« Corporate Liability | Main | Varifrank »

September 18, 2004

Yes, That's it Exactly

Note: this is a post recovered from my old blog, before it died of an insufficient backup. Any comments/trackbacks on it have not been brought over, but can be seen with the original. The date is that of the original posting.


Stephanie just summed up my thoughts about this election almost perfectly:

I watched the convention again last night.

And fell asleep in the middle of President Bush's speech. Yep, nodded right off.

The part I watched was okay. I understand that it got better when he started talking about foreign policy. I heard most of his domestic agenda. It was good to listen to, as I get so wrapped up in domestic security that I forget how much I actually disagree with the President. Ah, I remember now. Something about spending, spending, spending, funding, funding, funding ... legislating morality. ... Yes, that was it.

Still, the idea of Kerry winning sends chills of fear down my spine. Kerry, who is shocked and outraged that Dick Cheney has questioned his fitness to command. Good grief. This is an election. We're all supposed to question the candidates' fitness to command. Cheney, being the VP and in a position to know what it takes to be Commander in Chief, and a voter himself, has every right to question. That's the point! In an election, you do that!

I guess I can understand the outrage, though. It's not like John Kerry questions Bush's or Cheney's fitness to command the nation ... oh wait, they do? Hmmm. That's okay, though, because they're in office. And they're Bad Guys. Did I get it right? Am I getting the hang of this politics thing after all?

Here's the "almost" in "almost perfectly": she forgot to add that President Bush doesn't believe we should be able to question John Kerry's record either - or at least, not to spend money to question it on TV or radio - and to that end both signed McCain-Feingold (in an era of blatantly unconstitutional laws, this one still takes my breath away) and stated quite openly that he wanted all 527s banned. You know, those pesky organizations that aren't associated (theoretically) with any political party, who exist only for the purpose of gathering citizens' money together to broadcast their political opinions.

But I am a single issue voter: I'll worry about where the line is that would finally cause me to rise up in revolution against the government1 after I make sure that my kids aren't going to get blown up on the bus.

UPDATE: And Lt. Smash lays out the Bush Doctrine - the only reason I'm voting for him - quite nicely.

UPDATE: And Susan Estrich lays out the reasons why if the war weren't going on, I'd be voting for a third party instead of the Democrats. One quote from Susan: "The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough." And another from a different Democrat, Molly Birnbaum: "Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole". I'd hate to see what they think is mean, unfair or a flat-out lie coming from a Democrat!

1Hopefully "rise up" as in civil disobedience, and stating my opinion loudly. But if the government takes that option away, they should remember that we are still an armed society, and there is still enough hatred of tyranny here that a revolution is possible, as the Founders intended. I don't expect to see a violent revolution in my lifetime, but I do expect to see a time where widespread civil disobedience on the scale of the civil rights movement will be necessary.

Post a comment

Posted by jeff at September 18, 2004 12:00 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: