After Sandy Berger got caught using his pants as a briefcase, the Kerry campaign had to dredge the shallow pool of Democratic talent for a new foreign policy advisor. With absolutely no one with any genuine experience wiling to waste their future on the soon-to-be failed Presidential bid, Kerry settled on the bland choice of former President Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright. For her part, Albright has been campaigning for the Senator and applauding his commitment to seeking an Arab-Israeli settlement. In return, Kerry can be found praising the Clinton administration’s “direct diplomacy with North Korea.”
This raises the obvious question of whether Albright will be Kerry’s choice to take Colin Powell’s job? And as Hugh Hewitt asks, “Does America really want Madeline and her like-minded followers back in charge?”
I have to admit that I would. At least under the condition that Albright would have the integrity to be consistent and keep her word. After all, back in 1999 she told Fox News:
“[T]he statute of limitations on war crimes does not run out, and the day of reckoning will come.”
Would she truly be willing to bring that “day of reckoning” on those who committed war crimes? What about on the man who said:
There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.
Somehow I don’t think she really meant what she said. Albright lives in a world of moral relativism where it would be considered absurd to expect a junior Senator from Massachusetts to be held to the same standards as a Bosnian soldier. But if I believed she had the courage to see that justice was done, if I thought she possessed the nerve to do what is right, and if I could trust that she would bring the “day of reckoning” on war criminals in our midst, then Madeline Albright could bring me to the unimaginable. She would give me a reason to vote for John Kerry.
[Note: Yes I realize that I flog this dead horse hard and often. But every now and then it dawns on me, as if for the first time, that the Democrats have nominated for President a man who freely admitted to committing war crimes.
I used to be a Democrat. Many of my family are still Democrats. Some good, honest, terribly misguided people I respect remain Democrats. And for the Party leadership to show such disrespect to them and to the entire country by nominating Kerry makes me despise the entire political process.]
Joe, I'll be curious to see how you take it to the "next level" after Kerry is elected. ;)
jesus is pro-assalt weapons. vote bush 2004!
Larry, you are living in some sort of bizzaro world if you think Kerry is going to get elected. The only way that happens is if some dramatic, unforseen event occurs between now and Nov. 2. Like actual videotape of Bush snorting cocaine in the Oval Office. Bush has many weaknesses, and a more competent campaigner/politician could beat him, but Kerry is the worst candidate ever. He makes Dukakis look like the first JFK in terms of charisma.
and if kerry wins that will prove just how much the country hates bush.
vote for assalt weapons. make the police work for their money. vote bush.
"Vote Kerry So He Nominates Albright As Secretary of State So She Gets Kerry Prosecuted And Jailed For War Crimes!"
Now that's the ultimate in "strategic voting".
Vote for assault weapons.
Make the criminals work for their money.
Leave No Child Behind to Misspell "Assault". Vote Bush.
Mike writes
"Larry, you are living in some sort of bizzaro world if you think Kerry is going to get elected."
We're ALL living in some sort of bizarro world. How do you think Bush got elected in the first place?
"The only way that happens is if some dramatic, unforseen event occurs between now and Nov. 2. Like actual videotape of Bush snorting cocaine in the Oval Office."
I've already digitally created videos of Bush snorting cocaine so there is no way anyone will ever be able to prove such videos were not forged.
"Kerry is the worst candidate ever. He makes Dukakis look like the first JFK in terms of charisma."
I'm glad to see you're focused on the important issues, Mike.
Leave No Child Behind to Misspell "Assault".
Kevin, you do crack me up occasionally!
Yeah. I liked that one myself.
Ordinarily, I don't trouble myself with correcting spelling. But if the guy feels strongly about something, at least spell it right. I don't think I've ever said "abourshun" or "defosit".
At least Kerry had the courage to go to Vietnam and commit war crimes!
(I don't agree with that, but I felt someone should say it.)
LOL!
Vote for Kerry and maybe Al Gore will become our Secretary of Defense.
And Hillary Clinton will become Secretary of the Anterior
"Leave No Child Behind to Misspell "Assault". Vote Bush."
Oh, yeah. Bush is really a poster boy for correct English. He is the nukular edjewkayshion president.
kevin,
i'm not a guy, nice assumption though. ask bush how spell 'assault'
may personal favorite bushism:
don't misunderestimate my strategery!
It just astounds me to the point of despair that anyone would seriously entertain rewarding Bush with a second term after the series of boondoggles and flat out incompetence he's demonstrated in his first four years.
As I've said many times, I've only voted for a Democrat once in my life. I've been a loyal Republican and Texan since the age of majority.
But ... geez guys come on ... Bush has been a big disappointment, and the only thing more distressing to me than his perfomance is that large numbers of people actually support him. My question is simple: Why? How? WTF is going through your minds?
They can't all be evangelical Christians and even if many were I already know a number of evangelicals who despise Bush more than most flaming liberals I know.
So, are there really that many people suffering from delusion? Are there really that many people who lack the necessary intelligence or simply refuse to stay infomred? Do millions of Americans have terminal brain tumors that affect their judgement? Is it misplaced patriotism? Misplaced nationalism? Is it something more sinister, some kind of secret club-like Satanism-to which I'm not and can never be privy? Or have that many people really been conned?
All politicians are liars of course, but Bush takes the prize on lying to whole new levels. He's like a Nobel Laureate in deception.
Wake-up: It doesn't matter if you think the President shares your mythology or your values; he doesn't by the way, unless you happen to be an ultra conservative corrupt mega-millionaire.
But what matters is perfomance; He has taken this nation from a budget surplus to the biggest deficits in the blink of an eye. He has let bin Laden off the hook while pursuing phantoms in Iraq-which it turns out do not even exist (Cough-200 billion-cough). He has turned his back on the middle class and on education. And his primary campaign weapon is to impugn the character of any opponent while warily refusing to comment on his own drug use, TANG record, business failures, political record, and infidelity. It is simply beyond my power to comprehend how anyone could support this guy on anything let alone character.
Now, if he was effective I would happily support him even with a sordid past and low IQ; but he's not effective. If Iraq had been an honest mistake in an otherwise brilliant WH I'd be willing to take that into considertaion; but Iraq is only one in a series of errors. If the sellout to the Drug Comapnies was just one rare exception of wokring against the interests of the public I could be persuaded to dismiss; but it's simply one of many corporate sellouts. If the tax cuts were the only screw-up in the fiscal policy I'd be willing to ignore that; but they're only one fiscal time bomb this President started ticking.
So please; someone, explain to me why-outisde of the fact that both you and the President share the same mythology-explain to me why you think George Bush is 'good for America'?
Mmmm. Yeah, maybe Bush is stupid. Stupid enough to get elected Governor of Texas twice, unseating a popular incumbent. Then winning the Presidency, and who will win re-election handily. Undergraduate from Yale, MBA from Harvard. But one who occasionally misspeaks under the glare of the kleiglights during heated press conferences.
Tommy the Cat, sitting presumably in an air conditioned home with all day to hack out a four-sentence message, misspells assault two times. But is so flaky and insecure, can't even take a joke, turns around and attacks somebody else for making quite dissimilar mistakes. Whassup with the Left? No sense of humor anymore?
"and if kerry wins that will prove just how much the country hates bush. "
BTW, thank's for admitting that your man is an empty suit. Much of the country is saying, well, maybe W doesn't need another term, but why should I vote for Kerry? No reason, says you--Kerry is the protest candidate in this race.
New campaign slogan: 'I'm not Bush!!' We'll see how it plays. . .
What would cause me to vote for John Kerry? That's a tough one. I can't imagine...wait...I would vote for John Kerry if somehow he was irreversibly transformed by a mysterious force into Ronald Reagan.
"I'm glad to see you're focused on the important issues, Mike."
I didn't say charisma was the most important issue - I'm just pointing out the political realities. Kerry can't run on his record in the Senate, because he has no significant accomplishments to his name, and his voting record is well to the left of center. He's tried to run based upon his service in Vietnam, but a) that is complicated by his postwar activities (regardless of all the claims and counterclaims, it's just a political fact that Vietnam was divisive for the Boomers, and Kerry is trying to be on both sides of a divisive issue. Big surprise it's not working for him.) and b) happened 30 years ago and bears little relevance to his ability to be President. Now, Clinton didn't have that much of a record to run on, either, but he had lots of charisma and political saavy (not to say genius). Kerry has a deficit in both departments. Basically he has a rich wife and is convinced he should be president, and won the Iowa primary. If 30% of the country weren't willing to vote for a sock puppet over Bush, Kerry would be flirting with Nader territory.
"I've been a loyal Republican and Texan since the age of majority.
But ... geez guys come on ... Bush has been a big disappointment, and the only thing more distressing to me than his perfomance is that large numbers of people actually support him. My question is simple: Why? How? WTF is going through your minds?"
Well, DS, I'm not going to pretend that it's worth the effort to try to explain it to you. The best I can do is suggest you read articles about Bush on National Review Online or the Weekly Standard. They tend to describe how conservatives feel about him, both positive and negative. If you can't at least grasp intellectually why people support him based upon those arguments, then you'll never understand.
My question to you is, why have you been a loyal Republican, and what has Bush done that so grossly violates those principles? And why do you think Kerry would violate them less?
Mike S,
Sorry didn't see your question. In my eyes, Bush has scored poorly in several key areas:
1. National Security-Bush attacked Iarq after 9-11. It turns out this was a mighty stupid move. That mistake of and by itself is almost enough to warrant being fired. Letting Osama off the hook also sticks in my craw.
2. Fiscal Policy-Bush has driven the debt level up so high that treasury Default is a real possibility under certain scenarios. he has cut taxes while rasing spending. That's not a tax cut, it's a loan. And if present trends continue that loan will be in default within ten years.
3. Artifical Pricing-Bush has eliminated competition in many areas. From prescritpion drugs to army contracts, i.e. the free market principles of old style Republicans has been trashed with price fixing and no bid contracts.
4. As a former educator, I see Bush's education policies in Texas as wanting. They weren't trerrible imo, just mediocre, ineffective. In terms of national policy, I'm unaware of any serious effort to raise education standards; espescially in science and math in which third world countries like Argentina or Bangledash routinely kick our asses. In fact, the climate appears poised to go the other way. Let us never forget, it was NOT American scientists who created Apollo or made the A-bomb. It was scientists from other countries who came to America, and had the chips fallen another way, those weapons would have rained down on American cities. Don't even sell science short.
5. Secrecy-secrecy is undemocratic. It spawns divisivness and creates a climate of fear.conspicircies theories. It promotes cronyism, it provides for lack of accountability. It ultimately shortchanges the public. I detested Clinton for his secrecy on matters which he found embaressing, but those were mostly peronal sex matters. Bush is, imo, far worse as his secrecy involves issues of the highest national priority and his own competence to lead on those issues.
6. Basically Incompetence-the President appears unable, or unwilling. to learn the intricacies of real world issues.
In times of peace and prosperity, incompetence just waste people's money and time. In times of warfare, such performance can easily cost lives and blood. In times of extreme national challenge, incompetence can cause the fall of a nation. Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned...
We simply cannot afford incompetence right now. This isn't the go-go 90's where the most pressing foriegn threat is gangs of paparazzi hassling celebreties.
I've always found it amazing how Dubya can be the village idiot too stupid to remember his own potty training and at the same time be The Evil Genius Mastermind Behind The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM)...
I haven't seen DS since his homilies about soaring gas prices, which have since fallen by 20 percent.
I'm voting for Bush, and I'm voting against Kerry. You still haven't answered a very good question posed by Mike S., above: if you are true to Republican principles, why vote for Kerry? May as well pull the lever for the Constitution Party, but don't pretend that the biggest liberal in the Senate is going to take you to the promised land. That's just crazy.
I'm not concerned about deficits---I've said so before. I am concerned about Islamic extremism, and know that George Bush is the only guy in the world with a plan on the table. Even the Russians are aboard now. Further, I believe that Osama bin Laden is dead, and has been since the Tora Bora bombings. If he's not dead, he's doing the best impression of a dead man walking since, well, the John Kerry campaign. As to your Nero analogy, it's hard not to see Bill Clinton in your illustration far more than the current president. The "intricacies" of new world issues aren't as intricate as you would have them to be: the Islamics are either at your feet, or at your throat. Been true since the 9th century. You can deal with them over there, or over here. I, and most Americans, would prefer they be dealt with where THEY live and go to school and work, rather than where my family does. That's what this election is about--education and prescription drugs for seniors and firehouses in Buffalo are all issues that were fine and dandy in the world of September 10, 2001. No more. This election will be decided by how much the candidates believe the world has changed, and what they will do.
"Dubya can be the village idiot too stupid to remember his own potty training and at the same time be The Evil Genius Mastermind Behind The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM)..."
I believe common wisdom is that Dubya is, at best, an actor possessed of very modest skills who is trained by more astute politicians and strategists, e.g., Karl Rove, in an environment of excessive loyalty.
Why do you think the Repubs are so hot on Arnold? All Arnold has to do is soften that accent a bit, acquire a bit of tang, and he's solid gold to the Repubs.
All Arnold has to do is...acquire a bit of tang and he's solid gold to the Repubs.
Do you think Arnold could find some Tang at Edwards AFB (alternate Space Shuttle landing spot in CA) or would he have to fly out to Kennedy SFC?
Heheheh. Of course, I meant "twang," not "tang."
Kevin W:
It's rather like taking a step back to take two steps forward. By re-electing Bush, you encourage the GOP to continue running candidates like him. If Bush loses his re-election bid, the GOP must revisit its priorities to try to regain voters.
By re-electing Bush, you encourage the GOP to continue running candidates like him. If Bush loses his re-election bid, the GOP must revisit its priorities to try to regain voters.
Is Bush the best possible choice for President in the country? Of course not. Is he the best possible choice between the men who are running? Absolutely. The GOP's goal is to win elections, not to regain voters. Gaining voters by turning control of government over to the Democrats does more damage than anything W could do.
Also, I should clarify that the reason I claim that Clinton degraded the office more than Nixon is because Tricky Dick had the decency to resign. Nothing Clinton could do would cause him to have such compunction. He is truly a low class character.
(I say that as someone who doesn't think he was as bad an executive as some people would like to portray him. He was no Reagan but he was no Carter either.)
Sorry, Joe, but there are plenty of reasons why even conservatives aren't real happy with Bush. When the bulk of his platform appears to be "but Kerry would be even worse," it seems that even his campaign recognizes this.
"Tricky Dick had the decency to resign"
Dick would have been frog-marched out of the Office if he hadn't resigned. Not so with Big Bill.
Very little about Dick's resignation was "decent."
The Republican's attempts to puff up Tricky Dick lately are interesting. I'm not sure where it's going, unless it's all part of a big plan to further mythologize the already quite mythical tale of Arnold's "awakening."
Let me be one of the few on the Right who will acknowledge that the Nixon Administration was a disaster to our party and to our country. He was deceitful, conniving, and as liberal a president we have ever had, yet Republicans are willing to give him a pass because he had an (R) after his name.
I'm not so generous. Wage and Price Controls, the disastrous pullout from Vietnam, then not holding the VC to the agreement, horrible fiscal policy, high taxes--godalmighty, if you're a conservative, what's to like?
What's more, I'm also going to give Clinton credit where it's due--welfare reform, the liberalization of global trade, balanced budgets: call them the fruits of a GOP Congress, if you like, but these things never happened with a Republican in the White House.
But Nixon and Clinton were of similar stripe in one key respect--neither had political ideals that were greater than themselves. Both believed that they should be president, and everything else was negotiable. As a result, both left their political parties in an absolute shambles.
Nixon and Clinton weren't the worst presidents America ever had. But they were the worst men to be president.
Kevin, first you cracked me up. Now you're interestingly provocative. Did you switch salad dressing brands or something? ;)
I don't agree with yr bottom line, but I think the argument that "neither had political ideals that were greater than themselves [and] both believed that they should be president, and everything else was negotiable" is hard to dispute. On the other hand, it's a characterization that could probably be applied to quite a few other Number Ones in our history. And I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad trait for a leader in a democracy such as ours.
"Frog-marched"? Thanks, Larry; that's a new one for me.
The phrase was most recently famously used by Joe Wilson (who, interestingly enough, was recently alleged on this blog to be my alter ego) who suggested that Rove be frog-marched out of the White House for his role in the Plame affair.
Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang:
FROG-MARCH, verb
Especially ‘police.’ to carry (a resisting person) face downward by the arms and legs; (hence now solely) to propel (a resisting person) forward, as by seizing his collar and the seat of his trousers or by pinioning his arms behind his back.
FROG-MARCH, verb
Especially ‘police.’ to carry (a resisting person) face downward by the arms and legs; (hence now solely) to propel (a resisting person) forward, as by seizing his collar and the seat of his trousers or by pinioning his arms behind his back.
Hmmm...I was thinking that "frog-marching" was something the French did when they retreated in surrender.
Oh my, Joe. That was not kind.
Larry, it seems that noun-verb combinations used as verbs are all the rage in current slang; my slang dictionary features the charming "pimpsmack", which needs no explanation.
Gee, Larry, I don't know. And now I'm responding to your posts.
Maybe this storm is making me realize the limits of my own mortality. It's supposed to arrive at my driveway in 28 hours.
DS -
"In times of peace and prosperity, incompetence just waste people's money and time. In times of warfare, such performance can easily cost lives and blood. In times of extreme national challenge, incompetence can cause the fall of a nation. Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned...
We simply cannot afford incompetence right now. This isn't the go-go 90's where the most pressing foriegn threat is gangs of paparazzi hassling celebreties."
Your 6 points had varying degrees of reasonableness, in my opinion, but they certainly didn't add up to a situation where you could not conceive of someone voting for Bush. But my original question appears even more relevant given the above quote. I can understand criticizing Bush for various actions taken in the war on terror. But I've yet to see any evidence that Kerry would do anything productive at all in fighting terror - his track record says he would be either wishy-washy, or dovish, both of which would only embolden our enemies.
