Notes From the Cave

Why I am voting for George Bush

I was re-reading the mission and objectives of this sight today and had to stifle a chuckle when I read the description my wonderfully argumentative friend DHS used for me. In his words I “claim” to be an independent. So the record is straight; I “am” an independent who has recently changed my status from Democrat. It shouldn’t surprise you that I lean to the conservative side in a heavy way, but I do not completely embrace the policies or doctrines of the two available political parties, and we all know that you have to declare something when you register. I chose what described me best.

With that said, I will try to explain myself. I realize it is long, so I will ask for your forgiveness and indulgence now. I have a lot to say . . .

Why I'm Voting for John Kerry

It will come as no surprise to any of you that I am proud to be a "liberal." So, my liberal bias will filter into this analysis. Despite my liberal background, I will confess that since I started voting in presidential elections in 1972, I have voted for someone other than the Democratic nominee three out of the eight times. So, even with my liberal bias, I am capable of cutting through the rhetoric to make an independent decision based upon my perceptions of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.

One final preliminary matter before I proceed: I almost voted for George Bush in 2000. I only decided to vote for Gore about two weeks prior to the election. It was basically a toss-up for me. As such, I went back to my liberal core and went with my liberal instincts. And, also to keep perspective, I did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996.

With that as a "preface," I feel compelled to lay out in concrete terms why I am committed to vote for John Kerry in the upcoming presidential election.

My perspective on a presidential election is that when an incumbent is running for re-election, the contest is essentially a referendum of the first term of that incumbent. So, the first step in the analysis is to review the accomplishments of the incumbent and make a determination whether I am satisfied with his/her accomplishments. Naturally, if I am satisfied with those results, the decision is simple: just vote to keep that person in office. If not, then the next step is to analyze the alternative candidate. If he/she is viable, then my philosophy is to give the alternative candidate an opportunity to change things. I am not an advocate of the philosophy of "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know."

Unfortunately, this is a year in which the decision is very easy for me, except the decision is adverse to George Bush. There are simply so many negatives, that it would be VERY difficult for me to vote to give him another term in office.

What I will do here is to lay out first those things Bush has done that I consider positives. Then, I will lay out what I consider to be the negatives. Finally, I will set out why I feel that John Kerry is a viable alternative.

The Newspaper Endorsements Are Starting

I just noticed that two newspapers have published their endorsements of the Kerry candidacy.

The first is The Miami Herald. To read the article, click here.

The second is the New York Times. To read the article, click here.

Please note that both of these papers require a registration to gain access.

I'm not sure what the value of these endorsements are these days. In years past, before the Internet, the opinions of the various news sources had more weight. Now, however, with the proliferation of online news sources, as well as 24/7/365 cable, people are in a better position to make independent choices.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to read how those who report the news see the respective candidates.

LesbianGate

I guess it's a slow news day. So, the news media is in a feeding frenzy over Kerry's remark about Cheney's daughter being a lesbian at the most recent debate.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post has provided a quite comprehensive overview of how this issue is being shown in the media, including various takes on it, from Democrats, Republicans, and gay advocates.

To read the entire article, click here. I think it makes for interesting reading and helps to put this into perspective.

Here are three brief exceprts showing the three perspectives:

"Almost immediately, Republicans expressed outrage at Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney. Some accused Kerry of raising her name in an effort to sway voters who might be put off by homosexuality, and criticized a statement by Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill on Fox News that the vice president's daughter is 'fair game.'. . . .

"The Democrats pushed back. Yesterday morning, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, told ABC News Radio that Lynne Cheney's response had made her 'really sad.' 'It indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences that I'm certain makes her daughter uncomfortable,' Elizabeth Edwards said."

"Much of the gay population is incensed. At the media.

"Let's get one thing straight. It is not an insult to call a proudly public lesbian a lesbian. It's an insult to gasp when someone calls her a lesbian. That's how all the gays I have spoken to the past 24 hours perceived the press response. You're embarrassed for us. And it's infuriating."

At the time of the debate, I personally reacted to it as a cheap shot, but a smart and effective one. And, as it appears to be turning out, it has become a mirror reflecting the various attitudes towards homosexuality in our culture.

As for me, I side with the position of the gay advocates. They are the ones with the vested interest in this issue, not me.

The Sanctity of Human Life

I don't mean to come off as flippant. However, I sometimes find the discussion of "the sanctity of human life" to be rather amusing, in a cynical sort of way.

I also don't mean to question the sincerity of those who use that term and honestly believe in it. However, I wish all of us would use that term in its more comprehensive scope.

Although Al Sharpton is a bit of a scam artist, he is a great speaker; and he has the knack of turning a phrase to make a point.

In one of the Democratic nomination debates, Sharpton, in focusing his attack on Bush, said essentially the following about the sanctity of human life: "Yes, Bush believes in the sanctity of human life... until such time as it comes out of the womb."

