OT: Disenchanted Democrats

[CamEdwards]

Sorry, another political post. I've noticed over the past few weeks a number of Democrats that have started speaking out, angry at the more virulent anti-Bush members of the party.

Pat Caddell's been saying this, Richard Cohen had a great piece in the NY Daily News yesterday (Bush Hating Goes Haywire), Tony Cuehlo's been going after the Kerry campaign for it's focus on the wrong things. My wife's a lifelong Democrat who is so annoyed by what she hears about Democrats that she's no longer calling herself a Democrat. A recent Pew poll found that 51% of polled Democrats believe that "U.S. wrongdoing" contributed to the 9/11 attacks.

Now here's my question: Is this a real phenomenon, or just a few examples that I've incorrectly tied together? Are there truly a large number of moderate Democrats that don't like to be lumped together with the moveon.org's of the world?

(BTW, I'm not suggesting all these disenfranchised Democrats will vote for Bush, or that they'll turn Republican. If this is a real phenomenon, I'm wondering if they won't just become apathetic non-voters. And that's kind of sad to me. Perhaps will see a new political party come out of this: The Moderates.)

And yes, if you've seen evidence of the same phenomenon involving Republicans, by all means, let me know about it.

[albionmoonlight]

An interesting obervation. On the one hand, you see (and I see too) more extreme Democrats becoming more vocal. On the other hand, I see the party itself (as expressed through its current leader, John Kerry) becoming more right-wing. Kerry is against gay marriage. Kerry is pro-gun (at least he seemed to be when waiving around that shotgun in West Va. You are the expert who can correct me if I am wrong on that, Cam.). Kerry wants tax breaks for businesses.

Strange that as some fringes of the party get more extreme, the party itself seems pretty planted in the center. What does that mean for voters? I don't know.

As far as seeing this on the Republican side. It is probably my personality, but the Republicans/right-wingers with whom I am close all fall much more along the "old school conservative"/libertarian lines than the current party. They don't want the government taking their taxes, nor do they want it telling people who they should and shouldn't sleep with. They don't like traditional welfare, but they don't like "corporate welfare" either. They have no problem with us using our military force in powerful and focused ways to eliminate threats to our national security, but they don't really want long drawn out conflicts, nor do they want Big Brother reading their emails either. No matter what they believe, the hard-core, politically-active, right-wing religious right kind of scares them--even if they are devout Christians themselves.

Of course, I am trying to paint the general views of 3 or 4 people that I know with broad strokes, so the above it a bit of a mix of opinions from people that I know. And these guys are all solid Bush votes who are planning to go to the polls.

At some point, however, those who are really for smaller, less intrusive government may start to look for alternatives to a Republican party that still pays lip service to small government, but is not acting that way at all.

And people like me may become sick enough of the moveon.org guys that I start looking for other options, too. For now, though, I still plan to go to the polls.

[panerd]

Disenchanted Democrat here. I think Kerry is about the most worthless canidate I have seen since Dukakis. Just one example: You went several tours of duty in Vietnam and received medals for it. Your opponent at best served in the national guard. You end up looking like the moron. How is this possible?

I will probably still vote for Kerry, but only as an anti-Bush vote. If I thought enough people would both third party, I would. I know quite a few people who are voting anti-Bush and not pro-Kerry. I actually don't personally know anyone who really likes Kerry at all. Maybe this country needs a system where we can vote for no Bush, but put in another Republican option. I think I would be willing to support McCain or other Republicans I just can't stand Bush's vision for this country.

[albionmoonlight]

Of course, the grass is always greener, but I really feel that McCain would have provided a much better response to 9/11/Iraq/the whole mess than either Bush or Gore would have.

Indeed, McCain seems to be the hero to a lot of the guys about whom I just spoke in the previous post.

[Subby]

I am pretty fed up with the personal, petty attacks on Bush by moveon.org and others. Focus on the issues, please...stop the hyperbolic accusations and mis-statements and discuss the issues like adults. I love Will Ferrell, but his "Bush" video, while funny...was exactly what's wrong with "my" party. Stop attacking like a bunch of sophomoric school newspaper cartoonists and talk about the stuff that matters.

We need a leader. I don't feel like Bush or Kerry can fill that role.

[Butter]

Problem is, anybody who can truly LEAD is painted as too extreme or too much of a live wire. So we end up with vanilla and sugar-free vanilla.

But most of the Dems. I know hate Bush with a passion, so I don't feel anyone is disenchanted with the party, per se. But the party is weak right now.

[Arles]

As far as seeing this on the Republican side. It is probably my personality, but the Republicans/right-wingers with whom I am close all fall much more along the "old school conservative"/libertarian lines than the current party. They don't want the government taking their taxes, nor do they want it telling people who they should and shouldn't sleep with. They don't like traditional welfare, but they don't like "corporate welfare" either. They have no problem with us using our military force in powerful and focused ways to eliminate threats to our national security, but they don't really want long drawn out conflicts, nor do they want Big Brother reading their emails either. No matter what they believe, the hard-core, politically-active, right-wing religious right kind of scares them--even if they are devout Christians themselves.
This pretty much represents my views. Although, I am probaby slightly more liberal in that I am pro-choice and don't mind some social program spending. I just tend to really scrutinize the "social programs" thrown out. For instance, I am a huge proponent of some after school programs in Chicago that many republicans don't like. Still, my main view is to keep the government focused on things that we completely rely on it for (transportation, security, miltary, some education) and to try and keep it out of things the private sector can do better and cheaper.

Of course, the grass is always greener, but I really feel that McCain would have provided a much better response to 9/11/Iraq/the whole mess than either Bush or Gore would have.
I know many people have the view that McCain would be a much better president that Bush, especially on the war. But McCain has stated prior to the war, during the war and even recently that he would not have changed one thing that Bush did in the war to Iraq. In fact, if you read some of his senate testimony at the time, he was in favor of going to war with Iraq earlier than the president ended up doing so. He also had a very negative view of the UN during the whole Iraq vote process.

IMO, the only difference between Bush and McCain as presidents would be that McCain might not have been as much a proponent of certain aspects of the tax cut and he may have had a little different rhetoric on some things. But, from a policy standpoint, I see no difference from McCain or Bush on Afghanistan, Iraq, prescription drugs, education spending, most aspects of social policy (McCain is very pro-life and against affirmative action) and most fiscal policy.

Arlie

[Ksyrup]

I would consider voting for a third party candidate, but the person would have to have a legit shot at winning, or else I'm not going to pull support from someone who more closely aligns with my views and end up benefitting the person who I would never vote for. In other words, if I was a liberal, there's no way I would vote for Nader in Florida (assuming he's even on the ballot, which is a funny story in and of itself and should be resolved today).

Bush is not perfect, by any means, but he's all I've got right now. For instance, Bush's fiscal policies, aside from cutting taxes, largely suck. And they suck Ted Kennedy's balls. Bush chided Kerry for proposing a $2 trillion spending plan, yet his plan has been conservatively estimated at $3 trillion. In fact, this quote from an MSNBC story is pretty telling:


Some fiscal conservatives who are dismayed by the return of budget deficits found little to cheer in the president's convention speech. Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, said that Bush's Social Security plan was money well spent by saving the system in the long run, but he added that Bush "has banked his presidency on the idea that people don't really care about the deficit, and he may be right."

"He's a big-government Republican, and there's no longer even the pretense that he's for smaller government," Moore said.


That said, there's no way I'd vote for Kerry, because his solution would be to raise taxes, not cut spending. My sincere hope is that the next viable candidate in 2008 (be it Democrat, Repoublican, or independent) will take on the deficit - whatever it's up to - and remedy the situation "the right way" (in my mind, of course). Until then, I'll deal with it like I do my credit cards - it's OK to go in the hole, but when the time comes to pay it all back, cut back on the less necessary expenditures and use that money to pay it down; don't go out and get a second job, or rob a bank, or buy 10 lottery tickets every week to come up with additional money to pay down the debt.

As for other issues, I think Bush has done, and would do in comparison to Kerry, a far better job of protecting us from terrorists, enemies, and our supposed allies.

[Ksyrup]

IMO, the only difference between Bush and McCain as presidents would be that McCain might not have been as much a proponent of certain aspects of the tax cut and he may have had a little different rhetoric on some things. But, from a policy standpoint, I see no difference from McCain or Bush on Afghanistan, Iraq, prescription drugs, education spending, most aspects of social policy (McCain is very pro-life and against affirmative action) and most fiscal policy.
Yeah but Arlie, you're missing one vital piece of information: McCain can properly pronounce 'nuclear.' :rolleyes:

[Radii]

Now here's my question: Is this a real phenomenon, or just a few examples that I've incorrectly tied together? Are there truly a large number of moderate Democrats that don't like to be lumped together with the moveon.org's of the world?


Add me to this group. Just look at our little dynamic in FOFC. I often feel like I'm reading a well thought out political discussion, and sometimes even contributing to said political discussion, and some left wing lunatic will come in and make post after post after post about impeaching Bush or about Bush wanting soldiers dead, or something totally inane and totally off the wall. It really makes me angry when this happens, because I may, for totally different, (hopefully) rational reasons, be arguing on the same side as a nutjob, I feel like I get lumped in as a left-wing psycho who should be ignored. This is the point I usually give up on a political thread and stop returning to it.

I think a similar thing holds nationally. I feel there are numerous reasonable, rational reasons why Bush should not be re-elected. Then I see worthless, irrelevant 3rd party ads on Bush's national guard service, and I hear left-wing nuts talking about Bush killing soldiers and taking away babies' fathers, and I feel like all the rational, reasonble reasons to put someone else in office this November lose credibility and get dragged down in the mud with the nutjob arguments.

[CamEdwards]

Add me to this group. Just look at our little dynamic in FOFC. I often feel like I'm reading a well thought out political discussion, and sometimes even contributing to said political discussion, and some left wing lunatic will come in and make post after post after post about impeaching Bush or about Bush wanting soldiers dead, or something totally inane and totally off the wall. It really makes me angry when this happens, because I may, for totally different, (hopefully) rational reasons, be arguing on the same side as a nutjob, I feel like I get lumped in as a left-wing psycho who should be ignored. This is the point I usually give up on a political thread and stop returning to it.

I think a similar thing holds nationally. I feel there are numerous reasonable, rational reasons why Bush should not be re-elected. Then I see worthless, irrelevant 3rd party ads on Bush's national guard service, and I hear left-wing nuts talking about Bush killing soldiers and taking away babies' fathers, and I feel like all the rational, reasonble reasons to put someone else in office this November lose credibility and get dragged down in the mud with the nutjob arguments.

You said something very similar to what Richard Cohen said yesterday. Here's a link to his piece, btw.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/rcohen/

And here's a quote.

Bush-haters go so far, they wind up adding a dash of red to my blue, pushing me by revulsion into a color I otherwise would not have. For instance, I have just read Nicholson Baker's novel "Checkpoint," a repellent work about whether the assassination of Bush would be warranted.

I bump into these anti-Bush alarmists all the time. Just recently, an extremely successful and erudite man I much admire told me he views the upcoming election as something akin to September 1939, the time when World War II started and, among other things, European Jewry was all but snuffed out. I add that bit about the Holocaust because the man I was talking to had been born a European Jew. I could hardly believe my ears.

This is not the place to examine why Bush is so hated by some people, although the war in Iraq surely takes pride of place. But even before that particular war, I heard people denounce the one in Afghanistan, that Taliban-controlled horror that harbored Osama Bin Laden. These people are infected with a corrosive doubt about their own country.

A recent Pew poll found, for instance, that 51% of Democrats agreed with the proposition that "U.S. wrongdoing" contributed to the attacks of 9/11. (Only 17% of Republicans agreed.)

Those are astounding numbers, an indictment not really of America (for what?) but of those people who compulsively blame their own country for the faults of others. You can believe that America's support of Israel and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia played a role in the 9/11 attacks, but the term Pew used was "wrongdoing." In this respect, these people and Bin Laden are in agreement.

The demonization of Bush is going to cost John Kerry plenty, if it has not done so already. It so overstates the case against Bush that a levelheaded listener would be excused for thinking that there isn't one in the first place. It squeezes the middle, virtually forcing moderates to pick which bunch of nuts they're going to join.

[JPhillips]

For me, a lifelong Dem, the appeal of MCCain over Bush is that I believe McCain would be more likely to face up to the truth. I could have supported the war in Iraq, but I believed Bush wasn't serious about winning the peace. McCain, to me at least, seems more willing to face up to the fact that Iraq is not going well and we are not making progress. He would be more likely to realize that "staying the course" now is courting disaster. I believe that McCain would have reacted very similarly at first, but would not have left us with an Iraq that is on the verge of disaster.

