I've put a sidebar link to the Eowyn Voters League. The Eowyn Voters are another version of the Security Mom phenomenon. These are women for whom the main issue in this election is national security.
Count me in. I am voting based on the issue of national security, and that's pretty much the end of the story. I have four young sons. I want them to grow up. I will do whatever it takes for that to happen. As Katie puts it:
For those of you who aren't rabid Tolkeinites, Eowyn is the niece of a king who's kingdom is under attack, and she chooses to fight rather than to stay back with the women and children. She fears neither death nor pain and chooses to defy the Nazgul (big scary way-evil thing) which stands between her and her "lord and kin." You mess with me and the people I love -- I take offense to that. You stand aside and let other people mess with me and the people I love -- I take offense to that too. I'm not a fan of war, I have no great desire to be a warblogger, but it is because I long for peace, true peace, that I choose to fight the war that is upon us. I choose to fight by blogging, I choose to fight by voting, and if I ever find myself in a situation where I have to physically fight for my life or for those around me, I will choose that as well. Terrorists would do well to remember the old adage, "If captured, don't let them give you to the women." Because we will protect ourselves and our families, and it won't be pretty.
Admittedly, I do fear death. But you'd have to kill me to get near my family, and I expect my government to do the same for me. It is not enough to promise to respond if my country is attacked. My country has already been attacked. We are at war. Let's get it over with.
Posted by Steph at September 17, 2004 11:13 AMDamned straight!
Can I list you as guardian of the boys if something happens to Zorak and I in a freak FBI "accident"?
I just love your outlook!
Dy
Posted by: Dy on September 19, 2004 08:21 PMThis election is about more than the war in Iraq...
"The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his colaition in the Oval Office. He`s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfield and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.
I`m not of the school that questions his intelligence...There are different kinds of intelligence, and it`s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today`s world, that`s often a problem. I don`t think that he`s weak intellectually. I think that he in incurious...
But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he`s a coward when confronted with a force that he`s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying `yes,yes,yes,yes,yes` to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whiole - that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don`t see any other explanation for it, because it`s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they`re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation."
excerpts from: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact
Posted by: Mama Bear on September 22, 2004 09:27 AMThanks for your comments, Mama Bear.
Elections are always about more than one issue. But *I* have decided that for this election one issue is far more important to me than the rest (and I have never done that before). For me this issue is so important that I'm willing to put everything else on the back burner for now.
The author you quote is Al Gore, and no, I'm not going to take his critique of Mr. Bush seriously. He's hardly an unbiased source. I disagree that George W. Bush lacks moral courage - quite the opposite, in my opinion. But thanks for the link. It's an interesting article.
Posted by: Stephanie on September 22, 2004 05:40 PMAnd Dy ... anytime ;-) We'd be honored.
Posted by: Stephanie on September 22, 2004 05:41 PMIt is an interesting article, with a lot to think about, regardless of the author. One of the best things about freedom of speech is that we can agree to disagree!
Posted by: Mama Bear on September 22, 2004 07:08 PMRight!
I used the wrong word above. Al Gore was the one quoted, but he was not the author of the article.
Posted by: Stephanie on September 23, 2004 09:30 AM