?

Log in

No account? Create an account
From Iraq with Love - SPK Live
Pertinent Info * spk LJ full info * spk LJ tags * spk LJ flist's pals * LJ b-days
* spk LJ icon credits * spk-created icons * spk image gallery (Who's Who)
* lutheran church--missouri synod * holy cross lutheran church * concordia historical institute
* iupui * slis iupui * ball state * acrl * atla * inspire (IN residents only)
* usfa * great lakes section * indiana division * summit city fencing club * ftwaynefencers
* spk myspace profile * spk flickr
May 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
 
 
 
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 12:50 am
From Iraq with Love

I watched last night's episode of The Late Show with David Letterman, which featured John Kerry as the main guest.  As much as I often loathe the liberal agenda, I have to admit I like the guy.  He appeals to me in certain ways, even though he isn't the most exciting banana in the bunch.  He's been accused of being a "policy wonk," but to me that's a good thing.  He knows how to look at fine details and can appreciate subtlety.  While I appreciate GWB in that he calls evil exactly what it is, he seems virtually incapable of nuance.  He can't grasp the "grays" in the world, just his black & white.  That's why I hate his tax cuts -- he's convinced he's bettering America, but he's really only doing it for the richest three percent.  Nothing you say will persuade him otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I think GWB is a good man.  He's a Christian and isn't afraid to share his love for the Lord, and I appreciate it.  That being said, I often feel like he's in over his head.  John Kerry is grooming a successor in John Edwards, not looking for leadership/experience like Bush does with Cheney.  Cheney is really the dealbreaker for me, I can't stand the guy.  He is tight with Wolfowitz, who absolutely makes me want to projectile vomit.  I despise off-the-wall-to-the-left liberals, but probably detest the "neocons" even more.  It's a tough call, but the neocons act like assholes while pretending they know everything while the craziest liberals simply come across as, well, crazy.  I recently read an article that said Colin Powell might consider sticking around because the president might actually be realizing he's been listening to a bunch of freaking idiots, and Powell will finally have some more influence.  If GWB does win again, I pray to God that's the case.  Bush's foreign policy has been terrible, and I think Powell may be able to salvage some of that if he's given the full support of the White House.

Even so, I think I'd rather try my luck with John Kerry at this point.  It makes me laugh when the Republicans try to pit the National Guardsman (whose service record is somewhat spooty as is, forged documents or not) against the Vietnam veteran.  The truly stupid part is that it's been working for a while because Kerry has also surrounded himself with idiots.  He finally realized this wasn't going to go away, and fought back.  He needs to be more on top of things if he's going to get the win in November.  The other thing that gets me is that Kerry came back and questioned why we were fighting in Vietnam, and exercised his rights as an American to protest.  For this, he's called a "flip-flopper!"  The fact that he and McCain quietly resolved the American POW/MIA situation in Vietnam without a bunch of fanfare strikes me as very noble.  He took a thankless job (save from the veterans' families) and worked to make the truth known.  I respect that.  It seems like Bush tries to spin everything, from the war in Iraq to the economy.  If he would just be honest and admit we're going through some tough times right now but we're going to do what it takes to get back on track, I would appreciate that much more than the "everything's OK" line.  Cheney insinuating that electing Kerry would lead to mass destruction made me ill.  There's just so much denial in the Whte House about what's working and what isn't, that I feel it necessary for a regime change.

With the Republicans in power in Congress, I feel more at liberty to vote for Kerry.  When one side dominates both the executive and legislative branches, the nutcases have a chance to push their agendas and force them through.  Whereas a split (i.e. Democrat in White House, Republicans in Congress) forces compromise and brings things back to the middle.  If Democrats were leading things in the Senate and House, I would be more reluctant to vote for Kerry because of issues like abortion and gay marriage.  As it is, I don't think he'll be able to go too crazy.  So, unless things change dramtically within the GWB camp soon, I think this independent voter will be casting his vote for Kerry.  I like most of his proposals, his demeanor, and experience.  I hope and pray whomever is elected in November can get the job done.

Current Mood: pessimistic pessimistic

22CommentReply

hellokitty138
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 06:07 am (UTC)

You make good points, but do remember 2 things:

1. There's absolutely no guarantee of a Republican Congress during Kerry's entire term to balance him.

2. Kerry is a far left liberal. If you look at Senate voting records, he is the most liberal senator.

If you are cool with that, go for it.


ReplyThread
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 02:25 pm (UTC)

My hope is that Kerry will stick to his pledge to be a uniter instead of a divider, and stay more to the middle. My theory is that his constituency in Massachusetts is so liberal that he feels like he should vote the way they would want him to. Whereas when he's representing the whole country, I am praying he will follow Clinton's lead and be more of a centrist. Yes, counting on a Republican Congress to keep him in check is a gamble, but I'm willing to chance it.


ReplyThread Parent
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 06:18 pm (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinions and to cast your vote for whoever you think will be best, but I can't resist making a few comments.

I don't think it's possible in the current climate for either Kerry or Bush to be a uniter rather than a divider. Maybe in a couple of years? So many people feel so strongly one way or the other and both sides seem determined to stay that way.

You say, The other thing that gets me is that Kerry came back and questioned why we were fighting in Vietnam, and exercised his rights as an American to protest. For this, he's called a "flip-flopper!"

I believe he is called a flip-flopper because it often seems that he has a different opinion on the war for each day of the week. I've never heard the war protesting mentioned in relation to the flip-flopper label.

The fact that he and McCain quietly resolved the American POW/MIA situation in Vietnam without a bunch of fanfare strikes me as very noble. He took a thankless job (save from the veterans' families) and worked to make the truth known. I respect that.

WTF? Was going and meeting with the enemy in France part of that. ROFL.

I like most of his proposals, his demeanor, and experience.

Personally, I think his experience of skipping almost 70% of the intelligence committee meetings is probably the most exciting part of all! ;)

The whole idea he has that all these other countries are going to jump in and start helping with Iraq because "they like him better" is hilarious. Even other Democrats have said he's fooling himself there.

John Kerry is grooming a successor in John Edwards, not looking for leadership/experience like Bush does with Cheney.

Hmm, like Cheney or hate him, what exactly is wrong with choosing a someone for leadership/experience? I think someone like Cheney with no political ambitions beyond his current position might actually be helpful, because he's not afraid to be unpopular and is willing to be the President's lightning rod. Grooming a successor is nice (although it didn't quite work out for Al Gore), but why such a high priority?

That's why I hate his tax cuts -- he's convinced he's bettering America, but he's really only doing it for the richest three percent.

You know how I feel about tax cuts and social programs, so 'nuff said there. You do realize that Kerry thinks you're "rich" if you make more than $200,000 a year. Not a problem I have and I know lower income people need a tax cut more, but why doesn't someone with that income deserve a tax cut, too? Kerry tries to make it sound like he's only raising taxes on, like, multi-millionaires, but that's deceptive.

It seems like Bush tries to spin everything, from the war in Iraq to the economy. If he would just be honest and admit we're going through some tough times right now but we're going to do what it takes to get back on track, I would appreciate that much more than the "everything's OK" line.

How do you know what to believe on the economy? All the Republicans will tell you it's getting better. All the Democrats will tell you it's stagnant and crappy. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

It just seems like the Democrats want America in the toilet so their candidates will win.





ReplyThread Parent
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 08:06 pm (UTC)
Resistance is futile

</i>I can't resist making a few comments.</i>
I always appreciate your feedback, hellokitty138! Even if I don't always agree with it. ;)


ReplyThread Parent
innerslytherin
innerslytherin
Left in a basket on the steps of the FBI
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 12:27 pm (UTC)

Wow. I literally shudder with loathing whenever I see Kerry's face or hear his voice. But aside from my personal feelings, there are some flaws with him. For one thing, while I believe he is personally against abortion, he doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he believes in--so he'll toe the party line and support abortion rights. For me, abortion is the ever-present deal-breaker for almost every Democrat candidate I've seen. It sadden and disappoints me, but I can't vote for someone who will support the murder of thousands of innocents.


ReplyThread
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 02:29 pm (UTC)

I believe he is personally against abortion, he doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he believes in
As I said above, I am hoping he will take a more centrist position if he comes to power in order to represent the mood of the whole country. I am hoping a Republican Congress will also keep him in check. Believe me, I would much rather vote for Bush if he would get his act together. I am just sick of having my hopes dashed by this adminstration. There are very few things that I think they have done right during these four years, and we can't afford to have people who aren't getting the job done in the WH in this day and age. I'd love for him to convince me otherwise, but right now I'm thinking Kerry should have a shot. We'll see what happens.


ReplyThread Parent
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 05:48 pm (UTC)

As I said above, I am hoping he will take a more centrist position if he comes to power in order to represent the mood of the whole country. I am hoping a Republican Congress will also keep him in check.

I think you're fooling yourself, but if Kerry gets elected, I hope you're right about the way things will go.


ReplyThread Parent
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 05:52 pm (UTC)

Wow. I literally shudder with loathing whenever I see Kerry's face or hear his voice.

Amazing. This is exactly how it's become for me, too.

For me, abortion is the ever-present deal-breaker for almost every Democrat candidate I've seen.

Same here. There are lots of other things, but that is a huge one.


ReplyThread Parent
librarygal
librarygal
Ruth
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 02:58 pm (UTC)

I find it interesting after all the political debate on LJ, that you're casting your vote with the liberals, whom you've seemed to have nothing in common with.

Personally, GWB is not my first choice for president (I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primaries http://www.politics1.com/keyes.htm ), and I was originally hoping GW would pick Elizabeth Dole as his running mate, but that didn't happen either. However, I'd rather vote for Bush than Kerry any day.


ReplyThread
sh1mm3r
sh1mm3r
sh1mm3r
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 03:23 pm (UTC)

Liberals... or Democrats?

Isn't there a difference?

There used to be a time when Democrat and Republican were distinct parties because of their views on states rights vs. the federal government, and the economy.

Can't there be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats?


ReplyThread Parent
librarygal
librarygal
Ruth
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 03:53 pm (UTC)

Can't there be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats

Most certainly. Part of it depends on your definitions of liberal and conservative.

According to the okcupid politics test,
http://www.okcupid.com/politics
I am a Totalitarian--socially conservative and economically liberal.
http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Totalitarian&score=2324
So, I'm both conservative, liberal, and a Republican. That's another example of why I think labels are often misleading...


ReplyThread Parent
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 08:03 pm (UTC)
Political test

Apparently, I'm a totalitarian as well. As I suspected...
You are a Social Conservative (25% permissive)
and an Economic Liberal (31% permissive)


ReplyThread Parent
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 05:33 pm (UTC)

Can't there be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats?

I think it's possible, as there is social and fiscal conservatism/liberalism. Arnold claims to be a fiscal conservative and socially moderate-to-liberal. In the South (more in the deep South), it seems that there are more socially conservative Democrats. Around here, there are a lot of fiscally liberal Republicans. Personally, I feel I'm socially and fiscally conservative, but that's another story.


ReplyThread Parent
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
hellokitty138
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 05:43 pm (UTC)

I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primaries

Move to Illinois and you can vote for him for US Senate.


ReplyThread Parent
librarygal
librarygal
Ruth
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 07:48 pm (UTC)

lol...I'll let you do that for me :)


ReplyThread Parent
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Wed, Sep. 22nd, 2004 07:53 pm (UTC)
Swing voter

On many social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, I am certainly conservative. On fiscal policy and environmental issues, I tend to lean more liberal. GWB was not my first choice either, but I picked him over Gore to win in 2000. As I said, I would rather vote for Bush if I approved of the job he's doing. Unfortunately, I don't. I am reluctant to vote for Kerry, but we need to get the country out of this tailspin and I think it's time for a fresh face. Don't know if Kerry is the man to do it or not, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Just like I gave Bush, who had relatively little political experience save several years as Texas governor, a shot in 2000.


ReplyThread Parent
librarygal
librarygal
Ruth
Thu, Sep. 23rd, 2004 06:33 am (UTC)
Re: Swing voter

I suppose it's all in how much power you think the president has to get us "out of this tailspin." Besides all of the political issues with attempting to get anything done in Washinton, according to an interesting book, "The Fourth Turning," history goes in an 80 year cycle of four seasons. The book was written in around 1996, and predicted that we would go into the 4th turning around 2005...see for yourself below.

The 80 year cycle we are currently in goes something like this:

1946-1964-High-Springtime
-characterized by hope and optimism

1964-1980s-Awakening-Summer
-civil rights movement (60s) turns into self-indulgence (70s)

1980s-2000s-Unraveling-Autumn
-group vs. group
-culture wars

2005 or so-2020-Crisis-Winter
-something happens to send the world into a panic--things such as viruses and terrorists

For a better summary, see their website
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/history___turnings.html
or this more current website
http://www.lcourse.com/media/commentary/011029.html

Thoughts about this book just happened to pop into my head, so I figured you as a history junkie would be interested ;)


ReplyThread Parent
krycek_chick
krycek_chick
Shining Rain is Overflowing
Thu, Oct. 28th, 2004 04:34 am (UTC)

Okay, but John Kerry *is* a flip flopper. It's not because he criticized the war that he's called that, it's because he'll say whatever is popular for the moment, and then change his opinions on matters when a different view becomes the popular thing. Doing the 'popular' thing isn't always the right thing, and that's where I have a really big beef with him. Burning our flag may be freedom of speech, but to me it's still very wrong. He did that to buy his seat in public office. Furthermore, he is *not* someone I'd look up to as a Vietnam veteran. He lied continually about circumstances surrounding the men he served with, and when he debated O'Neill, he couldn't come up with a single definitive War Crime that the squad both men had served with had committed. I believe he's a liar about his tenure in Vietnam, and I believe he never thought he'd be called on his lies. The mass media likes to portray that debate as a victory for Kerry, but back when it originally aired, it was far from that. Also, nobody shows the entire debate so that the public can see and judge it ofr themselves. I know it's on-line, somewhere, though.

