arisbe | No, I Didn't

No, I Didn't

Vote for Bush. Even though I pulled his lever.

I was voting against the other clown. The one who invented the Internet. The one whose wife wants the government in charge of popular music.

I was wrong.

When the Democrats left office they left behind them at least one strong and effective policy against terrorism. Hijacked aircraft were to be intercepted and forced down. Immediately. No discretion. No exceptions. No excuses. And the world knew it.

On June 1, 2001, Rumsfeld's Pentagon trashed it. Now there would be no interceptions. Except on the order of Donald Rumsfeld. And on September 11 there was no such order. None that we know of. And nobody cares.

So one bright Tuesday morning I stood behind the glass walls of a Manhattan office tower and watched a neighboring tower burn. And then another one.

I don't like Kerry any more than I liked what's his name. But I don't think I'll make the same mistake twice.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Why vote?

Damned good question.

An even better one is why not vote -- for something you believe in?

No Libertarians on the Upper West Side. But maybe on the ballot.

I suppose - but how much out there is left to believe in - very slim pickins' as far as I am concerned.

I vote for whomever I ca se *most* eye to eye with....and mostly just so I have the right to complain about things when they don't go the way I wanted them to.

Norman Thomas ran for President for I don't know how many years, but his Socialist platform is taken for granted by today's Republicans and Democrats. So much for throwing your vote away!

Because the stakes are too high for you to stay at home.

Not really what I was getting at.

perhaps I should have made it more clear that it was a joke . . . LBJ's campaign slogan against Barry Goldwater, with the little girl, countdown, atom bomb et cetera. And yes, a bit of a poke at Bush.

The stakes are too high for me to give my approval to any of the candidates I've seen so far.

Because, even if there is no one and nothing you want to vote for there will be things--and people--you feel strongly about voting against. I suspect that this election is one of those.

I voted for a third party in the last election just to show my utter contempt for both major parties. (In Louisiana, which had a +60% of voters going for Bush, I figured it didn't really matter anyway.) Now I live in MA and I don't really know what I'll do. I am pretty sure he will win his own state - if he doesn't, he isn't going to win anywhere else anyhow. And the thought of voting for him makes me ill. But the thought of contributing to four more years of this is even worse. So I guess I'm an "undecided".
I didn't know they had trashed that policy. I was confused as to why they didn't implement it that day, since I knew it had been active only a year before. The mind boggles at such a level of incompetent stupidity...

Let's hope and pray it was only stupidity. Probably in the case of Bush himself it was...

Wow.

you and me both, same deal. also won't make same mistake twice.

Incidently, mind if I write you in? ;)

That's why I got myself laid off.

"Purcell for Prez 2004" is up and running, then?

Also, where did you hear about Rummy scrapping the interception plan?

This is the document number: CJCSI 3610.01A, .pdf available here:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/cjcsidirectives.htm

I realized not that long ago that my voting strategy has always been AGAINST rather than FOR. I always try to craft my vote to keep the worst guy (IMO) out. The candidates that I actually like never, ever make it out of the primaries.

Yes, leaders are always disapointing us one way or the other.

Good point. In the big picture, they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't. Different people want different things from their leaders, and they'll always have unrealistic expectations about them.

In a democracy, though, people can do more than complain, they can vote one disappointing politician out and another one in. It largely depends on how you prefer to be disappointed, I think. I'd rather be disappointed by lack of "progress" than by deprivation of liberty, for example.

As AC reminds us: "The principle of popular election is a fatal folly; its results are visible in every so-called democracy. The elected man is always the mediocrity; he is the safe man, the sound man, the man who displeases the majority less than any other; and therefore never the genius, the man of progress and illumination."

How can even the most well-meaning of those in a democratic society ever break out of that sort of pattern - of producing leaders more concerned about "safety" than anything else?

"Safety" may be less of a concern to our leaders than continued personal standing. War is an excellent excuse for maintaining a grip on power that might otherwise be considered unreasonable. The kind of man who is most likely to achieve and hold power in a democracy is the one who can put on the best show. People want to hear about progress, they want to hear about big ideas and grand, utopian visions, what they don't want to hear about are the boring details, the caveats, the complications, the limitations, and the financing.

How can a democracy break out of the grip of demagogues? Good question. Education might help, but can it ever be sufficient? Who knows?

Demands many things - like passion, and educators with passionate involvement in their subjects. Those afraid to offend cannot educate.

If you try to please everyone, because you believe everyone to have equally worthwhile opinions, you wind up pleasing no one. Democracies have certain basic contradictions. People who grow up in democratic societies, and embrace their myths, often have trouble challenging themselves away from those ideals - even when they need to.

Some leaders don't really believe in the ideals they are supposed to lead with. They aren't very challenging. This makes them poor leaders.

Well, I think the U.S. is going to remain a democracy for a while, at least nominally. Given that egalitarianism is one of the fundamental precepts of democracy, any politician who eschews it is going to have to be pretty good at pretending to embrace it if he wants to get the votes he needs.

1) Bush think his crusade and policies are morally correct. Therefore, he is less interested in whether they will work or not, than he is in feeling good about the fact that he is a "good person" for making them.

2) Bush surrounded himself with people presenting one basic, and seriously flawed, view of the world. Those dissenting from this view were frozen out - i.e., Colin P., and the ones now writing tell-all books about how messed up his administration was/is. All leaders who surround themselves with yes-men and lickspittles run into this sort of problem. The people he promoted into positions of power were crooks like Chalabi, but he failed - and fails - to see how his own poor understanding contributed to his own problems. He cannot be "wrong" because he's morally right.

3) The Bush government is all about keeping secrets and hiding from pulic accountability. Rather than hold itself accountable for its many errors and flaws, they attempt to cover things up and retreat into more secrecy. This, of course, backfires when the secrets all come out in public. All governments need a certain amount of secrecy, but when leaders are tempted to use a culture of secrets to cover-up their own errors and lapses, they misuse the privilege for ignoble ends.

yes I will not vote for Bush either, although I didn't vote for him the first time either.

...however, I learned, during almost ten years of living outside the United States, that there is a marked difference in the foreign policy of the current Democrats, as opposed to the current Republicans. The current Republicans, in constructing foreign policy--including development programs--demonstrate palpably FOR ALL THIRD WORLD PEOPLE TO SEE--that they're perfecly willing to do without their esteem or respect. Republican foreign policy, as it relates to trade and to affairs in the Muslim World, is a threat to world peace and to environmental stability. Nothing will improve inside the borders of the continental U.S., I agree, but, if you care at all for
your fellow man on this planet, you MUST vote for Kerry, the "douchebag."

Admitting error is a road to wisdom. I learn from my mistakes--that's why I know so much.

There's a site, I'll see if I can find you the link, that shows how current political candidates and national elected officials voted on ever issue as it's come before congress, etc. It's very non-partisan.

I think you'd be surprised to see how consistant Kerry has been, vs. how the media has portrayed him. No, he's not my favorite candidate, and I think others, like Dean, got railroaded, but then again, my perfect candidate would be a full-on Green, and then none of y'all would vote for him. Or her.

here it is: http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

Read that, then read about some of the other people, like Bush, who we have now. I can point out in a millisecond who *I'M* voting for.

Since I (and most likely anyone else) will never find a candidate that represents all I would like to see. I will continue to vote where the bulk of my ideology is represented. That is with the Republican party. I don't think Bush is that great, but that doesn't mean I will suddenly vote counter to the ideals my party stands for.

In an unrelated note, it sounds as if you wish to hold Bush and/or Rumsfeld responsible for the WTC incident. The only fault I find, is with whomever flew those planes into the buildings...the blame lies with them.

So that means nothing could have stopped it? We shouldnt examine what policies would have stopped it?

Or just wait for the next attack, and then go find another brown country or two to invade?

Nonsense. That's a gross oversimplification. Of course it probably could have been stopped. Facts are, it wasn't.

Of course we should examine the policy, but policy doesn't stop planes, getting fighters in the air stops planes, and that may or may not have happened even WITH the old policy in place.

We can Monday morning quarterback this all we want, but it happened, and nothing can change that. The blame for it lies with those who committed the act, pure and simple.

Yes...let's go invade brown countries...you'll forgive me if I don't repond to that gem.

What about the policies that got them in the air in the first place?

I oversimplified, because you did.

And maybe you are right about the brown country bit, because we can't forget American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 which authorizes us to invade the Netherlands.

Yes yes yes, we can debate and analyze ALL the policies, but it still amounts to Monday morning quarterbacking. That's my point.

It's good to know that if we are ever attacked by the Netherlands, we can deal with them swiftly.

Are you saying then that learning from mistakes amounts to monday morning quarterbacking?

We do need to debate these policies, in order to know what demands to make of our government.

Amen to that. The blame lies with the terrorists. And with those who let them run free the first few times they attacked NYC and other US sites. Let's see...does 1993 WTC bombing ring a bell? How 'bout the Cole? Why doesn't anyone want to hold Clinton's failed policies accountable in the 9/11 tragedy? He had bin Laden in his crosshairs and did nothing.

As for Kerry, God help us. If he ever makes up his mind, he'll be flat out dangerous. Not that Bush is doing such a sterling job. I wish there were a more clear-cut choice. The only thing that's clear is that Kerry isn't "it".

As someone who despises Bush, I do have to wonder what some people expected - for him to be on the side of the WTC with a big flyswatter?

There was time to scramble the fighters. It didn't happen. It would have under Clinton. It costs me a lot to admit that because I truly disliked the man. In fact that is a bit of an understatement.

But the attack was also the natural consequence of policies I, along with the Catholic Church and the entire civilized world, regard as utterly evil. I refer to the coddling of the most egregious elements in Israeli politics, and the (then) continuing sanctions against Iraq.

If that makes me a terrorist I am in good company because then the Pope is one too.

All I've been hearing this year is that we're really not happy with either of the two major candidates and so we have to [hold our noses and vote for Bush/hold our noses and vote for Kerry/vote third party in protest/stay home in protest].

What the heck is going on here? Somebody must like these insipid company men or else they wouldn't be on the ballot. Who is really steering the boat? Is it some sort of oligarchic conspiracy or is it really just brainless democracy at work?

I repeat: what the heck is going on here?

"What the heck is going on here? Somebody must like these insipid company men or else they wouldn't be on the ballot. Who is really steering the boat? Is it some sort of oligarchic conspiracy or is it really just brainless democracy at work?"

I think it's quite a bit of both. They facilitate each other quite well. The media "horserace" technique of preempting the primaries, etc etc...

(personally, I don't even think Reagan could get on the ballot these days. He would be considered too radical/"unelectable".)

Yes, and that's sad, because Reagan wasn't very radical at all, in the bigger picture.

I also voted for Bush in 2000, because I loathed Gore, and because I believed Bush's then-current line about a "humble" foreign policy. (I knew nothing of the PNAC then.)

It was the worst vote I ever made ... even though it did not affect the outcome, since California went for Gore by a huge margin.

Next time, it's back to my usual custom of "vote for what you want, even if you can't get it" .... so I will resume voting for Libertarians.

Lee, the not-anonymous poster
LeePenn at aol dot com

I voted for Harry Browne last time around, as I didn't really see any big difference between Bush & Gore, and saw them both as corrupt corporate shills.

Then, Bush went off and started killing thousands of innocent people to get his buddies rich.

I won't be falling for that again. I'll go back to voting for 3rd party candidates when one of the first two isn't the fucking Antichrist.

What if they both are? Kerry is as much an Likudnik jihadist as Bush. And it looks like the Libertarians may do Bush more damage than Nader does Kerry.

I think Kerry is an asshole, but do you really think he would have lied to the nation to force us into a war designed to get bigger margins for the energy board members?

As far as Likudniks, Bush's endorsement of Sharon seems to be based on his religious advisors, who have convinced him that Israel needs to control the Temple before the Rapture can begin. The fucker is trying to immenantize the Eschaton.

You forgot to mention that Senator Al Gore had actually drafted a law, based on the premise that airlines were an imminent terrorist target. This law would have made all passenger airlines have steel reinforced cockpit doors.

Now you know as well as I how often, when a president enters office, he often pushes through legislation of his own liking. It is conceivable that had our popular president actually got into office, rather than the current military/oil complex fascists, 9/11 might never have happened...

Even without the reinforced cockpit doors, it might not have happened if there was no chance the planes would get through to their targets.

Please don't call these people Fascists. It gives Benito a bad name.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No, I Didn't

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Unhappy Is the Head

Re: Unhappy Is the Head

Damned

Re: Damned

Education

Re: Education

Bush

no subject

I, too, am extremely disappointed with the Democrats' choice...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

My regrettable vote in 2000

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject