Presidential Debates I

Okay, the dishes are washed and the kid is in bed. Let the games begin. I'll probably be asleep in 15 minutes.

Why don't they just give the debaters 30 seconds to thank everyone they're going to thank anyway. At least Kerry's not orange.

Okay, we're 10 minutes into this thing and I'm already annoyed. Bush looks annoyed too. I hope he's keeping his cool.

This Osama Bin Laden fetish annoys me. Let's face it: he's either dead or hiding so far inside a cave that he can't even get in camcorder in. Kerry's fine with letting Saddam run loose, but if we don't find Osama's final resting place we've lost the war on terror. Please.

Kerry on Iraq (paraphrase): "It's like FDR invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor"...or invading Germany maybe. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!"

"I know how these people think" Says Bush referring to Europeans. Tee hee.

Kerry complains that there aren't enough coalition soldiers, but could France, Germany and Belgium really contribute many even if they wanted to? Isn't this just a function of our military being so vastly superior to that of our allies?

Moo-lah's? Is that a new kids show on PBS?

Yikes. I lost a bunch of good stuff when I lost my internet connection. (Yeah that's it. All the really clever stuff was lost.)

Kerry went on about Iraq a lot. Aren't our European allies handling that? And we're all multi-lateral in N. Korea. And in Darfur. Yet these are the problem areas. Hmmmm

Kerry looked smug and Bush looked pissed. Kerry seemed presidential and all. I just don't agree with him on a lot of things and when I do agree, I have a hard time believing him.

Update: "One man spoke gibberish, but has a clear stance. The other man spoke clearly, but his stance is gibberish." My thoughts exactly. (via Allapundit)

Why only bad new from Iraq?

Here's a nice item on why Big Media only gives us the bad news from Iraq. Hint: It's not just liberal bias.

Check out the rest of the site (The Truth About Iraq) while you are there. Interesting stuff from a man who worked in "...Iraq for nine months doing focus groups and polling and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion...".

(via Tim Blair)

Who's serious about defense and who's not?

Here's a strange incident. Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters wrote an opinion piece in the NY Post defending the reduction of US forces in Germany. I can't get to the piece on line, but he was attacking Democratic critics of the reduction. He was also hard on the Germans. You can read about his opinion pieced and the German Army's reaction here.

The German military has pulled out of the U.S. Army's annual Land Combat Expo, protesting an opinion piece written by a controversial retired U.S. officer slated to be a guest speaker at next week's event.

As a civilian, I wonder if this is significant. What exactly is this Land Combat Expo?

Billed as the Army's premier professional development symposium for troops in Europe, the Land Combat Expo is slated to run Tuesday through Sept. 30. Much of it will center on the Army's achievements through the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We are displaying for our allies and enemies alike what a great democracy, using the on-the-ground presence of our units, supported by families and the backing of the American people, can achieve in defense of liberty", Gen. B.B. Bell, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, wrote encouraging that troops attend the symposium.

It seems like this is partially a public relations event for the US Army and partially and educational conference for the Europeans. After all, their militaries don't have much combat experience, so there are, presumably, things they can learn from the US military.

And they choose not to attend because of an opinion piece in an American newspaper. Of course, it is their right not to attend, but I'm with Peters on this one:

"It's perfectly all right for the Germans to call President Bush a Nazi, it's perfectly all right for the Germans to criticize everything about America, to lionize ["Fahrenheit 911" director] Michael Moore and treat our soldiers as second-class human beings... but they want to try and censor the American media."

"I think the fact that they're pulling out is the best imaginable indicator of how weak our alliance is, how meaningless Germany's contribution is," said Peters. "If they pull out because they can't stand one 800-word opinion piece in an American newspaper, how could we possibly expect them to stand by us in a violent crisis?"

I don't think it's censorship. It's just silly and unserious. Getting worked up over hurt feelings is the business of diplomats. If the Germans were serious about improving their military to the point were they could compete with us, or even just protect themselves, they wouldn't be pitching a hissy fit over something so insignificant.

But then I'm just an ignorant civilian and am open to enlightenment.

(via Davids Medienkritik)

Confessions of the astoundingly naive

Just before the invasion of Iraq, I heard there were going to be some anti-war protests. No big deal, I thought. I mean, how many people would go out on the streets to march on the side Saddam Hussein?

Election officials warn of phone scam

From the Kansas City Star:

Election authorities are warning voters of a scam that could leave victims open to identity theft.

The scam involves someone calling voters and telling them there is a problem with their voter registration. The caller then asks the voter for their date of birth and Social Security number to correct the problem.

However, election officials say the call is a ruse to gain personal information and that they do not place such calls to correct voter registration problems.

Why I'm Voting for Bush II

Why should I bother to write a post when Bill Cristol has already said it perfectly:

But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign?

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?

Why I'm Voting for Bush

Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate:

...The Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are far too many Democrats that are rooting against the US in Iraq and in the War on Terror generally. I won't get into possible motivations. Many sincerely feel we are doing the wrong thing. But many others are cynically hoping for anything that will make Bush look bad, no matter what it means for the future and security of their own county.

For that reason, even if Lieberman had been nominated, I probably still would have gone with Bush. Lieberman truly wants to fight and win the War on Terror. But he would be surrounded by people who opposed him. This is going to be a long, tough fight and there is no guarantee that Bush can win it. But until a majority of those on the left come to grips with the seriousness of the problem, a Democrat, any Democrat, is bound to fail.

The Bush=Hitler Meme as Fantasy Ideology

I hadn't been able to figure out why this Bush=Hitler thing is so popular with the left. Yes, WWII is always popular with analogy makers, but things seem to have gotten a little out of hand. Do Hollywood stars and university professors really think they are in just as much danger as their counterparts in Nazi Germany? Don't anti-war demonstrators realize that if Bush=Hitler, there would be no demonstration. At first, I thought to myself "Jeez, these people know nothing about Nazi Germany". Then I realized that historical accuracy wasn't the point. But what was the point?

I had a vague notion that for certain people, Bush=Hitler makes them feel important. Standing up against the raised eye-brows of middle America just isn't very daring. And let's face it. That's all most of these protestors are risking. But standing up against Hitler? Well, that's something else entirely.

It just so happens that Civilzation and Its Enemies by Lee Harris covers this psychological phenomena thoroughly. He calls it fantasy ideology. He recalls a conversation he had with a Vietnam war protester in the '60's. This protestor didn't care that the protests might actually be counterproductive to the anti-war cause. He wanted to protest because it was "good for his soul".

Its whole point was what it did for him. And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy - a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors....Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on bridges over the Potomac, he had ...no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props... in his private political psychodrama.

To such fantasists, other people are just props in their fantasy. Of course, Harris is pointing out that America is just a prop for the Islamofasicts. We can't convince them to stop attacking us by modifying our policies on Israel etc., because it's not about us. It's about their fantasy role as David. Our role is to shut up and stand still while they slay Goliath.

This is applicable to the Bush=Hitler crowd. Bush can liberate women from the nightmare of the Taliban, stop the psychotic rule of Hussein and sons, give record amounts of money to fight AIDS in Africa and it just doesn't matter. Because it's not about Bush. Its about feeling like you are part of something heroic, whether you are or not.

Update: The Gallery of "Bush=Hitler" Allusions.

Book Review: Civilization and its Enemies

I was away from the internet most of the weekend while we refinished the livingroom floor. But I managed to read a few pages of Lee Harris' book Civilization and its Enemies: the Next Stage of History. It's fascinating. He discusses how Western societies have forgotten that there is such a thing as an "enemy". We value tolerance and cajole children from the cradle not to be "haters". In other words, we choose not to view others as enemies. We choose not to solve our problems with violence. That's all well and good. We can exercise control over our own opinions and actions.

But this near religious belief in tolerance neglects the other side of the equations. We often have no control over how others view us our act towards us. As Harris puts it: "We are the enemy of those who murdered us on 9/11. And if you are the enemy, then you have an enemy. When you recognize it, this fact must change everything about the way you see the world."

This is the problem with the "NO WAR" crowd. They assume everything will be fine if we just choose not to fight. I suppose that would be true if EVERYONE chose non-violent conflict resolution. But to state the blindly obvious "...if your enemy insists on a war to the finish, then you have no choice but to fight such a war. It is the enemy, and not you, who decides what is a matter of life and death."

It's a puzzle, because the values that make ours a largely peaceful and prosperous society are the opposite of the values needed to defend such a society. Definitely more on Harris' book later.

Democrats for Bush

It seems many Democrats are downright infuriated by folks who claim to be "Democrats for Bush". Take, for example, the love sent to this guy at Democrats for Bush/Chenney 04 (scroll down 3 posts). Also note the whole Zell Miller thing. He went from being a popular southern governor to being a hateful, racist, funny farm escapee as soon as he addressed the Republican convention. I can understand that. I used to feel that way. If you're going to vote for a Republican, doesn't that make you a Republican? Now I'm not so sure.

A party isn't the Borg collective. There will be disagreements and fights over its future direction. The Howard Dean wing of the party is currently in the ascendancy. But just because Joe Liberman may be the only person in the Joe Liberman wing of the party right now, doesn't mean it will always be that way.

The moniker Democrat for Bush is just a way of pointing out that one is unhappy with the direction the party is going. Really unhappy. Unhappy enough to vote for Bush. I reserve the right to go back to the Democrats should they decide to get serious on national security.

Isn't Rathergate a Blast?

The hits just keep on coming:

If this were a game of Clue, we would collectively be jumping up and down and shouting, "the attempted character assassination was committed by Burkett, Mapes, Rather, Lockhart, and McAuliffe, with the fake memo, in the observatory, er, in CBS offices and DNC headquarters!"

I think this may be the first time I've experienced genuine schadenfreude. I do feel a little sorry for Rather. I doubt he understands what the blogosphere is, let alone how it kicked his butt. But Terry McAuliffe...teh hee.

Update: Looks like the Terry McAuliffe part of this story is untrue. I should have known that quote was to good to be true.

Do Iraqis want Democracy?

Just backing up something I said in the comments. Check out this article in the Guardian regarding local elections in April:

The poll was the latest in a series which this overwhelmingly Shia province has held in the past six weeks, and the results have been surprising. Seventeen towns have voted, and in almost every case secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties did better than the Islamists.

I love that the reporter is surprised. Is it naive to think that people would choose freedom over repression? I'm sure most Iraqis would rather have had anyone but the United States deliver their freedom, but.... any port in a storm.

The First Doubts Appear

Six years ago, my husband and I settled down, bought our first house and started taking the daily paper. In the paper was a syndicated column by a guy named Jonah Goldberg. I'd never heard of him before, but I liked his column and started saying things like "This Goldberg guy is right on the money." Well, imagine my surprise when I happened upon that right-wing website, National Review, and discovered that Mr. Goldberg was an editor there. Hmmmm.

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

So, am I a democrat or a republican? Good question. I voted for Dukakis (I was 18, what can I say), Clinton twice and Gore. But this time I'm voting for Bush. So, I could be a 9/11 democrat, just voting for Bush out of fear of terrorism. Or I could have unknowingly become a republican at some point.

I'm reading If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat by Hugh Hewitt. He writes about how difficult it is for most people to change their party identification. He says it's like switching from Ford to Chevy. Not impossible, but not easy either. Here's a quote:

Voters who have great amounts of compassion and who are Democrats have a hard time pulling the Republican lever, At a psychological level, they see it as voting against the poor.

That is so true. I mean, who would want to vote for the mean people? I think 9/11 had everthing to do with why I am willing to reevaluate all those ingrained political habits. More Hugh:

The shock of 9/11 and the choices of the Democrats have made in its aftermath have put many people's party affiliation up for grabs. Longtime Democrats have looked up from the ashes of lower Manhattan and concluded that they have changed.

That is why I think Bush will win. I can't believe I'm the only Gore voter who feels this way.

What passes for excitement in my life

So the other day I sent an e-mail to Jonah Goldberg, my favorite writer at The National Review , and he posted it in The Corner. I was unreasonably excited.

I just told him that I thought it was a bad idea for the dems to constantly harp on Bush's National Guard service because I, as a Gore voter, had not realized he even flew fighter planes. Let's face it. The Democrats' line on Bush is that he was a classic underachiever in his youth, partying and goofing around until he turned 40. Now how does being a fighter pilot fit into that picture? I'm no expert, but I'd say you couldn't do that while nursing a hang-over. That he flew fighter planes for four years instead of the six years he signed up for doesnt' really bother me. The Vietnam war was over and the military was drawing down its forces.

And, by the way, it was 30 frickin' years ago! You've got four years of his performance as Commander-in-Chief to look at. You may not like how he's done, but you don't have to guess. You don't have to comb his early life for clues. The last four years should tell you all you need to know.