Would you rather have an error of commission, or ommission? In the latter, you end up with bombs going off in Manhattan and D.C. In the former, they're going off in Baghdad. (And I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that Iraq is a mistake already - if, in three years, the situation is no different than it is now, I'll be more open to the argument. But if in three years, Iraq has a nascent functioning representative government, only low-level conflict with the Baathists and Islamists, and our troop presence is significantly reduced, it's hard to see how that could be construed as a failure. Sure, you can be skeptical about how it will play out, but you can't claim it's a disaster already.)
Mike S.:
Perhaps you have forgotten that Kerry was pivotal in getting Iran-Contra investigated. You remember Iran-Contra, don't you? That little faux pas where the US was selling weapons to a known state sponsor of terrorism?
There's also the BCCI affair in which Kerry helped take down a terrorist-connected bank with ties to the Democratic Party (i.e., his own party).
As my co-blogger Kevin put it, Kerry was fighting terrorism since before it was cool. And he was hitting them where it hurts -- in their funding.
Anyone who claims that Kerry's record indicates he would be soft on terror is simply ignorant of Kerry's record.
Read What's Right With Kerry.
'Tommy the Cat, sitting presumably in an air conditioned home with all day to hack out a four-sentence message, misspells assault two times. But is so flaky and insecure, can't even take a joke, turns around and attacks somebody else for making quite dissimilar mistakes. Whassup with the Left? No sense of humor anymore?'
you don't know me kevin, if you want to know my sense of humor then watched 'saved!" that will explain more to you about me than 10mb worth of text. i can take a joke, don't judge my spelling when you can't dare to criticise our un-elect chief. he has a learning disability, so do i. it takes one to know one. but, i'm not president of the united states.
ds,
don't try to reason with these people. they somehow seem to sleep better with a swaggering drunked christian texan in the white house. they seem to actually beleive the propaganda that we are safer now than before. kerry has nothing to do with us being safer or not. he will just be better for the people of this country, not the corporations. but, you have to had it to the repubs. they have run a hell of a pr campaign. they have the media and churches in the their pockets. and georgie is so cute!
and kevin, i am not posting all day as you say, check the times of my posts. i have a life.
don't misunderestimate me
Sory Tomy,
I didnt men that as an assalt against you're sencibilitez. Just triing too mak lite of you're post. No ned to get snuuty.
"Why do you think the Repubs are so hot on Arnold? All Arnold has to do is soften that accent a bit, acquire a bit of tang, and he's solid gold to the Repubs."
To be president, Arnold must be born again....as a U.S. citizen.
K.D.
That, or they could amend the constitution...tgirsch,
You're right. I hope that doesn't happen.
To get back to what the post is actually about rather than the insults and personal attacks the comments have been about, I would suggest one problem with the proposal. If you were voting for Kerry on the grounds that he'd get jailed for war crimes, it's then in effect a vote for Edwards, which you should only do if you prefer Edwards to Bush. I don't think you do, Joe, do you?
Jeremy,
You're thinking too small. Just before Kerry's inauguration, Congress will pass and Bush will sign an omnibus tort reform bill, making it retroactively criminal to file harrassing lawsuits.
Kerry goes to jail, Edwards goes to jail, and Hastert becomes president.
i think bush will harm the republican party if reelected. there are alot of scandals bubbling up-plame, enron, intelligence distortions. its going to be watergate after watergate.
and i am disturbed by these connections between bush and the antichrist allegations i have seen on some websites. they are disturbing and compelling. they can't all be coincidence.
darn right bush is the antichrist. he will lead christians like sheep to the slaughter.
Tommythecat,
"darn right bush is the antichrist. he will lead christians like sheep to the slaughter."
Could you please not say anything if you have nothing nice to say about the man himself? Criticize his policies, sure, but don't criticize him. That itself is quite a turnoff from having much regard for your opinion.
And for the record, I'm a Christian. As such, I respect Bush because he is the leader of my country and we are urged by St. Paul to submit to and respect authority. I disagree with some of the things he's said and done and I ain't afraid to call him on it. I've refrained thus far from saying a demeaning word about Mr. Kerry since the presidential campaign began in earnest.
Maybe you don't care much for what I say at all in this post, but your comments say a lot about your own conduct.
Sorry, I couldn't resist posting this quote from Don Imus, after he interviewed John Kerry on his show:
""I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox," Mr. Imus said. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about.""
Mickey Kaus makes similar comments.
The false doctrine of pre-emption and the utter disregard for ordinary people will ultimately take a toll upon Bush, elected or not.
VOTE FOR TRUTH, VOTE FOR KERRY/EDWARDS