October 30, 2004
Local Guy Makes Good
Power Line's
Hindracker hits the big time:
NBC News has asked me to be part of their election night broadcast team. I'm not sure yet exactly what the format will be, but I'll be in New York at the NBC studio. I'll once again be paired with the Wonkette. Given the long hours that these election night shows consume, I expect to get some air time. I'll try to lend whatever balance I can to NBC's coverage, and if I get the opportunity, I'll let Tom Brokaw know that I'm one of the guys he called a "Jihadist" in connection with Hurricane Dan.
So: tune in to NBC on election night. If it's a good night for President Bush and the Republicans, I'll be the only happy guy in the building.
I'll be with the Los Angeles Bear Flag Leaguers on the West Side, celebrating the Bush win, and I would think we'll probably tune in, though it certainly won't be up to me.
Posted by: Attila at
08:06 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 31, 2004 12:07 AM (+S1Ft)
2
You need to visit California, Pixy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 31, 2004 03:10 AM (SuJa4)
3
Is this your lost child?
Time for Bunnies!
Madman Entertainment in Australia just made a little music video for a band called (as I understand it) This Is Serious, Mum, or TISM. The new single from their album
The White Albun is entitled "Everyone Else Has Had More Sex Than Me," and it's now time for you to
go hear it (if you're not in a major hurry, I recommend the album mix, but I'm a take-your-time, 70s-style, album-ey girl, so what the fuck do I know? Nada).
But I'm beginning to think I might understand John Edward's strange
affinity for bunny-rabbits.
Hat tip for the bunny video goes to
Lileks.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 31, 2004 06:29 AM (+S1Ft)
4
Ooh, yeah, thank you! Did I mess up the coding that badly? Never mind! Time to go post it properly. Thanks, Pixy!
And you need to visit California. Why don't you come out here for Siggrah in '05?
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 31, 2004 02:59 PM (SuJa4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And at the Eleventh Hour
Over at Jane Galt, Megan McArdle has fiiiinaaalllyy
made up her mind. She goes through the issues close to her tree-hugging, libertarian heart and tells us which guy wins out on each issue before making her reluctant declaration.
It's good reading, because she in some ways a genuine centrist, and she's smarter—and better-informed—than I am. Good stuff. Go, now—no matter your political persuasion. It's one of the most thoughtful political essays I've read this whole damned election season.
Posted by: Attila at
12:12 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.
October 29, 2004
Red Hoodies, and the Collapse of Civility
Oh, no fair. Eminem has this
new video to underscore the fact that we're never the cool kids on the block. And they're all wearing their black hoodies to the polls.
Nice video, though: I like the way the animation is integrated into the live action of Eminem himself.
Hm. Should I wear my gray zip jacket with the hood? Will it make me cool? At 42, I'm finding that quality more and more elusive.
We should wear hoodies that are white. Or multicolored ones in red, white and blue. Or orange hoodies, since it'll be two days after Halloween. Or maple-leaf brown, for autumn.
You know what we should wear?—red. It's the symbol of blood and bravery.
Michele praises the video, and notes that it's Eminem's right to speak his mind about the President. But she points out that it's a little hypocritical of the left to 1) lionize celebrities who speak out on politics only when you agree with them, and 2) suddenly decide they like Eminem after all, when just ten minutes ago they despised him as a gay-bashing misogynist who glorified violence.
Hey, Michele—that was then. This is now.
You know what sucks about this election? In a sane year, efforts like those of Election Protection would be bipartisan efforts, rather than the Democrats having their own poll observers and the Republicans, our own. Or we'd at least be able to cooperate to the point that we would have squads of observers, equally matched as to party, at each location to make sure that no one is intimidated, but that no voter fraud occurs. Instead, we have mutual suspicion and rumors of intimidation based on race—and yet, at times, an out and out celebration of vote fraud by Democrats. And of course that isn't right, either: whenever someone votes fraudulently another citizen is being disenfranchised.
This sucks. No matter what happens, I hope America regains its equilibrium, and I weep for what we've lost.
I hope it doesn't take another attack to bring us together again.
Please get this over with, and please—let there be some peace and reasonableness when it's done. And get my democracy to some radiation therapy, please: it has cancer.
Posted by: Attila at
10:26 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ms. A,
Hoodies aside, it would behoove us all to realize the dems are going to try and suppress the Bush vote on election day. Among the ways they will do this includes: poking along the line and in the voting booth to take the max amount of time, asking poll workers unnecessary questions to slow down the line, or from the inside --being a poll worker who takes forever to find names in the registration book or list. The net result is long lines which discourage soccer moms, seniors, and people who work from standing forever in line to vote. So maybe making a "W" fashion statement with colored hoodies is one way to combat this repellant tactic. Another would be to have the resolve to stand in line to vote for as long as it takes -- whatever it takes!
Posted by: Politickal Animal at October 30, 2004 07:19 AM (KWF9c)
2
Amen to that. This election has been like a trip through an old-fashioned "fun house" with distorting mirrors and tilting floors working over your sense of equilibrium at every step.
Posted by: douglas brown at October 30, 2004 09:30 AM (3bhOT)
3
"We should wear hoodies that are white"
That sure would jibe with GOP efforts to suppress minority votes...
Posted by: md at October 31, 2004 11:54 AM (IKOz+)
4
Oh, you mean the ones the Civil Rights Commission scoured Florida for after the 2000 election, and were completely unable to find? The ones that appear to be largely the result of fevered thinking by people who don't recognize that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and the Civil Rights Act? The imaginary efforts that only exist in the tiny minds of the paranoid?
Those efforts?
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 31, 2004 03:22 PM (SuJa4)
5
That's truly funny. if Lincoln were alive today, he sure as hell wouldn't be a member of the current version of the GOP. And to call the GOP the "party of the Civil Rights Act" is hilarious.
Posted by: md at November 05, 2004 02:55 AM (IKOz+)
6
Do you really want to discuss the ties between the Democratic Party and the Segregationist South? Do you really want to talk about Robert Byrd, the only Klansman in the entire U.S. Legislature?
How about the fact that in the four years between 2000 and 2004, G.W. Bush doubled his percentage of the black vote?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 05, 2004 11:59 AM (SuJa4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Has Anyone Noticed
. . . malfunctions in the Rove chips? I'm having trouble thinking straight. Lots of static.
Supposed to say . . . Russians took the explosives from Al-Qaqaa . . . Ter-AY-suh is ugly, and Edwards is dim . . . we're up in Florida and Pennsylvania, and still might take Ohio. Michigan is falling, falling to us fast. Hawai'i is being seduced by the dark side . . .
Out. Signal's out. Nothing to blog about.
Perhaps Voldemort can help me; as it turns out, he's a good IT guy. Who knew?
Posted by: Attila at
12:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
October 28, 2004
October 27, 2004
Christopher Hitchens
Wrote a rather remarkable
essay called "Why I'm (Slightly) For Bush." And one of the most remarkable things about it is that it was printed in
The Nation.
Real Clear Politics has it listed right next to Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of John Kerry, of course.
Wonder if they're still talking. I hope so.
Posted by: Attila at
05:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
October 26, 2004
Why Bush Will Win
My husband has a friend who's a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat—a staunch union advocate, someone who associates the GOP with society's elites. He's had a troubled relationship with his party for years, especially when it was pushing hard for gun control in the 1990s. But on the whole he's been remarkably loyal. He despised Gore for the phony he was, and swore he wouldn't vote for him. But at the last minute he found himself at the polls pulling the level for Albert, Jr., with a heavy heart.
He's voting for Bush this year.
Why? Well, for one thing, he was in an army LRRP unit in Vietnam, and got wounded. When they offered him a purple heart, he refused it: in his mind, purple hearts were reserved for those who got badly wounded—shot up so much they needed surgery to survive. People who suffered, not people who got scratches. And for another thing, as an anti-elitist he despises the fact that officers can recommend themselves to receive decorations for valor—and enlisted men cannot. The fact that Kerry took advantage of this inequity disgusts him.
And Kerry's actions when he returned from the war do not help at all.
But most of all, our friend is convinced that we are locked in a mortal conflict with an enemy who wants to kill us, and we need someone decisive at the helm. Someone who really wants to win this war, rather than hold summits.
Kerry's history, and what it says about his character, doesn't help. But mostly, our friend wants the guy who's willing to do what it takes to protect this country.
So he's holding his nose and voting for Bush.
And he won't be the only one: there are plenty of Democrats who feel the same way. They may not proclaim it loudly right now, but in a week they'll let their ballots do the talking.
Remember the "Reagan Democrats"? They're back.
Posted by: Attila at
04:41 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But will those be evened out by Republicans who vote for Kerry? And before you laugh, there are those out there who dislike his exploding deficit and mishandling of Iraq enough to go against him.
Posted by: frinklin at October 26, 2004 05:47 PM (4k5pf)
2
In 99 out of 100 cases, Republicans who are unhappy with Bush will simply stay home. Very few will actually vote for a tax-and-spend Massachusetts liberal who wants to give up more of our sovereignty to the U.N.
Very few.
Even Pat "out in right field" Buchanan has endorsed Bush.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 26, 2004 06:07 PM (SuJa4)
3
The people who would vote for Kerry now who voted for Bush last time can be lumped in with the few who voted for Lincoln in 60 but McClellan in 64 or for FRD in 40 but Wilkie in 44.
Posted by: LargeBill at October 27, 2004 05:38 PM (O9g4v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Election Projection
. . . has
Bush at 296, and Kerry at 242 EVs. Plus: Cal-ee-fornia has just moved from "Solid Kerry" to "Close Kerry." Mary Beth Cahill is in bed with a headache.
Real Clear Politics has it much closer, of course: Bush 234, Kerry 228, with a handful of undecideds—but those include both Florida and Ohio. Obviously, Bush needs both those states to win (well, he might not need Ohio, if he gets Minnesota and/or Wisconsin—but no one wants something close enough that the Dems can contest it in the courts).
Posted by: Attila at
04:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
Scrappleface Exclusive! Bush Admits He's "Hiding Bad News"!
Scott Ott
breaks the story! Bush concedes that there will be bad news after the election:
"My opponent speaks the truth when he says that some Americans are going to get some bad news--maybe even before the sun comes up on November 3," said Mr. Bush, "It will involve defeat and the realization that huge sums of money have been wasted on an unwinnable battle against a determined and entrenched foe."
