October 29, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:And the prestigious Jane Galt endorsement goes to . . .
What a long, agonising trip its been. Throughout the process, I've been subjected to approximately 8 zillion exhortations along the lines of "How on earth could you consider voting for that son-of-a-bitch?" People who bemoan the increasing partisanship of our society will be pleased to hear that both parties seem to be thoroughly united in the belief that anyone who is not voting their way is either a drooling moron or a venal hatemonger, out to destory All That Is Good and Fine in This Great Nation of Ours.
So before I give you my endorsement, I thought I'd run you through the metrics I've been using to weigh the election, and how I ultimately came out on them.
The Environment: Kerry wins by a hair here, but only a hair, because he supports moronic CAFE standards instead of sensible emissions taxes. He's made idiotic promises about getting to 20% of our energy from alternative fuels, a promise which is made as predictibly as the rising of the sun by presidential candidates, to little effect. Bush is better on nuclear energy, but not much. Kerry gets the bonus here because he cares more, though not a whole hell of a lot more, about the negative externalities of various economic activities, than does Bush. Warning to Dems, though: you almost lost this over his grovelling to the coal industry.
Education: Bush by a landslide. The Democrats are simply too hostage to the teacher's unions to be even marginally credible on education: any attempts to reform the system end up being captured by the unions, and do little more than funnel extra money into teachers' pockets. (An approach I'm all in favour of if it gets us better results, which so far it manifestly hasn't). I'd prefer that Bush go farther, with vouchers for example, but I've been pleasantly surprised by NCLB. As Gerard Baker said about Bush, NCLB has made all the right enemies.
Health Care: In a normal year, I'd look at Bush's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Medicare prescription drug plan, and be tempted to call it a wash. However, John Kerry has managed to scare the bejeesus out of me with his health care plan. Play semantic games all you want; when you've got a plan that would qualify half the families in America for Medicaid, that's what I call a government takeover of the healthcare system. I'm against it. Reallly really really against it. Bush easily gets my vote here.
Gay marriage: Kerry. I'm against the FMA; regardless of what you think about gay marriage, writing the damn thing into the constitution is, in the words of PJ O'Rourke, pinning a "kick me" sign on the backside of the majesty of the law. However, since the thing has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing the state legislatures, I can't say this swings my vote much one way or the other.
The Supreme Court: Bush. A number of commenters have tried to convince me not to vote for Bush by trying to scare me with dire tales about another Scalia or Thomas appointed to the bench. Folks, this is like trying to scare me with a free Porsche. I'd be in heaven with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench. Why am I supposed to be so scared, again? Oh, right, abortion. News flash: libertarian does not equal pro choice, and pro-choice does not equal pro-Roe. As it happens, I'm pro-choice (reluctantly), but I'm against Roe v. Wade; I think the matter should be decided at the state level, and NARAL can use all the money it raises to lobby to provide bus tickets and nice hotel rooms to women wanting abortions in states where it is illegal.
The Economy I don't think the president has much, if anything, to do with how the economy runs, unless he's one of those disastrous tinkerers, like FDR and Richard Nixon. Neither of the current candidates is such a lackwit, meaning that their impact on the economy will be minimal indeed. Neither candidate gets my vote here.
Trade George Bush. Yes, he did steel tariffs, but the way I look at it, he enacted something he knew was going to be overturned in order to get important concessions from congress, on fast-track, trade promotion authority, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Now we have freer trade and no steel tariffs. Trade is an area where the president is really important. There's a lot an unwilling president can do to scuttle trade, and there are big talks coming up at the WTO. Kerry's advisors are going around telling people he's lying about trade, and he may well be; his record in the senate seems to be pretty good. But George Bush's record seems to be pretty good as well, and he's not making anti-trade noises, or nominating a protectionist to his ticket.
Corporate Welfare Kerry. The recent tax bill, which was supposed to provide adjustment assistance to exporters who lost a subsidy that was ruled illegal by the WTO, turned into a shameless giveaway to every business interest with a lobby and a dream. Not that George Bush could stop congress from larding the bill up with anti-market tax favours, but he could veto the bill, which he won't. Kerry might; he gets my vote on this issue.
Tax policy: George Bush. Not because I'm one of those super-gung-ho supply siders who are committed to Bush's rate reductions with their dying breath. I'm in favour of the rate reductions, but it's not one of my primary issues. Lucky for George, he hit one of my primary issues: mitigating the adverse affects of the tax code on capital formation. I'm hugely in favour of equalising the treatment of cap gains and dividends; definitely in favour of lowering the tax rate on cap gains (at least until we eliminate the corporate income tax); and pretty much in favour of getting rid of the estate tax.
Poverty policy Liberals will scream, but George Bush gets this one. Kerry has one plan I like--increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit--but the rest of his programme is just standard Democratic same-old, same-old. I think raising the minimum wage is a moderately bad idea, and will have at best a trivial effect on welfare policy (most former welfare mothers already make above what John Kerry is proposing to raise the minimum to; the hike will disproportionately benefit middle class teenagers.) I wrote a piece on poverty recently, and what struck me is how excited the Republicans were about eradicating poverty, compared to the Democrats; Republicans are actually trying to change the environment in which poor kids grow up, rather than just raising the amount of money they spend. Education is a major piece of this, and there also George Bush has won my heart.
Entitlements George Bush. For all the hysteria, Bush's plans for Social Security and Medicare are excessively modest. But he's a dynamic go-getter compared to Kerry, whose plan for Social Security is to stand there watching while it collapses around our ears, and who wants to make Medicare more insolvent. Democrats are screaming that Bush's plan will be expensive, but of course, if we actually showed the country's current liabilities, rather than keeping the country's books on the weird, not-quite-cash-basis our government uses, privatising would come out as at worst neutral. Meanwhile, it would keep the government from making more promises to people it can't fulfill . . . people who will be badly hurt when the system goes bust. And it would take money from the government, which spends it on things that are at best economically neutral, and redirect that money into investments that will increase future productivity, helping us to bear the burden of an older population.
Civil Liberties Neither. I used to think that Janet Reno was the embodiment of all evil, after she helped gut the fourth amendment and pioneered the use of the paramilitary force to resolve child custody issues. Now I think that whoever becomes attorney general is driven mad by dreams of all the good they could do if only they had a lot more power. Both sides endorse the execrable drug war, which has done more to destroy civil liberties than any post-9/11 moves.
The Budget I'm against running deficits, not because of the economic effects, which I think are pretty small, but because we shouldn't buy things for ourselves by writing IOU's for our children to pay. But both candidates are pretty much equally bad on this measure; the deficits they're promising are within a couple hundred billion of eachother over ten years, depending on which party you believe. I suspect that if Kerry passes his plan that number will be higher, because health care plans always seem to cost many times what they were promised to cost. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and call it even-steven.
Foriegn policyHere it is: the big ticket. Which way do I go?
Let me outline what I think about the way the administration approached Iraq.
I think we chose to go to Iraq, we didn't have to. But I'm okay with that, unlike a lot of libertarians.
I think that the decision to invade Iraq had a lot of reasons behind it, of which only a few were discussed with America. And I'm also okay with that, unlike a lot of libertarians. The government, unfortunately, can't have a secret closed-door meeting with the entire country in which it tells us what it is thinking. It has to conduct its discussion by press release. Imagine how much information you'd get from your family and friends, much less your boss, if the only way they could talk to you was to broadcast their words to a world listening with bated breath. Make the negotiations on the house you're buying a little complicated, hmmm? Think your boss would give you the quarterly sales numbers, what with the competition breathing down your neck?
I think that there were people in the administration who were obsessed with Iraq, and that that drove the decision-making to some extent. That doesn't mean the invasion was a bad idea, but it does worry me about the administration's decision making.
I think that Iraq was not necessary to the war on terror, but I still think it's possible that it could be a successful battle in it. A democratic Iraq would be a major victory in the region. Even an Iraq run by a Mubarrak would help, by making the region more stable, and denying terrorists a base; and it would be much better for the people of Iraq. It gets US troops off Saudi soil, which can only help.
I'm unconvinced by anti-war people screaming about screw-ups in the early weeks of the war, including the latest explosives flap. As a project manager, I know too well that when you operate in a tight time frame, no matter how much you plan, nothing goes according to plan. Something comes out of left field and makes half your planning obsolete, and the other half irrelevant.
I think that the administration drastically underestimated the popular resistance to our invasion. This allowed the insurgency to grow, which in turn has steadily eroded our popularity, as we are blamed for the sabotage-induced decline in infrastructure, and the growing insecurity. I think the administration failed to act decisvely against the insurgency, betraying a stubborn unwillingness to admit when they are wrong, or change plans even when the plans are clearly failing. I am deeply troubled by this. I think the administration was unwilling to take the political risk of asking for more troops, and have thus brought greater political risk upon themselves. This is my biggest concern with the administration.
I think that the administration's plans worked very well on state actors: Libya, Syria, and Pakistan, to name a few, seem to be more cooperative now that they know we really might invade. Iran and North Korea are working on nuclear weapons, but they've been working on nuclear weapons since long before we invaded Iraq. I think they have had the opposite effect on non-state actors: I'm pretty sure we're making terrorist recruiting easier.
But I'm not as sure as anti-war types that this makes us less secure. The biggest threat we face is nuclear or biological terrorism, and that's the kind of terrorism that requires cooperation from state actors. Moreover, right now at least, all the new recruits are fighting soldiers in Iraq and not civilians in America. That could change, of course, but the only existential threat we face is nuclear terrorism. And nuclear terrorism is constrained not by the supply of recruits, but the supply of nukes, which terrorists wanted long before 9/11. The administration's actions certainly haven't increased the supply of nukes, and they may have decreased them. But I would like to see the administration pay more attention to non-state actors.
I think Abu Ghraib was a disgrace to the name of America, and Don Rumsfeld should have resigned. I don't think that he caused it in any way, but I do think that when something this bad happens, high heads have to roll to show how deeply we regret the stain on our honor.
I think that retreating from Iraq would be a disaster. Even if it turns into a quagmire, I would far rather see us stay too long than bug out before we have to.
I think that George Bush has cost us a lot of goodwill in Europe. I am less convinced that Europe's governments left us much choice.
I think that the greatest revelation of the Iraq war has been that we lack the military force to invade a smallish country with terrain that provides easy surveillence and movement. That's a big problem; whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, I think it's pretty important that the world's last superpower should be able to, if it needs to. I also think that neither candidate has credibly addressed this issue, the administration because it doesn't want to admit failure, and the Kerry team because they're still wallowing in some fantasy where the UN sends us troops it doesn't have and wouldn't commit if it did.
What about Kerry? He's been on the wrong side of pretty much every foriegn policy issue he addressed before he began running for president, from nuclear freeze to the first Iraq war. He's been a borderline incompetent as a senator. I like Joe Biden, who is advising him on foreign policy, but that's about all he has going for him. His votes since 9/11 have been so coldly opportunistic that I, the ultimate political cynic, actually feel a little tinge of disgust. So though liberals keep telling me that 9/11 changed everything, I have no way of knowing whether they changed John Kerry. Columns telling me to listen to what he's saying elicit only a hollow laugh, since John Kerry has already made it abundantly clear that he'll say pretty much anything to get elected. Not that this is exactly surprising behaviour in a politician.
Does it matter? There's a pretty compelling argument to be made that the Bush administration has screwed up so badly that it's practically impossible that the Kerry team could be worse. I have two problems with this argument. The first is that the people who've been making it to me mostly hated Bush before Iraq, before 9/11, and indeed before he got the Republican Party's 2000 nomination. Bush could have been running the greatest foreign policy since Machiavelli, and they would still be arguing for me to take Kerry's prospects on blind faith. And second, I'm not sure it's true. Pulling out of Iraq would be worse than leaving a blundering administration there, and as Mickey Kaus said of The Economist's Kerry endorsement "it's always a shaky moment in these non-peacenik endorsements when the writer tries to convince himself or herself that Kerry won't bail out on Iraq prematurely, isn't it? (Kerry has been 'forthright about the need to win in Iraq,' but do you trust him and if so why? Because Andrew Sullivan's blogging will keep him honest?)" Still, the administration has screwed up in some major ways, leaving me wrestling with the question: how bad could Kerry be?
In the end, it comes down to how much risk the candidates will take. The Democratic policy on foriegn policy risk has been pretty much the same since McGovern: they won't take any. They bug out at the first sign of casualties, and go in only when the foe is so tiny that we can smash them without committing ground troops.
The Republicans take risk. Bush took on a lot of it -- and with it, the possibility that something could go wrong.
What does the country need now? Someone risk averse, to shepherd us through, or someone who will take bold action and possibly land us in a disaster? I think a lot of people have concluded, from the fact that Bush's risky move has gone wrong, that risk aversion is therefore the superior strategy. But that doesn't follow. Jimmy Carter running right now would to my mind be inarguably worse than George Bush for all his screw ups. On the other hand, Bush I would certainly be preferable to Bush II.
Unfortunately, I have neither Bush I nor Mr Carter on the stump to make my choice easy. I have the choices I have: between someone whose foriegn policy has been so risky as to be foolhardy, or someone who will not take the political risk of voting his conscience (whatever that may be) on the war; between someone whose commanding ability to chart a course and stick to it veers into pigheaded refusal to admit he's wrong, and someone who takes four weeks to decide on a campaign bumper sticker design. Above all, I have to guess how Mr Kerry will be in office, because the president doesn't have the luxuries of a senator or a campaigner; he has to decide what to do without the other senators to hide behind, and he cannot just go out and talk about his never-never plans when action is required. He doesn't get to skip a vote, and dithering could be fatal to a lot more than his political career. When something goes badly wrong in Iraq, will Kerry stay the course, because it's important, or will he take counsel of his fears, and his party's left wing, and cut and run as soon as he decently can? Daniel Drezner advocates a minimax strategy, but it's not clear to me that Kery represents a win.
Then there's the question of what message electing Kerry would send. Does it make the world love us, because we got rid of the president they hate, or does it make them despise us, because we've just held a referendum on the Iraq war, and Bush lost?
Ultimately, I've decided to take the advice of a friend's grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he'd change. "If you can't live with him exactly the way he is," she told me, "then don't marry him, because he'll say he's going to change, and he might even try to change, but it's one in a million that he actually will."
Kerry's record for the first fifteen years in the senate, before he knew what he needed to say in order to get elected, is not the record of anyone I want within spitting distance of the White House war room. Combine that with his deficits on domestic policy -- Kerry's health care plan would, in my opinon, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will -- and it's finally clear. For all the administration's screw -ups -- and there have been many -- I'm sticking with the devil I know. George Bush in 2004.
Posted by Jane Galt at October 29, 2004 02:14 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI pretty much agree with you all the way down the line. And I don't like Libertarians, what's happening to me? :)
I think you have done a good job of cutting through all the spin to look at what is really true here, as far as those of us not residing inside Bush or Kerry's brain can know.
To me it seems like over the last 15-20 years the Democrats have increasingly gotten farther and farther out there twisting facts into spin and then lies, and after a while the GOP started working hard to catch up, unfortunately.
Now we have gotten to the point where the Dems say, Bush lied about WMD, while Gore, Kerry, both Clintons, etc, all say the same thing, they thought Saddam had them too. Yet incredibly,the Dems can just ignore that part and accuse Bush of lying. It is like the Emperor has no clothes with all this Democratic lying.
So the major job now is not just figuring out policy implications, it is figuring out what is real behind the spin, and again I congratulate you on a good job of doing that.
Posted by: napablogger on October 29, 2004 12:42 PMWell done Jane! Glad to see you came to the right decision, even though I disagree with you on one or two (minor) points. I'm planning on writing my own endorsement of Bush at Tacitus and I think I'll use your issue outline although I tend to have a bit more details on why Bush is better on trade, health care, and the environment.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on October 29, 2004 12:47 PMYes, though they strike us down, we become incremently more powerful!
Posted by: Roger L. Simon (with a hat) on October 29, 2004 12:50 PMSame here. I too am sticking with the devil I know as well and going with Bush. I live in Wisconsin so my vote is being sought heavily.
The bottom line is I just really, at a gut level, don't trust Kerry.....
Posted by: Jeanne on October 29, 2004 12:51 PMGlad to see how much time and effort you put into that decision, irrespective of what the actual decision is (though I think its the right one and agree with your line of thought). Now, if every voter would be this careful ...
apex
Good lord, it's as if you reached into my brain and expressed so much of what I've thought, only more eloquently than I ever could.
Very well written!
Posted by: bosplanner on October 29, 2004 12:52 PMNo doubt you will get a lot of grief from folks who won't stop to realize that they need not get so worked up, as Bush has no chance of carrying New York. I just want to say that your analysis was a lot more thoughtful than some of those who supposedly do this kind of thing for a living. It's the sort of thing that should be able to go without saying, but this year, it's worth noting.
Posted by: Karl on October 29, 2004 12:55 PM
It is amazing I agree with 95% of what you say, but come to a different conclusion on how I'm voting. I think that says something about how you've cut to the truth of the matter, and let thinking men and women disagree on the conclusions.
Hey, how did I miss that you were over on Instapundit.
Nice analysis, btw, well written.
Posted by: John on October 29, 2004 12:57 PMJane,
If everyone took the time to analyze for whom they vote as you did, we would not need 10,000 lawyers standing by and $500 million dollars in negative advertising, because no matter who you voted for, you would be respected for your choice. Thank you.
Megan, it's so nice to see an actual evaluation of the merits of the vote from someone before they vote. I don't agree with all you say, but my own libertarian leanings agree with much of it. I once was a liberal advocate (didn't Churchill say you should be one when you are young?) but I really began to question the entire Democratic thrust once I saw how absolutely inept and frozen that Carter was. To my surprise, I realized that it was almost entirely emotional appeal. One wants to "feel good" about one's own motives etc. and the Democratic appeal was to "helping those who can't" etc. What they hid in that was the basic humanity of motivating and helping people to HELP THEMSELVES, as opposed to just lengthening the lines of willing participants with their hands held out for the latest largesse from Washington.
John Kerry seems to be the perfect candidate for what the Democratic party has morphed into. First, he is a TRAITOR. No other word fits, for his disgusting behavior following his return from the Vietnam theater. Meeting with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in Paris (multiple times) WHILE STILL AN OFFICER IN THE NAVY, is nothing but TREASON. Second, he is a serial liar and fabulist. The number of items displaying this are too numerous to recount here. Just think about how he used the comment that was "seared" in his memory about being in Cambodia under Nixon, and then ignored it when it was proven to be a lie. He once claimed that a mine went off under his boat and with such force that the dog that his group had as a pet was literally blown up into the air and landed on another nearby Swift Boat. How ridiculous is that? He reminds me of a pre-teen boy who no one pays attention to, making ever more ridiculous and outrageous claims so someone will listen.
Someone who displays such obvious disdain for the truth, and thinks that he can get away with it makes him someone to run screaming AWAY from.
Anyway, it's never perfect but the choice is clear and it makes me happy to read that one of my favorite bloggers agrees with my sentiments.
Posted by: webrider44 on October 29, 2004 01:02 PMMy goodness. How do you complete a trip to the grocery store? So many choices, so many close calls.
But you came to the right conclusion nonetheless.
Posted by: Jeff on October 29, 2004 01:03 PMOutstanding analysis.
This type of analysis is what we should be seeing on the MSM, instead of the crisis, horserace status, or sob story of the day.
Keep up the good work, but make sure you have fun doing it!
Posted by: Tim Gannon on October 29, 2004 01:06 PMI think that the greatest revelation of the Iraq war has been that we lack the military force to invade a smallish country with terrain that provides easy surveillence and movement. That's a big problem; whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, I think it's pretty important that the world's last superpower should be able to, if it needs to.
Wisest thing I've read in a while - I get tried of hearing the "only superpower in the world" What if we really had to fight (conventionally) Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan?
Posted by: dan kearns on October 29, 2004 01:07 PMSure alot of agonizing there. For me, none of those issues make a whole lot of difference if we're getting killed. I guess I'm just too simple. For me it's like Dennis Miller said, "Bush gets out of bed in the morning and says, 'Let's go kills some more terrorists.'" Works for me.
Posted by: jpg on October 29, 2004 01:08 PMDear Megan:
Have been following your deliberations with much interest. I too came to the same conclusion you have, only I came to it a few months ago. My first presidential vote came in 1980 and I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Ed Clark. This year will be the first time I vote for the Republican candidate. I think we've both made the right decision. Thank you!
Best,
Bill
Posted by: Bill Seed on October 29, 2004 01:08 PMAhhhhh...an actual gosh-be-gosh thoughtful voter.If only America could see as clearly as you. I am in NY and feel frustrated by the many who are willing to be led by sheep by the loudest voice.
Posted by: Cynthia on October 29, 2004 01:12 PMThough I'm glad you're supporting the same guy I'm supporting, I find the prolonged, public indecision to be self-involved and annoying. And it seems disengenuous even if it's actually not. The major facts about these two mens' records and personality have been known for a long time. Yet another detailed endorsement is tedious and superfluous at this point. I haven't seen a new argument made or new fact uncovered in an endorsement from anyone for anyone in quite some time. Even granting that your protestation that this wasn't a stunt is true, the need to make every twist and turn of your thought process public, to constantly bring up your undecided status, makes it seem like you're milking it for blogging purposes, trying to turn it into some lame, blogospheric equivalent of an extended strip-tease if you will. And then there's the impression of condescension: "Oh, how easy it must be for you mindless partisans, you rabble in the streets unburndened with my complex thought processes. HOw I long for the simple life. But no, I must be cursed with this enormous brain!"
Anyway, I'm glad you're voting for W. And even Bush votes in Manhattan (If they're actually counted and not dumped in the East River or something) will "count". Since 2000 when the Democrats created this new precedent that the Electoral College doesn't matter and if you don't win the popular vote you're "illegitimate", every vote really does count.
For Thorley Winston and anyone else who's planning on writing a similarly lengthy, complex endorsement of Bush can I rudely and presumptuously beg you not to? What possible good will the zillionth such endorsement do? If you really want him to win then put down the laptop and work with Get OUt the Vote efforts in New Jersey or Philly, or whatever your nearest battleground state is. If you're not willing to do this, then all of these endless endorsements and vacillations are just so much mental masturbation.
Posted by: Eric Deamer on October 29, 2004 01:13 PMGlad to have someone else here in New York voting for Bush. I just remember the thoughts I was having on 9/12...that our streets were going to look like Tel Aviv's. Then anthrax hit.... I hope every available terrorist is headed to Fallujah to meet their fate.
Posted by: Maggie on October 29, 2004 01:14 PMPretty much my analysis in every way. A grim choice, but one that comes down on the side of Buffoon R rather than Buffoon D.
Imagine if this election had been McCain vs. Lieberman...
Posted by: John Pearley Huffman on October 29, 2004 01:14 PMThat's the clearest, best-articulated analysis I've seen yet, with the right conclusion. Now to deliver a copy to every voter before Tuesday! Thanks.
Posted by: Steve on October 29, 2004 01:15 PMGeorge Bush in 2004.
As if there was any doubt.
You know, there's no shame in actually liking the person you're voting for.
Posted by: Bryan on October 29, 2004 01:15 PMThough I'm glad you're supporting the same guy I'm supporting, I find the prolonged, public indecision to be self-involved and annoying. And it seems disengenuous even if it's actually not. The major facts about these two mens' records and personality have been known for a long time. Yet another detailed endorsement is tedious and superfluous at this point. I haven't seen a new argument made or new fact uncovered in an endorsement from anyone for anyone in quite some time. Even granting that your protestation that this wasn't a stunt is true, the need to make every twist and turn of your thought process public, to constantly bring up your undecided status, makes it seem like you're milking it for blogging purposes, trying to turn it into some lame, blogospheric equivalent of an extended strip-tease if you will. And then there's the impression of condescension: "Oh, how easy it must be for you mindless partisans, you rabble in the streets unburndened with my complex thought processes. HOw I long for the simple life. But no, I must be cursed with this enormous brain!"
Anyway, I'm glad you're voting for W. And even Bush votes in Manhattan (If they're actually counted and not dumped in the East River or something) will "count". Since 2000 when the Democrats created this new precedent that the Electoral College doesn't matter and if you don't win the popular vote you're "illegitimate", every vote really does count.
For Thorley Winston and anyone else who's planning on writing a similarly lengthy, complex endorsement of Bush can I rudely and presumptuously beg you not to? What possible good will the zillionth such endorsement do? If you really want him to win then put down the laptop and work with Get OUt the Vote efforts in New Jersey or Philly, or whatever your nearest battleground state is. If you're not willing to do this, then all of these endless endorsements and vacillations are just so much mental masturbation.
Posted by: Eric Deamer on October 29, 2004 01:15 PMSorry for double post. Commenting is somehow screwed up. Anyway, I'm really a nice guy and I hope none of this comes off as trollish or mean. I'm just really sick of the undecids. See Ron Rosenbaum's NYO column from last week for why.
Posted by: Eric Deamer on October 29, 2004 01:21 PMLove you, Megan. You made a wise head and heart choice.
Posted by: charlotte on October 29, 2004 01:23 PMMegan,
Welcome to the Dark Side. :-)
I disagree with some of your assesments (to start with, we won the war. We've so far failed to crush all resistance, not because we can't, but because we don't want to kill the 100,000+ civilians it might take. For example: at Falluja we could have told them to turn over eveyone involved with the attack, or else. And when they didn't, detnated a couple FAEs over the citym then killed every male of the appropriate age who tried to leave. We didn't do that, because President Bush chose to fight a "nicer" war than WWII. Do you disagree with that choice? If not, you don't get to complain that it takes longer to beat down the resistance).
I'm also much happier with have Bush 43 than 41. The reason we had those troops in Saudi Arabia for a decade, and why we had to invade a second time, was because 41 screwed up by not finishing the job the first time. And, IMHO it would have been a lot easier to finish the job before 41 screwed over the Iraqi people by calling on them to dump Saddam, then pulling a JFK / Bay of Pigs and just sitting back and watching while Saddam slaughtered them.
However, I'm still happy w/ your choice. :-)
Posted by: Greg D on October 29, 2004 01:24 PMI think one of the most laudable (and overlooked) aspects of this is your willingness to air your mental decision-making laundry.
It must take a fair amount of courage (or skin thickness) to announce all of that openly for the world to read (and villify, at times). Especially since you live in NY and you don't have a secret identity.
Kudos to you and all the other bloggers who've been willing to take this route.
Posted by: qetzal on October 29, 2004 01:25 PM"Bush's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Medicare prescription drug plan..."
Except for HSA's, which will prove to be wonderful.
I just got the insurance part of it with a $2550 deductible and the premium savings over the standard "we'll pay for everying un-insurance" plan is a whopping 82%. Nevermind the beauty of tax-shelter dollars [though I would prefer a simple tax code with no exemptions and deductions] that are all mine to cover the deductible or use for general medical expenses and save for a rainy sick day in the future. Personal choice and responsibility is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: David Andersen on October 29, 2004 01:26 PMJane: No mention of Afganistan when it comes to foreign policy? Have we all forgotten the "quagmire" that quickly? (Although I suspect that if it is considered, it would only strengthen your conclusion.)
Posted by: bct on October 29, 2004 01:26 PMAlthough my vote is cast in CT, and won't mean much in fighting the tide in this state, I'm with you on this one. Great flow of thought! Thanks
Posted by: Gerald on October 29, 2004 01:27 PMJane: No mention of Afganistan when it comes to foreign policy? Have we all forgotten the "quagmire" that quickly? (Although I suspect that if it is considered, it would only strengthen your conclusion.)
Posted by: bct on October 29, 2004 01:29 PMJane: No mention of Afganistan when it comes to foreign policy? Have we all forgotten the "quagmire" that quickly? (Although I suspect that if it is considered, it would only strengthen your conclusion.)
Posted by: bct on October 29, 2004 01:30 PMI was somewhat dismissive in my "advice" comment. After reading your thoughtful entry here, I obviously owe you an apology.
Posted by: Acme on October 29, 2004 01:33 PMFirstly, I love your presence at Instapundit. Glenn was wise to have you post.
To the point of your article: I agree. Bush gets my vote. I didn't vote for him 4 years ago, and I have not-inconsequential differences with him now, but he's earned my vote.
Posted by: azlibertarian on October 29, 2004 01:33 PMMegan,
I'm thrilled you made this wise head and heart decision. Much better analysis and conclusion than Drezner's, btw. So, you were a little long in getting here but we're glad you made it! Bush needs every one of us, and I am convinced he is more "there" for us, our country and our future than a Kerry administration could ever be.
Posted by: charlotte on October 29, 2004 01:34 PMOh, if there were just one young thirty-something, thoughtful, elloquent, literate, small-l libertarian leaning, Bush voting, tallish (but under 5'11" -- I don't wear heels), good looking woman in LA... Sigh...
