We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Time to decide

It seems like everyone has announced their decisions now: even Megan McCardle. So it is my turn… well, actually that isn’t really true. You see, I had to vote about two or more weeks ago to make sure my absentee ballot made it to Pittsburgh by October 31st so my decision cycle was a bit tighter than most.

It is not so much a difficult decision as a painful one. I have had to do something I have never done in my life. I started off Clean for Gene putting up posters when I was still a high school student; friends were out for McGovern… and then the LP came along and made me feel comfortable voting, something I had not really felt in the earlier elections.

I have election after election been perfectly happy voting straight LP. Even if I did not see my candidate take an oath, I at least knew I agreed with what they stood for.

Unfortunately, this year I again became, in Marshall Fritz’s words, ‘Politically Homeless’. The LP stand on the current war has left me in the unfamiliar and awkward feeling position of selecting the least of three evils.

Do not get me wrong. There is really only one of the three candidates whom I really loath and it is not Badnarik.

I also a worry this election might be another squeeker, something I was not expecting. I believed it would be a runaway. That appears not be the case. Votes do matter more than usual this time.

It really came down to a no-brainer though. I have voted for a Republican for President for the first time in my life. I do not agree with George Bush on many issues, but I do indeed agree with him on the war and the war cabinet is one I quite like. There is a minor plus that all the right people are totally off the wall and over the top insane about the prospect of him winning.

There is an undertone of religious intolerance against his obviously sincere and deep faith. I do not find this distressing despite my own total non-belief. I am a pure physical scientist, but just because I do not see need to posit a supreme being does not mean I do not respect those who do. I feel George is a good man and honourable. I simply do not buy the rantings of the left or even of some of our own. Disagree with him if you must, but please do not descend into ludicrous accusations.

I do not like some of his domestic agenda, but for the exact opposite reasons the Kerry side is against it. On the other hand, he has managed a number of political shuffles that appear to be one thing but whose outcome was not really that bad. The cloning research ‘ban’ appears to have been little more than a ban of state funded research, something no Libertarian could argue with.

But that is all secondary. We are in the middle, not merely of a war in Iraq, but of a global war on whose outcome our very lives may depend. I am too close to technology not to realize how much evil can be done by a small number of dedicated followers of the dark side.

I endorse George W. Bush for President of the United States.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

64 comments to Time to decide

  • ahem

    I don’t understand the need for ‘a foolish consistency’ in politics. Often, I find myself agreeing with only one or two issues in a party platform. Designed, as it is, to appeal to the broadest possible consitituency, a platform can’t be all things to all people. I’d no more consider voting a straight ticket than I’d consider biting my hand off. Beside, specific issues change year to year and the solutions required change — at least, I think they do. I voted for Gore in 2000, for Dole before that, for Clinton before that, and for Reagan before that. In each instance, I made the best decision I could based on my appreciation of the issues and what I perceived to be the character of the man involved. Character weighs heavily in the equation. Far heavier, indeed, than party loyalty or so-called intelligence.

    There’s no need for anyone to explain why they’re voting for George Bush. Like Rudolph Giuliani and Winston Churchill, he’s proved himself an able leader in confusing times. Bush doesn’t have to be perfect. Leading is damned hard and the bitch of it is that very few people criticising from the sidelines have a clue as to what is involved. Even when you do it poorly, it’s a thankless task. To do it well is a talent beyond the capability of most.

    In keeping with my philosophy, I’m voting for Barack Obama for Senator of Illinois (a Democrat) and George Bush for President.

  • Dave,
    Welcome to the light side! I disliked Bush’s decision on the stem-cell issue too until I realized Bush stopped only gov’t funding.
    btw: Megan’s wrong in her decision-making post about the corporate tax bill. There was a small amount of pork but a lot of technical corrections, as Kevin Hassett write in a piece in TechCentralStation.com

  • Lets see why George Bush is so attractive as a candidate:

    1) Supports anti-gay marriage amendment.

    2) Spends tax money like drunken sailor, including the largest percentage increases in non-defense spending in decades, and the creation of a record deficit.

    3) Claims that it is fine to throw US citizens in jail indefinately without trial or right of counsel on the President’s say so.

    4) Got us involved in a stupid war in Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (false) and had something to do with 9/11 (also false).

    5) Said war having now cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, or perhaps even more.

    6) Said war also having been run with spectacular incompetence.

    7) Supported steel tariffs.

    8) Supports textile tariffs.

    9) Mangled the only thing he did even half right, a tax cut.

    10) Anti-abortion, and likely to appoint supreme court justices who will overturn Roe vs. Wade

    11) Created large expansions of the foolish semi-socialized medicine program.

    12) Vastly enhanced the powers of federal police agencies to violate individual rights without any notable increase in security.

    13) Participated in the federalization of things like airport security, creating vast increases in bureaucracy without notable improvements in security.

    14) Vastly increased funding for the drug war.

    I could go on and on.

    Any libertarian voting for Bush is deceiving themselves beyond my capacity to describe. I can see opposing Kerry. Kerry has very little going for him. But support Bush? That’s just nuts.

  • As another resident of Pittsburgh, attending your alma mater’s robotics institute, I hope that our combined votes tip the scales of the PA electoral vote 🙂

    You can see my reasons to vote here.

    On a related note, you can see my brother’s reasons here. It’s related because he also lives in PA, and is actually somewhat undecided. I’ve thought for at least a month that the person for whom he decides to vote will most certainly win.

    You can get updates on his position here.

  • Andrew Robb

    It’s not really Bush’s leadership I don’t like it’s his lack of focus on the long range. I think the funding cut for stem cell research was nearly as bad as banning it. Unfortuatly I believe it might lead to some non-profit organizations and schools withholding funding to stem cell research for fear of offending coservitive donors and alumni. Also I am hacked off that he left the most promising feild of nanotechnology (scan page two of this article) out in the cold and instead focus their funding on scientists who are producing nanotech sunblock. And that’s just the science stuff.

    I’ll probably vote for Kerry but I don’t like him much either. I do believe he can fix some of the domestic problems Bush has gotten us into and I don’t think he as big a pansy when it comes to Iraq or national defence as he’s made out to be.

  • HitNRun

    How does the state look from Pittsburgh, anyway? It doesn’t look very good on this side: I’m a suburban Philly resident and it would appear that the Democratic machine is going to do the same thing it did four years ago- run buses into ethnic neighborhoods to farm likely Kerry voters, partially on the taxpayer’s dime.

