October 31, 2004 — THIS campaign is ending just in time before someone gets hurt. John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa’s famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students.

“Philadelphia magazine reports: “Heinz accused Kerry’s opponents – ‘our enemies’ – of making the race dirty. ‘We didn’t start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,’ he said, before adding, ‘I’ll do it now.’ Asked later about it, Heinz said, ‘I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.’” Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, “One of the things I’ve noticed is the Israel lobby – the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state.” Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel’s “amen corner” in Congress.”

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/33033.htm

“Dear Senator Kerry,” it began. “I urge you to support President Bush’s request that Congress approve the `use of all necessary means’ to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. To deny the president’s request would encourage further aggression.”

As his glaringly inconsistent responses to Carter — both form letters, of course — make clear, Kerry’s habit of coming down firmly on two side of controversial issues didn’t begin with his presidential campaign. It has been a hallmark of his political career.

RTWT but the Globe is on record for Kerry….

And then, here’s another Boston Globe story that starts:

On Tuesday, either George W. Bush or John Kerry will go down to defeat. But in the long run, some observers are already suggesting, to the losing party may go the spoils.

I don’t recall seeing these “the South shall rise again” stories in ’92, ’96, or 2000.

I’m thoroughly tired of that Yeats poem at this point, but it sure looks like “the center cannot hold” in the Democrats’ lines.

I think the most interesting aspect of the whole Bush is raicial idea is that he is accused of being radical for enforcing UN resolutions and for living up to the philosophy of our Declaration of Independence.To say that Iraq was not influencing the West when we were spending billions every year just to patrol the no fly zones and Saddam was perpetrating [along with the UN] the largest financial scam in history is to deny realiity. That son of a bitch was a problem whether the West liked it or not.

I read once that Irazqis used to fight city to city and tribe to tribe and in the early part of the 20th century the Brits would call in the artillery to stop Iraqis from killing Iraqis. Now maybe Coisty thinks this is a future that most Iraqis aspire to, but would he?

So tell me Coisty would you want to live in a country such as that just because your daddy did? Would you want that for your children? Are you better than they are?

The UN Charter idea has not stood the test of time. It didn’t stop what Red China did to Tibet, or what the Soviets did to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or many other horrific conquests and oppressions throughout the last 60 years. Leftists are therefore in a peculiar reactionary/radical position: they are clinging blindly to an idea from the past, but it’s from such a recent past (and is such a failure even in that time) that it enjoys none of the advantages of the traditions conservatives admire. Bush’s policy, I believe, is a return to the older, better, time-tested way.

Liberals and religion clearly no longet get along. Christianity holds man as imperfectible and flawed. Behind most liberal philosophy is the idea that with the right environment, people will grow up to be perfect. In other words, they do not believe in innate traits. Innate traits means they cannot, through environment, create the ideal person. The most extreme case of this philosophy was Pol Pot, who had all with any knowledge killed, trying to removve all “corrupting” influences so that he could create perfect agrarian communists.

A new and bizarre trend is the attempt to remove all references to religion from government. An example is the removal of the cross from the LA seal. The cross symbolized the influence of religious missions in the history of LA – even the name of the city is religious. Why people are so sensitive that they have to take that historic cross and throw it down the memory hole escapes me. But even though our society has done pretty well for over two centuries, all of a sudden these symbols are a danger and have to be removed. This is a sign of radicalization of the liberal movement (some libertarians are just as silly, btw). There are similar assaults on history taking place all over the country.

Others have covered many of the Religion issues – the inflexible standards and the scariness of powerful people having “irrational” beliefs.

MLK was a communist, an adulterer, and generally not the greatest guy. But his effect was powerful and important.

I did oppose the MLK holiday, not wanting to be so quick to displace an important holiday of one of our founders. Arizona felt the same way. We were coerced into the holiday by the NFL, which would not allow a superbowl here unless we had the holiday. I found that outrageous.

Bush understood what others here have said – that perhaps the best hope for eliminating Islamic terrorism is reforming some Islamic societies. It takes vision and courage to act on that. Vision to create and understand this strategy, and courage because of the risks inherent in any war, and the long term political risks.

That the left dislikes this action shows their lack of vision. Liberals used to be in favor of liberating people from oppression, but now that is a fraud. When the real opportunity appeared and Bush took it, the left did nothing but condemn him. There is no way to interpret their position other than preferring to leave Iraqis in the bloody hands of Saddam and his spawn.

This is also radical to conservatives. Liberating countries is not a core conservative value. We liberated the people of the USSR because that country was a clear danger to us.

In Iraq, we can see both idealism and pragmatism. The reasons for the war were many – it wasn’t fought just to liberate Iraqis. But the idea of spreading democracy through the middle east is idealistic. We don’t know if it will work. But one thing we know: Iraq isn’t a WMD threat any more. And if it ends up with a somewhat authoritarian government, that will still achieve our goals.

Coisty questions the Iraqi desire for freedom. It is there. You can have tribes and still want freedom (we have lots of tribes here in Arizona). People tend to want safety first, then freedom (Mazlo hierarchy). But the will forego safety to achieve freedoom under some circumstances. I think that the average Iraqi would tell you they want two things: an improvement in the security situation, and freedom.

“But

Bush seems to agree with Trotsky in that the power of the state should be utilized to bring about revolutionary change around the world.”

That is a very charged word, ‘revolutionary’

Yes, it is/was used in context with the ‘Revolutionary War of 1776′.

So, are you using it in the context of Michael Moore and his sympathy for the terrorists shits in Iraq? Or, are you using it in the, shall we say, leftist understanding of the term? I do admit it has been used and or abused by many. I also submit that democracy is the ultimate revolution. Power to the ‘people’ so to speak.

And, what other power are you going to come to the party with, anarchy? As well as, do you see no difference between the ideals of the United States and the ideals of despotic regimes such as the former USSR and or present day Iran, Syria, North Korea? Is it just the idea of the primacy of the state over the individual that you are talking about? Just what is it that you would do different if another state/entity were doing/threatening harm to you or yours? What is this ‘state’ of perfection that you appear to be alluding to?

Sorry for so many questions, but I am a plain old ‘draw a line in the sand’ kind of guy. Not much on nuance.

Why are your commenters better than all the talking heads on television? I am befuddled by why they receive so much attention. I say that as I listen to Ms. Kearns Goodwin talk about American politics with Mr. Russert.

I guess it’s too late for me but the rest of you can get out of here before it’s too late.