Usually gay Republicans turn my stomach (945 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.69 on 27 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Judoka (View user info) at 2004-09-19 11:05:47 EDT
Reprinted here in its entirety is Andrew Sullivan's column originally published in the New Republic, the link leads to the same article only on his website. A little background on Sullivan he is a true conservative (small and unobtrusive federal government, low taxes, ect.) However, he is a gay man so he holds very libertarian beliefs when it comes to social policy. If you want to read more of his writing, or his blog go to www.andrewsullivan.com
To summarize it's a rather cohesive argument for the de-selection of Bush as President. It neatly deconstructs the Bush/Cheney position of if you vote for Kerry/Edwards the terrorists will kill us all.
Warning-its more than one page of political science. So people with short attention spans, morons, or folks who have no interest in politics don't bother.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20040910
************************************************************************
I cannot remember its exact provenance but I recall a poster for a rock band which had a picture of an adorable, small puppy with a pistol pointed at its head. "Buy Our Record Or The Little Dog Dies," ran the slogan. It was, of course, a punkish joke. But it came to my mind hearing vice-president Dick Cheney's remark earlier this week. Here's the full text: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." Punk translation: vote for me or you'll die.
Fair or unfair? I don't think the veep was engaging in punk-era irony. And in some respects, his point is an obvious, and legitimate, if blunt one. If he believes that his policies are the best in the war on terror, he presumably must believe that there will be bad consequences if John Kerry wins the election. Again, in a war against terrorism, one of those bad consequences must surely be the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack. So in some respects, Cheney was saying the obvious. The same goes for Kerry whose criticism of the president's war-record obviously implies that this administration has failed in the war, and that therefore the likelihood of more terror attacks has increased. Kerry, of course, tends to avoid the crudeness of Cheney's rhetoric. But the logic has to be similar.
Nevertheless, the leap from making the case for your own war-policies toward blaming the other guy for potential attacks is still a perilous and cheesy one. It flies, first of all, in the face of certain facts. We know, for example, that al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups need no specific casus belli to kill innocents. They do not kill only under Democratic or Republican administrations. They killed under Clinton and they killed under Bush. Their battle is far larger than American domestic politics. And this war is - or should be - regarded as more important than a few points in the polls.
We also know that by far the worst attack in history occurred on George W. Bush's watch. It seems a bit of a stretch for the vice-president to turn this around and say that only Bush guarantees protection from terror and that Kerry all but guarantees its re-emergence in America. Mr. vice-president, the historical evidence is not your best friend in this regard.
Moreover, we also know that there is a limit to what any government can do to prevent future terror attacks. That's why the public, by and large, has rightly not held Bush (or Clinton) solely responsible for 9/11. Truly determined terrorists can and probably will get through and murder Americans in the near or medium future, whatever anyone does in the next four years. When all it takes is a warped, Jihadist mind, concealed explosives, and an unprotected shopping mall, murder will happen. There is no direct or immediate cause and effect in this war, as Dick Cheney well knows.
And the effect of better policies versus worse policies in these matters can only be measured long-term and, even then, may be hard to measure. Take Iraq. My own view is that intervention there probably increases the danger of short-term terror, but, if it is successful, is one of the few things we can do to minimize or reduce long-term terror. That may make it more likely that we will get hit in the short-term, but that shouldn't be the test of whether the policy is ultimately a wise one. And that's why, in this respect, Cheney is pushing his luck. By saying we'll get hit under Kerry, he's running a huge risk if another attack does take place under Bush.
And this crude piece of deflection is deployed more widely as well. I endorsed Bush in 2000 but cannot do so again for three main reasons: a) his endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment (an unnecessary, massive over-reaction to a small and beneficial social change); b) his stunning expansion of government's power and spending (if a Democrat had this appalling fiscal record, no Republican would defend him); and c) his mismanagement of the war (the missing WMDs, the under-staffed invasion, the lack of post-war planning, Abu Ghraib, the botching of the sieges of Fallujah and Najaf). Now leave aside c) for a minute. Whenever I argue in defense of this decision in the basis of domestic issues, I am greeted with derision on the part of many of Bush's supporters. Their argument? Essentially Cheney's. Whatever your disagreements with Bush domestically, they say, it's too dangerous to hand things over to an instinctual dove like Kerry. Actually, that's the nuanced version. The more common version is simply: your gay rights will mean nothing if you're dead at the hands of Jihadists. Or: even humungous deficits don't matter when you're toast. So suck it up and back Bush, you wimp.
I can see where these guys are coming from, and I don't want to sound like John Kerry, but it surely is a bit more complicated than that. Simply put: the blackmail is a bluff. Any president elected after 9/11 will understand that defense of this country is the overwhelming priority - if only for his own political survival. The explicit differences between Bush and Kerry on this are not so glaring - or, more to the point, not so extreme that they can plausibly de described as making the difference between life and death, or victory and defeat. Both favor engagement in Afghanistan for a long time; both are committed to a transition of power in Iraq and elections next January; neither is urging war against Iran or North Korea (in fact, Kerry can seem more hawkish on North Korea than the president). Yes, there are clear differences in their approach to allies and troop numbers. But, again, this difference may be important but it is not dispositive in the short term. In other words, it is possible even for someone leaning toward Bush on national security to find his claim that he and only he can lead that war for the next four years a self-serving over-reach.
Moreover, there is a connection between domestic issues and the war. Long-term deficits will cripple our ability to wage war across the globe as we may have to; and a deeply divided country - polarized by both sides for political gain - is not conducive to winning wars. And that leaves aside the many legitimate complaints pro-war advocates have made not about the decision to go to war itself - but the unplanned, hapless and increasingly desperate way in which it has been waged.
This is still a democracy; and one of its true merits is that people can assess whether their war-leaders are wise, prudent or need replacing. They can weigh domestic issues against foreign ones; and they can judge the likelihood of their imminent demise after deciding not to support George W. Bush. So, thanks for your concern, Mr. vice-president. But, after observing your administration closely for the past three and a half years, I think I'll take my chances.
User Reviews
Submitted by NotNormal (user info) at 2004-10-05 10:54:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Didn't bother
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-09-20 14:22:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
http://www.ubersite.com/m/45581#816337
I like how you paste your reply. That's what "intellectuals" do I suppose.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-20 14:06:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I've read a worrying report that Britain is reducing its troop levels in Iraq as a sign that everything is going well. Maybe the folks at Downing Street haven't read the papers recently. This should do wonders for the 'stability' of the region. Just when you think that the situation in Iraq couldn't get any worse.
I don't think that the deaths of Iraqis are America's fault, no more than 9/11 was Bush's fault. But when you invade a country, depose its dictator, disband its army and take responsibility for its security, you are responsible for its security. Sucks don't it. Bush administration officials don't seem to understand the concept of responsibility. To make it very plain, the authorities are responsible when citizens cannot live with any measurable degree of physical security. In fact, it's the first responsibility of any governing body. Read Hobbes. Also read Hobbes to see what happens once confidence in order collapses, when the people don't know who in charge, when insufficient force is deployed to keep civil order, and on and on and on. We either have to ramp up our forces, retake Fallujah and Ramadi, which would involve quite a bit of bloodshed on both sides. And simultaneously redouble our faltering efforts to rebuild the Iraqi army - or we can run like a bitch and leave a new terror-state behind. Those are the options. Bush has to tell us which before November 2. I'll bet any amount of money that he won't articulate a coherent vision before the election.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-09-20 11:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How come black people support a party containing Robert Byrd, a member of the KKK, as well as George Wallace (posthumous, of course)? How come Jews support a party with such anti-Semites as Cynthia McKinney, Jessie Jackson Jr., and Al Sharpton (who holds no office, but is a speaker at many DNC functions).
-----------------------------------------
How come ANYONE supports Bush, who is only looking out for himself and his uber-rich compatriots.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-09-20 11:27:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-20 07:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You psudeo-intellectual liberals really should try for intellectual honesty instead of attempting to justify unattainable ideals.
