musings

Unhappy on the Left

Leslie cracks me up.

Dance, baby, Dance

Damn, this feels good!

Oh YEAH

Okay, somebody pinch me. Bush wins AND Daschle loses? Suh-weet.

More later...right now I'm too giddy. Especially because MC is going to be taking me to Daniels for a really nice steak dinner.

It's Showtime

Well, the day has finally arrived. Tomorrow, this country will decide which direction it wants to head. Do we go the way of Europe and fade into history, or do we confront this new war head on, keeping our enemies on defense? It's a huge issue, and one that really tugs at me.

People have asked why I am so serious about this election. It's difficult for me to put into words, but I'll try. The people in history that I admire are the ones that knew the path they wanted to follow and against all advice pushed through only to be proven right by history.

In Abraham Lincoln's first cabinet meeting, he took a vote on whether or not to defend a fort in the south. His cabinet was against it, he was for it. He went with himself. Midway through the war, after numerous defeats when it appeared he had no idea what he was doing, when his own general ran against him, the country was divided -- let the south go, or keep fighting the war. History, of course, shows Lincoln to be right. McClellan, Lincoln's "John Kerry", complained about Lincoln's bumbling handling of the war, misguided goals, etc Lincoln pushed through.

FDR believed that America HAD to help fight the Nazi's. Americans were against it, however. But FDR kept pushing, finding any loophole in the law to make it happen because he knew in his heart he was RIGHT. History proves him correct.

Churchill stood alone, ridiculed by his peers as a warmonger. As it turns out, he was also right, and when the war was over, his reward was to be voted out of office.

Ronald Reagan took the Soviets on head first. Europeans and Americans alike (including John Kerry) thought he was a mad cowboy and would get us into a war. He didn't listen to them and pushed ahead because he knew he was right. History, including his opponent from the USSR, has shown that he was right.

And now we come to Bush. Again, his contemporaries are against his tactics, against his goals, believe him to be wrong. He believes himself to be right and does not waver in his convictions. While I have many issues with Bush and his policies, while I cannot stand a few of the people he has in his cabinet, I know that his heart is good, his character sound. History will prove him right.

History often deals people a tough hand. Lincoln was elected and presented with a civil war. Bush was elected and presented with terrorism arriving in full force. Nobody reading this blog understands the enormity of having that on your shoulders. Your decisions matter the most in those situations. One wrong move and you destroy a country, or have more die. Men who can stand up to that, be strong, and face it with dignity -- those people earn my respect.

Kerry has never struck me as one of those people. He wavers in his convictions. I believe he is admantly anti-war. I have no problem with that, except that he pretends he is not. He has said repeatedly that he wishes we had built a "true coalition" yet when we did have one back in 1991, one that included ARABS, Kerry still voted no. Kerry hates war, shaped by his experience in Viet Nam. I respect that -- he should live by it and be true to his self, not shape his words in order to be popular.

Say what you want about Bush -- he doesn't make decisions to get elected. If he did, he would not be in this situation right now.

See you at the polls.

Oh For Fuck's Sake

From an NBC interview with Kerry:

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

Kerry is the KING of maybe I would, maybe I woiuld not. It's all about the maybe. Gray. He hadn't complied for a decade, what makes you think he was going to comply. His whole reason for being was thumbing his nose at the US. He knew that Bush wasn't fucking around and he still waited it out. To think he would be "more scared" by Kerry is ridiculous.

Just once, I would like Kerry to give a straight yes or no answer to a question. Just once. I am reminded of the Jon Stewart clip where Kerry is shown talking about which of his daughters is most like him:

"Well, sometimes it's this one, sometimes it's the other one."

Cut back to Stewart with his head on the table, hands around his ears shaking.

A Liberal for Bush

Much like Ed Koch, this really sums up how I feel in this election. I myself probably agree with a few more domestic policies than the person authoring this blog, but the core message sums up exactly how I feel right now.

al Qaeda supports Kerry

ABCNews has turned over to the US Government a tape from al Qaeda that the US is now busy trying to authenticate.

In it, the message claims that an attack bigger than 9/11 will:

"The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.

So either they feel Kerry wouldn't have gone to war with them (a mistake, because any US President would have had to...hell, I don't like Kerry and I think he would have gone after al Qaeda), or they really feel that Bush is a problem for them.

I like that they don't like Bush. I want them fearing the US. They should fear us. Like the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor in WWII, al Qaeda woke a sleeping giant by taking out the towers.

Dave Winer & The President

So today I was reading Dave Winers' blog, as I do every day, and something caught my eye:

Now, to be perfectly straight, I don't think I could support a re-elected George Bush.

THAT, right there, is what it's all about. At least Dave is honest about it, but it's why right and left have such issues in this country. If Kerry is elected, do I hope he does a good job, and will I support him in doing it? Of course. Does it mean I will agree with all of his policies? Not a chance in hell, but at the end of the day, he's the President. I thought Clinton did the right thing in Kosovo, and I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq. I wish someone would do something about Africa (because the UN will not -- we know that already).

There is a small part of me that wants Kerry to win just to see how the world treats him, especially the countries that have been helping us in Iraq (the ones he called the bribed, not a real coalition, etc.). What if those countries bail out of Iraq and leave him holding the bag because of his rhetoric?

The dirty secret of this election, IMO, is this: people supported Bush up until it became election time. Senators who were with him, even Hawkish on Iraq (nee -- Kerry), slowly peeled away because they can't be praising the President and convince people to vote for themselves at the same time. It wouldn't make sense, so they HAVE to slam the President, no matter what. They want to win. This is why Zell is pissy: he thinks the war is more important than the individuals.

I still challenge my Kerry supporting friends to go back to the primaries and watch Kerry in those debates. He was a hawk. He disagreed completely with Dean. After he won, he took on the Dean message.

That should bother you.

Slate

Anyone want to guess why it seems that Slate is left leaning? How about reading this?

60 Minutes

My friend Leslie has challenged my using Drudge as a source for the below. So, to be fair and balanced, I will now do the same story as below, but as told by the LA Times, hardly a Republican Mouthpiece.

Elizabeth Jensen, quotes:

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of "60 Minutes," said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it."

CBS has a chip on its shoulder right now and is desparate to nail this President. Releasing a story like this 2 days before an election would be great for them, but they didn't get to do it. If we go back in time, it happened with the Iran-Contra indictment in 1992, with the DUI claim in 2000, and now this.

At least they are consistent.