Anyway, if Kerry wavers on the issues now, I can't imagine he'd be a good president. He lacks decisiveness. Furthermore, I just think it's really easy for someone to say "I would have done things differently." Differently? You can find faults in anything when they're scrutinized retrospectively, so I find that comment really aggravating. At the time when he could have suggested different means to reaching an end, he said nothing and in fact didn't show much of any interest in our international politics, but now when it's popular to say "We did the wrong thing", he's saying, "Well, I wouldn't have made these same decisions."

Then his big plan is to rush our troops out of Iraq. Maybe he's not recalling, but he also suggested that rushing our troops out of Vietnam was a good idea. Negligible losses of maybe a couple of thousand people was all that he predicted would occure there. Try 3 million murdered Cambodians. I'm sorry, but until Iraq is completely secure, I don't think it's wise to remove our troops; it's leaving the door right open for a similar tragedy.

urg. I don't know. I'm not a fan of big government, either. Kerry's campaign feels like it's heading a bit too much towards socialism to me.

At any rate, those are some reasons I think you may want to reconsider voting for Kerry... I just can't agree with his stances. I hope I haven't come across as, I dunno, mean or rude or anything! Mmm... I just don't agree with electing Kerry for office.


ReplyThread
spk1121
spk1121
Steve K
Mon, Nov. 1st, 2004 04:46 am (UTC)
reconsider voting

Okay, but John Kerry *is* a flip flopper.
Let me begin by reiterating that I am by no means thrilled with John Kerry. However, I feel that GWB has not taken an honest look at the facts and tries to force reality to conform to his own worldview. In this age of security concerns, he placed the most emphasis on Iraq when it's Iran and N. Korea that are developing nuclear weapons. Misguided priorities, if you ask me.

He lied continually about circumstances surrounding the men he served with
I don't know about that. Frankly, I just have to have more respect for the guy who saw actual combat as opposed to the guy whose father got him a cushy position in the Texas Natl Guard (which is also a spotty record at best).

He lacks decisiveness.
And Bush is stubborn. I'd rather have someone who is more flexible, and willing to change their minds. Why is that only politicians are expected to resist reasonable arguments and shouldn't be willing to change their positions? When did that become a positive attribute?

I'm not a fan of big government, either.
The man who wiped out the surplus and has garnered the largest deficit since Reagan doesn't exactly instill me with confidence. It is a strange irony of history that the Republicans preach fiscal responsibility, yet have Reagan's cold war spending and GWB's tax cuts during wartime (the only president to do so since at least Truman) on their record. Meanwhile, Clinton (a Democrat) worked with Republicans to actually balance the budget and created a surplus during his tenure!

I hope I haven't come across as, I dunno, mean or rude or anything! Mmm... I just don't agree with electing Kerry for office.
It's all good! I appreciate your thoughts, and you articulating them so well. Believe me, I've been wrestling with all this stuff and will continue to do so until the final ballot is cast!


ReplyThread Parent
krycek_chick
krycek_chick
Shining Rain is Overflowing
Mon, Nov. 1st, 2004 10:32 pm (UTC)
Re: reconsider voting

*g* I agree, North Korea and Iran are dangerous, and their threat needs to be addressed as well. The thing is that the U.N. agreed that if Irq didn't cease it's development of weapons, then there would have to beconsequences involving military force. For the U.N. to back down and seemingly try to appease Hussein shows just how weak they are. At the time Iraq seemed to be the higher priority, and I think G.W. did the right thing by addressing that and not backing down. The threats from N. Korea and Iran came later, and I do hope bigger strides can be made to eliminate them (heh, the threats not the countries! ^-~). I don't agree with Kerry about going one on one into talks with N. Korea; I think China and Japan should have a say, and be present at the discussions over the Nukes. In that regard, I again agree with Bush.

It's funny, because one of the many reasons I didn't like Clinton was partly because he was a draft dodger, but I think he was able to lead the troops well in Kosovo. Oh gosh, I hope I got the name right... I'm drawing a real blank here, but I think that's where we air-bombed, right? ::ponders::

At any rate, I think that even without having served, per se, overseas as long as Kerry, Bush has better leadership skills. I think he may be construed as stubborn sometimes, but really I think his decisions have led America in the right direction. I don't think I've heard him even come up against a reasonable argument. As a whole I think the Republican party is more towards the center than the Democratic Party as of late. I've noticed that Democrats are becoming more extreme, which is a little unsettling in my opinion.

Heh. Reagan. I really loved Reagan as President. I think he was a great leader, and was very respectable. Yes he had a large deficit, but he built our military back up and made us a stronger nation. I think what he did was important, and I think Clinton made a big error in downsizing our military... I never agreed with his doing that, and I was happy that one of Bush's platforms in 2000 was that he was going to rebuild our armed forces.
By big government, I mean having government involved with all aspects of our lives. I don't think we need government telling us what school we can and cannot send our children too, or what doctors we are allowed to see. I don't like that government can tell me where I can and cannot pray, and Kerry's plans have government becoming more involved with our everyday lives... it's really the democrat's mentality; that people need the government to lead them by the hand do everything for them, creating a public that's so dependent on the government that they can't do anything for themselves. ::sigh:: I agree with Bush, that the government doesn't need to play, and indeed shouldn't play, so large a role in the American public's lives.

Frankly, I'm really tired of people saying that they're voting for Kerry just because of 'anybody but Bush' mentality. I think you really need to see if you agree with the issues. I've bumped into more than a few folks who say they just don't like Bush, and they don't care about the platforms of either candidate.

Well, tomorrow's election day. I hope you've decided who you're going to vote for for certain! ::quietly roots for Bush:: ^_~ Heh, at any rate, it seems like you've looked at the issues, so you should be comfortable with your decision. ^_^


ReplyThread Parent
krycek_chick
krycek_chick
Shining Rain is Overflowing
Mon, Nov. 1st, 2004 10:52 pm (UTC)
Re: reconsider voting

*g* I agree, North Korea and Iran are dangerous, and their threat needs to be addressed as well. The thing is that the U.N. agreed that if Irq didn't cease it's development of weapons, then there would have to beconsequences involving military force. For the U.N. to back down and seemingly try to appease Hussein shows just how weak they are. At the time Iraq seemed to be the higher priority, and I think G.W. did the right thing by addressing that and not backing down. The threats from N. Korea and Iran came later, and I do hope bigger strides can be made to eliminate them (heh, the threats not the countries! ^-~). I don't agree with Kerry about going one on one into talks with N. Korea; I think China and Japan should have a say, and be present at the discussions over the Nukes. In that regard, I again agree with Bush.

It's funny, because one of the many reasons I didn't like Clinton was partly because he was a draft dodger, but I think he was able to lead the troops well in Kosovo. Oh gosh, I hope I got the name right... I'm drawing a real blank here, but I think that's where we air-bombed, right? ::ponders::

At any rate, I think that even without having served, per se, overseas as long as Kerry, Bush has better leadership skills. I think he may be construed as stubborn sometimes, but really I think his decisions have led America in the right direction. I don't think I've heard him even come up against a reasonable argument. As a whole I think the Republican party is more towards the center than the Democratic Party as of late. I've noticed that Democrats are becoming more extreme, which is a little unsettling in my opinion.

Heh. Reagan. I really loved Reagan as President. I think he was a great leader, and was very respectable. Yes he had a large deficit, but he built our military back up and made us a stronger nation. I think what he did was important, and I think Clinton made a big error in downsizing our military... I never agreed with his doing that, and I was happy that one of Bush's platforms in 2000 was that he was going to rebuild our armed forces.
By big government, I mean having government involved with all aspects of our lives. I don't think we need government telling us what school we can and cannot send our children too, or what doctors we are allowed to see. I don't like that government can tell me where I can and cannot pray, and Kerry's plans have government becoming more involved with our everyday lives... it's really the democrat's mentality; that people need the government to lead them by the hand do everything for them, creating a public that's so dependent on the government that they can't do anything for themselves. ::sigh:: I agree with Bush, that the government doesn't need to play, and indeed shouldn't play, so large a role in the American public's lives.

Frankly, I'm really tired of people saying that they're voting for Kerry just because of 'anybody but Bush' mentality. I think you really need to see if you agree with the issues. I've bumped into more than a few folks who say they just don't like Bush, and they don't care about the platforms of either candidate.

Well, tomorrow's election day. I hope you've decided who you're going to vote for for certain! ::quietly roots for Bush:: ^_~ Heh, at any rate, it seems like you've looked at the issues, so you should be comfortable with your decision. ^_^


ReplyThread Parent
krycek_chick
krycek_chick
Shining Rain is Overflowing
Mon, Nov. 1st, 2004 10:58 pm (UTC)
Re: reconsider voting

Aaack!! I double posted!! ::groans::


ReplyThread Parent