2008

Yes, I know it's still four years off, and probably not where we should be focusing our collective energies at the moment, but the rumors are already flying, and so far, I'm not too thrilled with them.

Rumor #1: Hillary Clinton in 2008. I like Hillary Clinton. I think she would make a fine president. But not in 2008, and if that means never, then so be it. Hillary Clinton would more than likely be to the left what George W. Bush is to the right. She will energize the Democratic base just as Bush has energized the Republican base. She will return liberalism to the White House just as Bush brought conservatism back to the White House after Bill Clinton. The result will most likely be the same problem we are experiencing now: a divided nation. The only difference will which half of the country is happy, and which is not. Like I said, Hillary Clinton could make a great president, but she is simply ahead of her time. Who knows what the next four years will bring, but I'm going to go out on limb here and predict that George Bush won't do much to bring the country together, nor will he care much about doing so, and working for all Americans, not just half of them. Thus, what America will need in 2008 will be someone who can and will do what George Bush cannot and will not: re-unite the United States of America.

Rumor #2: John Kerry in 2008. Again. I don't know how true this one is, but I hope it's 100% fiction. As I said above, we will need someone who can bring this country together in 2008, and that someone is most decidedly not John Kerry. While he may be willing to try to bring the country together, it is not a goal he will be able to achieve. While there would more than likely be some exceptions, a Kerry run in 2008 would invariably attract the same people who voted for him two weeks ago, and push those who voted for Bush to his Republican opponent. Whether Kerry wins that race or not, our nation's biggest problem would continue to thrive until at least 2012.

I know I keep saying it, but since it doesn't seem to be setting in with much of the country, I'm going to continue to say it again and again: this nation needs to be brought back together. Unfortunately, there are painfully few politicians who both understand and are capable of achieving that most important of goals. Let's hope we see one of their names on the ballot in 2008.

Clearing a Few Things Up

I'd like to comment on some of the things that were said in a comment on my first post-election post.

1.) While I know my beliefs -- or values as their being called these days -- would suggest that I am a Democrat, I actually don't consider myself one. I personally see myself as more of a liberal independent. Thus, I will more often than not be supporting and voting for Democrats, but I would not hesitate to vote for or support a Republican in the right situation. In fact, one of my favorite people in Washington right now is John McCain. I feel very strongly that everyone should support candidates and cast votes based on what that candidate has to offer, not which political party he or she belongs to. (I know most people probably say they do this, but I would not be surprised to find that party affiliation actually plays a much larger role in voter's minds than they are willing to admit.)

2.) I am open to ALL comments, whether they are made by Democrats, Republicans, or independents, based upon liberal ideas, or conservative ideas, agreeing or otherwise. I actually would LOVE to get comments from people who don't necessarily share my view of events and politics. Something I have been meaning to explain for a while is why I called this site "The Metropolitan Journal." Now seems as good a time as any, so here goes: I think of a metropolitan as a bustling market place of ideas living in harmony along side one another no matter how different and conflicting they may be. My hope for this site was that it would turn into a similar environment, hospitable to all sorts of ideas, thoughts and points of view. So I encourage you to speak (or write) your mind when commenting on my posts. If you agree with me, great. If not, I am that much more interested in what you have to say. Of course, a good start here would be more comments. Just a thought.

Anyway, read this comment if you have a chance. It points one of the biggest problems in John Kerry's campaign that was an issue at one point, but was pretty much swept under the rug after the convention: too many votes against Bush, not enough in support of Kerry.

Four More Years...

I've been putting off writing about the election results in the hope that I might avoid rambling on and on in a blind rage, and in the hope that it would all turn out to be just a big nightmare -- it wasn't. Trust me. I even pinched myself. But now that a few days have passed, I feel like I can actually think clearly about Tuesday's results.

The initial reaction to the results as a whole -- not just presidential, but senate and house as well -- on the left was, of course, how did that happen? On the right, it was pretty much a proclamation of victory for the conservative agenda. So, how did the conservatives emerge so victorious? It could be that the anti-gay marriage acts in eleven states drove conservatives to the polls in greater than usual numbers, as many have taken to saying. Or, it could be that the Republican get out the vote effort was simply more effective than that of the Democrat's. But, I think the primary reason for the Republican's widespread victory lies elsewhere.

Tavis Smiley, a radio host on NPR, said during ABC's coverage of the election that he believed people had voted their fears rather than their hopes at the polls. As soon as I heard him say that, I knew that if he was right, Bush would win. In the end, I think he hit the nail on the head with that response. Even when Bush's poll numbers were at their lowest during the past year, he was still the man Americans trusted more to protect them from terrorism. Personally, I think Bush actually makes us more vulnerable to a terrorist attack, but that's an issue for another time. Nonetheless, it is no surprise that people tend to side with Bush when it comes to terrorism, as it is widely viewed as a military issue, and those are the issues that have always been strong points for Republicans. Thus, it should come as no surprise that a vast majority of people who viewed terrorism as the most important issue in this election voted for George Bush.

