John Kerry has been very successfully painted as a flip-flopper who changes his positions on the issues based on who he's talking to and what the polls look like because...well...he is a a flip-flopper who changes his positions on the issues based on who he's talking to and what the polls look like.
I've harped on this before, but today Kerry again wildly swerved on Iraq.
Remember that Kerry has been bending over backwards lately to make it absolutely crystal clear that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Here are a few quotes to emphasize my point,
"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no - because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe." -- John Kerry, 9/20/04
"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." -- John Kerry, 9/06/04
"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" -- John Kerry in the first debate.
Look, there's just not a lot of wiggle room in those statements. Kerry was clearly, definitively, saying that he would not have invaded Iraq had he been President.
Now, fast forward to the John Kerry talking to Tom Brokaw last night...
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."
If someone would have written a movie a year or two ago and it had a politician in it who was this dishonest, this slippery, this willing to say anything to anybody if he thinks it would help him get elected, people would have dismissed it as being unrealistic.
It's like Kerry based his foreign policy around that classic Bill Clinton quote,
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
If you understand what Jonah Goldberg is talking about in this quote from his latest column, then at the most fundamental level, you understand the war on terrorism...
"If you live in a house infested by rats, you may think it's OK to tolerate them for a while. They're just a "nuisance," as John Kerry might say. You might, if you're Bill Clinton, tolerate a series of "minor" rat attacks. But when one of your children dies from a bite, you do everything you can to kill the rats and plug up all the rat holes to protect your family. You don't care which specific rat was responsible for the death. You simply do everything necessary to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. In the post-9/11 world George Bush faced a world with a lot of rat holes. The most obvious, urgent and "doable" rat hole was in Baghdad."
I have to admit, I thought Osama died back at Tora Bora and I'm quite surprised that he has done his first new video since December of 2001.
On the one hand, I am of course displeased that old weird beard is still breathing air. On the other hand, since he is alive, I can anticipate the sweet, sweet, pleasure of hearing that we killed that low down, dirty, son of a bitch (excuse the language).
I'd also encourage everybody to read his statement because not only does he take credit for 9/11 (take that you tinfoil hat loonies), but as Crush Kerry ably pointed out, it sounds like a bunch of Democratic talking points.
There was one point in particular that Osama made that really jumped out at me,
"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens in the two Towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat was more important."
I guess Osama has been watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" in his little hole out in Pakistan because that's something that movie really hammered home...or maybe he was listening to Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter who said,
"John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second-graders while America is under attack".
Straight from the mouthpiece of the Kerry campaign to Osama's ears.
Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did spend most of his statement attacking George Bush. And if America's foremost enemy, a guy who's responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion of a video slamming Bush while saying nothing negative about Kerry...well, draw your own conclusions about which candidate would do a better job of protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...
(*** Note: For the rest of this week, I'll be putting up a retro article each day that features 10 previously seen RWN posts that boost Bush, bash Kerry, or that cover key issues. Feel free to email them out to friends who you think might be on the fence. ***)
Retro RWN for Election 2004 is located here
Retro RWN #2 for Election 2004 is located here
Retro RWN #3 for Election 2004 is located here
Retro RWN #4 for Election 2004 is located here
"(T)here is a 100 percent correlation between the Washington Redskins win-loss record and the outcome of every presidential contest dating back to 1940. If the Redskins win their last home game prior to Election Day, the party in power stays in power. Conversely, if the Skins lose the game, the incumbent party is on the street.
In 2000 - Tennessee Titans 27, Redskins 21: Bush defeats Al Gore.
In 1996 - Redskins 31, Indianapolis Colts 16: Bill Clinton defeats Bob Dole.
In 1992 - New York Giants 24, Redskins 7: Clinton defeats George H.W. Bush.
In 1988 - Redskins 27, New Orleans Saints 24: Bush defeats Michael Dukakis.
Therefore, forget about the Electoral College, voting irregularities in Florida, and missing weapons in Iraq. The fate of the free world, says one observer, rides on the Redskins versus the Packers on Halloween night."
Currently, The Green Bay Packers are favored to beat the Redskins by 1.5 points.
PS: I almost didn't post this because there's always a chance some superstitious liberal nut might try to run over Mark Brunell or Clinton Portis with his car to try to insure a John Kerry victory.
PS #2: On the other hand, while the Redskins wins matching up with the incumbent wins are pure chance, I'm still glad we're not relying on my Carolina Panthers to win a game to "pull out the presidency" this year because they're really stinking it up =D
Fisking Sullivan On Bush's War On Terror "Incompetence"
Like I've said before, I don't generally read Andrew Sullivan's tortured ramblings anymore. Ever since Sullivan decided that W's support for a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage made him an unacceptable candidate, his writing -- while eloquent as always -- has been a trainwreck in the logic department. As you read Sullivan's musings, you almost can't help but think that if Kerry were the one who backs a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, Sully's position on everything from the Swift Boat Vets to how Iraq is being managed would be 180 degrees different.
Of course, you expect that sort of thing from Atrios or The Daily Kos, but it's much more irritating when Sullivan does it. Maybe that's because like the New York Times or LA Times, Sullivan purports to be a neutral....wait, that's not even an accurate description. Sullivan is essentially a "used to be serious" about the war on terrorism, fiscally conservative, left-winger who's upset because Bush doesn't support his pet issue. Heck, the New York Times may be as biased as Sullivan is when it comes to Bush, but at least they don't try to pretend that they're mainstream conservatives while they're doing it.
In any case, when I ran across a link to this passage from Sullivan as I was reading I Love Jet Noise, I felt compelled to jump in...
"But the competence of the current leader cannot be completely irrelevant. If his incompetence means we actually lose the war, then surely some kind of reassessment is due. So the question becomes: how incompetent is he? And that's a matter of degree not kind. You also have to unpack the notion of "fighting a war." What does that exactly mean? Invading Iran? Or North Korea? Those are not viable options. We've already invaded two countries in three years. And much of this war is indeed police work and law enforcement and this president understands that as well. It's a blend of strategies; and the blend will shift with the circumstances. This hyperventilating about who "gets it" only gets us so far. And what disappoints me about Bush supporters is their apparent inability to give specifics about where their candidate differs or would differ from Kerry. I'm listening. And I hear little but rhetoric."
I think this particular line is indicative of the alternate universe Sullivan has been living in for the better part of the last year...
"And what disappoints me about Bush supporters is their apparent inability to give specifics about where their candidate differs or would differ from Kerry. I'm listening. And I hear little but rhetoric."
What is Sullivan talking about? The majority of the campaign has centered around foreign policy. There was a debate entirely about the subject. The number of columns, posts, and the amount of time spent on talk radio discussing this topic have been ENORMOUS.
You have a hawk vs. a dove -- a man who thinks we have to go after terrorists where they live vs. a man who thinks the war on terrorism should be about law enforcement. Bush believes it's a necessity that we stick it out in Iraq and help them build a Democracy while it's entirely possible Kerry will cut and run. Bush supports the Patriot Act, Kerry wants to gut it. We have multilateral talks vs. bilateral talks in North Korea, letting the UN have the last word on our national defense vs. doing whatever it takes to win, keeping US soldiers from being prosecuted at the International Criminal Court vs. joining up, & a steady and predictable Commander-and-Chief vs. one who always seems to tow the liberal line while changing what he says based on who he's talking to.
Again, what is Sullivan talking about?
Also, Bush is "incompetent"? If every American President had been as "incompetent" as Bush at foreign policy we'd probably be living in a "Star Trek world" now and there'd be peace on earth, one world government, and we'd all be wearing the same uniforms....actually, come to think of it, I'm really glad that hasn't happened. The peace on earth part would be fine, but the one world government and the uniforms? No thanks.
But, I digress.
Consider that in just 2 months, Bush took down Afghanistan, a nation that stymied the Soviets for a decade, smashed the Taliban & Al-Qaeda's training camps, and helped Afghanistan to have a successful nationwide election.
He also crushed Saddam Hussein, who had been sticking his thumb in our eye since the Gulf War, and that country has elections scheduled for January of next year.
That's 50 million people freed from tyranny and two enemies of America taken down.
Furthermore, we've rounded up more than 3000 Al-Qaeda operatives world wide and captured 3/4ths of their pre-9/11 leadership. And if Osama Bin Laden wasn't killed at Tora Bora -- which is a big "if" -- he has been hiding in a hut somewhere laying low for almost two years and is unable to be involved in day to day operations for Al-Qaeda.
On top of that, Bush has convinced Libya to get out of the WMD and terrorism business, turned Pakistan from a terror supporter to a terror fighter, broken a nuclear arms ring that had been run out of Pakistan, and he has gotten Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea together to bring North Korea to heel. He has also, amazingly enough, kept Al-Qaeda from hitting us again since 9/11...at least so far. How many people would have predicted that on 9/12/2001?
If that's a record of "incompetence", we should be so lucky as to have another four years of it.
But you know why people like Sullivan can get away with calling Bush "incompetent" without people laughing at them for saying something so ridiculous?
Because they obsessively focus on minutiae. The press spends weeks examining every detail of relatively unimportant stories like the minor looting that occurred at the Baghdad museum, Abu Ghraib, and these Al-Qaqaa explosives which were almost certainly moved before we ever arrived, while hardly looking at the big picture.
Imagine if the spinmeisters and the press spent as much time incessantly carping about every little thing that went wrong in WW2 as they do about the war on terror? How do you think things would have turned out if the Republicans and the press were all calling the war an unwinnable quagmire a few weeks in and saying a thousand men lost was an unacceptable loss? And in 1941, we didn't have to worry about a Kamikaze or a Nazi sneaking a nuclear weapon into New York or LA and making the city disappear under a mushroom cloud.
As Abraham Lincoln said of Ulysses S. Grant, a man who was bitterly criticized even as he helped lead the North to victory, "I can't spare this man — he fights". And yes, George Bush may have a position on gay marriage that Andrew Sullivan doesn't care for, but we cannot spare George Bush because "he fights" and he has shown that he can do it exceedingly well...
-- The left's favorite pollster is John Zogby not only because his polls lean to the left, but because he has been openly telling anyone who'll listen that this race is Kerry's to lose.
Well, according to Robert Novak, Zogby has changed his tune...
"Pollster John Zogby surprised the political world back in April with a long-range prediction that John Kerry would defeat George W. Bush for president. On Monday this week, Zogby told me, he changed his mind. He now thinks the president is more likely to be re-elected because he has reinforced support from his base, including married white women.
That conclusion would be a surprise for frantically nervous Republicans and cautiously upbeat Democrats entering the campaign's final days. In fact, nobody, including Zogby and all the other polltakers, can be sure who will win this election. Yet, it is clear that President Bush's strategists have succeeded in solidifying his base to a degree that makes it much harder to defeat him next Tuesday."
That has to be a downer for the lefties...
-- I can't say that I'm looking forward to the traffic drop-off that's probably going to happen after the election, but even I am suffering election fatigue at this point. Yeah, I still enjoy writing about politics, but I am ready to talk about a subject other than George Bush Vs. John Kerry every day. And if this election goes into overtime like it did in 2000....ARGH!!!
-- Jim Geraghty over at the Kerry Spot has a source at the "highest levels" of the campaign and here's the word...
"They think Bush is ahead by a few points nationally. They expect the next round of tracking polls to show a bit of a bump.
The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones - Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.
Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup - Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.
An exit poll of those who have already voted show Bush ahead by 15 points! [UPDATE: This is ahead 15 points overall, nationwide, not just in Michigan. Obviously, those who have already voted are only a small, small segment of the electorate at large, so one should not read too much into this number. But it is interesting.]
Undecided voters appear to be breaking Bush’s way - some days he has a slight lead, other days it’s right around 50-50. (Note this would be considerably better than the 1/3 calculated that Bush needs here."
-- It looks HIGHLY LIKELY that Bush is going to win a majority of the popular vote. Here's every head to head poll between Bush & Kerry for this month...
Rasmussen: Bush +2
TIPP: Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup: Bush +6
Los Angeles Times: Bush +1
Newsweek: Bush +1
Time: Bush +5
GW/Battleground: Bush +4
Rasmussen: Bush +1
FOX News: Bush +5
CBS News: Bush +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup: Bush +8
Time: TIE
Newsweek: Bush +5
GW/Battleground: Bush +3
CBS News: Bush +1
ICR: Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup: Kerry +2
Rasmussen: Bush +4
Time: Bush +1
GW/Battleground: Bush +3
Fox News: Bush +3
ICR: Bush +5
ARG: Kerry +1
CBS/NYT: Bush +1
Zogby: Bush +1
For those of you who are counting, Bush won 22 polls, Kerry won 2 polls, and there was one tie. Could Kerry lose the popular vote and still get the most electoral votes? Sure, but do keep in mind that has happened exactly three times, so I can't say it is all that likely.
-- I'll have up some detailed poll analysis and info about what to watch for in the election on Nov. 2, but right now my gut feeling is that Bush is up by 2-3 points nationally and has about a 75% chance of winning. Furthermore, the more I watch the numbers break at the polls, the more I've come to the conclusion that the road to victory for Kerry leads through Florida & New Hampshire. If Kerry doesn't take both of those states (or Florida and Ohio), I think Bush will be able to make up the difference by taking some combination of the following states that went for Gore in 2000: Michigan, (17) Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Hawaii (4). Theoretically, Bush could beat Kerry even IF Kerry took Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire, although it would be unlikely.
*** Update #1***: According to Sidney Zion in the New York Post, Zogby has changed his mind...
"Pollster John Zogby, in a telephone interview with me yesterday, predicted that John Kerry will win the election. "It's close," he said, "but in the last couple of days things have been trending toward Kerry - nationally and in the swing states. Between this and history, I think it will be Kerry."
...Bet me that when the Bushies read what Zogby told me, not just the rhetoric will rise, but so will the fever.
Particularly since one of their favorite columnists, Robert Novak, reported in yesterday's Washington Post that Zogby called the race for President Bush in a conversation he had with the pollster on Monday.
Zogby was jocular about the Novak column, although he has decided not to post a comment on his Web site. Here's what he told me: "I said Bush was winning, I didn't say I thought he'd win. On Monday, he was indeed looking good. But on Tuesday, things changed. Kerry, in that one day, picked up 5 points."
Nobody else is showing a 5 Point break for Kerry =D. It's called margin of error Zogby, margin of error =D
On the other hand, Dick Morris is now saying that Bush will win. Of course, Dick's predictions stunk in 2002 because they were based on Zogby's polling data which was farther off the mark than that of any other pollster.
(*** Note: For the rest of this week, I'll be putting up a retro article each day that features 10 previously seen RWN posts that boost Bush, bash Kerry, or that cover key issues. Feel free to email them out to friends who you think might be on the fence. ***)
(Ed. note: our Manhattan correspondent has located the first drafts of several upcoming New York Times stories, found in a alley dumpster behind the Times building. I will be updating throughout the day as documents are verified and coffee grounds removed.)
FLORIDA CAR ARREST MAY PORTEND SUPPRESSION OF SENIOR VOTE
Attorneys for the Florida Kerry-Edwards campaign darkly warned that "we are now seeing signs of a massive Bush plan to disenfranchise elderly voters" after a Sarasota man was arrested today on charges that he tried to run down Congresswoman Katherine Harris with his car.
"The Bush campaign is now using Florida law enforcement officials to incarcerate citizens like [suspect] Barry Seltzer for simply exercising their right to freedom of vehicular speech," said Kerry Spokesman Chris Lehane. "If they continue their plan to arrest Floridians who drive their Cadillacs on the sidewalk, it will invalidate over 85,000 ballots in Sarasota County alone."
Kerry attorneys said they will file a Federal civil rights suit accusing the Bush Campaign with voter intimidation of Florida seniors, including poor 'Early Bird' service at Red Lobster, tampering with bingo daubers, and hiding the remote control.
ANALYSIS: IRAQ EXPLOSIVES EASILY MOVED BY 'WORLD'S STRONGEST MAN' CONTESTANTS
A new scientific study by the French Ministry of Sport and Jejune Ennui reported today that the 380 tons of high explosives missing from an Iraqi site "could have easily been looted by a team of specially trained burly Scandanavian strongmen with 'roid rage.'"
In a controlled experiment broadcast at 3AM on ESPN-6, researchers determined that a team of 12 Euro champions were able to move over 415 tons of explosives, packaged as granite boulders and Volvo semi trucks, in less than 20 minutes with commercial breaks.
The study casts new doubt on NBC News claims that deadly RDX explosives had already been moved by the time US soldiers arrived at a suspected site in Al-Qaqaa, and that removing the materials would have been difficult with a US military presence.
"Ya yiminy, Olaf move the heavy bombs," said Icelandic team member Olaf Magnussnnarddsson, who suffered a minor hernia and a burst temple vein in the experiment.
An independent study by physicists at FermiLab reached similar conclusions, noting that "extrapolating from the hit 1961 single 'Sixteen Tons,' the entire arms cache could have been lifted in only 23.8 Tennessee Ernie Ford-Days, with a minor increase in debt to the Company store."
WEDNESDAY REPORT: OHIO UNEMPLOYMENT AT 87.8%
A new labor department report scheduled for release Wednesday, November 3 will show the Ohio unemployment rate rising to 87.8%, according to a source close to government insiders with ties to analysts who have learned details from staffers who may have seen copies of the report. The reported rate would represent a 81.9 point increase over the previous Ohio unemployment rate reported in the September Regional Jobs Report.
The source indicated that the unemployment rates in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Iowa will show similar increases, but the report may be delayed due to mass starvation throughout the upper Midwest.
REPUBLICAN PRECINCT CHANGES ANNOUNCED
An emergency press release from a new Republican-oriented website urges GOP voters in several states to disregard printed ballot instructions and cast their votes in appointed voting precincts.
"Attention Republicans, note your new official voting sites," said the extremely official-looking website, http://officialrepublicanwebsite.notthenytimes.fr. "Please report to your assigned location, or Jesus will smite thee."
The official-looking instructions request that Florida GOP voters cast votes in Georgia, New Mexico voters seek polling locations in Texas, and that Hawaiian GOP voters travel to Utah.
DRUNK BUSH DRAGGED JAMES BYRD BEHIND AWOL JET
Then-airman George W. Bush was reprimanded by superiors for a drunken 1972 AWOL incident in which he dragged a helpless James Byrd behind his F-101, according to a new Texas Air National Guard document found in an Abeline, Texas Kinkos restroom.
The newly unsealed document, which several experts have now verified as typewritten, resurrected nagging questions about Bush's disputed controversial "military service," his drug and alcohol abuse, and his role in the slaying of Byrd.
The document shows that Bush earned a stern reprimand from a commanding officer, 6-Star General Smith, who remarks that "Dude, that is so not cool."
Smith goes on to recommend that Bush "freeze the dude's body, so like later on you can be governor and blame it on some rednecks, and then have those guys executed."
BUSH FAILED TO SECURE OWN CAMPAIGN HQS -- REPORT
The Kerry campaign today blasted the Bush Administration for a "systemic security failure" after reports of violent attacks on Bush campaign headquarters in Florida, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Oregon.
A new security briefing from the independent grassroots political organization MoveOn.org, "Let's Smash Some Windows," outlines several serious security flaws at Bush-Cheney campaign offices and daycare centers housing the children of GOP volunteers.
"If the Bush Administration cannot guarantee the security of their own offices, yard signs and car doors against petty vandals, how can they be trusted to win the peace in Iraq?" asked spokeswoman Mary Beth Cahill, who urged voters to check their local Kroger Value Day ad for money saving coupons on Grade A large eggs and Scott Bathroom Tissue.
If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.
The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: It's Ok To Run Over Her With Your Car, She's Just A Republican
As most of you have probably heard some lunatic nearly ran down Katherine Harris and some of her supporters with his car and then called it "political expression". Here are some of the details...
"Witnesses told police a silver Cadillac sped through an intersection and hurtled onto a sidewalk, heading straight toward Harris before swerving at the last minute and driving off.
The Republican congresswoman told police she froze with fear as the vehicle sped toward her Tuesday evening, authorities said.
Witnesses gave the car's license plate number to police, and they tracked it to Barry M. Seltzer (search), 46, of Sarasota, a registered Democrat. He came to the police station Wednesday and complained to officers that Harris' supporters had been standing in the street impeding traffic.
"I intimidated them with my car," Seltzer told police. "I was exercising my political expression. I did not run them down. I scared them a little."
The police are charging this guy with aggravated assault and with good reason. He's obviously a violent nutjob who belongs in prison....right? WRONG! At least according to plenty of people at the Democratic Underground. Apparently they have no problem with kooks almost mowing down women...well, as long as they're Republicans...
skypilot:"I hope he had a big maniacal smile on his face. Imagine it from Katherine's point of view. Everyone around you scattering and a big siver Caddy hurling towards you with a broadly smiling driver behind the wheel. I'll have that image in my head all day."
slor:"I hope he voted already. No point in losing that vote due to poorly planned heroic behavior!"
mitchum:"The car would have needed the Super Deluxe Wash. considering all of the makeup. Better luck next time."
HawkeyeX:"Hell, someone give that man the Congressional Medal of Honor for assaulting the woman who is single-handling responsible for the entire destruction of the United States for the last four years. Hell, he should be hailed as a hero. (While we're at it, throw a Purple Heart for having to touch the slime of a woman) Instead, let that woman rot in jail for 100 million years."
Generic Other:"Let's BAIL the guy out! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Artemis Bunyon:"He should have floored it. And he shouldn't have swerved."
The_Casual_Observer:"I feel sorry for the guy. Harris certainly isn't worth the trouble he has caused himself. The all around low value of people like harris normally keeps them safe and guarantees a long life."
henslee:"He can't get off with comm. service. Running her down is comm. service"
Bush's Foreign Policy: Changing Tactics, Not Changing Conservatism
In their latest column, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue that Bush has changed conservatism. I can't say that I agree with them and there are two points in particular that I take issue with. The first is the whole concept of "big government conservatism," but I've addressed that issue in some detail before.
Then there's their take on how Bush changed conservative foreign policy.
"Which brings us to what is Mr. Bush's boldest contribution to reinventing conservatism--foreign policy. It is easy to find parallels between his foreign policy and Reagan's. The latter married American power and American principle (particularly the onward march of freedom). He believed in calling evil by its proper name. And he endured criticism that he was a naïve Wilsonian rather than a sensible conservative realist. In some ways Mr. Bush's battle against "the axis of evil" is a logical continuation of Reagan's against "the evil empire."
But these continuities should not blind conservatives to the radicalism of America's post-Sept. 11 foreign policy. First, remember that Reagan's foreign policy was, at the time, a radical departure from older conservative traditions such as America-firstism and Kissingerian realism. Then add the fact that the Bush foreign policy has been far more ambitious than Reagan's was (Hawkins' Note: More ambitious than defeating the Soviet Union?). Turning to the neoconservatives, Mr. Bush has applied his doctrine of spreading democracy to an area of the world where the Reaganites feared to tread. Baghdad is not Warsaw; Ayatollah Sistani is not Lech Walesa. Mr. Bush has also taken his ideas much further than Reagan. Within a few months of the declaration of the "Bush doctrine"--those who harbor terrorists will be treated as terrorists (Hawkins' Note: Bush actually said this 9 days after 9/11) --American tanks were rolling into Baghdad.
From Sept. 11 till the Iraq invasion, most conservatives expected that the war on terror would hold their movement together. The "axis of evil" would fit into the slot vacated by "the evil empire." And the conservative foot soldiers would put aside their differences--particularly over government spending--in a common war against Islamist extremism.
There are still times when that theory holds--the GOP convention was a masterly exposition of this unifying credo--but as Iraq gets ever messier, the noises off-stage grow louder. Conservatives as diverse as William F. Buckley and Pat Robertson have started to air their doubts. That clamor would become deafening if the Republicans lose the presidency on Nov. 2, with the neoconservatives the main target of the movement's wrath. But even if Mr. Bush wins, the neoconservative dream at its most fanciful is surely over (Hawkins' Note: I wouldn't bet on that). The neocons will remain; they are too clever and too prominent on Washington's rive droite to disappear. But the main question will be which representatives of other conservative foreign-policy traditions--particularly realism--will be able to re-establish influence."
Despite what you often hear from people on the left and sometimes the right, the war on terrorism is not a neoconservative idea per se. Yes, there have been neoconservatives championing the way we've conducted the war on terror, but since 9/11 there has been no practical difference between prominent neocons and the overwhelming majority of the conservative movement when it comes to terrorism. In other words, whether you are talking about prominent neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, & Jonah Goldberg or the overwhelming majority of run-of-the-mill conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Victor Davis Hanson, & Donald Rumsfeld, there's not two dimes worth of difference in how they believe we should be running the war on terror (at least in the larger sense).
Secondly, while the Bush Doctrine is certainly a change from our Cold War policies, it's not as radical of a shift as it might seem at first glance.
For example, do you think we would have tolerated a 9/11 style attack from Cuba during the height of the Cold War? Of course we wouldn't have. Had Castro sent a team of Cubans into our country to blow up the WTC, we would have smashed him the same way we did the Taliban. And when you get right down to it, does it really make any difference if we're talking about a team of terrorists directly employed by a government or a group of terrorists that are trained, supplied, and protected by that same government? The difference between the two is practically nil although people don't always see it that way.
Furthermore, there's nothing new about preemptive war. What was Vietnam if not a preemptive war? Was their an "imminent threat" to the United States in Grenada? Didn't we kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait during the Gulf War primarily because we feared he wouldn't stop there? Preemption isn't something that began with the Bush administration.
Then there's spreading Democracy and freedom in Iraq and the rest of the Middle-East. Didn't we stay in Japan and Germany to help them rebuild after a war? Don't we have troops in South Korea and Taiwan to help protect Democracy and hem in our enemies? Did Reagan not talk constantly and work tirelessly to bring down the Soviet Union and free the people of Eastern Europe? Americans have always been interested in spreading freedom when we have the opportunity, it's just that relentlessly agitating for Democracy often isn't practical even for a nation as powerful as the United States.
So is the Bush Doctrine really a truly "radical" change of philosophy for conservatism? Not given the circumstances we're faced with. It's just a different type of war than say WW2 or the Cold War was and therefore it requires different, although not truly new, tactics.
Voting Dogs and Democratic Fairy Dust By Will Wilkinson
A thought: Could it be that the sort of person likely to be "intimidated" out of voting isn't in general the sort of person who you want to be voting?
A lot of the coverage, both formal and informal, of the forthcoming apocalypse in Ohio strikes me as implicitly accepting a really quite stupid bit of democratic romanticism: that it is better that 100 illegitimate votes be counted than to let one legitimate vote go uncounted.
The implicit picture is that voting is a sort of magical expression of citizenship that mystically confers "legitimacy" upon democratically decided results. If some citizens vote, but have their votes tossed out, or if some citizens decide it is too much hassle to get to the polls, then each lost vote is a drop drained from the bucket of legitimacy.
This is an utterly bizzare way of looking at democratic legitimacy, but seems to be part of the civics course democracy catechism, about which journalists especially pretend to be devout. This is why we hear cries of lament if there is low voter turnout. How can democracy be the people's authentic voice if the people refuse to speak! How can we frolic in the sparkling waters of democracy if the bucket of legitimacy is but half full?
The strange thing is that the press seems to treat illegitimate votes as a kind of noise, a kind of tolerable if unfortunate democratic static, while intimidated no-shows are a travesty against all that is holy. Yet, and this should be obvious, in terms of the aggregative democratic procedure, an unnoticed illegal vote for one guy (in a two horse race) is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to scaring off a voter for the other guy.
If somebody's dog manages to vote for John Kerry, then, in effect, Velma Thompson (or whomever) failed to vote for that nice man, George W. Bush, even though she tried. Whiskers cancels out Velma. Here's another way to make the same point. Each Bush vote is paired with a Kerry vote and they're both thrown away. The winner is the one who has votes left on the table after all the other guy's votes have been chucked. Pairing legitimate voters with voting felons, dogs, corpses, and Frenchmen has precisely the same effect on the outcome as shooting legitimate voters before they can get in the door of the high school gym.
Republican vigilance about keeping illegal voters from voting is democratically equivalent to Democratic vigilance against Republican attempts to suppress the legal vote. Republican vigilance has the semi-intended side-effect of suppressing likely Democratic votes. And huge Democratic registration and GOTV drives have the semi-intended side-effect of canceling out a large number of Republican votes with illegal ballots. I bet I can tell from your party affiliation which you think is worse.
The press, as far as I can tell, seems to think Republican vigilance is worse. If one has the popular magical view of democratic legitimacy, Velma's participation itself sprinkles a bit of fairy dust of legitimacy on the entire proceedings. Voting dogs, lacking the relevant legal status, have no fairy dust to contribute, but their votes don't take any fairy dust away. Velma expressed herself, that's what matters, and you can't take that away! Because we want the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEMOCRATIC FAIRY DUST, we shouldn't complain if a huge turnout, and a huge amount of fairy dust, also entails a sizable turnout of the dead, canine, and alien. And, anyway, why shouldn't their votes count?
If you enjoyed this column by Will Wilkinson, you can read more of his work at The Fly Bottle.
(*** Note: For the rest of this week, I'll be putting up a retro article each day that features 10 previously seen RWN posts that boost Bush, bash Kerry, or that cover key issues. Feel free to email them out to friends who you think might be on the fence. ***)
Contribute To "Why George Bush Should Be Reelected -- In Quotes"
I'm working on a column called "Why George Bush Should Be Reelected -- In Quotes". If you have any quotes by or about George Bush that you think should be included, please post them in the comments section (along with a link) and I'll consider including them.
*** Update #1*** This actually won't be going live until Friday so feel free to keep adding on quotes.
President George Bush today admitted that his Democrat rival is correct in saying that Mr. Bush is "hiding bad news" until after the polls close next Tuesday.
"My opponent speaks the truth when he says that some Americans are going to get some bad news--maybe even before the sun comes up on November 3," said Mr. Bush, "It will involve defeat and the realization that huge sums of money have been wasted on an unwinnable battle against a determined and entrenched foe."
Although President Bush promised to deliver the news personally in a televised address, he said that Mr. Kerry will likely be the first to inform the American people.
"Of course, bad news is all a matter of perspective," Mr. Bush said. "One man looks at the glass and says it's half empty, another man sees the same glass and says, 'Come on, Dick, let's get back to work'."
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read his work at Scrappleface.
A Kerry Presidency Wouldn't Make The Democrats Get Serious About Security
I don't normally read Andrew Sullivan anymore unless I want to see what the other side is doing, but Sully has finally "officially" endorsed Kerry. Sure, once Bush came out for a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage everyone knew which way Sullivan would go and for all intents and purposes Sully endorsed Kerry back in July, but let's not quibble over small matters.
In any case, since one ludicrous part of Sully's endorsement is getting some noteworthy play, I thought it would be worth responding to Sullivan's incoherent argument about Kerry, Democrats, and the war on terror. Here's Sullivan making his case...
"Does Kerry believe in this war? Skeptics say he doesn't. They don't believe he has understood the significance of September 11. They rightly point to the antiwar and anti-Western attitudes of some in his base--the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys who will celebrate a Kerry victory. I understand their worries. But they should listen to what Kerry has said. The convention was a remarkable event in that it pivoted the Democratic Party toward an uncomplicated embrace of the war on terror. Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent.
Besides, the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country that is as much theirs as anyone's. The greatest weakness of the war effort so far has been the way it has become a partisan affair. This is the fault of both sides: the Rove-like opportunists on the right and the Moore-like haters on the left. But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect. I want this war to be as bipartisan as the cold war, to bring both parties to the supreme task in front of us, to offer differing tactics and arguments and personnel in pursuit of the same cause. This is not, should not be, and one day cannot be, Bush's war. And the more it is, the more America loses, and our enemies gain."
This is just a bizarre argument for so many reasons, but one line that Sullivan wrote in particular stands out,
"I want this war to be as bipartisan as the cold war, to bring both parties to the supreme task in front of us, to offer differing tactics and arguments and personnel in pursuit of the same cause."
Did Sullivan just step out of a time machine? The Cold War ceased to be a "bipartisan effort" (if it ever truly was) about the time George McGovern ran against Nixon. Hell, John Kerry himself met with the representatives of the Vietcong, opposed Reagan's military build-up, wanted to coddle the Sandinistas, thought Reagan was wrong to invade Grenada, and called Reagan's presidency a "moral darkness". Conservatives -- like Ronald Reagan -- did whatever it took to beat the Soviets while liberals -- like John Kerry -- opposed them at every turn. On what planet is that considered "bipartisanship"? The left in this country has practically been dead weight on national security issues -- including the Cold War-- for more than 30 years now.
And that's the problem with the idea that "the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country". Their record over the last three decades or so (at least) shows they're not willing to take that responsibility seriously.
John Kerry is a dovish liberal who has worked to weaken the military and our intelligence services during his Senate career, wasn't a "Cold Warrior," didn't support the invasion of Grenada, the Gulf War, or the invasion of Iraq, and opposed funding our troops in Iraq. To expect a man like Kerry to turn into Scoop Jackson once he gets into office is nutty.
It's like taking a gazelle, putting it into a cage where the only food is small animals, and expecting it to turn into a carnivore because meat is the only thing it has to eat. Well, the gazelle is probably going to starve to death because it's not its nature to eat meat. The same principle applies to anti-war liberals like John Kerry. He's not going to turn into a hawk just because the situation requires it. Instead, we're going to get BOMBED while he twiddles his thumbs at the UN.
Furthermore, Sullivan is totally wrong about this,
"There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq."
Sure there's an alternative. It's called "cutting and running" and in one form or fashion it's what Kerry would likely do in Iraq.
Let me tell you why I say that.
For his entire campaign against President Bush, Kerry has been making grand promises about Iraq. His pitch to the American people has in essence been,
"Everything George Bush is doing in Iraq is wrong, but I can fix it! And how will I do that? My plan is to do what George Bush has been doing, but better! Just wait until I get the French, the Germans, NATO, and the UN involved. Boy howdy, everything will be great then! I'll get allies to do the fighting and dying while we bring the troops home. Yes, with John Kerry running the show, it'll be all rainbows, sugar cookies, puppy dog tails, and fluffy kittens in Iraq!"
But once Kerry gets into office, he's going to get a dose of ugly reality.
All those allies he's promising aren't going to materialize or their contributions will be minimal. Moreover, the allies we already have will start to look for a way out since they can't count on "Mr. Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" to hang in there.
The "insurgents" will probably RAMP UP their attacks as well. Everyone knows Kerry may bug out of Iraq. That's a morale builder for the enemy. It gives them hope and a reason to keep killing that they wouldn't have if George Bush were in office. Outlasting Bush? It's not going to happen. But, outlasting Kerry? That's a real possibility and everybody, including the enemy, knows it.
And after Kerry has been in office a few months, what happens when soldiers are still dying and Iraq doesn't turn into paradise? What happens when the majority of Kerry's base, which didn't support the war in the first place, starts yelling, "Get out, get out, get out!?!" I'll tell you what's going to happen. Some smart guy, some political genius is going to tell Kerry...
"Hey, this war in Iraq is thought of right now as "George Bush's War". But, if you stay there long enough, people are going to regard it as "John Kerry's war". Your base doesn't want to be there and since we haven't turned the whole country into Belgium in 6 months, it's starting to hurt you at the polls. So here's my advice: get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and just tell the American people that George Bush screwed things up so badly that you couldn't fix it. There's your ready made excuse to run for the hills."
You can say, "Oh, that wouldn't happen; it would be a disaster," but that depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? Was the way Vietnam turned out a disaster? People like me, we'd say "yes, absolutely". But for liberals, a war one of their own -- Lyndon Johnson -- hopelessly screwed up is still to this day their first line of defense when they argue against other wars,
"We can't fight this war, it'll turn into another Vietnam!"
"Sure the war is a week old, but someone got killed, just like in Vietnam!"
"War doesn't work, remember Vietnam!"
If we get John Kerry in office and he blows Iraq, that'll just give the Michael Moores, Ted Ralls, and yes, the John Kerrys of the world one more reason to argue that war doesn't work. Hey, it's exactly what they did after Vietnam.
Summing this all up: putting John Kerry in the White House isn't going to make liberals, other than the odd Christopher Hitchens type, get serious about national security. Remember that the Democrats had a credible candidate running for the nomination who was serious about national security. His name was Joe Lieberman and he got BURIED. What does that tell you, especially in the post-9/11 world we live in, folks? If 9/11 didn't wake the Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis of the world up, what makes anyone think putting John Kerry in charge of Iraq will do the trick given that Kerry can just let Iraq nosedive into the pavement and blame Bush for it? It just doesn't make any sense. That's why people who are serious about protecting America from terrorist attacks are going to be voting for Bush, not the party of Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, & John Kerry.
"Really Sullivan could have summed up his endorsement in about two dozen words:
“John Kerry is wrong on every issue facing this country today. But he’s against the Federal Marriage Amendment that the President has called for. Therefore, I support John Kerry.”
The rest was just lame justifications for a position that he probably doesn’t truly feel is right in his heart."
What sort of degenerates would make Nazi toys for kids? Unfortunately, that's not a hypothetical question and justification they used for making the toys? Oh, good grief, it'll make your head hurt...
"Dolls depicting members of a Nazi SS combat division originally created to guard concentration camps are now available in Canadian stores.
...The `Totenkopf Division' doll, sporting military fatigues and the trademark death's head insignia on the cap, comes with a Walther pistol and gas mask. The packaging infers that the division fought in Normandy in 1944 as a tank unit — which part of the division did.
The Totenkopf was, however, a group originally formed at Dachau, site of the first concentration camp outside Munich. It opened in 1934.
...The figure is part of a World War II series from Plan-B Toys of Groveport, Ohio.
Other figures in the doll series include several Waffen SS figures and a variety of U.S. airborne soldier figures as well as regular Wehrmacht troops. The Waffen SS sniper comes with a recruitment poster.
The SS was the elite private army initially formed as a bodyguard for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. Plan-B co-president Chris Borman said the company did not set out to offend anyone but was just portraying the Totenkopf troops that fought in Normandy.
"Everyone knows the Germans were Nazis in World War II," Borman said. "We picked them because they've got the coolest gear. It makes for a cool figure.
"There's really no harm in it," he adds. "We won the war. We already know the outcome.
"That division was involved in some terrible things, but wasn't everyone during World War II? It's just history."
Let me translate "idiot toymaker" into normal humanspeak...
"Sure we make Nazi toys, but they look COOL. And isn't that what's important? That the toy looks cool? Besides, everybody did terrible things in WW2. There were Germans who used violence to slaughter millions of people and try to take over the world and then there were the Allies who used violence to try to stop them. Nazis, Americans, what's the difference right? We'd make little toy ovens and naked Jews to shove in them if we thought we could make an extra buck of 'em. Coming up next: Palestinians with dynamite belts strapped to them and school buses full of Jewish kids that actually explode!"
These guys should get together with the creeps selling the 9/11 toys. I'd bet they have a similar clientele...
***Update #1***:Plan-B Toys is apparently feeling the heat because they have this statement up on their website...
"Plan B Toys has removed figures from its line of Call of Duty action figures due to numerous requests. Plan B Toys in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM actively promotes ideologies, beliefs or political views that may be associated with the nature of its product. Our intent was to depict historically accurate action figures of allied and enemy forces. We apologize for any unintenional harm our product may have caused."
However, the WWII CASE PACK, which includes Nazi figures, is still on sale.
Here in North Carolina, they have early voting and I took the opportunity to pull the lever for the GOP (and against every bond issue). I know a lot of people have complained about early voting problems, but everything went smooth as silk for me today.
I hit a polling place about 5 miles from my apartment and there was no Danny DeVito & "Carla" From "Cheers" blocking the polls so I was in and out of there in ten minutes (although there were about 10 people in line when I left).
The electronic voting machine was so easy to use that it was practically "stupid proof". I mean this thing was so simple that even a Florida Democrat could figure it out.
And the poll workers? They were great. They asked everyone who they were voting for and if the person said "Kerry," they gave them a hand-out explaining why Bush was a better choice. There was also a huge pic of George Bush standing at the WTC with his arm around that fireman right in the middle of the polling place. There were even Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on each voting booth. It was really inspirational......kidding, I'm just kidding in this paragraph =D Lol....
In all seriousness, the early voting was great. If they have it in your state, it would be a good idea to take advantage of the convenient locations and shorter lines....especially if you live in Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, & Minnesota. Come on, not only is this an important election that will determine the fate of the war on terror and the shape of the Supreme Court (among other things), we need every conservative vote we can get to make up for all the dead libs, felons, and illegal aliens who'll be voting for Kerry =D
(*** Note: For the rest of this week, I'll be putting up a retro article each day that features 10 previously seen RWN posts that boost Bush, bash Kerry, or that cover key issues. Feel free to email them out to friends who you think might be on the fence. ***)
Saddam Worried Explosive Cache Now in 'Wrong Hands' By Scott Ott
When Iraqi military interrogators informed the imprisoned Saddam Hussein that 377 tons of explosives had disappeared from a huge weapons storage facility, the former Iraqi president expressed concern that the extremely powerful chemical agents might "fall into the wrong hands."
His remarks bolstered claims by Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry that President George Bush had made a "great blunder" by failing to secure the weapons cache at Al Qaqaa.
"When Al Qaqaa was under Saddam Hussein's control, inventory management was efficient and reliable, and Americans could sleep at night," said Mr. Kerry, who is also a U.S. Senator. "But once these weapons of nearly mass destruction (WNMD) came under the care of George W. Bush, they vanished. And who knows what kind of crazed, America-hating killers have them now?"
The missing materials include HMX (high melting point explosive) and RDX (rapid detonation explosive). Less than a pound of such substances brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
However, chemical experts agree that HMX and RDX posed no threat to anyone as long as they were controlled by the legitimately-elected former president of the Republic of Iraq.
The Pentagon is reportedly negotiating a deal with Mr. Hussein to allow him to oversee Iraq's remaining weapons depots as a kind of prison work-release program while he awaits trial.
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
(*** For this post, I'm going to cover a variety of different topics in three sentences or less ***)
-- Here are the latest poll numbers from the two key states in the Presidential election.
Florida: Zogby - Bush +1, Survey USA - Kerry +2, CNN/USAT/Gallup - Bush +8, Rasmussen - TIE, SPT/Miami Herald - TIE, Research - Kerry +1
Ohio: Zogby - Bush +1, Rasmussen - Bush +3, Scripps - Kerry +4, Gallup - Kerry +1, FOX News - Bush +5
-- John J. Miller speculates that Republicans will add two Senate seats. Call me optimistic, but I'd say that it looks very likely that Richard Burr is going to beat Erskine Bowles here in North Carolina to take John Edwards seat as well (Miller ranks that one as a toss-up).
-- Who should be the President of the United States? Something Awful has the answer,
"If the founding fathers were alive today they would despair at the state of partisan rhetoric and the quality of candidates put forth by both major parties. That's why I would vote for Triple H."
-- Liberal Zack Parsons from the humorzine Something Awful has a colorful description of what John Kerry looks like up close and personal...
"Meeting John Kerry in person is sort of like meeting a tree made out of human skin and wrinkles. On TV he looks a lot like Frankenstein or Herman Munster, up close he more closely resembles Droopy Dog stretched out on a torture rack."
-- I just bought a TiVo this week-end with 40 hours of recording time. Those of you who already have TiVo; is it as cool as everyone says it is?
-- While the bloggers I polled in the "Right-Of-Center Bloggers Make Their Predictions For The 2004 Elections article overwhelmingly (93%) picked Bush to triumph over Kerry, there was a lot of concern about fraud and Kerry attempting to steal the election in the courts. Bush definitely has the edge, but another 2000 style debacle is a real possibility.
-- Ever since Bush hit the political scene, we've had liberals saying he's dumb as a rock. Now, it looks as if Bush has a higher I.Q. than John Kerry. So, does that mean John Kerry is too stupid to be President?