I think the Dem party has to face facts on security. We tend to complain about what Bush is doing, but we don't have a clear vision to offer up as an alternative. I don't for a second believe that Kerry is going to dismantle the armed forces and surrender to the terrorists, but his views on Iraq are maddeningly vague. Of course I believe that Bush hasn't offered us any real plan either. What we have ended up with is a battle between "stay the course" and "do it differently". In this battle of non-ideas the President is far better at marketing, but IMO no better at moving the nation forward.

Finally, don't get caught up in what Coelho is saying. He has some valid points, but he has a long running personal feud with Mcauliffe and some of his criticism of the DNC is undoubtedly colored by those feelings.

[Ben E Lou]

Add me to this group. Just look at our little dynamic in FOFC. I often feel like I'm reading a well thought out political discussion, and sometimes even contributing to said political discussion, and some left wing lunatic will come in and make post after post after post about impeaching Bush or about Bush wanting soldiers dead, or something totally inane and totally off the wall. It really makes me angry when this happens, because I may, for totally different, (hopefully) rational reasons, be arguing on the same side as a nutjob, I feel like I get lumped in as a left-wing psycho who should be ignored. This is the point I usually give up on a political thread and stop returning to it.To do a little self-psychoanalysis, I have a feeling that similar thoughts are why (despite what certain people might think) the facts would reveal that more conservatives than liberals have gotten suspensions and perma-bans here.

[Arles]

For me, a lifelong Dem, the appeal of MCCain over Bush is that I believe McCain would be more likely to face up to the truth. I could have supported the war in Iraq, but I believed Bush wasn't serious about winning the peace. McCain, to me at least, seems more willing to face up to the fact that Iraq is not going well and we are not making progress. He would be more likely to realize that "staying the course" now is courting disaster. I believe that McCain would have reacted very similarly at first, but would not have left us with an Iraq that is on the verge of disaster.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. But I can promise you that there is no way McCain would have ever pulled out troops from Iraq until the job is done. He's been very adament about that point in numerous interviews. In fact, on Monday he endorsed nearly every aspect of Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

This seems to me to be a way for many on the left to support the war, but not Bush. Essentially saying:

"Well, if McCain would have been president we may have only lost 700 soliders instead of 1000 and he would have admitted he was wrong and maybe decided to 'change course' down the road."

This is a little silly, IMO. The odds that a sitting president would have gone to the world and said "My Bad" for removing a viscious tyrant and financial backer of terrorism is just laughable. Neither McCain, Bush or even Kerry would do that. If you think the war was a good idea and support the action in Iraq, then you would have done very little different than Bush. There was no way that Iraq was going to go from terrorist police state to democratic utopia in a year with no lives lost. McCain and Bush have both been very clear on this topic.

So, it seems to me people are trying to find a way to support the removal of Saddam, but at the same time condemn the loss of life and overall military strategy. IMO, this is a very difficult thing to do and why Kerry is having such a hard time staying consistent with his stance. It's a little like getting shot in the neck, having a doctor save your life, then coming back two years later and complaining that he left too big a scar.

Arlie

[JPhillips]

Arles: You are completely misinterpreting my point. What I am saying is that the President won't or can't alter his thinking to face the fact that we are losing Iraq, more soldiers are dying each of the past four months, a number of cities are no-go zones for our troops, the number of attacks against Iraq civilians is increasing, and Iraqi public opinion is worsening.

I don't know what the right answer is, but its clear that "staying the course" is idiotic. The NIE that was reported on yesterday clearly shows the folly of our current policy. The best case scenario is continuing violence! Meanwhile Bush keeps telling the nation we are winning and that progress is being made. My believe, and it is only that, is that McCain would be more willing and able to change approaches as the situation changed. I agree that he wouldn't pull out of Iraq and I don't think that is a good idea anyway. But McCain has always struck me as a guy that at least faces up to what the situation is, not what he wishes it were.

EDITED to reflect the edit by Arles.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know what the right answer is, but its clear to me that "staying the course" is idiotic.
Fixed that for you.

[GrantDawg]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. But I can promise you that there is no way McCain would have ever pulled out troops from Iraq until the job is done. He's been very adament about that point in numerous interviews. In fact, on Monday he endorsed nearly every aspect of Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

This seems to me to be a way for many on the left to support the war, but not Bush. Essentially saying:

"Well, if McCain would have been president we may have only lost 700 soliders instead of 1000 and he would have admitted he was wrong and maybe decided to 'change course' down the road."

This is a little silly, IMO. The odds that a sitting president would have gone to the world and said "My Bad" for removing a viscious tyrant and financial backer of terrorism is just laughable. Neither McCain, Bush or even Kerry would do that. If you think the war was a good idea and support the action in Iraq, then you would have done very little different than Bush. There was no way that Iraq was going to go from terrorist police state to democratic utopia in a year with no lives lost. McCain and Bush have both been very clear on this topic.

So, it seems to me people are trying to find a way to support the removal of Saddam, but at the same time condemn the loss of life and overall military strategy. IMO, this is a very difficult thing to do and why Kerry is having such a hard time staying consistent with his stance. It's a little like getting shot in the neck, having a doctor save your life, then coming back two years later and complaining that he left too big a scar.

Arlie

Yup, you're completely missing it, Arlie. The "change of course" at this point (and actually shoudld have happened much sooner) would not be to pull out. This administration has not a good job post war to stabilize and run Iraq. There have been factors to this, and they much they should have done differently. I think point being made here is that McCain would have made those changes, whereas Bush is "staying the dis-course."

[Crapshoot]

As far as seeing this on the Republican side. It is probably my personality, but the Republicans/right-wingers with whom I am close all fall much more along the "old school conservative"/libertarian lines than the current party. They don't want the government taking their taxes, nor do they want it telling people who they should and shouldn't sleep with. They don't like traditional welfare, but they don't like "corporate welfare" either. They have no problem with us using our military force in powerful and focused ways to eliminate threats to our national security, but they don't really want long drawn out conflicts, nor do they want Big Brother reading their emails either. No matter what they believe, the hard-core, politically-active, right-wing religious right kind of scares them--even if they are devout Christians themselves.

Of course, I am trying to paint the general views of 3 or 4 people that I know with broad strokes, so the above it a bit of a mix of opinions from people that I know. And these guys are all solid Bush votes who are planning to go to the polls.