However, a majority of voters said they cast their vote based on a candidates "moral values." Of course, this was based on exit polling, which if I recall correctly, had John Kerry winning Florida and Ohio. But, assuming it is at least somewhat accurate, this is the bigger problem for Democrats and liberals in general. Not that they are out of touch with mainstream "American values." In fact, I bet many of the Democrats who lost are in reality, closer to the mainstream values than their arch-conservative opponents who won. But somehow, those, and all Democrats, have been portrayed as so liberal by the Republicans, that they are simply out of the mainstream. The concept of a moderate liberal is simply non-existent to these Republicans. To them, we are all anti-war, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religion, nut cases, and they took every opportunity they could to try to make the public see the Democrats in that same light. In the end, it seems they achieved that goal.

Many Democrats are probably asking how they did so with such ease. In my opinion, it was because the Democrats allowed it. I never felt like they were taking the time to make their true values and beliefs known, and this past Tuesday, many of them paid the price for not doing so. So, over the next four years, the primary concern for Democrats must be making their true values and beliefs understood. If they can achieve that goal over the next four years, the day after Election Day 2008 will almost certainly be at least a slightly more bearable one for liberals across the country.

Need a Laugh?

If you're at all like me, today has not exactly been happy time, and you could probably use a good laugh. If that is indeed the case, check out the Daily Show with John Stewart's Election Blog.
More election thoughts later...

Why W. Doesn't Deserve 4 More Years

Ok, I know I've been gone for a while, but now I'm back, just in time to present one last argument against the reelection of George W. Bush before the day that has been on so many people's minds since four years ago.

Bush, Cheney & co. have had a rather simple reelection platform since day one of this campaign: We have made you safer, and we are the only ones you can trust to keep you safe. This would be a fantastic platform to run on, were it true. Unfortunately for them -- but even more so for the rest of us -- it simply is not true, and over the past couple of weeks, that has become painfully obvious. I could go into a big rant about how the Iraq war was a poorly planned war of choice that diverted our attention away from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, or about how the Bush administration has shattered our world image and severed ties with important allies, but there have recently been certain events that are, in my mind, perfect examples of how miserably Bush is failing at doing exactly what he says he has already done: make us safer.

First, there was the discovery of missing explosives from the Al Qaqa storage facility in Iraq. This was clearly not good, to say the least. But, so many people overlooked the irony in the theft of tons of explosives. We went into Iraq because we wanted to prevent the hand over of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Nevermind the fact that there were none, and were not going to to be any in Iraq for a long time to come. What matters is that in the end, terrorists have managed to seize mass amounts of explosives that will almost invariably be used against American and coalition soldiers, and possibly even citizens. Granted, these are not the nuclear or biological weapons we feared back in March 2003, but they are explosives capable of great damage nonetheless. The worst part is that these explosives wound up in the hands of terrorists on our watch. On George Bush's and Dick Cheney's watch.

The second event that reminded me of an important reason why George Bush cannot be trusted as President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of its armed forces was the latest video statement from Osama bin Laden. Again, there are countless points I could make here, such as the fact that Osama bin Laden is still alive, free, and plotting, more than three years after George Bush promised to bring him to justice, or the fact that al Qaeda is probably stronger, and receiving stronger support than ever before because of the effect the Iraq war has had on terrorist recruitment and the overall world view of America. But, I think, as we literally approach the final hours before the Americans go to the polls, I must focus on something that has been greatly overlooked, yet is of unprecedented importance. To state it simply, George Bush has a fundamental misunderstanding of who and what we are fighting in this war on terrorism. Every chance he gets, he calls terrorists "evil-doers" who "hate freedom." He says that is all there is to it. That it is that simple. What I find frightening about this, is that I think this is actually what Bush believes. I am finding it harder and harder to see this as just another thing that Bush, as president, states in simple terms in order to present clear, resolute view to the public. I am scared that Bush actually sees the war on terror in as simple terms as he talks about, and that is the most dangerous way anyone, but especially a president, can look at this unprecedented war. Much of Bush's popularity stems from his resolute, unwavering vow to kill the terrorists where ever they are. This has played such an important role in Bush's campaign, that John Kerry has been forced to adopt it as well (whether Kerry actually believes this to be the best and only strategy, I cannot say). Unfortunately, it is nowhere near that simple. What I fear Bush does not understand -- or refuses to allow himself to believe -- is that terrorism is not something that is confined to a select group of people, who follow a certain religion, in certain region of the world. The truth is, terrorism is a concept. Thus, it cannot be defeated. Saying we are going to defeat terrorism is like saying we are going to defeat racism. You can say it, but it is an impossible goal to accomplish. Because of this, Bush's strategy of simply killing and capturing terrorists is, to put it simply, inefficient. Why? Because if this is the only way we deal with terrorism, we will be "dealing" with it forever. What our president must understand is that we cannot win the war on terror by killing terrorists, because, as pessimistic as it may sound, there are terrorists being born right now. Thus, this must also be a war of ideas. While it is important to track down those who insist on doing us harm, winning over the minds of all people, in every corner of the world is also an integral part of this "war." I do not believe George Bush understands this, and that alone, should be enough to discourage the country from allowing him another four years in the White House.

