xtcian

I am a daily reader of this blog and though in no way attempting to blow sunshine up Ian's ass, my morning routine when I hit the office is to get the headlines from CNN, then from FOX, then from Ian. Also, so as to not mask my political or social leanings, I am a military brat, UNC grad, and I will be voting for Bush.

I read both Sean's and Ian's blogs. So that I do not waste your time restating what Sean wrote, I simply say for the benefit of any readers of this blog who cannot understand why anyone is voting for Bush: the primary and overriding reason why people who are voting for Bush are doing so is stated clearly in Sean's blog. Sean hit the nail on the head. I understand that Sean does not agree with the position he stated, but that is why.

I expect most Americans believe that the most important obligation of our President and our government is to protect our lives and our national interests. While there are important social issues concerning the economy, who the next Supreme Court Justice will be, abortion, social programs, etc., many Americans believe there is no greater issue in any Presidential election than our national security. And while I recognize that this theory requires a big leap, in theory if our national defense and our safety as a nation goes down the tubes, you can forget about who the next Justice will be because it will not be important. Many Americans will vote with national defense and terrorism being the primary issues and they feel that Bush is the right choice.

Why will they not vote for Kerry? You can take all that "global test" stuff and throw it in the garbage. Bush voters do not hinge their decision on the global test comment. What they hinge their decision on is a belief that Kerry simply will not defend our nation as well as Bush. Bush voters believe that Kerry has a deep rooted philosophical objection to using our troops in conflict. While I would hope that any American, including our President, would be hesitant to use force knowing that young men and women would die, it is important that our Commander-in-Chief be philosophically able to do it. Bush voters believe that (a) Kerry just cannot use force OR, more appropriately, (b) his hesitancy to use force will be so extreme that it will actually cause those who want to do us harm to feel that they can do so without a serious response from us.

I don't believe that Kerry is philisophically opposed to using force. I think the difference between Kerry and Bush (among about a 1000 things) is that Kerry will do a better job of making sure we'll WIN when we do have to use force, and we'll have plenty of folks to back us up while we're at it.

The thing that most worried me about writing the blog I did was that people would think I was endorsing an opinion that I most vehemently *don't* endorse. For all of the reasons that you, Ian, just quoted in your blog (and more). It wasn't a pro-Bush blog. It was a "quit calling pro-Bush people stupid" blog.

I think Bush is a man of very little intellectual curiosity, and no imagination. But I also know that his supporters are not. Yes, some of them are mouth-breathing pro-lifers. But some of our people are patchouli-stink Phish-listening hippies.

Fundamentally, we believe that the Iraq war was a choice and Bush supporters believe it was a reaction to a larger cultural war that has been going on since the mid 80s. I think they're wrong, but they aren't stupid.

One last thing, to Andrew above,

It is the saddest thing to me that so many of my friends and family are voting because they are worried about their own deaths. Bush is running a campaign of American Terror. For almost every single person I know, if you remove the threat of terrorism, Bush is seen as an economically disastrous, religiously puritanical, ecologically hopeless, inarticulate and short sighted boob.

Terrorists breed terror, hence the name. That's what Bush's people are doing. During WW II, the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. Now, "It's not a question of 'If', but 'When'". And it's a real shame.

To Sean above: I in no way read your blog to be pro-Bush and I trust that my first comment DID NOT suggest that you meant it so. I did indicate that you do not agree with the Bush voter, but that your analysis was correct as to why the Bush voter believes what s/he does.

Also, while your observation that IF you take terrorism out of the picture, many people see Bush as a boob [your word] is appreciated, the fact is that terrorism cannot be taken out of the picture. If Kerry wins, is terrorism going to be out of the picture when I go to work on November 3? Terrorism is with us and will remain with us. It was with us long before Sept 11. I don't recall the exact dates but the exerpts of the 9/11 Commission reports that I read indicated that the plans had been in the pipeline for years. Think how long the plans had been in the pipeline for the first WTC bombing. How long had planning gone on against the Marines in Beirut? Terrorism against us has been around a long time. It is now a huge deal and more immediate concern because terrorists have just recently figured out they can hit us at our house, not just a Marine barracks or embassy somewhere far away.

Irregardless of whether one believes that Bush has gone about it the right way or the wrong way, does anyone believe that once the Towers went down terrorists around the world were going to say: "wow, great victory, no more need to attack the US anymore." That act opened the door for more terrorism because it showed terrorists that they could actually do it. Sean is correct to say that the question is not "if" but "when". But the question has been "when" for a lot longer than Bush has been in the oval office. The question was "when" in the Clinton era, Bush, Reagan, Carter.