  • Cody

    Crazy. So Bush has only let 3,000 people be murdered by terrorists when he had adequate warning to stop it. What’s your standard for great wartime leadership, then? 3,500 people? 4,000? You like his War Cabinet? Why? Abu Gharib turn you on? Highest levels of terrorism in 20 years not quite high enough for you? Telling us the war will pay for itself and that we’ll be greeted like liberators close enough to the truth for you? Telling us they KNEW where Saddam’s nuclear weapons were hidden didn’t bother you?
    I respect religion also, except yours, which is some kind of bizarre belief that Bush has these vague character traits such as “strength” and “clarity” which mean jack against a few dedicated people with nuclear weapons. Here’s Osama bin Laden, THREE YEARS after he killed 3,000 fellow Americans, on my TV mocking my President. My President is a joke to terrorists around the world. They aren’t dead or in jail. They aren’t even scared. They are mocking him. They don’t fear him. Which means they might come after us.
    This coupled with John Ashcroft’s new version of America in which he’s reading your credit card receipts, library book list, the websites you like to visit, etc. You’re a funny libertarian.
    You’re going to lose this election. On the bright side, you will be much better off for it.

  • Random Wanderer

    What I hope for is an about face if President Bush is re-elected.

    That means a sudden redirection of focus away from healthcare spending, risky (as far as criticism from the democrats) tax cuts, and department cleansing. I doubt, however, that he will follow through with anything that radical. Bush doesn’t particularly strike me as a radical political figure.

    In the future, the Republicans will need a more radical candidate and stop pandering to the center. The democrats are guilty of the same. Either that, or honest to goodness real libertarians (in the IRS destroying, income tax destroying, regulation destroying sense) need to get up off their asses and convince people that electing a democract or republican is not the answer. We have the internet. We can organize much better than ever before. All it takes is a small voice in every major city of the country to change things.

  • Miguel

    I don’t care what Bush has done or not. It’s sufficient for me to notice that pornographers (child ponographers at that), satanists, abortists, and the like, HATE Bush, in order for me to like the guy. If his enemies are of such kind, I want nothing to do with them.

  • Xavier

    “I don’t care what Bush has done or not. It’s sufficient for me to notice that pornographers (child ponographers at that), satanists, abortists, and the like, HATE Bush, in order for me to like the guy. If his enemies are of such kind, I want nothing to do with them.”

    What child pornographers or satanists have endorsed Kerry?

  • Perry,

    “But support Bush? That’s just nuts.”

    It isn’t just about throwing your weight behind someone 100%. It’s about the best possible outcome in the election. I agree that a Badnarik vote is unattractive not because of how he would handle future Iraqs, but by his pullout ASAP plan. I think that would be a failure.

    That choice aside, you’re left with Bush and Kerry. How many items on your list would Kerry also complain about because they weren’t enough? A great deal.

    Complain about fiscal issues and waste all you want, but Kerry’s plan for health care and non-plan for social security will have fiscal effects in the TRILLIONS, far outweighing the other concerns. On these issues, Bush is actually fairly enlightened, with medical savings accounts, advocated by none other than Milton Friedman, and personal savings accounts to displace reliance on Social Security.

    I also fail to see where you get your evidence for “vast increases in bureaucracy without notable improvements in security.”
    There comes a point where you need to look at the lack of attacks and think that something is being done right. When is that point for you? For me, it was 9/11/04, after we had done more to provoke al Queda than ever.

    Finally, and most importantly, Bush has one huge thing going for him. He has the vision and backbone to see this war through to the end, by killing Islamic Fascists until they whimper surrender, then killing them more.

    So this isn’t just about “not-Bush”. It is about the positive and negative things that will happen under both major options, and picking the least bad option.

    Please, as a libertarian, entertain us explaining why we should support Kerry, and not just why we should be against Bush.

  • “How does the state look from Pittsburgh, anyway?”

    Lots of Kerry signs around CMU’s campus. As you leave Pittsburgh, you start to see NRA signs with a French poodle with a Kerry sign & label “that dog don’t hunt”.

    I’m sure there will be as much machine politics on both sides as ever 🙂

  • Ric Locke

    As a Texan currently visiting the middle of PA — Murtha’s district, no less — I notice an odd thing.

    You seldom or never see a Kerry sign by itself. More have popped up this weekend, but until Friday three quarters or more of the Kerry/Edwards yard signs were part of huge gaggles, including the Senatorial candidate and a bunch of local ones.

    But Bush/Cheney signs tend to be all by themselves.

    Now Specter isn’t much of a Republican, but he’s no Keyes and at least brings the pork home, so I’d have expected to see more of his signs. But no. Bush signs stand alone, and Kerry signs are part of a bunch — more often than not, at the back of the bunch, at that.

    I dunno what it means. I’m just sayin’ is all.

    Regards,
    Ric Locke
    (and it doesn’t count the guy just south of Altoona who has mowed VOTE BUSH into a ten-acre hillside. This is a person with strong convictions 😉

  • Kirk Parker

    Perry E. Metzger,

    I can see opposing Kerry. Kerry has very little going for him. But support Bush? That’s just nuts.

    On the contrary, any L/libertarian that cares about effects rather than posturing, and knowing the obvious case that one of those two men will, in fact, be our next President, will be nothing but reasonable if they vote in such a way as to increase the chance of their less-undesirable outcome.

    Andrew Robb,

    I think the funding cut for stem cell research was nearly as bad as banning it

    What funding cut? There’s no funding cut; the federal government is providing more funding than it ever has for stem cell research (though to be perfectly fair, the field is a lot readier for funding than it was previously.) The only thing in place is a ban on federal funding of research using new stem cell lines.

  • Andrew Robb

    I concede it was a ban and not a cut. But I still stand by my statement that it could crate a stigma around a venerable field of reaserch. I see the Bush administration as being anti-science. I’m pro-science so I’ll vote for Kerry.

  • Jennifer Peterson

    For those of you on the fence, there were 7 reasons for the Iraq liberation (of the majority Shiites). Reason 1 was to alter the balance of power in the Middle East from Sunnis to Shiites. Mission accomplished. Even if Kerry wins, the Sunni Islamists will have to turn their sites on the Shiites as their real enemy.

    For this genius move alone, Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rice deserve another 4 years.

  • Mashiki

    Wow…such hair splitting Andrew. You should be supporting Bush. The fact that he’s refusing to allow government funds in stem cell research is a plus, it means that business profits from it and is not restricted to one country or locked in Government. It also means that more then “one” group, people and business is working to exploit it.

    You’ll have to excuse the quick and sloppy reply but it is almost 3am here.

    Myself, I can’t vote but by far I support Pres. Bush, it’s not that I agree with everything it’s the fact that I can disagree and opening and not be ostracized for it by fellow members, knowing as well that what is being done while not following the libertarian side of me, is following the conservative side…which in the greater sense ends up spreading a more stable world in the long term.

    You simply don’t have peace and security with an unstable future…I expect people to say or think yes but…before Pres. Bush things were not like this. Ofcourse before Pres. Bush things like this were done as “police action”…treating the problem as defensive rather then an offensive one. It can be easy to get the guy collecting the rackettering money, but you eventually have to go after the kingpin.

    I’ll leave it as this for now. I’ll see how this election pans out in a couple of days.

  • Bush has one huge thing going for him. He has the vision and backbone to see this war through to the end, by killing Islamic Fascists until they whimper surrender, then killing them more.

    Yeah, he’s just like a Steven Seagal video game.

    Meanwhile, he’s doing very little about the underlying ideology that leads to Islamic terrorism. The “WOT” is an ideology war, and Bush just doesn’t get that part. Or, perhaps he’s too close to the Saudis to be able to do anything about Wahibbism.

    And, it gets worse. From this: These experts said Bin Laden appeared to be intensifying his campaign to “re-brand” himself in the minds of Muslims worldwide, and become known more as a political voice than a global terrorist. “In some ways the tone of the message is as intriguing, and alarming, as the timing,” said a U.S. official familiar with the tape, and the intelligence community’s analysis of it. “The absence of an explicit threat does represent a different point of emphasis for this guy…. The official said “a political spinoff [of Al Qaeda] is one of the greatest fears” of U.S. counter-terrorism authorities, with Bin Laden and his network following the path of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hezbollah and the Irish Republican Army. Over the years, those organizations evolved from violent militant groups into broader organizations with influential, widely accepted political wings…

    In the unlikely event that Bush is reelected, you might see a headline in 2005 along these lines: “Bush faces tough questions; impeachment discussed”.

    Take a glance at Iraq Awash in Arms Sites, Some Unguarded for some of those tough questions: Even after the U.S. military secured some 400,000 tons of munitions, as many as 250,000 tons remain unaccounted for. Attention has focused on the al-Qaqaa site south of Baghdad, where 377 tons of explosives are believed to have gone missing – becoming a heated issue in the final days of the U.S. presidential campaign. But with the names of other sites popping up everywhere – al-Mahaweel, Baqouba, Ukhaider, Qaim – experts say the al-Qaqaa stash is only a tiny fraction of what’s buried in the sands of Iraq..

    And, for some very solid reasons why civil libertarians should oppose Bush, see this.

    I’m supporting Kerry for president and Republicans for most other races. I think divided government and a “compassionate conservatism”-free GOP are the best recipe for success.

  • Mashiki

    Meanwhile, he’s doing very little about the underlying ideology that leads to Islamic terrorism. The “WOT” is an ideology war, and Bush just doesn’t get that part. Or, perhaps he’s too close to the Saudis to be able to do anything about Wahibbism.

    Actually no…here’s where you are wrong. It’s not just Bush, but Kerry as well, and many other people around the world. It’s going to take 50,000+ dead in our streets before people wake upto this reality.

    It’s funny how in your post you’ve decided it’s better to fight them in our streets now then theirs.

  • Panda

    I am following the line pushed by other writers on this blog and voting for… no one!

    When anyone asks me “Which evil bastard did you vote for this election?”, I will say “None, I don’t do ‘evil’, thanks”. Its not like it actually makes a damn bit of difference which statist actually wins!

  • Michael Farris

    Dale,
    But have you taken the Bush pledge? Or does that freak you out as much as it does me?

    I’m willing to believe it was a one-off lapse in judgement and unauthorized, but I’d like to see some evidence of that. IMHO it’s the kind of thing (loyalty oaths to particular political leaders) that needs to be ruthlessly nipped in the bud.

  • “There is a minor plus that all the right people are totally off the wall and over the top insane about the prospect of him winning.”

    This is the only reason I would like to see president Bush reelected. I hate Bush, but I hate Kerry supporters even more.

    Plus, I would like to see his famous “one-finger-victory-salute” again.

  • Johnathan

    Perry Metzger lays out a pretty long and devastating set of reasons for to vote against Bush. I agree with 99 pct of them. However, what about Afghanistan? Seems to be a genuine success story.

  • Daveon

    However, what about Afghanistan? Seems to be a genuine success story.

    You are kidding aren’t you?

  • Bush had three years to get Bin Laden,
    and he didn’t.

    Although he made big words around it right after 9/11.

    His approval rate was above 90% back then.

    Since then he started a different war.
    And Bin Laden is still at large. He even said he would not be that concerned about him.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    Lay off the Kerry Kool Aid. My take on the whole matter is that all other issues other than the current conflict don’t really matter. We can get round to them once the trash have been taken out.

    Prioritise! Prioritise! Win the current conflict, and the rest of the pieces will fall in place eventually. To vote for Kerry because he tends to be a bit more liberal in certain social aspects is pointless when he uses the mandate given to him by an election victory to fuck over the free world and wave a white flag, leading to the accelerated erosion of civilization from Islamic forces.

    It’s useless to talk of stem cell research when we’re all Islamic drones. I’d rather a President who does all he can to engender an environment where dialogue is possible. In other words, Shrub all the way!

  • Johnathan

    Daveon asks if I am kidding that Afghanistan is a success story. I am entirely serious. The Taliban which sheltered OBL and co is largely out of power; the country has held elections; Kabul, once a dead city, is thriving. Yes, by the pristine standards of a libertarian utopia, the place still has enormous challenges, no question. By the standards of miserable reality, that country is in a much better state now than three years ago.

  • Dale Amon

    Ivan: I was EE undergrad and Psych/CS grad there, then a decade later worked for Dr Agin in RI awhile before switching to Dr. Dannenberg’s music lab in CS.

    As to the ‘dog don’t hunt’ signs… I would say the Pennsylvania countryside could probably give the Iraqi one a run for its money on firepower and marksmanship. I grew up in a small town there and to say hunting was ubiquitous would be to use British understatement. I was taught firearms safety by age 8, not that I actually had my own. Well, I did sort of. A never loaded (in my lifetime) 1870 Springfield rifle was ‘mine’. Sad to say it was destroyed in a fire.

    I remember a night time 4-wheeler get together deep in the woods (after I got stuck in mud literally to the doors of my ’79 Cherokee) where I was first introduced to the sight and sound of an automatic weapon. Truly amazing. A line of tracer fire into the nearby hillside followed by dead silence… other than the sound of falling sapplings.

    I come from a very Jacksonian background although until recently I’d not have known the term. Not surprising as the term is not terribly old.

    As to a comment about not attacking the war on terror with other lower profile methods… well, those are exactly the sorts of things you will have to wait about 50 years to hear about. Really would not be a good idea to let the media boys know how many of these folk have been left laying about in varoius parts of the world with a newly minted third eye, now would it?

    You can absolutely bet on it that there is an enormous amount going on in the black world: stuff that would make old europe piss itself.

  • A_t

    “You can absolutely bet on it that there is an enormous amount going on in the black world: stuff that would make old europe piss itself.”

    On the contrary, exactly the kind of stuff Old Europe traditionally indulges in. It’s the out-in-the-open stuff that “Old Europe” has had a problem with recently. I certainly didn’t hear any euro-outrage over the few cases of covert assassination we’ve got to hear about, eg. those guys who got zapped by the robot drone in the desert.

  • lucklucky

    Even with all US Army in Iraq it will impossible to clean the country of thousand of tons. When in St. Petersburg(Russia) started years ago a surge in building construction, tons of weapons from 2nd Worldwar were discovered in many places. Last year was discovered in China, chemical weapons from Imperial Japanese Army.

    BinLaden promised a truce if US follows Michael Moore ideas…

  • Opinionated Vogon

    Posted by Cody at November 1, 2004 05:01 AM:
    “Crazy. So Bush has only let 3,000 people be murdered by terrorists when he had adequate warning to stop it.”

    The warning Kerry ignored

  • Daveon

    Johnathon,

    I wasn’t even thinking of a Libertarian Uptopia, just boring and mundane stuff. Sure Kabul might well be “thriving” but the current President isn’t known as a Mayor of Kabul (not a term of endearment) for nothing.

    Drug crops are at all time highs, women’s rights outside Kabul are pretty much trhe same as before the war. Much of country remains in the control of warlords, regardless of the election results. Kidnapping and terrorism aren’t on the scale of Iraq but they’re pretty high – 3 UN election inspectors being the latest victims probably held by a pro-Taliban group. And, while the Taliban thankfully didn’t disrupt the elections as much as threatened, they’re still holding parts of the country.

    To add insult to injury, the aid promised to Kabul has not been turning up.

    Its great that the Taliban no longer run the place, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think we’ve remotely finished there.

  • SCSIwuzzy

    PA’s outlook:
    I live just outside of Philadelphia, and I work for the local power company (so I see alot of the south east portion of the state). In Philly, you see alot of Kerry Edwards signs, and quite a bit of anti-Bush grafitti. Bush signs are defaced, destroyed or stolen, and cars with Bush stickers are regularly keyed or otherwise anonymously attacked.
    However, as you get away from the Universities (there are 8 that I can think of in the city proper) and into the suburbs, the Bush signs crop up much more.
    Like a previous poster noted, the Kerry signs tend to be flanked by local and senate candidates signs, but the Bush signs, in even in republican stronghold neighborhoods, tend to be alone.
    This past weekend, we had to drive to State College, PA (gfs cousin got hitched) so we got to see a large cross section of the state (Philly is the SE corner, SC is in the center of the state, a 200+ mile, 4+ hour drive)
    Anyway, the further you get from Philly and Pitts, the more PA looks like red state. As you enter Happy Valley (the area around the Penn State main campus) the Kerry signs begin to pop up again. However, I often saw that for every Kerry household, there was a Bush one next door or accross the street. It was funny to see neighbors trying to out do each other with large, often home-made signs and yard displays. From what I could see and hear in the short time we were there (2 days) it seemed pretty good natured. Very different from Philly, where Bush voters take their safety in their hands when they wear Bush hats or buttons in some areas.
    BTW, the latest Quinnipiac (sp?) poll has Bush at 49%, Kerry 47%. with 4% undecided. This is a 3% increase for Bush, and a 4% decrease for Kerry, over the previous week.
    Tuesday is going to be a rollercoaster of a day 🙂

  • P.E.M.: what good is being a libertarian when you are sitting in a smoking hole dead?

    George Bush may be, well is a big-goverment Republican, but compared to Kerry & his voting record he is a vicious cutter.

    Bush is not the perfect candidate, when is there ever a perfect candidate, but Kerry is far worse on all accounts. And if the Libertarians keep nominating lame-brains like their past two they will never get out of the also-ran catagory.

    Never mind the fact that Kerry behaved dishonarably after he left Vietnam. In a time of war (which we are in) I would rather support a bloke who had 600 hours on a Starfighter (a notorious hard plane to fly) than a ground pounder who turned on his colleagues the minute he back home from ‘Nam.

  • Dale,
    I was greatful for the fact that Georgia was solidly red on all the Electoral College maps…That meant I had no problem with voting for Badnarik, knowing full well he had a snowball’s chance. As far as domestic issues go, the Libertarians are closer to my heart.

    Had it been a contentious state, I would have voted for Bush. For many of the reasons you stated. Glad I didn’t have to debate myself too much.

    Regards,
    James

  • oops, meant “grateful”

  • Dale Amon

    Lagwolf: I had no idea. I knew he was a fighter pilot but flying the F-104 takes… a FIGHTER pilot! You ain’t shittin’ that is one mean piece of supersonic hardware. 1400mph+. It’s basically an engine the pilot straps on between his legs. The landing is hot, the airplane unforgiving… and it is the ultimate Century Series fighter. It is not an aeroplane for the faint of heart.

    For a good example of how dangerous the plane could be, dig up the stats for the Luftwaffe from the sixties and seventies. They made quite a few craters in the German countryside before they got some maintenance and training issues sorted out. I mean literally craters. There were several German F-104’s that augered in.

    Definitely gave him the right to wear the pilot suit on that carrier flight. It also proves he’s really got two balls. Big, high-carbon steel ones.

    I wonder if Independence Day was prescient?

  • EddieP

    Kerry is a man of no principles. That’s why he’ll cave on the WoT. It takes enormous courage to do the right thing. Bush has shown us that courage. Kerry’s only possible claim to courage was his 120 day tenure on a tiny boat somewhere in the swamps of SE Asia, 30 years ago. Even that record is disputed by many of those who served with him. The only thing keeping his campaign together is the incredible manufacture of lies against Bush by the MSM. If it weren’t for the NYT, CBS and Michael Moore, the current polls would easily reflect a 60/40 sweep for Bush.

    Kerry is riding on the far left’s “hate Bush” coattails.

  • Sure Kabul might well be “thriving” but the current President isn’t known as a Mayor of Kabul (not a term of endearment) for nothing.

    Excellent. I wish Tony Blair was known as a Mayor of London. I have never much cared for powerful central government.

    Drug crops are at all time highs,

    And this is bad?

    women’s rights outside Kabul are pretty much trhe same as before the war.

    Yes but clearly there has been progress

    Much of country remains in the control of warlords, regardless of the election results.

    Good. Democracy is vastly over-rated. I am by no means convinced a ‘democratic’ Afghanistan would be vastly better for liberty than the traditional complex mixture of tribal warlords and other institutions that they have tended to have before. This ain’t a western society!

    Kidnapping and terrorism aren’t on the scale of Iraq but they’re pretty high – 3 UN election inspectors being the latest victims probably held by a pro-Taliban group.

    So maybe the UN should get the hell out of New York Kabul then. In any case, how is that any worse that normal in Afghanistan. The object there was to remove the Taliban, not prevent Afghans doing what they always have. No, I am not condoning it but I cannot see that the war is really the issue there.

    And, while the Taliban thankfully didn’t disrupt the elections as much as threatened, they’re still holding parts of the country.

    Which is why the best thing would be to just support the better warlords, keep dropping a few bombs when needed and stop this ‘democracy! democracy!” nonsense.

    To add insult to injury, the aid promised to Kabul has not been turning up.

    So?

    Its great that the Taliban no longer run the place, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think we’ve remotely finished there.

    We are not completely finished there but we are indeed ‘remotely’ finished. 85% done if I had to out a figure on it.

    GWB did the right think but that is history now and he did rather botch the occuption of Iraq. No way would I vote for either of the two klepto bozos running for Prez at this juncture.

  • D. Timmerman

    I was just in Philadelphia over the weekend (took a trip up there from NoVa/DC), and it is clear who the citizens of that city are voting for. Bush/Cheney signs were NOWHERE to be found inside the city. South Street had a lot of rainbow flags advertising Kerry as their man. The only Bush support I saw was one man walking around with a W pin on his chest.

    One kid was passing out “don’t be fooled by Republicans- vote for Kerry” flyers on a street corner. I didn’t ask him if he thought people should instead be fooled by Democrats.

    Here in Northern Virginia we have a lot of signs for both candidates all over, but Kerry probably has a majority here in Fairfax County. I’ve been having a really hard time trying to decide between Badnarik and Bush. Of all the candidates (including third party), those are the only two that don’t make my stomach churn.

  • Andrew Robb

    I like Perry’s post, both suck. Been my felling’s all along. The lesser of two evils line is more than threadbare though.

    Mashiki – I’ll take that into consideration but what gives me the twich is not the funding but what I feel is an implied message from Bush’s administration – “OOOh stem cells are BAD!”

    I’d like to see W. standing next to Nacy Reagan saying something like “I won’t fund it because our political system is lousy with religous interest groups, but I’d like to see you boy’s do your best with them stem cells.” If anybody can point me to something like this I’d be happy to see it.

    For better or worse the wasting of tax dollars is the closest thing you get to a clear answer on the likes and dislikes of any politition.

  • Mat

    Cute! The Guantanamo Bay Libertarians.

  • Bruce

    Bush flew the F-102A Delta Dagger, not the Starfighter. Still a pretty unforgiving piece of hardware. Some coward, huh?

  • toolkien

    The pain of it all. How to be a libertarian in a Statist world.

    Be pragmatic and vote for a lesser of two evils? Pick one or two key issues to pull a lever over and incrementally empower a small group to oversee unimaginable power? Trillions of dollars a year, endless regulations of one form or another, and pandering to a superstitious mass who want enough elbow room for themselves and plenty of chains for the other guy, and who think that shipping trillions of dollars a 1000+ miles away is the perfect way to do that?

    Sometimes I think the process of voting in a Federal election really is a form of insanity for most people. “Hah! I’ve just filled in a circle here in a gym in Slippery Toad, KS – now I got’em right where I want’em. The fools! There’s no stopping me now!!”

    The trouble is, for all the commentary back and forth above, there really is very little practical difference between the two. Kerry is going to prosecute his brand of WoT. It’s going to be ineffective. But Bush’s approach isn’t much better. If war/force is necessary, it should be applied until the perceived threat has ended no matter what it takes. Otherwise don’t bother. Both sides are merely applying various levels of force and diplomacy to maintain access to oil. That’s the underlying issue in Iraq. It’s what Gulf War I was about, which led to OBL’s lunacy, and it has continued through today, with No Fly Zones and inspections and sanctions, all forms of force, happily applied by Democrats, Republicans, and the UN alike. But Bush doesn’t get congrats for taking it to the next level, a PR move with a little muscle. Not enough Force was applied if war was considered necessary. Support Saddam against Iran, support Kuwait against Saddam, support Saudi Arabia against anybody. All for the resources of the area. Both the Dems and Repubs know how the State bread is buttered, and it’s not from canola oil.

    Left-wing anti-oil nut? Hardly. But the interest in the flow of oil by the Federal Government is the certainty that it would be very harmful to the US economy (and UK’s) if something were to happen. And the respective governments are the largest investors in their economies. Their anti-market house of cards will collapse in short order if the economy buckles due to an oil famine. Both know this to be reality. Voting for either one does not end this cycle of anti-market Statism, it’s just a variant form of each other.

    Other issues? Vote Bush and you get the Right Wing religious Nanny-dom, Vote for Kerry and you get the Left Wing quasi-religious Nanny-dom. Vote for Bush and you get anti-market support of Big Business over small, Vote for Kerry and you get the anti-market Unionism and ‘non-profit industrial complex’. Vote for Bush and you get quasi-taxation through credit market/money supply manipulation (private savings accounts don’t mean much if they are looted through money supply manipulation), then taxation, with Kerry you get taxation first, then credit/money supply slight of hand. With Bush you get Red State populism, with Kerry you get Blue State populism.

    At the end of the day, voting for either is like a sharp stick in the eye – the only option is the left or the right.

    Whether it is my insanity, I guess I’m going to vote LP if I decide to vote at all. Just one vote that won’t likely even register into a percentage, but maybe every little bit helps in getting people to think that there are other options. The two party system certainly cannot allow for the growth of individualism. Maybe, if there are others like me, we can make a blip register, and people will take the time to discuss other options. Otherwise the Republicrats and the Democans, and the ignorant, knee-jerk Statists who vacillate between the two, will continue sucking us all down the rabbit hole.

  • Verity

    I’m with the Wobbly Guy and Jennifer Peterson. Brain stem research and prescription drug prices and social security will not be realistic issues to worry about unless worldwide Islamic terrorism is defeated.

    There is only one issue in this election, and it is, who has a clearer bead on the threat to liberty and our Western way of life, and who is prepared to do whatever it takes to stop it?

  • Daveon

    85% done if I had to out a figure on it.

    People in my line of work often claim that they are 80% code complete in projects. The problem that usually rears its rather ugly head is that in fact that’s usually more like 20% of the way to actually finishing the work. That’s my feeling on Afganistan, actually, I’d be much happier if I felt we were 20% of the way there.

    I’ll not comment in detail on Perry’s post, surfice to say I disagree quite strongly with some but not all of his points, but it is rather off topic for an interesting thread and regardless of what Verity might think of me I don’t want to waste any more space here.

  • On Afghanistan – After the first successful election in El Salvador in 1982 there were eight more years of very ugly warfare until finally the enemy was forced to give up and become politicians.

    Still the sight of those thousands of Salvadoan pesants standing quietly in line to vote was a great symbolic victory.

    Perry may not think much of democracy but as an instument of political warfare it can hardly be bettered.

    Congrats Dale “This time I know we’re going to win’

    To the sounds of ‘a kiss is just a kiss”

  • It’d be nice if everyone could now go back and adjust their comments to reflect what will likely be the reality: divided government with Kerry as president. That will help keep spending down and the Republicans in Congress – and the American public – will make sure Kerry cleans up Bush’s mess in the right way.

    If Kerry did any of these scary things the Bush supporters are trying to say he would do, what would happen? He’d discredit himself and the Democratic party and perhaps face impeachment. Kerry isn’t going to do that. He’s going to be forced to more or less stay the course. But, he’s probably going to do it in a more competent, intelligent way.

    It’s funny how in your post you’ve decided it’s better to fight them in our streets now then theirs.

    I closely follow border security and immigration issues. Thousands of illegal aliens stream across our porous borders each day. Bush does very little about that because he likes the cheap labor, or at least those who contribute to the GOP do.

    So, we have a clear case of Bush making the decision that cheap labor is more important than our safety.

    What kind of “homeland security” administration would release thousands of illegal aliens from the Middle East onto U.S. streets because of lack of jail space? The DHS admits they don’t know how many of those could be terrorists.

    Seriously, if you think Bush is keeping you safe, I’d suggest reading two things: Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report, and 1984.

    As to a comment about not attacking the war on terror with other lower profile methods… well, those are exactly the sorts of things you will have to wait about 50 years to hear about. Really would not be a good idea to let the media boys know how many of these folk have been left laying about in varoius parts of the world with a newly minted third eye, now would it?

    Yes, except we’ve already seen Donald Rumsfeld come on TV – practically in John Madden mode – to show how we’ve done those sorts of things. Bush referenced it in one of his speeches. If you do things like this, why not score some political gain by talking about them?

    George Bush may be, well is a big-goverment Republican, but compared to Kerry & his voting record he is a vicious cutter.

    Please consider divided government.

  • limberwulf

    On voting: definately vote, not voting is a horribly ambiguous message, and voting is the strongest voice any of us have unless we plan to take up arms.

    On my vote: Personally I will be voting LP in the hope of getting the word out. I dont agree with a lot of Badnarik’s postions, but honestly I agree with far mroe than I do with either of the statists.

    On divided government: I think that would be a good thing. Inter-party bickering is not much to depend on, since both sides are statitst, but its better than nothing. I find that historically is helps at least a little. I do not, however, value it enough to try to make sure it happens. That plus I just can’t stomach the idea of a Kerry vote. I don’t want to puke all over the voting booth.

    On science: The best possible thing for science would be the removal of any and all government funding. Any restrictions made on funding in the form of bans, cuts, etc. would not only be good for science, but would be a new record. I havent seen an actual cut in government in a long time, other than Clinton’s military cuts, which I am loathe to count as a legitimate cut becase the military is one of the few things the government is supposed to be in charge of. Cuts should be on everything else first.

    On Bush: The guy has made some mistakes, but he seems to be a decent man. He moves and thinks slow, making him seem less intelligent, but I assure you he is not stupid. I have played far too many chess players who are slow methodical thinkers to not be able to see the ability to reason in a man like Bush. OTOH he has made many mistakes, and he is still a statist, so I cannot support him. The actions he has taken on civil liberty bother me not because of what he has done, but because of the authority granted that others could take far worse advantage of.

    On Kerry: This is a spineless man, and a statist. I have seen nothing that he has done that I support, and a great deal he has done that I despise. I could care less about his presence or ability to speak. Those things are important for a president, but actions speak louder than words, and the man’s actions are useless. Self-contradition and the tendency to change positions do not bode well for leadership. I would rather follow a man I dislike or disagree with who is consistent, than try to keep up with inconsistency. I have worked for inconsistent bosses, and I find them far worse than consistently bad bosses. Kerry comes off as an intellectual, but intelligence is not shown by how well you speak or how many philosophers you can quote. Brilliance is measured by you accomplishments, and Kerry has none of which he should be proud.

    On the WOT: Yes, this is the most important issue, no it is not the only one. Kerry is likely to follow a similar course to Bush, but only because he will find it unpopular to do differently. I do not think he will have any better luck with other countries, and if he does it will be with countries that do not benefit us in any way to be allied with. Bush will stick in and finish the job, and while some parts may be sloppy, at least it will be dependable. Basically all that means that a third party vote will not make too large a difference in this issue.

    Essentially I find that while Bush the lesser of two evils, he is not so much less that I feel obligated to ensure that he is elected. A third party vote will do little or no harm, but it may do a great deal of good if it gets the LP on the map and enough votes are gained to make people hear of their existence.

  • jk

    Well done, Dale! I’m stunned to see the Libertarians’ equivalence between Kerry and Bush. Kerry would be a greater danger to liberty in almost every way. I would agree with Senator Kerry on stem cells and against the FMA, but he represents more regulation, a more steeply progressive tax curve, and ambivalence about free trade with a very protectionist running mate.

  • PHG

    “And it doesn’t count the guy just south of Altoona who has mowed VOTE BUSH into a ten-acre hillside. This is a person with strong convictions.”

    Indeed he is, but hardly the only one. Amongst all the churn in the political culture this year the media have missed one Pennsylvania constituency that has come roaring to life after having kept above the fray for the past several centuries. I speak, of course, of the Amish, who in the oddest turn of this remarkably odd election season, have registered to vote en masse, and are Bush-supporters to a man.

    One local reporter who covered the story seemed to have gone into the interview without a list of prepared questions, or else forgot them when confronted with her interviewee — a Lincoln-looking Amish man with a “W in ’04” sign hanging from the front edge of his hat brim.

    She couldn’t have been more uncomfortable if an army of angels had descended from heaven in chariots of fire to come to the polls and support George Bush. She did however manage to stammer out a couple of awkward questions along the lines of:

    Local reporter: “But, but, how did you know there was an election since, well, er, you know …”

    Abe Lincoln: [brow lowers] “We do read newspapers.”

    Reporter: “Well yes, of course, um, OK. But you opposed the Revolutionary War! You people are supposed to be anti-war!”

    Abe: “We support funding for religious schools. We oppose abortion. We believe the Supreme Court is at stake in this election.”

    Reporter: “Oh … oh! Well, you are very informed. But, er, I don’t suppose the pollsters have been able to reach your community, have they? [weak laugh]”

    Abe: “Excuse me.”

    The piece wrapped with a shot of a long line of horse-drawn buggies stretching into the distance, their BC04 bumper stickers proudly displayed.

  • Dale and I go way back. He knows some months ago I decided to support the Democrats and he also knows some of the reasons why.

    First, let me state a few reasons why I don’t plan to vote Libertarian. The LP and its supporters have irritated me for some time now. I clearly have a strong preference for freedom and can describe myself as critically rational. YMMV. So what’s wrong with libertarianism today? My preference for freedom includes freedom from not just governmental tyranny but also economic, corporate, religious, social, academic, cultural, etc. Too many libertarians say “if you don’t like a corporation, don’t work for it/buy from it.” OK. Unfortunately, I live in a world where it’s hard not to deal with corporate power. I want to use every legitimate means of dealing with tyranny — whatever its form — and not be constrained by some group’s ideology.

    Libertarianism hasn’t exactly made major inroads into the body politic as well. I think it may be because libertarians are too busy giving lectures rather than listening to others and learning to form coalitions. Rather than thinking “We can achieve a victory today by joining up with AFL-CIO members to fight corporate welfare” I see too much of “Let’s explain to them how we’ve got the answers.”

    All this suggests why I don’t care to vote Libertarian any more. It’s a way of indicating disapproval of a small party that hasn’t lived up to its promise. When libertarians get a bit less doctrinaire, I’ll try to support them more.

    OK, why the Democrats and not the Republicans?

    First, I want to make real changes in the ways the United States pursues space exploration and development. I want to alter the culture of the aerospace industry (both major and minor) so that it is more open to new ideas, more democratic and liberal. Fortunately an increasing number of people within even the aerospace establishment are beginning to see the wisdom in this kind of change. I know I’ve gotten positive responses to lectures I’ve given on the topic.

    What can I do about these desires of mine? Why, I can join a mainstream political effort. I decided some months ago to become a volunteer for Barbara Mikulski (I live in Maryland). Do I always agree with the Senator? No. But she seems to support science and space, and she’s also willing to speak up when things are going wrong. She also strongly supports various civil libertarian positions. She portrays herself — with considerable accuracy — as a champion of the little guy. Summing up, while our politics might differ in some regards quite a bit, I think our underlying values are considerably closer. We can communicate with each other — and work together.

    What about Kerry and the WOT? Kerry and his team seem to be better listeners — and more attuned to reality. The WOT is a pretty low level conflict presently. The underlying conflict has been going on for some time — centuries is not an unreasonable claim. The underlying conflict will be resolved more in the nonmilitary realm than the military.

    The Bush team arouses my concern because I don’t think they are as well attuned to reality. They don’t listen all that well to others. They seem pretty authoritarian as well. Authoritarianism contributes to those shortocmings.

    It’s not the easiest of choices. I respect Dale’s position — and see a good bit of truth in it. I hope we’ll be able to work together again in the future..Interestingly enough, I can also see some value in our taking somewhat divergent paths. We’ll learn different things and make different impacts.

    What if I’ve made a mistake? Well, we’ll all learn from it. I hope the same is true of everyone who posts here.

    A public side note to Dale: I didn’t know you did grad work in CS/psych? That’s as unique as my doing grad work in physics and social psychology (sequentially, not simultaneously). Wow! I’m even more impressed.

  • Andrew Robb

    It’s eight p.m. 11 – 1 my time and I’m really sick of the whole issue. I think that’s the real reason our system is in so much trouble, when there are no good choices everyone gets disgusted with the process and gives up, votes for whoever their boss or minister or Dad would vote for and goes home to forget the whole thing and get some peace before the big holiday stress fest.

    I had my mind made up. I had, in my opinon, good reasons to vote that way. I take no issue with federal funds because as so many have said the government shouldn’t fund any research. I simply felt that Bush’s treatment of the issue gave many of the right wing nutcases the idea that stem cell research rivaled abortion on their evilness scale.

    I’ve gone out and read over the platforms of both canadates. I’ve looked at the agenda for both parties. There’s little difference between them. Big angrier government verses angry bigger government. I’ve looked up Badnarik again, and he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance.

    So what to do? I don’t let myself be led around but perhapse I should scan the commentary above find the most convincing argument and vote that way. Mabey I should do the opposite just for spite.

    Maybe I should worry about it tomarrow.

    As the election draws near I’m less certian of anything and everything.

    Maybe, come what may tomarrow, maybe Wednesday I should start talking to people about what drew me to libertarianism in the first place, try to show them why I believe in it. Because, regardless of the bickering above and not including any possibility of miracles, it seems the libertarianism I believe in looses tomarrow.

  • Andrew Robb

    Chuck,

    I had not read your post when I last posted. You make a great deal of sense.

    I too, don’t suport the Libertarian Party for much the same reasons. I applaud you for working in mainstream politics.

    Respecting other’s veiws, learning from your mistakes seems far too many of don’t. I think I’ll try it myself, maybe it’ll catch on.

  • Andrew Robb

    Chuck,

    I had not read your post when I last posted. You make a great deal of sense.

    I too, don’t suport the Libertarian Party for much the same reasons. I applaud you for working in mainstream politics.

    Respecting other’s veiws, learning from your mistakes seems far too many of us don’t. I think I’ll try it myself, maybe it’ll catch on.

  • poll troll

    OT

    Best Poll for undecided voters;

    Since 1956, Weekly Reader students in grades 1-12 have correctly picked the president

    http://www.weeklyreader.com/election_vote.asp

    Weekly Reader kids select Bush in Presidential Poll

    The students who read Weekly Reader’s magazines have made their preference for President known: they want to send President Bush back to the White House.

    The results of this year’s Weekly Reader poll have just been announced, and the winner is President Bush. Hundreds of thousands of students participated, giving the Republican President more than 60% of the votes cast and making him a decisive choice over Democratic Senator John Kerry.

    Since 1956, Weekly Reader students in grades 1-12 have correctly picked the president, making the Weekly Reader poll one of the most accurate predictors of presidential outcomes in history.

  • Regarding the Amish:

    Every few months, a report surfaces of the president using strikingly Messianic language, only to be dismissed by the White House. Three months ago, for instance, in a private meeting with Amish farmers in Lancaster County, Pa., Bush was reported to have said, ”I trust God speaks through me.” In this ongoing game of winks and nods, a White House spokesman denied the president had specifically spoken those words, but noted that ”his faith helps him in his service to people.”

    Holy Moses Malone!

  • Dale Amon

    Chuck: Since we both know the people on both sides of the debate and inside NASA, and you spoke of real change, check this out:

    http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/102504bd1.htm

    I have not had time to write it up, but this is something many of us dreamed of in our wildest flights of fancy. Killing off the ’67 treaty and clarifying property rights. I must say that the Bush space plan and who is in there now (including some friends of ours) are another strong reason to push me towards Bush. Even if the pullout threat only forces re-negotiation and gets us the private property rights… this is big.

  • Dale,

    I was at that debate. The debate was considerably better than what passed for one between the candidates on TV.

    I like the space people on the Republican side, as I do their counterparts on the Democratic.

    This is one issue where we’re in agreement. There are, as you know, many others.

    One of the things that really bothers me about this election is the aftermath. It’s possible there will be major conflicts within parties as well as between. There are people in both parties I want to force to go running and drinking with me. I’ll be nice. I’ll stop for a beer after four or five miles and wait for them to catch up. Yes, I might train for another marathon next year. I can say that several Republicans (not senior people by any strectch of the imagination) have told me there will be major conflict within the party, especially if Bush wins. The small government people are very unhappy apparently.

  • Paul Marks

    The basic truth is that in all the programs I dislike President Bush for spending more money on (“no child left behind”, the medicare extention and so on) Senator Kerry would spend even more money.

    Even on “corporate welfare” which Senator Kerry is supposed to oppose – the Cato Institute has published findings showing that Senator Kerry would spend more money on this than President Bush.

    That leaves the war.

    I have never been happy with the war in Iraq. This is partly because I have known from childhood people who knew the country and they taught me that the population of Iraq tended to be cruel and untrustworthy (yes I actually think that many if not most of the people in Iraq are just plain bad). The vision of a happy libertated population, that I am sure Mr Blair had, never struck me as likely.

    Nor do I think well of the whole neocon project of spreading Welfare State democracy as I regard this system as unsustainable even in the West (let alone Iraq).

    However, General Franks and others have argued that the United States and Britian were at war with Iraq long before 2003 – with allied forces comming under fire in the “no fly zones” and other actitivies by the government of Iraq.

    Whatever the truth of that, the fact is that we are at war now and a victory by Senator Kerry would be seen by the enemy as a victory for them.

    Nor has Senator Kerry pledged to “bring the troop home by Christmas” as the Labour party leader did in Australia. No, Senator Kerry will “do the job”. How?

    The enemy would be given fresh heart and strength by his vic tory and American forces would feel castrated.

  • Paul Marks

    The basic truth is that in all the programs I dislike President Bush for spending more money on (“no child left behind”, the medicare extention and so on) Senator Kerry would spend even more money.

    Even on “corporate welfare” which Senator Kerry is supposed to oppose – the Cato Institute has published findings showing that Senator Kerry would spend more money on this than President Bush.

    That leaves the war.

    I have never been happy with the war in Iraq. This is partly because I have known from childhood people who knew the country and they taught me that many people in the population of Iraq tended to be cruel and untrustworthy (yes I actually think that many if NOT most of the people in Iraq are just plain bad). The vision of a happy libertated population, that I am sure Mr Blair had, never struck me as likely. The bad minority is large enough (plus terrorists from other Muslim nations) to make the country a nasty place for a long time.

    Nor do I think well of the whole neocon project of spreading Welfare State democracy as I regard this system as unsustainable even in the West (let alone Iraq).

    However, General Franks and others have argued that the United States and Britian were at war with Iraq long before 2003 – with allied forces comming under fire in the “no fly zones” and other actitivies by the government of Iraq.

    Whatever the truth of that, the fact is that we are at war now and a victory by Senator Kerry would be seen by the enemy as a victory for them.

    Nor has Senator Kerry pledged to “bring the troops home by Christmas” as the Labour party leader did in Australia. No, Senator Kerry will “do the job”. How?

    The enemy would be given fresh heart and strength by his vic tory and American forces would feel castrated.

  • Paul Marks

    Sorry for the double post here.

    I read what I had written and came to the conclusion that it did not fully express what I thought (I had just written it wrong) – I did not understand that the first post had already gone off.

    Yesterday I was unable to post a comment at all – I kept getting “you are not allowed to post comments” and today the comment goes off before I think fired it.

    Oh well, if was not not such a moron where computers are concerned perhaps I would do better.

  • Dale Amon

    I might also add that I am none too happy with some of Kerry’s compadres:

    http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4305.shtml

  • Dale Amon

    Oops, missed the link I wanted by one. Here is the correct one:

    http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4304.shtml