The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

October 28, 2004

| The Economist Endorses Kerry

From Economist.com

With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd

YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year’s battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.

. . . .

The case against George Bush

That decision cannot be separated from the terrible memory of September 11th, nor can it fail to begin as an evaluation of the way in which Mr Bush and his administration responded to that day. For Mr Bush’s record during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing.

. . . .

Making sense of John Kerry

That does at least place him on equal terms with his rival, Mr Kerry. With any challenger, voters have to make a leap of faith about what the new man might be like in office. What he says during the campaign is a poor guide: Mr Bush said in 2000 that America should be “a humble nation, but strong” and should eschew nation-building; Mr Clinton claimed in 1992 to want to confront “the butchers of Beijing” and to reflate the economy through public spending.

Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In the American system, given Congress’s substantial role, presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign.

. . . .

The task ahead, and the man to fit it

In the end, the choice relies on a judgment about who will be better suited to meet the challenges America is likely to face during the next four years. Those challenges must include the probability of another big terrorist attack, in America or western Europe. They must include the need for a period of discipline in economic policy and for compromise on social policy, lest the nation become weak or divided in the face of danger. Above all, though, they include the need to make a success of the rebuilding of Iraq, as the key part of a broader effort to stabilise, modernise and, yes, democratise the Middle East.

Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started. If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world. Iraq’s fledgling democracy, if it gets the chance to be born at all, will need support from its neighbours—or at least non-interference—if it is to survive. So will other efforts in the Middle East, particularly concerning Israel and Iran.

John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush’s, which speaks well of his judgment. He has been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America’s moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America’s great tasks.

You can read the entire article here.

Posted by Todd Castleton at October 28, 2004 03:53 PM | TrackBack

Comments

After all your detail reasoning you come up with this result? Go back and read it again. I am sure you must have missed somthing. You couldn’t possibly get Kerry as the person to be our next president.

Posted by: Mugford at October 28, 2004 04:54 PM

Aw gee — someone comes up with a Different Take, and it’s a problem?

The Economist is a fine magazine. It focuses on things that really are important. It is hardly what one could call Librul in any sense of the word. I’ve been a subscriber for years.

They got it right.

Posted by: Don at October 28, 2004 08:02 PM

That article doesn’t even begin to describe Bush’s touching-cloth administration. So tepid and bland. What do you expect from a bunch of economists?

Posted by: Vince at October 28, 2004 08:21 PM

Nice try but no cigar..Kerry will appease,that I agree.But to go face to face with..NK,China..sorry he just hasn`t shown he has the strength..He does have Clintons tactics..talk,talk ,talk..but no resovle..nope he it is way to weak for the job..

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 28, 2004 09:18 PM

Talk is a very powerful tool. Persuasion through use of words is preferable to coercion through military might any day. Even if Bush’s beliefs coincided with mine I wouldn’t vote for him. His anti-intellectualism and gung-ho lone cowboy tactics leave me worried for my own future (I’m eligible for the draft in june 05) and for that of the country.

Posted by: redSun at October 28, 2004 10:48 PM

..I agree..among honorable men reasoning can solve most differences.. then there are times when some just want you dead..its these times when men must step up and do what has to be done..

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 28, 2004 11:25 PM

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 28, 2004 11:26 PM

future (I’m eligible for the draft in june 05) and for that of the country.

Posted by: redSun at October 28, 2004 10:48 PM

******************************************
Isn’t it odd that the only Congressional members who have put forth Draft Bills have been Democrats?

Oh and before you make up your mind, you might want to consider the requirements for graduation in Kerry’s 100 Day plan.

Oh wait a minute, Kerry took that off his website and hid it. ;-)

Let me see if I can find my Way Back link. ;-)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

“As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students”

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 29, 2004 12:35 AM

“…It is hardly what one could call Librul in any sense of the word…”

You had may fooled. I thought you were a L-i-b-e-r-a-l. Spellcheck gave me 10 possibilities for Librul including lowbrow…

So. How about some Christmas Dinner in Cambodia? Or… How about ‘Official Navy Records’ written all by himself? How about “I released all my records”, which has now become “I have not released all my records”? How about, YOU (meaning YOU, DON) are a monster? Got any pearls for us from the Great Kerry? I thought not.

BTW - Don Check out THIS for a play-by-play of Kerry’s First Purple Heart. You may learn something. Like, How Kerry is a Bonafide Liar.

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at October 28, 2004 08:02 PM

Vince You know… I met a small group of people in 1972 that had the same proclivity for playing the ‘foreign relations’ game with other nation’s foreign relations as you do. We have more than enough divisiveness goin’ on amongst the citizenry w/o having to listen to pompous overtones from North of the Border. Oh. Did I mention I met them in Lethbridge? Little bit too far West for your tone, eh?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 29, 2004 09:38 AM

Since I would HATE for anyone to miss it…ESPECIALLY Don…I thought it appropriate for THIS thread as well!

ROFLMFAO!!!…just HAD to share this in case you haven’t seen it (and PERFECT for this thread!)!

Field Guide To Trolls

(Just in case I screwed up the HTML...again:
http://www.themartialist.com/pecom/fieldguidetotrolls.htm)

Let’s play a game…see how many YOU recognize!

I’ll get us started…

Symptomless: The UK EuroTroll

For background…

{The EuroTroll. A subspecies of Contrarian Troll, EuroTrolls frequent US-based forums, or forums that are otherwise dominated by Americans. They never tire of disagreeing with American sentiments or challenging statements and concepts favorable to the US. EuroTrolls generally believe that Americans are arrogant and ignorant of the great civilizations in Europe and elsewhere – civilizations far superior to America, if only Americans would stop to notice this fact. Usually quite proud of socialism and other European institutions and conventions unpopular among American individualists, EuroTrolls often devolve into some lesser species of troll when they can find no one but other trolls (and fellow foreigners) to agree with them.}

The UK EuroTroll. The most common manifestation of EuroTroll, the UK EuroTroll is often sexually ambiguous and prone to making homoerotic comments. Vulgar and hostile, UK EuroTrolls are also the most hoplophobic* of trollkind. The breed is characterized by a penchant for pontificating from ignorance and will speak at great lengths about subjects on which its kind are totally uninformed.

*Suffering an irrational fear of weaponry.

Don: The Sophist Troll

The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or “philotrolls,” fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.

When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be “immature,” and are fond of quoting that old saw that “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll’s bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent’s words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.

When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.

dubyus: The Bruce/Brucie

The Bruce. Inspired by the dictionary definition of the term – and by the movie They Call Me Bruce? – Bruces may correspond to any number of troll profiles but are characterized by a single, external characteristic: They are invulnerable. In the world of Internet fora, this means they cannot be banned from a site. No amount of complaining on the part of a forum’s membership can convince the administrator to ban a Bruce, no matter how disruptive or useless such a troll’s participation becomes. Bruces possess some innate ability to remain active despite exhibiting behavior that would draw warnings and discipline if displayed by other, more productive members of a bulletin board. A curious and perhaps hypnotic species, Bruces are often hybrids descended from Sophists, Affected Profundity Trolls, and Don Kings.

The Brucie. As the name indicates, these are curiously associated with the unbannable Bruces, perhaps because site administrators cannot bring themselves to be unkind to anyone suffering a Brucie’s difficulties. “Brucie” is a slang term for a troll suffering from mental derangement or physical malady. Brucies often speak of their mental and physical problems, either out of some sad obsession or in an attempt to garner pity. A troll who displays erratic, almost mentally handicapped behavior is rightly described as a Brucie.

And finally, I guess myself:

Troll Bashers. The worst enemy of trolls, Troll Bashers appear to possess an almost pathological hatred for trolls. Fully aware of the tools and tactics of trolling, Troll Bashers expose trolls whenever they see them. Often the first to identify Contrarians, and unforgiving in the pursuit of Deceptives, Troll Bashers are experienced and venomous. Often accused of being trolls themselves, Troll Bashers understand the difference between the initiation of trolling and the retaliation against it – and believe any amount of retaliatory abuse is justified when a troll rears its ugly head. {Note: AKA-“Whack-a-Troll”!!!}

Posted by: DevilDoc at October 29, 2004 12:58 PM

DD you missed the number one tool of troll bashers: troll reversal!!

Posted by: skip at October 29, 2004 04:09 PM