Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Have we done compassion or haven't we? I wanna know.

Indeed! Why vote Republican?

It's a start and better then nothing.

Kerry Sorry Education Remark Offended Iraqis
by Scott Ott

Kerry Botches a Punchline, the GOP Pounces

Arianna Huffington


Watching the Republican-fueled uproar over John Kerry's fumbled attempt at humor, it's clear the GOP will do anything to keep the pre-election debate off its failed policies in Iraq -- trash Michael J. Fox, go after David Letterman and Rosie O'Donnell, pounce on Kerry.

It's all about distracting voters from the real issues on the table.

This Kerry thing couldn't be more of a non-issue. Everyone -- especially a veteran like John Kerry -- supports the troops. That's not the debate; the debate is whether we are leaving our troops in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war with no clear mission and a job they are ill-equipped for (since when is our military trained to resolve thousand-year old religious hatreds?).


The White House had a full day to prepare for its attack on Kerry. Tony Snow was ready, talking points on the podium. Could he have been any more self-righteous, demanding an apology? As Kerry said, it's Bush who should apologize to the troops for sending them off to die with no clear strategy for winning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/kerry-botches-a-punchline_b_32942.html

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Kerryism -- Victor Davis Hanson

Kerry surely must be one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around. Some afterthoughts about his latest gaffe, which is one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology:

(1) How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.

(2) How could Kerry possibly claim that he was thinking of the uneducated in the context of George Bush, who, after all, went to Harvard and Yale?

(3) Some of the brightest and most educated Americans are not only in the military, but veterans of Iraq. Two of the best educated minds I have met-Col. Bill Hix and Lt. Col. Chris Gibson, both Hoover Security Fellows-were both Iraqi veterans. What is striking about visiting Iraq is the wealth of talent there, from privates to generals. Without being gratuitously cruel, the problem of mediocrity is not in the ranks of the military, but on our university campuses, where half-educated professors and non-serious students killing time are ubiquitous. Personally, I'd wager the intelligence of a Marine Corps private any day over the average D.C. journalist. Every naval officer I met at the USNA, without exception, seemed brighter than John Kerry, whose "brilliance", after all, has managed to offend millions of voters on the eve of a pivotal election. If the Democrats lose, it will be almost painful to watch the recriminations against Kerry fly.

(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.

(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists.

(6) The problem is that Kerry is not just a senator, but the most recent presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, and thus in some sense, especially given the diminution of Howard Dean, the megaphone of the entire party.

(7) His pathetic clarification, as he blamed everyone from Tony Snow to Rush Limbaugh, displayed the same Al Gore derangement syndrome, and thus raises a larger question: what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting?

(8) And why is the supposedly lame Bush so careful in speech, and the self-acclaimed geniuses like a Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Howard Dean serially spouting ever more stupidities? For all the Democrats' criticism of George Bush, I can't think of a modern President who has so infrequently put his foot in his public mouth, and, by the same token, can't think of any opposition that on the eve of elections seems to have an almost pathological death wish.

The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.

Bush wrote:

Have we done compassion or haven't we? I wanna know.

The American public should be given barf bags for moments such as these.

Bush promised his evangelical followers faith-based social services, which he called "compassionate conservatism." He went beyond that to give them a faith-based war, faith-based law enforcement, faith-based education, faith-based medicine, and faith-based science. He could deliver on his promises because he stocked the agencies handling all these problems, in large degree, with born-again Christians of his own variety. The evangelicals had complained for years that they were not able to affect policy because liberals left over from previous administrations were in all the health and education and social service bureaus, at the operational level. They had specific people they objected to, and they had specific people with whom to replace them, and Karl Rove helped them do just that.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States was that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

I argued it from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report [sic] to influence the decision. You don't have to wave your Bible to have an effect as a Christian in the public arena. We serve the greatest Scientist. We serve the Creator of all life.

Ask yourself this: why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there?... I tell you this morning he's in the White House because God put him there for such a time as this. God put him there to lead not only this nation but to lead the world, in such a time as this....
The battle this nation is in is a spiritual battle, it's a battle for our soul. And the enemy is a guy called Satan.... Satan wants to destroy this nation. He wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.

I must be missing something. The general has said that America is under attack because we are built on a Judeo-Christian values system; that ultimately the enemy is not flesh and blood, but rather the enemy is Satan, and that God's hand of protection prevented September 11 from being worse than it was.... Precisely which of those statements does the president take issue with?

Before Iraq
The assumptions of a forgetful chattering class are badly off the mark.

Haggard and the White House: Both Living in Denial

Arianna Huffington

Let's face it: the Bush administration is sick. The fall of Ted Haggard is just the latest manifestation of the central disease of President Bush and his cohorts: the pathological refusal to accept reality, and the delusion that reality can be changed by rhetoric.

As Andrew Sullivan said last week on CNN, "this is not an election anymore, it's an intervention."

The refusal by the Bush administration, its supporters in Congress and its "spiritual advisers" to acknowledge reality is sick -- and potentially lethal to the well-being of our country. But it's clear they're not going to get better, because to do so would require they acknowledge reality enough to know they're sick in the first place. And they're not going to do that. They actually believe there's an alternative to the "reality-based world," and that they live in it.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/haggard-and-the-white-hou_b_33324.html

1) In 1996 Richard Perle and Douglas Feith authored a strategic study at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu, the hard-line Likud ex-prime minister of Israel, in which they argued for an effort to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria" and remaking Syria. The report, entitled "A Clean Break," suggested that a new Iraqi regime, together with renewed pressure on Syria, could inspire Lebanese Shiite Muslims to reconnect with Iraqi Shiite religious leaders "to wean the south Lebanese [Shiites] away from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria."

2) According to Richard Perle, the U.S. invasion had "the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential."

3) In 1998, under the rubric of PNAC, ten members of the future Bush administration, including Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Feith, signed a letter arguing for a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to the letter, dated January 26, 1998, "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council."

4) According to Richard Perle, "Chalabi and his people have confirmed ... that they would recognize the state of Israel."

Memo to Candidates: What to Do In Case of Voter Problems

by Matt Stoller, Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 11:23:55 AM EST

Here's some advice for Democratic candidates in tight races where there are electoral problems, such as Victoria Wulsin in OH-02. You need to be prepared for your opponent to steal votes using a mix of local operatives and national legal expertise. Here are some tips for what to do if you find yourself in one of these situations.

First of all, you will be dead-tired. It will be 10pm and there will be weird reports of voting problems, but you will want to sleep for a year. There will be people tell you that you should concede. Pick yourself up and realize that if it's close, you probably won this election, but that's not necessarily what the tallies are showing. This situation could continue for days. You will be able to rest in a week, but you have to fight for now. Don't concede. Your supporters expect you to fight for them.

Your most powerful opponent is corrupt or incompetent voting authorities who release incomplete numbers that are narrowly favorable to your opponent. Once numbers come out, even if they are shaky, incomplete, and/or uncertain, perceptions begin to form in voters' minds about who won and lost. Don't underestimate everyone's desire for a quick resolution. You must fight this desire if you think there is any chance that this election wasn't decided properly.

Here are some tips on how to do so.

1) Document bad faith acts

Usually election theft happens with campaigns that have already done shady things. Weird mailers, lying, FEC violations, voter suppression, etc. Most campaigns have trails of illicit dealings. These should be documented to show a pattern of misbehavior on the part of your opposition. This pattern is very important when telling your side of the story and delegitimizing your opponents' claims.

2) 'I'm confident of victory when all the votes are counted.'

Claim victory. Voters won't stand behind people who don't think they've won. The 'we must count every vote' line doesn't work, it doesn't work with the people and it doesn't work in courts. If you don't want to declare victory, say that you are confident of victory and want to make sure all the votes are counted.

3) Immediately Appeal to Authorities

If there are illicit activities (like robocalls or electoral irregularities), report them to authorities and file complaints. Be very loud and public about these complaints. This will help with the necessary narrative of unseemly activities on the part of your opposition.

How do you know whether there is real electoral theft?

You don't. In fact incompetence and corruption are often indistinguishable, because one way of stealing an election is to build incompetence into the electoral process before the election and then take advantage of it the day of.

Now, of course you don't want to pretend like there's voter theft when there's not. But realize that uncertainty is the main emotion you'll feel, because there is rarely clear proof of electoral theft the night of the election. Work through it. If there are problems, be very aggressive about pushing the message out that if the process is fully vetted that you think you will win. The worst that happens is some embarrassment if you are wrong. And if you don't do this, the Republicans will, and the worst that happens if you don't fight is, oh, war with Iran.

Over on the Corner [on National Review Online], James S. Robbins is giving an homage to the Titanic, Jonah Goldberg is welcoming our "new Democratic overlords," and John Podhoretz is posting the link to a comforting video on YouTube of a mommy panda bear and baby panda bear. Oh, man.

My greatest fear is that this Republican loss will be seen by our adversaries as a great victory. In the past year, U.S. resolve has been tested, and sadly we have not always risen to the occasion. We could be facing a replay of the end game in Vietnam, when insurgent leftists in the Democratic party brought about the defunding of military assistance for South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese invaded and defeated our trusting ally. This has already been predicted by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nazrallah, and noted as a model for success by al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri. The rest of the decade saw the nadir of American power in the Cold War, a period when the Soviet Union could justly be said to be winning. As we focus inward on recriminations and political maneuvers, other rogue countries, such as North Korea and Iran, will sense that now is the time to press their various foreign policy and security agendas. The United States faces the possibility of becoming again what President Nixon called "a pitiful, helpless giant" in face of the forces arrayed against us. Maybe the Democratic party will surprise us by showing a rare degree of bipartisan statesmanship in time of war, but I would not bet on it.

Maybe the Democratic party will surprise us by showing a rare degree of bipartisan statesmanship in time of war, but I would not bet on it.

It is the duty of the losing party in a free election to humbly accept defeat and to acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the People's House.

As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons. Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way. [..]

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition [..].