Clearly, I want John Kerry to be elected president, and I urge you to understand my logic behind this decision, and to ultimately make the same decision. But, allow me to close with a purely non-partisan message: vote. Just vote. Deal with the lines at the polling places. Take the time out of your day. It will be worth it. We live in a world of many unknowns and high volatility, and tomorrow is your chance to make your voice heard as to how we as a country will exist in such a world for the next four years. Don't let it pass without seizing this most important of opportunities.

Delayed Reaction

Dick Cheney is an angry father. His words. Apparently, this is a result of John Kerry's use of his daughter Mary Cheney as an example of a homosexual whose parents love, and respect her in the final presidential debate. Personally, I thought the Kerry/Edwards strategy of using Mary Cheney as an example when questions on gay marriage came up during the debates or on the campaign trail was not a good one. I honestly wince whenever I here Kerry or Edwards say her name, and until last week, was waiting for an explosion over at the Bush/Cheney campaign as a result. But, my personal opinions aside, the current "outrage" over Kerry's statements last Wednesday night is ludicrous. Either that, or it just took Bush and Cheney this long to figure out who it was Kerry and Edwards were actually talking about whenever they said Mary Cheney. And since Dick Cheney expressed gratitude towards John Edwards during the VP debate when he said that he was sure the Cheneys love their daughter very much, I doubt the latter is true.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the comments Kerry made on Wednesday night (the ones that made Cheney an "angry father"), were pretty similar to the comments Edwards made during his debate with Dick Cheney (the kind words Cheney thanked Edwards for). It seems to me that there is a term for such waffling that has become quite popular as of late... Ah yes. All together now: FLIP FLOP. Now that I have leveled the most absurd of the Bush/Cheney attacks against Cheney himself, back to the issue at hand.

So why is Dick Cheney all of a sudden so upset? After all, the basis of Kerry's comments were that Mary Cheney is simply being herself, and that he believes the Cheneys love and respect her for who she is. One could make the argument that Dick and Lynne Cheney don't want their daughter being dragged into this dirtiest of campaigns, but from what I have heard, Mary Cheney has been a foot soldier of sorts for Bush/Cheney, and has been publicly campaigning for the ticket. But even if this is not true, shouldn't Cheney have become upset the first time Kerry or Edwards used his daughter in response to a gay rights question? One would think so. Thus, the question of 'why now?' remains unanswered. Unfortunately, I don't know why. But, perhaps -- and this is merely my own hypothesis -- this is the latest attempt by Bush and Cheney to demonize Kerry; to betray him as a man of poor character, and most importantly, someone who does not share common American family values.

Yeah, the "V" word. I could go on for pages about why attacks on a candidate's values do not sit well with me at all, but instead, I will just say that given the public image of the Kerry-Heinz family, it seems to me that Kerry would be pretty in touch with common American family values, and I would be willing to bet that Theresa Heinz-Kerry, and Kerry's two daughters Vanessa and Alexandra would only confirm this. Some might also say that what Kerry says on issues related to families is also a good indicator of personal family values, to which I say expressing respect for families who allow their children to be who they naturally are, and respect and love them for doing so seems like the sign of a man with rather admirable family values. Unfortunately, Dick Cheney does not see eye to eye with me on this one (then again, I'm not sure he sees eye to eye with me on much). He apparently saw John Kerry's comments as a sort of attack on his family. Why else would he be an "angry father?" After all, he saw it fit to attack Kerry on the basis of that statement -- a statement that was meant to be one of kindness and admiration.

I don't know about you, but to me, this is just the latest in the Bush/Cheney smear campaign against John Kerry. Now, I know smear campaigns are to be expected in the heat of a political election season, but this one has had, and continues to have, a blatant disregard for the truth, and, in a way even worse, the issues. And that makes me an angry citizen.