Wanna hear something funny? In all likelihood, I will cast my first vote for a Democrat (that is, the first time I've voted D, not the first time I've ever voted), and a snotty, liberal, mostly unthinking and shrill Democrat at that. In California, our Republican Senate candidate Bill Jones, hasn't even run a campaign. He will lose, but this time, he deserves to lose so badly that he never runs for state or national office again. He is a total disgrace. I am this close (holds fingers at about the measurement of John Kerr....) to voting for Boxer. The big-L Libertarian is a friggin buffoon. He wants to repeal our 3 strikes law and was unable to name one poster child inmate for why we should do it. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings on October 29, 2004 01:36 PMJane: Good points, but...No mention of Afganistan when it comes to foreign policy? Have we all forgotten the "quagmire" that quickly? (Although I suspect that if it is considered, it would only strengthen your conclusion.)
Posted by: bct on October 29, 2004 01:36 PMgood grief. 35,000 words and you still sound like you are right on the border.
flip a coin next time.
Posted by: Kirk on October 29, 2004 01:36 PMWhat a profound statement:
"Kerry's health care plan would, in my opinion, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will..."
Posted by: David Andersen on October 29, 2004 01:36 PMNice thoughtful analysis Megan.
However, with respect to the environment the libetarian nod has to go to Bush for one simple reason: Gridlock. It's the environmental moonbats vs. Bush which is effectively halting all new environmental regulations. Whats not to like?
Re-electing Bush effectively takes away the statists' two favorite government growing tools: activist judges and economy crippling regulations (EPA, OSHA, etc.)
Also, you're a bit overly pessimisstic re Iraq. This is a major land battle with ground troops; set backs are to be expected. But, we are making progress, we are gathering valuable intel, our troops are learning valuable anti-insugency skills, and our casualties are historically low.
Posted by: kderosa on October 29, 2004 01:37 PMUntil reading this article I had no idea how anyone in this country could possibly remain undecided on who to vote for. I am reminded of a skit from the Daily Show with John Stewart where Samantha Bee gathered together a group of undecided voters in a room and then started yelling at them. Unless you take a line of analysis similar to the one above, however, I think it is obvious that there is a very clear choice to be made in this presidential election.
A couple of points on your analysis:
1. How does Kerry only win by a hair on the environment? Bush has been literally the worst environmental president in the history of our country - from "clear skies" to eliminating the new source review to appointing former industry heads to top environmental agency posts. His own EPA head resigned in protest over how his actions were preventing the EPA from doing its job.
2. On health care, don't forget that Bush has placed severe limits on stem cell research. This is a very important new medical tool that has the potential for curing many horrible diseases and saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
3. On the budget, i know many conservatives who are personally voting for Kerry because they believe that divided government will prevent the passage of big spending plans like the ones you mentioned. And if Kerry gets the tax cut for people earning over $200,000 overturned, then that is a prescription for far less deficits than if Bush were re-elected.
I'm not going to argue with your other points even though I strongly disagree with them I understand where you are coming from as a libertarian. I do think that your health care ideas will leave the 45 million uninsured out in the cold and your tax cut ideas are helping create a new landed aristocracy in our country who can just pass their wealth on from one generation to the next (which is very anti-free market and anti-capitalist). Great work on the article, though, I found it very interesting.
Posted by: Mike on October 29, 2004 01:37 PMGreat post. I was also disturbed by Kerry's federal health care plan, especially since it wouldn't cover everyone anyway. Even though it's possible that this is just another rootless campaign promise I don't think it should even be on the table. The good news is, it probably wouldn't get that far since it is unlikely already that the already very unpopular (mainly among those voting for him!) Kerry would swing two terms. As for foreign policy - at least Bush is consistent and his motivations are pretty clear. If someone wants to pursue an agressive war against terror, one that does rely on preemptive methods, I don't know how someone could vote Democratic.
Until reading this article I had no idea how anyone in this country could possibly remain undecided on who to vote for. I am reminded of a skit from the Daily Show with John Stewart where Samantha Bee gathered together a group of undecided voters in a room and then started yelling at them. Unless you take a line of analysis similar to the one above, however, I think it is obvious that there is a very clear choice to be made in this presidential election.
A couple of points on your analysis:
1. How does Kerry only win by a hair on the environment? Bush has been literally the worst environmental president in the history of our country - from "clear skies" to eliminating the new source review to appointing former industry heads to top environmental agency posts. His own EPA head resigned in protest over how his actions were preventing the EPA from doing its job.
2. On health care, don't forget that Bush has placed severe limits on stem cell research. This is a very important new medical tool that has the potential for curing many horrible diseases and saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
3. On the budget, i know many conservatives who are personally voting for Kerry because they believe that divided government will prevent the passage of big spending plans like the ones you mentioned. And if Kerry gets the tax cut for people earning over $200,000 overturned, then that is a prescription for far less deficits than if Bush were re-elected.
I'm not going to argue with your other points even though I strongly disagree with them I understand where you are coming from as a libertarian. I do think that your health care ideas will leave the 45 million uninsured out in the cold and your tax cut ideas are helping create a new landed aristocracy in our country who can just pass their wealth on from one generation to the next (which is very anti-free market and anti-capitalist). Great work on the article, though, I found it very interesting.
Posted by: Mike on October 29, 2004 01:40 PMYou need to better understand teacher unions. As a teacher I refuse to join a union. This is due to the fact that they do not try to line the pockets of teachers with money (which would work - attracting better people to the feild, but more importantly retaining those good teachers who leave to feed their own families), but instead line their own pockets and delay innovations and strategies that would better educate our youth. They are political machines which do not represent the best interest of teachers or education, but instead work to further the political goals of those in power as if they were some common PAC.
Posted by: Bittner on October 29, 2004 01:41 PM"self-involved and annoying"? Yeah, that's a switch...
I expected you to plump for Kerry, Ms. McA. Quite pleasantly shocked. Glad to have you on board and all that.
P.S. The Sox beat the Yankees like a gong.
A thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
Megan,
I don't agree with all your analysis, but I appreciate that you did it. Anyone who thoughtfully decides who (or is it whom, I never can get that one right...) to vote for is OK in my book.
Frankly, I think that the differences between the candidates are like night and day and can't for the life of me see what people find worthy of their confidence or vote in John Kerry.
Had you decided the other way I certainly would not have understood why, but, again would have appreciated that you put some thought into it, though.
As a member of the military, I am grateful that you choose to keep our Commander-in-Chief. We all have great confidence in him, his vision and his leadership.
Thanks.
Posted by: Alexander on October 29, 2004 01:43 PMMegan: I can't remember when I've read something that I found so suspenseful. Having read you since you started as"Live From The WTC", (when I couldn't figure out why all Jane Galt's entries were signed Megan McArdle) I respect your intelligence and analysis. I was really hoping you'd come out for Bush and was delighted to get to the last paragraph. Particularly since I really couldn't disagree with any of your analysis but, until the end, I wasn't sure which way you'd go. For me the whole question has been much easier because I was a Marine in Viet Nam (for 13 months)and cannot forgive Kerry for betraying us then but I can't expect the same reaction from your generation, for whom Viet Nam has little or no emotional effect. Even though I can't do it with these candidates, I can wish that everyone (media, supporters, and candidates) could engage in the analysis you laid out rather than name-calling. I salute you.
Posted by: Mike on October 29, 2004 01:43 PMA thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
Even though we reach different conclusions (due primarily, I think, to weighting these issues differently), this is an admirable post - full of analysis, free of invective. Would that all political discourse could be undertaken this way.
Posted by: Jeff on October 29, 2004 01:44 PMMegan,
This is the first year I've ever not know who I would vote for. I voted for Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996 (to young before that though I would have voted for Regan, Regan, Bush, Bush). I went through a similer process you did above and I am reluctantly going to vote for Bush. However, I also believe that over the next for years the religious right's control over the Republican Party must be challenged or a new party will be formed. We must be careful not to trade our security for social conservatism and authoritarianism. I hope you'll be at the head of the pack leading it!
Posted by: Tom Reeves on October 29, 2004 01:44 PMI'm a first-time visitor to this site, and my only comment is:
Megan, will you marry me?!
Posted by: Aaron on October 29, 2004 01:45 PMJane, You are wise beyond your years. I don't know how old you are but a survey I read stated women relate to attitudes expressed by the generation that preceded their own mothers. Grandmothers have good advice. You can't change men because you think you can. In addition, This is a new world and we need to think out-of-the-box. Grandmothers have lived long enough to know the value of true wisdom. I think Barb Bush is a wise grandmother. Thanks for your blog.
Posted by: lbillman3037@earthlink.net on October 29, 2004 01:45 PMMegan: I can't remember when I've read something that I found so suspenseful. Having read you since you started as "Live From The WTC", (when I couldn't figure out why all Jane Galt's entries were signed Megan McArdle) I respect your intelligence and analysis. I was really hoping you'd come out for Bush and was delighted to get to the last paragraph. Particularly since I really couldn't disagree with any of your analysis but, until the end, I wasn't sure which way you'd go. For me the whole question has been much easier because I was a Marine in Viet Nam (for 13 months)and cannot forgive Kerry for betraying us then but I can't expect the same reaction from your generation, for whom Viet Nam has little or no emotional effect. Even though I can't do it with these candidates, I can wish that everyone (media, supporters, and candidates) could engage in the analysis you laid out rather than name-calling. I salute you.
Posted by: Mike on October 29, 2004 01:45 PMA thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
You can count another New York vote for Bush too. My reasons are pretty much the same as yours, Jane, though one of the biggest is the fact that I get this sense from President Bush that there's something in his voice and behind his eye that makes me trust him much more on issues that matter to me. Kerry just leaves me feeling unsettled and unsure. For that alone, my vote will be going for President Bush.
