Friday, October 01, 2004

Oh, and one more thing
It doesn't bother me so much that Bush says "nucular," since it seems Kerry can't get it through his fat head that our current Secretary of State's first name is Colin, pronounced like "colon," not "Collin."


Anonymous said...

A few things...

1: Kerry's head can be described as excessively skinny, pointy, etc but fat?

2: Why is it that people deciding to vote Kerry are largely thoughtful ( while people supporting Bush largely aren't (Your choice! Madrassas and no women, or a live-and-let-live world with women, and cable TV and the odd cold beer now and then, if you like. Beer will not be mandatory. We're not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But we have recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day.)

3: The article I linked to asks a very interesting question: Are you a traditional conservative or do you like Bush. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts that avoid pointless rants featuring such arguments as "Germany? Whatever."

RFTR said...

I am a traditional conservative. I believe in free markets, lower taxes, smaller government, more personal freedom, strong national defense, and so forth.
Who supports President Bush. The problem, you see, with the "Bush isn't a traditional conservative, so you shouldn't support him" argument is the fact that Kerry is even further from being a conservative. Sure, I'm unhappy with some of the policies Bush has supported, but he's still a million times closer to where I want a President then Kerry will ever be.

Also, as far as your sweeping generalization that Kerry supporters are thinking people, go screw. I'm a Yale student, I'm a student of political science, I spend 3-4 HOURS per day reading the news and a variety of blogs (since you got here through DailyKos, you know that includes leftist perspectives). Would an unthinking automaton spend this kind of effort? Unlikely.

You see, it's easy to pretend that your candidate has a monopoly on reason, but it is inherently inaccurate to do so. Take for example, this logical puzzle. Saddam was trying to jerk around the world community. He had 16 resolutions stating that he had to disarm or face the consequences. He worked to make everyone believe he still had WMD. Kerry says we should have gotten another resolution from the UN. Is this really what's going to convince a man like Saddam to behave?

My point is, sure, Lileks's post has a lot of invective to it, but if you really are reasoned, if you really are "thinking" as you claim, then you would read it and distill the fact that he makes a good point: dictators are not persuaded by summits and treaties, they just realize that when they get concessions through aggression (Iraq, Iran, NK) or blackmail (particularly NK), then by simply ratcheting up the threats and blackmail, you get even more concessions. You'd realize that it really is analogous to Munich and Hitler.

If you still wish to call me "unthinking," go right ahead, but do it somewhere else and stop wasting my time with your ignorant BS.

Matto said...

Actually, I heard (albeit not first-hand) that Colin Powell's name is actually pronounced like everyone else named Colin, not like "colon." He just gave up on correcting people after "colon" became widespread.

Anonymous said...

Obviously it would be stupid to expect any true conservative to vote for anyone other than Bush. What is sad, though, is that every conservate feels (or at least must write) that Bush is the perfect candidate.

An illustration from reactions to yesterday's debate (in which polls show Kerry outperformed Bush) by two CNN personalities.

Novak ( writes absolutely nothing positive or even neutral about Kerry, and only once something less than glowing about Bush
Bush opening statement

Posted: 9:12 p.m. ET

Bush looked like he had a temporary brainlock when he started but he recovered and got in the flow.
Kerry opening statement

Posted: 9:09 p.m. ET

Kerry opens by pandering to Florida.

This is especially sad because Bush did roughly the same "pandering" to Florida. Apparently both candidates thought it was the smart/polite thing to do.

Begala ( does things very differently. While still clearly presenting a bias, as he was intended to do, he doesn't confine himself to a discussion of good vs. evil:

"Bush's best moment is when he was praising Kerry. He was gracious and generous and credible. It's also the first time in the debate he was on the offense. He made the turn from praising Kerry's character to damning his record very effectively."

While both Novak and Begala spend far more than "3-4 HOURS" on this stuff, I find it interesting that the conservative needs to spend the whole debate smearing Kerry (and ignoring Bush's evasive answers - a popular and justified conservative criticism a few election-cycles ago), Begala reports glowlingly on Kerry, gives Bush his due for a good moment, and only rarely attacks Bush.

Think about why conservatives seem unable to think critically about Bush (by which I do NOT mean in the Farenheit 9/11 sense) and admit that he has made some mistakes so that even if he gets re-elected there is a chance those mistakes will get fixed.

RFTR said...

Thanks for the correction Matt, when I get to it I'll make a note of it in an update.

To whomever the anonymous person is, two things: 1)please name yourself. I can't stand the feature of blogger's comment system that allows you to be anonymous, as I believe that if you have the balls to say something, you should be willing to sign your name to it.

2)I honestly don't care what the other conservatives do, or how they treat Bush's performance. I can, and do admit that I have some serious reservations about Bush. I have never once said that he is the perfect candidate, or the perfect President. What I have said is that he is exactly what we need right now, with regards to foreign policy, and that I think foreign policy in the current climate trumps anything else. I think Kerry would back down and end the aggressive war that I think is a necessity in safeguarding this nation. As Bush tried to say last night (didn't express it quite as well as I may have hoped) we can make ourselves as safe as we want at home, but all the terrorists need is to find one hole and they can kill massive numbers of people. Homeland security will never be 100%, so to truly protect ourselves, we need to take an aggressive stance, and be prepared to pursue anyone who would harm us at all times, wherever they are. That's also why I support the War in Iraq.