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Attila at
02:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
More on the Explosives "Scandal"
From
Roger L. Simon:
If the reports that Mohammed El Baradei or someone close to him is behind the leak of the putative documents that caused the new NYTrogate Scandal regarding missing explosive in Irag, the implications are staggering.
Consider this: That means a high official of the United Nations... and not just an ordinary high official but one empowered with preventing nuclear weapons proliferation... is trying to influence a US election. And we thought we had seen everything with the Oil-for-Food scandal!
Read the whole thing.
Via Protein Wisdom.
Posted by: Attila at
02:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
Xrlq
. . .
gives us "tomorrow's news today"—
On Thursday, the L.A. Dog Trainer will run a long piece on the Iraqi quagmire, repeating uncorrected the claim that 380 tons of explosives disappeared from the Al Qaeda military facility, long after President Bush had sent troops into Iraq. Patterico will then send a polite email to “Readers” Representative Jamie Gold, informing her that the explosives actually disappeared shortly before our troops arrived last year, and that in any event, the facility is called Al Qaqaa, not al Qaeda.
It just gets better. Go, now.
Posted by: Attila at
01:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.
So Much
. . . for the Kedwards October surprise. You'd think the poor dears could do better than this ancient "missing explosives"
nonsense.
Posted by: Attila at
01:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
Steyn Has a Thing or Two to Say.
All of which you need to read, right now. But here's a money quote for you, anyway:
This is no time to vote for Europhile delusions. The Continental health and welfare systems John Kerry so admires are, in fact, part of the reason those societies are dying. As for Canada, yes, under socialized health care, prescription drugs are cheaper, medical treatment's cheaper, life is cheaper. After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. In other words, if, say, Bill Clinton had gone for his heart bypass to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, he would have had the surgery, woken up the next day swimming in diarrhea and then died. It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene -- by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number. Unofficially, if you're over 65, the hospitals will save face and attribute your death at their hands to "old age" or some such and then "lose" the relevant medical records. Quebec's health system is a lot less healthy than, for example, Iraq's.
One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.
Via Roger L. Simon.
Posted by: Attila at
12:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
October 25, 2004
Skerry News for Halloween
If
Hawai'i is in play, the Dems are in even more trouble than they appear to be.
Posted by: Attila at
07:40 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
Thank God for Bill
With all the contradictory poll data going around, it's nice to see Clinton hit the campaign trail on Kerry's behalf. There's no better indication that the Democrats know Kedwards will be going down in flames.
(Why, you ask. Well, because at this point Clinton's legacy is getting pretty dicey, and I genuinely think he would like to be part of the first/only husband-wife team to take the White House separately: it would ensure him a unique place in history. You can take your conspiracy theories, 'cause I think most Democrats want desperately to take the White House back right now. But I also think Bill would like to see Hillary ensconsed there in '08. He wouldn't be campaigning for Kerry if he thought the Dems had a chance this year.)
Posted by: Attila at
06:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
October 22, 2004
Bush Wins Illinois
. . . among teenagers, that is. I'm hoping One Vote's
Mock Vote is a harbinger of things to come: it was quite a little landslide for the President.
Illinois!
Via martini man.
Posted by: Attila at
10:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
Letter to an Undecided Voter
I spend too much time preaching to the choir. This essay is different, because it is where I will lay my case out for re-electing George W. Bush. It is not for political junkies, but for people who only follow the news when they have a chance between their other obligations. I'm going to put it to you as straight as I can, and try not to inject a lot of emotion into this piece—though I promise I am passionate about it.
I want you to vote for the President, no matter what you might think of him as a man, or as a speaker, or as a politician. No matter which of his policies you might disagree with. And no matter what your party affiliation might be. I'll try to keep it short. I have high hopes that I'll at least get you to think about a few important issues. Please read this through, and if it makes you think at all, pass it along to your friends—whether I persuaded you or not.
To begin with, I want to point out two things about the voting process. First of all, it's private. You don't have to tell anyone the way you voted. Not your spouse. Not your parents. Not your teachers, co-workers, or friends. Some of us let our concern over what other people might think prevent us from voting the way we might want to in our most private moments. To do this is to squander the privileges that a lot of men (and a huge number of women) died for over the centuries winning our independence, strengthening the Union, and defending this country. Democracy is precious; use it to its fullest. I may wear my politics on my sleeve, but there is really no need for you, dear reader, to be as vulgar as I am.
Secondly, political thought is not an aesthetic issue, but one that requires reason and common sense. In other words, when you are thinking about your vote, do not use the part of your mind that puts your wardrobe together, or arranges your art on the wall, or engages in any creative endeavor: this project needs your problem-solving mind, the part of you that figures out how you're going to make more money this month when you're short on rent, or how to open new markets for your small business, or how to position yourself so you can get that promotion next year, or how to sell your art. This realm is a function of your left brain; fashion and aesthetics have nothing to do with it.
What I'm suggeseting here, in part, is that you can be a Bohemian and still vote for Bush: no one will confiscate your hemp clothes or your vintage hats if you do so. Promise.