I am an intellectual, I can even spell pseudo. But thats neither here nor there, as to Bush acting decisively youre kidding right? If we are going to strive for honesty we should look at the fact that the dreaded polls showed that a vast majority of Americans were supporters of the action in Afganistan. A slight majority also favored the war in Iraq. So Bush took no big political risk. What you say is Bush acting boldly, I call reckless disregard for our soliders lives. The Iraq campaign was based on a lie. THat fact is unassailable, your and the Presidents inability recognize the 'facts on the ground' is going to kill more young Americans.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-09-20 03:52:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by beefstick86 (user info) at 2004-09-19 19:40:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow. You cannot seriously be saying that if 9/11 never happened that Bush would have attacked terrorist groups anyway... Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush could have done what Clinton did the first time WTC was bombed. Or our embassies were bombed. Or the USS Cole was bombed.
I think the difference is that Bush did what no-one else had done to this point with muslim extremists, he acted swiftly and decisivly without regard to poll numbers and popular opinion. Why didn't Clinton blow up Al-Qida training camps in 1993. or 1996. Or 2000? This war on terrorism began 21 years ago in Beruit, and is now only being fought with a big stick. Last I checked, Senetor Kerry voted against every big stick that America was developing to protect us.
In the real world people do not have the time to discuss the pros and cons of every detail on every policy decision made. Things are happening right now, and its better to have a flawed plan now than to have a perfect plan after the fact (Patton).
You psudeo-intellectual liberals really should try for intellectual honesty instead of attempting to justify unattainable ideals.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 23:11:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
For someone who took the handle beefstick, youre remarkably cogent.
Submitted by beefstick86 (user info) at 2004-09-19 19:40:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2004-09-19 17:57:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
In his speech at the National Democratic Convention, Kerry said, "Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."
In other words, he will wait for an attack on America, then take action.
When I heard that, I decided to vote for Bush.
9/11 took YEARS to plan.
From the 9/11 Commission Report: "At this point, late 1998 to early 1999, planning for the 9/11 operation began in earnest."
George Bush was only in power for nine months when it happened. You do the math.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. You cannot seriously be saying that if 9/11 never happened that Bush would have attacked terrorist groups anyway... Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense.
It is not in a politicians best interest to attack someone without good merit. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the terrorists, but attacking someone that has done nothing directly to harm the United States is not a good idea. It would get masses of people to despise him.
Look at the difference between the war in Iraq and against Al Queda (spelling?). I'm not sure on the exact figure, but the president had well over a majority of our support in hunting the terrorists. Then he invaded Iraq without good reason. His points in the poll immediately dropped. This just proves that it is not in a politicians best interest to start a war against someone that has not yet merited a cause. It just doesn't make sense, but it was possible.
Maybe you're saying that if he'd been in office longer he would have known about the attacks and been able to stop them. Well, he spent quite a bit of his first 9 months in office on vacation. If September 11th had not happened, who'd be able to say that he still wouldn't be on vacation?
My point, in it's simplicity, is that noone can tell for certainty what would have happened had he been in office longer before the attacks happened, or what he would have done if the attacks had never have happened. An arguement based on something that cannot be proven, though cannot be disproven, is an obsolete arguement.
In conclusion, you are a moron if you think you have a valid point.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2004-09-19 17:57:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In his speech at the National Democratic Convention, Kerry said, "Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."
In other words, he will wait for an attack on America, then take action.
When I heard that, I decided to vote for Bush.
9/11 took YEARS to plan.
From the 9/11 Commission Report: "At this point, late 1998 to early 1999, planning for the 9/11 operation began in earnest."
George Bush was only in power for nine months when it happened. You do the math.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-09-19 17:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-09-19 15:23:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
No Comment
Submitted by The_Wizard (user info) at 2004-09-19 14:45:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+2 for the good post with clear, concince points.