Posted by: DakRoland on October 29, 2004 01:46 PMA thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
Until reading this article I had no idea how anyone in this country could possibly remain undecided on who to vote for. I am reminded of a skit from the Daily Show with John Stewart where Samantha Bee gathered together a group of undecided voters in a room and then started yelling at them. Unless you take a line of analysis similar to the one above, however, I think it is obvious that there is a very clear choice to be made in this presidential election.
A couple of points on your analysis:
1. How does Kerry only win by a hair on the environment? Bush has been literally the worst environmental president in the history of our country - from "clear skies" to eliminating the new source review to appointing former industry heads to top environmental agency posts. His own EPA head resigned in protest over how his actions were preventing the EPA from doing its job.
2. On health care, don't forget that Bush has placed severe limits on stem cell research. This is a very important new medical tool that has the potential for curing many horrible diseases and saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
3. On the budget, i know many conservatives who are personally voting for Kerry because they believe that divided government will prevent the passage of big spending plans like the ones you mentioned. And if Kerry gets the tax cut for people earning over $200,000 overturned, then that is a prescription for far less deficits than if Bush were re-elected.
I'm not going to argue with your other points even though I strongly disagree with them I understand where you are coming from as a libertarian. I do think that your health care ideas will leave the 45 million uninsured out in the cold and your tax cut ideas are helping create a new landed aristocracy in our country who can just pass their wealth on from one generation to the next (which is very anti-free market and anti-capitalist). Great work on the article, though, I found it very interesting.
Posted by: Mike on October 29, 2004 01:49 PMA thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
Your thoughts on Rumsfeld are so narrow-minded and short-sighted.
I won't bore you with details, but I recommend you research Defense Transformation.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/
Rumsfeld is driving this. He is enabling our military to adequately meet the changing needs of todays world.
If you want a head to roll, lop off some commanding officer's head. Rumsfeld is one of the few people who have the cajones, intelligence and determination to take this task on. Confronting flag officers as a civilian, infusing corporate best practices into our military, and dealing with all the negative press and letting it roll off his back like water off a duck's... you can't find that just anywhere.
No one will ever know, but Rumsfeld will turn out to be a primary driver for our winning the war on terror.
Posted by: Sean on October 29, 2004 01:52 PMJane, Bittner is right, I'm not aware of any union using it's power to increase teacher salaries in any meaningful, merit-based way. They (Union officials) do line their own pockets. When they do clamor for more funds, it's for an archaic compensation scheme that rewards tenure, not skill.
Bittner, fyi, you are lucky, because there are only 22 states in the union (see http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm) which have "right to work" laws that allow you to work without being part of a union in the teaching profession. Everywhere else you are forced to contribute, at the very least, a 'fair share' amount which is almost the entire dues amount. My wife (a teacher) and I have been through this in Minnesota and are very happy to be in Iowa now.
A thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
I started reading a few paragraphs, and then I cheated. I cut to the end. Sorry!
In recognition of your unusual bloggy wisdom, I am promoting you to the spot in my bookmark list previously occupied by Andrew Sullivan.
Remember, vote early and often! (often means once every election, of course)
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on October 29, 2004 02:01 PMHow can you be "OK" with a war of choice? 100,000 people have died. It is possible that you have a history of privilege. It is possible that you take that for granted. It is possible you may one day understand what exactly this administration has done to thwart the 30 years of environmental reform.
But I doubt it.
Posted by: John on October 29, 2004 02:02 PMI think you're focusing too much to the person. Sure, person gets elected but most of the strategy and politics comes from people behind the president. I wonder if Bush were ever to go Iraq if there wasn't Chaney and others and their obsessions. Bush had the power to stop these people and hund down Bin Laden instead. That's where the real war on terror was. I don't know if people in the U.S. really understood how strong the solidary in the world was after 9/11. The way desicions were made after Afgan war ruined everything. Destroying that kind of feeling of unity in the world I call a crime.
I don't know if democrats would have done any better..
Posted by: John Doe on October 29, 2004 02:02 PMI think you're focusing too much to the person. Sure, person gets elected but most of the strategy and politics comes from people behind the president. I wonder if Bush were ever to go Iraq if there wasn't Chaney and others and their obsessions. Bush had the power to stop these people and hund down Bin Laden instead. That's where the real war on terror was. I don't know if people in the U.S. really understood how strong the solidary in the world was after 9/11. The way desicions were made after Afgan war ruined everything. Destroying that kind of feeling of unity in the world I call a crime.
I don't know if democrats would have done any better..
Posted by: Tomi on October 29, 2004 02:03 PMI have the nagging suspicion that you ruled out Badnarik for the sole purpose of writing this piece. :)
Posted by: fling93 on October 29, 2004 02:06 PMI started the Summer planning to vote for Kerry, mainly on the basis of holding the Bush Administration accountable for its multitude of blunders in carrying out a foreign policy I agreed with. There was also the issue of transparency, civil liberties, and gay rights that I hoped a Democratic administration might advance.
I knew from past experience, that it would be impossible to actually vote for Kerry if I paid attention to the campaign. To hear the Democrats demagogue on trade, continue to poison the well of education and social security reform, and promote a foreign policy of perfect hindsight would be too much. Add in the predictable hedging on gay marriage and contradictory meanderings on civil liberties and I would have nothing I could bring myself to vote for.
And so it has come to pass. Thanks, Megan, for your analysis. I'll be splitting my ticket, but voting for Bush at the top.
Posted by: Henry Woodbury on October 29, 2004 02:06 PMThank God! You had me worried there for a minute, Ms. Galt.
I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis, and believe George "Lesser-of-2-evils" Bush will need all of us marginal swing voters to prevent another 2000-style election debacle.
Also: Double-posting isn't that hard to avoid, people.
Just close the comments window, go back to the main blog, and hit "refresh" or "reload" on your internet browser.
When the page has reloaded, click on the comments section you want and scroll through the last several comments to see whether yours posted or not. By "last several posts" I mean the ones at the bottom.
Oldest comments are at the top here.
The stirring power of your rhetoric is badly diluted by the gaffe of triple-posting it. FYI....
Congrats!
You have been assimilated!
Seriously...I feel sorry for all the partisan Dems and those that simply don't like GWB.
The Dems gave you a rotten alternative.
While I could (possibly) see myself voting for Zell Miller, maybe Joe Lieberman, or some moderate Governor to be named later, JK simply does not belong in the White House
Posted by: Bill on October 29, 2004 02:15 PMA thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
We do not lack the military force to conquer Iraq. Think about how absurd that is; our military can nearly take on every other army in the history of the world simultaneously and it'd be a close thing. Put Britain and Australia on our side and we'd win. (No nukes, of course.) It would be bloody and horrible and the psyche of the planet would be reeling for decades, don't think I'm advocating this merely because it is possible, but it is possible. (What we can't do is take on that many *fronts* at once; but put history's armies on one side and the US on the other and, well, like I said, close thing.)
The problem is we don't want to conquer Iraq. Look up what it means to "conquer" things, historically. Sometimes it meant razing an existing city to the ground, just because you want the site.
One of the big reasons I'm voting for Bust is because he is *handling* the problem so we *don't* have to conquer anybody. Because if we just leave the problem to fester, that's where we'll be: Nuke or be nuked, conquer or die. I regret to say that we have far, far more than enough military force to do this.
The worst thing that can happen is a nuke in an American City, and there are far too many people who want that. It will be the end of the Middle East if it happens. We've got to get people to stop wanting that, and we ***know*** just leaving them to fester in their failed hellhole states isn't going to do it.
We are handling Iraq as we can, on the egde of our abilities, because we *have* those abilities. Fifty years ago... well, you don't need me to tell you what a 1950's military can do, history can tell you that. It takes a modern military to be able to *not* carpet-bomb a country; we can if we have to. A 50s military commander couldn't even conceive of what we are trying to do now.
Posted by: Jeremy Bowers on October 29, 2004 02:18 PMGood Call. Your from New York which will vote for Kerry. So in the end your vote will be for not.
Posted by: Jay on October 29, 2004 02:18 PMThanks Megan. This is the sanest endorsement for Bush I have seen to date.
Posted by: Pieter Dorsman on October 29, 2004 02:19 PMA thoughtful decision.
For me, though, the crucial deciding point was made by The Economist: "To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything."
In the end, I'd prefer the devil who is willing to learn over the devil who isn't.
I read your point about your grandmother's advice and I thought exactly! In fact I was thinking about writing something similar just yesterday. The one thing that Drezner, The Economist, and Sullivan have in common is that "once he's President, Kerry will change." What would one think of someone who said about their future spouse, "well once we're married he/she will love me, or care more, or stop cheating on me." We'd tell them to run...Run fast, and don't get married. Great point.
Posted by: Joel B. on October 29, 2004 02:22 PMWell done. Very clear, thoughtful exposition on your thought processes, which I'm sure are much appreciated. Your views are so closely aligned with my own that it's scary.
Posted by: Jeremiah on October 29, 2004 02:23 PMIt was obvious to me that Christopher Hitchen's "Treat Them Like Grown-Ups" strategy would be an abject disaster. The logic of raising teenagers: "give them responsibility and they will become more responsible," is a social experiment far too risky to try on a would-be President of the United States.
You have stated this dictum in the most succinct, eloquent, beautiful way I could've ever imagined:
"'If you can't live with him exactly the way he is,' she told me, 'then don't marry him ...'"
Posted by: Beautiful Prose on October 29, 2004 07:31 PMGood analysis but it's missing the hill. I think your analysis plus andrew sullivan's or the economist equals the best of all...a split ticket. Kerry for president with a Rep. in congress. (including congress also undermines some of your arguments. For example, you rationalize away Bush's stance on marriage but you can't rationalize away Kerry's healthcare? Surely you have to think this would have a difficult time gettign through?)
Posted by: COOMARASWAMEE on October 29, 2004 07:32 PM"NARAL can use all the money it raises to lobby to provide bus tickets and nice hotel rooms to women wanting abortions in states where it is illegal."
Lovely flippancy with other people's lives, there. What about the single working mother who's already got two kids, can't afford another one, and will get fired from her job if she takes one of your cushy NARAL vacations? Somehow I suspect that you are worlds away from that description yourself.
Otherwise, thanks for a well-expressed opinion.
Posted by: o on October 29, 2004 07:36 PMWell said! Although I can quibble with you in minor and even in a few moderately significant ways, my analysis would be no more cogent than yours. I grudgingly respect your willingness to weigh the merit of both men throughout their campaigns (probably because you’ve concluded along with me that Mr. Bush is the better of the two choices).
I particularly liked your analogies illustrating why: “The government, unfortunately, can't have a secret closed-door meeting with the entire country in which it tells us what it is thinking.” The government is an entity but not a being, therefore not a single mind, dealing with often self-conflicting goals and constraints. It must handle infinitely complex challenges using quite finite abilities. It engages not so much discrete actions as glacial processes, even in what seems to be its instant response to catastrophic events. Simply put, the government is prone to error! One of the most grating tendencies of Mr. Kerry is the reductionist claim that under him everything would have been done right. Whether this results from naiveté (which I doubt) calculation, or condescension, I consider it a poor quality that would further divide and weaken this country in the event of his election. Furthermore, his possibly pathological need to be right (i.e. accuse someone else of being wrong) must be contrasted to the administration’s (e.g. Mr. Bush’s) “stubborn unwillingness to admit when they are wrong, or change plans even when the plans are clearly failing.” In both cases, though I think more in the former, we will eventually view our president more as a diminished child than a mature statesman and leader. Weighing the two, as you have done, I think favors Bush’s stubborn steadfastness over Kerry’s blaming and excuses.
I loved reading your post (Bush Endorsement) and it mirors many of my own thoughts. I should say at the outset that I live outside the US now, so the domestic issues are perhaps less important to me as they are for you. I live in the UK, but I lived in the US for 7 years and have many close American friends. In recent weeks it appears that Kerry has been gaining and his message is gaining some traction or that is how it appears in the polls. This may sound corny, but I view Bush as a strong principled President and I cannot forget the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11 and for that he deserves immense credit. From reading posts and looking at polls this seems to have been forgotten or perhaps just being ignored. I trust the US electorate remembers and feels the same way and re-elects this man because he deserves another 4 years to continue the vision/job he has started. For a number of reasons the big one being the large knot in the pit of my stomach, I have serious doubts about Kerry. These reservations I have about him, I admit could prove to be unfounded but when you get that feeling and Pepsid does not help, then you KNOW it is telling you something! Stay strong America.
Posted by: Alex R on October 29, 2004 07:38 PMyour advice from grandma made me think of saddam hussein's song to his lover satan in South park: bigger, longer, uncut:
But I can change, I can change
I can learn to keep my promises I swear it,
I will open up my heart and I will share it,
Any minute now I will be born again.
Yes, I can change, I can change,
I know I've been a dirty little bastard,
I like to kill, I like to maim,
Yes, I'm insane, but its OK,
Cuz I can change.
My dear sweet Lord.
Well, I'll give you credit for this: in election that will end up being a Rorschach test for political judgment for a generation, and against the strong tide of your demographics (in any way that you want to slice it - geography, elite educational background, employees of the Economist, materialists (as opposed to spiritualists, and using scientists as a proxy for materialists), centrist Republicans (I suspect), etc.), you came out publicly for your boy. Shortly after the election, it will become more and more clear what a disaster GWB has been (either b/c Kerry will make the relevant documents publicly available, or b/c the media will finally go after Bush with both time and vigor in his second Administration), and more Bush supporters will lie about their vote than Nixon supporters did about theirs. And, to your credit, you have foreclosed that possibility for yourself.
I do have a few questions, though -
1. How in the name of all that is sane can you believe that (a) Kerry's health plan will pass in a Republican Congress, but (b) there is no chance the FMA will be ratified? The FMA is not a strong issue for Dems - see Kerry's weird dance of veils on gay marriage - and Bush will easily win at least 28 states, which means he has to pick up only 9 or 10 states to get the Amendment through. You're right, it won't happen, but it is considerably more likely to happen than Kerry's plan getting enacted.
2. IIRC, you quoted approvingly a MR post about the two things that the field of economics is based on, and one of those things was, "Incentives matter." Have you changed your mind? To the extent that Bush has been disastrous, or even just bad, how exactly is giving him a greater mandate than he had before (no one credibly believes that the intent of the majority of Florida voters as a whole was to elect GWB) supposed to make him a better president? The same is true in govt. as in the corporate environment - reward bad behavior (particularly when you do it so publicly), and expect more of the same.
3. Supreme Court - liking Thomas is a joke; I suggest you go read Jack Balkin's post on Thomas's opinion on the Padilla case. OTOH, I used to like Scalia, too. He at least had the virtue of being principled, if not right. Then came Bush v. Gore. There has been a precipitous drop in the membership of the Not-So-Secret Scalia Admirerer's club.
3. Foreign policy - yeah, I don't pretend to understand this section. The war on Iraq was a war of choice for reasons that the Administration didn't go into. But that's OK, b/c despite our size and our inability to lose to anyone in that patch, we couldn't risk informing our citizens of our reasons. Hail Democracy! (You know, the normal process is to get the word out to relevant parties that there actually is some thought going on in the Administration, despite the face it shows to the public; see, e.g., your description of Kerry supporters shoring up those worried about his purported trade policy). By the way, remind me of precisely how clear it is that we didn't get played by Iran and Chalibi into doing Iran's bidding for it?
As far as our inability to conquer a small nation - are your kidding? The conquering part of the war took all of, what, seven days? You, me, and any three of your commenters could have led the US military to victory. The after-the-war part has been harder, in no small part b/c we aren't set up to be an imperial army (which apparently you want), and we can't justify the requisite anger or fear necessary to put the 600,000+ Iraqi bodies in the ground that will be necessary (using Japanese WWII figures) to make them compliant.
5. Given that GWB has a presidential record and you've picked him on the basis of that, I assume you'll be disappointed if (a) he doesn't continue in roughly the same direction as he has till now, and (b) he replaces any advisors (excepting Rumsfeld, whose resignation you called for, and Powell, who isn't really a creature of this Administration and who has already indicated that he's leaving). Am I correct? If not, why would you vote for an unknown (a new Bush Administration) with a bad record over an unknown (Kerry) with no record?
In the end, it looks like you prefer the President who will tell you that this is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds and his are the best of all possible decisions, to the one who admits that life is complicated and mistakes will probably be made.
Again, credit for being public about it.
It's been said by a few other posters, but
The US easily has the power to invade all Muslim countries simultaneously and win, even if the US didn't use nukes and the one Muslim country that definitely has them (Pakistan) did.
Depending on the amount of resistance put up, between hundreds of thousands and tens of millions of civilians would die though.
The only reason the US doesn't take Fallujah is to avoid civilian casualties. In WWII, the US had no problem carpet bombing my home town of Dueren. That left next to nothing standing, and we are talking 60 year old technology, not what the US military's got available today.
Posted by: Heiko on October 29, 2004 07:45 PMThis is an incredibly well thought out and well written analysis. Admittedly, my observation may be somewhat biased given that I wholeheartedly agree with your ultimate choice.
However, I applaud how thoroughly you evaluated both candidates on such a wide range of issues. Even if you had chosen that 'other guy', I would still have to respect the fact that you based your decision on sound reasoning and not scare tactics.
Posted by: Tony on October 29, 2004 07:45 PMGreetings from an anti-Kerry independent (proof of which can be found daily at my oh-so-neutrally named http://defeatjohnjohn.com/ ). I actually tend to vote for more Democrats than Republicans, but Kerry scares the hell out of me, and we agree on nearly every issue above.
As I've said on my blog, the hatred of Bush by the left has blinded many to the possibility that someone could indeed be a "step down". I deplore "anybody but ____ " politics, especially being in Michigan where the "Anybody but Engler" fanatics got Kevorkian attorney and cokehead lunatic Geoffrey Fieger as the Democratic nominee in 1998. It's not enough to acknowledge that Bush is "bad". You need to analyze and research and study Kerry, to see if he's worthy of the presidency INDEPENDENT of Bush. I did, and found Kerry isn't.
Bush gets the "lesser of 2" argument from me, as well.
Posted by: John Addis on October 29, 2004 08:26 PMMegan, first of all I would like to congratulate you one of the best and most thoughtful write-ups comparing Kerry and Bush I have seen. Why is it that the media can not deliver quality analysis like this?
Second, I was amazed how closely your take on the "big picture" matches mine. Like you, I am also a libertarian. There is certainly a lot to find fault with when one looks at Bush's positions and to be sure, many of my positions more closely matches Kerry's. At least I think it does, since with Kerry I really don't always know for sure what his positions are. I know what he says they are, but is it really? And that is part of my problem with Kerry.
The simple fact of the matter is that I just don't trust Kerry. I tried to, but I can't. I can go on at length about why that is, but ultimately it boils down to a very strong gut feeling. I think it's largely due to the fact that career politicians have always had that effect on me, and Kerry is a career politician if there ever was one. Still, I won't go as far as saying I absolutely loathe or hate Kerry. Perhaps, outside of the political arena Kerry is an OK guy.
Nonetheless, like you, I have been completely torn. There have been nights that I could not sleep because it was chewing me up. I knew I had to vote. This is too important an election not to. But who? Ultimately what decided it for me is something that may come as a suprise. It was the whole 380 tons of missing explosives issue.
Now, if those explosives were looted someone screwed up and whoever it was should be held responsible. However, it is also true that war is not without error and it is rank stupidity to expect that it will be. The way the media has gone about reporting this story, and almost comically try and blame Bush directly for it, has finally allowed me to realise that there is something even more loathsome in this country than either Bush or Kerry - namely the mainstream media.
I can't stand the media anymore. I can't stand their double standards, their spin, their blatant manipulation of the news for political purposes, even if some of it matches my own opinions. I am amazed at how often I have to go the Internet to get the FACTS on a particular issue! I also think the media is AT LEAST as much responible as Bush for the divisions in this country, if not more. What is alarming though, is that unlike politicians, the media can not be held accountable since they pretty much regulate, congratulate, promote and critique themselves. The only check and balance on media corruption is us, the people. One expects partisanship from politicians, and to some extent from the media, but at at the end of the day, the media has now become so blatantly partisan that it has become a threat to this nation's democratic process. That worries me, probably even more so than any terrorist threat.
So today I voted for George Bush. My vote is not so much for Bush (although in part it is), or against Kerry (although in part it is), as it is a protest vote against the reckless and eletist behaviour of the media. I fear that if Kerry wins this election, the media will take it as a signal that their behaviour is acceptable. Not for me.
Posted by: Misty on October 29, 2004 08:27 PM"Frankly, I think that the differences between the candidates are like night and day and can't for the life of me see what people find worthy of their confidence or vote in John Kerry."
Mee too. I can't understand the long soul searching.
Kerry is such a horrible candidate.
No one who supports him, not even Democrats, have any ONE good word to say for him because there isn't anything positive in him. His backers cite a long list of true or imaginary Bush failures as arguments, but no arguments based on Kerry record or proven positions or capabilities. They fail to see that on every issue, no matter how bad Bush acted, Kerry is worse.
(Of course - if you're a liberal-leftie-peacenik, Kerry is the better candidate, on the issues).
All I can say is: Jane Galt for President!
Galt/Dreck 2008! (Er, if Jane will be at least 35 in four years time...)
Shortly after the election, it will become more and more clear what a disaster GWB has been (either b/c Kerry will make the relevant documents publicly available
Sorry, but I don't think "Farenheit 9/11: The Director's Cut" counts as a "relevant document".
or b/c the media will finally go after Bush with both time and vigor in his second Administration)
Is it really possible that there are people who really, truly think the MSM has been too easy on Bush? Are the trumped-up stories, the fake documents, the sneering anchor(wo)men not enough? What's it going to take, Dan Rather walking onto the set of "The CBS Evening News" with a shotgun bellowing, "I'm takin' down that nasty varmint Bush! Now who's with me...?!"
And if you're this ticked-off now, Dim, just wait four more days...
"I think that the greatest revelation of the Iraq war has been that we lack the military force to invade a smallish country with terrain that provides easy surveillence and movement."
We do not lack the military force to invade and defeat an opposing army. We lack the manpower to *pacify* a population effectively. Those are two very distinct things, requiring very different force structures.
Posted by: Mike Mangum on October 29, 2004 08:42 PMThe marriage analogy actually doesn't map very well to the current situation, because we HAVE to "marry" one of the two candidates. Which is unfortunate, because I really don't want to marry either one.
You've probably convinced me to cast a futile Bush vote in California, though, when previously I was going to sit out the election.
Posted by: Dog of Justice on October 29, 2004 08:52 PMI'm unconvinced by anti-war people screaming about screw-ups in the early weeks of the war, including the latest explosives flap. As a project manager, I know too well that when you operate in a tight time frame, no matter how much you plan, nothing goes according to plan. Something comes out of left field and makes half your planning obsolete, and the other half irrelevant.
I was somewhat pro-war, and I was screaming about the screw-ups in the early weeks of the war when they were happening.
The Iraq war - waged as it was by the Bush administration - has been counterproductive.
We've managed to put untold thousands of tons of war materiel in the hands of terrorists and enemy countries, perhaps including nuclear equipment.
Who's been fired? As a project manager does that not indicate a severe management problem?
For another example of a severe management problem, look into the flu vaccine shortage. Despite all the spin, the FDA is clearly at fault.
Now, you want to give this same team four more years?
In four more years, what other things will they do wrong?
You might also want to look ahead to 2005 and 2006. Al Qaqaa is just the tip of the iceberg. Bad news about how we handled Iraq and other things will probably start coming out as people have no need to be silent. Books and articles will be written, perhaps even hearings will be held. This will end up harming the Republican party, perhaps for several years to come.
I note that homeland security wasn't mentioned above. Many people say they're voting for Bush because they think he's going to keep them safe.
At the same time, thousands of illegal aliens stream over our borders each day. Some of them are from Middle Eastern countries. Some of those might be terrorists. Thousands of Middle Eastern illegal aliens have been released into the U.S. because there was not enough jail space. The DHS told Congress they had no idea how many of them might be terrorists.
Bush not only refuses to take the steps necessary to secure our borders, he encourages further illegal immigration. That makes the job of the Border Patrol that much more difficult, making it harder to stop potential terrorist infiltration.
Do you still think Bush is keeping you safe?
Bush seems to have made the decision that cheap labor is more important than homeland security. Are you willing to make that same choice?
You just glanced over Civil Liberties. People getting kicked out of Bush rallies because they're just standing there wearing T-shirts saying "Protect our Civil Liberties"? C'mon. This is supposed to be America, and that's not an American act.
Without Bush, the Republicans could return to protecting our Civil Liberties and fighting any attempts by Democrats to infringe them. With Bush, the pro-American Republicans are forced to stand down.
What about using a terrorist attack to gain votes. Doesn't that give you the slightest qualms? What other countries have they done things like that in? Do you support mailings featuring several pictures of the burning WTC towers? If that causes people to vote for Bush, can't we then say that WTC has benefited Bush? At what point in time do reasonable people repudiate such Third World tactics?
I'd also suggest looking into Bush's guest worker plan. That's a Bush failure-in-the-making that could drive wages for millions of previously higher-wage jobs down near the minimum wage.
The Bush guest worker plan would be "non-sector specific", and would include "nurses, teachers, high-tech workers" and others. And, there would be no wage-related restrictions other than the minimum wage. It's truly an obscene plan, and I don't think it's unfair to characterize it as an unamerican plan as well.
As for Kerry, he's a Democrat. But, if you vote for divided government the Republicans will be able to keep him on the straight and narrow. And, they'll be able to do that without "compassionate conservatism" dragging them down.
I strongly encourage everyone to look back over the last four years, and then think ahead. Do we really want four more years of this? I personally think four more years of Bush would be very damaging to America.
Up until a couple months ago I was at least a Kerry detractor and a Bush supporter by default. Now, I realize that any downsides to a Kerry presidency would be dwarfed by the downsides of another Bush try at things. I'm personally offended by many of the planks of the Democratic platform, but, once again, those fade into relative insignificance when faced with what would likely happen under Bush.
Please, do as much research as possible, you might end up supporting Kerry instead.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog on October 29, 2004 09:00 PMJane - does one shake the hand of a libertarian, or is it a hug? In any event, thanks for the clarity.
Posted by: Rita F. Mattingly on October 29, 2004 09:02 PMJane Galt for President? No, Megan McArdle for my girlfriend!
Great piece, lefty.
Posted by: MGCC on October 29, 2004 09:05 PMA very well-thought-out, reasoned approach. I applaud that, even though I thoroughly disagree with you.
Three points to consider:
1) You haven't even discussed the way that the Bush administration conducts policy, which is, in my view, one of the most terrifying parts of the whole Bush II experience. Discount the fact that the president is, by his own admission, an uncurious man who is surrounded by yes-men; this administration has repeatedly shown that they have a culture of knowing the conclusion first and then looking for evidence to support their answer, rather than doing what most folks have been doing since the Enlightenment--start with the evidence and then drawing conclusions from the evidence.
2) Re: Supreme Court. Bush has all but said that he would appoint judges who are anti-abortion (that's what that whole "Dred Scott" comment in one of the debates was about); not only would they gleefully overturn Roe, but there's a very real possibility that they'd state that the fetus has a constitutionally protected right-to-life, effectively banning abortion at the federal level. When push comes to shove, are those judges more wedded to states' rights or more wedded to their causes? A quick look at the reasoning in Bush v. Gore might answer that question for you.
3) Osama bin Laden! Good buddy! Long time no see!
Posted by: Frankenstein on October 29, 2004 09:18 PMyou say you want to hang with the man who did not fight our enemeies when Kerry did and
then say you want to be with the one who fights.
Can you say "OXYMORON"?
The Environment: Kerry wins by a hair here?
Sure ! Sierra club almost thought of endorsing Bush.
Education: Bush by a landslide. The Democrats
Do you even know who is fighting unions in LA?
or pushes Charter schools and the pbulic likes no vouchers?
Can you say "CLueless"!
Health Care: In a normal year, I'd look at
The Kerry plan does not qualify half the families in America for Medicaid!
"Can you say another LIE!"
The Supreme Court: Bush. A number of commenters
Libertarian does = Liberty which is PRO choice
Can you say "disingenous"?
The Economy I don't think the president has fiscal policy set by exec brach does have something to do with econome
Can you say "I Failed Economics"?
Tax policy: George Bush. Not because I'm one of
Can you say "1 Million dollar and up estate tax exemption?"
Poverty policy Liberals will scream, but George
Can you say "Lie about former welfare moms"?
Entitlements George Bush. For all the hysteria,
Can you say "not collapsing"
Civil Liberties Neither. I used to think that
Can you say "my friend is a drug dealer"
Can you say "15,000 dead iraqis including babies for a wrong Idead"
Ambassador Galbraith is not an anti-war screamer
and can you say "CHile/Canada 30 day idea"
Posted by: n werle on October 29, 2004 09:22 PM Here's another anti-Kerry independent. I can not tolerate his opportunistic lying.
As has already been stated, we are more than capable of successfully invading and defeating an opposing army but it's a whole nother matter to administer another country - especially one which has in advance prepared for a major counter-insurgency (which just happens to be abetted by an influx of jihadists).
As you point out, many countries in the Middle East are being much more effective in combatting Al Queda in their countries and helping us with intelligence. Do you really believe that would have happened without our invasion of Iraq?
Yes, we are disliked (hated) by many countries but they disliked us before and will dislike us for as long as they are not being threatened themselves and need us to protect them.
Outstanding. I think this is nearly a perfect summary. Like a Vulcan mind-meld.
My own analysis (limited to 600 words by my local newspaper):
In peacetime elections the candidates’ domestic policy positions matter most to me: particularly regarding spending, trade, federalism and civil liberties. On these issues George Bush has been disappointing. John Kerry promises me that he would be at least as disappointing.
Disappointment abounds: Kerry‘s ambivalence on the 2nd Amendment, Bush’s cynical Amendment defining marriage; Kerry’s promise to add billions to health-care spending, Bush already having done it; Kerry supporting such economically devastating and ludicrously ineffective environmentalism as the Kyoto Treaty, Bush signing Campaign Finance Reform.
Domestically, John Bush and George W. Kerry lead mirror-image political parties whose entitlement-laden pandering promotes divisiveness and disinterest, reminiscent of the closing scene in Orwell’s Animal Farm.
In peacetime, this undifferentiated statism should prompt everyone to boycott the election.
This is not peacetime. We are at war; fighting a global alliance of barbarian states and Islamofascist fanatics to whom classical liberalism is anathema.
We are not fighting a “war on terrorism”, or “war in Iraq”. We are fighting for civilization itself, and this war was declared on us decades ago.
The enemy includes Hamas suicide-bombers, Hezbollah thugs, Baathist executioners, al-Qaeda murderers, and other Jihadists too numerous to mention. They receive aid and comfort from gangster countries for which mass graves, child murder and enforced female illiteracy are policy instruments. Sudan, Chechnya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya are, or have been culpable, and this is hardly an exhaustive list.
We are also culpable. We sleepwalked through 25 years of this war by failing to respond effectively to dozens of attacks; from the Iran hostage crisis to the first World Trade Center bombing.
After 9-11 we chose to stop waiting for the next attack. We seized the initiative in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Iraq. Now we are wrecking Jihadist hatcheries worldwide.
Iraq, John Kerry says frequently, is the “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”
He has the wrong ideas.
Wrong war?
Those who have repeatedly murdered our countrymen and stated their goal to destroy us don’t think so. What atrocity do they have to commit to get Senator Kerry to consider a war “right”?
Wrong place?
Would the Senator prefer to fight in New York? Iraq is but one front in this war and it is hardly the “wrong place”. While the 9-11 commission called ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda “real, but shadowy”, an al-Qaeda connection has never been necessary to justify invading Iraq. Saddam’s sheltering of Abu Nidal and Abu al-Zarqawi, a decade of shooting at our forces enforcing UN sanctions, and his financing of suicide-bombers place him squarely in the Islamofascist alliance.
Wrong time?
Shall we accept further decades of casualties?
Kerry’s words also imply that the “wrong country” is carrying the load. Of that I ask: If not us, who?
Sometimes John Kerry says he would seek victory in Iraq, sometimes he says he would not. Sometimes he votes for funding our troops and sometimes against. He calls the war a bigger mistake than his own vacillation. Kerry’s dual mistake, then, is that his ill-considered words accurately describe his deplorable record.
Kerry’s continuing mental stalemate always involves elaborate qualification; as if nuance matters to those who behead handcuffed aid-workers and shoot children in the back, as if these cowards might desist could we just get the French to let the UN intervene.
Recognizing the Jihadist threat is prerequisite to mustering the will to defend, literally, civilization. Senator Kerry can’t even distinguish the threat between one “position” and the next.
Whatever his domestic failings, George Bush understands the nature of this war. He will get my vote.
Does it matter? There's a pretty compelling argument to be made that the Bush administration has screwed up so badly that it's practically impossible that the Kerry team could be worse. I have two problems with this argument. The first is that the people who've been making it to me mostly hated Bush before Iraq, before 9/11, and indeed before he got the Republican Party's 2000 nomination.
Sorry, but that's not a refutation of the argument. That's ad hominem. It irks me because there are many people out there who are former Bush supporters making the case against Bush's competence. I myself can't claim to be a Bush supporter, but I definitely didn't hate him before 9/11. In 2000 I voted for Nader, thinking that Bush and Gore were roughly equal in qualifications. As a liberal, Bush's record in the first two years of office were not thrilling to me, but neither could I muster up any strong feelings or arguments that he was a bad president. I think the point at which I decided I was likely to vote Democratic in '04 was when there were no WMDs found in Iraq, and the justification for invading kept changing to suit Bush's re-election needs. Even now I can't say that I *hate* Bush per se, I simply don't like what he's done as President. From what I've seen of John Kerry, Kerry will be a suitable replacement, and I'm happy to have voted for him already.
So if you can't listen to the argument from people whom you stereotype as "Bush-haters," take it from me, or from Sully, or from whomever else you want, but the argument still stands.
As for your second problem with the argument, you can be assured John Kerry will not bail on Iraq. There is simply nothing to be gained from it, not in terms of international prestige, not in terms of American power, and not in terms of appeasing the 33% of his party who would welcome such a move.
Posted by: Hector on October 29, 2004 09:39 PMI think I'm in love.
Well, maybe it's just that I think I'm becoming a libertarian.
maybe that's the same thing and I just don't realize it.
Posted by: moflicky on October 29, 2004 10:03 PMThere are many silly statements in your piece such as; "I'd be in heaven with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench." Thomas is a small minded Scalia groupie that NEVER talks during cases in fear of revealing his limited scope. If there were nine of him he would have no one to mimic and the would never be a decision. Of course you could be one of those who think that the court his holding back the Executive branch.
Another is "I'm pretty sure we're making terrorist recruiting easier. But I'm not as sure as anti-war types that this makes us less secure."
This is laughable,so although we have increased resentment around the world therefore increasing the amount of people that want to kill us we aren't in more danger.
I guess there is some set of logical gymnastics that can reframe this into a sensible argument but they escape me.
SO you're a Bush voter huh? Imagine that!
Jeebus. You people are insane. It is my solemn hope that everyone who votes Red (excepting Jane and Mindles, as consideration for their great blog) ends up being forced by necessity to live in a Red state, so that in some minimal fashion accountability is brought back into the equation.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on October 29, 2004 10:08 PMwow, read about half the comments.
Summarization follows:
Megan, your analysis has spawned a minimum of 5 lengthy discourses either reputing your charactarization, or debating the situations you describe.... symptom of a very good post, very bad for my time management.
btw, I agree with your final decision and much of your logic, but some of your characterizations or perceptions of reality are in conflict with mine. Only an idiot criticizes someone who votes like him, thinks like him, but doesnt see like him, so in the hopes that I can avoid being an idiot, I wont focus on our conflict in perceptions.
I do agree with Eric Dreamer to a degree, but I still enjoyed this post, not only for the structure of your presentation, or the content, but for their effect on the public discourse, all the ripples from the pebble hitting the water and becoming a tsunami on another coast kinda things...
I have many emotions right now, mainly anxiety that Bush will lose due to media manipulation or cheating. Your post strikes a note of hope that most people from very different circumstances than mine are seeing basically the same patterns and arent biased by regional media/geographical biases or demographics.
Thanks
Posted by: Joel Mackey on October 29, 2004 10:08 PMJane,
I realize that you will likely never read this, given the mammoth growth of this thread, but I was curious about your statement concerning poverty policy. You didn't actually cite any examples of Republican efforts to reduce poverty -- no proposals, policies, or bills. I appreciate that an education policy must be part of any poverty policy, but is there anything else you can actually point to? Who are the Republicans (in office or in think tanks) you find to be really worked up about eradicating poverty? How do they feel healthcare policy relates to a poverty policy?
Anon
Posted by: Anon on October 29, 2004 10:37 PMBush's military adventurism in Iraq represents a failure of imagination in foreign policy, not proof of it. In light of the intense animosity we have generated in the region, the worst consequences of Bush's "quagmire" most likely have yet to unfold. We've been here before, when we needed to "stay the course" in Vietnam lest the dominoes tumble and the world be overtaken by Communism. Next thing we hear from the Bush camp will be that there is "light at the end of tunnel." Perhaps we need to have a statement of goals that will either let us ascertain when we have achieved victory or when further loss of life is pointless. However, if Bush really has made a ghastly mistake, he should not be allowed to persist in it for another four years.
On the home front, the consistent thread in Bush's policy has been to consolidate his base by institutionalizing increasing wealth for the wealthiest Americans. This is not what America is or ought to be about.
Why does it make sense to argue that since both parties are bad on civil liberties, it does not matter if the Republicans are worse?
Who seriously thinks that Bush the Texas oilman would support emissions taxes?
Bush was a mistake. Let's not repeat it.
Posted by: Bill Day on October 29, 2004 10:51 PMSo NCLB has made all the right "enemies?" Interesting language! Why stop there? Secretary Page has called teachers "terrorists." Keep blaming the teachers and their unions, and don't look at any other causes.
As an example, the 25+ year old IDEA (Disabilities Education Act)has worked brilliantly, hasn't it?.....federal mandates with inadequate federal funding creating legal and financial chaos in local school districts for three decades. We need more federal mandates like NCLB, I gue