At some point, however, those who are really for smaller, less intrusive government may start to look for alternatives to a Republican party that still pays lip service to small government, but is not acting that way at all.

And people like me may become sick enough of the moveon.org guys that I start looking for other options, too. For now, though, I still plan to go to the polls.

This summarizes me on the Republican side. Im very much a Rockefeller Republican, and Bush scares me, with the heavily religous bent, the "Christian Right's" Socialy policies, and ridiculous amounts of spending. The US as a nation is more heaviliy indebted than any nation on an earth (possibly more than all combined). Defecits arent a problem as long as the economy keeps growing, but when consumer debt is at an all time high- eventually, once the Asian banks realize the loss of potential capital in putting thier money in T-bills (to drive down their own currencied) dwarfs the benefits for their exporters, the dollar is going to crash like there's no tomorrow- I for one hope to have a few euro's by then.

[Arles]

I don't know what the right answer is, but its clear that "staying the course" is idiotic. The NIE that was reported on yesterday clearly shows the folly of our current policy. The best case scenario is continuing violence! Meanwhile Bush keeps telling the nation we are winning and that progress is being made. My believe, and it is only that, is that McCain would be more willing and able to change approaches as the situation changed. I agree that he wouldn't pull out of Iraq and I don't think that is a good idea anyway. But McCain has always struck me as a guy that at least faces up to what the situation is, not what he wishes it were.
OK, just so I understand - the Iraq effort is not going well, in fact it is going real bad. However, we shouldn't pull out of Iraq. So, we should keep troops in Iraq and keep trying to get the situation under control, but we shouldn't do it in the manner we currently are (trying to find and capture/kill the insurgents). We should instead do it in a manner that reduces the number of lives lost without pulling out but still helps get the situation under control. :confused:

And, of course, you have no idea how this can be accomplished, nor does any other democrat.

[GrantDawg]

I don't know what the right answer is, but its clear that "staying the course" is idiotic. The NIE that was reported on yesterday clearly shows the folly of our current policy. The best case scenario is continuing violence! Meanwhile Bush keeps telling the nation we are winning and that progress is being made. My believe, and it is only that, is that McCain would be more willing and able to change approaches as the situation changed. I agree that he wouldn't pull out of Iraq and I don't think that is a good idea anyway. But McCain has always struck me as a guy that at least faces up to what the situation is, not what he wishes it were.

EDITED to reflect the edit by Arles.
And how much the reason for Bush not changing course has to do with Haliburton and the completely transparent cronyism of this adminstration?

[sterlingice]

Fixed that for you.
Yes, because in a political thread, you really need to go out of your way to show that it's someone's opinion http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

SI

[Ksyrup]

Yes, because in a political thread, you really need to go out of your way to show that it's someone's opinion http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

SI
I don't think this thread had gotten very political, at least not in the way these threads tend to (and may yet happen with this one). It was more of a discussion of the issues, and that point came off as a conclusion, not an opinion.

[Ksyrup]

And how much the reason for Bush not changing course has to do with Haliburton and the completely transparent cronyism of this adminstration?
Was this meant as an example of what the original post was referring to?

[GrantDawg]

OK, just so I understand - the Iraq effort is not going well, in fact it is going real bad. However, we shouldn't pull out of Iraq. So, we should keep troops in Iraq and keep trying to get the situation under control, but we shouldn't do it in the manner we currently are (trying to find and capture/kill the insurgents). We should instead do it in a manner that reduces the number of lives lost without pulling out but still helps get the situation under control. :confused:

And, of course, you have no idea how this can be accomplished, nor does any other democrat.
Actually, there are many ideas on how to improve the war effort, and none that I have seen includes a complete withdrawl or stop hunting down the enemy. If you do a little research you can find them. To be honest, it is a complete "kool-aid" brainwash to suggest the only change in Iraq from Bush's plan would be a pull-out or to be "soft" on the enemy.

[GrantDawg]

Was this meant as an example of what the original post was referring to?
Considering I'm a registered Republician voting that voted for Bush? No. Just an honest question of the motivaton for the way this "reconstruction" has been ran.

[Arles]

Yup, you're completely missing it, Arlie. The "change of course" at this point (and actually shoudld have happened much sooner) would not be to pull out. This administration has not a good job post war to stabilize and run Iraq. There have been factors to this, and they much they should have done differently. I think point being made here is that McCain would have made those changes, whereas Bush is "staying the dis-course."
What, from a general standpoint, would those changes be? Again, Bush is not dictating the war on the ground. Like every president before him, he is leaving it to the generals on the field. He is simply endorsing their plan and getting them the supplies they require. So, are you saying that McCain would have completely different generals and somehow find a way to get these insurgents under control without engaging them via fire fights?

I just don't see what anyone could do differently if they are determined to win in Iraq. It's almost like people are paining the picture that Bush is sitting there running a regimine of soldiers into a wood-chipper every morning and if McCain/Kerry was elected, he would stop doing that. I have a feeling the generals over there are waging the same type of ground-to-ground combat in Iraq that they would if McCain or Kerry was president.

The only real way to eliminate the deaths and change track would be to leave. Any other choice that involves staying there and trying to improve Iraq will involve the deaths of soldiers. There's no way here to have your cake and eat it too.

[CamEdwards]

I'm certainly not saying the situation in Iraq is rosy, but some information contained in a still classified report that we're hearing from anonymous sources isn't what I'm going to be basing my opinion on.

[Radii]

You said something very similar to what Richard Cohen said yesterday. Here's a link to his piece, btw.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/rcohen/

(from article)
The demonization of Bush is going to cost John Kerry plenty, if it has not done so already. It so overstates the case against Bush that a levelheaded listener would be excused for thinking that there isn't one in the first place. It squeezes the middle, virtually forcing moderates to pick which bunch of nuts they're going to join.



Yeah, that says it very very well.

I know 9/11 was a major world changing event, but it's amazing to look at how in 2000 Bush and Gore were the same, no one liked either of them and many could not tell the difference enough to have a reason to vote for one over the other. Now look at the upcoming election. Stunning changes.

[GrantDawg]

What, from a general standpoint, would those changes be? Again, Bush is not dictating the war on the ground. Like every president before him, he is leaving it to the generals on the field. He is simply endorsing their plan and getting them the supplies they require. So, are you saying that McCain would have completely different generals and somehow find a way to get these insurgents under control without engaging them via fire fights?

Yes. Actually McCain was quite vocal at the beginging of the war criticising how the adminstration was running the war. I know now he is trying to back-off those earler criticisms, but there is little doubt that McCain would have done it diffrently from the begining.

I just don't see what anyone could do differently if they are determined to win in Iraq. It's almost like people are paining the picture that Bush is sitting there running a regimine of soldiers into a wood-chipper every morning and if McCain/Kerry was elected, he would stop doing that. I have a feeling the generals over there are waging the same type of ground-to-ground combat in Iraq that they would if McCain or Kerry was president.
The way battle is won is diffrent than how you rebuild the country after the war. Bush has not ran the reconstruction as it should have been, and I do honestly believe McCain or Kerry could have done a better job making the post-war plan. I do not believe that Bush personally is running the war, nor do I believe what is happening over there is somehow a reflection of his "evil" intent (that is your trying to again put spin on others motives). What I do blame Bush for is putiing his trust completely on men with the wrong plan (looking at Rumsfield), and then not replacing/removing them when he should (Rummy should have been canned a long time ago).

The only real way to eliminate the deaths and change track would be to leave. Any other choice that involves staying there and trying to improve Iraq will involve the deaths of soldiers. There's no way here to have your cake and eat it too.

Again, no one is under the illusion that more soldiers are not going to die. Few but the extreme left is calling for a pull-out, which I am definitely not one of them. BUT, there must be a change plan in the way the reconstruction is being run. It is failing and must be addressed. Bush is saying we have to stay the same exact course that HIS OWN PEOPLE are saying is failing. That is unacceptable and a change in the White House must take place.


Lat me make this clear so that you can understand this. A pull out of Iraq at this point would be wrong and is not a legitimate option. Yet, there is a real problem with the way the war in Iraq has been won from the day that the "major ground conflict" ended until now. It is going to be difficult to fix, and is going to take more sacrifice if it can be fixed. The thing is, the current administration is not planning on fixing it. As a matter of fact, they refuse to recognize the problem. Therefore they must be removed.

[Franklinnoble]

It's amazing to me how quickly these political threads turn into thesis-length dissertations...

[Arles]

GrantDawg,

I think I get what you are saying, but there are only so many ways to skin a cat. I just don't see anyone coming in here and finding a way to improve the Iraq situation without removing all the insurgents. We've lost about 1000 soliders in almost three years of fighting. While it's certainly something no one wants, I don't see how anyone can get this Iraq situation under control without hand-to-hand fire fights. And, when that happens, lives will be lost.

I guess I am a little frustrated with all this "wrong course", "losing the piece", and "running the war" criticism. Maybe I am being overly simplistic, but I don't see a way of getting Iraq where it needs to be that doesn't involve lives lost or hand-to-hand combat. So, I guess my question is what is your overall solution here? Stop fighting hand-to-hand? Have fewer missions geared towards finding the terrorists?

[Bee]

To threadjack for a second...

I got a question for Arles.

This isn't meant as a criticizm or anything like that, but I'm curious about something. As far as I can tell, you're the only developer that comes here and posts strong opinions in the political discussions on the board. Are you even the least bit concerned that you could lose potential sales from some of your stances? That's not to say that I think people should make decisions on buying a game based on political comments made by a developer, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are people out there that might let that be a factor in their purchasing decisions. I've always considered this market to be pretty small and taking a chance of alienating even a small portion of that market base surprises me somewhat. I was just curious if you were concerned about that or not.

[JPhillips]

Arles: Actually according to the General that ran the Fallujah operation someone up top is making the military desicions. According to this General he advised against attacking in Fallujah after the contractors were killed and then again advised against pulling out once the operation was underway. Both time he was overruled. He doesn't say by whom, but we do have a Newsweek account of the President saying "Let heads roll" after the contractor killings.

You are obsessed with the idea that there are only two options, what Bush has done and total withdrawal. That's a politically convenient, but totally inaccurate portrayal. Some of the things we should have done include:

Not stacking the American interim authority with political idealogues instead of experts in reconstruction and governmental affairs.

Having a consistent startegy with regards to Al-Sadr. Instead we want him arrested/dead one day and set him free the next.

Dealing honestly with the fact that several cities in Iraq are no-go zones for American troops. How many times has this admin stated that truth to the American public?

Taking Zinni's suggestion of a large, international Iraqi economic forum. Do everything possible to put jobs in the hands of the Iraqis instead of guys from rural Mississippi.

Giving Gen. Petreaus everything he needs/wants to train the Iraqi army. Reports are that he is understaffed and underfunded.

Adopting a real three or five year plan for Iraq. Yes, things will change, but we don't seem to have any goal aside from a "free and stable" Iraq. We have no plan to achieve this lofty goal.


My worst fear is that you are right in your assessment that there is nothing we can do now but stay as is or leave. I think there are a number of steps we can take to help the situation, but this Admin seems hellbent on keeping up appearances at least until the election. Our only hope in Iraq is to deal with the situation honestly, but I'm convinced based on what I've seen that Bush will never do this if it will imperil his election chances.

[Desnudo]

And yes, if you've seen evidence of the same phenomenon involving Republicans, by all means, let me know about it.

Yes, absolutely. I have plenty of friends who voted for President Bush in round one and have become so unhappy with the hardline stances on social issues and lack of fiscal control that they will vote for Kerry. I fall into the category of not knowing what to do when voting Republican when a Senator from Massachusetts is running would normally be a slam dunk. It's pretty obvious to me that this election has polarized the population and left a lot of moderates without a true candidate. I think your perception of a moderate party developing is spot-on although it would likely take another four years of "with us or against us" type of attitude (whoever it came from).

[Arles]

To threadjack for a second...

I got a question for Arles.

This isn't meant as a criticizm or anything like that, but I'm curious about something. As far as I can tell, you're the only developer that comes here and posts strong opinions in the political discussions on the board. Are you even the least bit concerned that you could lose potential sales from some of your stances? That's not to say that I think people should make decisions on buying a game based on political comments made by a developer, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are people out there that might let that be a factor in their purchasing decisions. I've always considered this market to be pretty small and taking a chance of alienating even a small portion of that market base surprises me somewhat. I was just curious if you were concerned about that or not.
I guess that's a risk I take by being involved in this community. I was a member of FOF well before I even started CAD and have always enjoyed the varied and interesting opinions by its members for a long time now. It's one of the reasons I linked to the FOFC community from my new company. Certainly, I make a concerted effort not to get personal or behave in a manner that would reflect negatively on GDS. And, there are many subjects that I simply avoid for that reason alone.

Still, I think that people will buy any product I make based on the merits of that product. As long as I am not in here bashing people or being a complete ass, I don't think that someone will say "Gee, I really think that football game looks like a lot of fun, but I am not going to buy it because Arlie said something nice about Bush."

Of course, I could be wrong. But, given the people that I have met and known here, I think most can respect political differences and not use that as a factor for purchasing products - as long as I behave in a professional manner.

In the end, I think the fact that I am open with the community on everything from game ideas and features to ideas on other more general topic would probably offset any chance that I may offend some people with my political views. And, as I said earlier, I don't know that it really will impact a game's success all that much either way.

What do you guys think?

[Glengoyne]

I can't believe the ad campaigns the Dems are running. "The fortunate Son", "The Halliburton Contract".

These ads preach to the choir. Those are dead end issues that aren't going to sway anyone to vote for Kerry. In fact they may anger or frustrate people that want the actual issues discussed. They need to attack Bush on the things he has really done wrong, and demonstrate that Kerry would handle things differently. Saying you are going to rollback the tax-cuts on people making more than $200k, and reinstate the estate tax isn't going to win you votes. Really going after the lack of a game plan for post-war Iraq might.

[Buddy Grant]

"Are there truly a large number of moderate Democrats that don't like to be lumped together with the moveon.org's of the world? "
I generally agree with you Cam, right or wrong, but you have to admit this question is questionable, to say the least. You could just as easily ask "Are there truly a large number of moderate Republicans that don't like to be lumped together with the Rush Limbaughs of the world?" and as you should already know (unless you are just playing devils advocate here) the answer is obviously no.

[JPhillips]

Arles: I don't base my game purchases on your politics. For me I buy your games because you have a hot wife!

See we can disagree on some things and still agree on what matters.

[Bee]

I guess that's a risk I take by being involved in this community. I was a member of FOF well before I even started CAD and have always enjoyed the varied and interesting opinions by its members for a long time now. It's one of the reasons I linked to the FOFC community from my new company. Certainly, I make a concerted effort not to get personal or behave in a manner that would reflect negatively on GDS. And, there are many subjects that I simply avoid for that reason alone.

Still, I think that people will buy any product I make based on the merits of that product. As long as I am not in here bashing people or being a complete ass, I don't think that someone will say "Gee, I really think that football game looks like a lot of fun, but I am not going to buy it because Arlie said something nice about Bush."

Of course, I could be wrong. But, given the people that I have met and known here, I think most can respect political differences and not use that as a factor for purchasing products - as long as I behave in a professional manner.

In the end, I think the fact that I am open with the community on everything from game ideas and features to ideas on other more general topic would probably offset any chance that I may offend some people with my political views. And, as I said earlier, I don't know that it really will impact a game's success all that much either way.

What do you guys think?

I pretty much agree with your assessment, I was mostly curious if you had thought about it. I think the vast majority of those here can separate the game from the political opinion, but there's always a few that might not be able to do so. I also would say you've done an excellent job of not taking anything to a personal level (which is hard to do in some of the political threads :D). Thanks for the reply.

B

[Arles]

Arles, I don't think you understand what we are doing right now in Iraq. We are not "hunting down" and "fighting hand to hand" the insurgents. We have ceded numerous cities wholesale to the insurgency and are making absolutely no attempt to take them back. The current "strategy" is, in large part, to take as few allied casualties as possible. We are, as was noted in the link that started my "How bad is Iraq?" thread, in a tactical retreat. The "solution" you posit as a bad one is what we are doing now!
I think what you and JPhillips have said certainly has merit, I just don't see a great deal of difference in what someone else would do from a results standpoint. I do agree though, that Bush is more worried about reducing casualties than winning in Iraq right now because of the election. But I also think that's a by product of these daily "casualty counts" that continue to weaken the resolve of the American people. Bush is treading a very thin line to where people may at some point simply say "Get out, it's just not worth it". And he has to wage the war with that idea in the back of his mind.

It's a tough situation from a media standpoint as I do think it's important that the media keep the people informed on what is going on in Iraq. But, being the media is mostly concerned about selling papers (regardless of idiology), a headline of "Five killed in Fallujah" is much more attractive than "New school in session in Baghdad". Therefore, the consistent coverage tends to eat away at the spine of the average American on the war. Therefore, I think presidents from here on out have to put minimizing casualties above winning. Otherwise, they risk the public making a large outcry to pull out. And that's just not a good thing from an overall military strategy standpoint.

[Blackadar]

Arles and I have vehimently disagreed on issues before, yet I wouldn't hesitate to buy one of his products. He's a good guy, I'm sure...we just tend to disagree in some of the specifics on how to deal with some issues. As they say, business is business.

Not to threadjack, but for comparison's sake - I hold far more of a grudge against Mac Howard because (I feel) he attacked my purchasing criteria of games. It's funny, because that seems like a small thing. But to me, to criticize the criteria that I use to buy products like his isn't his prerogative. As a salesman, you never attack the customer for their buying reasons - even if you disagree with them. Since it was directly related to business, I'm far less likely to buy any of his products.

[Blackadar]

Arles: I don't base my game purchases on your politics. For me I buy your games because you have a hot wife!

See we can disagree on some things and still agree on what matters.

I have no idea what his wife looks like, but I like her name (Farrah). That's one of my top 3 names if I have a daughter.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, Jim also posts in political threads here...

By nature, those who play text sims are generally going to be logic-based, rather than emotion-based thinkers. Therefore, I seriously doubt that a developer stating his opinion on a political matter is going to make a significant difference either way in sales. Guys are going to ask, "Will this purchase provide me $X worth of entertainment?" first an foremost when deciding on a purchase. There may be the rare fringe nutjob on either side who won't buy from Arlie because pro-Bush or won't buy from Jim because he's anti-Bush, but I have a strong suspicion that's gonna be *very* uncommon.

One of the great QOTM's before it went downhill was something along the lines of "Dave Dial could come over to my house and take a dump in my microwave and turn it on and I'd still buy FOF2K1!" In all seriousness, I wouldn't care if I were attacked personally by Jim/Arlie/Markus/whatever developer; I'd still buy the game if it looked like it would be fun.

