Well done. We live in interesting times.

Where was the liberal case for liberation and nation building during the 1980s? Much of the left (and not just the Hollywood far left) opposed the Grenada invasion, and supported the Sandinistas despite their genocide of Native Americans in Nicaragua.

Actually, it was forced relocation in Nicaragua.

Alan,

Regarding the Sandanistas. I was a kid then who knew nothing. But I can see in hindsight that the liberation movement supported by the left in Nicaragua was the one that ousted Anastasio Somoza. I, too, support (in a retroactive sort of way) the overthrow of that bastard. But I'm also glad the Sandanistas are gone. I hope that isn't too nuanced.

One of Jimmy Carter's legacies was his naive approach to human rights. He leaned on Somoza and the Shah because of their transgressions, but failed to realize that there were murderous totalitarian movements waiting to fill the power vacuum in both Nicaragua and Iran.

Actually, the Nicaragua saga probably marked the point at which liberals (Scoop Jackson definition) were already being displaced by leftists (Noam Chomsky definition). The congressional Dem leadership didn't merely oppose Reagan's tactics in fighting the Sandinista regime. No "this regime should end, but he's going about it the wrong way" rhetoric that we hear with regard to Iraq these days. The Dems challenged the very notion that the Sandinistas existence was a bad thing in the first place.

Part of the problem was the denial of Nicaragua's alliance with the USSR. Accuracy in Media has an interesting story on how two senators (Harkin and Kerry) went to Nicaragua and came back with assurances of "the 'non-aligned nature' of the Nicaraguan revolution," claims which influenced the defeat of a Contra aid appropriations vote, and which were demolished the following day when Ortega jetted to Moscow to collect a $200 million loan. Talk about yer intelligence failures.

The longstanding problem with the Right (at least in the US) has been the willingness to turn a blind eye to the depradations of regimes deemed friendly to our economic and political interests, particularly during the Cold War. Unfortunately, the Left has had the same blind spot, refusing to see the anti-democratic dark side of "liberation" movements like the Sandinistas and the PLO.

And during the Cold War, we were steeped in the moral equivalence game: "The Soviet Union isn't really oppressive or evil - it's just a different system that we need to come to terms with. We are equally bad in our own way." The idea that there might actually be good guys and bad guys - how simplistic! Pay no attention to the gulag behind the curtain!

But all you needed to do during that time was to look on either side of the Berlin Wall. Post-WWII, the US could have ruled West Germany the way the Soviets did East Germany. We chose instead to support the development of a free and peaceful Germany, that today feels comfortable enough to speak out against the American "hyperpower" that rescued it from madness 50 years earlier.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that American motives are always pure; that would be naive. Nations selfishly pursue their own interests and call it foreign policy. But we are one of the freest and most liberal societies on the planet. Our foreign policy should promote those ideals of freedom. Ironically, Bush does that at every turn, while Kerry - with a chorus from the international community - criticizes and carps.

You know, Michael, all of this makes me think of something:

I think if you could take the best parts of Kerry-foreign-policy and the best parts of Bush-foreign-policy, you'd have damn near a perfect foreign policy I think.

Bush gets the big picture. He's a big picture guy. He has the "vision thing" his father lacked. John Kerry is a master of the details. He's a practical dude. He's the tactician.

If it were up to Kerry, we probably never would have gone into Iraq. But, had Bush got us into Iraq somehow and then turned it over to Kerry, it'd probably be going a hell of alot better right about now (w/ more troops on the ground, more cooperation w/ Sistani, a better allocation of funds, and better trained Iraqi police force). The same goes for Afghanistan. Kerry would have gotten us into Afghanistan too, and he would have put enough troops on the ground to storm Tora Bora to get Osama. And we probably would have invested the kind of resources in the aftermath that we should have. Kerry's personality is a whole heck of alot more conducive to effective diplomacy, too.

See what I mean? The best of both worlds. Put Dubya and Kerry in the same room and force them to cooperate with each other. Let Bush lecture Kerry about the "vision thing". Let Kerry lecture Bush about the nitty-gritty details. It would work, I sware to God.

Oooooooooh holy shit, how about this...

John McCain jumps in the Presidential race at the last second, wins, makes Bush his Secretary of Defense and Kerry his Secretary of State!

Boo-yah! There you go.

And John Edwards his VP! Even better!

Kerry would have gotten us into Afghanistan too, and he would have put enough troops on the ground to storm Tora Bora to get Osama.
Grant, I see zero evidence that John Kerry could have made the right dessions at Tora Bora. His entire history in the senate seems to be one failure and suporting failed causes. What makes you belieave he would suddenlly get it right at Tora Bora? I mean goes every where and says that "he would have done it right", but we are talking about a retrospective, right? I mean even Bush at this point would get it right. It rather easy to do the right thing, once you know what the right thing is.

Derek

“Kerry's personality is a whole heck of alot more conducive to effective diplomacy, too.”

There is nothing to support this most peculiar notion. On the contrary, John Kerry instinctively recoils from upsetting the anti-Americans residing in France and Germany. Deep in his heart of hearts, he always blames the United States first. If Jacques Chirac is irritated with us---then we must be at fault. John Kerry’s whole career had been devoted to appeasement. He adamantly opposed President Reagan during the Cold War.

Also, what is this “John Kerry is a master of the details” stuff? This man has accomplished virtually nothing in his political career. Is there even one example of leadership that you can point to? The running of Kerry’s campaign has been a total joke. The only reason that he remains competitive against President Bush is the deceitfulness of the MSM. It has next to nothing to do with Kerry’s ability to master “the details.”

Michael Totten is right to mention George W. Bush’s unwillingness to publicly confront Vladimir Putin. Quiet diplomacy? Perhaps, but it admittedly isn’t making head lines. Totten, though, appears to be wrong about the Saudis. I definitely sense a attitudinal turnaround among the leading princes. If nothing else, self preservation motivates them to oppose terrorism.

DEREK...

On most everything else, I would say you are right. But Kerry's called him on this one from the very start, from the moment it came out that Osama Bin Laden was probably in Tora Bora and that Bush knew about it but refused to storm the place w/ American troops. We're talking RIGHT after it happened. Kerry was furious then and said as much. It didn't make a whole lot of news at the time because, well, Kerry wasn't quite who he is today at the time.

All the military guys came to Bush and told him they thought that's most likely where Osama was. Bush is a big believer in the whole "light and mobile" idea though, as is Rumsfeld, and so he was hesitant to put any more boots on the ground than he did. As such, he depended heavily on native warlords and refused to storm Tora Bora with American troops.

Kerry is not a "light and mobile" purist (much like John McCain), and has criticized Bush for not utilizing more American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. On this, he has been absolutely consistent and so it makes perfect sense to assume that Kerry would have put a whole hell of alot more of our guys in Afghanistan when we first went in, as the actual commanders suggested we do, and that he would have had them storm Tora Bora, again, as suggested.

Bush has never listened to any of the generals. Kerry has given him shit for it the entire time. When people say it doesn't matter whether or not the President has seen combat experience, it's times like these that tell me it does.

Afganistan requires "light and mobile". Logistics there suck ass. Using force multipliers (i.e. "outsourcing" via Special Forces) was the right thing to do in Afganistan.

Don't lose track of the fact that we did win in Afganistan. Did we get a perfect score? No, we didn't, but it was certainly better than the 'worst case' scenarios that can be floated. Repeating the Soviet experiment in Afganistan, for example.

My personal opinion is that Bin Laden is a stain on a wall. But he's been awfully quiet if I'm wrong, and it's possible that as an actual 'martyr', killed outright, he'd be more effective as a recruiter.

“Kerry was furious then and said as much.”

There is no such thing as consistent position by John Kerry. The flip flopper accusation is not a Karl Rove invention. On the contrary, it is the logical conclusion that one should reach after thoroughly examining Kerry’s ever changing positions. This is truly a man who puts his wet finger into the air to find out the direction of the prevailing winds.

DAVID T...

Yeah, I stick by what I said. I was talking about Kerry's personality versus Bush's personality and I didn't exactly have Germany and France in mind so much as I did the Muslim world. Bush, the man, has come to symbolically represent everything these people hate about America. It's in the ridiculously arrogant way he walks. It's in the ridiculously religious way he talks. I hate to reduce it to the "cowboy christian" stereotype, but that's pretty much it.

Bush speaks the language of the fundamentalist Christian. It bothers me but it bothers me a whole heck of alot more knowing how much it bothers the Muslim world. My girlfriend is studying abroad at American University in Cairo. They all got together at 3am (because of the time difference) to watch the first debate. Every time Bush would employ religious language or religious symbols, she told me that it made the hair stand up on the back of their neck. Beyond the actual issues, that's what they remembered: Being threatened in their faith by the way Bush spoke.

More and more people in the world are beginning to equate Bush-the-man with the average American. That's the diplomacy I'm talking about. Not what the Germans and French think of us, though that does matter, but what the average man-on-the-Muslim-street thinks. And, just for the record, THAT is what Kerry was talking about when he said we ought to be more "sensitive" in the way we go about these types of things. We have to crush the terrorists, no doubt, but we also have to win the hearts and minds of everyday people over there. Bush just scares the shit out of them with references to "evildoers" and "the enemy". It's biblical language and they know it and it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to dispell the notion that the War on Terror is not a modern religious crusade against Islam.

To me, Kerry is refreshingly secular, as he should be. That's the diplomacy I'm talking about.

Grant

Your faith in what you project Kerry doing I find astounding, I respect your idealism but you need to add some realism…

Michael

Your lack of faith in Dubya I find astounding, I actually think you get small cases of brain-freeze as you vacillate in your politics. Do you really think if Republicans gain in the House, Senate and Bush wins more than 50% of the vote (something the Democrats haven’t done since Carter) that he will have the same capital he has now? Michael Please! How deep would the capital be that John Kerry you claim would have after talking down our allies, the War, the reasoning and everything he possibly could? My God he will be subject to more Pat Leahy type f-offs then I can imagine. You see to much as through the scope of a proctologist my friend.

We may not like the casualties, we may think Bush is learning on the job and making it up as he goes, but memo to Tom Friedman and the like, who wouldn’t? It seems so easy to pot shot from the side lines which is why I so respect those like Roger Simon because a steady injection of more realism with the idealism keeps the wishful thinking in perspective. We all would like the political nouns ( persons, places and things) to fit the ideas of our minds but your take on things seems overly dour and negative. People like Tom Friedman and too a lessor extent you Michael allow wishful thinking to contrive takes on reality that over focuses on the wishful and in truth introduces an element that starts to show disrespect to on the imperfect realities that life throws at people like our President.

Funny thing for me is as people like you talk about fictional scenarios and people that would execute it all better with almost up front 20/20 perspective. Like Kerry’s plan I have not heard one critic yet I would rather have running the show, not one! Keep putting out the nice writing but don’t expect me to be overly impressed by the naval-gazing nuance.

P.S. Take what I have said in stride.

SAMUEL...

It's funny what is happening to you an me, my friend. Call it an election-polarization if you want. Whether or not you realize it, you've taken a pretty hard right here of late. And I've been veering left. Before the election really started heating up, we were practically next-door neighbors in the Center. Hopefully, we can meet back there at some point in the future.

And I can't believe you said you wouldn't prefer ANYONE else conducting the War on Terror over Bush. What about John McCain?! Or Dick Lugar? Or Joe Biden? Or Joe Lieberman? My God, the list goes on and on and on!

Grant

Bush speaks the language of the fundamentalist Christian. It bothers me but it bothers me a whole heck of alot more knowing how much it bothers the Muslim world.

Grant I am a secular Jew and no Social Conservative to say the least. But somebody being who he is shouldn't be an offense to anybody, and worrying what others think about a man’s faith and it’s affect on his language is quite frankly an affront to our ideas as a nation. The real truth is Grant the very opposite of what you said. The Muslim world needs to deal with it, in fact it will be a good sign that they have decided to finally leave the Middle Ages for it is them who has a prejudicial problem toward Christians and Jews just for simply being such. Even worse your above statement inspires appeasement YUCK!

Seriously man, Joseph Biden's speech at the Democratic National Convention was the best I've heard in regards to the War on Terror. From anyone. Go and check it out, if you want.

Oh my, MJT, what a drubbing you gave Leftist anti-war Kerry supporters. I love it. (again)

Don't you have a link to your old "Why Liberals should support Bush's war"? I can't seem to find it, now -- and it was SO good, then, too.

You avoid Marc C's idea, that "we are equally safe" under Bush or Kerry. I wrote about how the US gov't should expect bad intelligence, meaning two types of errors. 1) Attacking when we don't need to (false pos.) 2) Not attacking when we should (false neg.)

Bush has shown a willingness to avoid errors of type 2; I feel much safer with those errors.

And you say Bush has "used up" his political capital, which is true. I argued he could both get some capital back AND invade, to change the genocidal regime in Sudan.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/314378#314378

And, obviously, getting re-elected is a big influx of new Political Capital. So a mid-Nov better to attack evil than be sorry that evil attacked you ultimatum to Iran might be in the cards.

When a re-elected Bush gives the mullahs an ultimatum, I'm sure they'll listen and it will be very influential.

A Kerry ultimatum will NOT be so influential.

Why not just become an unhappy Bush supporter -- supporting Bush's pro-democracy doctrine, but unhappy about how he's doing it? Constructive criticism?

Uuuugh. Samuel, you're totally missing the point of what I said.

I want my President to scare the shit out of the Iranian mullahs and the House of Saud and all the other dictatorial-theocratic bastards over there. But I want him allying himself with the peoples of those countries. The average Mulslim person in a Middle-Eastern country is not our enemy, he is our friend and possible ally in overthrowing these oppressive regimes.

Read again what I said about my girlfriend's experience watching the debates in Egypt. Those were liberal Muslims she was watching it with, Samuel, and they cringe at what our President has to say. Those are the people that really matter, my friend. They're the future revolutionaries. We can't stand to turn them against America simply because our President seemingly wants to Christianize them, or so it seems in their eyes.

"Supporting Bush's pro-democracy doctrine, but unhappy about how he's doing it?"...

Tom, you conservatives love to say how those of us on the left favor the "power of the pen" over, well, the power of force. So, let me ask you this: What good is a "doctrine" if you refuse to back it up or fuck it up every time you try? Bush talks a mighty Wilsonian talk, but doesn't always walk the walk. The details do matter.

Grant

And I can't believe you said you wouldn't prefer ANYONE else conducting the War on Terror over Bush. What about John McCain?! Or Dick Lugar? Or Joe Biden? Or Joe Lieberman? My God, the list goes on and on and on!

It doesn't go on and on for me.

My above reply speaks partly why, appeasement. John McCain is the only person on that list even close but his base doesn't trust him and ones own political base is most important. The rest have too much appeasement in their bones and Lieberman is a Jew, not the man to be doing what Bush is doing.

Grant my reason for saying Bush is the man is simple. I see you Michael and many others imply this President doesn't get it anymore and almost imply he is past his own vision or ability to achieve the goals. That isn't my take. My take is I see people losing a little faith and stomach and a President who hasn’t lost either, and I find comfort. I see Bush a man who like Ulysses Grant is at times tactically flawed but unlike General McClellan does not let fear of the unknown or mistakes stop him from pushing forward hard. Grant resolve in life trumps all and by miles and this President has bucketfuls of it.

Napoleon said a leader is not rooted in intellect but rather a person who sees a goal and focuses on that goal with a single mindedness long after others have moved on in their thoughts. What you see as stubbornness I see as resolve, what you see as loss off perspective, I see as iron will to stay the course.

Chris Wallace’s new book sites Presidential acts of bravery in American History and the most important aspect is going hard against the public, conventional wisdom and predictions of doom of the day. People like you Grant give Bush that very opportunity and I thank you for that as you will only help seal the greatness. Chris Wallace (no hard conservative) put President Bush in his book, I think he is right. It is becoming conventional wisdom of Bush’s impending failure, I’m a believer you aren’t. That’s ok Grant, I had my chance to be wrong with Reagan, you are having yours now. You are young and like me make up for it later.

;-)

They cringe Grant? SO WHAT! I don't care what you call them, liberal or conservative. It is they that need to deal with it. I get what you are saying you are wrong! Overy nuanced, overly conerned about a man altering his natural self to be accepted... THEY NEED TO DO MORE ALTERING! World wide levels of political correctness would be undermining to our goals. Are you PC?

Grant,

Bush gets the big picture. He's a big picture guy. He has the "vision thing" his father lacked. John Kerry is a master of the details. He's a practical dude. He's the tactician.

You've gone insane. This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say. You're entering into the realm of fantasy in order to rationalize the dissonance you're feeling for backing the man who will ensure that everything you believe in fails to materialize. You're just making shit up.

George Bush isn't a micro manager. Nor should he be. He wasn't the one who designed the master PLAN to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora. He turned it over to the generals to determine how to do it. They looked at the resources available to them at the time of the Tora Bora operation and determined the best approach:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/campaign/ground/torabora.html

Who do you want to be making tactical decisions? Tommy Franks and his special forces commanders? Or John Kerry?

Do you really want the President making tactical decisions? The job of the President is to set the goals and then pick the best people to implement those goals. If those people fail, then he should adminish them. If they fail repeatedly, he should fire them. The absolute LAST thing I want is a commander-in-chief who huddles over maps with his generals and tells them how to run the war. To want a President who does that is insane.

Biden? He is a showhorse, Grant that is a speech. Moses was slow of speech and Aaron was his spokesman, did that make Aaron the better leader?

By the way like Moses, Bush can pull off a good speech every now and again... SHEESH!

Grant,

My girlfriend is studying abroad at American University in Cairo.

Ahhh, that explains things! You're sufffering from DSP (deadly sperm buildup). That can affect one's mind. Unless of course you're gittin' a little on the side while the little lady is away!

BTW, should your girlfriend be more concerned about the way George Bush expresses his faith, or the way her fellow students in Cairo express theirs? I wonder what percentage of them would condemn suicide bombers? Or flying jets into tall buildings? Or chopping off infidel's heads?

Grant

Plain and simple you think Bush is a screw up, and further you are embarrassed and/or ashamed of the guy. I feel differently and your arguments are all wishful, nothing rooted in hard reality. You say many things on a superficial level I would agree with. But Bush the known trumps the unknown. For me odds are they would do worse. Further, Kerry is the only one running here and like Cheney said, “All the sound bites of the last 90 days can’t obscure 30 years of a public record” KERRY IS WEAK! I’ll leave the wishful to you. Bush’s resolve, hyped up-mistakes and all, easily trump your list (except McCain, the neo-con choice in 2000 anyway) Neo-cons are content with Bush. Also the Military in the last poll was 4-1 for Bush, important during War.

SAMUEL...

So the liberal Muslims are the ones who need to do the altering aye? I hope to God you're refering to altering the makeup of their government and not insisting that they need to change themselves. If you're saying that they're the ones who need to be doing more to oppose the governments that rule over them, you're right, but that's not what they're inspired to do when they hear Bush speak. They hear Bush speak and the idea enters their mind that maybe, just maybe, it is a War on Islam as a religion...AND THEY MOVE IN A MORE FUNDAMENTALIST DIRECTION!!! My girlfriend watched this reaction, Samuel, firsthand. I'm not making this shit up.

Call it overly-PC if you want, I don't care. I'm just saying that by the way Bush goes about things, by the way he speaks and talks and carries himself, we're turning more of these people into terrorists than we are against their own governments. Maybe it's just sickeningly "PC" to you that I be so concerned with the way Bush speaks and how that looks in their eyes, but it's hurting the War on Terror if we're alienating the moderate Muslims. That should matter to you. It does to me, "PC" or not, and I don't want a President who feels more pressure to cave to the Religious Right in America than he does Moderate Muslims around the world.

We ought to be sending the message to these people that, in the name of the sacredity of your religion, we oppose those who make a mockery of it and kill in its name. Under Bush, in their eyes at least, we're opposed to Islam as a whole and not just the radical-heretical wing of it. I pray you see the long-term danger in that sort of posturing.

SAMUEL...

Sigh. Plain and simple, it's not what I think, Samuel, it's what they think that concerns me. Everybody jumped on the Zell-Miller-bandwagon, bashing Kerry for refering to our troops as occupiers. Zell Miller thinks we're liberators, instead.

I don't give a shit what Zell Miller thinks. In the case of Iraq, I care what the Iraqis think. That's my point. It's not shame or embarassment, it's how what Bush says is being interpreted over there. If the President of the United States was the dumbest man in America and said the dumbest things, but was loved by the average Muslim in the Muslim World and inspired them to force reform upon their rulers, I would be that President's number one fan.

Don't accuse me of being shallow, man. It's got nothing to do with that.

HA...

I'm laughing harder than you could possibly imagine, right now. Thanks for lightening up things, there. Deadly Sperm Buildup must be it! I just need to go and get laid and all will be well. It has been almost a month and a half, now. Hell, maybe if I get laid often enough and well enough I'll become a conservative (according to your theory). I wouldn't mind testing that out, buddy.

Yeah, on that note, I'm going back to bed. Later, guys.

GM:

Your discussion is the same conversation I'm having with one of my coworkers. His biggest problem with President Bush is the President's willingness to vocalize his Christian beliefs. My answer to him, and I suppose to you, is "George Bush is an American citizen. He has the same rights that you and I have to express his beliefs. If you don't agree with them that's fine. You have the freedom to express that disagreement with no fear of anyone knocking down your door in the middle of the night."

Do your girlfriend's friends in Cairo have that same freedom? Your response is to curtail the President's freedoms so a group of people outside our borders are not made uncomfortable? I submit the problem lies not in President Bush's words but in a profound unwillingness to learn and understand in the Muslim world. Any changes required are required in Cairo.

Semper Fi

MJT,

And it's all because of the Bush Doctrine.

That is the bottom line. This election is a referendum on the Bush Doctrine. If Bush wins, America will have endorsed the Bush doctrine. If Kerry wins, America will have repudiated the Bush doctrine and embraced the Clinton doctrine.

What is the Clinton doctrine? Zero casualties. You wage war from 15,000 feet. You don't give a shit about the tens of thousands of Kosovars getting slaughtered over a period of months. And when the enemy capitulates, you send in a UN "force" which does not have the resolve to prevent retribution on the part of the Kosovars, does nothing to stop the Wahhabis from setting up shop, does nothing to prevent a massive and harmoniously multi-cultural trade in sex slaves, and includes Arabs who murder Americans.

And at some point, it may be 5, 10 or 20 years, the Serbs and Kosovars will resume their slaugher and nothing will have been accomplished. There are no good guys in that conflict. The Serbs were painted as the bad guys because they are Christians and are therefore the natural oppressors in the eyes of leftists. The Kosovars were painted as the good guys because they are muslim and are therefore the natural victim of the brutal Christians. We chose sides and created a myth to support that choice. The real truth is that both sides in that conflict are brutal savages, and our involvement has been a failure. All we've done is to defer the bloodbath.

The Clinton Doctrine is the test Kerry has applied to Bush in this campaign. If a war is not casualty-free for Americans, it shouldn't be fought. That standard of perfection is being used by Kerry to hammer Bush. It is the same standard that will be applied to Kerry should he win.

If Kerry wins, the Bush Doctrine is dead. Kerry does not believe in it, and he will not follow through on it. Therefore, I see no reason to continue supporting the war in Iraq if Kerry wins. There will be nothing further to be gained in staying. And if Iraq descends into chaos, that is their problem, not ours.

I will no longer support the war in Iraq if John Kerry is elected. I will support an orderly withdrawal of our troops after the Iraqi election. At that point, it will be up to the Iraqis to fight for their own freedom. I cannot in good concious support a policy that sends American troops to kill and be killed if there is nothing further to be gained. John Kerry will not support the generational commitment needed to ensure that the liberal agenda is successful in Iraq because he and his supporters does not believe in the liberal agenda. They are socialists and anti-liberals, not liberals. That is why real liberals like you, Berman and Hitchens are pissing in the wind. And that is why you are treated like a heretic.

Furthermore, I do not trust John Kerry to be the commander in chief. He has a 30 year track record of using national security and the military as pawns in the service of his political ambition. He is unfit for office.

What Kerry will do is keep sending American troops into the meat grinder in order to avoid the impression that he cut and ran. This is what Nixon did. It is what Kerry will do. He knows that if he is the 2nd president to lose a war, he has no chance of getting reelected in 2008. American troops cannot be used as cannon fodder for John Kerry's ambition in the same way that Nixon did. If we're not there to win, we should get the hell out.

Kerry talks a lot about what he learned from Vietnam. What he learned is that to win relection in a landslide, you have to govern like Nixon. John Kerry is the same kind of man as Richard Nixon. Everything in his record is screaming this fact. How can anyone give him the benefit of the doubt?

My cousin was killed in Vietnam in 1971 while John Kerry was meeting with the Vietnamese Communist leadership, advocating their surrender terms at anti-war protests and in Congress, and denouncing American solders as war criminals. My cousin's loss devastated his family. And his sacrifice served no purpose because Nixon was never there to win the war. Nixon didn't stay in Vietnam to win the war, he stayed in Vietnam to win reelection. My cousin was killed to serve Nixon's ambition. That was tantamount to murder when Nixon did it, it will be tantamount to murder when Kerry does it.

Grant,

Hell, maybe if I get laid often enough and well enough I'll become a conservative (according to your theory). I wouldn't mind testing that out, buddy.

LOL! Are there any good escort services out there in Indiana? I'll pick up the tab if it will win you back over to the good side!

Grant: What good is a "doctrine" if you refuse to back it up or fuck it up every time you try? Bush talks a mighty Wilsonian talk, but doesn't always walk the walk. The details do matter.

On Saturday, the Afghans will have an election. That's not OK, not good or very good, it is almost unbelievably fantastic. A country that, with US supplies (to Islamic terrorists), fought off the Evil Empire, is about to vote.

Democracy for Afghanistan is about to be tried; for Iraq it's scheduled for Jan 2005. No other leader in the world walks that talk more than Bush (though Blair walks as well, and talks MUCH better!)

HA spoke above about zero-casualty Clinton doctrine; there is also the failed Vietnamization strategy Nixon tried. With big, US Occupation forces in support -- a failure.

Michael's article talked about Bush having no Political Capital -- because Bush-hating Leftists hate Bush more than they love freedom for others. If the Dems were in front with a plan, meaning milestones (local elections here, provencial ones there, human rights here) and results, the Dems could say pro-democracy is great, but Bush is failing the results test.

Setting the test at 0 casualities is a stupid test. I set it at 2500; less than that, and Bush gets an A; up to 5000, a B; up to 10 000, a C.

Yep, democracy in the Mid East should be worth up to 10 000 casualities -- where are the Dems who have the guts, the intellectual honesty, to specify numbers by which results can be judged?

You're too critical of Bush's Christianity. And Christian influenced UN Human Rights, free speech, free thought, IS a direct attack on current thought and speech controlled Islam.

This is part of the Islamic modernization war -- the Islam that will influence governments must accept free speech, or those states will become terrorist sponsors and get gov'ts changed.

And anyway, they got OBL at Tora Bora. Why do you think there hasn't been a video of him in the last three years? He's buried in one of those caves.

My inference from the article (correct me if I'm wrong, Michael): leftists are not liberal. An interesting point to make when the terms are often used interchangeably these days.

But maybe it is more important to note that liberalism has gone leftist, by the momentum of its fundamental premises: collectivism and altruism. Wilson championed the League of Nations -- from which derived the left's favorite forum for emasculating Western Civilization: the U.N.

Which also explains why compassionate (read: altruistic) conservativism is sliding in the same direction now, towards "liberalism". Bush's thin justification of the loss of U.S. soldiers in terms of U.S. self-interest has become more and more muted.

Oh, and MJT, you have made a better case for Bush than you did for Kerry.

Great article. Right on the money as far as I see it,but I'm a triffle biased on the issue.

Another great article, Michael. I'm coming down mostly on the side of the hawkish case for Kerry. On one hand I think Kerry will make a hash of the war against Islamofascism ... his administration could easily represent a near-halt to it, and induce many of the negative outcomes that could arise from essentially regressing to a Sept 10 worldview. But under Bush, both because of his own severe shortcomings and because of BDS, which is all-pervasive in my crowd, I think the war against Islamofascism could be discredited--even if the "discrediting" is unjustified--forever. In other words, I'd rather see a pause in a good cause, and suffer the short-term consequences, than see a complete meltdown of the American body politic into another generation of post-Vietnam-like paralysis. Long-term success in the democratization of the planet is only possible when people like my wife and many, many other people I know--who are not on the political fringe by any means--are pulling on the same end of the rope that I am. I hate the fact that the political menu I'm choosing from right now is so appalling that I'm forced to clutch at such weak straws and such limited short-term goals.

Grant Said: "Bush has never listened to any of the generals. Kerry has given him shit for it the entire time."

Bush has NEVER listened to ANY of his generals. What a horribly ignorant statement. This is the kind of rhetoric that I hear spewing from the far left every day, and I find it absolutely frightening. First off, I have to wonder- do you guys REALLY BELIEVE this stuff? Or are you throwing it around hoping it'll stick to minds of the mentally weak and/or uninformed.

Shinseki wanted to send more troops into Iraq. There's still no evidence that this would have been a better idea. Did we not overrun the regime in 3 weeks? Was it the lack of troops that caused the subsequent looting and ransacking? Nope. It was the fact that the Rules of Engagement prohibitted us from taking a hard line against those criminals. The conventional wisdom was that it just wouldn't look good if we were tussling with the civilians that we were supposed to be liberating. In any case, who cares? Shinseki was ONE dissenting voice among dozens of Generals. Bush went with the consensus. Are you implying that he should have ignored MOST of his Generals, and listened to the one that dissented? Would THAT be indicative of a wise Commander in Chief? I'm just curious, Grant- give some examples to support your theory that Bush NEVER listens to ANY of his Generals. Did he listen to GEN Tommy Franks? How about LTG David Patraeus? Sanchez? I respect your right to free speech, but I ask a favor- please don't spout off your in-depth knowledge of military affairs if you have no clue what you're talking about. It's offensive to those who serve...

Nice article, MJT. Hopefully, my liberal brother will read it and finally understand what I've been trying to tell him all along. However, after reading both of those articles, I can't believe that you are REALLY still undecided. Who do you think you are, Bill O'Reilly? C'mon, you're not foolin' anyone but yourself....

Great essay and fantastic argument.

I still plan on voting for Bush but I lament that he and his administration does not indeed have the political capital nor often the tactical capability to implement their policy of pre-emption and active democratization. If Kerry had a similar vision and conveyed the ability to implement it better, I would easily cast my vote for him. Sadly he has neither.

I guess best case scenario is for the winner of the election to at worst keep this momentum going until hopefully a leader with a strong vision and the will to implement it successfully emerges for 2008. Fingers crossed.

Michael,

WooHoo! And its not a Bush thing, its a lets have a political party that really gets it. Great article!

Having never been a liberal activist, though according to this article, I may be on my way, I need to ask for an explanation about East Timor and the Berlin wall. I missed that.

And I have a real concern about how we deal with the Saudi's. In the ending, classic oil vs. principles scene in Three Days of the Condor, the CIA guy tells the geek that (paraphrased)"when the lights go out and you're starving, you'll beg us to do something..."

I think this is a real (nightmare) potential scenario. We argue about spanking the Saudis from a high degree of comfort. How would we be if things got really tough? The oil in Iraq is still highly susceptible to sabotage, imagine the whole Middle East in such an uproar:

A very short list-
-$20 gallon of gas
-Heating bills x 10
-Food costs doubled, tripled because of transport

A great depression in a society divorced from the land, totally dependent on a highly evolved production and distribution system

So, shaking the structure too much could be catastrophic. Before we go after the Saudis, we had better have our ducks lined up very carefully.

Interesting. While you may have made a liberal case for Bush you may have inadvertently made a conservative case against Bush. Arguably the current mess in Iraq proves that the conservative realists were correct when they warned that nation-building is a fool's dream. The conservative goals were accomplished in Iraq 16 months ago - Iraq does not harbor WMDs today and Saddam has been deposed. At that point you can argue that Bush went off the rails. Why on earth should we believe that a democratic Iraq would be pro-American? The French and Russians are not pro-America, in fact they dislike America intensely because they feel humiliated by our power and prestige. Why would a free Iraqi populace show any more gratitude than the French at the end of WWII or the Russians after the Cold War? Isn't that wishful thinking? A lot of Iraqis already seem very ungrateful today. A truly democratic Iraq would be under intense popular pressure to support the Palestinians. A free Iraqi press will whip up anti-Semitism just as the free French press does, or the free Arab press in Western Europe. We are spending enormous amounts of manpower and resources that could be dedicated to countering real threats in order to build a democratic country that may turn on us as soon as it gets the chance. For years conservatives have argued that the US is safer if the Middle-East is ruled by strongmen with whom we can deal. It's not fair but it's "reality." To date Bush hasn't shown us how the US will benefit from a democracy in Iraq, other than a warm fuzzy feeling for rescuing them from Saddam.

Despite his image as a man of conviction and principle, Bush's actions are that of a man adrift. Some days he's a a liberal nation builder, some days he's a realist. As Michael points out the evidence from Russia, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia don't show consistent support for democracy. And while I've heard very convincing liberal hawk arguments from people like Hitchens, Wolfowitz and others, Bush himself seems unwilling or unable to make this case. In Iraq we seem to be pursuing two contradictory goals at once - imposing a pro-American strongman (first Chalabi, then Allawi) but simultaneously undermining the strongman by insisting on elections, free press, etc. As a result Iraqis are very confused and have no idea what the US is trying to achieve.

Bush clearly loves Freedom, but unlike a real conservative Bush is lost in abstract ideals. What does Bush really mean by "Freedom" or "Democracy?" Does anyone really know? Conservatives are supposed to be the can-do, detail guys. They are the guys you turn to after liberal dreamers make a hash out of things. In this election the roles seem reversed.

The ideal result to my mind is a Kerry Presidency contained by a Republican Congress. Congress would restrain Kerry's idealism and force him to deliver results. Either candidate will be a disaster unless he's checked by an opposition legislature.

Yeah, I think a divided government under a Kerry Presidency wouldn't be that bad a deal either. Anytime Kerry felt like slipping back into his Vietnam Syndrome days, he'd think twice knowing he had a Republican congress ready and incredibly willing to call his ass out on it.

And that way, we'd actually get some halfway moderate Supreme Court nominees put forth. It'd be like the best of both worlds.

Well said, Mike. Before I comment further, I'd like to point out my own "liberal" credentials, as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice and Al Gore once, and who until recently received my perspectives on the news faithfully from NPR, lest anyone think I'm some sort of GOP fanboy: I'm not by any definition. Mr. Bush and I disagree on many issues, and absent 9/11, I doubt if I'd be voting for him.

Both of your essays are very good, but my opinion is that the Hawkish case for Kerry sounds a little strained, like it was a real stretch. Frankly, it is. If Kerry wins, my only hope will be that better Democratic heads in cabinet positions will prevail and prevent a disaster in the War on Terror. The program Kerry is hinting at, if you can call it that, seems likely to lead us back to the 9/10 days - or maybe worse. The Liberal Case for Bush is spot on, though.

Somehow, the attacks of September 11th knocked us into some bizarro world where the Democrats are the conservatives and the Republicans are the liberals. Whatever happened, liberal centrists like me (and you from the sound of it) were left standing in the middle wondering where our party went, while the other side moved over and, surprisingly, agreed with us on some of the most important things we believed in.

I still disagree with the Bush administration on many things, but they are quibbles compared to the significant things where I agree with him. There's no more liberal way to spend American blood and treasure than to secure freedom for others, especially when it serves our own cause so well.

Gee, isn't there somerhing called domestic policy? All you have given us is a foreign policy that consists of one "big idea" - one that Bush has shown quite clearly that he is incapable of carrying out. There is a consistency between this Administration's foreign and domestic policies - they are a shambles and have left us in worse shape. Do you really believe that one grand idea,incompently carried out justifies this guy's re-election?

How soon we forget Kerry hasn't taken the Global test yet so how would we know what he would do. In early polling data

How many think John Kerry would fight to save America?

CBS- 80% say he would fight 20% don't like Dan R
NBC- 47% fight 35% won't fight 18% hate Bush
ABC- 100% didn't know there was a fight.
Foxnews- 81% won't fight 15% like his hair 4% don't get cable.
MSNBC- same as NBC
PBS/NPR - 100% say he would fight if it helps him win the election

$lick: I can't believe that you are REALLY still undecided. Who do you think you are, Bill O'Reilly? C'mon, you're not foolin' anyone but yourself....

No, I intend to vote for Bush. I mentioned this the other day. I'll write another post about it to make it clearer. But there are some good arguments for Kerry, and I understand why people prefer him. (My wife is going to vote for him.) I'm not going to be as gung-ho about Bush as most of his supporters are.

I almost fnd myself looking for an excuse to vote Kerry but while I'm not a single issue voter, I do have my priorities. Confidence in Bush's willingness (not ability) to finish business in Iraq is all that's keeping me in his camp. Certainly nothing involving domestic and economical issues that's for sure.

Jdwill: I need to ask for an explanation about East Timor and the Berlin wall.

Read "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by Christopher Hitchens.

Indonesia invaded East Timor with Kissinger's backing. Indonesia committed genocide in East Timor, killing nearly one person in three. Indonesia is Muslim. East Timor is Catholic.

Kissinger supported the Jihad - the Jihad - because the Jihad was anti-communist. It did nothing to bring down the Berlin Wall, as Hitchens has noted.

Since then Australia has pushed Indonesia out of East Timor (at the behest of left-wing activists). And that is one of Osama bin Laden's grievances against Australia at this time. A Christian nation was saved by another Christian nation from Islamic imperialism. Therefore, Australia is high on the target list. Osama bin Laden hates Australia's left-wing foreign policy. (Savor the irony.) I presume, though, that he approves of Kissinger's policy on some level. It was anti-communist, anti-Christian, and pro-Islamic-imperialism.

DC,

I'm still waiting for a "liberal centrist" to explain to me how exactly 9/11 made him a Bush supporter. I understand a lot of the disgust at the far left - the Chomskys, the Sontags, the staff of The Nation - all disgraced themselves, but the mainstream Democratic party (Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman,etc) never sympathized with those people. If Kerry and Holbrooke had been President and Secretary of State on 9/11 they would certainly have sent troops into Afghanistan, and the results wouldn't have been much different. What has the Bush administration done to earn your trust since then? I don't see why a "centrist" would support nation building in Iraq. The idea of changing another culture by armed force is a very radical idea that would typically either be supported by a left-liberal revolutionary type, like Hitchens, or a gung-ho pro-military action rightist. The idea that Saddam had any WMDs or posed any sort of a military threat to the US in 2002 seems completely discredited at this point. So, while I grant that those were good centrist arguments at the time when they seemed plausible, in retrospect wouldn't you say Bush has been heading in the wrong direction for quite some time? There is a lot of talk about the Islamofascist threat among liberal hawks. But what evidence is there that Bush really understands this threat? Publicly at least no one in the administration is willing to stand up and attack this ideology head on. Instead we only hear about how Saddam is a dangerous man, and we still haven't stopped the Saudis from financing Islamic fundamentalists from Britain to Bali. In fact, in no small part due to our attack on Iraq, the Wahabis are now flush with oil dollars. If Bush is not willing to take on Islamofascism directly why should we trust him more than Kerry?

"The idea of changing another culture by armed force is a very radical idea that would typically either be supported by a left-liberal revolutionary type, like Hitchens, or a gung-ho pro-military action rightist. "

Or by Abolishinists in 1860.

"I don't see why a "centrist" would support nation building in Iraq."

Because 9/11 proved that we are at risk for doing nothing and that "nation building", as problematic and hard as it is, is attempting to address the root causes of radicalism in the Middle East.

Vanya,

What evidence do you have that Kerry would have invaded Afghanistan?

I remember the carping of the MSM that Afghanistan would be the graveyard of America. I bet Kerry would have believed them on that and bombed the place, but never instituted regime change. This is a man who voted against Gulf War I, basically voted to let Saddam take over Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia with no consequences.

Excellent point, Bob.

I understand a lot of the disgust at the far left - the Chomskys, the Sontags, the staff of The Nation - all disgraced themselves, but the mainstream Democratic party (Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman,etc) never sympathized with those people.

51% of Democrats believe that US wrongdoing could have motivated the 9/11 attacks.

17% of Republicans believe this.

Chomsky, the anti-war left and most Saudis would agree that US wrongdoing motivated the 9/11 attacks.

As Michael said, Kerry “says nothing about the Bush Administration's coziness with what can only be described as an enemy state during war time. This failing on the part of the Bush Administration is so enormous, so damning, Kerry would have a real shot at the presidency if he were to bang away on this point alone. But he doesn't. I can only assume he plans to continue propping up this potemkin alliance on outdated "realpolitik" grounds.”

With their belief that the unprovoked slaughter of innocents can be justified, or ‘motivated’ by unspecified ‘wrongdoing’, and with their willingness to tolerate Kerry’s friendship with supporters of the Iraninan mullahs, and with the strong influence of the anti-war left in the party, there is absolutely no indication that the Democrats would be able to fight an effective war against terror.

Bob,

I'm not sure if you're making the point you think you are. You're probably aware that the abolitionists were certainly considered radicals in 1860. Through their radicalism they inflamed the reactionaries in the South and ended up leading the country to war. It's not morally satisfying, but a more gradual approach to abolishing slavery with less posturing might have resulted in no Civil War and might have avoided the reactionary backlash in the South that lasted until the 1970s, in some quarters even today. By 1890 Southern blacks lived almost as badly as they had under slavery, and with the Klan and lynching on top of it, yet the Northern radicals had mostly forgotten them. Will that be Iraq's fate?

Changing another culture by force? What a horrible thing to argue: That the systematic looting of a country by a murderous tyrant is their "culture". I don't believe it. I don't believe it for one second. We may or may not succeed but if we fail it will be because we failed to provide sufficient security for the true free exchange of liberal ideas. NOBODY wants to live under a totalitarian madman except those who form part of his clique. This is not a "culture", it is the absence of a culture. We are not imposing our ideas or mores on Iraq as Britain did with its colonies. Only the idea that freedom is good and should be safeguarded by a rule of law. That the left has been reduced to these arguments demonstrates the degree to which they have lost their bearings and why people like Christopher Hitchens and Michael Totten are supporting President Bush.

Doug, very well said.

Matthew,

If Kerry had been President, he wouldn't have had to deal with the partisan carping from the MSM. It would have been Kosovo all over again. Keep in mind, Bush didn't implement regime change in Afghanistan, the Afghanis did it themselves. Regime change was not our explicit goal - publicly we were there to find and destroy Al Qaeda camps and if the Taliban fell, well too bad for them. Yes, we helped a great deal, but locals provided the bulk of the manpower and leadership. There is every reason to believe the Taliban would have toppled under Kerry as well, no regime in Afghanistan is very stable given the number of factions at play.

I am not convinced by the argument that the lack of democracy is the root cause of Islamic terrorism. One of the major causes is oil - not the way the lefties mean, but because oil continues to provide corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq and elsewhere with the means to buy off and control the populace without producing anything of value to the outside world. Only when the oil spigot is finally shut off will the Middle Eastern elites be forced to take stock of how badly run their part of the world really is. This is why I'm pessimistic that democracy without a constant American military presence will change anything in Iraq.

Vanya,

You are making an arguement detached from semblance of moral outrage.

Basically you are arguing that it was better that millions of blacks endure one, perhaps two generations of legalized slavery rather than endure second class citizenship. Go ask a black American which was the preferred route.

You're notion that avoiding the Civil War would have sidestepped a reactionary backlash is so much bullshit. I am a Southerner and am well acquainted with the history of Jim Crow. However my daughter is black. If this was 1860 I would pick up a god damn gun to free her. I wouldn't say "Honey, just hang in there for thirty or forty years, maybe you will live to see your grandchildren born free."

My guess (and hope) is that if you were in the same position you'd do the same.

Political discussion becomes a lot less abstract when it comes close to home.

I find this one MUCH more convincing than the case for Kerry, since here you're talking about rewarding Bush for doing good, whereas in your Kerry case you wanted to reward the Democrats (with power) for doing bad (opposing an effective war on terror).

As for Kerry, if he has ANY good characteristics, I've missed them.

Diplomacy:
Consistently insults our allies ("coalition of bribed and coerced", sending his sister to Australia to tell them they're just making themselves targets of terror by backing the US, dising Poland, Iraq, etc.), sucks up to our enemies (France is not our friend, neither is Germany. You don't "counter-ballance" your allies), and can't negotiate worth a damn (he's gone out on a huge limb WRT "getting more allies" for Iraq. Thus his bargaining position is incredibly weak).

Competence:
Look at his campaign. Look at the leaks, back-biting, and flailing around for a message. Remember the SwiftVets? They first started talking about Kerry in May, yet Kerry still gave them a target rich environment w/ his nominating convention, and yet was totally unprepared for them in August.

Accomplishments:
What has Kerry accomplished with his life? He's won some elections. He's gotten two rich women to marry him. Has he done anything else of a positive nature?

The election is less than 4 weeks from now. Do you know why Kerry "deserves" to be President? If you don't know that now, isn't it because he hasn't accomplished anything that qualifies him for the position?

Yes, I know he's not George Bush. That's not a qualification.

Dougf: Geez it took forever but alls well that ends well.

Yeah, yeah. I went undecided for a while. Probably for too long, but I did it on purpose. I wanted to make really sure I wasn't overreacting to John Kerry and conflating him with Dennis Kucinich. So I tried to talk myself into voting for him as best I could. And I tried to talk myself into it on my terms and my terms only by completely rejecting the conventional wisdom and thinking hard for myself. This is the first election where I have done this. If I'm going to declare myself Independent, I need to think like one instead of just hopping onto a different bandwagon. If that alienated some people, I guess that's just too bad for them. I have no regrets--MJT

No complaints from me.If you needed the time to make an informed decision,more power to you.I am a true 1 issue individual.The GWOT trumps EVERYTHING and I support Bush because I believe that he is going to be steadfast,and even flawed policies and tactics can very often be fully rescued by merely being steadfast.Enough for me.
Now that you have crossed over to the dark side though,it is only a matter of time before you will be applying for your VRWC membership card and special decoder ring.I can sponser you if you like.
Welcome !!!

Greg D,

So should I pick the guy who has no proven track record, or the guy whose track record I dislike?

For me, the question is "Why vote for Bush?"

1. I am opposed to his methods of prosecuting the War on Terror.

2. I am opposed to his Gay Marriage Admendment.

3. I am opposed to his disrespect for States Rights, particularly visible in the current 'medical marijuana' debacle.

4. I am opposed to a large portion of the PATRIOTACT.

5. I am opposed to Mr. Bush's inability to admit that he's made mistakes.

6. I am glad that the assult weapons ban is gone.

So he gets 1 out of 6.

Kerry has done nothing to prove that he will be better. But, I have found no reason to support my president.

For me, it seems that when examining the track record for our next president, a senators record tells us much less than an incumbent presdients record.

A senator who doesn't have a great track record, in my mind, is a less offensive presidential cannidate than a president who doesn't have a great track record.

Tosk

No, I intend to vote for Bush. - MJT

Glad you finally decided... I'm waiting on the last two debates (and to see if any actual evidence for WMD's show up) before I decide. But, right now, I'll probably hold my nose and vote Kerry.

Tosk

Grant Said: "Bush has never listened to any of the generals. Kerry has given him shit for it the entire time."

I wanna know how Grant knows this. Especially since he's never been in the military, didn't take part in any of the war planning, and doesn't know what the F*** he's talking about anyway.

Go read General Franks' book, Grant. He's the guy you want to Monday-morning-quarterback at, since it was his planning that was executed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

6. I am glad that the assult weapons ban is gone.

So he gets 1 out of 6.

Kerry has done nothing to prove that he will be better. But, I have found no reason to support my president.

Yes you have--#6 there. Kerry was against that.

So take all those points and apply them against Kerry and what do you get? You're not going to like what you find, Tree Rat.

Greg D.

I find this one MUCH more convincing than the case for Kerry, since here you're talking about rewarding Bush for doing good, whereas in your Kerry case you wanted to reward the Democrats (with power) for doing bad (opposing an effective war on terror).

Amen! The collective Democrats have basically said, "We will support doing the right thing only if we can be the ones doing it." They otherwise have acted like spoiled brats holding their breaths until they turn blue trying to "tantrum" their way into power, unworthy indeed...

mary

51% of Democrats believe that US wrongdoing could have motivated the 9/11 attacks.

17% of Republicans believe this... "the Bush Administration's coziness with what can only be described as an enemy state during war time. This failing on the part of the Bush Administration is so enormous, so damning, Kerry would have a real shot at the presidency if he were to bang away on this point alone. But he doesn't. I can only assume he plans to continue propping up this potemkin alliance on outdated "realpolitik" grounds.”

Damn straight! Amen Plus! If the Democrats had run to the right (or hard Neo-con left as Pat Buchanan would call it.) This Eastern Establishment Jewish ex-liberal would have shouted for joy! I say ex-liberal because I am old enough (middle aged) to realize Neo-Conservatives are where realism dictates I cast my lot. As a sane liberal I know to wait for the liberal-left and the political base they align themselves with is not going to culturally change any time soon, and now is not the time too risk trying such experimental nuanced endeavors. I’ll be content to hold my nose at some social policies I an not enamored with, but the "liberal mugged by reality" within understands such things mean very little in the light of what we face globally. A weaker version of Bush with a political base of blaming ourselves first, (like Grant putting the blame on President Bush, as if it were his responsibility to alter his honest self to compensate for the worlds intolerance... YUCK!) You rightly point out statistically the drag a weaker version of Bush would have. IT IS A NO BRAINER!

Doug

This is not a "culture", it is the absence of a culture. We are not imposing our ideas or mores on Iraq as Britain did with its colonies. Only the idea that freedom is good and should be safeguarded by a rule of law. That the left has been reduced to these arguments demonstrates the degree to which they have lost their bearings and why people like Christopher Hitchens and Michael Totten are supporting President Bush.

Excellent! Add me to that list. We have no reason to appease.

Michael

My wife is also voting for Kerry (Hell, my whole family extended or not save two others are as well). Republicans are Evil! Think my “Neo-con” zealotry hasn’t earned me a few demerits around here? How about my added gesture of changing parties to Republican to make them deal with it? That I am stubborn is obvious. THE DOGHOUSE IS WHERE I LIVE, I AM RESIGNED TO IT!

Ok Eric,

1. I am opposed to his methods of prosecuting the War on Terror.

1. Kerry has no useful track record on the WoT. He disagrees with the Presidents plan. I disagree with the Presidents plan. However, I don't know if Kerry will do better, he gets an Incomplete.

2. I am opposed to his Gay Marriage Admendment.

2. Kerry is opposed to the Gay Marriage Admendment. (Note, that neither he or I am in FAVOR of Gay marriage, but we both believe a Federal Admendment to the Consitituion is inappropriate) In fact, true republicans should be against it, since it uses big government to control state choice. Kerry gets a pass.

3. I am opposed to his disrespect for States Rights, particularly visible in the current 'medical marijuana' debacle.

3. Kerry is against Marijuana decriminalization, but has pledged to support the right for States to choose for themselves the issue of Medical Marijuana. Kerry gets a pass.

4. I am opposed to a large portion of the PATRIOTACT.

4. Kerry voted for the PATRIOTACT, and probably like most Senators didn't read it. I call dumbass and he fails this one as miserably as Mr. Bush.

5. I am opposed to Mr. Bush's inability to admit that he's made mistakes.

5. This one is up in the air for Kerry, I give him an incomplete.

6. I am glad that the assult weapons ban is gone.

6. Kerry supported the assult ban, I call dumbass liberal, and he fails this one.

So lets see,

Kerry gets 2 Pass, 2 Fail and 2 Incomplete.

Bush gets 5 Fail and 1 Pass.

Your right Eric, I don't like what I see. I hate the fact that I have to choose between two people that I find probably less able to lead the free world than many other current politicans.

However, since I have to choose... Kerry looks less bad.

Eric Blair

Look Grant has admitted he's in the tank for Kerry, he is grasping. With as all the wavering I frustratingly view from MJT, at least he sticks to reason based on fact and not innuendo.

Samuel: THE DOGHOUSE IS WHERE I LIVE, I AM RESIGNED TO IT!

I'm sorry. That really sucks. My wife knows I prefer Bush, she knows why, and she doesn't give me a bunch of crap for it. In return, I never give her a hard time about Kerry. We have good conversations about it sometimes.

I would like to know why your Congress as a whole gets a pass while the Pres. doesn't.The Pres's power is normally limited but this Congress gave him a Go To War Free card instead of declaring war or not. There were overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate for the war in Iraq. This only changed when the Libs felt they had an opening to win this years presidency. Kerry voted for it if the pres lied I guess he did to. The spending money issue is a factor of your Congress and so is the making of laws. Remember they can override any veto from the pres. As far as WMD, who cares at this point. We had more than enough reason to go there everytime Saddam shot at our planes while under unconditional surrender. There is only one thing that means anything in this years election. Who is going to keep America safe? Because all the other petty issues won't mean much if were dead. Kerry turned on our soldiers in battle once what would stop him this time? His plan is to cut the funding for our troops in Iraq essentially forcing us to leave the job unfinished, anything bad that happens during this period will then be GWBs. Anyone who wants power as bad as the Libs will always be suspect in my mind.

My wife, "Sjaantze, Harbringer of Confusion and Snapper of Necks of Small Furry Animals" and I have great olitical conversations... they go like this:

Tosk and Sjaantze watch the News: Horrible attack reported

Tosk: Can you believe that?

Sjaantze: Yep, they're all talking monkeys.

Tosk: So what do you think we should do about Iraq?

Sjaanzte: Why the fuck should I care? I'm not an Iraqi. Let them take care of themselves, or die... then their either self-sufficient monkeys, or dead monkeys.

Tosk: Well... can't argue that. What do you think about Bush?

Sjaantze: (answer removed as it would probably bring Homeland Security people to our door)

Tosk: What do you think about Kerry?

Sjaantze; He looks like the Professor from "The Re-Animator", you know, the zombie with the bat wings attahed to his head?

Tosk: Ummm, wow he really does! http://www.angelfire.com/film/robsclassicfilms/repic10.jpg

Tosk: What do you think about the situation in Isreal?

Sjaantze: We should give both sides plenty of weapons to make sure they wipe each other out... If they've not evolved beyond marking their territory, then its probably best for the gene pool that they get chlorinated.

Tosk: What do you think about these Terrorists?

Sjaantze: I think that I'd love to put a bullet or two through their head.

Tosk: Ah, because you're outraged?

Sjaantze: No, cause they're talking monkeys that refuse to get over their dogmatic religon and their pissing on trees. OUT OF THE GENE POOL FOR THEM ALL.

Tosk:*sigh* Well, who are you voting for?

Sjaantze: Kerry.

Tosk: Why?

Sjaantze: Because I personally don't like Bush. I've never once seen him on TV and thought "That's my President". I always tend to think "What an arrogant ass". I think Kerry is an arrogant as as well, but I don't know that I'd be responsible for my actions if I have to look at the same arrogant ass for another four years.

-----

Now I can't argue with her on the final bit. Voting on personal response is as valid as voting based on the lies all of the cannidates tell us before they get elected.

Besides, there's always SO MANY MORE interesting things to do with my wife than talk about politics.

Ratatosk

Vanya,

1. I am getting very, very weary of the meme “Iraq is such a mess…”

It’s not.

Not when you consider the PTSD the Iraqis are going through with regard to 30 years of Saddam and his cohorts. Not when you consider the fact that just about every single Islamofacist within 2000 miles is attempting to get in country and pick up an AK and, I might add, more than likely die in a vainglorious fashion. Let them come. Be patient. We need to stay and continue doing what we are doing. It worked in Germany, it worked in Japan, after WWII, and it will work here. This isn’t Vietnam. We didn’t get attacked on our own soil prior to boarding the landing craft the way we did this time. This time, we have the will to keep hookin’ and jabbin’ until Iraq is a free and democratic nation. Staying is the moral thing to do. It’s the right thing to do. Don’t lose hope because things get tough. This is exactly what OBL, al-Zawahiri and Zarqawi want. Hell, Zarqawi himself has admitted as much in stating that once democracy takes hold in Iraq, “…it’s all over for us…” Democracy in Iraq will work wonders in the ME, just as it has in every other corner of the globe where it has taken root. Yes, there are varying degrees and varying levels of success, but that isn’t the point. Does anyone really think that we will ever launch a preemptive attack on another democracy, EVER? Even on France?

2. I am also extraordinarily weary of the idea that just because we are not “well liked” in the world right now, that we have lost all credibility. This has got to be one of the most imbecilic concepts I have ever had the displeasure to be berated with. How facile. IMHO, we have more credibility now than we have had since Reagan. We are doing exactly what we said we would do. Know why no one really ever fu**ed with the USSR during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s? Because everyone on the face of the planet knew that they would drop the hammer on you if you did. Blow a Korean Airliner out of the sky over international waters? No problem. Build a wall in Berlin and DARE anybody to try anything? Got you covered. Plant ICBM’s 90 miles off the coast of the USA? We’re your guy. The list goes on and on. Were they “liked”? What an asinine question. Were they respected? Beyond doubt. And what is amazing, truly mind-boggling, is that there is only one real difference between the Sovs in the Cold War and we Americans now. They were hell bent on world domination. All we want is for the Iraqis, Afghans and others in the region to govern themselves, representative democracy, so we can get the hell out, put our American heads back in our hole in the sand & go back to sleep.

3. You know, during the Wests’ Dark Ages, Islam was the height of all things learned, science, art, math, all of it. While our ancestors (for most of us, anyway) were rooting around in our own feces in Europe, the Caliphate was, in contrast, neat, clean, orderly and wealthy. Then somewhere along the line, mostly due to their religion, they lost it, and boy, have they been pissed about it ever since. I’ve been over there. I’ve talked to them. They still can’t believe that it is their, collectively through their practice of Islam, fault. They have lived, up till now, with projection as their main defense against the truth. “How could God allow this to happen!? How could God do this to us?! We must pray harder, live a purer life and kill more Infidels, such that we please God…ya-da, ya-da, ya-da…” I actually had a Jordanian tell me that because Islam viewed Christ as a prophet, that “Christians are good, but the Jooooos!” The projection was easy, because they also couldn’t bring themselves to believe that their leaders down through the centuries were primarily a bunch of self-involved tyrants. Go read some Bernard Lewis.

3. This isn’t about WMD entirely, although your contention that Saddam was no threat here either is glaringly shallow. What we are doing is no less than dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. It is going to be a hell of a lot harder, and take a hell of a lot longer, to get them self sufficient, up and running if you will, than it did for us to do that with Germany and Japan. When it happens, and it will happen, you can tell your grandchildren about how scary it all was…come to think of it, behind all your angry rhetoric, mangling of facts and misanthropic doom-and-gloom points of view, I detect a familiar scent…fear. It’s O.K. to be afraid, just don’t let it control you.

Samuel and Tom Grey – Liberty Dad, you both have nailed it.

MJT, a really outstanding post. I will be dropping by daily now. Thanks much.

Semper Fi,
Capt Smythe

MJT

My wife is angry because:

1) In her mind I have turned my three oldest children "against her" politically. That of course is not the case they just happen to agree with me and more accept my views. If my Seventeen year old daughter could vote, she would vote Bush hands down, my other son and daughter argue my side at their extremely Liberal School they go to.

2) I had the chutzpah to become a Republican! She feels my support for Bush should be enough. My reason for becoming a Republican was simply more to break a stranglehold of hard prejudice in my family. She views it as a thumbed nose. I view it is paving a path for my children to make political choices without worry of familial retribution or more accurately castigation. Translation… I am in the doghouse so they won't have to be. I am taking all the arrows I can.

3) She is a Math Teacher and part of the Teachers Union. I am for school vouchers. I say I am because I am a progressive liberal and want kids to be educated, government does have its limitations.

In reality she is now resigned to my change, but MJT much of my display of political stubbornness is somewhat a compensation for the above but it also does reflect my nature. My wife and I are very happily married we just can't talk about certain things we used to (at least she can't). But then again I told her that her inability to be rational about Bush and things politically is why my political influence has become greater with our children. She can’t talk about it without becoming the typical stereotype of a liberal ranting old meme's about conservatives that haven’t really applied for a generation. The obvious fact is my children were born this generation and Social Security Privatization Speaks to them, yet how do the Democrats speak about such things as that and School Choice? My children aren’t enamored with watching baby boomers argue old failed policies with angst and in fashions that exclude selutions for them.

How long can she keep invoking Pat Buchanan as he sits outside the Republican Party pissed at the neo-conservative takeover of Bush and the Party? How long can she invoke Jim Crow as Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alfonso Jackson, Ron Paige sit in the Upper Echelons of Government, and as they cast Trent Lott overboard while Senator “KKK” Byrd remains “Dean of the Senate”? And Grant if you read this that is why I am a not looking towards Kerry because I have more hope in the other Party to continue moving in the needed direction of change. I see the neo-conservative influence and I wanted to help keep pushing it along. The Paleo-Conservatives are angry I’m on board and that is a good thing, may what is left of the Buchanan types take notice. The Democrats had their chance with Clinton and they could hardly hang on to such things when Clinton was President. I’ve been around long enough to realize that they as a whole were not really sold on Clinton’s Policies but his Power. That is further verified by the behavior of the Democratic Party post Clinton, and add to that what Mary said about the support percentages of the Party base for an acceptable Foreign Policy and that adds up to an epiphany and reality check for me that it isn’t happening with them any time soon. Plus Clinton handed Bush a World more dangerous than was handed him. A first since Jimmy Carter... NO THANKS!

MJT I am sorry, I neglected to say earlier that your article was superb and much better than the one you did on Kerry. Of coarse this one is easier because this was more affirmative rather than the wishful nuance required to argue for Kerry. In other words it was more believable, your political leaning on the matter testifies to that fact because all things being equal I have got to believe the Democratic position would be more comfortable. Good Day.

Capt Smythe

I started to read your post and just as I was finishing you first couple of points I literally thought...

Damn, this guy is really nailing it!

Only to in the end come to this...

Samuel and Tom Grey – Liberty Dad, you both have nailed it.

Thanks, but you drove in the final nail.

Samuel: all things being equal I have got to believe the Democratic position would be more comfortable

This is true, but mostly for my own personal reasons. I have not and will not lose any friends over politics. I feel bad for Roger L. Simon. When I was at his house a few weeks ago he told me (again) that he has lost many friends over this. That SUCKS. I told him that hasn't happened to me. He fired back: "That's because you're not a Baby Boomer." I think this is true. GenXers are more independent and casual about this stuff, I think.

Most of my friends barely care about politics, and those who do are far more interested in having a lively discussion than they are about sitting around and agreeing about everything. That goes for me, too. I don't mind a bit if people disagree or argue with me. I enjoy it - up to a point, as long as we're not talking about trolls in the comments section. It's the only way I can learn anything new or get a reality check on where I might be wrong. The "tone" in my writing may appear that I think I know everything, but I don't and I know it.

I'm sorry. That really sucks. My wife knows I prefer Bush, she knows why, and she doesn't give me a bunch of crap for it. In return, I never give her a hard time about Kerry. We have good conversations about it sometimes.

Perhaps the next TCS column should be marriage/relationship counceling for contrarians. I have a feeling after tomorrow night, I'll be either be moving in with Samuel or just plain single.

I'm sorry. That really sucks. My wife knows I prefer Bush, she knows why, and she doesn't give me a bunch of crap for it. In return, I never give her a hard time about Kerry. We have good conversations about it sometimes.

Perhaps the next TCS column should be marriage/relationship counceling for contrarians. I have a feeling after tomorrow night, I'll be either be moving in with Samuel or just plain single.

Bill,

My wife is mostly apolitical. That helps. It also helps that her father is a Republican and her mother is a Democrat. Same goes for my parents. We are both used to "mixed marriages." Although when Shelly and I met I was to her left. She thought I was a left-wing nut (and she was partly right), but she left my alone about it. :)

Dear Samuel,

Your not alone.

Betsey is my SO. She is a Wellesley grad, soccer mom, and lived in Wellesley, Massacusetts for 20 years. I'll give you one guess about where her political leanings are.

She moved up with me to live in sin in the "Live Cheap or Die State" of New Hampshire. Guess where my political leanings are? (Actually I'm centrist/libertarian, but from Betsey's perspective, this has little merit. At best, I'm just the missing link on the evolutionary chain to knuckle-dragging neocon-derals.)

A couple of nights ago she said she was worried that I might vote Republican. (My blogroll includes the likes of LGF and Misha.) Geez, do you think?

I sent her a link to Iowahawk's "Why I am a Democrat". She just read the title and told me that she was "SO relieved to hear that we weren't canceling out each other's votes."

I told her to go back and re-read the whole essay. Whoops.

What do you figure, maybe some flowers and a nice dinner at an Italian restaurant will do the trick?

bob

MJT

Roger is right, I'm a Boomer and I am in boat much more similar to his. My 3 teenagers look at Boomers as if we were selfish aliens, and I don't blame them. We Boomers are a fat part of the political population with an exaggerated say in things and an exaggerated sense of self, we hiccup and an earthquake occurs.

Bill

What has happened in my family? A secular Jewish once upon a time (through 2002) political activist Democrat goes "neo-con" causes an uproar with argument and mayhem you couldn't imagine. I mean I was totally prepared for the upcoming "mock funeral", the whole Jewish dead to the family thing. Thank God my father is a “Driving Miss Daisy Jew” from Atlanta and more centrist and stepped in, but my Mother... whoa! Did she endeavor to lay a head trip on me! My wife’s father is a Holocaust Survivor and he stood up for me as ironically did my one brother who is Gay. The in-laws are divorced and my Mother-n-law lives with my Wife and I, so this of course exacerbated old wounds. You get the picture.

If the above scenario isn't a sitcom rooted in tragic comedy waiting to happen then I don't know what could be. What an exiting life!

:-)

bob

Bob not to get overly personal but when my wife and I get a little heated about it I just mischievously suggest...

“If you were a man I’d ask you to step outside! Since you aren’t… I’m just going to have to ask you to step upstairs and work it out like a man and a women!” She does have a sense of humor and will except the olive branch (no pun intended) every now and again.
;-)

Yes, BDS is going to be peaking before novermber should Bush lose (which right now is something for me to look all that forward to after listening to Kerry's DOA foreign policy). But it may subside (that in itself is an 'anti-reason' to vote for Kerry). But I'm worried for my local office politics and for me personally Bush wins, I have a bad feeling that BDS will go full tilt should he win.

"The "tone" in my writing may appear that I think I know everything, but I don't and I know it." - MJT

Well, Michael... another 10 years and we'll finally have enough power to knock those damn Greyfaced Boomers out of power and show them how its done! Of course, all these dagnab teenagers will be bitching at us then.

;-)

Wow, It is wonderful to see so many mixed "political" marriages that seem to survive the controversy. My husband and I are both voting Bush this year even though I voted for Gore 4 years ago and mu husband voted for Bush.

This is the conversation I had at my sisters house a few weeks ago. BTW, we are both baby boomers.I'm 52 and my older sister is 61. What made this conversation with her seem so amazing to me is that she lost her first husband in 1968 in VietNam.

ME; Jeannie, who are you voting for in November?

Jeannie; I have to vote for Kerry.

Me; You have to? Why do you have to vote for Kerry?

Jeannie; Bill (her husband) says that is who we are voting for.

Me; Well, is that who you WANT to vote for?

Jeannie, I don't know and it doesn't make any difference, He will make me vote for Kerry.

Me; If you don't want to vote for Kerry then DON'T, vote for Bush. Bill cant be in the voting booth with you.Just tell him you voted for Kerry if that's what you have to do. Wait, Bill has to work that day so you will go to vote separately anyway, right?

Jeannie; Oh Cathy, you know I couldn't do that. He would find out!!

Me; Is he mean to you? Are you afraid of him? Is that why you let him tell you everything to do.

Jeannie; You know he's not mean to me. I LIKE having my husband tell me what to do!!

This last comment of her's left me unable to think or speak. I left there wondering which of us two were adopted. There is no way we came from the same set of genes!!

MICHAEL...

Wow. So, you've decided to vote for Bush aye? I say you bought the rhetoric, my friend. Bush talks a mighty game about "democratization" and "liberalism" and tries his damndest to sound as Scoop-Jacksonesque as possible. I don't buy it, anymore. Everything he has done towards those ends he has done half-assedly. He's either utterly full of shit or the laziest son-of-a-bitch-liberal-commander-in-chief, ever.

Not enough troops. Not enough diplomacy. Not enough cooperation with Sistani. Not enough willpower to stand up to Al-Sadr, definitively. Not enough financial support in Afghanistan and no promised Marshall Plan. Not enough balls to stare down North Korea or call out Saudi Arabia. Not enough done to halt the Iranian mullahs' production of nuclear arms. NOT ANOTHER FOUR YEARS!

I know what you're thinking, Mike. You're thinking, "yeah and Kerry fails in so many of those categories too". And I'll be the first to admit that Kerry doesn't have half the ambition in his foreign policy vision that Bush does. But, well, I look at it like this...

If Bush wants to do and tries to do twice as much as Kerry in terms of spreading liberalism, but refuses to do the hard and detailed groundwork necessary to achieve those ends, on what grounds is he any better? Ideals are great and all, but I'm looking for results. And with what's happening in Iraq, going about things half-assedly is liable to wind up being worse than not going at all (i.e. a civil war and inevitable fundamentalist rule).

I want a candidate who says, "I think Iraq was the wrong country to invade and I would have gone into Iran instead." No one has the balls to say that, though, and so I'm stuck with Bush and Kerry. In the end, for all his ambition and liberal tendencies, I think Bush is doing us more harm than good in the world when he goes about executing those liberal ideas half-assedly. I know I'll be voting for the more conservative foreign policy choice in November and that kills me like you wouldn't believe. But it's better than a liberal who wields American power with a recklessness doing us more harm than good, in the end.

It doesn't make me a "realist", Mike, other than in the fact that I'm being real about what Bush is accomplishing and realizing we'd be better off without a guy like that at the helm.

And, yeah, Michael, you've still got a friend in me. Politics is just politics. It's what I live for but it's not that important.

VANYA...

Oh, and I almost forgot, your attempts to defend slavery on practical grounds are disgusting. I thought you were halfway intelligent until I read that. I reject your argument on the logic of it, practically, and I reject the idea that you'd even consider such a thing in the first place.

Fascism means War, and slavery is wrong. Period. It's an issue of basic human rights. Some things just flat-out don't have a shade of gray.

It's a shame my vote for all intents and purposes won't count, here in Indiana. I vote for Kerry here and it accomplishes nothing.

In Oregon, however, you've got a hell of alot of sway. Man, I hate the electoral college. I envy you.

Grant

I look forward to Michael's reply. But you like to invoke Scoop Jackson, why are most from Scoops day with Republicans and Bush? Richard Pearle was one of his right hand men, Grant how old were you when Henry Jackson died let alone lived? I was born in the late 50's and I remember the days of Scoop too well. You apply things in ways that don't even make for good fantasy. Your prediction of Bush's impending failure is just that... a prediction. You like to talk in past tense about things that are present. You count political chickens too soon. Michael has talked about the tendency for liberals to mis-apply history let alone study it hard. In truth most other military endeavors in US past were in way worse shape at this point. If this were 1864 I’m sure General McClellan would be proud to have your vote. Go study that history.

Grant: And, yeah, Michael, you've still got a friend in me. Politics is just politics. It's what I live for but it's not that important.

Same here, of course. I will not give you any crap for voting for Kerry. I won't give anybody any crap for voting a different way than me. There is too much of that going around already. Especially right now.

SAMUEL...

Scoop's supporters were ideologically in line w/ him at the time: Socially liberal; Economically liberal; and hawkishly liberal.

They're not today. They rejected the Great Society first and then soon rejected social liberalism in favor of a more traditional stance. The only thing that hasn't changed for the true believers, those who were always viscerally opposed to Kissinger-esque "realism", is foreign policy.

The social and economic issues are very different today than they were then. But, ideologically, I'm pretty much Scoop's heir. I'd say I'm maybe slightly to the right, on principle, of where he was on economics...more of a New Dem, I suppose. But that's about it. I'm Joe Lieberman minus the social conservatism, I think. Maybe a little to his left on economics (though he did put forth a proposal in the primaries that would have effectively raised the top federal income tax rate to 45%, which pleasantly surprised a whole hell of alot of people, myself included).

Scoop's supporters disserted his policy preferences over the years as they embraced conservatism on the domestic front. Nobody, well, up until the 70s when the Democratic Party shifted left into McGovernite territory, ever called Scoop Jackson anything other than a liberal Democrat. And he was. Proudly. Just like Truman and Kennedy and FDR. To be a real humanitarian and hawkish about the use of military force because of it isn't to be conservative. I wish more Dems would try and keep that in mind these days.

Michael:

You talk about Kerry and Bush in terms of foreign policy and terrorism. But what happened to the environment and education? Or is that just not that important right now?

I just now got around to reading your article Michael. Great job as usual.

TRUE LIBERALS do not interfere with or ursurp the functions of civil society - the interactions of free people which create and strengthen communities from the bottom-up, rely on local control, and foster accountability.

To the extent that TRUE LIBERALS believe in government action, they believe in government action which EMPOWERS INDIVIDUALS, NOT THE STATE.

As I have said before, today, the terms "liberal" and "left" are often not only NOT interchangable, they are increasingly polar opposites in terms of meaning and effect.

Today's "Left" is not liberal. Today's Left is statist. The Left believes in social engineering for the sake of social engineering. The Left now favors a polyglot of global tribal cultural "identities", is against free trade, and is anti-cosmopolitan.

How can the Left reconcile its alledged belief in the rights of women and homosexuals with Islamofasicsm, when the Left's politically correct position is that all "cultures" are equally deserving of "respect", and that all value systems are merely "social constructs", none better than any other ? Of course they cannot, but they refuse to talk about it.

Most of the Right favors a peaceful, free-trading, cosmopolitan, globalized planet, with universal standards of human rights.

There are now far more liberals on the Right than on the Left.

Liberalism is not dead. But the Left IS dead. Utterly bankrupt. No ideas. The world has left them behind. They just refuse to openly admit it.

When electing a president, past accomplishments and endeavors are important. Each candidate has a record.

With regard to Bush - he has made big mistakes. But, he has attempted "big" things, "large" things, "history-changing" things. We don't know if a president Kerry would have made the same mistakes, or different ones - so the speculation is just that.

With regard to Kerry - apparently he's made few big mistakes. It's for a lack of trying. In 20 years in the Senate, and he has championed no "great" causes.

Campaigning for president, the senator has been forced to champion solutions for the nation's perceived ills, i.e. free healthcare, re-adjusting tax rates, etc. Which prompts me to ask this question -

Senator, why have you not sponsored any legislation to enact these ideals - you do have a day-job? Why is there no "Kerry-Edwards Healthcare Reform Plan" being debated on the senate floor? If you believe in these ideas - fight for them - convince your peers.

Maybe it's because you know these ideas will fail. If true, that's sad.

I could not possibly vote for a man content with a "nothing ventured - nothing lost" mentality.

Instead, give me a man willing to take risks and take losses.

Grant

I do consider my self a liberal. In fact I consider myself an ends justifies the means liberal. But the ends are most justified by Republicans and they have more stomach for the means, that is the problem. Lieberman is no Scoop Jackson Democrat he is a very distant cousin. A Scoop Jackson Democrat has been rejected by the left and only has a home on the right. Ex-Democrat Reagan had long ago in his anti-Communism fighting days saw the handwriting on the wall with the left. More importantly the original Scoop Jacksons came over to Reagan for two reasons... Foreign Policy and Patriotism. Patriotism is lame on the left they act ashamed of America especially our conservative culture. Witness what you said of Dubya and what he needs to do to be more acceptable to the Muslim world, that would be an affront to Scoop Jackson! They slowly came to realize that their Patriotism and Foreign Policy goals were more naturally acceptable by people of a moralist nature. Remember Scoop Jackson had the backing of the Red State Conservatives you find so embarrasing. Unforunately they were the backbone of what is missing in the Party today. Democrats traded them in for Rockefeller elitists. What is the main difference between Dubya and his father? Dubya is a Social Conservative moralist!

Now these Scoop Jackson neo-cons were glad Clinton did something. But bombing from 10,000 feet with an appeasing zero casualty threshold is not the way of Henry Jackson at all. I am no Social Conservative but without Social Conservatives there is not enough will and moralist idealism to do what Bush has done. This unholy alliance of intellectual moralist liberals has evolved into something more trusting no doubt, in that you are right and I know that this is to the displeasure of the dreamers that long for days gone by, I am way past that. I’m not the last who will come to his senses on this. True moralism on the left is dead, even Christopher Hitchens realizes this. My friend where true moralism is dead there can be no Scoop in that Jackson. True foreign policy liberalism resides on the right and has since Reagan. The little flare in the 90’s was an anomaly that is ironicaly hampered by something else also witnessed during those same days.

Grant that irony is found in the following… Why have many neo-cons put abortion and such like things aside? Because they realize that by nature people who make these their political lynchpins and litmus tests as a default line to protect are more apt to not care about Iraqi citizens, but rather see them as something different then normal and worthy like “fellow liberals” and as inanimate things to be cast off in politically expedient arguments. Further a Party that doesn’t care enough about Clinton’s perjury and his casting off blame to the ruin of others are going to be more apt to justify other inconvenient inconsistencies in their moral turpitude. Sure Joe Lieberman went to the well of the Senate, said his peace, but he in the end faded in the Party backgroung that give little credence to things moral. And so goes the War.

I believe in a women’s right to chose but I understand also the degrading nature on the culture of a party that has a main focus on protecting negative social actions like abortion and Clinton’s behavior.

I very much remember Scoop Jackson and his take on things. If he were alive today I firmly believe he would be no Paul Berman, saying I like what Bush is doing I just want a Democrat to do it. He would in my opinion be arguing to not to change horses in mid-stream, yes I believe Richard Perle and the rest of his disciples know where Henry would be… where they are. A true Scoop Jackson Democrat would not put forward the arguments even you and other Democrats do. He never would give an open cry and declarations of premature defeat and failure, openly carping the worst negative prejudicial takes on Iraq, Afghanistan and a brave President putting it all on the line, especially in the middle of a War. He would not be near defeatist you are in the face of evidence as it exists.

I believe like me he would be disgusted with the Democrats and their open negativity. Talking down a War we are clearly winning would be an affront to Henry Jackson. If he were hear today I don’t think all his disciples would be sitting on one side of the political spectrum while he stayed put on the other, he died over 20 years ago Grant, by now he would have come to those same realities his disciples have. I do believe like me he would absorb some social differences for the good of achieving the larger goals. He would properly see that in America that on domestic policy we are arguing on the margins. But the world is out there… the ends justify the means, the means are Dubya and his political base, the end is the continued implementation of the Bush Doctrine, he would get it. That’s my opinion.

mjt:

Regarding Listen to the mad Colonel himself: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

I assume that since you're playing in the big leagues now, you wouldn't use a quote unless it was verified.

But AFAIK, it would be more accurate to write "Listen to what a spokesman for Berlusconi reports the mad Colonel said..."

Has there been independent verification of this quote? I did a brief internet search, and didn't find confirmation nor a denial.

There IS a Scoop Jackson Democrat available -- his name is Zell Miller.

A big thanks to Capt. Smythe for nice words.

Advice for "mixed" marriages/ relationships -- focus on the goals. My wife and I both want less drug use, less drug abuse, AND less drug warfare. I support legalization, she doesn't. When the end/ values is agreed, and it surprisingly is, very often, means disagreements are easier.

Vanya -- Poland, like Slovakia, having actually lived w/o freedom, is much more supportive of the export of democracy. Though you're prolly right about the corrupting influence of oil -- I DO wish Iraq copied the Alaska Trust Fund idea, so the Iraqi people all would get a big share of oil money, and they could have very very low taxes and gov't and LOTs of freedom. Like a big Islamic Hong Kong.

That was actually the liberal case against John Kerry. And yes, he made some speeches that made me cringe. I hate that firehouses line, and that Varela project line (though if we're talking Cuba, Bush's admission of a Cuban terrorist who has killed civilians does him no credit.)

But if TWO lousy quotations from Kerry are reason not to vote for him, you would expect that maybe ONE of these things to be addressed in the liberal case for Bush:
Abu Ghraib. Extraordinary rendition. Maher Arar. Guantanamo. Waterboarding. Torture memo. Padilla. Hamdi. Indefinite detention. The incident in which, a day or two after "sovereignty" was "transferred", Oregon national guard members were ordered to return tortured prisoners to their Iraqi captors. Ayad Allawi's banning of hostile media.

...Roundups after 9/11. People detained for months without charge or counsel in violation of federal law. Abuses documented on videos at Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center. Deportation of Muslims on flimsy, pretextual charges.

CIA contract interrogators implicated in two deaths. No charges brought against them. May not have been fired.

Secrecy as an intrinsic good. Deception of public about content of all domestic policies and rationale for war.

Patriot Act. Library book searches. Total information awareness. TIPS.

Marriage amendment.

Darfur. (Kerry is more interventionist than Bush).

Texas capital punishment system. Leading nation in execution. Shameful state of indigent defense. Strong possibility of an innocent person's execution.

MJT,

Osama bin Laden hates Australia's left-wing foreign policy. (Savor the irony.) I presume, though, that he approves of Kissinger's policy on some level. It was anti-communist, anti-Christian, and pro-Islamic-imperialism.

By that logic, then wouldn't Bin Laden approve of Clinton's Bosnia/Kosovo policy?

The biggest difference between East Timor and Bosnia/Kosovo is that in East Timor, the opposition was getting slaughtered by the Islamic imperalists. In Bosnia/Kosovo, the opposition was slaughtering the