact is he made the "bush is the enemy" statement in response to other Democrats attacking him on Medicare. It was a somewhat smarmy response, but he did not make it in reference to Bush's role as commander in chief, which indeed would have been beyond the pale.

Having a two party system requires moderates and extremists to caucus together and vote for the same candidates in order to win. As the center-left party, there are left wing nut jobs whose votes the Democratic presidential candidate will need to win the nomination, just as there are racists and other right wing nut jobs the Republicans will seek and need for them to win. The alternative is a multiparty system. Perhaps this would be a good idea, but there would still probably be coalitions formed between the center and one of the extremes in any case. This is a controversal war, and a lot of people who are against it vote or might vote in Democratic primaries. Those who support it, and who are Democrats, ought to be defending their views and also trying to get their candidates elected. If Christopher Hitchens really still is on the left, he should have continued writing for the preeminent leftist magazine and fought to make it better. If Democrats who disagree with Howard Dean on national security issues are really still Democrats, they should be working for or donating money to Lieberman or Gephardt or Edwards or Kerry or Clark or whomever, rather than just shaking their heads on the sidelines and fuming about Howard Dean and ANSWER.

I'm still struggling over who to vote for. I've been hoping for a miracle, like a Democrat or independent to be rocketed to Earth from another planet -- hey, it's early yet. But being liberal and voting Bush is about letting someone kick you in the stomach in exchange for protecting your house from being burned to the ground -- it's the less dangerous alternative. But if people like us vote for him we will have to take our share of blame for his domestic policies and would have a huge responsibility to advocate for social programs, health care, funding for public schools, environmental protection, etc, etc,...because we will not have Howard Dean in office to fix all of these problems (uh...just like Clinton did). So if there is a contingent of Democrats for Bush then it's important that they (we?) turn to him after the election and say "we own a piece of you too now, homey, so here's what you're gonna do for us." Bush couldn't be any more deaf to his liberal constituents than Clinton was. But maybe the key is to make these demands now, before deciding who to vote for. (Though I may just be psychotic, in which case you should just nod and smile as respectfully as you can and avoid provoking me).

I also must add I think people are seriously deluding themselves when they give Bush an "A" on protecting us from terrorism. Hasn't anybody read about the chemical production industry stonewalling on instuting basic homeland security protections at their plants, and the administration's SUPPORT for that stonewalling?

Sorry, Jeremy, there will be no use fretting or agonizing or hoping for a deus ex machina. The choice will most likely be between Bush and Dean. You have to choose. It's what human beings do.

I foresee a huge inner battle. I'm still, as Roger puts it, a "virgin" -- never voted Republican.

Allison: As you may know, Ronald Reagan started out as a liberal Democrat and ended up switching, along with a lot of his fellows, because he felt the party left him behind, particularly as regards anti-Communism. About that first vote for a Republican Reagan once said, "Don't worry.It only hurts the first time." :-)

Markus:

I know Dean's "enemy" quip was not directed at Bush's commander-in-chief role, but it still bothered me. In private, talking about taking down one's politcal opponent is fine, but this was a public forum.

I agree that people who are committed Democrats should work to reform the party from within--but it's dangerous to start prescribing what voters should do. I have serious problems with the Democrats' "fair trade" rhetoric as well--If they all support trade restrictions and protectionism, should I still stay within the party? I didn't write my name in blood on my Democratic voter registration, and I'm free to vote for anyone I choose. I think the Dems are ignoring the "security hawks" in their own party to their own peril, and it will come back to defeat them.

I don't give Bush an "A" for terrorism fighting either--he's bungled some things, overdone others, and his policies have significant flaws. But he's the President, and doesn't have the luxury of theorizing about the perfect foreign policy--he must actually act on a daily basis to combat terror. This is a fundamnetal difference, and an inestimable advantage to Bush. Many of the Democratic candidates, in contrast, simply don't see this as "The Issue" that they must address.

They critique, which is rather easy to do, but don't propose viable alternative visions beyond "let's cooperate with our allies more" (such as Chirac and Putin?), or "let's turn Iraq over to the U.N. (Do they mean the 12 U.N. workers that remain in Iraq? Is the U.N. really gung-ho on taking over Iraq anyway?) These basic matters are never substantially addressed.

Such bland platitudes on a matter of such importance legitimately worry people, and certainly worry me. Many of the Democrats, certainly Kerry and Clark, give the impression of sensitively sniffing the political winds to figure out their stand on Iraq for the coming week--throw some red meat to the Bush-haters? Make a vague semi-supportive statement about our troops? Backtrack to avoid al;ienating the middle? This smacks of political opportunism and poll-driven foreign policy. Foreign policy is a distinctive sphere in which a President must be willing to make unpopular and risky decisions and not pander to the crowd--after all, how informed is the average American voter about the situation in Checnya, or North Korea, or Zimbabwe, as compared with U.S. economy or something closer to home?

I believe Leiberman would make responsible national security choices, but also think he's a melting snowball who doesn't have a chance in hell.

I'm waiting to see who gets the nod before I commit myself.

Me too.

Jeremy: But being liberal and voting Bush is about letting someone kick you in the stomach in exchange for protecting your house from being burned to the ground -- it's the less dangerous alternative.

Just vote for a Democratic Congress then. You don't have to become a Republican. You can split the difference on the ballot like you do in your head.

I'm a conservative I guess. I've been worried about Democrat self-immolation since the 2002 election results, and even more so since I began reading blogs six months or so ago. I realize the blogs (at least the one's I frequent)are very distorting and don't represent an approximate cross section, but the country has clearly decided that security is the overriding issue, while the Dems have drifted further left. Unless we get 9/11'd again, 2004 is going to be a slaughter.

That's only going to be a good thing if it leads to the end of the McAuliffe/Pelosi/Daschle leadership of the party and a new generation not wedded to the ideologies of the past come in.

Our greatest strength as a nation is a vibrant marketplace of ideas. One party speaking can't generate that. Please Democratic Party, I may never again cast a vote your way, but you need to be a force for my country to remain strong. Get your act together.

One account of former NYC Mayor Ed Koch's endorsement of President Bush can be found here.

---Tom Nally, New Orleans

"Our greatest strength as a nation is a vibrant marketplace of ideas. One party speaking can't generate that. Please Democratic Party, I may never again cast a vote your way, but you need to be a force for my country to remain strong. Get your act together."

I'm confused, spc67, the Democrats DO have a marketplace of ideas on a whole range of issues, including national security and the war in Iraq. On the one hand you say we need a vibrant marketplace, on the other hand you are outraged because some Dems refuse to endorse Bush's foreign policy. As part of "getting our act together", just what issues are acceptable to disagree with Bush on, and what issues are not?

I was raised by Democrats, voted in my first election for Clinton, and in my second for Bush. Graduating from college and working for a living was what turned me around. After 9/11, I can't imagine voting for a Democrat in the forseeable future, unless more Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden types emerge.

By the way, I invite everyone to check out a new Iraqi blogger, Sayed, at www.healingiraq.blogspot.com

He has opened his blogs to comments, and is getting them from Iraqis living in Iraq, Iraqis living abroad, and both pro and anti-war types.

Some posters have questioned whether he's really an Iraqi because he doesn't hate the U.S. troops, but I think he's beleivable.

Also, check out OperationGive.org

It is a non-partisan, independently operating non-profit providing U.S. troops with toys and school supplies to give to Iraqi schoolchildren and orphans.

Happy Haloween! :)

Ally K

Michael,

As a life long conservative I feel no joy in the demise of the opposition party. It is liberty that I wish to conserve and lack of reasoned opposition is no friend of liberty.

Dean's reference to President Bush as the "enemy" (in any context) should remove him from consideration for candidacy as the leader of this nation. I understand that it is the logical consequence of Carville's establishment of a "War Room" to run a presidential campaign and of Gore's promise to "fight" for the "common man" but it exceeds the bounds of political discourse. It is the epitome of the excess that is driving the Democrats into the wilderness.

I applaud your attempt to demarcate what is supportable from what is insupportable in terms of the current debate.

Not sure who posted it, but Dean called Bush "the enemy" very clearly in the context of medicaid/healthcare reform, so responsible fair-minded people need to stop shopping this quote around, if you agree with instapundit that Slate's Bushism if the Day subsists primarily and dishonestly by decontextualizing Bush's statements, then don't do it to Dean. Who, by the way, has stated that we have no choice but to stay the course in Iraq. A statment he has been briefly credited for, but which is now largely forgotten.

"Such bland platitudes on a matter of such importance legitimately worry people, and certainly worry me. Many of the Democrats, certainly Kerry and Clark, give the impression of sensitively sniffing the political winds to figure out their stand on Iraq for the coming week--throw some red meat to the Bush-haters?"

I do tend to see both sides of an issue, and one of the problems with this is that it can contribute to indecisivness. Most liberals (as opposed to leftists) have a tendency to be this way, I think. To me, the war is a tough call. I'm about 55% or maybe even 70% for it on a good day, while being much less convinced that it was done at the right time and in the right way. As a result, I am much more comfortable with ambivelent or equivocal sentiments from Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Gary Hart, etc. There is a whiff of opportunism there, too, which I don't like. And of course, there are times when a commander-in-chief must be decisive. Basically, the whole damn thing remains a conundrum to me. I think what it comes down to is, do you feel safe with a Democrat, even Dean, as President? The fact of the matter right or wrong is that I think I would, while I guess many others reading this simply would not.

I have major issues with how the President is currently running the show. I feel the "everything is going well" meme is stale and keep hoping he will have a sit down, here's the situation and our mistakes and what we are doing about it talk with the country. But that's not going to happen - the idea that the White House can't admit mistakes is a central part of this administration and drives me up the wall.

Having said that, I'll end up voting for Bush. Why? Because everything I've seen, every speech I've watched, has shown a man who is firm in his convictions and feels that fighting "the bad guys" is his mission in life. 4 million people could march on the DC Mall tomorrow, demand that we pull out of Iraq and turn it over to anybody who would take it, and Bush would not waver. At least that's the feeling of the guy that I have.

From what I can tell, the Democrats (as a group) don't have any national security convictions like that. Individuals like Biden seem to have a clue but that' the exception, not the rule.

The idea that the biggest security issues facing my kids and grandkids should be turned over to the U.N. because it would mean we played nice with the other kids is so very scary. I don't trust the U.N. to protect my family, and that seems to be the Dems message. ouch.

Markus:

I really agree with you that it is a conundrum, and I think it's one reason why so many of us, regardless of our opposition or support for the war, spend so much time writing and talking about it. I was more pro-war in the initial stages but have found myself listening to reasoned opponents of the war more often these days, and struggling to come up with counterarguments which validate my initial position.

Iraq is really a question of fundamental importance for the future direction of the U.S. and by extension the world, and it's no wonder to me why so many people are wrestling with it publicly and privately. It is a very big deal, which is why so many of us are so passionate about it.

Ray -- wouldn't you agree that having firm convictions is only a virtue if one is correct about what one so firmly believes. If one is not, those same convictions are disasterous. You put it well: "the idea that the White House can't admit mistakes is a central part of this administration." Perhaps this idea is an expression of those convictions that you say you admire so much.

Bush isn't protecting you. Bush is getting your brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters killed chasing a fools errand at the expense of protecting you. I honestly cannot conceive of endorsing his foreign policy -- a policy of petulance, nonrationality, and contempt for American lives, values, and interests.

EJ Dionne has an interesting op-ed in today's Wash Post on attempts by serious, somewhat hawkish democrats to formulate a "what we would do now instead of Bush" line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44853-2003Oct30.html

Andrew Sullivan offers a reasonable commentary on Dionne's article at his blog.

Kimmit–I am sufficiently appalled by Bush's domestic policies and questionable handling of some aspects of foreign policy that I'll find any way I can not to vote for him., because of the areas in which i think he might do a ton of long term damage.

And yet I find your partisan rhetoric tiresome and embarassing, and temptingly worthy of being labeled as not even worth trying to counter.

Do YOU remember when liberals used to criticize the adminstration for NOTdeposing dictators?

At this moment in time can you describe practical alternatives to staying the course and trying to help out Iraq by trying to establish a democratic government while rebuilding its infrastructure?

Can you describe the long-term benefits for the middle east and for America if we were to simply abandon Iraq today?

Kimmitt’s pearls of coherency:

“This is identity politics at its worst -- it's the psychotic endorsing a psychotic, just because he's psychotic.” re. Zell Miller

“I'd hate Bush just as much if he ran as head of the Reform Party, and if he ran as a Dem, I'd switch Parties.”

“Bush is getting your brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters killed chasing a fools errand at the expense of protecting you.” - re. US in Iraq

I’m afraid that Kimmitt needs a good Jewish psychiatrist very urgently.

well folks i just saw the "democraticunderground.com" discussion board for the first time. They are having a nice little debate on whether Iraqis are justified in "resisting" the occupation. OK, I see where some of you people are coming from and why you're so angry a little bit more now.

But I reiterate -- most Democrats are not that crazy, and every Democrat who leaves the party because they are offended by the presence of these lunatics only serves to increases their relative political power within the Democratic party.

Michael,

"Just vote for a Democratic Congress then. You don't have to become a Republican. You can split the difference on the ballot like you do in your head."

I don't believe that this is the alternative. If this were the case, then do you think the $87B bill would have passed. Not in it's current form. While I'm sure some measured level of support would pass a democratic congress, I don't believe that we would have the same level of appropriations support for Iraq as we do now.

We need people with good ideas in a variety of areas (defense, social programs, judicial review), and these people have to have the conviction to go against their party (Repub & Dems) when it's the right thing to do, vs. when it's the politically expedient thing to do. Having a majority of democrats in congress doesn't change that.

The best thing that could happen to the democrats (of which I'm not one) would be for the McAuliff/Pelosi/Daschle 'leadership' to be destroyed. However, I know that won't happen, which leaves the agenda of ideas to be set by the republicans, with no strong debate without rhetoric....not what we need.

Michael, believe me, I get no pleasure from this. I’m really hoping for a change in the Democrats and would vote for Lieberman or Gephardt in a heartbeat if they conveyed the deep and serious understanding of this war that Bush conveys. And you know, I’m not really sure why I think this, but Bush, compared to these Dems, also appears to convey the notion that the war and national security are more important than the coming election. This could just be a function of the fact that he is now the President and doesn’t have to scramble frantically to find a platform, but the Dems seem intent on digging their ostrich holes deeper instead of building those platforms like good liberal eagles should (thanx to James Lileks, for making this point crystal clear: it’s not left vs. right or Democrats vs. Republicans, it’s ostriches vs. eagles). I sincerely hope that the Democratic candidates will get in touch with their own inner Roosevelt, and soon, but if they don’t, I won’t have a choice. Everything hinges on this. How great will any democratic domestic policy look if, instead of three planes crashing into buildings there are suddenly three simultaneous dirty bomb explosions, or even nuclear explosions, happening across our country or anywhere for that matter? We cannot rest assured that that will never happen.

Cara -- I'd like to ask former Senator Max Cleland, the triple amputee war veteran (and Iraq liberation supporter) who found himself side by side with Bin Laden in Republican National Committee attack ads last year, whether he agrees with your assessment that Bush "conveys the notion that that the war and national security are more important than the coming election." Unfortunately, the war has reopened a kind of cultural divide in America - a divide that benefits Republicans politically - and Bush has done everything possible to exacerbate it and take advantage of it.

What's incredible to me is that Bush gets so much respect on terrorism and security.

Imagine if a Democratic president had acted just like Bush. (Say, Al Gore). Conservatives would have gone absolutely nuts attacking the president for reducing our commitment to fighting Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq on some crazy nation-building project. (The difference being Gore would have an actual plan for nation-building.)

Someone might also mention THAT WE HAVEN'T FOUND OSAMA.

Now the Democrats have not just Kerry (who occasionally reminds us that he served in 'Nam) but actual war-hero general running, and I'm still scared about voting for one of them. I get the sense the Bush is totally engaged in protecting America, and they're not.

If the Democrats want to tell us HOW to rebuild Iraq, HOW to fight terrorism, and not just snipe at the President for every mistake, they might get some respect.

"it's the psychotic endorsing a psychotic, just because he's psychotic. "

Funny. That "psychotic" put into place the Hope Schlorship in Georgia. Under Hope, any high school student in the state who maintains a B average goes to college for FREE. To top that off, it is at $0 (Zero, Zilch, Nada, None) expense to the taxpayer.

The Hope schlorship is funded 100% by the state lottery, which that "psychotic" worked for many years to get into place.

That "psychotic" has increased the education level of the state of Georgia, produced thousands of college level graduates in families that would never had been able to afford college and staff the state with one of the most educated, diverse and high tech working population pools in America. As a result, the economy of the state is booming, Atlanta is growing by leaps and bounds, unemployment is in the toilet and - at least in this state - Mr. Zell Miller has achieved God-like status for his ability to do something that both the left and the right claimed could not be done.

That sort of non-linear thinking has been exactly what the Democratic party has ignored. Miller has been sidelined in Washington since he got there because people just like you refused to accept anything that sounded different.

If we had 1000 more just like Zell Miller, we could wipe out poverty in this nation. Instead we have a city full of people just like you who can't see beyond their own petty partisian position and are happy to see the boat sink just so they can say "I told you so".

Let me tell you I am sitting here listening/watching this video on the Iranian freedom movement to Bravehart and getting pretty pumped.
http://www.democracyforiran.de/Iran_Eng_HQ.html

Don't get me wrong I'm not turning into a feckless leftist who needs any phony mixed cause to endorse as per se...... "Palestine from River to Sea" "Down with Bush" "Down with Zionazis" "Long Live the Mujahadeen, Allah Akhbar" you get my point.......

However, I just listened and watched this and last night saw Paul Wolfowitz give a speech at Georgetown graduate program for public policy and then field tough questions from many students!
http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=wolfowitz+georgetown&image1.x=0&image1.y=0

And I thought, THIS IS THE GREATEST FING COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!!! period....
Here is the 2nd most powerful man in the DoD fielding and answering not evading tough questions from students without being condescending, arrogant or nasty, but instead doing it with logic and a sense of morality and decency that comes through!

I'll sit in a foxhole with Paul Wolfowitz any day! And in 10 years when history bears him and the Pentagon out for their ideas which State, criticized prior to the War, as correct, (though far from perfect) he'll be revered for taking the heat from the blind screaming left and doing what was right.

Mike

PS Like I said if Rummy and Wolfowitz stay I vote for Bush.

Let me state that in contrast to the arrogant condescending loons at "Peace" Rallies and classless condescending Marxist speakers I have seen like Finkelstein.

Whose poll numbers are falling? Oh, yeah, Bush's.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x8667.xml

"Led by former Gen. Wesley Clark, the pack of Democratic presidential contenders is catching up with President George W. Bush, whose job approval has slipped, down to 51 -- 42 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

This is a new low for President Bush, who had a 53 -- 39 percent approval in a September 17 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031028.asp

"Among registered voters, Bush leads an unnamed "Democratic candidate" by just three percentage points, 46% to 43%. Bush's support is only a point lower than last month's reading, showing Bush winning by 47% to 43%. But the margins are much smaller than what Gallup measured in August, when Bush led by 51% to 39%."

"You are in so much trouble and you have no idea."

Right. Or not.

Mike:

It's pretty hard to imagine, say, an ENIarque from the French government or a German minister subjecting himself to the questions of the plebes in the way that Wolfowitz did.

I don't think Gerhardt or Jacques are going to be doing any Clinton-style Town Meetings anytime soon. Despite protestations to the contrary from many on the left, I hardly think debate is "stifled" in the U.S. Indeed, Americans will tolerate far more criticism of their own government, and critique it on their own, that citizens of most nations will. I think this is something to be celebrated.

Roark -- your comments about zell miller are ridiculous. If we had 1,000 Zell millers in washington, or lets just say if the rest of the dems were exactly like him, we would have a one party system, not a two party system. Name one issue on which he has differed with Bush since coming to Washington! He's sponsors and votes for every tax cut that comes down the pike, in order to set the stage for long-term structural deficits and the eventual dismantlement of the welfare state, and then he has the gall to write an editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which he calls Democrats to task for not proposing a national lottery! In fact he was a smart guy and a pretty good governor of Georgia, which is why so many former people who worked for him feel so betrayed by his actions over the past two years. also, not all of his ideas or complaints about special interest groups, for example, are unfounded. But he has taken his hatred of his own party to such lengths that he has become more of a republican than a lot of republicans. I repeat: if people like zell miller where a majority in the democratic party, we would not have a two-party system anymore.

The distressing thing is this: The center has moved so far left that if you don't think Bush was selected, if you think unseating brutal dictators is a good thing, if you believe in God, have an American flag and think a person should be judged by his character not his color, you are a right-wing extremist.

Brooklyn sword style,

Poll questions that pit a named candidate against an unnamed candidate don't give results that reflect anything resembling what would happen if an election were held.
Invariably, onec the blank is filled in, you get different numbers. How Bush polls against an unnamed democrat is only a broad measure of vague dissatisfaction. The poll questions that matter are the ones where people have to choose Bush or one of the actual candidates. Scroll back through this thread and you'll see how many people are saying that they aren't that fond of Bush but currently would choose him over any of the currently known alternatives. Also note that this poll had to have been done before the latest good economic numbers came out showing GDP up over 7%

bilhedrick,
Check your polls. the center is definitely NOT moving left, it's moving right. Independent voters are currently polling as more pro-Iraq than just about anyone else. take a cruise over to the centrist coalition blog and see for yourself.

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/

"Roark -- your comments about zell miller are ridiculous"

Which part was ridiculous? The part where I pointed out how Zell Miller had managed to educate every able college aged person in Georgia or the part where I praised a Democrat?

So it "ridiculous" when I don't agree with Kimmet that Miller is a "psychopath"?

You know, in the end I would hope that we all do not differ in our positions. Hopefully all of us would, if you get far enough away from the nitty gritty of the process, agree that America has a unified set of goals. We want poverty gone. We want everyone educated. We want everyone to prosper and we want to be safe.

The Democrats - and your - biggest mistake is the knee-jerk, contrarian, obstructionist mentality that dictates to you that you must oppose anything and everything a member of the opposing side does just out of principal.

Miller agrees with the President that tax cuts are the best way to spur the economy. Other than the two tax cut bills that Miller has signed - neither of which was the point of my original post - Miller has done very little to earn your rebuke that he is in George Bush's pocket. But of course, since he does not display the frothing at the mouth, irrational anger that clouds his every decision and dictates that every action he takes must be "anti-Bush" in nature - you have to vilify him.

I notice that you didn't touch the issue of the Hope scholarship that Miller put into place here in Georgia. I note that you totally avoided an actual discussion of Miller's positions, his actions or his history. All you have done is spew the same anti-Bush rhetoric that has been spewed on Miller for the last two days and have provided nothing of merit for discussion.

I also noted, with a great bit of joy, the fact that among Miller's sins in your eyes is his intent to dismantle the "welfare state". By God, I would hope that was ALL of our mission. To create a country that had no need of a welfare state. Wouldn't it be great if everyone in America voted for the political party they thought would do them to most good rather than the one that puts a check in their pocket? Wouldn't it be nice if voting didn't break down along racial lines? Wouldn't it be nice if special interest politics didn't dictate that all blacks will vote Democrat, all upper class whites vote Republican and the process of selecting our national leaders didn't involve class warfare and instead focused on doing what is right for the country?

I would hope like hell that our goals are the same. The reason we two parties in place is because the method by which we achieve those two goals is very much open to discussion and should be debated extensively to assure that our chances of success are heightened.