-1 for saying its a democracy. Its a republic.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-09-19 13:57:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 11:51:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
cigar a -2 from you means its a thoughful, concise, and logical argument against all things you believe without question. I know that this argument has merit, but thats ok you toe toe the party line like a good little drone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And your so smart, eh?
Go fuck yourself, I'll rate you and anyone else -2 as much as I fucking like.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 13:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First domenad I reprinted this article to spark a conversation, entertain myself and maybe inform someone.
Second I am not a Democrat, I am an independant voter. I choose to support Kerry over Bush for a multiplicity of reasons, but that is not the question you asked. I can stomach Sharpton and Jackson because they are not elected officials. A fine distinction perhaps but the voters they bring with them is the trade off. McKinney lost and sour grapes are just that. However, we do live in a society in which you can express views that are idiotic and offensive. In that case I would choose to support another canidate. As to Bryd, hes dead, and to be honest I would have supported him despite my loathing of the Klan. His support for the organization ended sixty years ago and his subsequent legislation evens the scales for me.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:32:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:26:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bob you misunderstand me, gay people dont bother me and republicans dont bother me. Gay republicans bother me. I cannot understand how a gay person could support a party that includes Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. People who clearly demonstrate a obvious distaste for gay folks and their way of life.
--------------
How come black people support a party containing Robert Byrd, a member of the KKK, as well as George Wallace (posthumous, of course)? How come Jews support a party with such anti-Semites as Cynthia McKinney, Jessie Jackson Jr., and Al Sharpton (who holds no office, but is a speaker at many DNC functions).
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:26:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bob you misunderstand me, gay people dont bother me and republicans dont bother me. Gay republicans bother me. I cannot understand how a gay person could support a party that includes Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. People who clearly demonstrate a obvious distaste for gay folks and their way of life.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:26:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and go read my Trollbridge story, since the only thing you and I agree on is that I'm an awesome writer.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/44919
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:25:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't really refute the argument at all. In fact, I somewhat agree with it - it's really not fair to say "Vote Bush or you'll get exploded." While I might have hinted or intimated that, I would never have actually said it like Cheney did. So no, I don't really disagree with the argument on that at all. Contrary to what you might think, I do not blindly support Bush. There was at least one Democrat (Lieberman) whom I would have happily supported over Bush. I would have even considered voting for Clark. But Kerry? You have presented to me as an alternative to Bush a grade A schmuck, a candidate that engenders such loving praise as websites like www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.
My original thoughts are unchanged: reprints get a -2.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:24:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
(in fact, Kerry can seem more hawkish on North Korea than the president).
Prove it. Hawkish like CLINTON? Because that is exactly what Kerry is going to do. Bush is right on North Korea.
You can't even grasp the North Korean situation. China is involved DEEPLY. Why? Because it has the biggest amount of influence in regard to North Korea. But: CHINA does NOT want to see North & South Korea reunified. Why? American soldiers possibly stationed at their doorstep.... A reunified Korea being a threat to the Chinese economy.... All kinds of things.
Self interests are at stake all over. The more we put pressure on China, the more you will see change in North Korea. China is the #1 key to the situation, period.
Now...What would kerry do? The same thing clinton did. And that has already been proven to not work.
I want you to link me to ONE god damn thing where kerry is "HAWKISH" other than at raising taxes and cutting military spending...
Kerry is a fucking putz. He does what public opinion tells him to do. This is dangerous as hell.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:19:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.logcabin.org
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I agree with this:
GO BADNARIK WOO!!!
But not with this:
+2
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:13:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:07:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
As always, regardless of content, reprints get a -2.
Meaning that you cant refute this argument.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-19 12:07:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
As always, regardless of content, reprints get a -2.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-09-19 11:51:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
cigar a -2 from you means its a thoughful, concise, and logical argument against all things you believe without question. I know that this argument has merit, but thats ok you toe toe the party line like a good little drone.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-09-19 11:38:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I say to hell with Bush and Kerry.
GO BADNARIK WOO!!!
+2 because I couldn't find any valid argument against any of this.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-09-19 11:07:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment