An Interesting Question For Conservatives
Dean
Assume John Kerry wins in November. I've been thinking he would for some time; it's pretty clear that rage and anomisity on the left are going to give Mr. Kerry either a Goldwater-1964 style defeat or a Nixon-1968 style victory. Goldwater went down hard in part because the country wasn't in the mood for rage, and Nixon rode to power because the country was in the mood for rage.
Now I know a lot of you conservatives are thinking, "no way, Kerry is toast." I sort of doubt it but I don't particularly want to debate you on that. I've made private wagers with friends, and we needn't argue; the American People will speak on November 2nd.
Now here is the question--and honestly it's an important one. Many of you have (like me) criticized people on the left for sowing disunity, always assuming the worst, making unfair allegations, and for clawing desperately at straws trying to find scandals. You find this repugnant at a time when the country should be pulling together and finding ways forward together, to find ways to disagree and still get along.
I've said all these things myself.
Indeed, it's hard to find anyone who's a more harsh critic of the hard left these days than me. On domestic policy I might snark at them or argue with them, but the only thing that really makes me angry is what I see as embracing dishonesty and hatred (see: Michael Moore's fundamental fascism). I tend to hold to a rather odd doctrine myself, which is that partisanship is supposed to stop at the water's edges: we can argue as loudly as we want about domestic policy, but we do our best to speak with one voice once we get past the nation's shores. Old-fashioned and crazy I know, but it's just how I see the world. There was a time in America when if you'd spoken of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt as a liar, a traitor, and a warmonger during World War II, accused him of engineering the Pearl Harbor attacks, referred to our war over there as "Roosevelt's war" (as a few dipshit Republicans did back then) you might well have gotten yourself a bloody nose even in the most Republican counties in America.
Because debate all you want but, once a decision is made, partisanship should stop at the water's edges. At least so far as I'm concerned.
Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?
I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"
I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."
That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?
* Update * A reader named Greg sent me an email on July 30th called into question my claim about bloody noses and Roosevelt. He makes a good point, but I defend myself right here.
What I'll be doing is putting pressure on the Senate Republicans to do just as hard a job to squash Kerry's judge nominations as the dems have to squash Bush's.
Of course, they won't. Republicans (especially in the Senate) don't have the spine and discipline the Democrats have. Which means they'll be 'statesmen' and 'in the spirit of bi-partisanship' kill a few tokens and let the left continue packing the bench to the left.
Which, since Congress lost it's spine collectively years ago - is where the real political power is shifting. Can't get the Congress to do it - find a judge. Can't convince 600-odd people, find, in toto, about 15.
Which isn't really what the Founders intended, nor do I think it's such a good idea.
But I'll otherwise generally behave myself, Deano!
I admit, I found myself hoping some of the scandals were true, but I didn't pursue them and try to make others believe them. Heck, I even thought the treatment of the original Trousergate™ was over the top.
Kerry can win, I have no doubts about it. I didn't particularly jump with joy when I heard Fumbletongue was running against Gore and I know many Republicans such as myself aren't 100% thrilled with him. So I'm bracing myself for the possibility of President Kerry.
And if it does, I hate to say it, be prepared for the insanity you see on the left to bleed over to the right. That, my friend, is my biggest fear.
Funny, isn't it? Most people I talk to who are hell bent on the President can't even tell me who their representatives are both nationally and locally. The people who make the laws that affect them the most are unknown while some guy who is practically a figurehead gets all the attention.
If Kerry wins there are a few things that I am fearful of:
1. A softening of our policy on terrorism that will lead to another attack.
2. Allowing the UN (read that as foreign governments) to run our foreign policy, and our terrorism response.
3. Further gutting of the Second Amendment.
4. More activist leftist judges placed on the bench (including the Supreme Court), which is one of the greatest dangers to individual liberty this country faces.
I think also that events would drive a Pres. Kerry in that direction whether he wanted to our not (much as McKinley was driven into the Spanish-American War when he was dead set against it).
I'll support policies I agree with and oppose those I don't. But I will do so from within the system, not as some raving loon on a sidewalk waving his giant puppet head and screaming "Look at me! Look at me!"
Ok, I can agree with the traitor part, because there's no real evidence of that, and the loser part, because that's just namecalling and doesn't serve any real purpose. But if the man tells lies, as he has in the past, then I will call him a liar, and there will be nothing wrong or meanspirited or extremist about it. The man IS a liar, Dean, and I really have no reason to think that he'll cease to be one if he gets elected. As for incompetent, we'll just have to see. I certainly won't toss the term around as carelessly as the left has for the last few years, but if he shows himself to be incompetent as chief executive of this country, I'm going to say so.
People are more interested in winning than doing what's right for the country, at least on the blog scene.
Even the previously neutral (equal opportunity offending) field of comedy has gone irreversibly political.
I will support the President of the United States, but at the same time, in this partisan atmosphere, I can't say that I think either Bush or Kerry will make a dime's worth of difference.
We are the best, last hope of humanity.
We are.
Heh.. my link became a Dave Frey sandwich. I must have posted just between your clicks while I was trying out the new "linking in comments" trick.
Ok, I'll believe in you and me, and maybe Rose, but THAT is IT!
Cliton was any number of bad words I'll refrain from right now but when we were try (not allways the right way) to do the right thing in Bosnia and Somallia I supported that. So did most conservatives. We had plenty of quibbles about the how or when it might end (or that it did end) but the nation and the war (not that it was allways called that) had far better support from a Loyal Opposition that Bush has today.
Whole worlds apart.
I suggest we get rid of the term "representative," since that's what they are NOT anymore.
Today, I fear, any sense of decorum in politics is long gone. No more are the days in which you can debate someone then shake their hands after, unless it's a photo op.