THE WAR IN IRAQ
There are a lot of arguments either way about whether we should have invaded Iraq. The fact is, we are there now, and millions of people are better off without Saddam Huessein in power. By deposing Saddam, we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost if we hadn't followed through on regime change (a policy that was initiated by Bill Clinton, by the way). Let me say it again: there are people who are alive now that wouldn't have been if Saddam had stayed in power.
And now that we're in Iraq, it's worth noting that some Iraqis are saying the terrorist/Baathist insurgents in their own country will take heart if George Bush is not re-elected. It will be seen as a repudiation of his policies, and there will be a very real expectation that John Kerry, as President, will be more likely to cut and run. The predictable result: there will be more assaults on innocent citizens of many countries, and particularly Iraq.
No matter how or why we got into the Iraq situation, it would be fatal to falter now: for the sake of the Iraqi people, we need to see this situation through in a resolute fashion. A win for John Kerry would cost lives, no matter what policy course he pursued. If you want to stop the suffering of the Iraqis, you'll vote for Bush.
THE ECONOMY AND TAX CUTS
This is a hard one, because for so many of us prosperity has appeared to be "around the corner" for some time now, and it's hard to keep the faith when you're one of the ones who isn't working. Yet considering the suddenness with which the "dot-com" bubble burst, and how closely after that 9/11 occurred, the economy has made a dramatic turnaround over the last two years. Obviously, the way to create jobs is to cut the taxes of those who are in a position to hire people. As is so often said, I don't usually get hired by people who are in a weaker financial position than I'm in; usually it's people (and companies) with money that do the hiring, and when they are being taxed at a high rate that simply doesn't happen as much.
MILITARY MATTERS, SECURITY, AND CONSCRIPTION
There are two allegations against the President in this regard: that he hasn't executed the War on Terror very well (either in Afghanistan or in Iraq), and that the military is at this point stretched so thin that a draft may become inevitable. As to the first charge, both the Afghani campaign and the Iraqi effort were far more successful than anyone dared hope. Certainly Iraq is at a delicate point wherein there are a lot of insurgents trying to do a lot of damage. But the Iraqi bloggers tell us that if Kerry is elected the insurgents will assume a drastic change in U.S. policy. Right or wrong, they'll perceive a high likelihood that we'll "cut and run." This would be a complete disaster for both countries. In fact, some maintain that the modern Islamic extremist movement that is hell-bent on killing Westerners started in Afghanistan, in the power vacuum left when the Soviet Union and the U.S. finished their proxy war there and abruptly departed. Do we want to risk electing a guy—John Kerry—who might set up exactly the same conditions in a Middle Eastern country?
In fact, a lot of what Kerry has said indicates that his priority would be getting out fast, rather than leaving the country in the strongest possible shape a new democracy can be in. If this project is handled right, Iraq can be a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East, and that entire region can set a new course. But this cannot be undertaken by a man who doesn't believe we should be there in the first place. Kerry is the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time to pursue a strategy for making this country safe. In fact, he appears to have very few ideas beyond doing things differently than Bush would, and trying to make other countries like us more.
I don't want to be liked. I want to be safe, and I want my friends and family to be safe. As long as there is a guy in the White House who is perceived to be a bit of a "cowboy," we are safer—because although the "non-state actors" may not care too much what we might do, the countries that have been feeding and supporting them will care a great deal. Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran will come around because they will fear that this crazy guy Bush might—just might—invade them, too.
In the particular world we live in this will be a good thing.
And, as for "the draft," every military expert says there's no reason we'll need any such thing: the armed forces would rather use people who volunteered, because they are motivated and smarter, and they fight harder. The bill proposing a draft was brought up by Democrats, and when it was brought to a vote it was defeated very quickly. Those who talk about a possible draft are usually trying to scare people into voting for the wrong guy: it's a sleazy tactic.
HALLIBURTON
There is a tremendous concern out there that because the Vice President used to work for a company that handles both military contracts and energy, there might be a conflict of interest in terms of our conducting a war at all—and certainly our invasion of a country that has huge oil reserves. Three points:
1) Cheney is paid money from that company that compensates him for work he did in the past, and the amounts are the same no matter how successful (or unsuccessful) the company is—so there is no conflict of interest;
2) A lot of the work done by military contracters in Iraq can only be done by a very specialized workforce. Bush-haters like to talk about "no-bid contracts," but most of these contracts date back to the Clinton era—when we were downsizing the military and it made sense to "farm out" some of their work—and were only renewed during the Bush Administration. Furthermore, there's no point in having an elaborate bidding process when there are only a handful of people in the entire world who can really tackle a particular job;
3) Over 40 people who work for Kellogg, Brown and Root (the military contractors who are part of Halliburton) have died in Iraq. There are a lot of guys who work in either the infrastructure part of Halliburton, or its energy side, who just want to make a living. They are not "the military-industrial complex," or rich buddies of the Vice President. They're people who are feeding their families doing really hard work that is sometimes quite dangerous.
Some see our invasion of Iraq as an amoral project, and maintain that energy interests close to the Bush Administration merely wanted to get hold of Iraq's oil. If they just wanted the oil, though, they could have bought it from Saddam. That would have been less moral, but much easier and cheaper—and without the political price that Bush had to pay.
BUSH'S "LIES"
There was some bad intelligence before the Iraq war, but everything that Bush and his advisors thought before we invaded Iraq was believed by every nation around the world that has any intelligence capability at all. And by officials in the Clinton administration. And by John Kerry. And by John Edwards. In fact, some of Saddam's advisors have said his public statements were meant to deceive other nations—Iran in particular—into believing that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He was bluffing, and we called his bluff.
We certainly know that as soon as the inspectors left Iraq, Saddam intended to get his weapons programs back on track. So unless we planned on leaving the inspectors in his country long-term, we would have ended up where we thought we were to begin with. In the meantime, we had tried to keep Saddam under control with sanctions, which led to suffering in his country. Then the U.N. began its oil-for-food program, which turned into a way for Saddam to stash money away for his future WMD programs, and meanwhile to reward countries such as France for allying themselves with him. Billions went to Saddam, and to officials in other countries, and relatively little went to the Iraqi people. It was an obscenity.
RACE AND THE REPUBLICANS
Let's also discuss race. There is a notion out there that Republicans in general—and the President in particular—are uncomfortable with people who aren't white. Yet three of his advisors are black, and his nieces and nephews (Jeb Bush's kids) are Latino. There were a lot of allegations that black people were disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election, but there have been many enquiries and no one has been able to document that any such thing occurred. When a charge that serious is made, it should be backed up; otherwise it is just a partisan slander.
The Republicans are the party of Lincoln, who issued the order that ended slavery in this country. The Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act of 1964 in greater percentages than the Democrats of the time did. The GOP is the party of racial equality.
Please do not be ruled by prejudice (or the innuendo of those with a partisan agenda) on an important issue like whether a candidate is a bigot or not.
The fact is, black support for Bush has doubled since the last Presidential election; word is finally starting to get out that there is no conspiracy or desire to hold African Americans back, and that the ever-increasing employment rate helps all of us, regardless of our color. As small business owners, many black people are starting to realize that high taxes hurt them, too.
It's a new world, and the old ideas about racial polarization no longer work. (If, in fact, they ever did.)
That's my case. It isn't artful; it isn't particularly well-written. It comes from the heart, and it's meant to make you feel okay about giving the President one more term.
Thank you for your time.
Joy McCann, aka Little Miss Attila
http://attila.mu.nu
Please circulate this to your friends and relatives (as text or as a link), particularly if they are considering voting for Kerry, or insecure in their support for Bush. Or if they live in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, Arkansas, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, or Iowa. Or any of the other 37 important states in the union. Or in Washington, D.C.
Posted by: Attila at
09:39 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2269 words, total size 13 kb.
1
You might want to hop over to http://janegalt.net, where Ms. Galt has been asking for supporters of either candidate to make their case to her. She says she's undecided.
Posted by: Phil Fraering at October 23, 2004 11:08 AM (FmkF+)
2
Well said Miss Attila!
I'm proud to say that my girlfriend and I voted for George W. Bush today, here in South Florida. It was our first time voting
and I'm feeling mighty good about it!
Posted by: Zoot at October 23, 2004 09:58 PM (MvGC8)
3
Excellent! However, I am very confused by anyone who claims to be undecided at this point.
Posted by: Ogre at October 24, 2004 06:37 AM (hjatl)
4
The deapth of your self-deception amazes me.
Posted by: Emma at October 25, 2004 01:15 AM (HgqP6)
5
Joy,
Very-well written. I would have to believe even the "undecideds" should be able to understand.
To echo Ogre's comments, I think people are over concerned about the undecideds. It is proven that undecideds are easily distracted by shiney objects and likely to forget to vote.
Got to your blog by way of John at RWN.
Later,
Bill
Posted by: LargeBill at October 25, 2004 04:59 AM (O9g4v)
6
At this point, "undecideds" are the least of anybody's worries; from the townhall style Prez. debates, we were shown what a "real" undecided voter is: a pathetic left-leaning liar, and the only REAL thing they haven't decided is how MUCH they hate Bush.
Undecids will NOT affect this election, nor have they affected ANY election. This time around, the undecideds are around 1 - 4 PERCENT. That's it.
Posted by: kd1966 at October 25, 2004 07:33 AM (2uHgm)
7
Your piece is precisely why I won't vote for Bush.
"Secondly, political thought is not an aesthetic issue, but one that requires reason and common sense." Of which, Bush has neither and is apparently proud of the fact.
That we should accept Iraq as a fait accompli is dangerous. How many more fait accomplis must we accept from Bush before we see the emperor as a naked idiot?
"Obviously, the way to create jobs is to cut the taxes of those who are in a position to hire people." - so why will Bush be the President who shows a net loss of jobs under his administration? The tax cuts only benefit the upper echelon of executives. Why should a company take the extra money to hire new employees when it can simply post a profit, pay a larger dividend, or spread the money as coporate bonuses? You need to get working in a large company and see what it's like out here.
"There was some bad intelligence before the Iraq war, but everything that Bush and his advisors thought before we invaded Iraq was believed by every nation around the world that has any intelligence capability at all. " Huh? Then why did Bush and his cronies sanitize and manipulate the reports that said otherwise? Get off it. You've been had and most of the world could smell it back then.
Race?!? Are you trying to pull an O.J. here? Race isn't an issue.
Fact is, you don't know as much about Bush as you think you do. The whole Administration is too secretive for the American good. If you want more of same and worse, vote Bush - plain and simple.
But if Bush wins and we have another terrorist attack, you won't be able to blame Kerry...start preparing your excuses now.
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at October 25, 2004 08:45 AM (BZ0tI)
8
Race isn't an issue?
Meanwhile, in Missouri the Democratic front-group Americans Coming Together hands out fliers depicting an African-American on the receiving end of a fire hose blast. "This is what they used to do to keep us from voting," the piece reads. On the back are a list of alleged incidents of recent voter intimidation, with the line, "This is how Republicans keep African-Americans from voting now."
Note, that's
alleged voter intimidation. I certainly think that
someone is certainly making race an issue.
Posted by: WayneB at October 25, 2004 11:05 AM (6Dyjv)
9
Ooops, my error. When I said race wasn't an issue I meant it in terms of debate topics.
The Republicans are not only targetting blacks but Democrats in general to keep them from voting - tearing up Democrat registrations (Nevada), having Dems use [disreputable] electronic voting machines while Repub majority areas use paper (Florida).
-----
Gosh, looks like Bush forgot to tell the military protect a few tons of explosives in Iraq. That's Bush leadership for you. Forgot to secure the borders after invasion. forgot to secure known armament sites but they did secure the oil ministry...you put 2 and 2 together.
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at October 25, 2004 01:21 PM (BZ0tI)
10
Emma:
Thanks. I try to lie to myself a little every day, and just build up to this level of self-deception. It takes practice, but I believe I'm the woman for the job.
LMM:
A. The oil ministry has proven to be 1) the key to getting the Iraqi economy rolling again, and 2) the source of most of our good information about what was going on in Saddam's regime in the months and years leading up to the war.
I do think that in a project of this complexity it's easier to throw rocks than to recognize the amazing strides that have been made.
B. I hope you're just as outraged by the real efforts of Democrats to disenfranchise military voters as you are by the imaginary efforts of Republicans to disenfranchise black voters.
C. I also hope you were just as upset by Clinton's unilateral actions in Bosnia and Somalia as you are now by Bush's invasion of Iraq. No?
D. The unemployment rate now is lower than it was when Clinton was re-elected for his second term. Furthermore, a lot of the instruments we have for measuring things like job loss haven't kept up with the changes in our economy: a lot of people now are working as independent contractors by choice, rather than reporting to bosses at large corporations (taxpayer-funded and non-taxpayer-funded).
E. Most large corporations are interested in growth. It's unfortunate that some remain static, but that certainly isn't the norm. Most publicly traded companies see a huge loss in their stock values (and thus their own portfolios, in a lot of cases) when the company doesn't grow.
Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 25, 2004 03:34 PM (SuJa4)
11
I have enjoyed your blog site a great deal during the time IÂ’ve been reading from it. The entertaining and often high-spirited discussions are always thought-provoking and respectful of the integrity of the contributors.
I’m writing this in response to your own “Letter to an Undecided Voter,” to explain to you why I cannot in good conscience support the president for re-election in spite of your fine essay.
I wonÂ’t argue the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, because we are there and thatÂ’s done. There is a disturbing continuum running through the operation however that I feel the need to point out. During the inspection period the soldiers within the administration who had experience in combat and command, including Powell and Shinseki, were ridiculed by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld when they urged procedures and manpower levels different from those the politicians were promoting. It is common military knowledge that to control an insurgent population, an irreducible minimum of one soldier to fifty populace is required or the insurgency can be expected to gain strength through the carnage and by the opportunities created in the vacuum. That puts a minimum number of troops for Iraq at 460,000, either American or American + coalition. Unlike the first president Bush who listened to and followed the advice of his top professionals (and who has my unqualified respect and admiration), this president ignored and even denigrated that advice because it disagreed with his less-well informed political appointees.
To fight such a war the political courageous action would have been to make the same choice George Herbert Walker Bush made after his “read my lips” campaign promise - to raise taxes. The Clinton administration’s ability to abolish the deficit, if not the debt, owed as much to this responsible decision as to the boom of the 90’s. This president is playing politics in a fashion much more reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson, who clung to a ruinously expensive domestic agenda while trying to prosecute a war on the cheap. It took a quarter of a century to recover economically from that policy, and our economy is not as demographically robust as it was in the 80’s and 90’s. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this deficit, if they have the jobs to permit it.
I abhor the intrusion of government into the affairs of citizens. This administration has presided over the single most massive increase in the power and size of the Federal Government of any administration since FDRÂ’s. The department of Homeland Security, the TSA, and the Patriot Act, notwithstanding the interpretations on existing governmental powers being used by Attorney General Ashcroft, represent a bulking up of governmental power and a surrender of individual liberty such as no wartime president since Lincoln has instituted. Lincoln's at least was only for the duration. This looks permanent.
The attacks of 9/11 were foreseen. The agencies in place were adequate to accomplish that task; we donÂ’t need bigger government to cope with it. We need leaner but more efficient government. Our leadership was not imaginative enough and the bureaucracy was not permeable enough to permit the intelligence information to have the needed result. As a consequence, 9/11 occurred and it happened on George W. BushÂ’s watch. This is not to say that it would not have happened if someone else had been president. The failure to prevent the attacks would then be the responsibility of that administration.
The words of this administration do not match its actions. It is not a conservative government, which would be trying to preserve status quo while exercising fiscal discipline. It is not a Libertarian government, which would be trying to promote liberty, reduce the size of government, and reduce foreign involvement. It is a big-government for big-business administration that has saddled all of us with a tremendous burden of long-term debt, loss of liberty, and international opprobrium. I cannot imagine a committed ideological Conservative voting for George Bush, given the actions of his administration; actions that are at odds with the values he claims to espouse. Don't just listen to what he has said. Look closely at what he has actually done.
I do not want to cast my vote for John Kerry. There is at least on item in his agenda that I can support though, and that is deficit reduction.
Posted by: Douglas Brown at October 28, 2004 05:04 AM (ZTCu8)
12
Wooo, Winning Non Council member post!
http://king-of-fools.com/blog/weblog/posts/council_10292004/
Posted by: William Teach at October 29, 2004 06:31 AM (KCG7N)
13
Douglas:
I have enjoyed your blog site a great deal during the time IÂ’ve been reading from it. The entertaining and often high-spirited discussions are always thought-provoking and respectful of the integrity of the contributors.
Thank you for your kind words.
I’m writing this in response to your own “Letter to an Undecided Voter,” to explain to you why I cannot in good conscience support the president for re-election in spite of your fine essay.
I wonÂ’t argue the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, because we are there and thatÂ’s done. There is a disturbing continuum running through the operation however that I feel the need to point out. During the inspection period the soldiers within the administration who had experience in combat and command, including Powell and Shinseki, were ridiculed by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld when they urged procedures and manpower levels different from those the politicians were promoting. It is common military knowledge that to control an insurgent population, an irreducible minimum of one soldier to fifty populace is required or the insurgency can be expected to gain strength through the carnage and by the opportunities created in the vacuum. That puts a minimum number of troops for Iraq at 460,000, either American or American + coalition. Unlike the first president Bush who listened to and followed the advice of his top professionals (and who has my unqualified respect and admiration), this president ignored and even denigrated that advice because it disagreed with his less-well informed political appointees.
I don't know the inner workings of the Administration that intimately, but I do believe there are changes brewing in the art of warfare, and that in future we will be relying less on foot soldiers and more on technology.
But I also think that it's important to remember that we were originally going to have double the number of infantry in Iraq than we ended up with: because Turkey changed its mind at the last minute, the 4th infantry division was unable to come into Iraq and our mechanized infantry was cut down to half the numbers originally allotted.
And Turkey's decision was about as political as it gets: whether you ascribe it to the fear of a Kurdish state, the Turkish government's perceptions of what the Turks themselves thought, maneuvering within the U.N. Security Council or Turkey's desire to please Europe so they can join the EU, it was clearly a political decision outside our control.
To fight such a war the political courageous action would have been to make the same choice George Herbert Walker Bush made after his “read my lips” campaign promise - to raise taxes. The Clinton administration’s ability to abolish the deficit, if not the debt, owed as much to this responsible decision as to the boom of the 90’s.
I've heard this line of reasoning before, and it was in the 80s. Remember Reagan? The rap then was that he was running the country into the ground, and we were headed for collapse from his deficit spending (most of it going toward defense, spent on weapons he hoped we'd never use, in a conscious effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union).
The result, of course, was an economic boom that lasted for 20 years--through most of the Clinton era. Reagan's scary tax cuts made the economy hum, and eventually erased his sky-high deficits.
And when George H.W. Bush raised taxes, the economy stalled long enough for Clinton to get elected. Because tax hikes create a drag on the economy.
This president is playing politics in a fashion much more reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson, who clung to a ruinously expensive domestic agenda while trying to prosecute a war on the cheap.
Well, you can't say GWB is doing that! Iraq and the WoT in general are any number of things are not cheap!
Johnson's problems in Vietnam were that 1) he didn't rally the nation behind the effort, but rather tried to make it a "painless" war. This was impossible, of course, because young men kept disappearing to go off and fight it. And: 2) he micro-managed the war effort, rather than taking the advice of his military men. (Yes--I know you think GWB is doing the same thing, but I don't see it that way. My perception is that the military is in the process of a reform, and GWB is forward-thinking in that respect, listening to the new thinkers rather than being bound by the old bureaucracy. I certainly wouldn't compare GWB's advisors to Robert McNamara, for instance.)
It took a quarter of a century to recover economically from that policy, and our economy is not as demographically robust as it was in the 80Â’s and 90Â’s. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this deficit, if they have the jobs to permit it.
It's not that I don't believe deficits matter, but I have tremendous faith in the American economy to recover the ground we've lost, as long as the tax base is kept relatively low.
I know, I know: I believe in what Reagan practiced, and what George H.W. Bush called "Voodoo Economics." But the economy did
better under Reagan than it did under Bush I.
I abhor the intrusion of government into the affairs of citizens. This administration has presided over the single most massive increase in the power and size of the Federal Government of any administration since FDRÂ’s. The department of Homeland Security, the TSA, and the Patriot Act, notwithstanding the interpretations on existing governmental powers being used by Attorney General Ashcroft, represent a bulking up of governmental power and a surrender of individual liberty such as no wartime president since Lincoln has instituted. Lincoln's at least was only for the duration. This looks permanent.
