Non-AABBs Only!!

Sozobe,

Certain conditions means - If I were to lose confidence in the current Administration.

I find the four you offered unacceptable under any circumstances ---

KERRY - a much overstuffed shirt. Takes himself VERY seriously, and is a bit too given to sentorian pontification for my taste. Makes far, far too much out of a six month tour in swift boats during Nam. He wasted no time getting reassigned as an aide in Washington when he saw the opportunity. My recollection is that the only way for a Navy surface officer to get assigned to swift boats was to screw up on a destroyer, and Kerry was first on a destroyer. His very visible posturing against the war after he got out of the service was, in my opinion, motivated by an early desire for a political career. I thought him then a classic 'young man in a hurry' - a modern Alcibiades. I think I was right.

CLARK - The ultimate Pentagon general. Has a pronounced 'lean and hungry look'. Consumed by ambition. His tour as SACEUR was marred by disturbing misjudgements with respect to the situation in Kosovo, as well as poor leadership among the NATO commanders and insubordination towards his U.S. superiors. Perhaps his earlier experience supporting Amb. Hollbrooke during the Dayton negotiations with Serbia unhinged him - however, I think the flaws go deeper. He got fired from the SACEUR job and is hardly suitable for more. His real role is, as the Manchurian candidate, to give a dramatic nominating speech for Hillary at the convention- if Bush looks sufficiently vulnerable.

EDWARDS - A nice-looking, affable, and very rich tort lawyer. A gussied-up Elmer Gantry, and not at all suitable for serious work.

DEAN - What more needs to be said? An overrated county commissioner. Cleverly tapped in to the appetite of left wing Democrats for self-justifying anger. However, more or less devoid of constructive ideas or any ability to synthesize solutions from the many discordant themes he spews out.

Thanks, georgeob, that's interesting.

I worry a bit that this will take the thread in a different direction, when what I really want to know is which of the four I mention are most appealing to possible swing voters, but can you posit what, if anything, would cause you to lose confidence in the current Administration?

As an ABB, I'm reading with interest.

A serious failure in the restoration of Iraq, or major relapse in the economy would cause me to rethink some basic assumptions about the current administration.

I am a conservative registered Republican, though I call myself a Federalist. I dislike the Shrub, and believe that his Vice-Presidential choice is a decided handicap. I haven't any bones to pick with this administrations handling of the War on Terrorism, or the Iraqi affair. The economy has been getting better, though the unemployment situation remains troublesome. In the last year I've recovered most of the value of my securities investments, and expect to recover the whole before the end of the summer. On the other hand, health care is pretty important to us seniors who have increasing health care concerns, and no way to keep pace with rising costs.

The President is not invulnerable. A lot of people feel misled in vamping up to Iraq. We, the American Electorate, have a habit of dumping even succesful and popular administrations. The last election was the closest in modern times, and it wouldn't take very many votes to shift the balance from one Party to the other. The fundamental problem with unseating this Administration is the Democratic Party's habit of shooting itself in the foot, arms, and even on occasion in the head.

It is beginning to look as if the Democratic candidate will be one of the leading contenders after February 3rd. That is: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, or Clark. Edwards is a pretty face with an appealing personality, but he sorely lacks experience in either elected office, or in the military. He would make a good Vice-Presidential candidate, but I can't see him able to attract enough swing voters to be elected. Clark is almost the exact opposite, having no popular political experience. His difficulty in transitioning from military to civilian leadership is painfully obvious in his campaign. Clark is also something of a curiosity, his best card is his military experience yet he is running on anti-war issues. The smart Democratic Candidate might want to line Clark up as Secretary of Defense, to help attract the votes of those who want a strong military, but want someone less hawkish than the incumbents.

Far more probable are Kerry and Dean. Dean has experience as a Governor, and Kerry comes with a fine Senatorial record. Dean's shrill (I know that's a loaded term, but..) stance against this administrations responses to 9/11 is unlikely to draw many conservatives, or even liberal, republicans to his banner. Dean seems to me to be always on the verge of losing it, not the sort of thing I like in a President. He's great at organizing the masses and raising money, but those aren't the characteristics I look for in a President. Without military experience, I think he would be over his head in Washington almost immediately. I firmly believe that any significant change of course in the War on Terrorism, or in Southwest Asia, would be disastrous to us as a nation. Dean's populist appeal isn't what the country needs in our present circumstances, but rather a strong, firm hand that will exercise leadership among nations.

Kerry, in my opinion, is the Democratic candidate most likely to draw the swing votes necessary to defeat Bush. He has first hand knowledge of military affairs, and has been involved in national politics long enough to know how to pull the strings. Though I disagree with a number of his stated policies, I like the man's apparent character and steadiness. He is a candidate that might even get my vote, and would certainly have my full support as a new President. Of course, I would support any of the other Democratic candidates should they win office, but it would be reluctant and with much more skepticism than a Kerry Administration.

The election is still far to distant in the future to make predictions yet. If Bush doesn't stumble, and the Democrats are able to select a candidate capable of drawing independents and less than enthusiastic Republicans, the Democrats have a shot ... but it's a very long shot indeed.

Like friend George, I'm pretty much committed to supporting this administration through at least one more term. Only Kerry comes close to being "acceptable" to me at this time.

Wonderful, just the sort of thinking I have been curious about. Thanks.

Always good and refreshing to read an Asherman post - clear, well formed, factually based, and without rancor. Wish I could do as well.

Good to hear from you again, friend.

I think its interesting that the "conservatives: who have responded have both referred to Dean as "being on the verge of losing it" and saying this makes them not trust him. If this is so, why make allowances for Bush, who has "lost it" (My message to them...BRING IT ON!!!!!) and appears to have the IQ of a retarded kumquat? Obviously this is not a real issue for them, but merely an example of them repeating the line posted by Rove with the press corps.

Ahem...

So I assume you are thinking long and hard about whether you will be voting for Bush or the Democratic candidate, Hobitbob?

Anyone welcome, but I really want the non-ABB's to feel comfortable sharing their reasoning, because I am very interested, and "retarded kumquat" et al doesn't really further that goal.

Thanks.

Sadly, there are trolls under every bridge.

"Special needs kumquat?"

And calling people trolls doesn't really further that goal, either. <sternest over-glasses schoolmarm look>

Anyone seen Occam Bill? Scrat? Any of the others whose opinion I'm curious about? This includes ANY non-ABB, I'm certain I've forgotten many. Further, I'm sure there are people who don't usually post in politics but have non-ABB political opinions -- I'm interested in their take perhaps most of all.

So keep it cordial, eh?

For me not to vote for Bush, his main opponent must have a clearly defined plan for the continued war on terrorism. This is the single most important issue to me. I think the next presidents foriegn policy must be very well outlined and I would like to see a strong cabinet lined up.

As much as many on the left may dislike Bush, his cabinet is like an all-star team in American politics.

Domestic issues, I think, will tend to take care of themselves through Congress. It is foriegn policy that will make or break the coming election.

I thought I was being clear. I would be quite happy to see Junior retired to private life, but for that to happen either the Democratic Party has to advance an acceptable candidate, or the President has to throw in the towel. Bush isn't going to do that, and frankly I'm pleased to see a fighter in the White House. We have been under attack for at least ten years, and it is high time that the national leadership take strong measures to protect the national interests.

I gave several reasons why I believe that Dean would be a disaster to the country, and his tendency to go ballistic is only one of many. Because the President has a short fuse, and gets emotional when a cold decision would better serve is no reason to replace him with someone with the same failing. Far worse in my estimation is Dean's avowed determination to throw away every gain that this administration has made in the fight to protect the country from attack. We live unfortunately in a very dangerous world. Those who hate Western Civilization and values have in the past been encouraged by our reluctance to directly engage them in an effective fashion. A few munitions tossed in the general direction of our avowed enemies just doesn't do the trick. Those who attack us must know in their bones that every attack upon our interests will be met with a withering response.

Americans have become used to the idea that complex problems can be resolved in half and hour by bloodless heroics, and a spirit of brotherhood. Oh, my children that is a prescription for a thousand 9/11 attacks. The enemy counts on our impatience, and demand that the struggle be simple and bloodless. The fact is this war will continue for a long time, and no one in the administration has ever said otherwise.

The amazing thing is how much has been accomplished, and at such a modest cost. Saddam and the threat that he projected by his behavior is gone. The cost in American lives is still far less than 1,000, though the opponents of the war predicted hundreds of thousands. Why should anyone reasonably expect to reform a nation that has never known democracy in just a couple of years? It took far longer to reform the political environment of Germany and Japan than it will probably take to get Iraq on its feet. There are major problems there to overcome, but we are trying sincerely to do what's best for the Iraqi people, and all the peoples of the region. We have sent a clear message to other outlaw regimes that they can no longer harbor and sponsor terror with impunity. Gadaffi, fool that he is, saw the light. Kim is probably brighter, and we can only hope that he to will see the advantage of stepping back from threatening his neighbors. We've held out the hand of friendship to Iran, will they take it? Even the leaders of Pakistan and India seem willing to talk rather than bluster with nuclear tipped weapons. These aren't little things. They are providing opportunities for a world less dangerous than the one we've lived in for the last decade.

Dean promises to adopt policies that would return us to something like what existed prior to 9/11, and would leave our enemies free to attack at their leisure. Kerry has all the problems pointed out by George, but I truly doubt that if he were in office that he would have managed this threat much differently than Bush. I believe he would face up to the challenge and put the terrorists and their supporters on the defensive. Maybe not, and that's why I'll almost certainly be voting for Bush.

Thanks, McGentrix! Do you see any of the four candidates I mentioned as having a clearly defined plan for the continued war on terrorism? If the answer is no, do any of them appeal to you more or less than others, or are they exactly equal in your estimation?

If you're really callling for a choice among the four, I would pick Edwards. First, and not especially flattering, I know nothing about him at all, which is an improvement in the present contex. Second, I do like his name.

oh hooey george...you did your share of trolling in the post above.

asherman! Very nice to see you. Drove through your town recently. Rather pretty, what with the snow-covered hills all about.

The hell I did.

Yeah
Which bridge are you under georgie?

This may be a digression However, IMO any of the four are a better choice than as Hobitbob called him the retarded kumquat.