I wouldn't trust Kerry any farther than you can kick him on Iraq. This is just one more flip-flop of the moment for political gain. The man is basically anti-war to the core and always has been. Add in that his supporters, the ones that are trying to get him elected, want us out of Iraq as soon as possible.

I'm definitely still worried.

Yeah, I'm worried too. I believe if Kerry takes over, he will be indecisive and far too eager to negotioate at some point with people who will see him as a weak American leader afraid to fight. We would probably have all our troops home before the end of his term, leaving a mess behind in Iraq and more instability in the region. The will to fight and win is missing in his make-up.

Actually, D, I'm only "concerned" at this point.

Ara Rubyan and I have already discussed this. My concern is that Kerry will allow the UN to take over, and they'll screw everything up, as usual. Ara, on the other hand, thinks that Kerry will continue a vigorous anti-terror campaign.

Actually, Ara thinks Kerry will do better than Bush on this. %-)

If you've read carefully, the past month Kerry (or his office) has been positioning himself a little bit more towards the Dem hawks. Basically, he's moving towards Lieberman's position back in February.

My current calculation: Kerry knows he has to move to the center even to get elected, and (assuming he wins) he may well face a Republican majority in the House and Senate after the election.

In other words, he might lose some of the fringe, but he'll be able to pick up more than that in the center.

And don't forget, he supported Clinton's war. Heh.

On the other hand, I feel a bit better about Bush's chances than Dean does, so maybe I'm wrong twice. :)

"But they are more hawkish as a rule."

Yep, just like they were with the Balkans...er, umm....

Face it: If it were a Democratic President, the Republicans would be using the same exact tactics the Democrats are using now, because the Democrats are using almost exactly the same tactics the Republicans used when Clinton was President.

The only exception is that the Republicans would be bitching about NATO or the UN (whichever one the Pres brought on board), and how we're unnecessarily beholden to these international groups and how everything's screwed-up as a result. And I guarantee the Republicans would be calling Iraq an optional and unnecessary war, and would be going on about "exit strategies" if a Democrat had launched it and American troops were dying.

It's like saying there's a difference between Coke and Pepsi. The only difference is in the marketing. But, it's an election year, so everyone's willing to suspend reality for the next few months, I guess.

If Kerry's elected the troops aren't going anywhere. Any promise of his to withdrawal troops (though I doubt he'll promise that during his campaign) will be as empty as Bush's promise to withdrawal American troops from the Balkans (we were only supposed to be there for a year to begin with, remember?)

Hardly anything major changes between Presidencies that isn't forced by external pressures independent of the government. I've served under 3 Presidencies now, and there's been no earth-shaking differences between the three, though from what older people I've served with say, there's a massive difference between the Reagan-era and the rest that have followed him.

I think the consequences of a Kerry presidency would be very serious. Here's a quote from NewsMax:
***
In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction. "Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."
**
..and also, Kerry is quoted as saying:

"If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here."

Dean, this 'I'm not worried' position of yours requires you to believe that Kerry will stick with a position over a long period of time.

How can you possibly trust Kerry to do that?

Maybe it makes a difference where one lives as to what their perspective is. Here in Oklahoma, the bile directed at "Hanoi-Jane-Fonda-John-Kerry" (yes, they pretty much do say it all in one breath) is pretty strong. If I believed these folks, I'd be ready to try Kerry for treason.

Yes, but it's hardly hyperbole to say that Kerry can't be trusted to pick one position and stick to it. That's the story of his life, purely factual.

Yep, just like they were with the Balkans...er, umm....

Yes, exactly Stryker. I know you're being sarcastic, but actually, that is correct. Most of the Republicans DID support Clinton on the Balkans, and most did NOT shriek that he was a "liar" who led us into war "under false pretenses" when it turned out that there were no mass graves there after all.

They criticized him on his handling of it, but they did not make their central issue the notion that he lied to us about the Balkans and led us into an unnecessary war. A few Republicans made that their criticism, but most did not.

They accused Clinton of being unfocused and feckless, they didn't shriek that he was a liar who intentionally led us into a pointless conflict.

Face it: If it were a Democratic President, the Republicans would be using the same exact tactics the Democrats are using now, because the Democrats are using almost exactly the same tactics the Republicans used when Clinton was President.

See above. Your memory's too fuzzy. Republican tactics may have been mean at times under Clinton, but they decidedly did not make the main thrust of their attack that Clinton "lied" to get us into a war in the Balkans for nefarious purposes. They said he was weak on missile defense, was selling us out to the UN, was overworking the military, and stuff like that. When they called him a liar and a crook, that was on domestic issues.

Republicans tend to be more hawkish on defense issues, and that difference does show here.

TINY BIT LEFT OF CENTER?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Kerry has voted more left wing than Kennedy.

He'll try to bring in the UN and will end up, as in Somalia, having troops slaughtered because the chain of command was so fouled up they couldn't get equipment they needed.

Gesh

"The chain of command was so fouled up they couldn't get equipment they needed."

*cough* Iraq *cough*

(pounds head slowly against wall. over and over and over again...)

Adam, I have a news flash for you: if the US armed forces did have all the equipment they needed, it would be the first freaking time in history that happened.

I wish, I really do wish, that people would study up a bit on how the military works. There's a reason that terms like SNAFU, or FUBAR are common in the army, navy, etc.

In fact, if you go over to StrategyPage.com, to the humor section, you'll find Murphy's Laws of Combat. Most of them are pretty funny at first glance, but not after you think about it. They are sayings you'll find in almost any army on this planet, because they're wry sayings developed by the troops over the years.

One good example is a line from an old Bill Mauldin cartoon, to the effect that tanks are moving foxholes that attract attention.

Some others are:
-Always keep in mind that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
-If your attack is going well, it's an ambush.
-All five second grenade fuses are three seconds.
-The enemy diversion you're ignoring is the main attack.
-No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.
-Friendly fire isn't.
-The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
-Perfect plans aren't.

But there's one that I especially wanted to point out:
-If you are short of everything except enemy, you're in combat.

So why not try to understand the unpredictable, chaotic nature of warfare, instead of going for the cheap shot?

Casey, don't forget Eisenhower's famous dictum: No battle plan ever survived contact with the enemy.

Any hack can tear apart someone else's actions in hindsight. It takes a real thinker to give suggestions in advance, and constructive criticism in hindsight. "Look at how you screwed up!" is a child's game.

Dean,

Sleep well at night, but thats because President Bush is going to win - enlistments and re-enlistments are up, even in the National Guard; this is an actual, concrete indication of how people are feeling out there. Not a public opinion poll, but people putting their asses on the line knowing precisely what they are getting into - really no surprise to me: if Uncle Sam would take 39 year old ex-sailors, I'd be back in uniform in a second. Don't want to fight, sure in hell don't want to die - but the war is vital, and this is known.

If Kerry is attempting to morph to the right on the war, its because his internal polling shows him that this is the only possible place to be on November 2nd. But it is just a morph - and putting the brightest face on it, lets say that a putative President Kerry really does decide to stay the course in Iraq...he'd be sabotaged by his own people because out of necessity he'd have to pluck his Administration staffers out of the Democratic Party - ergo, there's at least a 50% chance that any particular staffer is viscerally anti-war. When the team isn't on the same page, gigantic mistakes get made, frequently...wars are traditionally lost by the side that makes the most mistakes.

Still - no worries; President Bush by a landslide this November.

Actually, I'd vote for Kerrey just to have a check on Congressional exhuberance. Iraq and the economy don't really figure too much into my voting rationale, as nothing sginificant would change in those areas anyway, but having 2/3 of the government controlled by the same Party does figure into it.

Dean: I think the Republicans would be just as bad as the Democrats are if the situation were reversed. This is a Presidential election year, which is when everyone goes off the deep end and fear and paranoia about The Other Guy goes ballistic. Besides, the Republicans are hawkish on defense when it's their guy doing the defending. I also seem to remember them saying they were for smaller government and fiscal responsibility before they came into power. That BS didn't survive contact with reality, and my guess is that their hawkishness waxes and wanes with whomever's occupying the Oval Office, which is as it should be. If they're the opposition party, than it makes sense for them to oppose, to the best of their ability, whatever the other guys are doing. There's not any principle in that, or anything inherantly Republican. It's just the politics of advantage and maneuver.

Well, like I said, Stryker, history shows that the Republicans were far more supportive of Clinton's Balkan endeavors than you're crediting them with. It was on domestic matters that they were so ferocious with Clinton. On military matters the consistent criticism was that he wasn't spending enough or being aggressive enough, not the other way around.

I'd also point out, in Republicans' defense, that to get much of the war spending they've wanted, they've wound up compromising on domestic spending. The priority has become the war, not the domestic agenda.

That said, I would agree with you that history tends to show that having one party control the congress and another the White House tends to be a recipe for fiscal restraint. TENDS TO BE. It didn't work out all that well under Nixon. But it did under Clinton, under Reagan and, as I recall, under Truman and Eisenhower. You have a fine point there.

As long as we're engaging in hypotheticals, allow me mine:

If a Democrat were POTUS today, the same things would NOT be happening. Keep in mind, he'd be facing a hostile Congress from the opposite party which would probably be threating impeachment on a weekly basis.

You're a very silly man, Ara Rubyan.

Did we threaten impeachment over Hillarycare? No. Did we threaten impeachment over the assault weapons ban? No. Did we threaten impeachment over tax increases? No.

Did we object to all of the above, goddamn strenuously, and absolutely hate them, and do our level best to kill them all in Congress, some successfully, some not? Yes.

The historical record of the Clinton years proves that the Republicans can tell the difference between "something we are politically opposed to" and "something that is legitimate grounds for impeachment". If we couldn't tell the difference, the first attempted impeachment hearings would have been in 1993-1994. They weren't. Q.E. friggin' D.

OTOH, just the past couple of years have proven that the Democrats can't tell the damn difference.

Casey:

Just to be clear, it was Poker Player/Jim who brought up the issue of underequipped troops.

One thing missing in your Balkan example, was that it had the legal/political cover of NATO. Another was that Slobodan was a mass murderer, much in the Saddam mode, and had to be stopped, but I no not recall any concerted effort to paint him as a direct threat to the US. The Balkans and Somalia were primarily painted as humanitarian necessities. And yes, the real human tragedy in Rwanda illustrated the inconsistency with that argument.

The poinit being, that neither of those engagements were predicated on a transparant sham of self defense as their primary rationale, nor did they contemplate the astronomical committment of time, troops and treasure that we knew going in that Iraq requires. (And go ahead and ring the "but 9/11 changed everything" bell, and listen to the echo of the callouse manipulation of that gut reaction as a propaganda tool.)

Essentially, it was understood that Clinton's military record, such as it was, was not a winning issue. Bush's record was something both sides think is a principle campaign issue, if not THE issue. And both sides think they can win on this record.

For all your carping and hand wringing about the war being something that should be above politics, you ignore the strident fact that it is a partisan issue precisely because the parties decided to engage each other about it. Our self-styled "War-President," is campaigning against a man who never lets enayone forget he is a "War-Hero."

What on earth did you excpect. Not once did I hear an administration official or GOP hack insist that the war should be above politics, unless it worked to their guy's advantage. POTUS embraced the idea, said to Tim Russert, "I look forward to the debate," about his war policies. Dean, I can't stand it when you are full of it, and on this "Dem's have become too mean spirited" meme you return to again and again, you have lost all perspective. War and politics are nasty businesses for tough guys, quit whining.

Mark Adams,

Bullshit - the GOP stayed away from politicising the war until long after the Democrats started politicising it...you know, things like certain NY Senators holding up newspaper articles in the Senate asking what President Bush knew before 9/11...implying that he might have known, and let it happen for political reasons.

This is, however, a Republican war, now; the fate of the GOP is bound up with the fate of this war nearly as much as the GOP was bound up with the Civil War. We didn't want it this way - we wanted this to come about, but when the other side started trying to score political points with battlefield events, we had to respond.

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter et al were blaming Clinton for 9/11 almost from day one. These people represent the thinking of at least 50% of all Republicans. That tells me that it might not be quite accurate to blame Democrats alone for politicizing matters.

It only counts as 'politicizing' if the guy wasn't genuinely to blame.

Reference ending conclusion of original post:
In other words, it looks like our choice in November is shaping into someone who is a tiny notch to the right of center and someone who is a tiny notch left of center.

As it ever was ...

Chuckg:
"The historical record of the Clinton years proves that the Republicans can tell the difference between ‘something we are politically opposed to’ and ‘something that is legitimate grounds for impeachment’. If we couldn't tell the difference, the first attempted impeachment hearings would have been in 1993-1994."

Sure glad they held their fire for something as “legitimate” as lying about an extramarital affair.

Sure glad they held their fire for something as “legitimate” as lying about an extramarital affair.

Yeah. It's not like he was a former lawyer turned President, committing perjury during a court proceding. That would have been a crime. A crime many others have served time for...

I largely quit giving much of a damn about the outcome of the next election when I founf out that both Bush and Kerry are Skull and Bones members.

Adam: I missed the post immediately prior to yours. I'll still stand by my post in the general sense: the troops will always be missing something. That's normal.

Now, as for PP/Jim's example, IIRC (and I'm going on stuff I read a while ago) the local force asked for, and was denied armor. I honestly can't remember if this exchange was in terms of that specific mission and day, or the Somali mission overall. Can anyone clear that part up?

Then again, I've read that the snatch mission wasn't well-designed, considering the circumstances. That didn't help, either.

But I'm not going to snipe at Clinton about normal SNAFUs, either.

As for some of the other stuff: wow, we have a lot of squirrely theories popping up! Heh.

Stryker: I know there's a lot of conservatives who are not at all happy with Bush's recent spending habits (while not a conservative, neither am I), so I would take issue with that part of your position. On the other hand, I've seen more and more references to "financial liberals" and "financial conservatives" of each party (e.g. "a financially conservative Democrat") so I think we're seeing a shift here.

It's about time we shifted some of the definitions anyway; we've been stuck in the sixties for a generation now, and I'm tired of it! :)

Dean: please note that, for all the posturing, mainstream Democrats did generally support Cold War military budget levels, else we would not have won. On the other hand, that was over 15 years ago, so both sides have had plenty of time to change positions on a lot of things.

Mark Adams: want to pick a nit: the Bosnia affair was NATO-approved after the fact. Willy really "went unilateral" on us there. :) Actually, that was part of the year 2000 Democratic platform; I recall something called "forward engagement." Heh. But I doubt I'll ever change your mind, since you have fixated on certain ideas about the Bush administration that I'll never shake loose.