I hate to break it to you, but we stopped having a two party system in this country when the Democrats decided that the goals we had all agreed to were not their goals and that the only debate they were interested in was the constant assault on whatever political issue was handy that might shore them up some support. The Democrats are a non-issue - and are becoming more of a non-issue on a daily basis.

You, and your party, have mistaken opposition and obstructionism for reasoned work toward a common goal. You have mistaken mindless contrariness and reasonless activism for political responsibility. You have no goal. You have no plan. And with every election, you have fewer supporters because of it.

I dearly love the comment above: "Do YOU remember when liberals used to criticize the adminstration for NOT deposing dictators?"

I have marveled at this before; the Democrat's left wing would have creamed their shorts in the 80's if the administration all the sudden started deposing rightists and theocrats in dictatorships around the world.

BK, yes you're right. I guess what I'm saying is the left has moved so FAR LEFT that they see moderates as rabid right wingers.

if you think unseating brutal dictators is a good thing, if you believe in God, have an American flag and think a person should be judged by his character not his color, you are a right-wing extremist.

I don't believe in God and I've never owned a flag. I've never voted for a Republican president, and I've only once voted for a liberal Republican Congressman. Yet some people still call me a right-wing extremist. It's pretty damn stupid to purge everyone who doesn't agree with 100 percent of the party line, but that's what the hard-left is trying to do. They are marginalizing themselves on purpose.

"They are marginalizing themselves on purpose."

I would agree with that statement, but to what end?

I have heard quite enough and as a sign of my displeasure -- the fire and solar flares apparently weren't sufficient -- I will strike Howard Dean dead in the midst of the New Hampshire primary.

Miller's not psychopathic, and your comments rebuking Kimmet for saying so were not the ridiculous part of your post. Neither was the part were you pointed out his accomplishment as Georgia governor (I agreed with you in general on his work as governor in my post in case you didn't notice). The ridiculous part was everything else you said the first time, and everything in your followup post.

The phrase "welfare state" is commonly understood to refer to programs designed to help the poor and also to social insurance programs that benefit all classes including Medicare and social security. I don't want to eliminate them, and I don't want to turn them into measly, ineffective programs. In order to preserve them during the baby boom retirement decades, we need now to be reducing our national debt and our interest payments on that debt, instead of allowing it to skyrocket. Miller support policies to do the opposite. And for someone who supposedly wants better and smarter government, he has done nothing in the Senate that I am aware of to advocate for better designed educational programs, as he did while Georgia governor, and nothing to provide federal funds to helped the budgets of cash-strapped states, something he should care about as a former governor.

Miller votes with Bush 70% of the time, according to the most recent information that I have. This is more than Senators Collins and Snowe, more than Lincoln Chaffee or Jim Jeffords, probably more than Arlen Specter or Chuck Hagel.

"we stopped having a two party system in this country when the Democrats decided that the goals we had all agreed to were not their goals and that the only debate they were interested in was the constant assault on whatever political issue was handy that might shore them up some support"

What the hell are you talking about? Let me get this straight. We are going to get our asses handed to us on a platter in the next election because we are weak on defense and want to tax everyone and the majority of Americans doesn't agree with any of this and we know it and say it anyway. At the same time, we don't really believe in anything we say, and we only care about holding on to power and what is politically expedient? Can't you see the contradiction here?

And just what national goals are you talking about that "democrats" supposedly don't share anymore?

You also claim Democrats aren't interested in working with Republicans to fashion common solutions to common problems. What sort of common ground is Tom Delay, the actual Speaker of the House, interested in having with Democrats? What sort of debate is grover "bipartisanship is just another word for date rape" norquist, interested in having?

You show no evidence that you are independent-minded, and obviously you are not a Democrat. You appear to hold Democrats to one standard, Republicans to another. When Republican Senators try to stop Clinton judicial appointments, they are being principled. When Democratic Senators do the same, they are power-hungry obstructionists. You appear to be just another Republican with no respect for those with views different from your own. You're not just on the Right, you're right. Your opponents are leftist, they're "wrongists." I'd really like to know what sort of political dissent in this country you do find acceptable?

Oh, for the love of Pete:

1) It was a throwaway line making fun of the "identity politics" conservative craze.

2) I wasn't referring to Sen. Miller; I was referring to the gentleman who wasn't a conservative who was following Sen. Miller.

3) Learn to read and/or develop something vaguely resembling a sense of humor, people.

"Let me get this straight. We are going to get our asses handed to us on a platter in the next election because we are weak on defense and want to tax everyone and the majority of Americans doesn't agree with any of this and we know it and say it anyway. At the same time, we don't really believe in anything we say, and we only care about holding on to power and what is politically expedient? Can't you see the contradiction here? "

Oh, I think you believe in everything you say. I just think that it is all a pavlovian response to George W. Bush. He goes one way, the Democrat establishment goes the other. It isn't even about the issues anymore - it is just about opposing Bush.

At this point the national Democrat party has turned into nothing but a mirror of George Bush. They have no policy and they have no plan. Opposition alone, with no solutions and no recommendations, is useless. And in addition, it does not win votes.

"You show no evidence that you are independent-minded, and obviously you are not a Democrat."

A Republican that is praising the policies of a former Democratic governor and calling for the end of poverty - and i'm not thinking independantly? What do I have to do to earn your independant label? Call Bush Hitler?

"You appear to be just another Republican with no respect for those with views different from your own. You're not just on the Right, you're right. Your opponents are leftist, they're "wrongists." I'd really like to know what sort of political dissent in this country you do find acceptable? "

The kind that does not involve putting insults in other people's mouths and attempting to decontruct your conversation partner to a easily labeled two dimensional construct.

Thanks.

Well, roark, now we're blaming each other for the same thing. anyway, i'll take a look through ol' zell's book in a bookstore, see if i find something redeeming in it.

If you want to see the arrogance and elitism of the Left in all its glory, check this out.

Markus,

Regarding the marketplace of ideas. The current Dems primary contribution is whatever Bush does is wrong. Not much of a contribution. The party seems very negatively oriented. Not very oriented towards "we have a better way." Or you have fuzzy/contradictory plans like Deans (leave SS alone, universal healthcare, balanced budget hmmm, what about taxes? no real alternative offerred vis a vis Hussein before the war).

Of course the Left should feel free to portray the world, their ideas and the major issues of the day in any way they see fit. But right now, the Dems are both wrong in the eyes of the electorate (my opinion only) and/or ineptly presenting their slate of ideas (inarguably true).

That's what is leading them into oblivion. One or both problems need to be fixed.

Mr Caldo:

You said "...myself listening to reasoned opponents of the war more often these days." Would you give me some links to places where you have seen the reasoned arguements of the opponents of the war.

Thanks

"Miller endorses Bush."

Flash This endorsement just in:

Quisling endorses Hitler.

Paleo,
Is this another attempt at humor or are you serious?

Markus wrote:
50% of Democrats in Congress voted for the war resolution, and if Bush had come in with a UN resolution or a Nato resolution and asked for war authority, he would have gotten at least 95% of the Dems to vote for use of force.

That pretty much says it all, Markus. If you're correct, and I honestly hope you aren't, only half of the dems are capable of deciding to take action to defend their country without somebody else's permission. It puts another of your comments ("wouldn't you agree that having firm convictions is only a virtue if one is correct about what one so firmly believes?") into stark relief. Bush may be wrong, and I may be wrong for suppporting him in this war; but by damn, he is making his own decisions. Unfortunately, the world isn't the orderly kind of place that allows us to be certain that we're "correct about what one so firmly believes" in most important cases. It's indeterminate.

"2) I wasn't referring to Sen. Miller; I was referring to the gentleman who wasn't a conservative who was following Sen. Miller."

Hey, Kimmit, you callin' me a psychotic? You must have been talking to some of my old girl friends!

"If you want to see the arrogance and elitism of the Left in all its glory, check this out."

But she means well.

Roger: Hey, Kimmit, you callin' me a psychotic?

I can assure Kimmitt that Roger is not psychotic. He was kind enough to put me and my wife up for four nights at his house. And we're still here.

Didn't meet any of the old girlfriends, though...

"50% of Democrats in Congress voted for the war resolution, and if Bush had come in with a UN resolution or a Nato resolution and asked for war authority, he would have gotten at least 95% of the Dems to vote for use of force."

"If you're correct, and I honestly hope you aren't, only half of the dems are capable of deciding to take action to defend their country without somebody else's permission."

It is different when the threat is not imminent. Invading Iraq to overthrow the Baath regime was a just move, especially for the Iraqi people. But it was also optional one for us, at least at the time, and it was based on the controversal new stragegic doctrine of preemption. And I must add, an extremely unpopular one EVERYWHERE in the world except the USA and Israel. Given these factors, especially the absence of threat, it does not seem totally unreasonable to demand that the US gain substantial multinational support before embarking on such a course. You are right that "the world isn't the orderly kind of place that allows us to be certain that we're 'correct'" That is why -- given the absence of threat -- a little bit more time, a little less arrogance, and a little more honesty about true motives might have been called for, especially if such moves could have led to more support.

"Markus,Regarding the marketplace of ideas. The current Dems primary contribution is whatever Bush does is wrong. Not much of a contribution. The party seems very negatively oriented. Not very oriented towards "we have a better way."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088427/
Steal This Message
Why John Edwards has Bush's number.
By William Saletan

"If Democrats won't nominate John Edwards for president, they should at least run on his message.

Why Edwards hasn't climbed out of the pack is a mystery to me. Beyond his superficial assets—good looks, youth, Southern heritage—he's got an agile mind and a natural ability to relate to people. He's put together a sensible set of policies. He's been running TV ads for weeks but hasn't cracked the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire. Maybe that will change, and Edwards will get to carry his banner into the general election. But if he doesn't, whoever beats him should pick it up and carry it in his stead..."

Maybe Edwards has something to offer...

Senator Zell Miller
257 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Zell,

Saw you on Fox last night endorsing George Bush and trashing the Democratic Party, and just had to write.

You know I have been a lifelong supporter of yours. I wrote my first campaign check to you when I was still in law school, admired you as you fought Herman Talmadge, worked with you on Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign, and was never prouder to be a Georgia Democrat than when you gave the keynote address at the National Convention that nominated Bill Clinton.

After all, as Governor you established the HOPE scholarship so that every hardworking Georgia student could go to college, and focused on the “kitchen table” issues that affected working families.

When people called you “Zig-Zag” Zell, and said you had no fixed beliefs, I said your days damning the Civil Rights Act when you ran for Congress in 1964 and your years as Lester Maddox’s chief of staff were just a misspent youth. I pointed instead to your political courage in trying to take the Confederate battle emblem off the state flag, even though you bowed to political expediency and backed down from that fight.

Changing the flag may have cost Roy Barnes his job, but he left office with his character intact and his head high for standing for his beliefs regardless of the consequences.

As head of the Georgia Democratic Party I pushed for your appointment to the Senate, and chaired the meeting that put you on the ballot as our nominee. The party supported you as I and thousands of other Georgia Democrats worked to elect you. Together we raised every penny we could to help you and the entire ticket win election.

I didn’t hear a single complaint from you during that campaign about the Democratic Party.

I first became worried that you were bending your views to the political winds when you ducked the Democratic Convention that nominated Al Gore. You always had a “scheduling conflict“ when asked to appear at his Georgia campaign events. I got a little more concerned when your first major vote in the Senate was to gut labor regulations that would protect injured workers. I did wonder if you’d spent too much time on the Southern Company board and as a Philip Morris consultant when you worked against environmental and health regulations.

I held my tongue when you endorsed President Bush’s tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, and when you voted against Democratic attempts to spread those tax cuts to the middle class. And just this month you were the only Democrat to favor the Bush plan to gut overtime protections for American workers—a measure that 9 Republican Senators crossed the aisle to vote against.

Now, with the hot political wind blowing from conservative networks, talk radio and corporate boardrooms, when it’s become the fashion to bash the Democratic Party, you’ve joined in, writing a book betraying the people who stood behind every one of your campaigns—not party activists, but hardworking Georgia families. You cast stone after stone at Democrats. Your silly, petty, and often personal attacks remind me of no one more than your old boss, Lester Maddox.

To add insult to injury, you flatter Sonny Perdue, who was elected governor by campaigning on the same symbol of hate you tried to remove from the flag, with an inscription that says Georgia is in good hands. Remember Zell, this is the same Sonny Perdue who proposed a $900 million tax increase on the middle class the first week he was in office. The same Sonny Perdue who is looking to cut off the HOPE scholarship to the B average student in two-thirds of the rural counties in Georgia, meaning they won’t go to college—a move that would not only deny many Georgians a better life than their parents but also tarnish the only legacy you have left.

And now you’re kicking off your book tour by endorsing George W. Bush.

I thought a genuine ex-Marine like you would see through the phony flyboy “made for television” carrier stunt, especially now that Bush is blaming the troops for mistakenly bragging about a “mission accomplished.”

I thought you would remember that Bush opposed creating a Department of Homeland Security, until Karl Rove and polling told him he could shamelessly use the issue to question the patriotism of Senators like our friend Max Cleland, who, you’ll remember, left three limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam

I thought a man who claims to revere FDR like you, prides himself on being a penny pincher, and says he cares about kitchen table issues would see through Bush’s attempt to starve Social Security and Medicare by running up enormous deficits.

I thought the history professor in you would know that Republicans built their success in the South on appeals to race and that you would speak out as again this year, in Mississippi, Republicans campaign on the Confederate flag while George Bush stands by approving yet silent.

I even thought a man like you, who always rightly talks about how his widowed mother built her own home by hauling stones out of the local river, would insist that the Iraqi people contribute to the rebuilding of their own country. Instead, you voted last week, at President Bush’s insistence, against requiring Iraq to use its oil money to repay any of the $87 billion we’re spending on their country this year alone. I guess teaching W. a corps value of helping those who help themselves wasn’t on your book tour.

I do know his corporate friends won’t have forgotten what you’ve done in your few years in the Senate. Zell, you’ll excuse me if I don’t buy your book. I’ll let the corporate directorships you’ll soon get fund your retirement. I’m betting you’ll hit the trifecta—Philip Morris, Southern Company, and soon Halliburton. And you’ll excuse me if I don’t follow your advice on my vote for President. I prefer a candidate who did his growing up in Vietnam, like John Kerry, rather than AWOL from the Air National Guard, like your friend George.

You once wrote a country song with a great line: “Every place I’ve ever been was on my way back home.” Looks like you’re on you’re way back home, Zell, back to the hateful rhetoric of the Lester Maddox days, with frequent well-paid stops along the way in corporate boardrooms. Too bad that’s the final legacy you’re leaving.

In your finest hour as Governor, you said “You cannot lead with a finger to the wind and an ear to the ground. It is an undignified position.” Only now, as you teeter with your hindquarters in the air, do I fully understand how right you were.

Very truly,

David Worley
David Worley, an Atlanta attorney, is the immediate past Chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia

I got this from Eschaton's website and he got it from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This guy endorsing Bush is supposed to scare the Democrats? I don't know why he doesn't just switch parties and end the charade. I won't miss his "principles".

By the way, Michael J. Totten are you for real? This blog seems like a front.

You must have been talking to some of my old girl friends!

Dammit, I have got to start looking more carefully into my sources' biographies.

"By the way, Michael J. Totten are you for real? This blog seems like a front."

Michael Totten is actually not for real. I have never really had lunch with him. I have never gone on 45 minute smoke breaks with him at work, talking incessantly. I have never gotten him to change his mind by using logic. I have never been to his house or seen his charming new water feature. I have never worked for his brother. I have never met his wife. I have never had him answer my emails. I have not seen any development of his political philosophy in the last three years.

No wait, I have seen and done all of the above with him. If Michael Totten is unreal to you, it is time to adjust your medication. MJT is as real as it gets, if that is too much for you, that is certainly not his problem.

