A Pilgrim’s Digression

My immediate reaction to the debate is that Kerry bested President Bush pretty handily. Two or three examples will serve to illustrate how the entire debate went in Kerry’s favor. Kerry’s best rhetorical shot of the night came in response to Bush’s perhaps unintentional linkage of Saddam to 9/11. In response to Bush’s comment that “they” attacked us on 9/11, Kerry pointed out that it was Bin Laden, not Saddam who attacked us on 9/11.

Another example is how Kerry again and again attacked Bush on the issue of North Korea. Bush insisted that for some reason if the United States enters into bilaterel talks with North Korea, countries with a stake in the outcome, like China, will no longer be interested in pressuring North Korea. Kerry correctly pointed out that this is a fallacious assumption, a kind of false binary. Just because the United States is talking directly with North Korea does not mean that all other involved parties will somehow disappear from the table. Good point. Kerry scored on that one.

Kerry also did a good job of distinguishing between the war and the warrior, in response to Bush’s repeated charge that Kerry disparages the troops when he criticizes the war. Kerry made that point very well. I hope it was not too fine a point, though. Some may not understand it, but Kerry was right. A soldier who does his duty honorably can be a hero, even in a bad war, and all soldiers should be given great respect no matter the cause which they are sent to fight.

The whole evening was Kerry’s, really. I do believe that. Bush stumbled, stuttered, referred to Iranian Mullahs as “Moolahs” not once but twice. In the breakaway shots of Bush’s reaction while Kerry spoke, Bush frowned, sometimes smirked, looked shocked, shocked! that anyone would dare challenge him on these issues. Bush paused in his speaking, sometimes painfully so, so that one began to think he was going to choke. In one spin segment I have seen since the end of the debate, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC challenged the idea that these pauses reflected badly on the President. Scarborough said that some people will say, “Bush speaks like me, he speaks like my neighbor …” Maybe so. I think (hope) that the reaction of the majority of people was similar to my reaction, which was to cringe every time he paused. I felt for the guy. There were a couple of those pauses where I really thought, “He’s not going to make it; he’s just going to freeze there.”

President Bush repeated himself constantly, repeated the same few simple responses, over and over. It may be that repetition, whether it be the refrain about Kerry’s “mixed messages” or the refrain about Kerry called Saddam a “grave threat,” will strengthen the image of Kerry as a flip-flopper. My reaction was that Bush had nothing new to say, nothing even factual or logical. Kerry answered Bush’s charges, and Bush simply repeated them, again and again, without regard to Kerry’s response. Bush had one message, the same message his campaign had for months: Kerry has no core beliefs that he won’t sacrifice for political gain.

Kerry, on the other hand, was factually informed, articulate, and able to answer question without constant reference to the vagueries of being strong and knowing his heart. His historical reference to the Cuban Missle Crisis was a brilliant moment because it highlighted the paucity of historical perspective in Bush’s speeches. Not only that, but it made an excellent point. Can any world leader today say, as De Gaulle did, “The word of the American President is good enough for me?” I expected Kerry to make more of this, but he did not really drive the point home for people who might not get it. In response, the President looked at Kerry with that tight-lipped frown that says, “Who the hell are you, anyway? Who are you to speak to me this way?”

Kerry’s demeanour was at ease. In the shots of him while Bush was speaking, Kerry was either smiling gently, or nodding, or scribbling notes. Bush leaned on the podium when he spoke, he played with his ink pen and looked down frequently as if he were referring to notes. Overall, it was just a bad performance by the President.

Only time will tell if the American people feel the same way. I don’t expect very many people to see what I saw in the way I saw it. This is what I see, though: a man, George Bush, called upon to defend his four years in the Presidency, who could only come up with, as Kerry pointed out, a strong front that masks great weakness.

As the candidates for President of the United States prepare to go onstage for their first live Presidential debate, there is one question I am hoping the moderator will ask of President George W. Bush.

“Mr. President, why do you contend that we are safer today than four years ago?” I do not believe the President can give a satisfactory answer to that question. Any answer will be an opening for Kerry to contrast the President’s reality with that in which the rest of us live.

“In the reality in which I and every other American lives,” Kerry might say, “Americans are killed every day in Iraq, and the situation in that country grows ever more tenuous.” The President could answer, “These Americans killed are soldiers,” as if there is some metaphysical or qualitative difference between an American in uniform who dies in the dust of Iraq and an American civilian who dies in the collapse of a skyscraper.

“Better we fight them over there than over here,” the President responds. To which Kerry can respond, “It’s not an either/or proposition, Sir. Nothing about the war in Iraq precludes an attack on American soil, as you yourself acknowledge by constantly raising the terror threat level.”

So why are we safer today than four years ago, Mr. President? He may answer, “Over 75% of the Al Qaeda leadership have been killed or captured since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.”

To which Kerry can respond, “But that remaining 25% is Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Not only that, but every day brings new terror alerts from this administration. We are supposed to feel safer, but still be afraid enough to vote Republican, according to the President. President Bush is using the threat of terrorism for political gain.”

Why does the President contend that we are safer today than four years ago? What incontrovertible evidence does he have of this? This is the question President Bush cannot answer honestly. I believe it will not be a question asked of him tonight.

As the hour draws near, I am increasingly feeling a bit nervous about how Kerry will do tonight. All the pressure to perform is on Kerry. Bush has only to show up and not commit a terrible gaffe. Kerry, on the other hand, must channel the ghost of John Kennedy and put on a show such as we have never witnessed in the annals of political history. Need I say that Kerry will not rise to meet the expectations so many hold? Who could ever meet those expectations?

The rules of the debate further handicap Kerry. I am not sure I understand why the Kerry camp agreed to these restrictions, except that Bush only agreed to three debates if Kerry agreed to restrictions meant to keep him from dominating the debate.

The time limits on the candidates’ answers are aimed directly at Kerry. Kerry is known to dominate by sheer volume of words. In these debates, he (and Bush, too) will be held to 90 seconds of response time. Candidates will not be able to move from the podium. Neither candidate can interrupt the other or direct a question at his opponent; rhetorical questions are, of course, allowed, and I expect Kerry at least to take full advantage of that. No direct interchange is allowed, however, which (pardon me if I am wrong) is what a real debate is all about. Back and forth of ideas? Dialogue? God forbid, argument?

So the rules seem to favor Bush. However, looking at it from another angle, the Kerry campaign did agree to these rules, so Kerry must not be too worried. Also, the time limit may actually help Kerry keep his ideas concise and to the point. The rules against addressing one’s opponent directly, or moving from behind the podium, or making faces, or sighing, should assist Kerry in avoiding any of Al Gore’s painful mistakes of 2000. I see the logic in these rules, from Kerry’s point of view. Yet there is still a part of me that misses the good old days of four years ago, when there was always a chance of some random, unexpected surprise. If I were Kerry, I think I would have put my money on an open, more spontaneous debate, and thus I would have taken my chances that the dreadful surprise of the evening would come from Bush’s mouth. However, that is neither here nor there. The fight is on. Let’s watch.

Perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, but I wrote Chris Matthews an email about his interview with Bill Maher the other evening. The transcript of the Matthews program is available here. You can read my letter below:

Dear Mr. Matthews,

I am writing you to express my disappointment in a segment of your show “Hardball” which I happened to catch last night. I saw a portion of your interview with Bill Maher as I was flipping back and forth between news channels. I usually watch portions of your show, and generally I find you to be a serious-minded journalist. However, a question I heard you ask Maher really ticked me off because it seemed to come straight from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh rather than Chris Matthews. Did I hear you correctly? Did you really ask Bill Maher what he thought of John Kerry’s new tan? No, that wasn’t quite how you put it—it was something about John Kerry’s “orange look,” wasn’t it? And Maher answered that maybe when Kerry went in for his latest Botox treatment, he was given some “Tan In A Bottle” to go with it.

Republicans don’t need any help making John Kerry appear unmanly and elitist. By raising such a totally irrelevant, but nonetheless damaging issue, you might as well have been reading from Republican talking points. It was unfair, and I hope if you ever go back and look at that segment, you feel some shame for how you and Maher so cattily lowered the level of political dialogue to the exact depth at which the Republicans want to keep it, which is to say the level of appearances. I don’t know what you could do to redress the situation. An apology to Mr. Kerry and your viewers would be a start, I suppose, but in a way it is too late for that. The best one can hope for is that in future, you will think before joining one of your guests in a silly gossip-fest.

I have since found out the source for the “orange Kerry” story is Matt Drudge. Here is the article, Kerry on Orange Alert. To his credit, radio talk show host Neal Boortz has suggested that the picture Drudge uses has been Photoshopped. Other pictures of Kerry from the same day show Kerry looking normal.

But why is this even a topic up for discussion in this election? Why is Lynne Cheney cracking wise about it, as she did yesterday? And why are mainstream journalists such as Matthews and the reporters for the AP abetting Drudge in this nonsense?

This goes beyond the damage it might do to Kerry. I really don’t think it is damaging, because any fool who decides to vote for George Bush because he thinks Kerry looks a bit orange … well that fool would probably be the kind to vote for Bush anyway. In fact, the Bush Administration courts exactly that kind of fool, welcomes them with open arms.

The question is, what level of debate do we want to have in this country? Do we want to seriously consider the achievmenets of the first Bush term and weigh the pros and cons of a second term for him, which is what the election ought to be about, or do we want to snicker about John Kerry’s skin tone?

Good Lord, what a country we live in, what absolute juveniles we are.

Yesterday evening was blustery and wet. When I left work, rain was pouring from the sky comme une vache qui pisse, as the French say, and it was being blown nearly horizontal by strong gusts of wind. I actually saw a woman struggling with an umbrella that had been turned inside out by the wind, and I stopped to help her; however, it was obvious the umbrella was broken. Some of its spines were loose from the fabric. What’s more, the woman was cradling her cell phone in her ear with her shoulder as she struggled with the umbrella; she would not even get off the phone to say “Thank You.” She just kind of nodded and waved me on, after about half a minute of me trying to help her.

By that time, I was well soaked, despite my own umbrella. I had been helped along in my unwelcome drenching by passing drivers. The drains in D.C. flood quite happily with very little provocation, and on First street between the Capitol and Supreme Court, there was a veritable river flowing. I swear there were whitecaps on the water. Most drivers skirted it. One jerk decided it would be fun to drive through it just enough to splash me. The wave of water absolutely soaked me. It felt like someone had tossed a five gallon bucket of muddy water on me.

That feeling of being pissed on by Fate just about describes my feelings yesterday concerning the election and the political fortunes of John Kerry. Woke up yesterday to the Washington Post/ABC poll that shows Bush with a significant lead over Kerry, even with the margin of error factored in—51% Bush, 44% Kerry. Then when I got home last night and changed my clothes, I heard that the Gallup also has Bush with a sizable lead over Kerry. It’s depressing. Like a lot of people, I am left wondering “why?” How?”

I am sure if I tuned into some of the Conservative radio programs I used to listen to, I’d find an answer. Limbaugh is probably saying that Kerry’s pessimism on Iraq has backfired. His decline in the polls is directly correlated to his new strategy of going negative on Iraq. Boortz is probably saying much the same thing, perhaps adding that Americans are finally seeing that Kerry has no core of beliefs by which he is guided. That windsurfing ad the Bush campaign put out is just devastating to Kerry; it’s probably the most effective advertisement yet this season. The problem is, the Democrats don’t seem to be answering it. Where are the ads featuring Cheney saying that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers? Where are the ads showing selected segments from Bush’s pre-war speeches, in which he makes all manner of claims about Iraq’s links to terrorism and Saddam’s possession of WMD? Why aren’t the Democrats answering in kind? And where the heck is Edwards? Bright Boy gone fishing, or something?

It’s sad to think about. So I decided last night that from now on, for the sake of my own soul, I am going to try not to be negative anymore about the state of affairs in the Kerry campaign. Though I did not vote in the Democrat primaries, since I am a registered Republican, I have decided to vote for John Kerry in the General Election. I need to keep my critical eye focused on the President more so than Kerry. I hope Democrats in general follow suit. There is a penchant not just for hand-wringing, but for cannibalization within the Democrat party. Unity is not a Democrat strong suit, as it is with the Republican party.

Further depressing me last night was an interview I caught on MSNBC between Chris Matthews and Bill Mahr, neither of whom are conservative, though I have no clue how liberal they are either. I seem to recall that Matthews worked for the Carter Administration, so perhaps we can assume he is a Democrat. I could not believe what I was hearing, though. With a grin, Matthews actually asked Mahr, “So what do you think of the Democratic candidate’s new neon orange hue?” And the two of them sat there and proceeded to help the Republicans along in their campaign to further suggest that Kerry is unmanly. “Maybe he went in for his latest botox treatment and they gave him some “Tan In A Bottle” to go with it,” Mahr said. Both men were really yucking it up.

I suppose if you asked him, Matthews would make some claim to objectivity as the reason why he was discussing such an absolutely irrelevant, but politically damaging subject on his usually serious program.

My hope is that in this forum, if I criticize the way Kerry’s campaign is handling itself, I do not come across as similarly self-destructive. To avoid the kind of —what do you call it? Self-loathing?—on display by Chris Matthews last night, I want to try to remain positive from here until the end of the election. I want Kerry to win. I have come to like him for many reasons. I do like his obvious intelligence. He is not a witty man, but frankly, who cares? We aren’t electing the President of the Standup Comedians Guild. Kerry speaks foreign languages and is well-travelled and cultured, which from my experience tends to make people more
broad-minded and considerate of other points of view. Kerry volunteered for combat service in Vietnam when he didn’t have to, something we should never let people forget, no matter how badly the Republicans try to sully that fact. By every standard, this man is Presidential material. He looks Presidential, acts Presidential even in his waffling (what could be more Presidential than doublespeak and contradicting one’s self?), but he cannot get any traction with ordinary Americans. By “ordinary” I mean Americans who don’t already hate Bush, who may be but probably are not college educated, who don’t pay much attention to the political process, and who are envious and mistrustful of the wealthy.

Kerry’s fortunes may shift in the coming weeks. After the debates, if Bush’s lead does not shrink, or if it (God forbid) widens, then it will be time for worry. Tomorrow is the first and most important debate, but today is gut check day. No more time for complaining, fretting, second-guessing. We’re in the fight now, and we’ve got to play for keeps. I’ve checked my gut, and I still think Kerry can close this deal. Time is on the move, though. If Kerry is a strong finisher, as conventional wisdom says he is, now is the time to finish.

Kerry’s Vision Disappoints a Yearning World (washingtonpost.com)

The election is still more than a month away, and already the post-mortem has begun. Why did Kerry lose? One writer in London claims that Kerry’s failure is attributable to “the long, disreputable tradition of anti-intellectualism in American politics.” Others point to Kerry’s inability to articulate a clear difference between himself and President Bush on Iraq. All of the writers quoted in Morley’s article wring their hands nervously at the thought of a second term for George W. Bush. It’s almost enough to make one vote for Bush, just to see the Europeans weep.

A journalist for a Spanish paper writes that Kerry “is the hope of the world to put a stop to the imperialist ideas and belligerent crusades of the Bush government.” That’s a lot of pressure to put on the shoulders of one man. It is also hardly a ringing endorsement to most Americans. Middle-of-the-road Americans don’t care a fig for what the rest of the world thinks; indeed, the more right-leaning among us entertain the gut reaction that if Europe is for it, then Americans ought to be agin it. Some will no doubt vote for Bush because Kerry is the choice of Europeans.

Kerry understands this, I think. Many months have passed since his blunder when he said that he has spoken to European leaders who want to see him win the election; he has not repeated that mistake, though it may be too little, too late. In the meantime, I have read in the New Yorker that the French reporters in Kerry’s media entourage have been disappointed that he now refuses to converse with them in French. It’s English-only on the Kerry campaign plane.

There is a strain of anti-intellectualism in American society; more than a strain, really. No one in modern times ever got to be President on his brains. It isn’t that Americans are stupid; it’s that we don’t trust intellectuals, or people who speak a foreign language. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really. It just means if you want to be President, you must play by the rules of the game, which are: at campaign stops, try to make the whole thing look like an impromptu hoe down; eat lots of barbecue and corn on the cob while sitting on hay bales shipped in from nearby farms; roll up your shirt sleeves; buy a modest ranch in some western state where you can pretend to clear brush while on vacation, clearing brush should become your favorite hobby; squint a lot; even though you’re rich, don’t flaunt it, have your campaign bus stop at Wendy’s for lunch when on the road, and make sure the press reports your fondness for fast food; routinely make hilarious misstatements so that the American people get a good laugh and your opponents continually misunderestimate you; get your hair cut in the local barbershop of whatever town your bus happens to be passing through; don’t tell reporters, even hostile reporters, to “Shove it!”; go to church every Sunday, your Bible under your arm. And perhaps most important, no windsurfing! Repeat this to yourself daily: No windsurfing! When was the last time you saw a NASCAR Dad participate in any sport involving wind that did not come out of his ass? These are only a few hints to the prospective candidate. Every election adds to the list of do’s and don’ts.

Suffice it to say, Americans like to elect people who are like them, people like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Sad, but true. Just yesterday, I read an article in the New Yorker about Teresa Heinz Kerry. She sounds like an interesting, sophisticated woman who would be a fine First Lady. All her sophistication, though, is a handicap in an American election. After the election is over, and if Kerry has lost it, Kerry supporters will all shake their heads and wonder why it had to be. The fault lies not with the Kerry’s—they can only be themselves after all, and it’s hard to hide the fact that one is a billionaire with magnificent homes scattered from Sun Valley to Georgetown—the fault, Dear Reader, lies with we who chose them. What did we think, that the American electorate would suddenly decide to break with tradition and vote for someone so unlike us? If elected, John Kerry will be the wealthiest President ever to hold the office. I am a Kerry supporter, but personally, I cannot even imagine what it must be like to wake up every day with the knowledge that no matter what I do with the rest of my life, I am still a billionaire. How much more difficult must it be for others to identify with this man?

Secret Service Examining Threats Made by a Heckler

You may have heard about his story—or not. It was mentioned one day last week on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart because of the humorous way the woman spelled “groin” in her threat. Otherwise, it did not make the news, as far as I know. The Washington Times reports that this “heckler” (as they are invariably called) was shouted down with chants of “Four More Years” as she was arrested and led away.

I can understand the woman’s pain, and I hope no charges are filed. Do you think it’s legitimate, or unfair, to ask why Laura Bush’s daughters are not serving in Iraq, if the cause is so important?

Grisly Path to Power In Iraq’s Insurgency (washingtonpost.com)

In the debate about the proper place of the war in Iraq in the overall War on Terror, much is posited, but little stands up to scrutiny. The Bush Administration overstates its case when it asserts collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but those on the opposite side of the issue have to ignore some compelling facts in order to dismiss the war in Iraq as a diversion from the war on Terror. This article in today’s Washington Post provides new insight into the question of whether Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists; unfortunately, the article does not answer the question of whether that alone was reason enough to invade. I happen to think it is a better reason than that Saddam was producing or had the capability to produce WMD, but the argument received short shrift in the runup to the war, perhaps because the media was so dismissive of the idea that there was a link between Saddam and terrorism. The article is a retelling of the story of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the one link that connects Saddam to Al Qaeda.

About the same time [March 2002], Jordanian authorities indicted Zarqawi in absentia for his role in the millennium plot in Amman and issued a warrant for his arrest. Jordanian investigators had followed his trail to Iraq and tried to persuade Saddam Hussein’s government to extradite him.

“There is proof that he was in Iraq during that time,” the Jordanian security official said. “We sent many memos to Iraq during this time, asking them to identify his position, where he was, how he got weapons, how he smuggled them across the border.”

Hussein’s government never responded, according to the official, who added that documents recovered after its overthrow in 2003 show that Iraqi agents did detain some Zarqawi operatives but released them after questioning. Furthermore, the Iraqis warned the Zarqawi operatives that the Jordanians knew where they were, he said.

That Saddam was indifferent even to a Muslim country’s attempts to fight terrorism should come as no surprise; what is new and important is that apparently, agents of Saddam’s regime, with or without official sanction, provided information to Zarqawi about Jordan’s knowledge of their whereabouts. Evidence of collusion? No, evidence of indifference to the criminals living in the midst of Iraq.

The article goes on to document Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda, stressing that there is tension between Zarqawi and the leaders of Al Qaeda. As the most active terrorist in the world today, Zarqawi has risen to larger-than-life status, and he is helped along in that endeavor by his ability to elude the Americans who want him dead. His overall goals are also different than those of Al Qaeda, but nonetheless he has sought out Al Qaeda for advice and financing. As an FBI agent interviewed in this article says, terrorists typically belong to amorphous, disorganized groups, and one cannot expect the kind of clear connections and alliances one might see between states aligned against an enemy. This is the problem with the war on terrorism: how does one fight an enemy with no territorial boundaries, no conventional army, and a hundred leaders, most of them as replaceable as the foot soldiers? One cannot even develop a rationale for fighting such a war that satisfies everyone from the most peaceful to the most hawkish.

Thus those who looked at Zarqawi as the clear link between Saddam and Al Qaeda find only the thinnest threads; and those who dismiss such links out of hand must contend with the fact that after the war in Afghanistan, one of the most ruthless, cunningest, bloodiest villains the world has ever known took up residence in Iraq, and Saddam did not throw him out. Perhaps both sides of the issue were looking the wrong way, and certainly both sides decided on the wrong course of action. America could not sit by and allow Zarqawi to live in peace in Iraq; but I wonder whether if, instead of a full scale invasion and occupation, we could have simply used our special forces to take Zarqawi by surprise while looking for other, more sensible means to bring down Saddam. Speculation is useless, yet one has only to look at how the Iraq occupation has turned out to wonder if things could have been different.

Every time I hear the President say that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them over here, I think to myself, “Why is it better that Americans are dying in Iraq, while we civilian Americans go about our lives in peace over here?” Is there some fundamental, metaphysical difference between an American soldier dying in the dust of the Middle East and an American businessman dying in the collapse of a skyscraper in New York City?

Over a thousand dead, and for what? I am no longer sure. I appreciate the sacrifice of the soldier who dies in Iraq that I may live in oblivious peace in Washington, D.C., but it is a sacrifice I don’t think he had to make, not in this way, not for this cause.

Election May Hinge On Debates (washingtonpost.com)
I always wonder at how every election is always the most negative yet, the most divisive, the most important in history; and every election always “hinges” on the debates. Part of this is the media’s need to have a dramatic horse race. Still, having experienced several of these elections now, one only feels the drama of the situation if one forgets the slogans, key words, and issues of the previous campaign.

As this article acknowledges, the debates are not strictly debates, in the formal sense. There is none, or very little, hand to hand combat between the opponents. Mostly, there are side by side “I believe …” statements about policy and priorities. Thus the things people most remember, ironically, are a candidate’s facial expression, whether they seem nervous or on edge, whether they look at their watch, as George H. W. Bush did during a debate with Bill Clinton. This is why Kerry is probably at a disadvantage in the debates coming up. His formal debating skills are absolutely worthless in an environment where voters are looking for emotional cues that help them identify with a candidate, or which disqualify the candidate from consideration. Kerry so far has not triggered much positive feeling in anyone that I know of.

Meanwhile, Iraq descends further into chaos. This will be the primary subject of the first debate this week, thus the first debate should be the best and the most relevant.

I think a lot of otherwise Conservative, hawkish Americans have doubts about the Bush policy in Iraq. It is clear to anyone with eyes that we are not fulfilling what we went to Iraq to do. Another article in the Post today describes the arrest of a General in the Iraqi National Guard for ties to insurgents. Meanwhile, attacks by terrorists in Iraq average 22 per day. Question is, do we give this up as pointless and let Iraq go its own way, or do we find a solution to this problem that does not involve an American occupation? Giving up is simplest, but would probably lead to problems down the road, since Iraq would most likely become an anti-American stronghold like Iran. But what else is there? The Iraqis clearly have no will to cooperate with us. There will come a point, as in Vietnam, where we must decide to cut our losses and withdraw.

That may seem an untenable outcome to the Bush Administration, or maybe not. Last week Robert Novak wrote an editorial in which he claimed that an unnamed, important Bush Administration official has told him that after elections in January, the President (assuming Bush is still President) will pull troops out of Iraq, too. This sounds like a mere attempt to influence the election by hints of what may happen, put on the information market by unnamed officials and a columnist of dubious reputation. However, I think there is probably a good chance that the January elections will result in significant troop reduction.

If the Bush Administration itself is considering early withdraw as Novak, a Conservative columnist, suggests, there seems even less of a difference between the two candidates running for President. It also frees Americans of their conflict between the necessity of winning the war, and claiming an uneasy peace. We can vote for either candidate without feeling we are making a right or wrong choice with respect to the War on terror and Iraq, because both men seem to endorse the same course of action. If President Bush is considering withdrawing the troops before the job is complete, then indeed that suggests that neither Bush nor Kerry see their way clear to an acceptable outcome in Iraq. And that is truly frightening and embarrassing for this country. No matter who is elected, we have only the national shame of defeat to look forward to next year. Iraq is beyond our control now.

Congress Votes to Extend Tax Cuts (washingtonpost.com)

The issue of taxes is probably the single reason I usually vote Republican rather than Democrat. Four tax cuts in as many years, as President Bush has done, is pretty impressive. Whether the latest tax cut, or any of the tax cuts, will survive the need to control the deficit next year remains to be seen. What if John Kerry is elected President?

Kerry has expressed support for the cut passed yesterday, as well as the President’s other tax breaks to the middle class. He says he will keep the middle class cuts in place, while repealing the cuts for people who make over $200,000.00 That Kerry has promised to protect the tax breaks for people like me is probably the one factor that allows me to support him for President. That may seem unduly selfish, even anti-Conservative, since ideally, no one should have to pay more than anyone else just because they earn more. We live in a world of compromises, though, and Kerry is my compromise candidate. I’ll sacrifice some of my values in order to hold the President accountable for mistakes that have been disastrous for the United States.

The interesting thing about the issue of taxes is the language used to speak about the matter. Both sides, Republican and Democrat, use misleading rhetoric to inflame passion on the issue. I’ll start with a Republican comment mentioned in this artiicle:”"Anyone voting ‘no’ is voting for a tax increase for the American people, especially on the middle class,” warned Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.)” How does a decision not to cut taxes mean a vote for a tax increase?

Democrats, on the other hand, speak of tax cuts as if they were a new federal program. “How can we afford them?” They ask, or as the New York Times helpfully puts it, using the same incorrect language, “Democrats had made it clear they would vote to extend the tax cuts, but they tried during the conference committee to attach amendments that would have paid for them with either a surcharge on families with incomes above $1 million or by closing some corporate tax shelters.” The government doesn’t have to “pay” for a tax cut; it just has to decide to do with less money so that ordinary people can keep more of their income. Ultimately, who does a tax cut hurt? It doesn’t hurt me. It doesn’t hurt my family. Even my wife’s family, poor as they are, are not hurt by tax cuts; they still get large amounts of money back from the IRS every April. My Mother, who is very poor, is not hurt by tax cuts. My experience has been that the working poor get money back every April, especially if they have kids. I, on the other hand, usually have to pay even more taxes when April rolls around.

As I see it, the only way the government “pays” for a tax cut is by cutting programs which are probably unnecessary anyway.

Following is the playlist currently playing on my iPod:

The Star Spangled Banner—The Simpsons
America—Waylon Jennings
America—(poem) Allen Ginsberg
America—Simon & Garfunkel
American Patrol—Glenn Miller and his Orchestra
Born in the U.S.A.—Bruce Springsteen
Christ for President—Billy Bragg and Wilco
Dear Mrs. Roosevelt—Bob Dylan
Fortunate Son—Creedence Clearwater Revival
God Bless America—Kate Smith
He’s a Mighty Good Leader—Beck
Okie from Muskogee—Merle Haggard
President’s Song—The Simpsons
Shhh, it’s a military secret—Glenn Miller and his orchestra
The Ballad of John and Yoko—The Beatles
There’s a Star Spangled Banner Waving Somewhere—Elton Britt
This Land is Your Land—Woody Guthrie
War Prayer—Willie Nelson (Mark Twain)
The Fightin’ Side of Me—Merle Haggard
Give Peace a Chance—John Lennon
Green Tara Mantra—His Holiness the Dalai Lama