Infinite Monkeys

Wait a second--President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are Hitler and Stalin? My Lord, man, have you completely lost your mind?

I'm sorry, but this is not just nonsense; it's disgusting, horrible nonsense. These are two men who have served their country and continue to do so, and you are comparing them to two of the biggest mass murders in history? Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

It would be merely amusing crank political nonsense (do they ride around in black helicopters, Robb?) except that there really are fascists out there, and you can play your little games, and read your little political newsletters and try to pretend that the scariest thing around is a guy who will raise your taxes, but you'd be wrong. The Islamic fascists are out there, and they will strike again. Face reality.

I'm not sure you were paying attention to the second paragraph. I specifically elaborated so that you wouldn't think I thought Bush and Kerry are "Hitler and Stalin". My point is that eventually, there is a line that is crossed where you will not vote for any candidate who "can win."

Niether Bush nor Kerry will make a difference - they will both keep bumbling around the middle east, wasting money and lives while stealing our liberties. Neither will even CONSIDER the fact that the reason we're even on the Islamofascists radar is because of our meddling in the mideast in the first place. On the other side, both are part of massive political machines that will not allow them to make truly catastrophic errors.

I've said before, I'm not afraid of Kerry being elected. And if I'm not afraid of Kerry, then I'm sure as hell not voting for Bush.

And by the way, they will strike again no matter which of these losers gets elected.

No, I saw the second paragraph. I considered it for a moment. But it didn't excuse over-the-top language.

"Hey, if someone came into your house and killed your wife, would you kill the guy? OK, now that we've established that you're a murderer, where's the line?"

See why that sort of thing doesn't work? It also makes people just stop listening to your arguments, because it's so clearly overstated. Hyperbole works in those newsletters where someone is preaching to converted, but it's not persuasive.

We got that you don't want either guy to win. OK, so your vote doesn't count, that's fine. I disagree strongly, though, as I've posted, because even if your premise were true that there is no difference between the candidates, there are messages being sent by this election which will revereberate in both parties, in our country, and around the world for years to come.

Let me give you an example. In 1992, I was not happy with the elder President Bush, and was indifferent to Clinton (and Perot was clearly nuts). So I didn't vote. I was in Europe anyway, and young, and unsure of how to get an absentee ballot. But those are all excuses--the truth is, I'd bought the "they were both the same" talk. But of course they weren't both the same, and Clinton (and his wife) took their plurality to mean that they could pursue socialistic healthcare and other crazy ideas. So two years later, the GOP took back the house. And they also garbled what their mandate and message was. We're still suffering from all of that.

Hitler-Stalin is such a false choice. There are many other examples I imagine that would create a true dilemma. But to use the most extreme and offensive accomplishes next to nothing.

And I am "afraid" of what happens if Kerry is elected, because the enemy will see his election as a sign of national weakness. And it would be. Honestly, it is beyond me how anyone cannot see that the imperfect Bush is firm and resolute about the WOT, and Kerry simply will not be. Right now the enemy knows what Bush will do if/when they try again. I fear that maybe they have taken the meaure of Kerry, and they know what he will do as well.

To David's example, I had exactly the opposite response to 1992 that you did. I voted for Bush in 1992, out of fear that Clinton would be elected. But eight years of Clinton did not affect my life one iota. Six years of a Democratic Executive with a Republican Congress resulted in blessed, wonderful gridlock and a kick-ass economy (albeit temporary). I vowed I would never again vote for a bad Republican just because the Democrat was worse.

George H. W. Bush would not have done any better with his second four years than Clinton did with his first. The Clintons completely failed to implement socialistic health care. George W. Bush, however, succeeded quite nicely in massively expanding Medicare entitlements, education spending, and all manner of other socialistic programs.

As you point out, the GOP "took back the house" in 1994, which likely wouldn't have happened if they had lacked the nutty Clinton programs to rally everyone against. And did I mention the sweet taste of gridlock? Also, you correctly point out that they garbled what their mandate and message was. I know I'm cynical about these things, but I believe this is because many of them were just hitching their wagons to whatever they believed would get them elected.

J. D. Hayworth is a local sportscaster who decided to become a "Contract with America" Republican. Like all of the other Arizona Republicans, he pledged to seek no more than three terms as part of his commitment to term limits. This year he is running for his sixth term. Sadly, this is typical of the "Contract Signers."

Fiscally, I have no doubt which candidate will wind up spending less money. Assuming the Republicans keep Congress, John Kerry's spending won't come close to that under Mr. I-Lost-My-Veto-Pen. So that's a no brainer. If we weren't at war, I might actually HOPE John Kerry wins. But I still wouldn't vote for him.

But we are at war, and we're busy fighting the Iraqis. Bush may be firm and resolute, but he is firmly and resolutely wrong. [more to come in the comments to James's post]

One more thought. Judges. I want Bush appointing Judges. The kind of damage Kerry judge can do to the Constitution should be enough to preclude a vote for Kerry. But I know it won't be.

I had thought that James's point about the judges was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. But when I read his comment, I let out like Flava Flav:

"Yyyyeeeeaaaaaahhhhh, booooooooooyyyyyyyyeeeeee!"

Actually, the judges argument is one of the few areas where I do have some hesitation. However, the outcome of President Bush having appointment power is far from certain, given the results of the last four years. He has proven not to have the political acumen necessary to get his appointments through congress so far. Also, having a Republican president doesn't even vaguely begin to guarantee that the appointments will be sound. Cf. the Nixon appointees on the ninth circuit, and about 2/3 of the Republican appointees to the supreme court over the last 30 years, just to point out some obvious examples.

And that gets to an overarching theme here: Bush's record in the first term is REALLY REALLY bad in several dimensions. This guy deserves to get fired.