I will respect the President, whoever he is, and I will voice my opposition to policies I disagree with. I will not launch personal attacks on him or his party just to get my way on the greater issue. I will keep the spirit of Christmas all year long.
PS Dean, is it just my screen? In a previous comment on this thread I linked to an article about how even comedy has become politically run and abusive. I think the link works but I can't tell from looking at the word "comedy" that the link is distinct from the other words. It could be my failing eyesight as I approach my mid-late thirties.
The link's there but no one can see it. I hope he has a moment to fix it.
All I can say, however, is look at what occurred when Clinton was in office. There were a few nut jobs on the right who constantly bashed him, come what may ... and even indulged in the "he killed 56 people" sort of talk.
But these truly were a small minority.
For the most part, the right could be highly critical - yet not the strident over-the-top idiocy of the left today: no "Clinton/Stalin" or the like. (It was a little tough to avoid the sexual references, I must admit. I mean - give your audience enough material to work with - what do you expect??)
I expect that as Americans we can act like adults. I expect as Americans that we can step up to our "rendevous with destiny". I expect that as Americans we can treat with disdain those who act like they are still in the Gilded Age of the 1990's.
I expect the best. Why shouldn't I?
Will he be able to gain the respect of the military? His entire Viet Nam chain of command has gone on record that he's not fit to serve as president. Some of the generals at the Pentagon right now are the same soldiers he slandered in his testimony before Congress.
I've been asking myself the same question about a potential Kerry victory. John Kerry as president? Of course I'm not going to be happy about that. But I'd be less upset about Kerry/Edwards than the gang of clueless entourage who would accompany him back in power. It would make me throw up.
But I'm already getting more and more turned off by politics. A Kerry administration would be a good time to check out of politics. And remember a Kerry presidency means no Hillary!
Some of the outrageous comments from the Left are exceedingly hard to take, even when they are out of power. To play the gentleman when they are in power is just too much to handle. We can't all be a Orrin Hatch or a Arlen Specter, who are so familiar with apologizing to their Democrat colleagues for their faces being in the way of the Dem's foot.
I don't think Kerry will win. I hope not, if only because he will by necessity, have to surround himself with many from the Clinton Presidency. And given the current fratricidal war for power within the Democratic Party, I doubt if a truce will last very long. Do not forget, the Clintonista's don't take prisoners.
Rich
When he lost the election Goldwater said, "We must now support our new president and our country."
I can do no less.
First and foremost, I am an American, and I want to see America succeed, even if it is in a direction that I do not agree with. While I may work to change our direction or alter our policy, I will never work to cause our President, our soldiers, or our diplomats to fail.
nonsense.
I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent.
A President Kerry will receive no pass from me if he engages in serial mendacity; I believe that politicians should be held accountable. As to competence? Well, history will be the judge.
I will refuse to call him any of those names unless he earns them while in office. I don't expect him to commit treason, so I am pretty sure I will have occasion to call him a traitor. "Loser?" Too vague. The jury's out as to liar and incompetent.
The people who frequent this site are better than that.
Levity aside, I'll only note that the moonbatty Left refused to acknowledge the USSC's verdict, which has always struck me as fundamentally un-American in that it ignored &subverted our rule of law. It would be hypocritical of me to snipe at Kerry with the same visceral hatred for much the same reason: I adhere to our rule of Law, &that means, in part, accepting the verdicts of a democracy.
He'll still be the Commander-in-Chief, and my President, but he can still be any of those things.
I would probably have at least as much (though in different areas) personal dislike of the man as I had for Clinton. That didn't keep me from recognizing when he made wise decisions.
Hm, I should cross-post this...
Dean is, in effect, asking human nature to take a vacation. I don't doubt there's quite a few Republicans who just can't wait to get Kerry; "it's payback time, baby!"
The Democrats have brought this upon themselves. Me, I've been saying for months that that sort of vicious attack campaigning was a bad idea, but many Dems say "the Republicans started it!" with Clinton, never mind the conservative/Republicans who condemned that neurotic obsession.
So now (assuming Kerry is elected, I think it's Bush 52/48, perhaps 52/46)) the GOP can turn around and say "Oh, look at what the Dems did in '04! They deserve this!" And so on, ad nauseum. Feh.
Tell you what, Dean: I'll take a pledge just as soon as the leaders of the Democratic party take a pledge to behave like responsible adults.
I oppose some of President Nixon's policies (most of all, recognition of Communist China), but, even so, the man had such superlative _style_! I would love to build a Mt. Watergate with the faces of Nixon, Agnew, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman. We have had some outstanding Presidents (Washington, Jefferson, the Adamses, Lincoln), but no President ever had the inimitable _style_ of President Richard Milhous Nixon (and, after him, President Gerald Rudolph Ford).
As for Senator Barry Morris Goldwater: AuH20! Mr. Conservative! In my heart, I know he was right -- and now you know it, too. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. That is absolutely true. Senator Goldwater stood four-square for individual freedom and responsibility, for limited Constitutional government, and against socialism and Communism. He had _style_!
I give both Nixon and Goldwater an A+ for _style_, but Kerry gets an F, along with Carter and Dukakis. Kerry may win like Carter in 1976 or he may lose like Dukakis in 1988, but that's ALL I can compare him to. As for any oaths of fealty, I make no such promise, sorry. President Bush earned my respect when he showed some leadership after 9/11/2001, but he lost it when he started selling out to Saudi Arabia and then promoted that FMA (he also supported "sodomy" laws while Governor of Texas). Kerry will be even worse on foreign policy, of that I have little doubt, and he will try to take away our guns. I will give him all the respect he deserves but no more. Harsh, I know. That's the way I am.
If Kerry earns criticism from me, it will be principled criticism.
I plan to respectfully criticize a Kerry administration, when I disagree. I certainly won't root for the Iraqi insurgents to score major victories so that he won't get reelected, that's fucking pathetic and I am above that.
"Republicans (especially in the Senate) don't have the spine and discipline the Democrats have."
WOW! That's sounds like something coming out of a parallel universe! Spine? Discipline? A _lack_ of such is almost a defining characteristic of the Democratic party today and of the Left generally. Spineless, soft, weak. And shallower than a parking-lot puddle, they think the only or the most important issues are economic.
Santorum's dog has more spine and discipline in the left toe of its left rear paw than we will see at that entire Democratic convention. I totally oppose Santorum, what he advocates, but at least he does stand for something, however reprehensible. Bork the same way, like Santorum a consistent totalitarian, but at least there is a "there" there. Falwell and Robertson are loathsome, but at least they invoke "God" rather than "equality" to justify what they advocate. Pat Buchanan is an enemy I respect, a worthy adversary. He has _style_.
Mark Noonan has been predicting for some time that Bush will win this election. I'm now hoping he's right, I hope Bush wins (narrowly), just so I won't have to look at Kerry's ugly face for four long years. Too bad.
Even so, I will repeat my promise to support our soldiers 100% in any war they are fighting, no matter who is President.
During the 8 years of his reign, I used to say that, while Clinton had no spine, he was at least stiff in one place where it counted, which is why I opposed the impeachment. Unfortunately, Kerry and the rest of them don't seem to have even that. Too bad.
Well apparently someone else thinks so as well. Here it is, fresh off the internet at SFGate.com:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry doesn't have a problem with his wife telling an insistent journalist to "shove it" when urged to explain her plea for more civility in politics."
And:
"I think my wife speaks her mind appropriately," Kerry told reporters Monday when asked about the exchange between his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and the editorial page editor of the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review."
Avoid unfair allegations? That's reasonable. Eschew dishonesty in criticism? Of course. Support our troops in any military engagement? It goes without saying.
But pledge to get behind him and support him until he's replaced? Absolutely not. In fact, if anyone did take such a pledge, I'd be inclined not to really trust anything they said while Kerry was in office. I don't pledge to support anyone. If Kerry screws up, I'll scream about it, and call him nasty names, just as I have done when Bush has screwed up.
It's the American way.
If Senator Kerry wins the presidential election in November 2004 — which means constitutionally the majority vote of the electoral college — then he indeed shall be lawfully and rightfully inaugurated as president of the United States. No ifs, ands or buts.
That's the way it has been through the first 228 years of the United States of America. That's what people like me served in the armed forces to protect. That's the purpose for which many more generations of Americans will put on upgraded versions of the same uniforms, but all for the same blessed purpose.
To be sure, I do not want Senator Kerry as president. And I do intend to help President Bush get elected to a second term, a term that I think he deserves on the merits of the case.
But if his opponent is the one whom the voters choose, then he will indeed be President Kerry, and all of us who love this country will live with the decision of the citizens of the 50 states and those in the US territories permitted to vote in national elections. And we will loyally serve and honor the Constitution of the United States, our republic, our flag, and our government. Both for war and for peace.
And I am absolutely certain that if Geoge W Bush were writing this response to Dean's post, it is more or less pretty close to what he would say.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I also call on the carpet those who say "I'll behave when the Democrats promise to behave." This is a childish excuse to keep up the flaming.
Your behavior is your choice and your responsibility. The thought that someone else has control over your actions only shows that you are reactive, weak-willed and immature.
Tell you what. How about if I promise to behave and show respect REGARDLESS of how low my opponents sink?
Constitution -- check.
Republic -- check.
Flag -- check.
Government -- not so fast....
This pledge would make sense if you bought the Left's complaint that they are being bashed for daring to criticize the President. If any conservative had actually said, "It is unpatriotic to criticize the President," then it would be reasonable to hold them to the standard Dean proposes. However, conservatives haven't said that. When we bash the Left, it's for the substantive content of their speech, not because they "dared" to criticize the President. The proof of that is how many conservatives vehemently criticize President Bush on many issues.
Dissent is neither patriotic, nor unpatriotic, in and of itself. Ideas matter.
I was hoping to see you here. You have _style_ and you are a true patriot.
For my part, I will agree to this:
Whichever man is elected, Bush or Kerry, I will not question or obviate the fact that he has indeed been lawfully elected to be the President of the United States of America. I will not undermine the authority of the Electoral College or of the Supreme Court or of any other part of our Constitutional form of government.
I will not, as some have been doing for the last four years, act like a baby and throw a tantrum because my guy didn't get elected. I will accept the lawful results of the election, whatever they may be, like a man.
I will not call the President, whoever he may be, incompetent unless he demonstrates a lack of competence.
I will not call the President, whoever he may be, a liar unless he deliberately tells untruths about matters that are my legitimate business, e.g., affecting our national security. I will not support witch-hunts into his private life.
I will not call the President, whoever he may be, a traitor unless he betrays our country to an enemy.
I will not bring up puerile irrelevancies, such as his speech patterns, as an argument against any of his policies. To do so is stupid.
I will not compare any President to Hitler when he is merely a Hindenberg. No President, past or present, not even Andrew Jackson, has been comparable to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. I will not compare the United States of America at any time, past or present, to the Third Reich until we actually reach that point. Right now, and for the forseeable future, we are still only the Weimar Republic. There is still time to turn back. I will not give in to either complacency or despair.
Here is a more fundamental pledge that I wrote in the Queen's blog:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, and all Gods and Goddesses, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I will always support our brave soldiers, in all of our armed forces, in any war they fight, wherever they may be fighting, no matter who is President. I will pray for victory in any war they are fighting, against any enemy. I will never be a traitor.