Debate #3

Ok, I know this post is coming a bit late, but better late than never, right?
The final debate between Bush and Kerry wasn't exactly anything that required immediate commenting on anyway. I found it to just be more of the same things we all quickly grew accustomed to over the course of the first two debates. Kerry showed a calm, steady personality, but failed to land any real punches on Bush when the opportunities arose. Bush exhibited yet another painfully odd personality throughout, although I will admit, of three faces of George W. Bush that we saw over the course of the three debates, Wednesday night's happy, smiling, and sometimes a little giddy George W. Bush was probably the most normal. For those of you wondering, in my book, the other two include angry, stuttering, smirking, almost incompetent Bush, and angry, hyper, firey Bush. I did find it a little disturbing when Bush -- and on a couple of instances Kerry as well -- smiled and laughed when he was criticized. I feel like this might have been justifiable if the man being criticized had come back with a line totally disproving the charge against him, but I don't think either of them ever did. Instead, it was the same old "when attacked, don't respond, just make an attack of your own" technique.

My initial feeling on the debate was that maybe Kerry edged it out, and it seems like many of the post-debate polls supported that claim. Some even gave Kerry a pretty substantial win. But, it doesn't seem like the debate had much of an effect on voter's opinions, as the national polls seem to be showing a dead heat, just as they were before the debate. Needless to say, the next couple of weeks should prove very interesting.

The Tables Have Turned

Before the first debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, everyone assumed that issues of foreign policy would be Bush's strong points -- since those issues are largely constituted of military matters, a Republican strong point, and are essentially the center of George Bush's campaign for reelection -- while John Kerry would be able to stand out on domestic issues such as health care and stem cell research. But, right off the bat in the first debate, Kerry masterfully put Bush on the defensive on foreign policy issues using his own record against him -- exactly what everyone knew he would have to do to win. The result was a squinting, smirking, and ultimately frustrated and exasperated George Bush desperately trying to defend himself and his decisions. Kerry came away from that debate with a clear win, and over the next few days saw a much needed surge in polls. However, in winning that first debate, Kerry showed George Bush how to win the remaining two.

One need look no further than this past Friday's second presidential debate for proof. Now, I am not by any means saying George Bush won that debate, because he did not; it may have been a tie, but it was certainly not a Bush win. But, imagine the same debate without the entire first half, which consisted of foreign policy questions. That debate, could very possibly have been a Bush win, because throughout the domestic policy section of the debate, Bush made certain to give Kerry a taste of his own medicine, throwing his senate record right back down his throat -- albeit more often than not in a rather misleading fashion. We then saw Kerry put on the defensive, although Kerry functioned much better in that position that Bush did. Fortunately, Friday's debate did include foreign policy questions that elicited the occasional shaky -- and often high decibel, or Howard Dean-esque -- response from Bush. But, this Wednesday's debate will involve no such questions. It will in effect, be the second half of Friday's debate blown up to the size of a full on, hour and a half presidential debate. If I were Kerry, or a Kerry advisory, that fact alone would worry me.

Kerry clearly has the ability to knock Bush out of the water when it comes to domestic policy issues. Polls already show a majority of voters siding with him on issues such as health care, education and stem cell research, but his answers to questions involving domestic issues on Friday night were often drawn out, vague and confusing. If he wants to even come close to doing to Bush on Wednesday what he did to him two weeks ago in their first meeting, he will have to develop some clear cut, straight forward, simple answers. At one point during Friday's debate, Kerry called an issue "very complex." Bush then shot back that it was not complex at all. It was, on the contrary, "simple." Kerry was right. But I would be willing to bet that the majority of voters want the issues, and the candidates stances on the issues, no matter how complex they actually are, explained to them in as simple a manner as possible. This is what Kerry will have to do in this weeks final debate. If he can present his domestic policy plans simply and elegantly, he may once again put Bush in a tight spot -- because voters will then have a clearer understanding of why Kerry's plans are better, and more effective than Bush's. If he fails to do this, Bush will have a much easier time making the debate about a contorted, twisted view of Kerry's twenty year senate career, rather than his four year presidential career, and what will happen over the course of next four years. That is what this debate should be about. Kerry succeeded in making it the focus of the first debate. He will have to do it again on Wednesday.

I Guess I'm Not Alone...

I wrote yesterday about the apparent gaping hole in the logic of the Bush/Cheney team's argument for justifying the Iraq war based on the findings in the Duelfer report, and how dismayed I was that no one else seemed to be picking up on it. Well, thankfully I found this morning that Noam Scheiber had a post pointing out the exact same "logic hole" in a statement made by Dick Cheney. I really am happy to see that someone else sees this problem with the administration's newest rationale for the war, but this one is just way too obvious for people to be taking so long to call them on it. I would even expect the national media to at least point this out. After all, it's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference between what the Duelfer report says, and what George Bush and Dick Cheney say. In other words, it's a distortion of the truth. Please, don't let them get away with it this time.