Flutterby™! : Kerry == Bush? 2004-07-29 16:27:25.429657+00

Kerry == Bush?

2004-07-29 16:27:25.429657+00 by Dan Lyke 17 comments

John Robb compares Kerry's proposed foreign policy to Bush's. He's not optimistic.

[gingerly stepping onto soapbox]
Well, worst case (which I do not currently accept), if Kerry's no worse than Bush in this area, at least we'll have someone with more than half a brain and a sense of optimism who's a decent human being in office, instead of the fear and pessimism and stupidity and greed we currently have to put up with. I am tired of being embarrassed to be an American and ashamed of what passes for "leadership" here.

At this point, it's a binary choice. Since the choices are known (Kerry v Bush), it's time to weigh them against one another. Myself, I could never give Bush and Co. the edge in anything on the positive side of the equation, so it's obvious which bumper sticker is in the window of my car and where I'll be tonight, with others looking to optimistically renew a sense that it *is* possible to do something to change the wrong-headed course we've been on. I want to trust my leaders again, I want to contribute to a better future for the children I've brought onto this earth and all the others, I want to believe there are better days ahead. I can't do that with the current administration in place: I want to see it change. It cannot be any worse, and quite possibly *can* be better.

I mean, seriously: OK, Kerry's not the magic pill, he's got his warts and wrinkles. But how anyone can think that another four years of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld can be *good* for the US or the world is completely beyond me. Try something else.
[tumbling off soapbox]

(And now I'll be jumped on again by fellow Flutterbarians for having that childlike sense of optimism and hope and wanting to do something to make it real. And I'll probably regret that I posted anything on a political topic, it usually ends up that way. I do feel pretty lonely here sometimes. I can't help it that I'm a large-hearted liberal optimist. Youse guys need someone to pick on anyway, right? ;-) At least I keep coming back for more.)

Dianne, I think most people here will agree with you, me included, that another four years of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield will not be *good* for the US. I think where the disagreement comes in is whether Kerry and Edwards will be *good* for the US. I'm not convinced Kerry will be any better so between the two I'm back considering the devil I know.

I'm somewhat lucky in that living in Georgia I can vote my conscious rather than worrying about my vote being the determining vote that puts the wrong person in office. It's pretty much a given that Georgia will be electing Bush delegates to the EC so I can vote for Badnarik with a clear conscious. That's good for me because between Bush and Kerry I'm truely undecided.

No missles from me, Diane. Over the years I've been a devout follower of the practice of voting for the person I feel would do the best job - and that means neither of the major party candidates. (Which means I probably receive even more naive-optimist bashing than you do.) But the things I've seen and heard over the last year alone have me seriously considering the "strategic vote" this time around.

If you have a choice between "known bad" and "might be bad", how can you not have a preference for "might be bad"?

John, with me it's a choice between "known bad" and "might be worse". I'm not all that averse to the administrations handling of Iraq, Afghanistan or most of the war on terror. I am averse to the administration picking folks up off the street, denying them due process and holding them without charges. I am also averse to the continued growth of federal government and federal deficit spending at the rate we are seeing it. I haven't been convinced that John Kerry will be any better on the civil liberties issue I mentioned above and I'm pretty much convinced from reading his position papers on his website that he's going to spend freely.

I'm pretty convinced that Kerry will be better on many issues that Bush. Unlike Larry, though, I think Bush has completely botched many of our foreign policy issues, and I'm concerned that Kerry might not do that job better.

I'm also concerned that there's still room for some major screw-ups economically, and I'm almost ambivalent about Kerry winning because I think it's time a Republican took some credit for a period like the Carter years.

(And I should mention that despite my distaste for both sides and being unemployed I wrote a check to the DNC yesterday.)

#Comment Re: made: 2004-07-30 00:23:44.38209+00 by: Shawn [edit history]

Purely in the interest of passing on additional information, this site purports to be the real voice of those Kerry served with in Vietnam. Not terribly flattering.

#Comment Re: made: 2004-07-30 01:06:27.166617+00 by: Pete [edit history]

What exactly are you worried Kerry is going to screw up? Worried he might run up record deficits? Worried he might leave us exposed to terrorism? Worried he might alienate our major allies? Worried he might mislead the country to start unnecessary wars and cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people, American and foreign? Afraid he might try to lock people up and deny them a trial? Worried he might impose Puritanical censorship on mass expression? Worried he might leave the nation with millions fewer jobs than he found it with?

What exactly is the worry? What do you think Kerry would screw up that could compete with any of that?

have you read about Badnarik's...adversarial relationship with the IRS? The man hasn't filed a tax return in many years. He's also recently done a Kucinich on abortion, and has got a lot of loony ideas -- even for an LP candidate. I'd love to support the LP this year, but Badnarik is a nutcase.

If I thought that Kerry was different that Bush in any substantial way, I'd consider voting for him. But he's not, so I won't.

dexev, you probably didn't watch his acceptance speech tonight, but having done so, I have a strong opinion that Kerry *IS* different from Bush in a substantial way: he's a decent human being with integrity, and he believes in a *UNITED* States of America. (OK, I admit: I thought that before tonight also. But that sense was just reinforced tonight.)

(And I loved the line about how we need a President who believes in science, by the way!)

Every vote counts this year. Even yours, Larry.

I've seen this tagline too. I don't buy it, and quite frankly, deep down inside it scares me a bit too. I don't think it's possible - nor am I sure it's desireable - to have a country our size truly united. I think diversity and divergence is healthy.

A former co-worker once told me that minor parties shouldn't be allowed to usurp the dominance of our two major parties. He held up Japan as an example (he'd lived there). Apparently, they have a multitude of parties holding positions in their parlimentary body. His complaint was that there is so much bickering and differing opinions that virtually nothing gets enacted. I say this is exactly the way it should be - only the stuff that's important enough that (mostly) everybody can agree on it should be passed.

I don't want to see a purely Democratic (by which I mean "the Democratic Party") United States any more than I want to see a purely Republican one, or a purely Libertarian one, etc.

Diane, if I thought the race was going to be close in Georgia I would agree with you. However, which ever way my state goes, no matter by how few or how many votes, the entire block of delegates to the EC goes to the winning candidate. Georgia is solidly Bush.

Over the fourth I got a little eye-opener about politics around here. I moved down here from Tennessee two years ago and still hadn't quite figured out the politics yet. On the fourth there was a barbeque thrown at the county administrative building for Gwinnette County. It was advertised as an arts and crafts fair with entertainment and barbeque. What it actually was was a meet and greet for all the county politicians. The Republican Party had a tent at this shindig as did the Libertarians. There was no sign of the Democrats anywhere.

There are a few counties around here that will go strong Democrat in the national election but by and far this is a Republican state. I'll be surprised if Kerry wins 40% of the vote here.

dexev, I understand Badnarik is a crackpot. I also understand that he doesn't stand a chance of winning. If I do vote for him it will be because I have become thoroughly disgusted with both Bush and Kerry. I'm not very far from there now.

If I see the race getting tight in Georgia I'll probably not vote LP. If it's close, I'll probably find myself voting for Kerry. But I don't get the same warm, fuzzy feeling from him that Diane gets. I've been visiting his website about once a week trying to make sure I'm as objective as I can possibly be. His position papers keep being reworded every time I visit. It's almost like the campaign is trying to keep any specific quotes from being on record.

I'm not saying his positions are changing, just the words he's using to define his position. Bush's campaign may be doing the same thing but I haven't visited his site. I'm using what I know he's done to guide me on his side.

Diversity and divergence is healthy, yes. (As is discourse and determination.) Divisiveness and distrust, no. The former is more what 'united' means to me.

And maybe it's just my age, Larry, but I'm happy for a little shot of "warm and fuzzy" this year. Just what I needed to get the blood moving again and remind me that at one time, my cohort and I just *knew* that we could change the world for the better.

Hopeless optimist, didn't I tell you?