-- "(On Palestinian TV) The child moderator asked the talking chick what he would do if someone, specifically a “little boy,” were to chop down his tree. In his squeaky little voice, Tarabisho answered: "I'll fight him and make a big riot, I'll call the whole world and make a riot. I'll bring AK-47s [assault rifles] and the whole world, I'll commit a massacre in front of the house".
How do you make peace with savages who teach this sort of thing to their children?
-- Need even more evidence that the US was right not to kill our economy by signing up for Kyoto?
"Although saved last week with Russian help, the Kyoto pact on global warming offers too little to arrest climate change and governments should adopt more radical solutions, the top U.N. climate expert (Rajendra Pachauri) has said.
Why should we decimate our economy for something that more and more Pro-Kyoto "experts" are admitting won't work?
Let Me Allay Your Fears. Republicans Aren't Fascists, You're Just Crazy =D
After reading through a series called "The Rise of Pseudo Fascism" on a lefty blog called Orcinus, I wanted to give a relatively short and sweet response to the idea that Conservatives are "pseudo-Fascists" or desire some sort of Fascist state.
Usually, I just point out how crazy that idea is and leave it at that. And indeed a lot of the people who think conservatives are Fascists wannabes are...well...lunatics.
But, it goes deeper than that.
There are also plenty of liberals out there who believe that conservatives are just evil people and if it's eeeeeevvviiillllll, they believe right-wingers are into it. So Fascism? Sure. Are conservatives wannabe Nazis? Oh yeah. Election rigging? Sure. If there are charges made against conservatives, there are plenty of libs who will buy into it no matter how outlandish it is.
Then there's another group of lefties out there who understand that Liberalism is very unpopular in America and that if libs are going to win on the national level, they often have to PRETEND to be conservatives. Just look at John Kerry talking how he's really going to go after the terrorists, doing speeches on his "faith", and running around doing his hunting photo-ops. But let's face it, if the choice is between a "pseudo-conservative lib" and a real conservative, the leftie pretenders are usually going to lose. Hence their need to demonize real conservatives as "Fascists" or "Nazis". If ya can't beat 'em, make people think that you're OK and that they're monsters.
But, let's not dodge the question: are conservatives "Fascists," "pseudo-Fascists," "Fascist-wannabes," or anything similar?
Of course not.
Conservatives simply believe our ideology is better for the rich, the poor, men, women, minorities, immigrants, you name it, and the country in general than Liberalism, Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, etc. In our view, a conservative philosophy is a big part of what made this country great and will continue to make it successful.
Furthermore, may I add that although Conservatism has had a resurgence, particularly since Reagan came into office, the country is much less conservative than it was at one time. If you look at the things that really define conservatism (not Republicanism) today, fiscal responsibility, small government, traditional values, a strict reading of the Constitution, and hawkish foreign policy, past conservatives like Jefferson, Washington, & Teddy Roosevelt are FAR TO THE RIGHT of big name conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley. So for example, to say that Ronald Reagan was a Fascist, but that someone John Adams isn't is logically inconsistent. Heck, even "liberal icons" like Truman and FDR have far more in common with conservatives than liberals on national security and social issues (although of course, the same can't be said about their views on the role of government).
In fact, the only thing the modern conservative movement truly shares with Fascism is a love of patriotic symbolism that has been around since the founding. Yeah, conservatives like to wave a flag just like Fascists do, but conservatives were waving that same flag when we turned the tide in WW1, smashed Fascists in Nazis in WW2, and followed Reagan to victory during the Cold War. Maybe that sort of open love of country rubs some people the wrong way, but as far as I'm concerned, that's their problem.
So do conservatives want a dictatorship, do they favor government censorship of liberal views, do they want a centralized economy, or would they support throwing liberals in camps? The answer is quite obviously "no". "Conservative fascism" is pure fantasy, just a boogeyman that exists in the minds of some liberals...
Just for the fun of it, here are a few Nov. 2nd scenarios based on the latest Real Clear Politics polling data.
(*** Remember that based on the 2000 census data, we start with a electoral vote count of Bush (278) Vs. Kerry (260) if both candidates were to both take the same states that Bush and Gore did in 2000 ***)
Group 1: Bush 2000 states in play for Kerry
Florida: 27
Ohio: 20
New Hampshire: 4
Group 2: Gore 2000 states leaning Bush
Wisonsin: 10
Iowa: 7
New Mexico: 5
Hawaii: 4
Group 3: Gore 2000 states still in play, but leaning Kerry
-- Bush takes Ohio & Florida: He wins
-- Kerry takes Ohio: Bush is likely to win by carrying Wisconsin and Iowa from Group 2.
-- Kerry takes Ohio & New Hampshire: Bush is likely to win by carrying Wisconsin and Iowa from Group 2.
-- Kerry takes Florida: Bush still would probably win by taking Wisconsin, Iowa, & either Hawaii or New Mexico.
-- Kerry takes Florida & New Hampshire: Bush has perhaps a bit less than 50 chance of winning because he'll need all of Group 2 or most of Group 2 + a Group 3 State.
-- Kerry takes Florida, Ohio, &/Or New Hampshire: Bush is highly likely to lose. To win, Bush would need either Pennsylvania or Michigan & probably Minnesota to go along with his Group 2 wins.
Summary: The election looks to be centered around Florida and Ohio right now. The latest Zogby Poll (and I think Zogby polling leans left) has Bush at +3 in Florida and +5 in Ohio. That's bad news for Kerry. I also think Minnesota is close to being a Bush leaning state.
On the other hand, Arkansas may be coming into play for Kerry (although there hasn't been a poll showing Kerry ahead in that state since August) and although Bush has had tiny leads in the last two Hawaii polls, it's hard to count on a state that leans to the left that heavily going for Bush. Furthermore, Kerry seems to be pulling away in Michigan.
So with a week to go until election day, Bush is in significantly better position than Kerry, but Kerry is still within striking distance...
(*** Note: For the rest of this week, I'll be putting up a retro article each day that features 10 previously seen RWN posts that boost Bush, bash Kerry, or that cover key issues. Feel free to email them out to friends who you think might be on the fence. ***)
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Make Their Predictions For The 2004 Elections
Right Wing News emailed more than a 180 mostly conservative bloggers and asked them to make their predictions for the 2004 elections. Representatives from 85 blogs responded. All 85 bloggers were asked to answer the following 4 questions about the 2004 election....
1) Who will win the election? Bush or Kerry?
2) Do you think we'll know who the winner is by the end of the day on November 3rd? Yes or no?
3) Will the GOP retain control of the House? Yes or no?
4) Will the GOP retain control of the Senate? Yes or no
