Oct 28, 2004


Anonymous said...

<<Conservatism, in its purest form, is a set of ideals with a lot of merit. Liberalism, in its purest form, is much the same.>>

Ah, the sweet smell of fresh intellectual honesty! Which, BTW, has been devoid on the Left as well.

To quote myself (http://www.onipress.com/community/?msg=4589.12): “I agree with about half of what liberals say and about half of what conservatives say; I agree with about none of what Democrat politicians do and about none of what Republican politicians do.”

Too many Dems and Repubs care only whether “their” side wins. Never mind if their candidates are a giant douche and a turd sandwich (http://www.southparkstudios.com). It’s a tragedy that intelligent voters are forced to choose whether to A) vote the major-party guy will do the least harm, or B) vote for a minor-party guy who can’t win.

Much of the rhetoric out there is thinly disguised hatred and vitriol; it actually leads people to vote for Bush just to keep the “Michael Moore” side from winning. Here’s hoping for more straightforward discussion in the major media, and yes, on the internet. Then we can get to the important and difficult questions: A or B? And, based on facts, which is the correct choice among the A candidates, or among the B candidates?

And here’s hoping for better choices in 2008!

<<Bush isn't just bad for the Left, or for liberals, he's bad for all of us.>>

As you already know, even though you’ve chosen A:Kerry and I’ve chosen B:Badnarik, I completely agree with this statement. Based on facts.


Jamie S. Rich said...

In last month's Vanity Fair, columnist Michael Wolff had an interesting piece on "What if George Bush?" does win. He had some good points about what an incredibly tough four years it will be for the man, given that Bush Hate is now a national industry. It would solidify the left as a real movement, the way Clinton allowed the right to become taken over by the neocons, and create an atmosphere not unlike the '60s. It would also be bad news for Fox News, who will thrive under Kerry but will become the biggest whipping post under four more with Shrub.

He also noted that, if you look back over the last several decades, the only second-term presidents have been the ones to inspire disdain like this. Consider Carter and Bush Sr., people that were too bland to be given a second shot. You need true opposition to inspire a zealous defense.

Interesting stuff.