It's sad that you now speak in approving tones about some of the vicious rhetoric we now see. Yes, past campaigns have been vicious as well. Apparently that -to some people- justifies this year's crap. (well that, and the "they started it" defense) But then, just to mention a few other old US traditions, we used to treat black people as property, women didn't have the vote, and homosexuals had forced lobotomies. By your logic -since those are all old traditions- we should revel in such beliefs or actions today.

And I think I see a tiny bit of inconsistency here: on one hand, you speak of a "transparent sham" from Republicans, while "[nasty Democratic Party] politics" seem to meet your approval. At least, I can't see you approving the famous "Republican Attack Machine," so I must conclude you are speaking of the Democrats. Either that, or your earlier complaints about partisian attitudes aren't relevant now?

Let's both meet in the middle, ok?

Joel: I would just love to see the numbers to support that those writers "support at least 50% of all Republicans." :)

shep: admit it, Rose nailed you on that one. The impeachment was based on the perjury charge, not his sleazebag cheating. C'mon, admit it; you're busted! Heh.

Ok, did I piss off everyone?

Oh, yes, I'm pissed. Pissed, I say! Oh, wiley internet person, thy name is Wormwood!

About the Clinton impeachment fiasco: Of all the things to use to impeach the President, that had to have been the weakest thing the Republicans could've come up with. I don't know who dreamed that whole thing up. Presidents and politicians break the law all the time, or do shady things whose legality is questionable, but law and truth don't matter in politics, only perception. And the perception among most people is that the Republicans, who had been hounding Clinton for his entire term, finally nailed him on something minor --a blowjob, and the ensuing sinister cover-up, of all things. I think all we needed to complete the farce was an Oliver Stone movie about the whole thing, with Kevin Costner playing determined investigator Ken Starr.

And then Clinton goes and lobs some missiles Saddam's way to divert attention from BJ-gate. The whole thing was a perfect expression of our current political culture.

Before I begin let me first state that, although I was at one time guilty of being a registered Republican, I have since confessed my sins and accepted absolution. I am also not a Bush-Is-Great partisan.

I keep reading posts from Democrats assuring me that they are not part of the Loony fringe of their party. Many of these posts go out of their way to explain that Republicans would and have conducted the same scorched earth campaign when given the opportunity or seen the need. I beg to differ – strongly. It is not that I am acting in defense of Republicans – rather that I refuse to allow the Democrats to escape responsibility for their abysmal behaviors.

By and large the Republicans have reacted in horror to the proclamations and behaviors of the Right-wing equivalents to ELF, PETA, Soros, Michael Moore, and ANSWER, et al. I have never heard the Republican party accept the views or endorsements of The Minute Men, Posse Comitatus, KKK, or the John Birch Society. And yet, the Byrds, Kerrys, Deans and Daschles (ably led by The Hero of the Bridge at Chappaquiddick) actively seek endorsements from their radical fringe – reaching out to embrace the views and excusing the behaviors. One is left to conclude that there is no radical fringe for the Democrats – Franken, Garofalo, and Michael Moore represent, in fact, the mainstream of the party.

But, the apologists and rationalizers say – Republicans would and have done the same. Have they? Hmmm, where were the Congressional inquiries into intelligence failures of The Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Iran Embassy Hostages and the failed rescue attempt. Maybe I missed those hearings and the ones into the assassinations of the Diems, or the JFK/Pope Conspiracy to Save Catholic French South Viet Nam from the Buddhist self-immolators, or The Gulf Of Tonkin, or etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Where were the appropriate Watergate or Irangate style Inquistions into the Gore supported immigration/voter frauds, or the campaign contribution scandals of the Democrats, or the Pardons at the end of the Clinton Administration?

Wait! I hear you say – the Clinton Impeachment is THE example. Hmmm, perjury, rape, and obstruction of justice are the equivalent of the Watergate burglary – well, OK. I’ll grant you one tit-for-tat. Republicans one Democrats 50 +. But, what they hell, it’s all one and the same – right?

Maybe it’s just that I’m old enough to remember the Church Committee, Jimmy Carter, and Stansfield Turner eviscerating the intelligence services. I remember the Kerrys, the Kennedys and Democratic appointed bureaucrats declaring that there was no need for hands-on intelligence, that electronic surveillance and satellites could do the job, and that we were ‘above’ dealing with bad people to acquire information about worse people. There was also a time when a President of the United States declared, “Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.”

Maybe I’m just an old cynic when it comes to suspecting that the REAL purpose behind the partisanship of the 9/11 hearings is to cover the tracks of those who made the nation vulnerable to a terrorist attack by redirecting the anger towards the sitting President – and damn the consequences to the nation as a whole. As long as the Ben Venistes and ex-senators can attack they force the ‘other side’ to defend – then they can complain ‘we’re only seeking facts, they are concealing through partisanship’. I’ve heard it all before – and it’s truly frightening how often it comes from the mouths of Democrats. It’s almost enough to make me want to break a 20+ year old vow to NEVER again vote for a candidate from a major party.

The Big Lie is at least as old as Homer. Being a standard technique in any situation vulnerable to demagogues, tyrants, and ‘true believers’ it’s effectiveness depends on a single tool – direct access to friendly and pliable or controlled sources of information. For most of the 20th century and up to the present the bulk of the ‘free media’ of the West has willingly accepted the propaganda and positions of the left as dogma. You disagree?

Let me suggest you do some real research (that means find out for yourself rather then accept the declarations of others – including me). For research I suggest you read the editorials and articles from the 20s-50s regarding the state of affairs in Russia and the Soviet Union (and if you don’t recognize they are 2 different entities you REALLY need to do some research). The adulation of Lenin, Stalin, and the communist revolution is eye-opening. All the while the Kulaks were being destroyed, all during the Stalinist purges, all through the civil war between the Red and White armies the recognized media authorities embraced and accepted the Communist Party line almost without question. You doubt me? As part of your research, read the essays of Orwell – and his frustration at not being able to find publishers. Once you start the research you’ll find lots and lots of material. But you have to start. Careful though, starting means questioning the accepted dogma of liberalism – a heresy from which you may never recover.

But I digress. Let me return to the subject matter at hand. The fact is I really do see little difference between the two major parties – a view that causes me to despair. Such difference as I DO see, however, is that the Republican side of the aisle seems more likely to abandon the quest for immediate political advantage while pursuing what they perceive to be the genuine interests of the nation. The Democrats seem more likely to abandon the immediate interests of the nation itself in search of political power from which they can then ‘make things right.’ It’s a subtle difference, but a genuine one. It’s the difference between Machiavelli’s ‘good prince’ and ‘bad prince’.

After Clinton’s re-election, Leon Panetta (Clinton’s Chief of Staff) was answering questions about suspect campaign fund-raising activities. His answer was revealing: “We had an agenda which we thought was important. If we weren’t in office we couldn’t follow through on that agenda.” Un-huh – do you think Mr. Kerry would reject that line of reason?

Some time ago I ran across an observation that has some bearing here; let me quote it:

"As both capitalist and communist states—not to mention the technological world—have evolved under the illusion that men purposefully built them, ideological optimism seeps into every niche of our lives. It is made worse by mass culture which feeds our most destructive illusions, fostering the belief that if we’re only justified (and who isn’t?), if we only calculate things correctly, if we only do the right thing (and who doesn’t?), then the future must yield the desired results. There must always be a way. And so hubris turns to false certainties, everyone expects to be a winner, and each morning is a mind-blowing surprise."
Stephen Vizinczey (b. 1933), Hungarian novelist, critic. repr. In Truth and Lies in Literature (1986). “One of the Very Few,” Times (London, May 11, 1968).

From my point of view I curse a pox on both parties and blame the American electorate for the problems. We are receiving the government we do justly deserve. We have abdicated responsibility for self-government to self-declared elites and authorities. We don’t think – we react and hope. One more quote, then I’ll subside.

During an interview, the screenwriter of ‘Braveheart’ was challenged on the historical absurdities of the movie; he responded, ‘I have an obligation to the truth. Sometimes the truth is more important than the facts.’

That man HAS to be a Democrat.

Stryker, just call me "Wormtounge!" Heh.

In many ways, that impeachment is a microcosm of DC in a nutshell. To the Donks:YES, Clinton comitted a felony by perjuring himself. Admit it. It wasn't a "witch-hunt over a blowjob." To the Phants*:YES, Clinton lied under oath, but only because an independant investigation run wild set him up. Admit it. The Whitewater investigation didn't did up squat.

But still, I think the Phants had a tiny bit better grasp of reality than the Donks. At least when they try to impeach someone, they have a concrete charge, instead of "Bush Lied, People Died." Hell, the same thing could be said of FDR. In fact, rampant asshat Alexander Cockburn has claimed that "FDR knew" about the planned Pearl attack, and that he wanted a "Japanese provocation."

Feh.

Beerded One: gotta love it. I'm with you about 95%; but then I'm rarely with anyone 100%. Heh. Good on ya.

*Phants==Elephants, AKA Republicans.

Moving away from Iraq, let's examine Bush's statement that "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." Now, I wouldn't want to be so rude as to call Bush a prevaricator, but I think I smell some Phant manure now and then.

"Bush lied, people died." Yeah, that's over the top. But I have to admit that in my generation I and some of my friends more than a few times uttered the phrase "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" But Johnson truly was "lyin' Lyndon" the ballot-stuffing, election-stealing guy who now and then had a progressive idea.

Lawyers pick nits, that's what we do. It's a dirty job, but if someone doesn't do it, all those nits grow up to be lice -- and lord knows there are enough lousy politicians. The nit I'll pick is that Clinton was acquitted in a trial by the Senate. Split decision to be sure, but no criminal indictment has since followed. Although his license was suspended in a tribunal with a lower standard of proof than a criminal proceeding, he does not enjoy the benefit of any pardon. Better get that dangerous serial molester before the statute of limitations expires. Not to say that Willie is "innocent," he's guilt-free the way OJ is innocent. But let's follow Dean's salient advice and be careful about terminology when accusing someone of being a criminal.

That said, Beerded One inspired me. He inspired me to remember some inspirational quotations myself, instead of the more cynical ones to which he refers. I remember as a young boy listening to a man whose voice rang out like a bell, talking about his "Dream." A dream where all gods children could get along with one another, where the content of a man's character and the fruits of his labor was the only worthy criteria for which he was judged. Machiavelli's food prince and bad prince dichotomy were not suggestions as to who would be the better leader for his subjects, but pointers on how to be more successful in retaining power by being careful about how one was perceived in obtaining it. Dr. King speaks to substance, to policy as it were. The Prince is a guidebook on process. It is a primer on how to obtain and hold power. Not how to rule benevolently.

Beerded One's gripe s ostensibly with both parties, and the disdain with American culture in general is duly noted. Cynical, but he's entitled. His specific demonizaiton of Democrats in particular however, leaves out much of the other side's transgressions. I don't not mean to lump all the GOP in with the KKK or John Birch, and his vision of what it means to be a main stream democrat, while narrow minded in my opinion, will not make me attempt to muzzle the likes of Michael Moore (who can go too far, but the fat guy's hilarious) or Barbara Streisand (what a voice, but OH! That nose.) and shun them or treat them like the criminals who blow up abortion clinics or chain gay teenagers to the back of pick-up trucks just for sport. Abbie Hoffman was one of our guys, we'll keep him if the other side owns up to Timothy McVie. And please don't throw Senator Byrd up in my face. I honestly don't know which side he belongs to, except that he belonged to an age best forgotten, or at least regretted.

We're a little more open minded about our wingnuts on the left, besides, they only want to save seals and hug trees. The tree-huggers who spike the forests ant thereby injure the loggers should get prosecuted, and do, mainly because they didn't follow their tiral-lawyer's advise and put warnings on the trees after they were done. Usually we don't have to police our extremists they're too stoned to be dangerous.

Beerded One is both wise and eloquent, and makes his point with alacrity. But his problem is with process, not substance. To my thinking, what started out as a botched burglary at the Watergate, reached its crescendo with a different president being acquitted on the Senate floor. It tilts both ways, and will continue. After 9/11 we had the best chance in my lifetime to stop the madness, and I believe that it was the personal arrogance of the Bush administration which ignored this historic chance, and for that I hold him personally responsible.

For all Beerded One's learned pronouncements, beneath it all there is still partisanship. concluding that the democrats are the more vile purveyors of negativity, thus should be particularly set out for ridicule. He reaches across the logical divide and follows the sirens' song which beckons him to turn his back on the entire system, without offering a constructive plan to fix the problem. Never again will he sully his hands with the well greased lever pulled to choose on or the other major parties. "A pox on both houses!" He indignantly accuses: Your methods too tainted, your tactics too low!

My problem with conservatives is with policy as much as process. That Dream I spoke of has been stomped upon by the policies of men who follow George Bush. The Dream was spoken and I was thus inspired by men like Dr. King, and John and Robert Kennedy. who I truly believe, had they been given a chance, would have used the power of thoughts, not tanks, to make this world a place where dreams come true. I am not inspired by a president who pronounces great plans, but does not fund them; or reneges on promises to be an honest peace broker, and blatantly aligns us with the more powerful side; who expect allies to share the burden of security but, like vassals, not entitled to a commiserate share of the benefits or a seat at the planning table. Now of course, there is a place for RealPolitik and I believe strongly in its effective use. Force and the threat of force is an essential and necessary constituent part of all foreign policy, and JFK proved in October 1962 that he knew how to use it, but he was able to balance that with ideals he made us long for.

I honestly don't believe that conservatives even try to juggle more than one possibility for a plan of action at one time. "Dead or Alive." "With Us or Against Us." "You can brief him once the whole middle east policy plan has been approved." Bush can't stand to even look indecisive, so staying in the middle is something he can't abide. He must take sides because the middle position doesn't fit with his vision of the iron-jawed leader. But the Dream is a middle ground, a compromise, a path between warring sides. It won't happen if it's never given a chance. Conservatives have long since judged the dream as unobtainable, thus unworthy of their time or funds. The dream however, is not just for America, or just Black-America, but for the Shia ad Sunni, the Buddhist and Catholic, and even the French.

You don't turn your back on institutions like the UN because the reason for their very existence, to ensure peace, didn't fit in with your rush to war. You embrace such flawed institutions to try and make them work better next time, to learn from the past to make a better future. Neither do you reject the political process in this country because both sides engage in tactics you find foul. You let your disgust be known, from within and without, engage the beast and change it to suit your dream of what you would like your world to become. I've been called cynical on this blog, but never have I read something that so inspired the cynical as Beerded One's post. For an obviously thoughtful and intelligent person not to use his skills to reshape his world is a waste of god's gift.

Goodness man, get out there and use your vote where it will count for something. Don't turn your back on America. By all means, Vote for Bush, you believe he is right, so o it an persuade others to do the same. I'm doing my part for the other guy because I believe in his cause and peculiar ideology, and the fact that he is not George Bush. The opposite of "Love Kerry, Hate Bush," is not "Love Bush, Hate Kerry," but rather Beerded One's apathy, or is it actually political agnosticism. That's unAmerican. That's unpatriotic. That is a waste.

As usual, please forgive the typo's. I'm posting from elsewhere on borrowed equipment.

Mark,

Not so fast flipping the Byrd. He's as much yours as Thurmond was ours. I'll take Tim McVeigh because he was a psychotic anti-Govenment guy, even though, I think he was more libertarian. But you get Ted Kazinsky [sic], the Black Panthers, Tom Hayden...

I'll take them all, saddly, except for the panthers. They were criminal thugs taking cover in a shroud of a racial ideology. If I'm stuck with them, you have to defend the KKK, deal? They were no better than Crips and Bloods as far as I'm concerned. Bobby Seals was articlate, but a terrorist nonetheless.

Wow. Mark's a lawyer all right. Did you get all that out without taking a breath!? Heh heh heh.

You made some good points, although I can't tolerate that lying sack of shit, Moore, after the completel dishonest Bowling for Columbine. I don't care if he's funny or not, that wretched piece of disinformation turned me completely off.

But you forgot to mention some of the less-benign looney lefters like the flag-burning Amerikka-hater Rachel Corrie, or the people who publicly stated before the war that they wanted to see dead American soldiers to "teach [America] a lesson."

You also played fast & loose with the "Dream" bit. Like forgetting that John was the guy who got us seriously involved in Vietnam. That's certainly not "thoughts over tanks," and let's not forget how JFK nearly started a nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Yep, good ol' peace-loving Jack. Yeah. :)

But then, it's easy to talk about what dead people would have done, because you can never be decisively refuted. (remember Case; he's a laywer. He's sneaky that way!)

Me, I'm puzzled about how Bush has "trampled the 'Dream'?" Isn't he the guy who's against race quotas, the guy who put black Americans into positions of real power and responsibility like Secretary of State and National Security advisor, as opposed to the standard, near-formulaic appointments to Sec'y of Health? The guy who assigned an Arab-American and a Hispanic-American general to lead the Iraq theatre of operations?

Yeah, he's really evil, isn't he?

And you know very well that he used the phrase "with us or against us" precisely because he wanted to cut through all the moral relativism that the Left would start spouting two minutes after his speech. And, in case you are having problems understanding moral relativism, check out the liberal and/or European POV on Israel and Palestine. Hell, the Euros think the Israelis are the bad guys. That's the sort of sloppy thinking Bush was addressing. Or, at least, trying to address. I guess it depends on the receptivity of the audience. :)

You definitely went over the edge with that bit about dumping the UN because of Bush's "rush to war." Since when was over 8 months a rush to war, anyway?

And the UN's a great place, as long as you are committed to peace at any price. I can guess how'd you would vote on if the Joad Resolution came up again.

But I'll give you two things: Loved the simile about nit and politicians. (quiz: who originated the saying that "a statesman is a dead politician?") Also, I agree completely about political apathy. Nothing irks me more than someone who says that "both sides (or all politicians) are crooked," or "there's no difference," or "my vote doesn't count." That last really gets to me.

Alas, Mark, I am afraid that you, as a card-carrying squishy Lib'rl have to take the Panthers to your bosom. Mainly because most of the intelligensia on the Left have cooed approvingly over them for several decades now.

I doubt you will find similar approval about the Klan from Buckley, Goldwater, et. al.

So you're stuck with them. But you're a lawyer; you're used to associating with slimeballs. :)

Sorry Mark,

But the KKK is an even split. How many ex-klansmen are currently in office? I think it's 2. They aren't both Republicans are they?

Mark, a coupla’ points …..
(1)
The ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ Prince: Machiavelli presented the two as being separated by motive, not action. Good Princes are motivated by genuine concern for duty and responsibility, the bad ones by self-aggrandizement and the acquisition and retention of power. Both might act exactly the same in given circumstances; personal character separated them. Clinton and Nixon stand as exhibits 1A and B for the proto-typical ‘bad’ prince, Lincoln and Adams as the ‘good’.

(2)
I misspent much of my life being involved in the political realm. Gave it up in disgust. I am no longer in the ‘if they’ll only listen’ business. The simple fact is that they never will listen – they don’t want to and all too many of those willing are incapable of hearing. This is why the Vicinczey quote appeals to me. This is NOT a new phenomenon – took me a long while to realize it. Hell, it ain’t even new in the U.S. of A. Demagogues since the time of ancient Greece have thrived on it.