Lincoln's expansions of government powers were far, far greater than any that can be attributed to G.W. Bush. And I would submit that the long-standing War on Drugs and the continuing existence of the incompetent/superfluous BATF had already done far greater damage to individual liberties than anything Ashcroft has managed to accomplish in four years. (Basically, the Fourth Amendment exists only on paper, and that's due to an evolution that took place long before Bush II came into office--much of it on Clinton's watch.)
The attacks of 9/11 were foreseen. The agencies in place were adequate to accomplish that task; we donÂ’t need bigger government to cope with it.
But the two main agencies that needed to put their information together to figure out what was going on didn't even have computers that could be networked together. They didn't even have a single system for translating Arab names so they could be recognized in computer searches. And they were separated by years of rivalry and restrictions that reflected the mentality of fighting terrorism as a law enforcement issue--and we know that that model has failed, since it brought us 9/11.
Somebody had to get all the agencies involved working together rather than against each other. Someone had to dampen the rivalries.
We need leaner but more efficient government. Our leadership was not imaginative enough and the bureaucracy was not permeable enough to permit the intelligence information to have the needed result. As a consequence, 9/11 occurred and it happened on George W. BushÂ’s watch. This is not to say that it would not have happened if someone else had been president. The failure to prevent the attacks would then be the responsibility of that administration.
The attack was planned on the watch of another administration, one whose response to a series of terror attacks in the 90s was so anemic that it emboldened the terrorists to envision bigger and grander things.
The words of this administration do not match its actions. It is not a conservative government, which would be trying to preserve status quo while exercising fiscal discipline. It is not a Libertarian government, which would be trying to promote liberty, reduce the size of government, and reduce foreign involvement. It is a big-government for big-business administration that has saddled all of us with a tremendous burden of long-term debt, loss of liberty, and international opprobrium. I cannot imagine a committed ideological Conservative voting for George Bush, given the actions of his administration; actions that are at odds with the values he claims to espouse. Don't just listen to what he has said. Look closely at what he has actually done.
I know: there are certainly plenty of arguments I have with George W. Bush, and he's no conservative. Certainly, that business of pretending to try to amend the Constitution was an egregious bit of pandering.
But I honestly want someone in office whom the terrorists fear, and other countries respect. (I do not mean respect as in "like." I mean respect as in "next door to fear.")
I do not want to cast my vote for John Kerry. There is at least on item in his agenda that I can support though, and that is deficit reduction.
But here's the question: what are the odds that he will actually go through with this plan? The only cost-cutting you can trust John F. Kerry to do will have to do with defense: as far as entitlements are concerned, he's going to be out of control.
He will expand entitlements, raise taxes, and give us a stagnant economy. Worse, he will go back to the reactive approach to the War on Terror, and we'll likely pay for it with thousands more American lives.
Meanwhile, he'll withdraw troops from Iraq before she's ready to defend herself, and the Iraqis will have been abandoned and betrayed one more time.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 29, 2004 11:46 AM (SuJa4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 21, 2004
This Just In
There's a new political spot being rolled out in the what is supposedly
the most expensive political ad campaign this year; it focuses on Ashley, the girl who lost her mother in the 9/11 attacks, whom the President comforted last spring, to the point that she was finally able to cry. You've seen the picture before. Go
here to see the ad, which has a Quicktime option (hooray!).
I've always loved that photo for the way the President looks in it.
Via Dean Esmay.
Posted by: Attila at
03:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
Blog Interruptus
Blogging light to nonexistent for the next two days: I'm working my office job and fending off my usual sleep disorder thingie ("delayed sleep syndrome," they call it).
And on Saturday, the spouse and I are headed to Santa Barbara for 2-3 days, so you may not hear too much from me for the next week.
Be good.
Posted by: Attila at
01:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
October 19, 2004
Wickedly Funny
The Club for Growth has completed final edits on the
hilarious ad produced by David Zucker, of
Airplane! and the
Naked Gun series. Please do three things:
1) Go take a look at it, even if you're a pacifist in the War on Terror, and/or a Kerry supporter. I promise you'll still get a laugh out of it. And
2) If you aren't a pacifist, please send whatever you can afford to the Club for Growth to help them buy airtime and get this commercial shown in some of the states (Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Pennsylvania) that are hanging by a thread. Who knows? If they get enough money they might even air the ad in New Jersey, which is now in play (despite being a Democratic stronghold, and appearing on almost no lists of "swing states"—have you noticed that the President and First Lady are spending lots of time there these days?). If each of my non-pacifist readers gave $20, that would be $2,000 for the cause. And if the other bloggers who are currently linking only had my level of readership and did the same, that would be $200,000. But they don't only have my level: Glenn linked to the ad as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if they raise the whole two million, if people are responsive enough. And
3) If you are a blogger, link to this spot and remind your readers that the Club for Growth could use their help in getting the word out.
Posted by: Attila at
02:35 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 1 kb.
91kb generated in CPU 0.0306, elapsed 0.1352 seconds.
210 queries taking 0.118 seconds, 469 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.