Although this is a tremendous distortion, and grand hyperbole, it makes an important point about hypocrisy.

There is such focus on the rights of the unborn and potential impact on life from stem cell research, but not a word of remorse for the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis that have died or have been maimed by the American invasion of Iraq.

Yes, I believe that the intentions of the Bush administration were and are noble. However, there are consequences to actions taken leading to armed conflict.

The war in Iraq is not a computer game or a chess game. It is a real live struggle, one in which thousands of people are dying, perhaps needlessly.

Where is the discussion of the "sanctity of human life" in the debate about the wisdom of conducting a preventive war?

This is one of my hot buttons. And the comment by someone of one of the political forums I monitor set this post in motion. Contrary to what some have said, the lives of 1,000 American soldiers are NOT more valuable than 400,000 dead Iraqis. If all life is precious, then American lives are not more precious than non-American lives.

If we believe in the sanctity of human life, then ALL human life is precious. And, accordingly, all decisions to take action impacting human life should be thought about long and hard. And, there should be consequences when people die needlessly for ideology or religion

To Quote a Phrase From the Nixon Administration...

Using language from the Nixon Administration, the words of Dr. Allawi in his recent speech to the U.S. Congress are "no longer operative."

Check out the article in today's New York Times Online in which Dr. Allawi finally acknowledges the realities of the situation in his country.

I quote only the first two paragraphs:

In his first speech before the interim national assembly here, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi gave a sobering account today of the threat posed by the insurgency, saying the country's instability is a "source of worry for many people" and that the guerrillas represent "a challenge to our will."

Dr. Allawi, who has tried hard to cast himself as a tough and confident leader since taking office in late June, asserted that general elections would go ahead in January as planned, but acknowledged that there were significant obstacles standing in the way of security and reconstruction. The nascent police force is underequipped and lacks the respect needed from the public to quell the insurgency, he said, and foreign businessmen have told him they fear investing in Iraq because of the rampant violence here.

I tried to find some reference to this speech on FoxNews and CNN, but could not find anything.

It is sad that our own president cannot be so forthcoming. As with overcoming alcohol addiction, the first step is to admit the problem. And, since Bush has personal experience with the process, he should understand how it works. Too bad he has forgotten that important lesson.

Thinking About the Cheney/Edwards Debate

I am now reading a most fascinating book, entitled War and the American Presidency, by Pulitzer-prize winning historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. It is an analysis of Bush's radical change in U.S. foreign policy put in historical context by one of the best U.S. historians.

In talking about the varying opinions provided over the years of the feasibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Schlesinger cited Bush I's book, A World Transformed, in which Bush I explained why the U.S. did not take out Saddam. Then, Schlesinger provided the following paragraph, in which he quotes the Bush I secretary of defense, as follows:

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it," the elder Bush's secretary of defense said in 1991. "It's not clear what kind of government you would put in... How much credibility is the government going to have if it's set up by the United States military? ... To have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion." The speaker was a younger, wiser, and pre-Haliburton Dick Cheney. (Bolding supplied)

I think this would make for an interesting quote to read to Cheney at the debate Tuesday night and ask for a comment.

Al Gore's Take on the Upcoming Debates

Former V.P. Al Gore has an "op-ed" piece in today's New York Times Online about the upcoming presidential debates. I will provide two paragraphs from the article; however, I highly recommend that everyone read the article, regardless of his/her political persuasion. It provides some interesting insight from someone who was a participant in the process.

My advice to John Kerry is simple: be prepared for the toughest debates of your career. While George Bush's campaign has made "lowering expectations" into a high art form, the record is clear - he's a skilled debater who uses the format to his advantage. There is no reason to expect any less this time around. And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.

But more important than his record as a debater is Mr. Bush's record as a president. And therein lies the true opportunity for John Kerry - because notwithstanding the president's political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure. And the debates represent a time to hold him to account. For the voters, these debates represent an opportunity to explore four relevant questions: Is America on the right course today, or are we off track? If we are headed in the wrong direction, what happened and who is responsible? How do we get back on the right path to a safer, more secure, more prosperous America? And, finally, who is best able to lead us to that path?

Here's an Ironic Twist in the Presidential Election

In a funny, ironic twist to this year's presidential election cycle, check out the news story in today's MSNBC Online. It reports that Bush's hometown newspaper in Crawford, Texas, has written an editorial endorsing John Kerry for president.

For the complete article, click here.

Additional Intelligence That Bush Ignored

Check out the following from this evening's New York Times Online. Just one more piece of puzzle showing how Bush simply ignored the intelligence available to him.

The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.

As Sen. Kennedy has said, it's not that the war in Iraq was bad; it's just that the war was conducted with a combination of "ignorance, incompetence and ideology."

For the complete article, click here.