Patrick S Lasswell

Patrick Lasswell-This is the first time I have ever been to this blog. I usually read CalPundit and came to this blog from a link in one of his posts. I was dismayed at the naivete of Mr. Totten's original post and many of the comments. I found it hard to believe that someone would go by the name of Michael J. Totten, it seemed like a Jonah Goldberg parody of a leftish hawk. I thought maybe I wasn't getting the joke. I had a legitimate question and asked it.

Your response is to "adjust your medication"? Since you are alleging to be his friend, and your first inclination is to ridicule me and my honest query, it doesn't say much for you or Mr. Totten. Good luck on your website Mr. Totten, but if this is the level of discourse I think I will pass.

Markus, I'll grant that the threat wasn't imminent. Hell, Bush said it wasn't. But actually, yes, it does seem unreasonable to me to demand that we garner "substantial multinational support before embarking on such a course". There's no assurance that such support was forthcoming under any circumstances short of another attack on the US, and perhaps not even then. If you're going to make such a demand, it seems to me that it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate that, for instance, "a little bit more time, a little less arrogance, and a little more honesty about true motives" would have resulted in the level of support you require. I don't think it likely. Let's be honest -- France, Germany, and Russia were doing lots of bidness with Saddam. They were going to resist, as it was clearly in their interest to resist regardless of the justification. Who or what exactly was going to change their minds, and how long was it going to take?

But that is all a side discussion to the point I was trying to make, and what I understood (rightly or wrongly ) MJT and others to be making. Your statement to which I responded implied that there were a substantial number of democratic legislators who abnegated their responsibilities to our national security in favor of the opinions, not even of their own electorate, but of those in Finland, Kuala Lumpur, and Bolivia. And I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would consider it meritorious that they make that decision based on that criterion. I say that regardless of what their decision ultimately is. I have a great deal more respect for the hypothetical 5% that would not have changed their minds than the 45% who would have.

Well, I'm rambling now, but whether or not it was a sound strategic move is not contingent (at least not to the degree your estimate would indicate) on world opinion.

Scott,

If you feel that the best way to begin a relationship is to accuse fraud, then perhaps this disappointment will not be surprising to you. I cannot see a blanket accusation at first reading of deliberate fraud by a widely quoted and linked blogger to be describable as honest inquiry. Honest inquiry would have been to read his archives. Honest inquiry would have been to note that Lileks, Simon, and others praise him highly. Honest inquiry would have been to define who on earth would want such a fickle individual fronting for them because he views integrity to be more important than loyalty.

If discourse that clarifies your rather brisk, broad, and libelous accusations as unsupportable is not to your liking, perhaps you could show some insight or at least discernment. I should probably show greater civility in this matter, but to undermine Michael Totten because his name is too normal or his opinions differ from yours is absurd. Allowing that kind of idiocy to take root here or anywhere would be mindless folly. If this is uncomfortable for you, I suggest that the author of your misery is in your mirror.

Scott: By the way, Michael J. Totten are you for real? This blog seems like a front.

Wow.

I get such a kick out of people's reactions sometimes. Though I must say my favorite is when I was accused of being on Ariel Sharon's payroll.

Scott, again: I had a legitimate question and asked it.

Um, no. That is not a legitimate question. It is a completely idiotic question. Look on the left panel of my blog. I have published professional articles under my own name, including at the Wall Street Journal.

Markus,

the Democrats DO have a marketplace of ideas on a whole range of issues, including national security and the war in Iraq.

Allow me to summarize the Democrat's ideas. Their domestic policy is to continue the government takeover of civil and private society and using the coercive power of government to redistribute resources to favored groups from disfavored groups. Their national security policy is to submit to the UN.

bk,

Not sure who posted it, but Dean called Bush "the enemy" very clearly in the context of medicaid/healthcare reform, so responsible fair-minded people need to stop shopping this quote around

If I state that Dean is the "enemy" - but only in the context of national security - is that responsible and fair-minded?

What is missing in this whole thread is context.

Got that?

C-O-N-T-E-X-T

This is like arguing about how to cut down a tree that one has already begun to cut, when it was perhaps the wrong tree in the forest, or perhaps not the most important tree at this time.

Got that?

Possibly the wrong tree, or maybe not the wrong tree, but maybe the 20th tree on the list to focus on.

Let me put something out to consider.

Hearts and minds of the Arab world. This has been thrown out so often that I think people have begun to gloss over it and not really think about it.

But I think this is one of the root problems with this administration.

How do you think people of the Middle East would have responded to the United States if this Administration had REALLY focused on Afghanistan –- not the bombing –- they seem to have that down pretty pat -- but the aftermath?

Or how do you think the people of the Middle East would have responded to the United States if this Administration had REALLY focused on the Israeli/Palestine conflict – instead of ignoring it for the first two years and then only stepping in after much pleading by Blair?

As it stands now the people of the Middle East do not trust our motives. And I, for one, cannot support an administration that got it so wrong.

Markus,

well folks i just saw the "democraticunderground.com" discussion board for the first time. They are having a nice little debate on whether Iraqis are justified in "resisting" the occupation. OK, I see where some of you people are coming from and why you're so angry a little bit more now.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Its nice to have someone acknowledge why my anger may be justified.

most Democrats are not that crazy

I'm not sure this is correct. My concern is that the Democatic Undeground types are the ones behind Dean. If Dean wins the nomination, it will affirm for me that the DU wing of the party is setting the agenda for the Democrats. The only evidence at this point that I would accept that the inmates are not running the asylum is if Gephardt or Lieberman win the nomination by a substantial margin.

Mind you, I'm no fan of Gephardt because he is a traditional big government Dem. But at least he was right about the war and isn't pissing in the wind like Kerry, Edwards and Clark.

P.S. - Is General Clark beginning to remind anybody else of Admiral Stockdale? I thought Clark was supposed to be intelligent? He comes across as a blithering savant to me.

fizz_plob_fizz,

As it stands now the people of the Middle East do not trust our motives. And I, for one, cannot support an administration that got it so wrong.

How do you propose to gain their trust? Throw Israel to the wolves? Let the Arabs finish what Hitler started? Abandoning Israel would make us complicit in genocide. And it would inspire the jihadis that they are winning. Just as the withdrawl of the Soviets from Afghanistan inspired them that they could defeat the other, softer superpower, abandomnemt of Israel would only fuel their jihad against the West.

The only path I can see is to build a free and democratic Iraq. Success in Iraq is the last chance to head of a full-fledged holy war with a pathological and potentially nuclear armed enemy. If we fail in Iraq, modernity and civilization itself are at risk.

And it is time for the Democrats and Europe to wake up to this. It is their civilization too that is at risk.

Michael gets accused of being a shill because he gets paid to write pieces by neo-Conservative publications that justify Israeli anti-terror operations against "Palestinian" murderers, and his foreign policy positions on the Middle East are (allegedly) in lockstep with Likud.

He doesn't get paid directly for this blog, he doesn't even have a tip jar. I think he can make a living any way he chooses, and that his opinions matter, not who pays him for the articles he sells via this blog.

David Mercer,

I have marveled at this before; the Democrat's left wing would have creamed their shorts in the 80's if the administration all the sudden started deposing rightists and theocrats in dictatorships around the world.

No, they wouldn't say a word. They don't give Reagan and/or Bush Sr any credit for helping to push out Pinochet and Marcos.

Throw Israel to the wolves? Let the Arabs finish what Hitler started?

I am puzzled as to why my statement “REALLY focused on the Israeli/Palestine conflict” suggests abandoning Israel… Do you think that was what Blair/Powell et al were suggesting?

The only path I can see is to build a free and democratic Iraq.

I can agree with this now. But this gets me back to my context argument. We ARE here, we need to do this right … But I am deeply troubled over whether here is what we should have focused on now and I am also troubled over the manner in which we got here...

Zell Miller is a long-time friend of George Bush, tacitly supported him in the 2000 election, backed his tax cuts and economic policy prior to 9/11, and supports giving him a "rubberstamp" for all of his judicial nominees, no matter how reactionary. His endorsement is no more meaningful than James Eastland's endorsement of Barry Goldwater in 1964, and will have no impact north of the Mason-Dixon Line, where the real battle in 2004 will take place.

If Bob Graham or Bill Nelson switch sides, than we've got problems.

fizz,

There is one problem with your argument re focus on Afghanistan: Hatred of the USA in the Middle East is not rational. It is not a hatred born of anything we have done or not done; rather, it is a hatred born of ideological zeal. No matter what we did in Afghanistan, we would still be hated. Real change requires winning in Iraq by changing that society as a first step.

Scott, again: I had a legitimate question and asked it.

Um, no. That is not a legitimate question. It is a completely idiotic question. Look on the left panel of my blog. I have published professional articles under my own name, including at the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 1, 2003 02:06 AM

Sorry Michael, you may take offense at someone questioning your bonafides, but calling the question idiotic only to be answered by a resume of your own making? This is a non sequitur. What does anything on your left panel have to do with logically answering Scott's question?

it is a hatred born of ideological zeal

So by actually fullfilling our promises to bring about a democratic society to Afghanistan we can assume that this would not work because of a hatred born of ideological zeal...

So you argue that the best course of action is to leave Afghanistan, advance to Iraq, and expect democracy to flourish there? My question is -- does the ideological hatred only pertain to Afghanistan and not Iraq???

I'll agree that those who would strike against us are not interested in democracy... but I think the majority of those in the Arab world were watching very closely as to see if the words and deeds of this administration matched up in Afghanistan. And, let's face it, they did not.

calling the question idiotic only to be answered by a resume of your own making? This is a non sequitur.

The reason I did that is because my "resume" links to pages off this site where there is evidence that I a real person.

"What does anything on your left panel have to do with logically answering Scott's question? "

Claiming that the Wall Street Journal has been punked by a poser is a bit of a logical stretch without any supporting evidence, being published by the WSJ is a legitimate bona fide. More to the point, the greater stretch is claiming that Michael's ideas have no resonance when they manifestly do. The "Builders and Defenders" op-ed caused a lot of discussion and framed the basis for any number of essays, both supporting and opposing. In any case, his writing has traction and that is a legitimate and logical response to the accusation of fraud that Scott made.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Scott made an accusation of fraud, not a legitimate question. What is important about this accusation is that the vagueness of subject makes it all too likely for a hostile and groundless assertion to stick. What are viable liberal credentials? Is there a certifying authority? Do you have to have smoked so much dope and attended so many Dead/Phish/String Cheese Incident concerts? Are you required to have a palpable odor of patchouli about your person for a given period of months? Is there an apostolic succession of laying on of hands by somebody who was touched by Timothy Leary? No, there is not. So anybody can be denounced as a liberal for not being sufficiently adherent to an undefined ideal. Welcome to Paris in the 1790s; is Scott's last name Robespierre?

Michael is a liberal. Michael is not a front. Take your guillotine mob mentality and get stuffed. We've played this game before and we aren't going to play it anymore. Innuendo be damned.

Zell Miller has voted with Bush on every major issue, foreign or domestic, that I can think of. There's probably an exception but I don't know what it is. This is no surprise to me--well, I would have thought he'd wait for a nominee to emerge. But while I can think of several who might be hawkish enough on foreign policy, even Lieberman is not conservative enough on domestic policy.

Koch is more of a surprise but he's such a curmudgeon and so little liked that you're not going to convince many democrats with him either.

Ah, if we had only listened...

Don't Attack Saddam --Wall Street Journal, Aug 15, 2002.

by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush

"Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities -- notably the war on terrorism -- as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail -- much less their actual use -- would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counterterrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests -- including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world."

I don't see history judging Scowcroft and the other members of the Bush 41 foreign policy team as having made the correct decision by leaving Saddam in power back in 1991. I certainly don't see it that way now. As for some of these claims - such as that invading Iraq will be counterproductive in the war on terrorism - the results are very much open to debate. Also, I haven't seen that "outrage against us" in the Muslim world that an invasion was supposed to provoke. As for Scowcroft writing that an attack "could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region," that hasn't happened either (in the case of Iran that's unfortunate, but there's still hope).

I hope the repressive Arab regimes are all destabilized. I am not a stability junky. Brett Scowcroft is. It's a conservative point of view which I just don't share.

I am not a radical leftist in the American context. But in the Middle East, bring it on, baby. Break eggs. Up with revolution and down with religious fanaticism and dictatorship.

It must be a terrible thing to live in such fear, as you guys apparently all do.

-bjh, posting a half mile from ground zero

bjh,

I've lived below the waterline in a destroyer within floating mine range of a hostile Iraq, boarded Hatian boats with active sources of disease, handled tons of explosives, and stared down approaching muggers in Ecuador. I do not think of myself as a person who lives in fear. Perhaps you were talking about somebody else.

What Mike said about the Middle East. Kick the whole rotten sand castle down. The sooner, the better.

But in the Middle East, bring it on, baby. Break eggs.

You are so right man. I am glad you are thinking the same as me.

The American people and the lord on high know that we are on the right path with these savages.
We will battle all those evildoers together at Armageddon! This means the end of the world will come sooner and then you and me can go straight to Heaven. The rest of the human race, including Jews who don't convert, will soon be wiped out with great suffering.

Praise Gawd Almighty!

Doofus pretending to be Tom Delay,

Your pharmacy called, your new meds are in. Seriously, trolling around here requires a lighter touch. Try a sledgehammer next time, the wrecking ball's too obvious.

Markus,

The phrase "welfare state" is commonly understood to refer to programs designed to help the poor and also to social insurance programs that benefit all classes including Medicare and social security. I don't want to eliminate them, and I don't want to turn them into measly, ineffective programs. In order to preserve them during the baby boom retirement decades, we need now to be reducing our national debt and our interest payments on that debt, instead of allowing it to skyrocket.

The problem with Social Security and Medicare is that both programs were conceived and implemented during times when life expectency was much lower and birth rates were much higher. These programs as they are structured now are simply unsustainable ponzi schemes. So we are faced with two choices. We can increase the age limits to receive benefits and/or reduce benefits. Or we can impose punitive and economically crushing tax rates that will extend the program for maybe another generation, but will ruin our economy. The sooner we recocgnize this, the sooner we can make adjustments gradually rather than as some sort of shock therapy.

Fortuneately, the Europeans are further along in this inevitable process. Hopefully they will confront their problems realistically before they collapse economically. Of course, due to the European penchant for denial and stupidity, I don't expect them to. Either way, the future for America as shaped by the Democratic agenda is being prototyped in Europe. Let's hope the lessons of their failure are recognized in America before it is too late. If we can't recognize the problem analytically, at least the example of their failure will be too much to ignore.

Markus,

It is different when the threat is not imminent. Invading Iraq to overthrow the Baath regime was a just move, especially for the Iraqi people. But it was also optional one for us, at least at the time, and it was based on the controversal new stragegic doctrine of preemption. And I must add, an extremely unpopular one EVERYWHERE in the world except the USA and Israel. Given these factors, especially the absence of threat, it does not seem totally unreasonable to demand that the US gain substantial multinational support before embarking on such a course.

You are rehashing all the old arguments that were made during the debate for Congression authorization to attack Iraq. But I have news for you - YOU LOST THE DEBATE! Even among Democrats! You may not like the decision that was made, but as a nation we have made a decision and set on a course of action. You and the Democrats have a responsibility to ensure that the decision we made ends successfully even if you disagree with that decision. The problem is that after having authorized war, the Democrats (except for a few brave souls) and a handful of Republican scumbags would cravenly shirk their responsibility to see this war through to a successful conclusion.

Markus,

Maybe Edwards has something to offer...

I had hope for Edwards. He voted to authorize the war but then opposed funding the effort. He's not fit for office. Same goes for Kerry.

fizz,

I am puzzled as to why my statement “REALLY focused on the Israeli/Palestine conflict” suggests abandoning Israel… Do you think that was what Blair/Powell et al were suggesting?

No, but nothing short of abandoning Israel will appease the Arabs. Destroying Israel always has and always will be their goal. Blair and Powell are in denial about this and they embrace every lie the Palestinians and Arabs toss their way. Arafat and the Palestinians had the only deal that they could ever hope for in 2000. This was the deal that every reasonable observer agrees is the only solution and is the best offer the Palestinians will ever get. They rejected it because in order to live up to the deal, they would have had to reject the goal of destroying Israel.

fizz,

Ah, if we had only listened...

Don't Attack Saddam --Wall Street Journal, Aug 15, 2002.

by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush

Ah, you, Brent Scowcroft, Pat Buchanan and Jacque Chriac are all in harmonious agreement! Nice company you keep.

Patrick,

I've lived below the waterline in a destroyer within floating mine range of a hostile Iraq, boarded Hatian boats with active sources of disease, handled tons of explosives, and stared down approaching muggers in Ecuador.

Now that would explain why you are such a "right-wing extremist." ;-)

Reading through these posts, the obvious question becomes . . .are you becoming neoconservatives?

Are Arab political cultures so malleable that within a generation or two we can transform most into genuine liberal democracies? Are we, the United States, unilaterally capable of overthrowing undemocratic Islamic regimes (and let’s face it, there are a lot of them) and replacing them with free and moderate democracies? Can we do it? Perhaps we can. Or perhaps, we will get a world of unintended consequences

Walter Lippmann once warned that it is a disease of the soul to be in love with impossible things, so it may repay effort to look more closely at these questions.

Hey "Ponder this,"

What makes you think that liberal hawks such as Michael Totten (or myself) have thought less about these issues than you? Personally, I think my willingness to break ranks with the Left demonstrates that I have read more widely and thought more deeply about these issues than most so-called "liberals."

I know this is true when I hear some of my young Left-leaning friends say things like, "Sure, Saddam was cruel to his people, but that's none of our business." (True quote from a "liberal" friend of mine.) What these "liberals" don't realize is that they are the ones who are flirting with conservativism, so driven by Bush-hatred that are are willing to parrot Pat Buchanon, so satisfied with their "I got mine" liberal democracy that they are willing to let the rest of the world rot in hell.

I'm not saying that all criticism of the War on Terror or so-called "neoconservative" foreign policy comes from such a naive crypto-conservative muddy thinking as my friend's, but a hell of a lot of it does. I suspect that yours does as well.

For example, I think you reveal your poor knowledge of current events -- and even a little subconscious racism -- when you insinuate that Iraqis may not be capable of achieving democracy in "a generation or two." Aren't you aware that the Iraqi Kurds formed a democratic proto-state right under Saddam's nose thanks to the protection provided by the no-fly-zones? (No-fly-zones that were , BTW, "unilateralist," since apparently that word has come to mean "not specifically endorsed by the UNSC.") Aren't you aware that there is brave and beautiful student-led movement for democracy in Iran right now? If you are not aware of these things, then you still have some homework to do, junior. And if you are aware of these things but can't quite find it in yourself to give much of a shit, or to wave it off with defeatist chin music about "unintended consequences," then you need to do some pondering and ask yourself if you are quite the "liberal" you think you are.

I submit that so-called "liberals" whose hearts are not stirred and lifted by the prospect of Iraqis and Iranians and Afghans, etc, gaining freedom from tyrranny are LINO (liberal in name only).

Democrats: You had better snap out of denial and get your act together fast. You are in so much trouble and you have no idea.

Yes well that’s probably a good thing that they are in so much trouble. If Bush is reelected with a solid majority in 2004 and Republicans pick up seats in the House and Senate (as they are expected to), then perhaps it will send a message to Democrats so scrap the lunatic Blame America First! fringe which dominates their party and start to move towards the center.

As it stands right now, unless Zell Miller were to change his mind and enter the presidential race, I would not consider any of the Nine Dwarves for municipal dog catcher much less for the Presidency. None of them have demonstrated that they can be trusted with either foreign policy or handling the greatest fiscal problem in the federal government – the ponzai schemes known as Medicare and Social Security.

Bush certainly deserves some portion of the blame for his profligate spending (although considering that most of the non-defense spending was to take away issues from Democrats, you can be certain that none of them would be better) but he’s done well on the War both in the Iraqi and Afghanistan fronts and he has been consistent in pushing for reforming Medicare and Social Security (although he’s wrong to support a new prescription drug benefit). None of the Democratic candidates have shown the slightest willingness to push for any sort of entitlement reform except for Lieberman and Dean and since they both did 180s on these issues as soon as they decided to run for Vice President and President respectively, it is clear the neither of them are serious about it either.

As someone whose political priorities are defeating Islamsofascism and reforming Medicare and Social Security before the baby boom generation goes on them and bankrupts my generation, it is clear the Bush is the only rational candidate.

If the Democratic Party cannot muster the support to deal sensibly with these problems then I look forward to the day when our two party system consists of the Republican and Libertarian Parties.

To Ponder_This,

You are making a conservative argument. Are you aware of that? That's fine, you have every right to do it. I just think you ought to be aware of it.

My position is the one with the left-wing pedigree(from Wilson through Clinton and excepting Carter), and yours is the one from the right-wing tradition (from the America Firsters through Pat Buchanan and excepting Reagan.) Just something to think about.

Thorley Winston,

You can't even trust Joe Lieberman with foreign policy? Well, that's unusual. Any particular reason?

fizz --

I never advocated leaving Afghanistan. We need to encourage democracy in both places. Hopefully that will lead to change elsewhere in the Middle East.

I believe that by next year, many Iraqis will have experience in democracy at a local level, and free speech, and vocal disagreements.

If the choice Arabs have is which dictator, a Shah (CIA puppet) or an Ayatollah (?), it's reasonable for them to oppose whichever dictator they've got. But every type of dictator is going to punish opposition.

HA, when Arabs see, in a successful Iraq example, of a free(ish) market, low tax (15% flat rate!!!), partial democracy with more human rights than any other Arab country, they can have hope for a better choice. Arab democracy.

That's my dream; and I suspect the Bush/ Wolfowitz/ neocon/ American drean. A great dream. A dream the Left seems to oppose; they should regret it.

People still bring up Cleland. Do you know why he was not re-elected? It was not because we did not like him or respect him. It was because he voted toe-step with Kennedy and the leadership of the Democratic party. Zell votes the way his constituency wishes him to vote. And had Cleland voted more for the people he represents he would still be in Washington.

But he did not.

Many people call me a right wing wacko, but even at the last election, I voted for the best man for the job. Or the one I felt was the best man. Guess what, it was about 50/50 Rep/Dem. And some Libs.

I feel in my mind Bush is doing what needs to be done. And as such he gets my vote. If Zell runs again, he gets my vote. If Chambliss run he lost my vote for voting for the Loan scam for Iraq.

Oh well.

Oh by the way, if not for Bush, I could vote for Lieberman, he has class, he understands the war we are fighting and appears to be a moderate.

Not many women seem to be commenting, but here's one. I'm a former liberal Democrat from a family of several generations of liberal Democratic politicians on both sides. Bill Clinton's hypocrisy had me halfway out the door of my lifelong political home, but the head-in-the-sand foolishness of the left after September 11 sent me the rest of the way out. I certainly don't like everything about George Bush, but he'll have my vote because of his courage and his vision in the war on terrorism. (And also, from the feminist point of view, because he appears to have a genuine ability to work with, respect, and listen to women, as opposed to his predecessor who was great on the lip service and abominable on the reality. That saying, "the personal is the political," is absolutely true.) I do not understand why my friends and relatives who are still on the left are unable to perceive the good we have done and are still doing in Iraq. Did they really think we had some kind of right to walk away from those people after forcing sanctions on them for so long, without even trying to help them achieve freedom? How can they think such a thing, and still sleep at night in their safe, free beds?

Anyway, George Bush is awake to the threat we are facing. It's the greatest threat we have faced in our lifetime. Peace signs and protest marches won't prevail against that threat, a