… that self-described “crusty, longwinded trial lawyer” better known as Beldar… has a well-written brief this morning explaining to center-left Democrats why they should vote for Bush. Maybe even a few will be listening.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Roger:
Very glad you linked to Beldar’s post. This is an absolutely essential question he poses to potential Kerry voters who are pro-WOT: Do you really think (now use your head here) Kerry will continue the fight in Iraq? Given that the central driving impetus of the Democrats this year is anger at Bush and his war in Iraq and given that there is NOT A SINGLE MEMBER of his advisory group in support of the war I don’t see a serious effort at victory happening. I suspect he hopes that by the time he takes office in January the battle for Fallujah will be over, the elections will have worked, and violence will be in a manageable state. In other words he is hoping GW will clean up after his mess before moving out of the White House. Then Kerry would be in position to call it his victory and gradually withdraw troops. I think this would be wishful thinking. It is more likely that violence will continue at some level and possibly escalate. Kerry would then throw up his arms – “it’s not my fault this an unmanageable mess” – and get the troops home. Since this Somalia-like tragedy (but exponentially greater in magnitude) would be occuring well before the next election cycle he can hope people will forget. Perhaps, but somehow I think the terrorists have their own plans…
There was an article in the 10/10 SF Gate that Dailypundit linked to:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/10/INGEF94FCU1.DTL
Fights over a political party’s future are common after the party loses a big election. But John Kerry figures to face a fight over control of the party from fellow Democrats even if he beats George W. Bush on Nov. 2.
Influential figures on the party’s left wing are planning a long-term campaign to move the Democrats to the left, just as right-wing activists took over the Republican Party and moved it to the right over the past 30 years….
—
This entire election is making me ill.
Hey, John Kerry just received an important endorsement!:
ìArafat Backs Kerry, Israelis Favor Bush
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief
October 19, 2004
(CNSNews.com) – Relying on the traditional support of Jewish voters, the Kerry-Edwards campaign may not welcome news from the Middle East on how the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict view the election.
Yasser Arafat”s Palestinian Authority on Monday gave its first public indication of which candidate it would like to see in the White House next year.î
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200410%5CFOR20041019a.html
I believe it was Steven Den Beste who first pointed to the division in the Democrat party that Beldar writes about here as being the reason why the Democrats would lose the election. But to me it looks like Kedwards is (are) successfully papering over this problem.
Secret bat cave signal to Rick Ballard: How in the hell are they managing this?
Jamie Irons
Sorry Roger, no cigar. Money quote:
“You are clear-eyed enough to know that if Dubya’s re-elected, he is going to do his damnedest ó perhaps without the finesse you’d like to see, perhaps with what you think are some huge blunders along the way ó to win the fight against the terrorists. Dubya is a known quantity.”
I am cleareyed enough to know that mere intentions aren’t what count here. I am also clear-eyed enough to know that when one is able to write of “huge blunders” and write tem off that something besides clear thinking is going on.
I have no doubt that Bush wants to fight the terrorists, expand liberty, etc. The problem is what we know about this particular quantity – he is clueless and incompetant and has a decision process that dooms anything to failure. Check out recent Knight Ridder stuff.
Beldar writes of voting for Kerry as a gamble – well so is voting for Bush and voting for Bush at this point is the equivalent throwing good money after bad. That, I learned long ago, is always a losing strategy.
As for comparisons with LBJ – we had a stubborn refusal to realize the realities of fighting an insurgency then. Who fits that description now?
To be fair here I would suggest that you read the posts by conservatives that are voting for Kerry – Stuart Benjamin on the Volokh Conspiracy (scroll back a day or so)for only one and go to The Shrill Blog.
What baffles me is anyone who asserts that the republican party continues to move right. It simply is not true. It moved right during the mid-90′s but even in Bush’s 4 years, the right moved centrist. Sure, there’s still a very conservative wing of the party- but the days of the far religious right are over- and with it, much of the intolerance that came with it. Again, the republican party has not drastically changed its stance on abortion, religion, etc but at the same time, I see many conservatives becoming more tolerant in regards to many social movements. And its this tolerance, which the DNC constantly derides as “not enough,” that allows folks like Roger to semi-comfortably vote for Bush this fall. Sure, he disagrees with Bush on social issues but at the same time, I don’t see any Bush pushing through any policy which would polarize either side (for all the talk of the Marriage Act, I don’t think most realistic folks expected it to pass). Bush is more worried about the war on terror then making sweeping changes in social policy, as he should be. And for that very reason, Bush is the right man for the job.
The problem I see with democrats is for whatever reason, they think social and domestic policy trump financial and military policy when it comes to priorities. This just baffles me, considering that the enemy we are fighting hates gays and woman almost as much as they hate Jews. It is completely unbelievable that woman in Afghanistan can vote and somehow, the left ignores it. For crying out loud, Bush is implementing progressive social policy in nations which very much need it and yet, he’s bad. What in the hell?
Back on point- the right is not nearly as “radical” as it was 10 years ago and if anything, this ostracizing of many of the radical elements in the republican party (hi Pat Buchanan) actually allows moderate (former) democrats to integrate themselves into the conservative movement and promote real discussions on a wide range of governmental policies. As a result of discussions I’ve had with former lefties, I’ve actually seriously considered my take on things like stem cell research. The mostly civil discourse going on WITHIN the republican party is what the two party system is supposed to encourage- unfortunately, the moonbats who have taken over the DNC have been too busy bleating about hitler, nazi’s and haliburton to read the memo.
As many pundits have noted, the only remedy for the current state of the DNC is a sound ass kicking in November.
*The problem is what we know about this particular quantity – he is clueless and incompetant and has a decision process that dooms anything to failure. Check out recent Knight Ridder stuff.*
Wow, you’ve got to be kidding. Bush is not perfect but he is not incompetant. That this continues to be the moonbat mantra is inconceivable. Bush’s administration managed to overthrow two governments that promote terror, hold elections in one of those countries, do what 12 years of sanctions couldn’t do to Sadaam Hussein, help the economy recover from the bursting internet bubble and the worst attack on US soil in history, prevent any more attacks on US Soil, convince many Arab nations to work with us in capturing terrorists, convinced Momar to give up his nuclear ambitions, while passing some degree of health care reform, No Child Left Behind (with that assclown Ted Kennedy) AND gave me a nice little tax break.
Any lefty who tells me that the sum total of the foregoing = incompetence can trundle off to fantasy land ASAP. Bush has made mistakes and he’s done his best to fix them. Get this – NO PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE PERFECT- even GASP a democratic president. You can sit there all day and tell me that Bush is incompetant but after you do, please explain to me how its not incompetant to be in the Senate for 20 years and only managed to get 5-10 pieces of legislation pass, NONE of which was significant.
Seriously, please explain.
One more point here. Conservatives need not read further. The notion that re-electing Bush is so all fired important to the survival of this Nation that we liberals have to hold our noses, swallow hard and vote, in effect, for the repeal of a century of hard won progressive changes to our society is absurd.
Liberals (slap)- get over it. Time to turn your minds on and get over the post tramatic stress of 9/11. The Reps seems to have done so a while ago and have no problem exploiting what has become a disability for many.
The odds are far, far better that a Kerry Administration will “get it” as far as dealing with terrorism – not some pie in the sky GWOT, but terrorism – than a second Bush Administration will be successful at anything – foreign or domestic.
Oh, yeah, Kerry’s got it alright:
“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
That and gutting defense programs are two things he hasn’t flipped on.
Mr Aronson,
If you are going to only address liberals on this blog, I would suggest you find your way over to dailykos, where more of your peers enjoy the warm vapors in the fever swamp- either that or I can arrange for you and John Clayton to spoon in a private chatroom.
Though not a liberal, I read through your nonsense and respond as follows:
The reason electing Bush IS so all important is because most conservatives think the current leadership of the DNC is either A. grossly deceptive or B. complete pussies. I apologize for the use of that word but quite frankly, it fits. I may not be a particularly bright person but even I can see that relying on the UN for peace and freedom is nonsensical, considering that only 50 out of 200 countries who are a part of that body are democracies. Our allies, Britain, Austrailia, Japan, Poland, India, are not only sufficient, they’re exemplary. We don’t need Germany and France nor do we want them – they are not our friends anymore and nothing we say or do will change that. AND they were NOT our friends before W’s election – I realize that much of the oil for food scandal has not penetrated the fever swamp but much of it was going on during GASP Bill Clinton’s term of office.
*Time to turn your minds on and get over the post tramatic stress of 9/11.*
Unfortunately, your fellow moonbats have absolutely no interest in doing so. Doing so would force them to accept the fact that people want to kill everybody, including them- not just the evil republicans. I realize many of these moonbats find the notion that our enemy wants to kill them just as readily as they want to kill me unacceptable but if they really did accept it, they’d quit making excuses for terrorists.
*The odds are far, far better that a Kerry Administration will “get it” as far as dealing with terrorism *
No, they don’t get it. Kerry says “law enforcement action” and he means. He lacks the balls, both morally and politically, to pursue a course of action overseas which will come under fire from the UN. He will pull our troops out of Iraq within 6 months and then take a reactive take on the war on terror. The Middle East will be sent a clear message- that the United States has absolutely no resolve to fight a war on terror. And attacks will pick up all over the globe, not just in Iraq. If we’re attacked again, a Kerry administration will try its best to find out who attacked us, and then will go to the UN for a resolution to deal with it.
No thanks. I’d like my countries destiny to be in its own hands, not in the hands of a corrupt and ineffectual global body.
Mr. Aronson is addressing the liberals on this blog, some of whom have (much) more street and official credentials than he.
They’ve been putting their time, shoe leather, and money in since the 60s and 70s.
And because of their experience, they are looking at things slightly differently.
After all, Mr. Aronson, one doesn’t have to fall in love, one just has to fall in line, eh?
Mr. Aronson is making at least 1 dubious assumption, that the Republican’s will provide the votes in the House and Senate to cover for his lack of support base in the Democratic party when voting on WOT items. So what happens if the Republicans sit it out in similar proportions as the Democrats have with Bush.
Sorry for the third post and this will be the last on this thread – promise.
1. S/b competent – sp.
2. Just as some of us need to snap out of it re: 9/11, so do the Dems and the left in general have to get over Vietnam. A Kerry Administration will have to deal with this – I believe the outcome of this struggle will be positive. See David’s post over at Oxblog – he says it better.
3. Matt, the already stated agenda of a second Bush Administration will involve the undoing of the New Deal and the imposition of a regressive tax system. Court appointments will put reforms going back to TR at risk.
Conservatives will say “right on”, liberals need to ask themselves; if this GWOT is so all fired real and critical why push this divisive domestic agenda? The answer is simple – liberals are being cowed and conned by invoking the GWOT concept (as distinct from terrorism – a real problem) and 9/11. All I’m saying is snap out of it.
How in the hell are they managing this?
I assume you are asking “How are they holding together a coalition of disparate interests amounting to 40%+ of those who respond to pollsters?” Habit accounts for about 75% of the answer. The people reading and commenting here at Roger’s Place would almost all score in the top quintile (probably the top decile) wrt to IQ. Eighty per cent of the population is incapable of engaging in the type of discourse conducted here. Decision making by that eighty per cent is generally nonreflective and habit based. The same trigger mechanisms that were inculcated by parents and grandparents continue to function throughout their lives. Kedwards is now beating the drum to stir that 80% to typical Pavlovian reaction and it will work to a certain extent. I would be very surprised if Kedwards did not hold 40%. They won’t hold anywhere near 40% of the 20% who are susceptible to change through reflective thought. That 20% is Beldar’s target and I believe he makes a very good case. The intellectual vacuity of Mr. Aronson’s response is extremely indicative of the overall brainpower of the opposition. I find it very comforting.
BTW – the current Kedwards tactics are way too little and way too late. Scaring the base into the proper Pavlovian response takes two months, not two weeks. I think Dem base turnout is going to be horrific.
Since we continue to feed trolls…
Blanket asssertions of “incompetence,” coming from anyone who would defend a party, who would defend a president who preferred nailing a 19-year-old intern to nailing Bin Laden, when he had four or five clear shots at him…well, I would say that such a person is ipso facto lacking in credibility.
Of course, my assertion depends critically on what the meaning of is is…
Jamie Irons
Is it mass psychosis that causes people to think like Aronson & Clayton or what? These people have lost all rationality. I cannot believe that the people of this country will follow their lead into the disaster of a Kerry presidency just because of their visceral hatred of a good and honest man who is our best chance of returning us to some semblance of safety and security.
Rick
Thanks again. I knew I could count on the “secret bat cave signal” invented by Catherine.
Jamie Irons
Mr. Aronson???
I have spent the better part of my life under the pall/cloud of Viet Nam.
Mr. Kerry’s legacy – he actively helped shape it.
And now he’s going to do to my children what he did to me.
And our job will become much harder.
I find it interesting that the party which pushes for “internationalism” wants to isolate US. Focus on problems at home and the world will be fine.
Clinton used the same very effectively in 91-92. But the Cold War was over.
Under his watch, certain people tried to get his attention. Maybe if they wore a thong and carried a cigar things might have been different.
But it didn’t work out that way. I hope you’re right.
As to the New Deal, considering that FDR didn’t think it should be permanent….
Rick
Here’s something from the Walll Street Journal relevant to your post above:
Bush’s Stealth Supporters by Brendan Miniter.
(I’m not sure if it’s subscription only; I’m a subscriber.)
Jamie Irons
Damn, I apparently missed the fine print when listening to Bush’s plans for the economy. It seemed to me that he wants to reduce government spending, which, as a fiscal conservative, is right down my alley. Additionally, he’s talked at some length about simplifying the tax system, which again, is right down my alley. The current tax system seems to mostly benefit those who can afford good tax accountants and lawyers to help them work the system (see : Theresa Heinz Kerry).
The funny thing is, I always thought the New Deal was more a result of a decade of republican fiscal conservatism than anything else. I’d like to go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear, where the government doesn’t spend my money like its water. I’d like to take a hard look at a national sales tax and a flat tax in Bush’s next term, to see if either of those methods would save people money and streamline government. I suspect the democrats have absolutely no interest in doing the same.
National sales tax also brings in the underground economy.
Jamie,
The Miniter piece was very good but this AP story gives more substance to what I was saying. You have to read the entire story and think for a moment to understand just how badly AP distorted their headline. The headline reads “Kerry Has Wide Support Among Blacks” which is news like “water is wet” is news but when you read down far enough you find that W’s support among black Christian conservatives (you know, the ones that Kerry hauls Jesse and Al around to talk to on Sundays) is at 36% or more than 3 times what it was in ’00. W tripling his support among the segment of the black population most apt to vote is real news but somehow I don’t think that it will make the cut with the MSM today.
It’s happening though and if you search a bit you’ll find a number of stories out about polling companies “having difficulty in determining actual likely voters this cycle”. That’s the prepositioned fallback story that the MSM will use to explain the Nov. 2 “amazing margin given the polling data” stories that they are going to have to print.
It seems pretty obvious at this point that all these bots making the rounds of the message boards are all reading from the same page. Attack Bush from the right, saying that he is not doing a good enough job with the war. Whether or not they are actually on the payroll, they are certainly coordinated, and they employ the same tactics; get in, make your pitch, and get out, without getting dragged into a discussion of the issues. Given the crude level of their programming it’s unlikely that they could successfully defend the points they are making. In fact, I suspect some of them are simply reading from a crib sheet.
The amount of money the Democrats are spending to win the presidency is staggering. We won’t have solid figures until long afterward, but I’ve heard it will probably be on the order of a half billion dollars. This of course does not factor in all the hit pieces on Bush from the media and the cover-up for Kerry, which the MSM provides them free of charge.
I have seen some people still making the claim that it does not matter, that they’re all the same. Well, it seems to matter quite a bit to some very rich people, the ones who are bankrolling the Democratic party. The level of denial within that party is interesting; the typical D voter and supporter seems to have fully accepted the conventional wisdom that the GOP is the “party of the rich” and the Dem’s the “party of the people”. If that was ever true, it is emphatically not true today, when the wealthiest zip codes in America overwhelmingly give to the Democrats, and the voter demographic which most favors the D’s are the billionaires club. The fact that the wealthiest Americans are so anxious for Kerry to win is something that does not get nearly the scrutiny it deserves, especially from those who are self-styled progressives.
I’m seeing comments here about left-right, conservative-liberal, which I think miss the point. This is a transformative election, one that has already redrawn the lines of politics in America in ways that even the political pros in each party are having a hard time keeping up with. Large numbers of “liberals” have defected to the GOP, while an equally large number of “fiscal conservatives” are apparently now in the Democratic camp. Whatever happens on Nov 2, both parties are going to have a difficult time adjusting their personalities to reflect the new reality.
For the foreseeable future the Republicans are the party of progress and reform, and the Democrats are the party of reaction and the status quo, both at home and abroad. I suspect that this has been true for quite some time, but events in this election cycle have thrown it into sharp relief.
*The amount of money the Democrats are spending to win the presidency is staggering*
The fact that Soros, Bing and the stooges that follow in their wake are going to lose millions upon millions of dollars when Bush wins is going to keep me warm at night for a long, long time.
I continue to find it ironic that the alleged party of “big business” is being grossly outspent by the so called party of the “little people”. Imagine how much good Soros could have done if he’d given those millions to charitable organizations instead of moveon and media matters.
Actually, Kerry has a very good point on taxes – when he says that the “rich don’t pay their fair share” hes’s speaking from experience, I mean the guys got real street cred on this, just look at the snippet of Mama T’s tax return that she has released!
See, the salary of a US Senator is what, about $180K ? When Kerry made that he was “not rich” he could tell because he had to bunk with his friends and bum rides on lobbyists’ planes in order to afford is Ducati habit. When he was married to Thorne and later Mama T, he was rich and could afford all his little toys. Since I’m sure that he’s not too good with numbers (he’s a Dem, after all), he probably has no idea what kind of income it takes to keep the “family” jet flying and the “family” SUV flying. He probably has no idea how much a Gulf IV or an Escalade cost.
What he does know is that $180K = Not Rich and Somewhat > $180k = Rich, therefor it is logical to assume that anyone making over $200k is rich. It follows that all those making more than $200k are rich and probably dodging taxes like crazy, just like Mama T, and deserve to be soaked.
Ah, now I see where this New Deal repeal theory is coming from. The All-Wise, All-Powerful, Fiscally Conservative Hillary Clinton opines at length about this issue in the Houston Chronicles.
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm
I would assume media matters had these talking points up for the liberal bots to adopt as their own. Do those speaking of the “New Deal” even understand what it is, or should we just ask Hillary ?
If you haven’t seen it yet, watch Edwards at what he does best
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100
First you’ll laugh; then you’ll cry (at the thought of him being VP)
For some strange reason, I keep focusing on how the makeup artist keeps playing with his hair, in a caressing-like manner . . .
Aronson:
How can you call Bush incompetent when there is Kosovo? Clinton said we would be out in a year. We had NATO, etc. And they still don’t have the power on half the time and we are still there.
It was the Dems that screwed up the intelligence on Iraq, let Osamaa get away, looked the other way while AlQaida grew to menace us, overlooked Iraq’s involvement in the first WTC attack and now these same people are calling Bush Hitler and half of them are claiming there is not a war on Terror to fight.
Bush does have an idea of what he wants to do and he tries to do it. All Kerry can do is bitch and makes promises and try to please two polarized camps of the Democrat party.
Vegetius ó I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic’s. His hair was perfect.
R. Mc
“He’s the hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent………..”. There’s a missing segment of tape showing Edwards blow-drying his fingers (paws???).