In retrospect, I'm glad that Kerry lost

[Mota Boy]

Now, it could just be me rationalizing the loss, seeing it in the best light, but after the election I've not only come to accept a Bush victory, but even somewhat be thankful for it. It all boils down to a single issue: Iraq.

I'm pessimistic about Iraq. I always have been, for better or worse. Granted, the worst-case scenarios I imagined pre-war (Saddam drawing Israel into combat, the destabalization of Pakistan) didn't occur, but the general outcome up to now has followed more in line with my expectations than the Administration's. Here's what I see - the country will continue to destabalize. It is just too poor and too divided to share a country without a strongman. Because of this it will eventually collapse.

In 1949, China went red and Truman was President. These factors were only slightly related - it's hard to argue that, especially late in the conflict, that anything could've continued to support Chang Kai-Shek's corrupt, unstable regime - but for Republicans it still remains a powerful political tool. I'm sure Anne Coulter had a chapter about it in Treason. After that, Democrats were soft on communism. Many scholars claim that LBJ's intense escalation of the Vietnam War was done largely out of fear of losing the country. The Democratic party had already fucked up one conflict, it could hardly stand to lose another.

The stain of China and continued Republican assaults claiming Democrat weakness continue untli today. Even now the Democrats are soft on terror. Were Kerry given the impossible job of ensuring a safe Iraq, he woudl surely fail and make a huge target for Republicans. From here until eternity, the Republican party would maintain that Bush made a good decision to attack and oversaw a successful and prosperous time in Iraq only to have it all go to Hell because of a pansy-ass Democrat. Now Iraq is Bush's to lose. I heard more than a few people rationalize voting for him with "He started this, he can finish it." If/When he does a horrible job, perhaps then the public will realize that the Republican party is not the best party to handle the "War on Terror" and there will be a shift towards the Democrats that will benefit the party for years to come.

Discuss.

[Little_Miss_1565]

I really don't see this "soft on terror" business. I do see the "pro-civil rights" business though, and I can also see how that could be against the Republican antiterror agenda.

Though I do concede that changing commanders in the midst of a war can be devastating, I can't imagine our troops being any worse off under Kerry than they are right now under Bush. It really upsets me that people my age who love this country enough to put their lives on the line in the military are being used so callously again and again and again. Even under Clinton. Bah.

Oh, fuckit. I really don't have anything productive to say right now. I'll come back later, or something.

[sKratch]

I really don't see this "soft on terror" business. I do see the "pro-civil rights" business though, and I can also see how that could be against the Republican antiterror agenda.

Though I do concede that changing commanders in the midst of a war can be devastating, I can't imagine our troops being any worse off under Kerry than they are right now under Bush. It really upsets me that people my age who love this country enough to put their lives on the line in the military are being used so callously again and again and again. Even under Clinton. Bah.

Oh, fuckit. I really don't have anything productive to say right now. I'll come back later, or something.

I actually know exactly what you mean.

[Noodles]

What about the concept of being "smart" on terrorism. Or is that the same as being "soft" (fucking nerds with their "book-learnin,'" or New England-educated elitist snobs). I guess starting a war with the flimsiest of reasons, which all turn out later to be false, at least proves that you're not soft on terrorism. It just proves that you are soft in the head. Or that you just don't care. Where are the "values" in that?

The Iraq war was never about terrorism. Afghanistan may have been, but Iraq was never about that. Everyone should see that by now. Why did we absolutely have to go to war there? Saddam's regime was a dying one that posed no threat outside of his own borders. Shouldn't the Bush administration have exhausted every alternative before resorting to the death and human devastation that we've seen over the last 20 months.

The Iraqis hate Bush and America now more than ever. We've done nothing for them yet, except kill thousands and wound, imprison, and torture many more. I know, as I hope you all do, that the American people would never have voted for this war had they been told the truth by the current administration or by the "liberal" media.

As far as Clinton goes (I'm not a fan, due to his Reaganesque environmenial policies), before the "Black Hawk Down" incident he asked for more troops in somalia*, but was assured by the pentagon that they were not needed. When 18 servicemen lost their lives in that incident, he fired his Secretary of Defense. This week, after a lot of rats were jumping off this administration's ship, and after the deaths of 1200 service men and women in Iraq, Bush pointedly asked Rumsfeld to stay on.

I too have come to grips with the outcome of the election by knowing that Bush is fucking things up so badly that the American people will never stand for such an administration again for decades. Of course that is also dependant on a media that is not afraid to report the truth despite their corporate ownership. Bush's economic policies may just take care of that for us as well.

I heard Henry Rollins say something that also gives me cause for hope. The current leadership is going to piss off so many artists, musicians, and film-makers that we are bound for some good listening/reading/viewing for at least the next few years. Let's hope so.


* Clinton inherited the Somalia conflict from the first President Bush who, as a lame duck president, committed troops to Somalia on a "good will mission." His troops were not even fully deployed in Somalia until weeks after Clinton's inauguration.