The Bush voter believes that he is the best for the job of limiting/stopping terrorists from acting OR believing they can act without serious consequence. I do not see Bush as running a campaign of fear to scare me. I do not fear [knock on wood] that I am going to die in a terrorist act, I fear that any American is going to die. Bush is telling the American people that the world is a dangerous place, that there are people who want to kill us, and that the best approach is to be on offense. Bush voters believe that is true. Bush voters hear Kerry saying that the world community is suddenly going to rally, that sanctions work and that peace, love and understanding will conquer all. They do not believe it.

Something I have wanted to ask any Kerry supporter: What is Kerry going to do when he goes back to the international community to rally support and they say no?

Actually, Sean, you *can't* remove the threat of terrorism, post 9-11.

In fact, you can never completely remove that threat. There have always been, and will always be, utterly ruthless zealots willing to do *whatever* it takes to further their unpopular causes.

To believe otherwise is to live in a movie world of make believe, where after we kick ass once and for all and the credits roll, we'll all live happily (and safely) ever after.

The threat of terrorism can never be eliminated, BUT it can be amplified or reduced.

What drives the two-stroke cycle of terrorism is reaction. Terrorist groups are usually small, and hold generally unpopular views. They want their victim to retaliate hugely and clumsily, creating lots of 'collateral damage', thereby transforming victim to aggressor in the public mind and winning wider support for their radical agenda.

After 9-11, the intelligent move would have been to go after al-Qaeda aggressively--and relatively quietly. John Kerry's record and public statments indicate that he would have done exactly this.

By loudly launching an inept global cru-sade to make the world safe for Christianity, George W. Bush blundered right into al-Qaeda's hands. Bush has made the world, and especially the U.S., *much* less safe.

National security is my top priority, too. That's why I say we put the smart guy in charge.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry.

By the way, Ian, U-S-A isn't a dirty word (that's why I had to write ('cru-sade' in above post).

We can be the greatest country on earth, if we can learn to be the kindest, smartest, most tolerant and strongest country again. But we have to learn to equate strength with positive virtues rather than with aggression.

I believe in this country.

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!

And I'm still voting for Kerry.

So there.

Bud, thank you. I cannot believe that anyone can argue with a straight face that B**h's self-interested, hardly-planned invasion of Iraq (which had, WHAT to do with terrorism? WHAT to do with Al-Qaeda? although B**h's invasion HAS in fact turned Iraq from one of the world's many reprehensible dictatorships into a lawless land that NOW, NOW that there are hundreds of thou-sands of American troops there, easily magnetizes aspiring terrorists--) has made the world safer.

I find the idea that Kerry might not recklessly and randomly invade parts of the world at his whim to be a rather comforting thought. Parts of the world that, lest we forget, CANNOT BE LINKED IN ANY WAY to either 9/11 OR, OR!! an imminent attack on the U.-S. Remember that? How they said Saddam was hiding biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, when THEY KNEW HE WAS NOT?? The aluminum tubes, you say? Ask the Department of Energy what kind of threat THEY saw in the tubes. What kind of a threat a 1950 Zippe centrifuge would pose, which even if it COULD manage to produce high-quality uranium (which is unlikely enough as to be completely implausible) would take about 1,000 years to produce enough for ONE BOMB.

I'd like to see B**H approach the international community and try to win over just one, just one significant ally--that's what I'D like to see.

i thought sean's blog was an interesting, well-intentioned attempt to understand the mindset of people he loves and disagrees with (my parents included). understanding where the other side is coming from and discussing that mindset with them respectfully is more effective than dismissing it as stupid or the product of simpleminded fear. and you might even be able to change some minds.

i believe that bush is fighting an old fashioned war against a new kind of enemy. we're hammering at walls when our enemy is hiding in the cracks. the more hammering, the more cracks, and the more former moderates we drive into those cracks. we need finer tools (intelligence, special forces, global cooperation) to root out the infestation without causing unnecessary damage, destruction and resentment. this is why i'm voting for kerry. not because i'm not aware of the threat, but because i want it dealt with effectively.

LOL! "Falafel-flavored whoop-ass." Ian, I URGE you to crosspost a few of these on Daily Kos, where so many will read and be influenced and delighted by your words. Nifty as your family and your life story may be, I read your blog for the philosophy, the national affairs commentary, and especially for the political rants. They're priceless.

So Sean and Andrew want to make it clear that "Bush voters aren't necessarily stupid." Well, I'm usually hesitant to insult the intelligence of others just for disagreeing with me, because it isn't persuasive. But this whole perception of Kerry as overly hesitant to defend our interests is so obviously wrong that it's hard to see where people get it. No, scratch that. I know where they get it--they get it directly from the Bush-Rove slime machine and their handmaidens in Big Media. And then, what's hard to see is how come they're so gullible. Is gullible a fairer word than "stupid"?