[Glengoyne]

Also, I'm a registered Democrat that has grown so frustrated with the party, I am almost certainly going to change my registration to Republican. I don't think that party will be a bed of roses for me either. When it was announced that the RNC had established two planks to their platform calling for constitutional bans on Gay Marriage and Abortion, I thought to myself "What the hell!! Are they trying to drive me away?".

In 2000 I was hoping Bush would lose, so that the hard line folks that control the Republican Party would realize that they had to move to the center. Well hell, now I don't know that they would learn that lesson even with a Bush Loss.

Edit:In any case. I'm a disenchanted Democrat, but I'm soon to be a disenchanted Republican.

[rkmsuf]

It's amazing to me how quickly these political threads turn into thesis-length dissertations...

There's a lot of brain power at work here

[Swaggs]

I think the disenchanted conservatives are not turned off as much by Bush's foreign policy as by his inability to, with the help of Republican controlled House and Senate, act fiscally responsible.

To me, the whole Democratic-Republican spectrum is based on federal government vs local government, with hot social issues coming and going with the times. As I have read here and elsewhere, Bush continues to talk like he is for shrinking government (including his stump speeches criticizing Kerry's proposed budgets), but he has done little to enforce that in his 3+ years in office with a "friendly" congress.

I believe these actions may well push fiscal conservatives into the Libetarian camp or, perhaps, keep them from voting at all.

[Bee]

In 2000 I was hoping Bush would lose, so that the hard line folks that control the Republican Party would realize that they had to move to the center. Well hell, now I don't know that they would learn that lesson even with a Bush Loss.

That's funny cause in 2000, I was seriously thinking of moving out of the country if Gore won. (Even had a job offer in England) :D

[CamEdwards]

"Are there truly a large number of moderate Democrats that don't like to be lumped together with the moveon.org's of the world? "
I generally agree with you Cam, right or wrong, but you have to admit this question is questionable, to say the least. You could just as easily ask "Are there truly a large number of moderate Republicans that don't like to be lumped together with the Rush Limbaughs of the world?" and as you should already know (unless you are just playing devils advocate here) the answer is obviously no.

The answer is obviously "no"? There are 290 million people in this country. Limbaugh pulls in 14 million listeners a week. You tell me if there are Republicans in this country who don't want to be lumped in with Rush Limbaugh.

Besides, it's a bit apples and oranges to compare a talk show host to a 527.

As to the Blumenthal piece... it's hardly objective. One general opposed the Iraq war from the get-go, one has endorsed John Kerry (no mention of either in the article). I'm not saying there opinions aren't valid, but where's the quote from Tommy Franks or other generals who might believe otherwise? They probably weren't even interviewed because the author of the piece is Sidney freakin' Blumenthal.

I really really REALLY didn't want this to turn into a partisan thread. I was merely curious about something I'd noticed and wanted to hear from others to see if I was wrong.

[Arles]

I think the disenchanted conservatives are not turned off as much by Bush's foreign policy as by his inability to, with the help of Republican controlled House and Senate, act fiscally responsible.

To me, the whole Democratic-Republican spectrum is based on federal government vs local government, with hot social issues coming and going with the times. As I have read here and elsewhere, Bush continues to talk like he is for shrinking government (including his stump speeches criticizing Kerry's proposed budgets), but he has done little to enforce that in his 3+ years in office with a "friendly" congress.

I believe these actions may well push fiscal conservatives into the Libetarian camp or, perhaps, keep them from voting at all.
I think both sides have gotten caught up with the rhetoric and stereotypes that have been created. Republicans now are very hesistant to vote against education or certain social spending in fear it will reinforce the view by some that republicans don't care about certain parts of society.

On the other side, Democrats are afraid to vote against tax cuts or for tax hikes and against military spending for fear of being labeled "big government" or "anti military".

So, in the end, you have one party that will not reign in social spending out of fear and another that will not control military spending or stick to their stance on taxes because of their own fears.

Thus, as citizens, we end up getting a party for fiscal responsibility spending like a drunken sailor and another party that is for certain social politicies but votes for hikes in military spending and is unwilling to ever raise taxes to pay for the programs they champion.

[sterlingice]

One of the great QOTM's before it went downhill was something along the lines of "Dave Dial could come over to my house and take a dump in my microwave and turn it on and I'd still buy FOF2K1!" In all seriousness, I wouldn't care if I were attacked personally by Jim/Arlie/Markus/whatever developer; I'd still buy the game if it looked like it would be fun.
Cue FN sighting in 3... 2... 1... ;)

SI

[Warhammer]

Delebar,

There have been plenty of generals saying how great Iraq is going. I have heard Tommy Franks himself say so in an interview prior to the release of his book.

I truly believe, and this view is reinforced by some discussions with people who have been over there, are that many of the Iraq troublemakers are from other nations who do not want to see a democratic Iraq succeed.

[Franklinnoble]

Cue FN sighting in 3... 2... 1... ;)

SI
*sigh*....

I can only hope that someday, the QOTM will come back, our long national nightmare will be over, and the healing can finally begin.

[Ksyrup]

The "war is lost"
Military experts say they see no exit from the Iraq debacle -- and that the war is helping al-Qaida.

While on my trip to Alaska, I met someone in the JAG who told me that the war in Iraq is being used primarily to draw the radicals away from the US and to one central place, making it easier to defend our country and find/kill them than it would be otherwise. He referred to it as the "venus flytrap" defense.

I don't know how legitimate that is as the "official unofficial" rationale for the war (or continuing the war beyond toppling Hussein and installing a new government), but it's another thing to think about. What is safer for our nation and our citizens - sending troops thousands of miles away to draw the fire of radicals, or dealing with them on our home turf, with unarmed citizens as the primary target?

[Glengoyne]

While on my trip to Alaska, I met someone in the JAG who told me that the war in Iraq is being used primarily to draw the radicals away from the US and to one central place, making it easier to defend our country and find/kill them than it would be otherwise. He referred to it as the "venus flytrap" defense.
...

I'll buy that. I just won't buy that it is part of a plan. At least not part of the administration's plan.

[GrantDawg]

While on my trip to Alaska, I met someone in the JAG who told me that the war in Iraq is being used primarily to draw the radicals away from the US and to one central place, making it easier to defend our country and find/kill them than it would be otherwise. He referred to it as the "venus flytrap" defense.

I don't know how legitimate that is as the "official unofficial" rationale for the war (or continuing the war beyond toppling Hussein and installing a new government), but it's another thing to think about. What is safer for our nation and our citizens - sending troops thousands of miles away to draw the fire of radicals, or dealing with them on our home turf, with unarmed citizens as the primary target?
That is great "if." That "if" is that we eventually do have a stable Iraq in the limited time the US citizens are willing to continue to watch our young men and women come home in body bags. I really do not believe the collective will of the American people will hold out for 5-8 years if we continue losing soldiers at the clip we have in the last few months. I also don't believe that every terrorist is going to conviently head to Iraq for our taking. Al-Queda is eventually going to hit our interest elsewhere (and quite possibily here) if we don't have continued success in hunting them down.

[Ksyrup]

I'll buy that. I just won't buy that it is part of a plan. At least not part of the administration's plan.
Why not? Isn't it possible that the Administration determined that it would be better to sacrifice a couple of thousand troops ourseas to save ourselves a couple of thousand citizens (or more, since the troops can be controlled far better than our citizens) being attacked and/or killed on our own turf? That such a strategy would be preferable, given the psychological impact of repeated attacks at home? And it's not like they could just announce that kind of strategy publicly.

I have no clue if this is part of the plan or not, but itseems feasible to me, in a cost/benefit analysis. If you're trying to assuage the fears of another 9/11, to help our citizens get back to a "normal" life, not to mention help get the economy restarted, this doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

[JPhillips]

Arles: I believe the greatest threat to our success in Iraq is not leveling with the American people. Yes, there will be a segment of the populace that will use that honesty to attck the admin, but the majority will follow if they believe the goal is worthy and they are being told the truth. Right now most Americans don't believe that they are getting the whole truth about Iraq. That, mnore than anything else, will sap our will to fight.

This is the lesson from Vietnam. Lie to the public and the war will be lost at home.

[Glengoyne]

Why not? Isn't it possible that the Administration determined that it would be better to sacrifice a couple of thousand troops ourseas to save ourselves a couple of thousand citizens (or more, since the troops can be controlled far better than our citizens) being attacked and/or killed on our own turf? That such a strategy would be preferable, given the psychological impact of repeated attacks at home? And it's not like they could just announce that kind of strategy publicly.

I have no clue if this is part of the plan or not, but itseems feasible to me, in a cost/benefit analysis. If you're trying to assuage the fears of another 9/11, to help our citizens get back to a "normal" life, not to mention help get the economy restarted, this doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
Well it seems that very little of what has happened in post war Iraq has been guided by any sort of plan. It was rather obvious that the administration wasn't prepared for post-war Iraq when the guy they put in charge of the country quit two weeks in. I think this is absolutely a case of spinning a bunch of lemons into lemonade. So I'd write my inability to believe this was a plan off to our track record in Iraq.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: The "flypaper" theory only makes sense if two things are true. One, there are a finite number of terrorists and that number declines everytime we kill an Iraqi insurgent. Two, the death toll in Iraq is high enough to prohibit Al Queada from launching an attack in the U.S.

Both of these are not true in Iraq. There is no evidence that our presence in Iraq has lowered the overall number of terrorists in the Middle East. Even if we were lowering the overall number of terrorists we certainly haven't gotten the number low enough to prohibit a 9/11 style attack. Twenty terrorists, if well coordinated, can kill thousands without WMD. This "flypaper" theory is as Glengoyne stated, lemons disguised as lemonade.

edited for grammer

[Blackadar]

While on my trip to Alaska, I met someone in the JAG who told me that the war in Iraq is being used primarily to draw the radicals away from the US and to one central place, making it easier to defend our country and find/kill them than it would be otherwise. He referred to it as the "venus flytrap" defense.

I could see that, but then attacking Iraq makes little sense. Why not stay in Afghanistan then, where we had a more favorable political climate (post-war) and some power structure (with our Afghan warlord allies) to help us hunt 'em down once they come for us?

[thesloppy]

I am one hell of a disgruntled dem right now, and in fact wrote a huge rant this morning to all my other lefty friends on just this subject. How could any dem NOT be disappointed and disgusted right now? The DNC have shown nothing but an impressive ability to back-bite and gladly sink to the lowest common denominator during this campaign, and in the process have turned what could have easily been a slam dunk into an oil-wrestling match that the're going to need a miracle to win.

Now I am one hell of a cynic, and I'm sure most hard-line dems haven't been affected one bit by this campaign, but I honestly find it revolting. Who the hell IS John Kerry? Where is John Edwards? Do they have anything resembling a plan for any of the big issues staring us in the face? Most importantly, how come I have LESS answers for any of these questions than I did six months ago? If the DNC takes hundreds of millions of dolllars and people and the result is an actual IMPROVEMENT in Bush's approval rating then please count me out of this circus. Why should I, or anyone else, think that the Kerry and his constituents can run the country for 4 years when they can't even properly run a campaign for a few months? I feel cheated by those who I used to consider 'my party', and have decided that my vote will remain uncast in November because I honestly feel no confidence in either party or nominee. Given every opportunity they have shown that they differ from the repubs only in name, and in fact are more than willing to embrace fear-mongering, muck-raking, and name-calling as the foundation for their campaign. Well done DNC.

I refuse to cast my vote simply to cast it against someone, rather than for someone I believe in, and at this point i have absolutely zero belief in the DNC or their nominee. I can't imagine that I am alone in my feelings, and considering that the crap is constantly spewing from both sides I wouldn't be surprised if this election turns out to have an incredibly low turnout.

On the other question regarding possible backlash on the right, I have heard plenty of this as well, from conservative family and friends. However, that was months ago, and I can't say with any confidence that they still feel the same way today. Considering that the DNC has offered nothing but a different side of the exact same coin, I wouldn't be surprised if those republicans who may have been ready to cast a vote for Kerry have changed their minds over the course of this campaign. I fear that this election is going to breed an amazing amount of apathy into the voting public, and leave everybody who doesn't subscribe to the extremes of either side feeling left out in the cold and unreperesented.

A big fuck you goes out to our current batch of American politicos and the media (on both sides) who go out of their way to promote anything but the issues. You have truly given me nothing in this election season, and I will do my best to repay you in kind. I would gladly, gladly vote for change, but it appears to be entirely absent from this ticket.