[Mota Boy]

What about the concept of being "smart" on terrorism. Or is that the same as being "soft" (fucking nerds with their "book-learnin,'" or New England-educated elitist snobs).

Ha, New England-educated elitist snob here. I didn't mean to insinuate that Kerry really was "soft" on terrorism, just that the Republicans had effectively painted the Democratic party as being soft on terror and communism, despite this to be the case. I could've made the post much clearer, but I also could've been sober when I wrote it.

And yeah, I agree with pretty much all that you said. Rumsfeld actually drew up many of the guidelines for interrogation in Guantanamo Bay that eventually made their way to Abu Gharib (which provided an incalculable political setback for our forces over there). Also, I love the theory that disharmony breeds culture (see the films and music of the seventies, with a background in Vietnam), and that the current dischord will result in a greater cultural expansion. Of course, this is never worth the loss of life that conflict inevitably causes, but for us unable to do anything to halt such conflict, it does provide a slight bit of optimism.

[Noodles]

Mota Boy, I didn't think you were saying that Kerry would be soft on terror. We'll never know. Unfortunately for all of us, since he was the only real alternative, he didn't come across as "strong" on much of anything. At least thats how the electorate saw him. And I can understand that. I think Kerry was afraid to say what he was really thinking. I think it's gotta be way easier for Bush to say what he's thinking because it encompasses so little.

On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

[SicN Twisted]

Bush was definately the better politician. Kerry tried to appear calm and rational, and that doesn't win the votes of simplistic people. Bush was a stick-to-your guns old fashioned American cowboy, and I think it was that image that won him the presidency, not his actual policies.

[lousyskater]

On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

yeah, the average american gets scared away when someone starts to get into serious detail about things. they just want everything straight and simple with no serious detail that could confuse them on the subject that is being talked about, which isn't so great because they're missing out on important information.

p.s. - oh god i hope a bunch of n00bs don't come into this thread and ruin it by posting "OMG iT's Teh NoOdLes!!!!!!111"

[Little_Miss_1565]

On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

Hah, sort of like how Jon Stewart's audience is something like five times more likely to have gone to college than the average Bill O'Reilly enthusiast. But do you think that if Kerry had done all the same blowhard fearmongering that Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney, etc. all did in the leadup to the election, he would have been fucking hung out to dry by the news media?

Bush was definately the better politician. Kerry tried to appear calm and rational, and that doesn't win the votes of simplistic people. Bush was a stick-to-your guns old fashioned American cowboy, and I think it was that image that won him the presidency, not his actual policies.

I agree. This is where the New England women's college educated snob and the Midwesterner in me collide. Kerry didn't know how to defend himself. When Bush started in with the flip-flopping, Kerry could have said that it's better to have a leader who can listen to the facts and change his mind if necessary than to have a president who "sticks to his guns" all down the highway to Hell. Instead, his aides issue a press release quoting fucking Henry David Thoreau saying basically the same thing but in a way that the average salt-of-the-earth American would not understand, and/or resent. After it all, Bush is the one that most Americans felt they could relate to--he was one of "us." (Even though he was a draft dodger that had a hand in trying to discredit A VIETNAM WAR HERO, WTF.) I think this is an area where the Democratic party is severely lacking...they miscalculated the location of the center of America, meanwhile Bush had it in his crosshairs.

[T-6005]

Hmmm.... about that poll... how exactly do you measure how well someone understands a candidate's policies? Is it when they can regurgitate the finer points, or when they can paint a broad picture? A poll like that just doesn't square in my head, it's like the article in the new york times that attempted to say that originality has dropped 20% with the newest generation.

But anyways.

I don't know that the American people won't stand for it again. I mean, I was personally under the impression that over the last four years, he'd built up an impressive following of people willing to badmouth him over the slightest issue, mostly due to his rather obvious mess-ups (except that a mess-up is like when you hit a note wrong during a solo... I guess killing tons of people makes it a bit more than a mess-up), so I was pretty shocked that he carried the election with the popular vote as well as the electoral. You would think that a people waging a war (even one in a far away country) after being directly attacked a few years gone would be willing to go through the little bit of extra bother that getting informed takes. It's the information that truly carries the day in favor of one or the other. The american media has become one of the largest tools of political propaganda in history (Fox, anyone?), and although it may not be quite as obvious as the anti-communist works shot during the Cold War, its subtlety makes it all the more dangerous. How many people, nowadays, begin to get nervous because they are on a plane with someone who appears to be of middle eastern descent? How many people of said descent have not been allowed to proceed normally though an airport because suspicion fell upon them?
The point being that the american people have begun to be led by media, and have vote according to which candidate they believed would stand strongest by the values of security.

That would be all well and good if we didn't factor in the american people's obssession with religion. I didn't mean that in a derogatory sense, I simply wish to point out that there is something slightly eerie about a country in which both candidates say "God bless you" or "God bless america". This sort of dependency upon a family and religion centered life, coupled with the security aspect of this election, tipped the scale far in bush's favor.

Or something like that.