Kerry gaffe: November gift ?

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Is John Kerry's gaffe enough to help Republicans retain the majority in the House?


MRB:

I was embarrassed to have Sen Kerry as our presidential candidate in 2004 and that he continues to go around purporting to speak on behalf of Democrats today. Sen. Kerry, please be quiet and leave the joke telling to Letterman, Leno, O'Brien and Stewart. They have great writers skilled in political satire.

I understand the context in which he gave the speech and I understand he was Bush-bashing in apolitical campaign speech. I also understand, having given enough speeches myself, how a well meaning tongue can slip up when it collides with a well intentioned brain. But there is too much at stake right now for the Democrats to make stupid mistakes and play into the Republican agenda a week before the election -- they are grasping at any floating object in the ocean to stay afloat right now. Will this hurt us? No. Will an apology help? No. But he has to do it. I know, and he knows, and America knows that Sen. Kerry supports our courageous troops in this awful "thing" in Iraq. He wants what is best for them and this country and accusations otherwise are specious and get the Republicans nowhere.

But please, no more jokes.

KJW:

The simple answer to the question is NO. How many voters do you really believe have not made up their minds who they are going to vote for? I never believe polls that suggest people don't already know. I believe they just like to say they have not decided. Can you really imagine an undecided Independent voter sitting in their home thinking....."Well I am going to show John Kerry....I am going to go out and vote Republican because he insulted our troops". Not likely. Now it might have an effect upon some Republicans who were more predisposed to sit this one out. But I don't think it will be significant in any respect. Of course there is the issue of the potential effect on the troops themselves. Well they tend to have a high turnout and also tend to vote Republican anyway, so I don't think that will be impacted significantly.

Kerry has already cancelled appearances following the furror over this situation. I expect that you will not hear or see much of him between now and next Tuesday. The reality is that this "November Gift" is going to be an empty box. Now I am not ready to suggest the Democrats hire a decorator to measure drapes, but I don't see a significant number of voters on election day telling exit pollers that they came out and voted because of John Kerry's statement.

Nevertheless, although I have concluded that this gaffe will not impact the election next week, I do believe that it will significantly impact the election (more particularly the primary) in two years. By committing this gaffe John Kerry has damaged his chances of successfully being nominated by the Democratic party in '08. I can already see the neverending commercials with Kerry insulting the troops and some voiceover questioning his fitness to be the Commander in Chief. To me that strategy will have legs.

EJS:

There are often references in political circles to an "October surprise". Usually it's several weeks before an election, and usually it is the opposition party digging up dirt. In this instance, John Kerry has shot the Democrats in the foot exactly seven days from the finish line. The question is, do they have enough gas in the tank to cross first? Or does this in fact confirm what we had already known: the elitist liberals (Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Dean, etc.) snicker at the military behind their backs and anyone else who doesn't hold power, because they are somehow inferior in intelligence. The left isn't anti-war, they are anti-military. They are anti-police. Those same thugs you saw fighting the police in the streets of Seattle during the WTO have now metamorphised into peace-loving, Birckenstock wearing anti-war protestors. The left has an utter disdain for the military, and the comment by John Kerry illustrates this perfectly. As does their repetitive votes against the tools that help our military defend the people of this country.

The left has voted against every major weapons system, from missile defense to the B-1 bomber. They have been an obstacle in the road continuously throughout the War on Terror, from how to deal with enemy combatants to trying to defeat the Patriot Act. What is the family of a soldier who perished in Iraq or Afghanistan supposed to gleam from John Kerry's remarks? What Americans do get from this is, once again, it has been proven the Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. I believe this IS enough to cost the Democrats a takeover in the House.

PS. Kerry already held a press conference to say he won't apologize. Any apology now is simply politically motivated.

Was Benjamin Franklin right ?

Benjamin Franklin is credited with writing: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Is what Benjamin Franklin said still valid today?





MRB:

YES HE WAS

To give up any liberty is a risk but to do it out of fear is a tragedy. Not only that but when a free nation like ours gives up something -- or imposes that loss on select citizens out of our fear -- a great sense of trust must exist between the government and the citizens who elected it.

We have to remember in this argument that we are always giving up tiny pieces of our liberty and freedom. I must stop at red lights and not drive 60 miles per hour through school zones. I can't shout FIRE! in a theater. That's why we have these things called laws and fines and jails to house those people who think they are better than the rest of the citizenry. I'd say being in jail constitutes a loss of freedom, wouldn't you? But I'd also say these restrictions make us feel a little safer. I know they do me, but I trust the system from which they derived. I must because otherwise we'd have anarchy and as pock marked as this system is sometimes I don't see any others (except in my daydreaming fantasies) that work better.

