ubhockey Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 (edited) I couldn't find a better way to explain why I am voting the way I am... Election determines fate of nation by Mathew Manweller, political science professor Central Washington University In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. copyright violation - Please post link Edited November 2, 2004 by KRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I couldn't find a better way to explain why I am voting the way I am... Election determines fate of nation by Mathew Manweller, political science professor Central Washington University In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. copyright violation - Please post link 96440[/snapback] I agree, but in the opposite sense. Down one path lies stubbornness in the face of numerous mistakes, arrogance, and dangerous self-righteousness. Down the other lies the message that Americans will not accept ineptitude and side-shows in the face of mortal danger, steering us toward a better future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I couldn't find a better way to explain why I am voting the way I am... Election determines fate of nation by Mathew Manweller, political science professor Central Washington University In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. copyright violation - Please post link 96440[/snapback] Yet another missive equating a vote for John Kerry as a vote for terrorists. How novel, how inspiring. It is an old story, if you can't defeat a man based on the positions he has actually taken, assign to him positions he has not taken that are more easily defeated. That has been what this election has been about more than anything and both sides have made use of this most effective trick. One side pretends that the other has taken some sort of untenable, unpopular position and accuses him of that over and over. The accused denies it and makes reference to his actual position as a defense. He then brings his own set of accusations. On and on it goes. Two examples: Bush makes an awkward statment about no longer being concerned with OBL and the democrats go on and on that the remark means that Bush doesn't take getting OBL serious enough or really doesn't care about capturing him. Bush really did make that statement so no one is "lying". Seriously though, how could any one believe that there is an American anywhere from the President down to the crossing guard at my daughter's school who doesn't want to nab that SOB more than anything in the world? Of course the President wants to get that murderer no matter what silly thing he might have said when he got a little testy with some press questions way back when. Kerry has said many, many times that he will act unilaterally to protect America whenever it is necessary to do so. At the same time, he believes very strongly that we should build alliances and that we could have done so if our diplomacy prior to the war had been less clumsy and more honest. In explaining his position, off the cuff in the heat of a debate, he used the phrase "global test". He actually said the words so no one is lying about that. However, if you read the entire quote, not just that lifted phrase, it is clear what Kerry meant. The republicans immediately seized on that phrase and use it over and over to support their assertion that Kerry is going turn over our security to the French. Please, does any one seriously think that John Kerry plans to place our national security in the hands of any foreign power let alone the French? It is a ridiculous notion. There are honest differences on these issues. Some may legitimately feel that Kerry would worry too much about international support and others that the President would be too quick to dismiss the importance of such support. Whether or not the war in Iraq diverted too many resources away from Afghanistan too soon, is a legitimate issue for debate. Reducing these honest differences to ridiculous claims that the President doesn't think it is important to capture OBL or that Kerry would place the French in charge of our national security is preceisely what is wrong with political debate in this country and I am not surprised that a political scientist who is all too familiar with these techniques is using them himself. It is this kind of thing that really does lead to the sharp divisions, needlessly sharp divisions, among us. If you really do believe that Kerry is going to sell us out to the French, of course you are going to hate him, I would too. If you really beleive the Bush doesn't care at all about capturing OBL, at least not in comparison to how badly he wanted to right his father's biggest mistake, of course you would hate him. If you support Bush, aren't you going to get more than a little ticked when you hear those kinds of allegations being hurled at him? If you support Kerry, aren't you going to be more than a little ticked to hear those kinds of allegations being hurled at him? These people know how to press our buttons or at least they hire people, "consultants" and "strategists", who know how to press them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Yet another missive equating a vote for John Kerry as a vote for terrorists. How novel, how inspiring. It is an old story, if you can't defeat a man based on the positions he has actually taken, assign to him positions he has not taken that are more easily defeated. That has been what this election has been about more than anything and both sides have made use of this most effective trick. One side pretends that the other has taken some sort of untenable, unpopular position and accuses him of that over and over. The accused denies it and makes reference to his actual position as a defense. He then brings his own set of accusations. On and on it goes. Two examples: Bush makes an awkward statment about no longer being concerned with OBL and the democrats go on and on that the remark means that Bush doesn't take getting OBL serious enough or really doesn't care about capturing him. Bush really did make that statement so no one is "lying". Seriously though, how could any one believe that there is an American anywhere from the President down to the crossing guard at my daughter's school who doesn't want to nab that SOB more than anything in the world? Of course the President wants to get that murderer no matter what silly thing he might have said when he got a little testy with some press questions way back when. Kerry has said many, many times that he will act unilaterally to protect America whenever it is necessary to do so. At the same time, he believes very strongly that we should build alliances and that we could have done so if our diplomacy prior to the war had been less clumsy and more honest. In explaining his position, off the cuff in the heat of a debate, he used the phrase "global test". He actually said the words so no one is lying about that. However, if you read the entire quote, not just that lifted phrase, it is clear what Kerry meant. The republicans immediately seized on that phrase and use it over and over to support their assertion that Kerry is going turn over our security to the French. Please, does any one seriously think that John Kerry plans to place our national security in the hands of any foreign power let alone the French? It is a ridiculous notion. There are honest differences on these issues. Some may legitimately feel that Kerry would worry too much about international support and others that the President would be too quick to dismiss the importance of such support. Whether or not the war in Iraq diverted too many resources away from Afghanistan too soon, is a legitimate issue for debate. Reducing these honest differences to ridiculous claims that the President doesn't think it is important to capture OBL or that Kerry would place the French in charge of our national security is preceisely what is wrong with political debate in this country and I am not surprised that a political scientist who is all too familiar with these techniques is using them himself. It is this kind of thing that really does lead to the sharp divisions, needlessly sharp divisions, among us. If you really do believe that Kerry is going to sell us out to the French, of course you are going to hate him, I would too. If you really beleive the Bush doesn't care at all about capturing OBL, at least not in comparison to how badly he wanted to right his father's biggest mistake, of course you would hate him. If you support Bush, aren't you going to get more than a little ticked when you hear those kinds of allegations being hurled at him? If you support Kerry, aren't you going to be more than a little ticked to hear those kinds of allegations being hurled at him? These people know how to press our buttons or at least they hire people, "consultants" and "strategists", who know how to press them. 96498[/snapback] If you really beleive the Bush doesn't care at all about capturing OBL, at least not in comparison to how badly he wanted to right his father's biggest mistake, of course you would hate him. THAT in a nutshell describes PERFECTLY the dangerous and reckless policy that has gotten us into this mess. Instead of OBL, we got our armed forces into battle over a SCORE TO SETTLE. Pathetic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts