October 31, 2004: New Friends, New Times... New Election

George Bush has many new friends in and out of the blogosphere, among blogger and among commenters. Of course he had several fair weather friends who were unable to stand the course of the inevitable ups and downs of war, but I will not address those people now. I want to speak to those of us who have remained George's new friends.

Many of us have never voted for a Republican before, especially for President, and it will be a peculiar experience indeed on Tuesday (or before) punching hard on that chad so it doesn't hang. My hand will be shaking with the memory of a thousand ancestors who always voted Democratic as if it were a form of tribal initiation. This goes back to early childhood (age 5?) when I was informed that all my family, every last one of them, was "Gladly with Adlai." They gave me a pin, which I wore to school with pride. Later on, I... Well, you get the point. In any case, because I have broken so sharply with the past, I imagine I will be especially hard on Bush should he win. I will feel responsible in my miniscule way.

But what interests me now at this amazing crossroads is how difficult indeed it is for those of us who have made this transition. Some who comment on this blog do so under pseudonyms so their friends, family or employers do not know that they have gone over to the "dark side." Even though I have a blog written in my own name averaging 20,000 visitors a day, quoted in all sorts of media, I often find it difficult myself to admit in public, face-to-face, where I stand. And it's not just because I'm afraid of getting my car keyed. It has something to do with identity, my very core. I don't want to be thought of as one of "them." I'm a modern, with-it guy, dammit. I support gay marriage and stem cell research! [Who cares, Simon?-ed. You shut up. This is an unedited post.]

But sometimes I come out of the closet. Last night I was at a dinner party... yes, it was in Hollywood where I live, but it wasn't particularly glamorous, just normal big city folks getting together. Not all the people worked in the Industry and those that did were more on the workaday side. The people had come together through our children - we were all parents from the same school - and the kids played in the next room while we ate, drank and talked. Naturally, the subject of the election came up and I decided - maybe it was the vodka - to let it rip and say I was voting for Bush. One woman shrieked at the top of her lungs. The others just looked at me in incredulity.

I don't think it's bragging to say I knew more than these people about politics. (I have to - I am the one putting out opinions in public.) But that didn't stop me from shrieking back at the woman. Others joined in and it became for a few moments a battle of who could yell the loudest. But after a bit it quieted down and they stared at me curiously. These people did not know me well, but they knew I was a writer and they wondered how such a person could be voting for this man they reviled. We began to discuss. You will not be surprised to learn that most (not all) of them were not very well informed. Their view of the world was heavily influenced by the Six O'Clock News, a Dan Rather vision of reality. The UN Oil-for-Food Scandal was some kind of dim reference that some of them (sort of) recognized. What it implies, of course, they had never thought about.

I can't say I changed anyone's mind. How that happens is mysterious anyway. But a couple of them at least listened to my views. One woman I think pretty much got them, though she didn't fully agree. To the woman who shrieked, it remained "But there were no WMDs!" I am, however, glad I opened my mouth - and not just because it was therapeutic.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I was about the same age during the Eisenhower/Stevenson election. I was for the old general because I dug his slogan: "I like Ike." Never until now heard the "Gladly with Adlai" slogan or, who knows, I might have gone the other way.

I have to wonder whether most people of voting age think any more deeply than I did at age 5 before they punch the chad.

Posted by: 88keyman at October 31, 2004 8:58 AM

Some of my hesitancy of speaking up in public, comes from the fact of be very out numbered here in the Bay Area, but also, I suffer from the same affliction that Bush has of not being able to quickly and clearly express my thoughts verbally. This makes me very hesitant to get involved in these types of discussions for all I would be able to do is, like Bush in that first debate, just stare at them and shake my head and make incredulous faces!

mcat

Posted by: mcat at October 31, 2004 8:59 AM

Roger,
I am also a blogger, and I can certainly empathize with your experience, having had many social encounters similar to yours in the last few months (I am on the faculty of a major University). These have not bothered me as much as what happened just this week. A very dear and old friend has been emailing me pro-Kerry jokes, literature; and hateful anti-Bush material. I have not commented or responded, just quietly deleted it. It annoyed me that she automatically assumed I would think as she does. Finally last week(I was in a bad mood because of the recent anti-Bush media strikes) I responded to a particularly obnoxious anti-Bush joke and emailed her. I told her not to send me anymore of this bullshit and I included a long quote from Kerry dithering about his position on Iraq and the WOT. I asked her, "can you really in your heart of hearts believe that this man will do everything he can to protect your children?" I haven't heard from her since.

Posted by: dr. sanity at October 31, 2004 8:59 AM

Roger the difference is in WHY you support gay marriage and disposable income. Do you support them because:

1. you have come to a reasoned conclusion that they are deserving of your support, or

2. because, by gum, if we don't support every progressive notion that comes along the religious fanatic Baptists will pray Richard Nixon back to life, overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny women the right to learn to read, just like the nice lady from NARAL told me on NPR/PBS/Meet the Press?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at October 31, 2004 9:00 AM

The part that bothers me most about typical Kerry supporters is that we are viewing the election on completely different terms, but they don't think so.

Many Bush supporters (especially first-time Republican Presidential voters like me) are more concerned about Kerry's character than anything else. Many of us, including me, just don't trust him.

Because I don't trust him, I never bothered to parse through his positions. If I felt that both candidates had the character to be President I would have analyzed this election in a completely different way than I have.

Posted by: Piranha at October 31, 2004 9:03 AM

Roger,

How odd that none of your acquaintances were familiar with your blog. That suggests to me that they are unfamiliar with the blogosphere in general, which further suggests a surprising degree of cultural and political illiteracy.

On the other hand, why should that be surprising. It's apparent that many many Americans are poorly informed. Or is it that we are "cocooned" in our own polital worlds?

It's difficult to understand, though, how anyone who had even in a cursory way clicked through Drudge, had not discovered the political blogs in an election year.

No wonder Dan Rather thought he could stonewall. Maybe he can. No wonder Walter Cronkite can blather on about Karl Rove and OBL.

I wonder how many of your dinner companions will vote?

Posted by: Old Dad at October 31, 2004 9:05 AM

AMEN BROTHER Roger!

Again blessed be for the Internet and the Blogosphere which nows converys the news of the day freely across political borders and without influenece of the editorial staff and conglomerate boardrooms.

The MSM because of the expense of the overhead must now pander readers and viewers. In short the news is distorted and sensationalized which is not in perspective and proportion.

This new medium can communicate human thought essentially free. When taken on average or the "bell curve"is applied, the middle point is a fairly accurate flash point of reality.

For further on this see a previous piece:

FREEDOM - Thx to The Greatest Generation for Preserving It
Link Here

Ron Wrght, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Sit
www.hspig.org

Posted by: Ron Wrght at October 31, 2004 9:11 AM

Speaking of George W. Bush's friends. I just found this on David Horowitz's website:

“An email from Christopher Hitchens to my friend Ron Radosh indicates that Hitchens's comments on the election in Slate, which we posted here, were actually intended as an edorsement of Bush not Kerry as the editors indicated. When my daughter first sent me the Hitchens comments I told her they didn't look like an endorsement of Kerry to me, but then she sent me the Slate headline which indicated that they were. Now the record is clear. Hitchens is voting for Bush.”

Posted by: David Thomson at October 31, 2004 9:11 AM

In a small way, I feel that we have become veterans over the past year. If I think back to the early discussions, we were like raw recruits, milling about and trying to figure out what to do and where we stood. Since then, we have been through the battle of Abu Ghraib, the NYTimes assault, and the Rather deception. We have become tougher and stronger. We have matured. Whatever happens, I think all of us have grown in ways that will stick.

Posted by: chuck at October 31, 2004 9:13 AM

Old Dad, that group was interesting to me becuase they were not familiar with this blog. I can assure you that many in THE TOWN (as it is known hereabouts) are. The latest issue of Written By (the Writers GUild's monthly) features my blogging from the Republican Convention, quoted in its entirety (many pages of the magazine). I am pretty well out of the closet here.

Posted by: Roger at October 31, 2004 9:14 AM

I too am concerned about the rate of political illteracy. I have carefully "babied" two acquaintances through this election who first started off with, "I think we need a change" or "anybody but Bush". They both were shocked, even as late as two days ago at what was the cause of our vaccine shortage and the particulars of Kerry's health plan. I just shake my head solemnly and say, "I know, I know. I thought you should be informed." I'm pretty sure Bush has two more votes now.

Posted by: Oyster at October 31, 2004 9:18 AM

I came to the party somewhat earlier having voted for Bush in 2000, perhaps having recognized those qualities which for many only became apparent post 9-11. Although I have declined to vote for the Republican candidate on many occasions, never once in over 30 years have I pulled the lever for the Democratic presidential nominee. You see, in hot wars, cold wars or times of relative peace, my first concern has always been national security and defense of this nation and its values.

It is my most fervent wish that one day the Democratic party will put forth a candidate for whom I can pull that lever. I have a dream that one day I will cast about in the nebulous realm of the undecided voter because both candidates would make such fine chief executives and commanders in chief.

Well, in the meantime, watch out for thunder bolts while you're in the booth and let us know how it goes.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at October 31, 2004 9:38 AM

Roger: Exactly the same thing happened to me at a lunch in Beverly Hills: a shrieking woman. I am fascinated by the similarity of experiences in the comments -- the intellectual journey of many writing here, and the shock! and outrage! of the shriekers and the likes of dr. sanity's emailer. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: jack risko at October 31, 2004 9:38 AM

Dr. Sanity: I recently told off a former friend who has been a liberal and abortion rights supporter all her life. She blindlingly...and I mean that literally...sent anti-Bush/pro-Kerry e-mail to me all the time.
One day I got fed up and deliberately sent the link to Paul Johnson's beheading to everyone on her list. They went ape-shit and I told them SEE! THIS is who you support with John Kerry. I don't any more of your e-mails if all it entails is HateBushHateBushHateBush.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? I'd rather debate a liberal who will respect my opinions and let me speak them without being retaliated against.

Posted by: Macker at October 31, 2004 9:39 AM

Roger,
Along with many of your readers, I too will be voting GOP for president for the first time. Your experiences and those who have commented here are almost hauntingly identical to my own this go around. In 1972 I proudly voted for McGovern the first time I was eligible to vote. My family has been Irish FDR democrats for generations. Except for periodic forays into lobbying and law practice, I have mostly worked as a democratic staffer in the CA Legislature for the past 20 years. I have been reluctant to say much in public to democrat friends, but like a previous commenter, I couldn't hold back when I got an email from a very close friend who is very partisan, asking me to join him at a moveon.org - sponsored candelight vigil on the occasion of the 1000th death in the war. I sent him a link to a Zev Chavets article in response, after which he unleashed the Hallibutron-Bush lied-Bush KNEW-blood for oil screed, then suggested that Zev was advocating that we kill all Muslims. I don't think he is my friend anymore.
Next I went to a party at which everyone attending was employed in democratic politics in one way or another. I held my toungue until near the very end, when someone asked the host why so many Bush-Cheney signs were out in the neighborhood (great elite liberal stereotype material, I know) , to which the host responded that they had placed a UN flag (of all things) outside for a while just to rattle the neighbors. I could no longer hold my tongue and went off on Kofi et al, and figured at that point that I might as well go further. But I couldn't even then say bluntly that I supported Bush (though I do very much). All I had the courage to say was that I "didn't have a problem" with Bush, but I don't like Kerry, etc. ... Well suffice it to say that it was time to be going for me soon thereafter. It is always nice to check in at your blog by the way, something i do daily 3-5 times.

Posted by: dunderhead at October 31, 2004 9:43 AM

Oh, for crying out loud:

``I don't think any member of Red Sox Nation can afford four more years of a president who, in his former life as Rangers owner, voted against creating the wildcard slot,'' David Wade said.
``Just think, if George Bush had his way, there would be no Red Sox World Series victory.''

The Boston Herald.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at October 31, 2004 10:05 AM

Dr. Sanity - I've had your experience, too - from multiple groups. In one, I responded to all with a missive that said, "I'm delighted to debate the issues with whomever wishes to debate ISSUES. But statements like "George Bush doesn't know what death is and doesn't care about any soldiers who die" is blatantly false and has nothing to do with principle or position."

The conservatives in the group individually responded to me and said, "Thanks." The liberals were silent.

And that, to a large degree, is Roger's point here so frequently. The liberals USED to stand for so many of the principles upon which we, the so-called "ex-liberals" still believe. And they say that they are still for them.... but their actions and the actions by our government that they support belie their words.

GWB is the one who is willing to fight the good fight today - mistakes, warts and all. That's why he's getting my vote, and why the "liberal" candidates have lost it.

Posted by: Peggy Kaplan at October 31, 2004 10:07 AM

I have found this strange double standard at play this election year. A lot of anti-Bush people have felt very free to comment about their views on the election. Presuming that I would agree. I don't know why, possibly my age, attire or just my personality? Whatever it is, my husband, who actually looks fairly conservative, gets the same thing happening to him.

As always, we either say nothing and smile if it's a client or we politely disagree. However, I think most Bush supporters don't just make pro-Bush statements off hand as conversation starters and if we have opportunity to bring up our support we are not met with the same polite diagreement we employ in the reverse situation.

One guy that I work with, we are the same approx. age, said he'd have to move to Germany (his wife is German) if Bush wins. I have always had a good raport with this guy, so I said that if he got his way maybe I'd be the one moving and then I laughed at my joke. His jaw nearly hit the ground. I think his assumption of my political views was so shaken he did not know what to think. I know he respects me, maybe now he's rethinking it. I really hope, though, that he is rethinking his assumptions about what a Republican really is. Not the materialistic, uncaring, religious fanatic stereotype.

Posted by: autumn at October 31, 2004 10:09 AM

I just want to say to all the people posting comments how much I have enjoyed reading the rather similar intellectual, political, and spiritual journeys, as well as the careless outrage from those reflecting the dominant intellectual ethos. I like this community a whole lot better. Thanks to all, Jack Risko

Posted by: jack risko at October 31, 2004 10:12 AM

Roger,

I, too, like many others in the comments have received email supporting Kerry. The latest was from a friend who emailed a photo montage of Bush facial gestures juxtaposed next to chimpanzee facial gestures. He then said, "You know who to vote for and it's not the Republican." I emailed him (and the twenty people cc:ed) Varifrank's essay Blood Red Fury:

http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/blood_red_fury_1.php

I have not heard backfrom any one of them.

I did write an essay about coming out on my blog, and perhaps y'all may appreciate it.

http://www.nopundit.com/archives/2004_10/19/000123.html

I have come out with no (bad) consequence, even though I live in a heavily Democratic area (to wit: went to a costume party last night at a private club and the men's trough urinal had pictures of Bush, Rumsfeld, Condi, etc. in it for your pissing pleasure). Coming out is important now more than ever. With two days left your car bumper, your lawn, and your mouth may do more good than you can imagine.

Kenneth Greenlee

Posted by: nopundit at October 31, 2004 10:12 AM

I am a lifelong democrat who actually paid little attention to politics (just swallowing the standard democratic line about the party of the little guy and all that) until the run up to the Iraq war - at which point my attention became riveted to the news - a veritable obsession. I listened carefully to all the facts and I supported it and then I hung on every detail - all news all the time. In truth I think it was because I actually felt personally responsible for every death- as if I had authorized the war myself. I was still a democrat though and during the primaries I was a strong Edwards supporter because unlike Dean or Kerry he had not taken an anti-war position. Without a doubt Abu Ghraib - which broke after the primaries were over - was the turning point. Thats when I witnessed the MSM and the democrats show their naked political opportunism, despite the potentional impact on our success in the war. Thats also when my obsession switched from only Iraq to the blogosphere more broadly and soon it became a 4 hour a day obsession to read everything. My support for Bush has grown stronger into a real conviction. I also voted the other day for the NC Republican Senate candidate - Burr - because I want to insure a republican Senate as we continue the prosecution of this global war. My stance has cost me my relationship with my anti-war liberal sister in Portland and has actually shaken my marriage with my very liberal husband (between the endless hours blogging and my pro-Bush rants he has been at his wits end). However, I am happy to report that I think my husband is now a closet Bush supporter even if he can't bring himself to pull the lever for Bush. But at least he will abstain from voting for Kerry!

Posted by: Caroline at October 31, 2004 10:19 AM

Roger, My experience in these dicussions has been similar...how do you respond after you articulate what you think is a compelling logical argument in favor of Bush, and the very nice and well intentioned person to whom you are addressing this argument says, "That's very interesting, but I am voting with my heart for Kerry"?

Posted by: RAZ at October 31, 2004 10:33 AM

Mark Steyn sums up the Dem problem (money paragraph below) - and I truly hope and pray that the Republicans win so thoroughly that real change in the Dem party becomes possible. First, the left whackos will divide off from the sane Lieberman people... Hilary will come for the fore - it will be a long process, but an absolutely necessary one for America's political health....

"It's only a day or so now till the chad-dangling round of Campaign 2004 begins but, when the lawsuits are over and the bloodletting begins, serious Democrats need to confront the intellectual emptiness of their party, which Kerry's campaign embodies all too well. The Dems got a full tank from FDR, a top-up in the Civil Rights era, and they've been running on fumes for 30 years. Their last star, Bill Clinton, has no legacy because, deft as he was, his Democratic Party had no purpose other than as a vehicle for promoting his own indispensability. When he left, the Democrats became a party running on personality with no personalities to run. Hence, the Kerry candidacy. Despite the best efforts of American editorialists, there's no there there. "

Posted by: heather at October 31, 2004 10:35 AM

I have no understanding of this sort of party committment. I'm almost 60, my parents were Northeastern Republicans but never fit the stereotypes assigned to us by most Democrats around us. We were neither better nor worse off than the machinists, casters and forge workers in our town. Some of them were more prosperous than we were.

My parents liked Stevenson and disliked Eisenhower (because he was a nullity). In later years I read that Stevenson's appeal among Republicans was that he made being a Democrat respectable. A class thing? I'm not sure.

Anyway, whatever the struggle necessary to pull the Republican lever, I suspect none of you Democrats are driven by anything other than good sense, which has always (until now) been the mark of a good Democrat. No gloating from me.

Posted by: Rhod at October 31, 2004 10:40 AM

It is always helpful to hear what others have to say about a subject that many of us have experienced first hand, that is, "liberal intolerance." For voting for Bush the first time I was called a "sex offender" by a shrieking woman. I was also challenged to a fight at my twenty fifth highschool reunion by a family therapist! (I have to admit that still makes me chuckle). I live in a very liberal area, the north side of Chicago. It is sad how many are so out of touch with what the real issue is in this election which is the war and eliminating those that want us dead. Bush has a lot a faults, but he understands that better than most. Kerry scares me greatly. Let's hope Bush, and by proxy, the commenters on this site prevail.
BTW, I am a first timer here and really enjoy the site and the comments. Thanks.

Posted by: btorrez at October 31, 2004 10:40 AM

Correction on the last sentence. Obviously the "until now" is modifying the wrong thing and confusing everything. Good sense has, until now, been the mark of the old Democratic Party.

Posted by: Rhod at October 31, 2004 10:43 AM

For my part, it has been tough as well. I live in the SF Bay Area, bastion of Bush-hating, and in numerous conversations the topic is always "Bush is dumb, Bush killed civilians to enrich Halliburton, Bush LIED!!", etc., spoken by people who are clearly quite intelligent and who often pride themselves on seeing "past surface truth" to see "reality".

I've also found that in these environments, discussion is hard, since many of them consider "deep analysis" to be Nightline and the NewsHour on PBS - and regard the idea that the media is in the tank for a particular candidate as being close to black-helicopter crackpottery. I've shown a few friends articles on the Internet, and have gotten some of them to think, but it's hard, particularly with people you only meet occasionally. Sometimes you are forced to just nod politely and change the subject.

In my own family, we are a California branch of a conservative Texas family, ultimately from the same part of the world where Bush himself is from, and the problem for us is we've always been put off by the religiosity and casual racism of the Texas branch of the family (this has caused many un-fun holiday gatherings and such). Since we rarely met hard-core Christians who aren't casual racists, this tainted our opinions on Bush. My softening of attitude toward Bush forced me to realize that I was stereotyping active Christians, particularly if they are from the South or Midwest.

Posted by: Foobarista at October 31, 2004 10:46 AM

The Germans have a proverb (I hate to give them credit, but it is their proverb): When courage is lost, all is lost.

It does take courage to go against the tradition in which you were raised. And it takes courage to brave the scorn of your peers.

The payoff?

Self-respect. It is not lost.

Posted by: ricpic at October 31, 2004 10:50 AM

I am part of this group of kindred spirits, although in "real life" I feel totally out of place. I'm also growing weary, because I first started speaking up every now and then over a year ago, and more so in the last few months.

I had an "Adlai" pin when I was a small child, and my first vote was for McGovern. All Democrats all the time, but not now. I cannot count the number of times someone makes a gratuitous anti-Bush remark (usually a quite venemous one) in my presence, assuming that I will of course agree. I don't know why it is--some kind of demographics, the way I look, whatever--but the assumption is always made. It happens on a daily basis, and even those friends who know my position sometimes "forget" and say something.

Although I've always been scrupulously polite in my discussions with people, I've not always been met with politeness in return, to say the least. I've been called names and rejected--I have actually lost several friends over this, and perhaps might lose more. I've had close relatives attack me, and, even after knowing my position, goad me.

But the saddest thing for me is I have found, as I've become a news junkie, that most of these people are abysmally ignorant of the facts. The things they say are truly unbelievable, and they are all highly educated, well-meaning people. What's more upsetting is that several of them who initially seemed respectful to me and receptive to what I had to say, and who even requested that I send them information about "the other point of view" through e-mail, have recently turned on me quite angrily. Apparently, there were receiving my e-mails (maybe 5 or 6 in all over the past five months, so I certainly wasn't spamming them) in increasing but silent rage, and finally unloaded. And here I was, thinking maybe they were being convinced! And many of them have been circulating e-mail "lie" letters like the one about the draft, which they seem to believe. It's very disheartening. Now I know, deep down in my gut, how populations--even intelligent and educated ones--can be influenced by propaganda to believe outrageous things.

I think I may have influenced a total of two people by my arguments. These are people particularly near and dear to me, people who had the patience to hear me out over a very long period of time, actually the last two years. I guess that's what it takes.

I wouldn't mind people disagreeing with me if they had their facts straight. But, over and over, when I try to present them with any facts that contradict their entrenched world-view, they are not interested--say they are "too busy," or they get angry at me. I guess it's just really hard to look at reality if it threatens an entrenched position--and don't we all know it!! When I was first facing the things I was learning that were contradicting my deeply-held beliefs, it was frightening and shook me up, but it was exciting, too. And it's good to be well-informed, although I've ended up quite frightened for the future of our country if our most well-educated people are uninterested in learning the facts, or are relying on a media that fills them with lies.

I'm so grateful for this site. And I'm very nervous about Tuesday. I hope we can come back here afterwards in joy rather than to comfort each other--but, either way, I plan to be here.

Posted by: blogaddict at October 31, 2004 10:50 AM

Unlike some here who are voting for a Republican for the first time, I have generally voted Republican except for the one time I chose McGovern. Of course, I was much younger and foolish then.

Like those who have had to discuss our reasons for voting for Bush, Ive been astonished at the lack of knowledge about Kerry's positions and the parroting of Michael Moore-like accusations about Bush.

One 20 year old I spoke to said that Kerry would take the troops out of Iraq. I asked here where she got that, and she just said that she had heard that.

Another person that I worked with said that Bush was going to cut Medicare. Like the 20 year old, I couldn't get a source for this info and when I pointed out Kerry's record showed that he voted for the 17% increase in premiums, she still said that Bush allowed it to happen.

What is scary, is that once this campaign is over, these same people will become used to being ignorant of the issues, and will be this easily manipulated in subsequent elections.

Posted by: Hermie at October 31, 2004 10:53 AM

Our experiences are wide, aren't they? I'm not a "new convert" and I came to conservatism through seeing the law of unintended consequences inflicted by Johnson's War on Poverty. At the convention, when Bush said "liberty is transformative" he was quoting Frederic Bastiat, the patron saint of modern (read "austrian") economics. This year's winner of the Nobel Prize for economics is one of Bastiat's progeny.

But that's about me. What I find surprising is the element of the electorate that is bailing on Kerry. I can't wait to see the numbers from Massachusetts. My former in-laws, in Wellesley, are close to ninety years old. For the first time in his life, my (ex)father-in-law is voting for Bush. So are some of his sons. These guys are old union people; worked for the Mass Bay Transit Authority (or whatever it's called now). One of them even worked on the Big Dig, which is Dems corruption raised to New Jersey levels.

So welcome to Sanity Land, all. It's a good place to live.

Posted by: Dymphna at October 31, 2004 11:03 AM

Modern day "liberals" are extremely disturbing. The undercurrent of violent hatred, blind prejudice, an uncritical acceptance of the most outrageous accusations leveled against Bush in particular and Republicans in general reminds me of nothing so much as the Nazi's views toward the Jews. There is no slander too vicious, no charge so egregious, that it won't be eagerly lapped up and disseminated amongst the faithful. The big lie is embraced, propaganda is the righteous means to the end...where have we seen this before?

As long as they're among fellow travelers they revel with abandon and malicious glee in their mutually shared hatreds, as many here will attest to, after having been assumed to be members of the fold.

Just like the Aryan supremists, the left sees themselves as the 'best' people, albeit based on ideological rather racial criteria. The effect in terms of their naked disdain for Bush and the Republican Party, as opposed to the Jews (although there is growing anti-Semitism as well), and the concomitant justification to level any charge or mete out any punishment in an effort to obliterate them is the same, however. I believe if they had the total power of the state, as the Nazis did, they would behave exactly the same. Unmitigated self righteousness leads to pure ruthless hatred and cruelty. Islamofacism, Communism, Nazism, and post modern leftism all are cut from the same cloth in this respect.

Posted by: Paul at October 31, 2004 11:06 AM

I had one of those moments with a longstanding colleauge and supervisor of my work (I'm a psychologist of the psychoanalytic persuasion). We have had a mutually respectful relationship all these years, and we did our level best to have a respectful disagreement. Her loathing of Bush was intense, and she kept telling me that if Bush got elected abortion would become illegal. I suggested that was completely unrealistic from my perspective.

She went on & on about the loss of civil liberties under Ashcroft although she couldn't cite any when I asked for more evidence, except the usual vague references to library book checkout lists being looked at. She believed there would be a great erosion of civil liberties under Bush. She felt that Bush was peddling fear. At the end of the conversation she "joked" that maybe she would slash my tires on election day. I suggested that it was interesting that she kept saying that Bush is fear mongering when she's telling me that his election will destroy civil liberties & obliterate the Constitution and that the primary response she can think of to my support of Bush is to" joke" about depriving me of my right to vote.

I may disagree with my friends & colleagues who are Kerry supporters. Still I realize that I am hardly omniscent and understand that people could disagree with me and have reasons for supporting Kerry. What bothers me a great deal is the shocked and indignant reaction one gets from many of these folks, that one would have to be crazy or stupid or evil for voting Bush. I think one of the reasons that Kerry will lose is that too many (but not all) of Kerry's supporters not only hold Bush in contempt but hold Bush voters in contempt as well. That kind of support has a way of turning a lot of people off. It is ultimately a kind of support that contains the seeds of self destruction.

The election is likely to be somewhat close in the overall popular vote. How can many Kerry supporters say with a straight face that they will want to unite the country when too many of them respond as the woman at the dinner party Roger attended did?

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at October 31, 2004 11:22 AM

Roger, thanks so so much for this post. As a gay Jewish man living in West Hollywood who supports the president, I have until recently been reluctant to speak out because I fear how others will misrepresent and malign me.

But, I'm coming out now as well. On the blog I share with another GayPatriot, I have written about the vitriol when I "come out" as a gay conservative. And recently posted a anecdote about a Jewish friend who switched to Bush at the last minute.

Your post reminds me that I am not alone in my situation -- of being a Bush supporter in a world of seemingly narrow-inded liberals. I appreciate your sharing this story with us.

Oh and I love your blog.

Thanks!!!

Posted by: Dan at October 31, 2004 11:28 AM

Blogaddict: "Now I know, deep down in my gut, how populations--even intelligent and educated ones--can be influenced by propaganda to believe outrageous things."

Very interesting comment. Because of course its a major rant of the left that Bush's supporters are succumbing to right-wing, militaristic, patriotic propoganda. The Patriot Act and all. They are very very concerned as well. However, with regards to who is falling for propoganda I do find it very enlightening to travel the blogosphere to both right and left wing sites. And what has struck me over time is the often sheer emotional hysteria on the left and their falling for the propoganda of Michael Moore, vs. what appears to me to be the much more calm and factually argued stances on the right. All of us who were born after WWII can look back to that time and wonder how anti-Semitism happened. Now we have a glimpse but simple party labels of left vs right are misleading.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my very liberal, anti-war sister in Portland before she headed off to "Palestine" to observe the Israeli checkpoints. She was quite in awe of the activists who went so far as to try to actually try to tear down the wall. Some months before she left she was almost tearfully describing the ordeal of a Jewish family she had read about who hid from Hitler during WWII. I said - well you know - anti-Semitism is really on the rise all over Europe today. Her answer kind of stunned me. She said, "Well maybe they disagree with Israel's policies." That was it. There was no condemnation, rather tacit understanding. Like alot of liberals she only reads leftist points of view. She is extremely well educated, a humane person who cares a great deal about "social justice" and she seemed oblivious to the import of her casual statement.

I feel strongly that the only solution is to read widely on both sides of the political spectrum. That means one Nation article for every article at Frontpage mag, it means a steady diet of Washington Monthly along with Little Green Footballs. The problem is that once we have taken sides it becomes very difficult to want to hear the criticism from the other side so we keep drifting towards confirmation of our own perspective. That is how propoganda takes hold. And we have to continually guard against it primarily by reading what we don't want to hear.

Posted by: Caroline at October 31, 2004 11:33 AM

I too have travelled the road from Adlai parents (in fact Henry Wallace '48 parents) through George McGovern to George Bush. I did not realize that there were so many of us and I'm trying to figure out what the common demoninator is. The best I can come up with is a common despising of the "new elite" as described in David Lebedoff's new book "The Uncivil War." Here in battleground Minnesota the Minneapolis newspaper has a poll showing Kerry leading by 8% while the St. Paul newspaper on the same day shows Bush leading by 1%. No wonder we are skeptical of the main stream media.

Posted by: Mark in Minneapolis at October 31, 2004 11:38 AM

Good point about reading on both sides, Caroline. One of the things I keep saying when I talk to my liberal friends is that I read voluminously on both sides. I'm not so sure they hear me, or understand the point I'm making and why it's so important, because I am continually receiving e-mails from them with links to liberal articles they are asking me to read, as though I'm unfamiliar with said articles. Over and over I explain that I read that article when it first came out, and this is the rebuttal....

I think they think that I, like them, only read the news from one point of view, and that I've been brainwashed by that new point of view. I try and try to explain, and I would think my standing as once having been "one of them" would give me more clout, but I think they simply dismiss me as one who has gone over to the dark side, and is now lost.

Posted by: blogaddict at October 31, 2004 11:42 AM

Roger,
Welcome to the Republican party.....

I work in the arts, entertainment, media, etc. field, and I have voted Republican since I was 18 years old, which was the 1984 election. Believe me when I say I am in minority amongst my peers and will probably always be.

Shrieking and looks of disgust and horror are pretty accurate descriptions of the reactions that come from my liberal peers when the conversation turns to politics and this election.

And this confuses me. I thought the Democratic Party/liberals were supposed to be tolerant of other people's viewpoints, beliefs and ideas. Any thoughts on this?

Posted by: Teresa at October 31, 2004 12:04 PM

Good for you Roger!

I have often found that the ones that shriek the loudest are the least informed.

Just an unscientific observation on my part.

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2004 12:12 PM

Blogaddict - don't let on that you've already read the article they send. Instead send them one from the right (VDH or Steyn is always good!) and say I'll read yours if you read mine. If this partisan vitriole stretches into the next 4 years I can actually see the utility of national "Book Clubs" of the sort that were widespread when I was growing up but instead of reading fiction everyone comes to discuss articles from opposite political sides. "Article clubs"! The wave of the future! Who needs fiction when reality is so darned fascinating!

Sorry Roger. Hope you don't go out of business. Had been reading your blog for some time before I realized you wrote "Enemies a Love Story" - one of my favorite movies (yes seriously! Along with The Unbearable Lightness of Being). It is interesting that the star of your movie - Ron Silver - has come out so publicly in favor of Bush. Do you two talk politics much these days?

Posted by: Caroline at October 31, 2004 12:14 PM

If you care to, you can go to my blog and scroll down a little to photos under the general heading of "Pre-Election Psychiatric Tips" where I consulted with my feline colleagues to get some suggestions for coping with the next few days.

I am more anxious than I supposed about this election. Having voted in many over the last few decades, I don't ever remember caring as much about who won--except possibly for Reagan. Even then, I was not as worried about the Cold War as I am about the war on terror.

Thanks to all of you who comment here on Roger's blog. Spiritual sustenance is always important!

Posted by: dr. sanity at October 31, 2004 12:16 PM

One of the really ugly things that began in the 60's was the phenomenon of politics as a fashion statement. It became "cool" to espouse certain beliefs, even when most of the people who got behind the banner had not the slightest clue as to the theoretical foundations and implications of the politics they claimed to endorse.

But despite the uncertainties of those times we still lived in security. The Soviets were rational actors who knew that a war between us and them would result in mutual destruction. We could afford to indulge of games of politics as fashion.

Those times are gone. 911 shoved our collective faces into the cesspool of global reality. Some of us woke up. Many of us didn't.

We can no longer afford to take a political stance as a fashion statement. We have enemies out there who would gladly kill every one of us if they had the power to do so, and its sheer madness to think that we can come to any sort of accomodation with them. Ideas of universal brotherhood and peace and love sound so good, but reality doesn't care that you're holding a happy thought in your head when you jump off a cliff to fly; it just hurtles you to your death on the mound of the remains of the idiots who came before you.

I just hope that enough of us wake up before its too late. The wake up call just might consist of a mushroom cloud over NYC.

Posted by: tcobb at October 31, 2004 12:33 PM

I will throw in my two cents on trying to "educate" friends and relatives who fall into the category of the uncommitted.

I send them sensible articles, not hysteria. VDH is one of my favorites. After a while I find out from my wife that they tell her they just delete my emails unread. Either because "they don't have time to read that stuff" or "they already made up their mind to vote for Kerry and don't want to read "negative" things".

I am past being furious with people who I once considered educated. Their intellectual dishonesty in passing on propaganda which they cant possibly believe is appalling.

I fear for the future of the civlized world if the Dems can get out a huge vote of the uneducated and ill-informed first time voters who they cater to.

Posted by: TedM at October 31, 2004 12:37 PM

I am voting for my first Republican presidential candidate on Tuesday. I've been a registered Democrat since 1980; I changed my registration to independent last year. Like dr. sanity, I am an academic, untenured though, and receive many e-mails and listen to a lot of anti-Bush comments and jokes. I am constantly amazed at how so many well-educated people can avoid listening to or reading the opposite side of the issues. Since I'm untenured I don't feel safe speaking up but somehow some have learned of my apostasy. It has made for some uncomfortable moments; I've managed to change the topic rather quickly. A bright spot has been one of my colleagues, a strong union-supporting, Democrat; he has commented to me that it must be difficult to have everybody simply assume that you agree with their views on the candidates. That is the first and only reasoned discussion I've had with a colleague.

My cousin, to whom I'm very close, and my closest friend are so strongly anti-Bush that I can't even bring up the topic with either of them. They have an idea of how I feel so they don't pass on the jokes etc. to me, but it is strained. For that reason among many, I will be glad when this election is finally over.

Like so many others here, I am grateful for this forum and to Roger for providing it.

Posted by: BeckyJ at October 31, 2004 12:41 PM

Becky -- I bet you don't talk much about Bush in the faculty lounge, either.

(Sympathy: I've been a Repubican academic: I know what you're dealing with.)

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at October 31, 2004 12:44 PM

As far as the viscious cartoons and "jokes" are concerned. I sometimes reply to the sender that I consider him/her one of the more intelligent of my friends and "arent you a little embarassed sending out this tripe?"

It stops after that. They get the message. And as an old boss of mine once said "tell him to go fuck himself. BUT, don't insult the bastard!"

Posted by: TedM at October 31, 2004 12:48 PM

Dr. S--

Thank you for the catblogging-- I have three in-house feline therapists too. I also find your frankness reassuring-- I was beginning to wonder whether the anxiety I'm feeling about this election is either misplaced or a sign of pathology. We certainly do need a gathering place for spiritual sustenance, and Roger's blog provides that.

I've been moved by the accounts of personal re-examination and change that some of the regulars have posted here. I'm definitely in the minority here in that I've always been a registered Republican-- which means that I've had to put up with snarky jokes and angry diatribes from the party of tolerance and inclusivity since the early '70s. I'm sure Roger remembers the political climate in New Haven quite well. Meanwhile, I'm glad to have met some new friends through this online community--and many thanks again to Roger for making that possible.

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at October 31, 2004 12:54 PM

I echo all the comments about fear of coming out as a Bushie and confusion as to really what is going on with me. I used to be hip! When did I turn into Jeanne Kirkpatrick?

No one at my university has so much as a Bush bumper sticker. One of my sisters shrieked at me when I asked her to please stop sending me moveon.org emails, "Don't you read the newspapers?!??" Of course I do--that's the problem.

These days it is the choice that dare not speak its name. But an old paradigm is dying before our eyes. What was once revolutionary is now kitsch, a trekkie-style fetish of tie-dyes and hating Daddy government. We are the vanguard. Do maybe Monday should be "coming out" day?

Posted by: PJ at October 31, 2004 1:15 PM

BeckyJ, I hope that I, too, will be glad when this election is over. I hope it will be because Bush has been reelected. My fear is that, if he is not, I will not be happy at all. I actually fear I will become profoundly depressed, because I will see it as the triumph of propaganda, hatred, sloppy thinking, ignorance, and a press that has become swollen with self-importance and lies. I fear for the future of America and the world, I really, truly do. I was very anxious for months after 9/11, and I thought I'd calmed down. But I fear my anxiety might be even greater post-Nov 2, if my fears come true and Bush is not re-elected (or even if he does and a sort of civil war ensues).

What adds to the problem is the estrangement from, and the very real anger and bitterness I now hold towards many--perhaps even the majority--of my friends and family. I can be still be friendly with some and civil to others, but I am pretty sure that things will never be the same for me in many of these relationships. So, although I felt I had company in my post-9/11 woes, I feel far more alone now. I love this blog, but bloggers can't keep you warm at night (although they can keep you UP at night!)

Posted by: blogaddict at October 31, 2004 1:16 PM

Oops. "So maybe Monday should be..."

Posted by: PJ at October 31, 2004 1:16 PM

Take heart ( a little anyway)!

Like I said the other day, although I do live in a Republican area, we're seeing a trove of Kerry lawn signs. This afternoon, I happened to be at a local farm that features apple and pumpkin picking, and a nice store where they sell their all their goodies.

Anyway, a woman was sashaying around the store with an anti-Bush shirt and a Kerry/Edwards button on her sweater. As she approached the counter, the teenaged girl behind the register announced "I love your shirt!" Her reply was "Oh thank you I love you too! You would not believe how many dirty looks I've gotten today!!!" Another woman standing in line next to me said under her breath "Well, here's another for ya!"

Posted by: notthisgirl at October 31, 2004 1:17 PM

Same here.

I have to admit though, I have lost patience. The last time I got one of those emails I told the sender that I was going to vote for Bush and I was sick and tired of having to justify this to people who obviously don't respect my effing opinion anyway. I stopped the discourse. I refuse to even look at the crap anymore.

The shrieking women are usually silly, hysterical and uninformed. I had the same discussion about wmd that Roger did. I said well hell everybody including Bill Clinton thought they were there. No he did not she said. I said when he passed the Iraqi Liberation Act he made it plain he believed that.... did not she said. Total unabashed denial of reality.

And then the Patriot Act came up... I said the Senate was also involved and besides we needed to update our intelligence gathering techniques.... did not she said. Bush and Ashcroft did all by themselves in secret.

Now this woman has two degrees. I think the shrieking women and their ilk we encounter are ignorant people who want it to be easy. They are liberal snobs. They patronize the poor, say the right things, hang with the right people and think they are cool.

But they seem to forget that there are tens of millions of people in this country that do not share their narrow and simple minded view of the world and the day might come when we respond it kind. It is our damn country too God damn it.

Posted by: Terrye at October 31, 2004 1:21 PM

Having been a visitor to Roger's Bar for a while,I think the dichotomy in American politics can be seen in microcosm here.
On the one hand there are the post 9/11 realists of whatever political persuasion,between them the discussion is intelligent and respectful with only the occasional dust up or handbagging.Above all else it is adult.
On the other hand the liberal left,for want of a better psychologicsl epithet,kick open the doors and shout,"I can whip anyone in here",then proceeds to sneer,jeer,snark and insult the proprietor in the manner of a drunken street punk.Without exception the are most whiningly agrieved when they wake up on the pavement outside.
To me it appears that the vertical conflict between the generations has has become lateralised into a political one.The liberal left is refusing to grow up and typically of youthful rebellion regards itself as being the sole repository rectitude and therefore able to dispense with courtesy.

Posted by: PeterUK at October 31, 2004 1:38 PM

"I'm trying to figure out what the common demoninator is."

Mark, you might try willful ignorance for a starter. Barry Dauphin's post strikes me the hardest of all that I've read here today. I know that pyschologists can get get wrapped around the axle of partisanship as easily as most people but I would hope that they could at least identify reality from propaganda. I have no problem whatsoever in debating positions with someone who holds an opposing view that can be articulated in a logical manner. What Barry describes in his supervisor is a conditioned response requiring no more intellectual effort than Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell. How very sad.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at October 31, 2004 1:40 PM

By the way, although I've not gone through all the comments yet, I want to thank you folks who are Democrats (or former Democrats) who have had the guts to think for yourselves. I doubt I'd have the guts to speak out too much publicly - although some Vodka (like Roger), and constant waves of pro-Kerry blather might have had me blurt out at least something.

The Comments Section at this blog I truly enjoy reading. Very insightful and well-written.

I think Liberals such as Roger's party-mates, have a tendency to look no further than the Dan/Tom/Peter hour, because their presentation of things aligns with how they view things - why look further??

Some truly are clueless that there are people who actually do think on a different wave-length. Case in point:

We live next to a country club. One summer, they were able to get some relatively well-known performers to come give concerts for our community. One weekend, Judy Collins appeared. My husband and I went to see her. As she got started, she began to give a rah-rah speech for Michael Dukakis. When she was done, the crowd was 90% silent. The woman sitting next to us leaned over and whispered "Does she know where she is?" After the pregnant silence, Judy said sheepishly "Well, I guess we'll move right along!"

Posted by: notthisgirl at October 31, 2004 1:46 PM

Terrye,
Higher education has changed a lot,they do degrees in "Stupid" now.

Posted by: PeterUK at October 31, 2004 1:51 PM

Rhod: I know what you mean about NE Republicans (NJ here). When I was in 4th grade, my parents supported Humphrey instead of Nixon.

We are a different breed!

Posted by: notthisgirl at October 31, 2004 1:51 PM

Terrye:

They patronize the poor, say the right things, hang with the right people and think they are cool.

Damn right. The Democrats are not the party of the little folk, they are the party of the elite, of the "smart" people. If Bush wins the election their contempt for the ordinary people who voted for him will know no bounds.

The rest of your comment is right on.

Posted by: chuck at October 31, 2004 1:52 PM

blogaddict--

Trust that you will find new friends and companions along the way if your present relationships are past repair. I've wondered from time to time too whether I'm likely to feel thoroughly depressed after 11/2 if the media and the lunatic Left succeed in swinging this election. And I've lost some friends too. But the very fact that there are people like you posting on Roger's blog is reassuring-- there are many more of us than we realize, and we can build all sorts of new friendships and working groups from the wreckage of the old. One wise saying that I often heard in Al-Anon meetings (which I attended for some years in order to cope with an alcoholic stepfather) is that "feelings are not facts." You may feel very lonely at the moment, but that doesn't mean that you are in fact alone. (I have to remind myself too).

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at October 31, 2004 2:00 PM

It is an interesting phenomenon that the well informed people I have met who support Bush, find it necessary to qualify their views by elaborating on how well informed they really are- to the point that it becomes difficult to get past the "here's how smart I am" and get down to the "here's what I know." And I think this goes beyond establishing the foundation on which an argument will have merrit. Perhaps it speaks to the common belief among the Democratic "intellectuals" (know-it-alls) that anyone who could support Bush's policies must not be very smart or informed. Or maybe you feel you must establish your intellect because you believe that most of those who support Bush will do so, in spite of what they know- which is wholely irrational.

You are probably right in thinking that you didn't change any minds last night. You are also likely to be correct in thinking that you are more informed than those you dined with. It is, however, quite presumtuous of Old Dad to suggest that your aquaintances posses "a surprising degree of cultural and political illiteracy" because they have not formed their opinions an a diet of political blogs.

When it comes to war and national security, Bush is not really all that difficult to understand. I'm not exactly sure what Kerry's policy is, but I know it's different, and that's what most people who are voting for Kerry are looking for- change. All the rest of the information we can gather, only helps us to argue for that ideology. Either you believe in the man's ideas or you don't. How well you can articulate an Oil For Food spin, is practically irrelevant. It seems to be a nice bit of self-gratification to amass a huge arsenal of arguments for and against something you believe so strongly in, but all of this rhetoric seems a lot like showing someone a hand full of leaves and telling them how big and strong the tree they came from is. Show me the tree, and I'll decide for myself how strong it is. I certainly don't need a blog to "inform" me as to what those leaves look like.

Just as architecture transcends our need for shelter, our quest for information about politics goes far beyond a useful understanding of policy and its implications.

I am certainly not an advocate of being uninformed, but to suggest that people who simply know less than you are uninformed, is arrogant and preposterous.

That's OK. We still enjoyed your company last night.

Posted by: mbro at October 31, 2004 2:23 PM

Mo WMDs? Uh, just what do people think all that RDX was for?

The RDX and the other associated explosives are the basic ingredients for a nuke program. Believe it or not getting the explosives and their triggers right is the most difficult aspect of a nuclear program. I discuss that at the link.

If you need a movie to help may I suggest "Fat Man and Little Boy". Keep your eye on the explosives work.

Sheesh. It is interesting how we miss what is right in front of our noses.

Posted by: M. Simon at October 31, 2004 2:26 PM

MBRO,

I stand by my post. I did not argue that one must form his opinion based on political blogs, only that one cannot be well informed about politics without reading the blogs.

Moreover, the internet is a huge cache of political and cultural information on all sides of every issue. Search engines like Lexis-Nexis and Google have opened up huge data sets to indiviudal researchers. One can't be well informed, period, without using these tools.

We simply cannot rely on the old media outlets. They are clearly biased and not really very informative. They represent a data point, certainly, but that's all.

Posted by: Old Dad at October 31, 2004 2:33 PM

"I am certainly not an advocate of being uninformed, but to suggest that people who simply know less than you are uninformed, is arrogant and preposterous.

Mark,

Another common denominator is ability to engage in unconscious self parody. Some have raised it to the level of art.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at October 31, 2004 2:34 PM

This does rather resemble a 12 step program for recovering liberals. Maybe its a good time to break for coffee and while we're on break perhaps we should all contemplate this question:

Without doubt there will be another 9/11 type or worse - attack on our soil in the next 4 years. As Bush supporters who have by many accounts gone out on a limb with friends and family to support him - would you feel more comfortable if another major attack happened on Bush's watch or Kerry's watch? Even if it happens on Kerry's watch are you prepared to deal with the inevitable fact that the left will most likely loudly proclaim that it is due to the recklessness of Bush's policy - that his policy has made our enemies hate us all the more? And of course if it happens on Bush's watch - there will be all sorts of claims about how he didn't properly defend the homeland and so forth. Seems to me it will be construed as Bush's failure either way. How will you feel about and respond to that?

Posted by: Caroline at October 31, 2004 2:38 PM

In another thread, I stated that if we abandoned Iraq before a legitimate Iraqi government was establshed and functioning effectively, then the US-Coalition counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan would be untenable. I believe that even more so today.

The US force deployment in Central Asia is little mentioned but it is active and extensive. We have bases in Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan and Georgia, for instance. And they are there with the understated forebearance of the Russian government.

If Iraq falls to Islamic fundamentalism, the focus would shift immediately to Afghanistan. Zarqawi et al. would quickly target US-Coalition forces in the region. The Bush administration understands this, as does Vladimir Putin, but the moveon.org, Soros, Michael Moore crowd could care less.

Just a week ago, the Bush Administration formally stated that Russian special forces assisted the mass movement of Iraqi armaments during the onset of offensive operations in March 2003. A few days later, the Administration released satellite photographs clearly proving the efforts. One might have expected howls of outrage from the Russians after the accusation, but instead, we got hardly a peep from the Kremlin. Why?

I think that Putin understands to his fingertips the potential disaster to his country if Iraq and Afghanistan were to fall. The soft underbelly of the weak Russian state would be unbearably vulnerable to Islamic radicalism. Putin wants - needs - George Bush to be re-elected.

Posted by: mrp at October 31, 2004 2:43 PM

mbro:

Oh come on. If I had a dollar for everytime I had to listen to some Kerry supporter who could not find Texas much less Iraq on a map call Bush stupid I could pay off my mortgage.

The left lost me with Michael Moore. That human slug who compares terrorists who behead people and caper about their corpses screaming God is Great at the top of their lungs with Paul Revere is like a poster child for the self righteous who rant and rave about Halliburton but think mass murder is just relative. They hate the rich unless they are the right kind of rich. Unless they are themselves.

You know Bush did not create this situation he inherited it. The fact that so many people are completely ignorant of that fact has a lot to do with the Bush bashing. It is easier. Get rid of Bush and the Eurotrash will throw rose petals in our path and the ME will be the happy place of kite flying children it once was. Kerry is a fresh start.

Gimme a break. There is nothing remotely fresh about Kerry, he has not changed since 1971.

Posted by: Terrye at October 31, 2004 2:54 PM

The whole "change" argument comes accross as self indulgent consumerism,
"That Leylandii we got three years ago is blocking my view of the gazebo,we should cut it down and plant something else"."The sofa clashes with the new curtains","We don't like this president,lets have the other fellow,whatsisname,can't be any worse","Drink anyone?"
Ignorance is my armour! They had the same conversation in the tumbrils.

Posted by: PeterUK at October 31, 2004 3:14 PM

mbro,

By using the term, "oil for food spin," you've truly pointed out the difference between yourself and many who post on this blog. It's called the big picture. You and your peers seem utterly unable to see it in your quest for "change."

I, too, am a lifelong Democrat. I will be casting my first Republican vote on Tuesday. I can easily put up with the things that irritate my about George Bush for the sake of supporting the Iraqis, John Howard, Tony Blair, and our troops who do NOT need the confusion that will follow with a president who has no convictions. Obvious to everyone but the ABB crowd is the fact that the terrorists will most definitely be emboldened after they convince the Americans to get rid of their biggest thorn. It's amazing to me that you can't see that past your distaste for George Bush.

Your reasons for voting for Kerry strikes me as nothing less than shallow and short-sighted. I'm sure other than that you are a lovely person.

Posted by: Susan at October 31, 2004 3:27 PM

mbro

"I'm not exactly sure what Kerry's policy is, but I know it's different, and that's what most people who are voting for Kerry are looking for- change."

This is such an appaling statement I had to repeat it.

Assuming a change in policy is a change for the 'better' is dangerous at best, ignorant at worst when you don't even know what that change represents!

It is a vote based on a shrug.

May the bluebird of happiness crap on your election fantasies.

Posted by: Syl at October 31, 2004 3:37 PM

Damn, Roger: this thread sounds more like an AA meeting! I sympathize with all the academics who are "conservative." An anecdote: I went back for my PhD when I was 55. I sat in a class listening to a professor who was my age decrying the "fact" that Americans were undertaxed. He cited a NYT times article about the tax burden AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. I pointed out that that the tax burden also exists at the local level--there were these things called gasoline, sales and property taxes. My PhD cohort was thunderstruck--they had NO idea that people pay taxes other than a federal income tax.

But that is just an anecdote, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. My children who are both getting terminal degrees contantly regard me an Attila incarnate--I am struck by how little the "attentive public" actually knows. Have any of the commenters listened to a TV talk show and screamed at the screen--"hey doofus, that point was demolished on the web a day ago." Our TV commentators are more ill informed than anyone who keeps up the blogs (left or right). A sad commentary on the American system.

Posted by: RogerA at October 31, 2004 3:37 PM

I'm voting for Kerry this year, even though I live in a deeply red state where my vote makes little difference.

Bush did a brilliant job in Afghanistan and OBL's recent video is a testament to how well his strategy worked there. But what happened in Iraq cannot be ignored. From undersupplied troops to rapidly changing motivations for war to prisoner abuses, its easy to see why one would conclude the war wasn't a good idea and wasn't executed well. And no one in this administration is willing to own up to mistakes and take the necessary actions to correct them. And the president seems to be living in bubble, unwilling to face information which is contradictory to his beliefs.

I remember Les Aspin resigning because troops in Somalia lacked necessary protection and weapons. Where is such an admission of responsibility from Rumsfield?

And then there's the social issues. Admittedly, terrorism is a bigger issue but the social issues define what exactly we are defending in our struggle. The president is embracing the religious right, gutting our environmental protections, wants to stack the court with Scalia-clones (just look at his conservative appointments to lower courts), raises the deficit while cutting taxes for the rich. Moderate republicans are being shoved aside.

All in all, this is an administration which cannot be trusted. Yes they seem to have a really great and wonderful resolve regarding the elimination of terrorism. The problem is that this resolve is misdirected and they seem to have blinders regarding their mistakes. And then the social issues are just the poisonous icing on the cake.

Kerry is a douchebag, a liar, and relatively out of touch with America. However, he is slightly less disgusting than the Republicans and thats why he's getting my vote.

May God smile on us and give us a decent choice for '08.

Posted by: pandaba at October 31, 2004 3:49 PM

RogerA:

Well yeah. Bob Kerrey made an ass of himself on Meet the Press today. Started on the whole AlQaqa thing.

sheesh. He actually said the explosives were in the hands of terrorists now and in truth we don't know where they are or even if they were there to begin with.

These guys make me wonder how hard it can be to be a US Senator.

I think Roger should run.

That would really get them going in Hollywood.

Posted by: Terrye at October 31, 2004 3:52 PM

Caroline:

My immediate response to another 9/11 type attack will not be political. It will be visceral. I will hope that whoever is in charge will bring the forces of hell down upon the perpetrators. I will hope for their complete and utter anihilation.

At some future date, I will hope that our political process might do a much better job of assessing what happened, why, and what to do about it than did the past 9/11 commission.

Posted by: Old Dad at October 31, 2004 3:57 PM

pandaba

Kerry is a douchebag, a liar, and relatively out of touch with America.

But he'll stick it to those yokels in fly-over country, and thats what counts, right?

The entire "vote for Kerry" argument always seems to come down to that, in the end. "Kerry is one of us. Bush is one of them, those stupid rednecks. They actually believe in God!"

I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to realize what a stupid prig you come across as.

Posted by: flenser at October 31, 2004 4:04 PM

Caroline,

"How will you feel about and respond to that?"

If there's another attack, and I share your view that one is inevitable, people will divide into two groups. One group, as you indicate, will want to talk about whose fault it was and to watch talking heads and NY Times op-eds offer reasons why it was President Bush's fault. They then will bring out into the open what they really will care about, what the U.S. can give the Islamicists to stop attacking us. The response of the other group, which will include 85% of the population, will not be to argue with them, but to express contempt. The fate of the ostriches will be, at best, derision.

Their world, for better or worse, died on 9/11. The truly remarkable hostility that surfaces whenever anyone dissents from their anti-Bush pieties, and objects to joining in their vicious liturgies, must arise from a deep fear that that might be true. I've had my own experiences like our host's and yours. You get a reaction that is not adult. It's as if you interrupted a group of children at a performance of Peter Pan, clapping to make Tinker Belle come back to life.

Posted by: Frederick at October 31, 2004 4:05 PM

I live in Los Angeles, was a Democrat in 2000 and am voting, passionately, for Bush. I, too, have had so many amazingly odd experiences since the beginning of my political evolution.

I remember having a dinner party where one of my guests asked all the Democrats to raise their hands and I was the only one who called myself an Independent, so I kept my arm down. I was also the only one at the party who saw the importance of going into Afghanistan. Yes, that's how far left my friends are; they felt pitty for the Taliban. Ugh! I passionately pleaded with them to understand how incompassionate their views were. I don't know if I convinced anyone. But I began to realize, then, that what I thought was common sense, wasn't so common.

There was my daughter's birthday party, where I thought we were just having a conversation and because I was apalled that some Berkeley students tore up Republican students' newspapers - my friend told her boyfriend she couldn't listen to me any longer and wanted to go home. Because her boyfriend wanted to stay, she put her head between her knees and stayed that way until I returned from driving a birthday guest home. Her head remained between her knees for over half an hour.

Then I got into it with a guy that began spewing vitriol about Ronald Reagan just as Mrs. Reagan was laying her head on his coffin (the T.V. played in the background.)

The weekend of the Beslan massacre I knew to cancel a barbecue we were planning; I would have gone bezerk if I heard one Bush bash, when real horrors were committed just a day before. My friends never talk about the horrors of the terrorists, they can only whine about the evils of corporations, Bush, Republicans.

Because I've educated myself about what's going on in the Middle East and around the world, it pains me to have to hear party guests blather about minutiae and praise Michael Moore. It physically pains me that I know longer fully respect these people anymore.

Posted by: MichelefromLA at October 31, 2004 4:09 PM

Roger:

My family was a bit like yours. My mother drove around with Stevenson posters on her car when I was a child. In 1976, she was Carter's finance chairman in Ohio. She is still a hard core Democrat.

In 1975, I moved to New York straight out of law school. New York was going bankrupt and social pathology reigned supreme. It was like living in the third world.

I was single. I spent a lot of my spare time walking around the city and thinking. By 1978, I was convinced that the democrat party, Jimmy Carter and their versions of liberalism had failed. I did however learn to smile instead of argue at parties.

Only 60 more hours. I can't stand it anymore.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 31, 2004 4:10 PM

mbro,

I certainly appreciate your commentary - it takes no small measure of confidence to "beard the lion in it's den" and then thank the lion for it's company, even if you disagree on some fundamental issues.

That said, I echo the point made by an earlier commenter (and hope to flesh out some of the confusion I feel):

I'm not exactly sure what Kerry's policy is, but I know it's different, and that's what most people who are voting for Kerry are looking for- change. All the rest of the information we can gather, only helps us to argue for that ideology. Either you believe in the man's ideas or you don't.

Nuking Fallujah is different. Throwing babies into meatgrinders is different. Before you become enamored with change for it's own sake, be aware of what the change is.

Furthermore, when you get to the "either you believe in the man's ideas, or you don't", I presume you speak of Senator Kerry. If so, then you really need to sit down, and reread that last paragraph to yourself, out loud.

You are, from your own words, essentially saying, I don't know what this guy believes in, but... you either believe in it or not.

That's sort of a very Yogi Berra-esque meets Jaques Derrida kind of political statement. I do not begrudge you your support of Kerry, but I hope, wish, and pray, that you have a better basis for making your vote for the Commander-In-Chief than "I don't know what this guy wants to do, but I believe in it, while you don't."

And thanks again for bringing some very cogent points to this debate in a very reasonable and succinct manner.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at October 31, 2004 4:12 PM

pan:

The fact that Bush is a Methodist is not a crime. He does not speak in tongues.

He is not "gutting" our environmental laws, some of which have not been changed or updated since the 70's. We do have a legislative branch that has some responsibility here as well.

And why go after him for troops not having what they need when you intend to vote for a man that voted against supplying those troops? About 70% of the troops support Bush. Kerry says he will bring in another 40,000. I am not sure he will keep the ones we have because most of them despise the man.

Kerry and the rest of Congress voted for the war resolution. Regime change in Iraq was after all our national policy. The UN resolutions were explicit and numerous. Congress and the UN are every bit as responsible for the reasons we went to war as Bush is. Kerry has stated numerous positions on this very subject himself. He has been oppurtunistic on the subject.

And as far as Iraq is concerned I am always amazed that people seem to think that ousting a man like Saddam and fighting terrorists like Zarqawi is supposed to be easy. We lost more men in training accidents leading up to DDay than we have lost in Iraq. We just didn't have the TV to see it on every day.

So if supporting the troops and rationale for the war are the problems you have with Bush, why would you ever support Kerry?

And why give the terrorists what they want by caving in Iraq? They are watching us and when they hear Americans say Iraq is hopeless they feel vindicated. Those young Americans who have lost their lives deserve better than our going belly up.

Support for Bush in Afghanistan is said to be about 90%. They are afraid Kerry will abandon them. Why is that? What is it in his character that leads both Afhganis and Iraqis to fear for their future if he wins and Bush loses?

Posted by: Terrye at October 31, 2004 4:14 PM

Kerry's Iraq policy isn't different, it's the desert version of this, via Lileks:

”...Because that would lead to helicopters on the roof and boat people and reeducation camps and mass deaths, and God knows the world has never seen anything like that.”

He's a communist sympathizer, appeaser and to millions, traitor. Hasn't changed.

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Gulf War #1 had the coalition of his wet dreams and UN blessing to boot and he voted.....NO.

From a recent Washington Post article on Kerry: .....Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

Posted by: Sandy P at October 31, 2004 4:16 PM

My name is Blogaddict, and I am a recovering liberal.

MichelefromLA, boy did you hit the nail on the head for me when you wrote, "what I thought was common sense, wasn't so common anymore."

That has been a slowly dawning realization for me. The journey I was on through reading, reading, reading, post 9/11, was so exciting and interesting--although sobering and frightening--that I didn't realize that very few other people were on the same journey. When I poked my head up around a year ago, and started having political conversations from friends with whom I'd never before discussed politics, I was stunned beyond measure to hear what was coming out of their mouths. Was it that I had changed so much, or had they? Or had none of us really changed, and the difference was that we'd never talked about politics before? The profundity of the disillusionment I feel on a very personal level is something I find it hard to express or to deal with.

A few friends have come through--some, by agreeing with me; some, by disagreeing in a reasonable, logical, and respectful manner. The rest have not. The other day I was thinking about the expression "common sense," because it struck me that so many of my friends seem to lack it, or seem to have lost it. Why, if common sense is supposed to be common, does it seem rare nowadays? And then I thought of Orwell's statement, "some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual can believe them." It has taken on a whole new meaning to me. I have come to the conclusion that "common sense" doesn't just mean "common" as in "possessed by the majority of people;" it means "common" as in "more likely to be held by people who haven't been educated out of it by absurd Derrida-spouting professors." In other words, in some paradoxical way, the spread of higher education, which seemed to me always to be a very good thing, has its downside--and that's the spread of the rot of arrogance and elitism combined with laziness, ignorance, and post-modernist claptrap. It makes "common sense" something only for "commoners," something to look down on.

Posted by: blogaddict at October 31, 2004 4:35 PM

I hope you dont mind me being blunt. It is wonderful that you have recently had some insight. That is a good thing.

It is just as wonderful that you share this insight with your friends.

Can I make a suggestion, tho? There was an article by Andrew Sullivan three or four years ago, published in the Sunday Times. It was the most unintentionally hilarious article I have ever read. Ever.

Andrew wrote about his (bogus) attendance at a Christian Coalition dinner. They didnt know who he was. But more to the point, he did not have the faintest idea who they were. With a sort of breathlessness, Andrew reported how these folks were kind, and gentle, and witty, and intelligent, and not at all the monsters he was hoping to report.

My suggestion to you, is to find the article and to read it.

I am not a Christian. I approve gay marriage (for example).

But the rarified atmosphere of the wealthy and insulated, the bag-breathers, is a ridiculous sight to the many average folks in this country, Christian or not. The many average folks actually have an amazing amount of wisdom, knowledge and judgment.

I have the belief that even wealthy, insulated folks can touch base, sooner or later, and realize we are all in this together.

Posted by: Moonzoo at October 31, 2004 4:36 PM

I guess I fall into the same general range of experiences and history as many others here. My first presidential election was 1972. I had been somewhat active in opposition to the Vietnam War in years previous to that. I voted for Nixon, because it was clear to me that McGovern just didn't get things about national defense or the importance of creating wealth. The only election in which I've voted Democratic for President was 1980. I had bought the line that Reagan was a dangerous warmonger. I was wrong.

I get some of the same incredulous reactions as Roger does. "But Jim, you're an educated man. You did your graduate work at Stanford. You're a substantial supporter of classical music in Silicon Valley, and you're a classical guitarist yourself. How can you vote for Bush?" My answer is always the same: "Because I'd like to be alive a year from now."

I'm constantly amazed at the simple bad manners of many of these people. I grew up in Illinois, learning that it's impolite to inject my political opinions into discussions. I continue to think that that's true. A couple of weeks ago, I was talking with the head of an arts organization around here, and, out of nowhere, she started bashing the President, assuming that I would agree. I made it clear that she was talking to the wrong guy. I'm now torn between a desire to support the arts and a desire to make it clear that I don't stand for bad manners.

Posted by: Silicon valley Jim at October 31, 2004 4:39 PM

Folks I hear that a story on Kerry may break tonight. Something to do with his military discharge.

Could this be true??

Posted by: Terrye at October 31, 2004 4:39 PM

I'm one of the converted liberals. I describe my Old Self as "an unexamined liberal" which always gets someone to ask me what that means. And I can then tell them that liberalism is so easy, such a short cut to the higher moral ground, that I found it irresistable. I didn't have to know anything, or even believe anything. I just had to be AGAINST poverty, AGAINST war, AGAINST suffering, AGAINST killing the whales, AGAINST poisoning the environment, etc., and I could instantly feel morally superior to those who did not agree. Because if they were not also liberals, then they clearly were FOR poverty, etc. I didn't need a coherent philosophy, or an understanding of history or politics.

Bill Clinton made me a conservative. Well, his female supporters did, anyway. The "feminist" mantra of always believing a woman if she says she was raped, not accusing her of 'asking for it', not looking at her sexual history, and so on, had impressed me as fair. When the Clinton groupies started in on Paula Jones, the hypocrisy drove me right out of the Democratic Party---and what I learned, once I got out into the real world, has me frightened at the blatant brainwashing that goes on in our society, day in and day out.

I find it marginally more effective to merely state that I am now FOR things. If someone is voting for Kerry because he or she truly believes that Kerry has a clear vision for the country, and the character and strength to carry it out, there is nothing to talk about. But you know what? I haven't met that person yet. All I have met is the Kerry supporter who is not FOR Kerry at all, but just AGAINST Bush. HalliburtonpipelinesheikinfluenceAWOLstupidpuppetCarlyleGroupsecretsocietynewworldorderbloodforoil

Another tactic to ask questions. "Have you ever wondered why the press has concentrated so much on Bush's National Guard record but never asked how Kerry managed to meet his Ready Reserve requirements while he was campaigning against the war?" or "Have you noticed that the newspapers and TV have just ignored the oddities in Kerry's discharge record? They just don't seem to think there is anything odd about him signing up for a six-year hitch in 1968 and not getting his honorable discharge until 2001. Have you heard anything about that?"

But mostly I just say that if I got all my "news" from Dan, Peter, Tom, and Michael Moore, I'd probably agree with them---but as I don't, I can't.

Posted by: Almiranta at October 31, 2004 4:39 PM

Caroline, to try to answer your question: I too feel another terror attack is likely on a major scale. I hope I am wrong about that. But, whoever is president, I'm convinced many people will blame Bush. He has become their all-purpose scapegoat, bete-noire, villain, what-have-you. If it's on Kerry's watch, then it will be because Kerry came too late to undo what Bush did; if it's on Bush's watch, well, it will be even easier to blame him. I never could have predicted the insanity, but here it is, it can't be denied. The only question I have is how much of the population will subscribe to it. My guess? About 50% (and, in the town I live in, 80%).

I myself am amazed it's been three years and we haven't had one; I expected many by now. But people refuse to acknowledge this and give Bush any credit. If there had been another attack, it would have been his fault; now that there hasn't been, it means the threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated, according to those who hate Bush.

I know it's been said here before, but Bush-hatred and anti-Americanism both remind me quite a bit of anti-Semitism in their lose-lose mentality towards the hated object.

Posted by: blogaddict at October 31, 2004 4:41 PM

Let me clear up a few things about what you all seem to have concluded, based on my post.

My disdain for this administration does not stem from a lack of information or a short sightedness in seeing the big picture (to the degree that any of us can foresee the future).

I do not beleive that knowing everything there is to know will necessarily preclude making the "right" decision. There are very well informed people on both sides of this election. I, unlike our President, would never assume prople are stupid.

Placing a botched attempt to secure hegemony at the top of my "reasons to vote for" list will never happen.

I happen to agree with many of this administrations ideologies.

I do not think they are executing those ideas well enough.

I do not think that John Kerry will make our situation worse. I do think that there is a slight possibility that he will make it better.

I do not think that Bush has enough support to resurrect what is being perceived as a failing policy.

I do not like being presumed so incapable of supporting his policy, that I must be mislead.

I am not a lovely person.

Posted by: mbro at October 31, 2004 4:50 PM

Why this child like faith in change?
The election of Kerry plunges your nation into unknown territory,Bush has had his 9/11 Kerry has not.Al Qaeda knows what the reaction another strike would bring from Bush,they have not tested Kerry yet.Do you think they won't?
If Kerry is elected there is a window of opportunity for a strike during the confusion of the administrative change over and before the new president has got hold of the reins.
Change make you safer, on the contrary it is far more dangerous.

Posted by: PeterUK at October 31, 2004 4:53 PM

And what has Kerry said that you think he will be able to make it better?

Posted by: Sandy P at October 31, 2004 4:58 PM

Flenser,

I happen to be one of those yokels in fly-over country. So I really don't want it "stuck to me" by either candidate.

I could care less whether or not people believe in God. I just don't want the religious right having a strong voice with the ruling party. What's wrong with that sentiment?

I wouldn't have a problem with the religious right if they weren't trying to impose their will