Because we have these annoyances called laws we ALL agree to abide by them. I didn't cast any votes that I can remember giving this administration carte blanch to do whatever it damned well pleased because we have a "war" going on that it can't define what it is, where it's at, and can't agree on just how to "stay the course". Was there a vote taken and I was on break or something? "Just trust me", doesn't work for me anymore ever since I figured out my parents lied to me about Santa Claus.

And so to the fear mongering conservatives out there try to remember this, please. Because there are laws, EVERYONE must follow them or change them legally through due process. The reason I caution you is because some of those very laws at which you scoff may sneak up behind you and bite you in the ass. Someday some of you may need that due process to work for you. Oh, I'm sorry, some of you have needed this irritating 230 year old system. I forgot.

KJW:

LIBERTY OR SECURITY - MUST WE CHOOSE?

We seem to be faced with an unpleasant choice. Are you willing to give up liberty to be safe? This is actually a misleading question since it assumes that we live in a world where liberty and safety are direct trade-offs - that we necessarily become safer when we give up our liberty.

This false choice between safety and liberty has been offered by the Bush Administration to justify its post-9/11 policies that undermine civil liberties. But the PATRIOT Act and related executive branch directives strip away fundamental rights of free speech, privacy and due process without making us any safer.

Consider, for example, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. It permits the government to seize your records from third parties without telling you, including your library reading lists, your medical and mental health records, your banking information, and your Internet Service Provider records. To make matters worse, Section 215 makes it a crime for the librarian, health care provider, bank or ISP to tell you that your records have been seized.

After a constitutional challenge to Section 215 was filed, former Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department had never actually used Section 215 to seize a library patron's books. This admission, of course, suggests what most of us knew all along: that giving the government access to your reading habits does not make you any safer. Only less free.

The first impulse of the government in all times of crisis is control and coercion. A government unconstrained by law, tradition, or public opinion is nothing short of despotic. Not everything can be justified in the name of punishment, prevention, and safety.

History teaches that in times of national insecurity, there is a tendency to sacrifice Constitutional protections in the name of national security. This is our moment in history. So the next time someone asks you whether you are willing to sacrifice freedom in the name of security, ask them a few questions of your own.

One very important question to ask is - Which rights are we being asked to give up and who decides? WHICH RIGHTS: The Bush Administration has not gone to Congress and asked for certain rights, habeas corpus, or any other rights to be modified or changed. Instead it has merely attempted to expand the power of the Executive branch and implemented clearly unconstitutional policies and programs.

And also remember to ask WHO DECIDES. But when you do just remember that in his own words George W. Bush is THE DECIDER.

There’s never a good time to give up liberty. But when everyone else is calling for despotism to fight despotism, it’s the best time to stand up and say: We will not be moved. We need more, not less, liberty.

EJS:

Ben Franklin is one of the greatest American heroes of all time. He could be credited with the American victory in the Revolutionary War, as it was his diplomatic skills which prompted France to enter the war on our side, thus tipping the scales against the British. But in this matter, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Franklin. The fact is, Ben Franklin lived in a different time. There is no way he could ever imagine a jet, much less a jet being used as a weapon of mass destruction. Neither him nor the Constitutional delegates could have ever imagined such technology as cell phones, internet, and spy satellites. And thus it is up to us to interpret the Constitution and do the best we can to apply it to today's modern world. The fact remains, Americans have always had to sacrifice some civil liberties during times of war. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus until the end of the war in order to detain Confederate agents and not have them fighting against the Union on the battlefield. FDR interned 100,000 Japanese-American during WWII in order to prevent spying from within the United States. They were treated humanely in the camps, and at the conclusion of the war, were released.

What George Bush has done pales in comparison to these examples. The fact is, the wiretapping that is being done by the NSA is extremely focused and not widespread as many media pundits would have you believe. It applies only to known or suspected Al Qaeda agents, and only applies to international calls. No domestic calls are being monitored. Unless you are talking to Uncle Osama in Pakistan, you have nothing to fear. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. In a post-9/11 world, we must use all tools necessary to prevent attacks and protect American citizens here and abroad. Gone are the days when we simply waited to be hit and reacted. Remember, one dirty bomb can really ruin your day.

Would Democratic control of Congress be a good thing or a bad thing ?

The latest polls indicate that the Democrats may take control of the House and also may take control of the Senate. Not since the Republicans took control with their Contract with America have we seen such a change of power. If it occurs this will result once again in a divided Government. The question then becomes: IS THIS A GOOD THING?

MRB:

ABSOLUTE POWER?

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as the saying goes and that is what we've had since the Contract with America. Some of us have felt that would have been more appropriately called Contract ON America. Look at what and where it has gotten us. Almost no significant legislation. No Child Left Behind? Sounds like someone saw that McCauley Calkin movie. Social Security reform? Dead in the water. FEMA? What? There has been some very nice tribal dances about a war on terrorism and poorly conceived planning and execution that has surpassed a level of ineptitude that I thought I'd never see again after Viet Nam.

So much for the legislature and the executive branch being from the same political party. At least they are skilled in some things. Scandals come to mind. There's been finger pointing at Bill Clinton because of his "mistakes" ten years ago that got poor "W" in this mess. "Gee, if only Bill had ..." does not sound like what I expect from leaders. Seems to me you are elected to lead and and not whine, but, hey that's my liberal bias I guess.

So, no a unibody congress and executive branch is disaterous. Will a divison help? Yes, if only to keep both sides focused on the issues. It is the best of the checks and balances concept that the founding fathers had in mind but didn't exactly envison.

My personal wish is to have a more balanced distribution. More 50/50 which gives power to the swing votes and which means the discussion must be focused and convincing precisely to convince those swing votes. It will force the Democrats to stop walking around with their hands in their pockets and actually get a plan together on the issues. Perhaps because of that a leadership will emerge that will again set us up for a presidential contender. You can't form leaders without something to lead. And it might just lead to some -- forgive me for this my liberal friends -- some bipartisan decisions being made that might actually be GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY. Now there's a new concept.

But then what do I know? I'm just a flaming liberal.

KJW:

FEAR NOT - A GOOD THING IS COMING

I believe that we would be better off if at least one house of Congress is controlled by the Democratic party after the upcoming election.

First, over the past half century, we’ve had only two periods of what could be called fiscal restraint: The last six years of the Eisenhower administration, and the last six years of the Clinton administration, both intervals in which the opposition controlled Congress. Under Clinton, the average annual increase in spending was at about 1 percent, while, under Ike, it was negative. By contrast, our unified governments have gone on fiscal benders. Harry Truman, with the help of a Democratic Congress, sent the money flying, with spending increases of as high as 10 percent a year. Lyndon Johnson was almost as profligate. And today, unfortunately, George W. Bush, with a GOP majority, is the heir to their legacies. To put this in plain numbers, government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government. That’s a hefty premium to pay for a bit of unity.

Secondly, in 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example—World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War—was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern.

Today, I believe that the two most important issues facing us are the economy and the war in Iraq. If we end up with a divided government after next month's election, I believe that we will be better off with regard to both of these issues.

EJS:

NIGHTMARE SCENARIO?

Red-staters have been up late the last several months, tossing and turning because of a scary nightmare scenario being pounded into their heads repetitively by conservative pundits. That nightmare goes something like this: on a cold, gloomy, typical Washington morning in January, Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco values take control of the United States Congress. Unending investigations, amnesty for illegals, higher taxes, and gridlock are the ugly picture being painted by some. But we must ask ourselves, as true conservatives, is this nightmare scenario really all it's cracked up to be?

So called 'conservatives' have lost their way in the proverbial woods. This administration and Congress have had six years to produce the type of results that values voters put them in office for. Yes, we have gotten tax cuts. There's no doubt about it, the tax cuts have generated more small business growth, and thus tax revenues are at an all-time high. The economy is humming along, as much as the MSM doesn't want to admit it. But what else have we gotten? A mismanaged Iraq costing us billions. A resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, due to a lack of focus there. No Federal Marriage Amendment. No privatized accounts for social security. The border is wide open. The trade deficit, specifically with China. North Korea and Iran thumbing their noses at us. I can go on and on, but we are all familiar with the Bush administrations' shortcomings when it comes to the conservative movement.

But blame not only lies with the President, it also lies with the US Congress. Republicans have gotten comfortable being in the majority in Congress since 1994. Congressmen move seamlessly between their offices in the Cannon Office Building and jobs with lobbying firms on K Street. In fact, the last time I remember the Republicans actually being conservative was 1994 under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. It is time to take a power hose to the innards of the Republican Party. It is time to eliminate those who would rather fill their own coffers instead of doing the peoples' bidding as they should. In a party with a lame duck president and a vacuum of leadership, there could be no better prescription than receding into the minority and being forced to return to fighting for core conservative issues.

How much damage can Nancy Pelosi really do? As bad as Bush is, he's not all of a sudden going to start signing legislation authorizing gay marriage and increasing taxes. He is the conservatives' safety net. Even if the Democrats do take the House, which I believe they will, their hands will be tied to a large extent. So, for the next two years, we can look forward to endless investigations, maybe they'll try an impeachment, but for the most part, the status quo will continue for the next two years. Hopefully the Republicans can reform themselves during that interim, and also push some of the responsibility and blame to the Democrats for the current situation. This will also provide ammunition for the GOP attack machine in 2008. So conservatives need not fret, but rather stick to their core values, make sure their issues remain at the forefront of discourse, and bide their time. My prediction: Democrats take the House, Republicans retain a slight majority in the Senate.

The Political Nature of Man

Aristotle once said, "Man is by nature a political animal." In the pages that follow we hope to share with you our political thoughts and ideas. You will quickly discover that the three of us are very different political animals. MRB is a Liberal. KJW is a Centrist. EJS is a Conservative. On each topic we will present our respective views. We hope that these views will be well reasoned. There may be a few times when we will be in complete agreement. Occasionally we will be in agreement on a result, but for very different reasons. More often than not we will be in utter and complete disagreement. Even in those times we will treat each other and you with respect. To paraphrase Voltaire - we may not agree with what each other have to say, but we will defend to the death each other's right to say it.

Here is who we are:

MRB:

I am the liberal of the trio. I do not remember ever not being a liberal. I am 59 years old and, of course, am a "child of the sixties". I have been politically active in one form or another since I was in high school. I was an activist in the civil rights movement and a loud, marching, chanting, organizer of the anti-Viet Nam War movement in Kansas City where I grew up. I managed to receive a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in 1969 and before I could move on to graduate school, where I did later receive a Master of Fine Arts degree, I was drafted and suffered the subsequent humiliations of draftees before, during and after my tour of duty. With two friends I had planned to go to Canada after graduation (I'd already torn up my draft card publicly) but for complicated reasons and persuasions that went against all I had worked so hard for during the previous six years I let myself be taken away. I still have pangs of guilt over that decision to this day. I am so thankful that my son, who is in college now, does not have to wrestle with this issue. I would gladly pay his way to a safe haven to avoid this "thing" in Iraq if we had a draft. I'm proud to say he's following in the liberal tradition.

I don't know how I became a liberal, really. Influential teachers were part of it I know. The kind of books and issues that got me excited were another. Just being alive at that time certainly played a role. My parents were basically apolitical, bragging that when they voted, one voted Democrat, the other Republican "to cancel one another out, because it doesn't matter anyway." Maybe they were right to a degree but I felt at an early age that these politicians and laws we voted on DID, in fact, matter. It is what history is made of. But liberalism runs in my blood in all aspects of my life; personal, religious, social, job and political. In presidential elections I have always voted for the Democratic candidate, except once. I voted for Ford over Carter because I felt that the country needed a quiet time after the Nixon years and not more change. My hand shook as I pulled the lever though. In other elections I have, on occassion, voted for Republican or Independent candidates and issues if I felt the Democrat was inept and the issues outrageous.
I deeply and truly love this country that we have built stone by stone for over two hundred years. By not going to Canada as I had planned in 1969 I retained and earned my right and freedom to make the United States the best place on earth and I WILL NOT allow any of these hard fought freedoms be besmirched and flicked away without clearly thought out goals and objectives by our leadership. I am hoping that over the next few years that I can remain firmly in and with my party.

KJW:

I am a 47 year old man. I am married and have children ranging from 2 years of age to 16 years of age. I have a business degree and a law degree. I grew up in the South. My parents were very conservative, both religiously and politically. Someone once said that everyone should be a Democrat at 20 and a Republican at 40. While I understand the philosophy behind that statement, I have found my own life experience to be different. In my 20's I was highly conservative. Now in my 40's I have found myself to be less and less conservative as each year goes by. My lack of alignment with either political party can be shown by how I have voted in Presidential elections. I voted for Reagan in 1980, Reagan in 1984, Bush in 1988, Clinton in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. By my count that is 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats.

I am extremely dissatisfied with the politics of both the Democratic party and the Republican party and believe that the near future will include a viable major third political party. As the Democrats and Republicans continue to move farther and farther apart they are creating a vacuum in between. I find myself standing in that vacuum - and I know that I am not alone.

EJS:

I am a 27 year old single guy living the high life in sunny Phoenix, Arizona. I work full-time as an education counselor and am currently pursuing my BS in Marketing. I want to go on to earn a Masters in Public Administration, and hope to use the combination of the two in a job in political campaigning. I basically want to be the next Karl Rove. I was raised in a family with close ties to the military; my father was in the Army and then worked for many years as a defense contractor. My uncle is a Captain in the US Air Force, and my grandfather is retired Air Force. My cousin was in the US Marine Corps and participated in the Battle of Fallujah. You might say that this has influenced my politics, and I am often told I am too young to be so right wing.

By no means am I your run-of-the-mill Bushbot. I am what you would call an independent-minded conservative. I believe traditional family values and Judeo-Christian values are the foundation which America was built on. I believe that our society's move toward secular progressive policies endangers our culture and threatens America's sovereignty.
I disagree strongly with the President in a few key areas, namely immigration policy and the mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Spending is also out of control. I do support him in the overall War on Terror, and he has done great things for the country, such as tax cuts which have spurred the economy and his judicial nominations have been excellent (though he tried to flub that as well).