I don’t know that there is an answer. Myth-making and miracle mongering appear to be job requirements for a successful politician of any stripe. The electorate demands that government make life ‘easier’ and ‘safer’. If a candidate cannot or will not offer a plan to make pi = 3 or one slice of bread be counted as four with each voter entitled to two then he/she is unelectable.

(3)
Find me a candidate who can and will campaign on ideas and principles that would be understood by Locke, John Stuart Mills, Jeremy Bentham, Malthus, Machiavelli, Marx, Hobbes, and Rousseau (to name a few) and I will return to the fray (I’d even settle for one who offered nothing more challenging than Twain, R. L. Stevenson, Robt. Burns, Kipling, and Heinlein). I’d jump in even knowing in advance that man or woman will never be elected. He/she will instead be laughed or yawned off the political stage, never be reduced to televised sound-bites, and vilified by most.

Find me a second who meets the same qualifications but disagrees with the first and I’ll support BOTH of ‘em.

At least I could go down swinging. I’d like the opportunity. It ain’t apathy (if I didn’t care I wouldn’t be reading blogs and writing missives), it’s simply despair – pure, simple, unadulterated despair.

Addendum: Before you tell me that Carter, Clinton, Bradley, and/or whoever had the education and knowledge to campaign on these principles please note that they DID NOT DO SO ! They pandered to the lowest common voter – and those that TRIED to elevate the dialogue (Bradley) quickly faded into oblivion. In point of fact the one contemporary politician with the BEST grasp of these matters was Nixon. Remember – I didn’t say they DON’T know, merely that they won’t bring the issues to the fore. And, yes – the reason they don’t is because they won’t be elected – that is exactly my point.

(4)
“The Dream” – is just that. If you expect humans beings to embrace each other in a spirit of love and forgiveness you are dreaming. If you expect any government to achieve that end you are fantasizing. Morality cannot be legislated it must be taught – by example. The Jihadists are true to their moral code.

Your legal education SHOULD have taught you the first rule of law: Never make a law that you are unable or unwilling to enforce. (At least MY law school did – the very first class, the very first hour.) Behavior can be legislated and the legislation enforced – but if the regulated behavior contravenes an individual’s personal sense of right and wrong that person will always resent the intrusion. When your ‘dream’ is set in opposition to that of another and the rightness or wrongness is determined by a political campaign the result will always be chaos – and quite often revolt.

If your political philosophies are based upon some Rousseau-like vision of humanity as an earth-bound angel then you – like I for other reasons – are foredoomed to disappointment. If you vote for candidates because they promise to attempt to fulfill your dream than you are naïve.

Beliefs (like all faiths) belong in cathedrals, mosques, temples, and tabernacles – not in political office. I do not turn my back on institutions like the UN because they fail – but because the underlying cause of the failure is the naïve idealism that suggests morality is enforceable. I turn my back not because it HAS failed, but because it will ALWAYS fail.

(5)
I reject the label of political agnostic – I prefer political atheist. I attend no political temple, I expect no political prophet, and I won’t proclaim a doxology of political truths.

I am affronted by the ‘unAmerican’ epithet. I have actively supported candidates, even run for office myself (briefly and to my eternal shame). I finally found that the cost of admission into the political arena would bankrupt my pocket of principles. I reached a point beyond which I could not venture – and my refusal to venture further banned me from further participation in any capacity other than that of mere audience. But as audience I can at least play the role of heckler. Heckling is an eminently American activity (should be found somewhere near life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – or the right to peaceably assemble).

A waste? Nah, waste is fruitlessly pursuing a cause or collection of causes foredoomed to failure. Becoming a speed-bump in the path of an avalanche is a waste. Standing to the side, hunkered down in the trees, hoping to survive and prepared to rescue the injured is simply rational.

Beerded One:

My first instincts tell me that you are absolutely correct. When I read your first post, I closed down my computer and thought to leave your words, and the wisdom therein, as the final say on the matter, and rightly so. But I could not sleep, and got out of bed and began to scribble on that cursed laptop of mine.

My gut reaction to this last is much the same. However, and I feel that it is fortunate and not unfortunate, I have not yet reached that stage of dispair and will content myself to forever (for now) being that pebble standing in the path of the raging torrent, with at least some semblence of hope to change the course to calmer waters -- so that a few can find the shore and leave you to rescue whom you can.

Casey:
"shep: admit it, Rose nailed you on that one. The impeachment was based on the perjury charge, not his sleazebag cheating. C'mon, admit it; you're busted! Heh."

Actually, Rosemary said that was a crime "crime many others have served time for..." Since that's a complete fabrication, no, not busted at all (and not pissed, either ;-)

"And you know very well that he used the phrase "with us or against us" precisely because he wanted to cut through all the moral relativism that the Left would start spouting two minutes after his speech."

Casey,
That "moral relativism" thing? We call it "thinking". You must remember what that was like from several Republican presidents ago.