Bush may not be hesitant, but he is rash and impulsive, as well as a poor planner and a bad strategist. To me, that's a lot more dangerous in a commander in chief than someone who you think is too cautious. That on top of all the domestic disasters and the threat to the Supreme Court, and it's hard to see continued support for Bush as anything but a serious character flaw.

In the context of Bush, I don't care about Godwin's Law. Those Germans who wanted a strong leader who wouldn't hesitate to use force probably objected to being called stupid too. But they couldn't have been more wrong in their choice.

To Bud above: While I appreciate your points, I have concerns. I think we all agree that we had to go to Afghanistan. In a very simplified summary, Bush says lets go in and blow them to hell while Kerry says lets go in quietly and take care of it. Three questions: (1) As a practical matter how does the US military go into Afghanistan quietly? (2) What in Kerry's record suggests that he would have gone in aggresively? I do not particularly care what he has SAID he would have done, any presidential candidate has to say they would have gone after OB and the Taliban. What in his record tells me that he would have done it? (3) Why should I not be concerned that when put in the same situation, Kerry will rely on your two-stroke cycle of terrorism analysis and therefore decide he doesn't want to go in and take someone out because he is fearful that it will cause more terrorism.

Obviously I do not have enough to do at work today. Given that it is after lunch on a Friday, I probably should be napping.

What in B**h's record suggests he has done anything right or effectively? He went into Afghanistan, blew up a bunch of people, set up a puppet government, and Osama & Co. drifted away in the mountains somewhere.

Now, we are spending effectively all of our military budget in Iraq, which is disintegrating into a violent non-state more and more every hour. And the number of dead, INNOCENT civilians tops 100,000---not to mention 1,100 dead American soldiers who have died for...what?

What in B**h's pre-election record showed that he was capable of...anything? He had been bailed out of several failed (oil) businesses, managed a baseball team, and finally bought and smeared his way into the Governor's office of TX (with zero previous public service record), in which he merrily oversaw the executions of over 200 people and returned favors to his friends and former colleagues in the...OIL...industry.

Kerry has led a life of public and governmental service. He has been in the armed forces, he has earned distinction in combat, he has served in the Senate for over 20 years, he is an intelligent speaker and agile thinker. And he will be a better president.

Right on Ann Humphreys. What shift of the Franklin Street victory parade will you be leading, God willing, after the election? God Bless the Very Kerry.

Great metaphor with the cracks Jordana. Somebody please post what kind of terrorist is the fat plumber's crack and the distastefully exposed ass-crack, or are those merely wolves in sheep's thongs?

I know this wasn't the blog topic, but when is somebody gonna rail on Lynn Cheney? What a bitch.

Andrew, to answer your questions briefly -

1) less cluster bombing, more intelligence services and special forces. (remember, I said 'relatively quietly).

2) Kerry has consistently lobbied for better trained and funded intelligence services. He served almost 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and served a term as chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations--he knows his stuff, personally, unlike Bush, who relies on advisors to a degree that disturbs a lot of us.

3) It's not my theory, but something I learned in 'US History since 1945' (HIST 150) at UNC. I'm surprised it's at all controversial. It doesn't contraindicate an aggressive response, but it does indicate bringing to justice *only* the specific individuals responsible, and avoiding, at great cost if necessary, widening the conflict.

I think we got off to a good start in Afghanistan, but thanks mainly to the misguided Iraq misadventure, conditions there are deteriorating--and worse, we're making new enemies every day.

What the Bush doctrine means is that no country will feel safe until, like those stable bastions of liberal democracy Pakistan and Korea, they have nuclear weapons to be immune from U.S. coercion. What Bush's resolute advocacy of SDI means is that he'll continue to act as if that's nothing to worry about. If Bush had been in charge during the Cuban missile crisis the world would already belong to the cockroaches. Let's forget about "security" and talk about the world as we know it.

I will note for the record that Bud did in fact say 'relatively quietly'.

Regarding question 3 that I raised, I was not asking whether the two-cycle analysis is valid [of course opinions on whether the analysis is correct could differ]. What I was asking is this [and it requires some set-up]: as a voter, I, like Bud and the others, feel it is important that our position be that we should do everything we can to stop terrorists before they have a chance to strike. If they do strike, we should strike back very hard, whether it be by 'relatively quiet' special ops, covert actions, or really big bombs. I also believe that to take the two-cycle analysis to its logical end results in no response from the victim of terrorism due to fear that response would result in more terrorism, regardless of whether the response is loud or relatively quiet.

What I do know is that in 1991 when the world coalition was ready to expel Hussein from Kuwait, Kerry voted against the use of force. And it bears noting that the 1991 situation was not just a bombed embassy or a highjacked plane, the guy took over another country. Kerry voted against the use of force to remove him. Question: If I know that Kerry voted against force when the entire world was ready to go in 1991, why should I now feel that his philosophy concerning force has changed. I do not doubt that he knows his stuff after having served in the Senate, but how could any US Senator have legitimately voted against force in 1991? He wanted to continue sanctions against a man that overran a country. How can I feel confident now that he will not take the two-cycle terrorism analysis to its logical end and be fearful of responding to terrorism. What I do know is that his decision to not use force in 1991 echoes the same philosophy he had 20 years earlier. Why should I believe that the last 13 years has changed him?

I doubt that anyone on this blog will agree, but I, like many Bush voters, simply do not believe that Kerry has what it takes to defeat or thwart terrorism. His philosophies since 1971, his record in 1991, and I expect his 20 year voting record on new defense weapon systems while he has been in the Senate evidence this position.

It may be a valid point that strongly and loudly fighting terrorism may lead to more terrorism. But sitting back and doing nothing for fear of more terrorism will not stop the terrorists that want to hurt our country. We would simply be making their job easier and they would keep hitting. I would much prefer to be in the scuffle than to let somebody punch me in the face unabated. Have a good weekend.

Another thing I suspect Sean is wrong about is Kerry's willingness to go to war. Based on my surfing, at least one Serbian blogger thinks he voted for the Kosovo action. How many of the military actions that the U.S. took because Kerry was NOT in charge would we actually regret not having taken? It's hardly obvious that the original Gulf War has made either the US or the world as a whole more secure and prosperous than it would have been if we'd pursued containment and diplomacy. If we were to decide to call the Gulf War a good decision, because we feel sure that an unchecked Saddam would have created world instability, I think with W's decision and execution of Iraq II he still beats Kerry in the war-choices-to-foster-world-stability argument. Who feels stable now?

Oliver- Are you suggesting that containment of Hussein AFTER he had overrun another country was the way to go? Are you suggesting that we should have been concerned that our use of force to free a conquered innocent nation might destabalize the region before we went, and therefore we should not have gone to Gulf War 1? Was it not the right thing to do?

Again, how could any US Senator at the time have voted against Gulf War 1? It was the most clearly legal, ethical, moral, and appropriate military action of the last 60 years. And he said no. That is what a Bush voter is worried about. And again, have a good weekend.

Andrew: "what it takes to defeat or thwart terrorism"? Um, if I understand correctly, the office of the presidency gives one control of the U.S. armed forces, the state department, the intelligence services and the ear of the entire world. You wish that Kerry had Bush's managerial skills, intuition and judgment? I think I'm going to have to echo whoever made the earlier diagnosis of too much Fox news.

"Was it not the right thing to do?" An excellent question, as I myself said. So let's consider the case open.

I am willing to say about Gulf War-I that, whether or not it was the right thing to do, in many respects it seems to have been "done right." I regret the dead Iraqis, the self-gassing and affliction with Gulf War syndrome of the U.S. troops, the false hope-raising, massacre and subsequent increase in oppression of the Iraqi majority Shiites, the widespread isolation disease and impoverishment inflicted by the sanctions that followed etc, etc. But generally speaking Gulf War-I strikes me as a class act that made us look cool and impressive at the time. I wish there had been such a synergy of purposes to be served by invading Rwanda and Yugoslavia. It's a separate and ultimately unanswerable question, though, whether taking an alternate tack wouldn't have caused less grief to living people and put world history on a better trajectory. Like I said, it's not obvious to me. I also believe that governments talk about acting on principle only when they can talk plausibly about a principle that sound good. For lots of majorly fateful political decisions, like the one not to intervene in Rwanda, there is no such principle. So for myself and many others it's hard to get excited when you hear a nice principle touted.

i.e. touted for something that very strongly appears at the outset likely to cause more human suffering than it prevents.

i.e. touted for something that very strongly appears at the outset likely to cause more human suffering than it will prevent.

Andrew: Kerry's vote from '91 doesn't matter to me. We are living in a post 9/11 world. President Bush didn't run on a "Invade Iraq" platform, his world view changed when we were attacked, and most of America's did as well. So did Kerry. He's been anti-death penalty his whole life, now he's pro-death penalty for terrorists.

In the same way that only Nixon could go to China, I think only a democrat can lead the world at a time like this. Many conservatives agree with me. Kerry has the leadership skills and international diplomatic skills that Bush doesn't have.

That is my opinion, and I understand that you see things differently, and I understand why that vote would make you vote for Bush. I also know I'm not gonna change your mind by screaming at you in this blog-comment space.

By the way, 46 US senators voted with Kerry against using force in 1991. And it's really hard to argue that we waged that war correctly, although we did end up destroying almost all of Hussein's weapons.

I mean, for the record, a lot of people were against that war, and even Dick Cheney was against going in to Iraq after they were driven out of Kuwait. Even my most conservative friends and family members admit that the war in Iraq is a disaster that they hope history will look on kindly.

On the question of judgment about our national security and Kerry's Senate record: Kerry ran for Senate in 1984 in opposition to Reagan's very strong stance against the Soviets and in favor of a nuclear freeze. Kerry's position reflected the consensus of the Left which also argued that Reagan's first term was a disaster for our national security and that Reagan was hyper-aggressive, a right-wing ideologue, and a fool. Once elected by Massachusetts voters, Kerry continued to focus on Reagan's foreign policy. In particular, Kerry went after Reagan administration policies fighting Communism in Central America. Comparing them to Vietnam, Kerry said Reagan's policies in the region were a moral blight and would fail by alienating the people he claimed to be liberating. A few years later, elections were held in Nicaragua and the voters tossed the Sandinistas out of power.

The debates had no questions about this critical aspect of Kerry's Senate career. The moderators did Americans a huge disservice by not asking Kerry if he learned anything from the foreign policy events of the 1980s and early 1990s. Kerry thus offered his latest variation on his same argument (American is usually wrong when it engages in military action, so it shouldn't do it). Ironically, Kerry even cited the late Ronald Reagan in support of his foreign policy approach. The fact that Bush had no response indicates the reason this thing is close.

I think people on both sides should be thinking about how we are going to patch things up when this election is over. Whoever wins, terrorism will still be there and so will all the other challges we face as a nation. I think Sean's post is a great beginning.

I don't know enough about Nicargua to argue the point but they had to vote for somebody, so I don't see the fact that the Sandinistas lost as validating. California voted out Gray Davis and voted in Arnold. Does that validate the state's referendum system? If anything the reverse, in my book. And the people across the former USSR's eleven time zones they're sure doing well now, aren't they? Good thing the country was bankrupted by war mongering and has proceeded to anarchy and the pending facism instead of transition to something more like that failed concept socialism. Chris, you seem to implicitly acknowledgment to W's brainlessness. Is it faith that Cheney holds the reins that allows you to sleep at night?

I have to thank Chris for leading me to the realization that Russia is Reagan's Iraq (on slow burn)

I must also say now what should have been said right off the bat, if anybody here had any cultural sensitivity. "Falafel" is not Afghani, it's Middle Eastern. Take a look at Afghanistan on the map. Across what border are the falafel trucks coming across? Jesus Christ Mohammed!

Oliver,

Reagan had argued that the Sandanistas were a dictatorship without popular support. The Sandanistas claimed otherwise. Reagan argued for years that elections should be held to determine the issue and the Sandanistas resisted. Many Democrats, including Kerry, thwarted Reagan's efforts to democratize Central America. For those of us that prefer democratically elected goverments to unelected one-party ones, the Sandanistas finally agreeing to elections was in itself a huge victory. The fact that the voters tossed out the one-party dictatorship funded by the USSR/Cuba was icing on the cake. As for Russia, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about and I suspect that is because neither do you.

Chris, The person who said "Give me liberty or give me death" was either misguided or exaggerating. Aside from the issue of how your geographic region accomplishes a change from one government administration to the next, there are other things that people care about such as health and happiness. Also, while the result of almost any election has merit, especially when certified by Jimmy Carter, that does not make it the whole story. Take Florida for example and take the fear of the world's most powerful country making your life miserable if you don't vote for their guy. As I said, I don't know enough of the details to argue Nicaragua, but you're making it awful easy.

Oh, Russia. What am I thinking of? Terrorism, kidnapping, mafia, unemployment, Putin's recent consolidations of power. I only know what I read in the news.

Whoa, harmonic convergence! I invoke Jimmy Carter and disparage Patrick Henry's 1775 war cry in the context of antimilitarism and Iraq and _two days later_ Jimmy Carter himself is on NPR doing the exact same thing. No monkeying with the dates, Ian. Let it be documented here. And listen for a sound bite on Fox tomorrow in which Carter suggests that the American Revolutionary War might have been a bad idea.