I support the United States Supreme Court. I support the decision of the United States Supreme Court that George W. Bush is lawfully the President of the United States. I despise those who attack that decision. In so doing, they undermine the authority of the Supreme Court. In so doing, they aid the Enemy in undermining that far more crucial decision of June 26, 2003, which upheld the right to privacy of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, and therefore, of you and me.
I support the Constitution of the United States of America, including ALL of the Bill of Rights.
I pledge allegiance also to the High Culture of the West, of which the United States of America is inseparably and integrally a part. I support Israel 100%.
Above all, my highest values, the foundation of everything else: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness. Up With Beauty!
Michael Novak has nice line about how liberals used to be against hate, Jew-hate, Commie-hate, Black-hate, etc. But, now under Bush, they get indulge in hate, indulge in disrespect.
And they like it.
I don't hate Kerry, and I kinda like Bush, but I'm afraid of Bush-hate -- which is all too similar to the Nazi supported Jew-hate of 70 years ago.
I'll pledge to continue opposing irrational hate of persons, rather than policy results.
But I'll continue to oppose any policy that results in 2 million, or even 200 000, human fetuses killed, every year.
If he's elected, and it is a possibility, as remote as I think it is, I will judge him by his behaviour in office. If he attacks Isreal, while coddling the Palis, if he attempts to appease France and the UN instead of protecting US citizens and interests, if he pulls troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan while they're needed, then I'll go well beyond strenously disagreeing. But, I do the same to Bush, especially on the marriage ammendment crapola, the anti-abortion behaviour, and the "abstinence is best" bull.
What I fear the most, if Kerry is elected, is that we will be attacked full force again. And Kerry will be among the first to say we should accept it's our fault because of Viet Nam (but I earned 3 Purple Hearts!!), because of the Gulf War, because of......(insert whatever cause you'd like), and attempt to appease the terrorists. I fear Kerry will do as the Spanish and Philippines have done, and that will mean more dead Americans.
In short, I intend to be an honest man.
What more do you want of me?
Dean's request is others ought pledge to this:
"I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"
And when did Kerry actually support that notion ?
The facts on Kerry are otherwise, and provable.
Thanks for raising the issue! A lot of that pledge could be put into effect today, for the betterment of all.
Over the past 25 years--since Carter signed my commission as a Foreign Service Officer--I've had to not only put up with, but support to the best of my ability whatever policies came from whatever White House. Didn't mean I had to like those policies a bit, though.
Too, as a federal employee, my political rights were limited by law. Didn't like that, but my option was to become a not-federal employee, if I felt that strongly.
I dislike flame-throwing, no matter wich direction it comes from. There's more heat than light. I'd rather informed discussion and argument than simply standing on one side of the street hurling names at the guys on the other side of the street, particularly when both groups aren't old enough to cross the street on their own.
The Chief Executive is exactly that. He's running the country. But I will pay attention to how and where he's running the country, as well as how my local representatives and state senators are doing their jobs.
If I don't like it, then I know how to do something about it. Something useful, not just nattering. And that can be working against their re-election, ultimately.
I'd sure like to see the blogosphere check most of its attitude at the door.
"If Kerry gets elected, I will support him when he's right, and not when he's wrong. I will praise him when he is praiseworthy, and criticize him when he isn't. I will say he told the truth when he does; I will say he lied when he doesn't.
In short, I intend to be an honest man.
What more do you want of me?"
Excellent. Honest and to the point. You said it all, and that is where I stand, too.
Tom Grey wrote:
"But I'll continue to oppose any policy that results in 2 million, or even 200 000, human fetuses killed, every year."
Also excellent. Abortion is a crucial issue and I have great respect for those for whom it is a primary basis, even the primary basis, for their vote, both those on the pro-choice side (where I used to be) and those on the pro-life side (where I am now).
I have no respect for those who sneer at "one-issue voters" and then vote on the basis of one issue, which they call "the economy". And that's another pledge I make. I will not vote on the basis of any economic issues. Those who vote on the basis of economic issues are shallow blockheads and/or looking for a handout. They will get what they deserve. Maybe a majority will vote that way, but then I can only say: God must have loved fools, He made so many of them. Harsh, that's the way I am.
There are many issues which far outweigh the economic. The most important issues are the spritual issues: the meaning of marriage, the meaning of sex, the meaning of life. Our freedoms are at stake.
You forgot more about style than almost anyone I've ever run across. :-)
I will treat President Kerry (Lord help us!) just like I've always treated or spoken of any President I did not like or vote for. I will grit my teeth and wait for it to be over. I will pay attention to the big stuff and ignore the petty crap. I always do this. I will assume that what ever damage a president does, especially in foreign policy, will be less than disasterous for the country and the world as a whole and that we will, in time, right the tilt to the left or the right that doesn't work well for the country in the next administration.
I've been observing politics ever since I was ten years old and Ike defeated Stevenson (sad day at our house)and I can assure all that the level of political vilification of the President has been unprecedented since Clinton took office. I judge that to be the effect of the Republicans determination to win the Senate and Congress all in one go and was driven primarily by Newt Gingrich and his crowd. Also, Bush 41's campaign was extremely dirty in my opinion with Willy Horton becoming Dukakisis's running mate. Bush 41's campaign was also brilliant in my opinion. Clinton's as well, brilliant in '92. However, neither of the losing opposition's side took those defeats well and the determination of the GOP to pay Clinton back for robbing Bush 41 (with the triumph of GWI only two years past) of his second term, added gasoline to the fire to settle the score. The result is the GOP persecution of Clinton and now the reverse with Bush from the Dems. I certainly hope this vituperation will have run it's course by 2008 but, alas, if Hillary is still around scaring the conservatives, it will probably just go on and on for a decade or more at least. We will have to be taking these damn civility pledges into the middle of the 21st century, drat it. %-(
I've been on both sides during these political campaigns. I'm making these statements, not as a partisan of either left or right politics but as an objective observer, I hope. I'm not really mad at anyone except Michael Moore whom I loathe.
I meant to say
"You forgot more about style that almost any one I know ever knew"
It came out as an insult when I was intending to give you a compliment. You're the man with style...and then some to spare.
Thank you! And you too!
Its a simple proposition..
Does anybody want to act out their frustrations in a manner that would have them looking and sounding like moonbats and /or wackos?
Like I said.. a simple proposition.
MS
Actually, of course, if Kerry were to win then there wouldn't be much fighting to back him in...he'd drop Iraq and Afganistan as swiftly as possible, pull the troops back and make a lot of glad-handing nonsense about how the whole world is pulling with us in the fight against terrorism...I'd expect it'd be in 2006 or 2007 that the enemy, emboldened by our craven retreat, would carry out a really spectacular attack on American soil...a really pumped up 9/11 to completely shock us out of our renewed complacency. Then it'd just be a matter of backing Kerry until his replacement was chosen in 2008.
The war is on - it'll go on no matter who wins on November 2nd; and no amount of Democratic wishful thinking will make it go away. This is why we need a war President, not a President pledged to get along with France and who thinks terrorism mostly as a law enforcement issue.
God, how I love this stuff!
But I do not assume in advance that Kerry will be another Nixon. If he is elected, he will get the same benefit of the doubt I gave Bush in 2001 and Clinton in 1992, neither of whom I considered good Presidential material at the time.
And I will do this for both domestic and foreign policy.
We went through that crap in 1860. Anyone want a replay of that?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I will support POTUS because, quite frankly, he pays me to, no matter who he or she is. However, I would support Kerry as President for the additional reasons that deviciveness in this era is a deadly misstep. I will do what is required. If too little is required, I will do all that I legally can above and beyond. If that isn't enough, I will have to evaluate what steps to take next, but America is too good of an idea to let it go just because I don't like the man who is in the hot seat for 4 years, or what he did to get there.
Actually, it's clear my answer is NO. It's unfair to expect me to 'get behind' and 'support’ Kerry when he's wrong. That is NOT what 'loyal opposition' means, which is the core of the question. I pledge to be an honorable loyal opposition critic, opposing bad policies with honest comparisons of his results, or expected results, with alternative policies and expected alternative results.
Today, the Dems are NOT a loyal opposition; and if Bush wins I don't expect the press, nor most rich elites, to change.
Because the Dems are NOT a loyal opposition, none should support them until they become one.
You're asking us, in so many words, to overlook the shuttle-liftoff-volume caterwauling of your colleagues for almost four years, and asking us "so, are you guys not going to be like us, and will you play nice?"
The answer is: "of course."
Because, in the main, we are not what we are so frequently made out to be. For instance, no GOP candidate is physically capable of emitting a Howard Dean-like YEEEAARRRRGHH! Not even Pat Buchanan, before we finally showed him the door.
Show us, after all, our Michael Moore. (Tough do, because conservatives are essentially blacklisted in Hollywood.) Show us our Noam Chomsky. (Ditto academia.) Turn the clock back to the Clinton years and show us our equivalent of democraticunderground.com. Show us our moveon.org, and how such an organization is directly affiliated with our party's leading candidate, with rallies attended by key GOP figures. Show us our "Clinton=Hitler" or "Kerry=Hitler" crowd. (I point out that we are not talking about fringe groups here; the former vice president and 2000 Democratic candidate for President has himself very recently used terms like “digital brownshirts” to describe people with whom he disagrees. He has in the past used such terms of tolerance and respect as “the Taliban wing” and the “extra-chromosome” wing of the Republican party. Newsflash – it was us that got *rid* of the Taliban, largely over your colleagues’ objections.) After all, thanks largely to the inestimable W.F. Buckley, we got rid of our John Birchers decades ago.
Recall that both Bob Packwood [R-OR] and Newt Gingrich [R-GA] were quite literally run out of town on a rail for far less than Bill Clinton's apologists were, at the same time, vigorously defending him. (This doesn't even consider the real beefs that conservatives had with Clinton involving serious abuses of presidential power and jeopardizing national security, which, though legitimate concerns for debate, were breezily dismissed as "it's just about sex.") Finally, as stupid as Trent Lott's famous comments were, can you for a moment imagine if, like Robert Byrd, he at one point had actually *been* a member of the KKK?
That said, should Kerry win the election, I will be part of the loyal opposition. In opposition if the occasion calls for it, to be sure, but nonetheless loyal. Further, if Kerry actually does continue to prosecute the War on Terror abroad and stimulate the economy at home, he will earn my praise. (Indeed, the greatest tragedy of Bill Clinton is not what was, but what might have been. A centrist, pro-growth Democrat on the outside — but something entirely different on the inside.)
As Mr. E. Poet said: "...America is too good of an idea to let it go just because I don't like the man who is in the hot seat for 4 years."
For, you see, unlike the numerous pronouncements of those on the other side of the aisle, should John Kerry win the election fair and square — that is, without requiring an Al Gore-style hijacking attempt ex post facto — he *will* be my president.
And may God have mercy on our souls if that happens. [vbg]
Just as Clinton was a rapist long before he stained the Oval Office, Kerry was a traitor long before he was a Senator (and hypothetically, President). I don't think this is hyperbole; Vo Nguyen Giap gave the VVAW much credit for helping to bring the Communists victory. However, we have succeeded in defining treason ("giving aid and comfort to the enemy") down to a misdemeanor, hardly worth pursuing. So I cannot promise not to call Kerry a traitor: it's just a fact, and besides, nobody cares much these days about treason.
All politicians shade the truth to one degree or another, so again, it's hardly invective to call one a liar. Clinton, ever the over-weening underachiever, amazingly normalized perjury as well as simple lying. So I can't promise not to call Kerry a liar if he earns the title; but it will take a pretty high threshold of deliberate and un-nuanced prevarication to get anyone upset.
I've never called a politician in office a "loser" — this makes no sense. Like calling Jesse Jackson a "honky".
I doubt Kerry will be incompetent in the sense that Jimmy Carter was incompetent. In fact, I hold out hopes that, if elected, he will govern "from the center". Just as his senatorial record reflects the unfortunate liberalism of his Massachusetts constituents, I hope that as President he will govern for all the people — not just for his pals in Beacon Hill and Back Bay, but for all us folks out here in the red states. But then, I held out such hopes for Clinton (being a red state guy and all, albeit a crooked one), but his big priorities his first year seemed to be to get gays into the army and to nationalize the health care system. So we'll see.
Now, in principle, I agree with the sentiment that politics stops at the water's edge, but I really don't know what that means now. Many of my daily correspondence is with folks scattered around the globe. Unless I specifically ask, I don't know if someone I'm emailing may be in Aspen or Interlaken. So what do you expect, exactly?
Regards
BBB
BBB: You're right on the border of being among the worst when you describe simply being involved in VVAW as "treason" and suggest that we have diluted treason to a misdemeanor. Bullshit. We still execute spies the last I looked. I have had friends who were involved in VVAW and if you call them traitors then my answer to you is "fuck you."
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy has never meant speaking out against a war you did not believe in. Ever. Yes, the enemy may find free speech useful to its purposes but that does not trump our nation's interest in preserving it, thank you. "Aid and comfort to the enemy" has always meant material aid: hiding enemy soldiers in your basement, giving them food, revealing troop locations and battle plans, actively taking up arms against our forces, etc. Simply being involved in a group that uses extreme rhetoric against a war is not and has NEVER been treason in these united States, nor should it ever be seen in that light.
So what do I expect exactly? Start by not calling Senator Kerry a traitor.
I was stuck on active duty in the Balkans during the Clinton Administration, so I HAD to show proper respect for the Commander-In-Chief when he came a-calling. By dint of iron discipline, I managed to stand and salute with the rest – with no absolutely no outward sign of disgust. When they called for "volunteers to meet with The First Lady” I “got out of the AO", since I KNEW they would not get any. The ancient military custom of "you're it" was applied in short order, and I barely missed being drafted for an involuntary 30-min love-fest with Hillary.
During those 8 years, I became totally alienated from the government of this country. I listened to the President tell us to “grow up and accept fewer civil liberties” on MTV and was told that responsible, adult citizens “shut up and paid their taxes instead of complaining” - because the state knew best. I endured that span of time with mixed emotions: hatred and loathing, to be exact. In the interim, I have learned to be a bit more active in the political arena.
If Kerry the liar, coward and communist sympathizer gets elected, be assured I will expend every effort to criticize, oppose and negate any action his administration proposes. I will live in the “other America” – the one that Kerry isn’t any part of. I will view any initiative on his part as diametrically opposed to my best interests unless considerable evidence to the contrary is presented - even a broken clock is right twice a day. I will maintain that the ruling party is composed of traitors, criminal, incompetents and fools, graciously assigning the majority of their membership to the last category. . I will hold him, every member of his staff and just about anybody who supports him in utter contempt.
I will steel myself for our defeat in the War Against Militant Islam, for that is what is sure to occur. I will prepare to withstand yet another round of socialist domestic policies that are designed to oppress and impoverish me [I am a member of the Productive Class, the people who end up paying for these types of policies]. I will be ready to endure the shame of watching our nation grovel before the feckless Europeans and the corrupt, yet incompetent UN. Luckily, I already have 8 years of practice in this kind of thing.
And if Bush wins, I know the Demo-Rats will feel exactly the same way. Just thinking about the monumental anguish of the Left during a Bush second term fills me with warm fuzzies.
Ah well. I rather suspect that the two cancel themselves out, while the rest of us view both with disgust.
Perhaps the average American is right to pay no attention to politics.
Thanks for your feedback.
>>So what do I expect exactly? Start by not calling Senator Kerry a traitor.<<
I certainly do not call everyone who joined the VVAW a traitor. Kerry, however, was a leader. He testified — possibly untruthfully — to the Senate and declared that he and thousands of other GIs were guilty of warcrimes. He repeated the propaganda of the North Vietnamese Communists. The entire "Winter Soldier" campaign has been debunked as a sham, and he was one of the principal pushers of those lies. What was his intent? Did he want to see American forces defeated? He won't say. He has the right to remain silent. Anything he says can and will be used against him....
Some sources have reported that Kerry took part in a VVAW meeting in which some of his colleagues proposed assassinating a U.S. Senator. Kerry never reported this to the proper authorities. I hope this story is not true, but Kerry's denials have not been convincing.
But, yes, we have defined treason down to a misdemeanor. Who was the last person executed in this country for treason? Accuse someone of treason and they are likely to yawn and offer you a martini. There are infinitely worse social offense, such as calling someone a racist. Or intolerant. Or religious, for that matter.
And you're wrong: merely speaking out against a war, and mouthing enemy propaganda, can land you in the docket for treason. Ever heard of Tokyo Rose?
Regards
BBB
He testified — possibly untruthfully — to the Senate and declared that he and thousands of other GIs were guilty of warcrimes.
This is bullshit on a half a dozen different levels. But on the biggest level is your "possibly untruthfully" remark.
Lt. Kerry relayed, truthfully in the Congress when asked under oath, that this is what people in his group claimed to have seen. THAT IS NOT TREASON by ANY rational standard, unless you can show for a fact that it was not just lies but that he KNEW it was lies and he did it for the SOLE PURPOSE of giving aid to the enemy.
You and Kerry's tinfoil hat detractors have come nowhere near to establishing such a thing, which means that it is YOU, not Kerry's defenders, who are diluting and cheapening the term "treason" by bandying it about so carelessly.
As for Tokyo Rose: she was wrongly railroaded and was pardoned as a result. She is a horrible example of what it means to be guilty of treason.
You are, in fact, pretty fucking close to treasonous yourself. By so cheapening the definition of the term "treason," you make it too easy for people to dismiss what real treason is: hiding enemy troops in your home, giving them food and clothing and concealment, pointing out troop positions, giving the enemy access to classified documents, intentionaly and willfully repeating their propaganda knowing full well that it is false, and so on.
The Rosenbergs were guilty of Treason. Hiss was guilty of treason. You want to talk about Kerry being guilty of treason, rather than just someone who said dipshit things in opposition to a war he didn't believe in? Prove for a fact, with TWO EYEWITNESSES AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, that he did it with the intent of betraying the United States.
Otherwise, you're just another partisan hack idiot throwing around the term "treason" and cheapening it, and making it easier for real traitors to get away with it.
My somewhat longer answer:
I'm not entirely sure what Esmay means by "I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time." What specifically does it mean to disagree with, but support a president? Does doing so mean that I need to keep my comments to myself? Not write about the decisions that I disagree with? Defend Kerry verbally against those who would criticize him, even though I disagree myself? Or does that defense need only extend as Esmay says, to those critics lying beyond our shores.
I'm sorry, but I cannot buy into that.
If there's some policy that Kerry institutes that I disagree with - I'll feel obliged to say something about it.
I will promise to try to be fair. If he makes a decision based on intelligence, I'll not call him a liar when that intelligence turns out to be false. I'll also not make statements which give strength to our nations enemies(a la Ted Kennedy or Michael Moore.) I'll not tear down our country. I'll not say things like "I'm ashamed of our country", or I'm ashamed of our President." To be ashamed presupposes that I actually care what other countries think of our political decisions.
Other nations have their own best interests at heart, and those interests need not (and often do not) correspond with ours.
Thanks for your feedback.
>>This is ******** on a half a dozen different levels. But on the biggest level is your "possibly untruthfully" remark.<<
Wow, six levels! Pretty dense fecal matter, since the original sentence had only twenty words.
I added the word "possibly" because (A) I didn't care to argue whether Kerry was guilty of perjury as well as treason (though I'm tempted now), and (B) it's arguable whether knowingly passing on false information before a Senate committee is the same as being untruthful. As you liberals like to say, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". The stories Kerry relayed were false and were Communist propaganda. You may wish to argue that he was just passing on information. But you might still be upset if I went around saying "Hey, I heard that Dean Esmay was an idiot."
Instead of the lies, I wanted to focus on the betrayal, since we're discussing treason.
>>Lt. Kerry relayed, truthfully in the Congress when asked under oath, that this is what people in his group claimed to have seen.<<
No, he did more than that. He represented that these allegations were true. This is not a trivial difference. Consider what a hypothetical FBI agent might have reported to Congress about the Detroit meeting. He could very well have said, "I've spent the last three days listening to people discuss the atrocities they claim to have committed in Vietnam [etc.]" without representing that these stories were true. Kerry, on the other hand, wanted to give these stories the imprimatur of his authority. The statements he made on behalf of the Detroit powwow were untrue. Does it take being "knowingly" untruthful to qualify as untruthful? Did Kerry know? Although these are interesting questions and possibly germane to out estimation of Kerry, they are of secondary importance compared to the issue of betrayal.
>>THAT IS NOT TREASON by ANY rational standard, unless you can show for a fact that it was not just lies but that he KNEW it was lies and he did it for the SOLE PURPOSE of giving aid to the enemy. You and Kerry's tinfoil hat detractors have come nowhere near to establishing such a thing, which means that it is YOU, not Kerry's defenders, who are diluting and cheapening the term "treason" by bandying it about so carelessly.<<
Here is a quote from Norman Podhoretz (from "Why We Were in Vietnam"):
"Normally to side with the enemy in wartime is considered an act of treason. But if was one of the many bizarre features of the Vietnam War that Americans were able to side with the enemy with complete impunity. "
Does Norman wear a tin-hat, too? I'm amused that you think you can minimize Kerry's treason and then turn around and accuse me of cheapening the term. I think you have been misled about the nature of treason.
>>As for Tokyo Rose: she was wrongly railroaded and was pardoned as a result. She is a horrible example of what it means to be guilty of treason.<<
Oh, I agree that she was railroaded. But she is a prominent counterexample to the idiotic proposal that treason only be defined as _material_ aid. No one has ever believed that.
>>You are, in fact, pretty ******* close to treasonous yourself."
Am I raising your blood pressure, or are you always this foul-mouthed? Anyway, thanks, this makes it pretty clear that your proposal to set aside partisanship if Kerry is elected was a sham. Apparently anyone who disagrees with you earns a stream of foul-mouthed invective. I thought I had been pretty courteous, albeit blunt about Kerry. Oh, well. You should take some Prozac.
>>By so cheapening the definition of the term "treason," you make it too easy for people to dismiss what real treason is: <<
"Things looked pretty bleak in the summer of 2004. Bush had us pinned to the mat. Our operatives and our brothers, the Baathists, were engaging in increasingly desperate bombings in Iraq. We were running out of "suckers", our playful term for the martyrs we sent on suicide missions. But then, one day I was surfing (blogs rule!) and I stumbled on Dean Esmay's blog. A fellow named Beard was saying that treason had been defined down to a misdemeanor! What a revelation! I had no idea the West was this far gone! I showed this to Ahmed and Mo, and they agreed it was the lifeline we were looking for. We built a new strategy, built on exploiting this weakness, and, well, the rest is history."
— Osama bin Laden, "How We Won The War" (Regnery, 2012).
Dream on.
Your argument makes no sense. I am merely making the observation that treason, siding with the enemy, is not taken seriously. You are exhibit A.
>>The Rosenbergs were guilty of Treason. Hiss was guilty of treason. You want to talk about Kerry being guilty of treason, rather than just someone who said ******* things in opposition to a war he didn't believe in?<<
Actually, the Rosenbergs were convicted under the Espionage Act. Hiss was convicted of perjury. None were ever convicted of treason. I doubt Kerry will ever be prosecuted. Since the leaders of the Vietnamese military give credit to the VVAW for helping win the war (Kerry in particular is celebrated in Hanoi's War Remnants Museum), it seems to me that dismissing Kerry as Someone Who Said ******* Things is fatuous.
Regards
BBB
2) If all I ever did was swear at people who disagree with me, I'd do an awful lot of swearing because an awful lot of people disagree with me.
3) Your definition of treason cheapens and diminishes the concept of treason. Furthermore, it is a direct assault on the 1st amendment.
4) Cheap shots about liberals and the "meaning of is" don't strengthen your arguments, either.
Traditionally, historically, treason has meant willfully and knowingly giving direct aid and comfort to the enemy: passing on battle plans, sheltering enemy soldiers, revealing our own soldiers' hidden positions, and so on. In every single war we've ever fought, we have had those who have dissented forcefully and did not consider them guilty of treason.
Unless you can prove that Kerry new full well that what he was saying was false, and that he did it with the sole intent of demoralizing the troops and strengthening the enemy, you have no case for treason. You may have a case for "unpatriotic dipshit" and "fatulous communist sympathizer," but that's all you've got.
Furtheremore, I emphasize again: most people recognize instinctively--and correctly--that Kerry's actions do not carry the full weight of treason. Therefore, by insisting that he is a traitor, you are driving people straight into his arms and making them even more likely to vote for him, because over-the-top charges distract from thoughtful criticism of the man's record.
Even now, when the Swift Boat Vets for Truth speak, there are those who conflate them with more wild-eyed spittle-spewers, and honest criticisms of Kerry that might otherwise get a fair hearing get ignored.
When you indulge in irresponsible exaggerations, you wind up hurting your own cause more than you help it. And if your cause is "stop John Kerry," my advice to you would be to stop throwing around the word "treason" so carelessly and concentrate on issues instead.
Thanks for your feedback.
I don't think you are advancing the liberal cause with your foul mouth (keyboard?). Instead, your colorful language exposes the disingenuous nature of your "question for conservatives". Turns out it's not so interesting after all.
You seem to have no grasp of either treason or the First Amendment. You would like to carve out a "protected speech zone" from the domain of treasonous activity, but no such exception exists. Alger Hiss was still a traitor, as you point out [though he was not convicted as such], despite the fact that all he ever did was say the wrong things to the wrong people and pass some documents around.
And I'm not the one who made Kerry's Vietnam service the central issue of this campaign. He did.
I'm not a wild-eyed spittle-spewer, nor do I line my hats with tinfoil, nor do I take instruction from liberal propagandists with limited vocabulary. I am in fact a mild-mannered nuclear physicist. You should be concerned that John Forbes Kerry has to base his entire campaign on 3 months' service in Vietnam, while running from his misdeeds afterwards and his incompetent legislative record.
Let me make this real simple for you: Kerry is on record saying he committed war crimes in Vietnam. It would seem that this means either: (A) he was lying, or (B) he is a war criminal. Which is it?
BBB
That is not the issue.
I will not eviscerate the 1st amendment on the theory that odious speech equals treason. To equal treason, you must prove that he knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what he said was false, and that he further did it with the sole intention of seeing the United States not merely withdraw from a war he viewed as wrong, but actually hoped for our defeat and worked toward the end of further deaths in the field.
So far as I know, at no time in the history of our Republic have we ever considered speech against a war to qualify as treason. To me this accusation is also, politically, more likely to draw support toward Kerry than the reverse. Indeed, it makes me more sympathetic toward Kerry, even though I have loved ones who fought in Vietnam who can't stand the guy.
You want to call him a dupe to the communists? An idiot? Someone who spoke vile words about his brothers in arms? Okay.
When you say he's guilty of treason, you say that you KNOW he spoke his words with the intent of seeing GIs killed, and seeing America not merely withdraw but actually be defeated on the battlefield.
That goes too far for me. Indeed, it seems to greatly cheapen the definition of "treason" to me.
(1) Forbidden Intercourse with Foreign Governments (The Logan Act), 18 U.S.C. §§ 953 which prohibits any citizen of the United States from carrying on correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government with intent to influence (its) measures or conduct or (that) of any . . . agent thereof."
(2) The Treason Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2381. The treason statute makes it an offense to "adhere( ) to (the) enemies (of the United States), giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
Take a look at the Philip Agee case:
“Here it is clear that Agee's exchange proposal to the Terrorists for obtaining the CIA records showed more than sympathy with the militants. When coupled with his counselled suggestions and offer to assist the militants subsequently in analyzing the CIA records they had acquired, and others that might be obtained through extortion, his offers would be taken by the militants as a clear indication of support and encouragement for their position from an American citizen. It would give the Terrorists "heart and courage" to continue holding the embassy and the hostages to the detriment of the interests of the United States and particularly to the rights of the hostages. It is plain that by such conduct Agee indicated his adherence to the enemies of the United States giving them aid and comfort.” (Agee v. Muskie(C.A.D.C. 1980)629 F.2d 80,114.)
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.