Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


I have changed countries only to find I have stepped through the looking glass.
October 18, 2004 2:27 PM   Subscribe

I'm a Democrat for Bush.
Sarah Baxter is a life-long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W Bush to remain president?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood (104 comments total)

 
Because she's afraid.
posted by smackfu at 2:32 PM on October 18, 2004


She says: My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat.

I think many of them would rather Bush stick around and piss off more people - brings people over to their cause.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who is a single-issue voter isn't paying enough attention.
posted by agregoli at 2:33 PM on October 18, 2004


This is a really interesting article. We hear a lot about moderate Republicans who are voting against Bush because they disagree with his extremist positions; we don't hear as much about Democrats voting for him because of the single issue of terrorism. I think the really frightening thing (even if Bush does do a better job on that one issue) is that their vote will be seen as a mandate for those extremist positions. It's a deal with the devil.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:42 PM on October 18, 2004


She openly claims in the beginning that she's a one-issue voter, that being Terrorism. Then you realize she lives in London, so obviously she has no grip on how bad things are here domestically, financially, civil liberties-wise, etc. She doesn't live here. I wouldn't vote in an election in London; all I know of Tony Blair is the War on Terrorism, too. So shit, why not, give me a voting card? Hell, what about that Iraqi vote? I am for a war on Terrorism, who's on the ballot? I don't even know enough about Canada right now to vote on their election. But I understand they were critical of this war, so maybe we should vote them out?

She's a bozo warhawk, plain and simple. Just as tedious and annoying as one of those boring "undecideds" holding the clickers on CNN debate night. Her argument also sounds very racist.

It's funny she mentions Koons and Serrano in her piece. She's in good company for attention-grabbing. "I'm a Democrat for Bush" is the new piss christ metal bunny rabbit.
posted by Peter H at 2:45 PM on October 18, 2004


If America really, truly wanted to effect the implementation of open markets in the islamic world, here's what they could do:

Go to Detroit, Lackawana, and the relevant suburbs of British and French major cities, in the guise of AOR reps or just wealthy bohemians. Get in tight with local DJs and musicians, and scope the really hot underground talent. Give these guys money to make CDs; help ship those CDs to their home countries. Better yet, arrange for them to tour their home countries -- preferably on the cheap, since cheap lends cred.

Meanwhile, through other channels, work to increase the amount of mainstream western (and especially American) mass-media that floods into the country. Do this through non-governmental channels - make it look like free trade. (Hell, it *would* be free trade.)

Fund scholarship programs at major American universities, and make sure that they're fully utilized. Get moles inside the scholarship programs, but make sure the moles don't know they're working for the Company -- engage and manage them via "cool-tracking" firms or something. (Or just outsource it to a cool-tracking firm. Even better.)

Do these things, and you'll be looking at the steady deterioration of traditional ways of life throughout the region you're targeting, not to mention an expansion for American pop-culture products. Sure, it woudl take a generation or so -- but anyone who tells you that real change takes less than a generation is full of shit, anyway.

Meddling openly and heavy-handedly in people's governmental and cultural affairs, though -- that's not likely to accomplish anything so much as pissing them off and energizing the reactionary forces.
posted by lodurr at 2:46 PM on October 18, 2004


And there are more than a few Republicans for Kerry.
posted by owillis at 2:49 PM on October 18, 2004


Any "Democrat " that would vote for Bush deserves a sockfull of nickles...
posted by Windopaene at 2:56 PM on October 18, 2004


And I'm not talking about giving them a few bucks either...
posted by Windopaene at 2:56 PM on October 18, 2004


Oh Steve... why do you hate America so much?
posted by jonson at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2004


What an idiot. To think that Bush has made either America or the world as a whole a safer place. To think that the terrorists would be celebrating a Bush defeat. I can just shake my head and worry that such morons have a vote at all.
posted by salmacis at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2004


How can she vote in both the UK and the US? Am I missing something?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2004


"I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president’s judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry’s. In this election, I am a single-issue voter. It is that simple."

She has made a flawed assumption; that Bush has better judgment on the war on terror than Kerry.
It is that simple.

Oh, and way to post a link to a boring article that adds nothing to the already tedious political discussion.
posted by Outlawyr at 2:58 PM on October 18, 2004


"I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat."

so... she just wants the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists in america to celebrate a bush victory?
posted by caution live frogs at 3:04 PM on October 18, 2004


Okay, I read the article again, and I still don't get it. Is she a former UK citizen who recently became an American citizen?

Also, she's not a "Democrat for Bush"--she's a Bush supporter who registered as a Democrat because, in her own words, she "wanted to put the party on notice".

I also don't get these people who attack Kerry as a wealthy elitist out of touch with the common man, as though Bush weren't equally wealthy and equally elitist. The author also tries to have it both ways--she characterizes Kerry as a man "of limited means" who made his money by marrying "heiresses".

I would not describe Kerry as being "of limited means"--Skull and Bones at Yale and a mother with a chateau in France don't count as "limited means" in my book. OTOH, Bush grew up in an environment of more liquid wealth than Kerry did.

The fact that Kerry's first wife, Julia Thorne, came from an upper-middle-class family with better cash flow than the Kerrys' hardly makes Kerry a gold-digging gigolo.

Look, people. Both of the guys running for President are rich "white, non-Hispanic" men who were members of the same secret society at Yale. They're even cousins a few times removed. Trying to distinguish one from the other on the grounds of social or economic class is idiotic.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:05 PM on October 18, 2004


I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat.

clueless.
posted by quonsar at 3:12 PM on October 18, 2004


Okay, I read the article again, and I still don't get it. Is she a former UK citizen who recently became an American citizen?
"Thanks to my mother, a lifelong Democrat from the swing state of Ohio, I have dual citizenship. I live in New York now and will be casting my vote in America for the first time."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:13 PM on October 18, 2004


What smackfu said--it's too bad she's too scared to think clearly.

She's delirious if she thinks we're safer now--she should read the 9/11 Commission and the Duelfer Reports.

I thought Dual citizenship doesn't allow you to vote in 2 countries--it's about where your residency is.
posted by amberglow at 3:20 PM on October 18, 2004


I'm a spotted owl for clear-cutting !
posted by troutfishing at 3:23 PM on October 18, 2004


You know what? Terrorism is my only issue too, and Kerry's getting my vote. I don't give a crap about what my tax rate is. I just don't want to get nuked. Voting against the person who has singlehandedly and unnecessarily escalated world conflict beyond its already bulging seams makes a lot of sense. I honestly can't come up with one rational reason why this person deserves a second term.
posted by PrinceValium at 3:25 PM on October 18, 2004


Nice to read an alternative viewpoint. Not one I agree with, but not one I would have seen if not for MeFi.

That being said, the whole concept of the "single issue voter" is absurd. The world is a very complex place. To vote for either candidate because they agree with you on one key issue is to, in essence, say that every other issue doesn't matter to you.

I am reminded of an interview I saw with a lady from Wisconsin on CNN who talked about how she'd lost her health care and her job and couldn't find another job. She blamed Bush for both these things and the expressed fear about the fact that she felt her rights were being eroded. However, she was going to vote for Bush because "thanks to him, I feel safe taking my kids to the mall." Great, she'll be safe to go to the mall with her kids and beg for food and band aids, provided the secret police to end up beating her up for being homeless.

/exaggeration?
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2004


when the metrosexual chap standing next to me confides ... “you have to have a low IQ to appreciate Bush”, I know I am making the right decision.
...
I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president’s judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry’s.


And with that, Ms. Baxter's metrosexual chap, however snobbish and boorish he may be, gets proven right.
posted by deanc at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2004


If you go to www.democratsforbush.com it redirects to georgewbush.com.
posted by Espoo2 at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2004


One more thing....

A website does not equal support, owillis. I'm not claiming that large numbers of Dems are going to 'defect' and vote for Bush, but the idea that Bush is losing Republicans to Kerry is a bit of wishful-thinking. All polls show that Republican support for Bush steadily in the mid-90%.


Oh, and way to post a link to a boring article that adds nothing to the already tedious political discussion.

I pretty sure this does add something to the 'already tedious political discussion' on MetaFilter. Balance.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:28 PM on October 18, 2004


My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat.

Let's see..an "in your face" attitude toward terrorist ..you'd help re-elect the current President only because that would make, in your opinion, the "global jihadist" unable to celebrate. Oooohh what a party breaker !

Therefore, if not re-electing the current President made them unhappy, you'd vote him out, regardless of other consequences.

It's interesting because either way, in your logic, the "global jahadist" managed to scare the hell out of you so well that you have decided that Presidential election have only one deciding point: whenever people living thousand kilometers away are happy or unhappy. Screw all other topics only one fear must lead my judgment !

She didn't really turn into Republican support...she can't Reps are extinct or under tight speech control.
posted by elpapacito at 3:29 PM on October 18, 2004


Yeah, makes almost no sense. I'm going to vote for Bush so that the terrorists don't celebrate his losing the election? Is this the gist of her stance? I just don't get people standing behind Bush when he's made such a freakin' mess of the war on terror to begin with.

Good thing she only gets one tiny vote. She's got her reasons to vote, albeit completely stupid single issue voting, so more power to her for having a position.

And am I the only one that found the tone of the article to be incredibly condescending and covertly snide? And then the final paragraph seems resigned to a Kerry win?

The article is a big old steaming pile, nice post, Steve.
posted by fenriq at 3:30 PM on October 18, 2004


“you have to have a low IQ to appreciate Bush”
To which I would add, you have to have a low IQ if you think Bush is stupid.
posted by seanyboy at 3:31 PM on October 18, 2004


The funniest thing is that her vote won't even count--NY is safely Kerry.
posted by amberglow at 3:33 PM on October 18, 2004


I just like how she put every liberal stereotype in the same room. If I was just a bit more liberal could I sit between beautifully botoxed women and discuss the difficulties in photographing my own piss?

Not a bad post, she has a perspective that I found interesting, wrong and myopic, but interesting.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:34 PM on October 18, 2004


Kerry should probably fly straight to London pronto and try to win her confidence. I'm sure her vote is critical to his possible victory.

I'm a melon and I'm voting for citrus.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 3:35 PM on October 18, 2004


"Abortion rights? By all means, let’s hang on to them. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Good idea, I hope it works. Health? I would love to see more people insured."

She wants everything Kerry is for aside from capital punishment but is voting for Bush because she doesn't want the terrorists to smile at his defeat?

Again, what a steaming pile.

strangelefty, she lives in New York now. Let's send Bush to London to try and find her.
posted by fenriq at 3:38 PM on October 18, 2004


ditto elwoodwiles. and thanks for the link, steve.
posted by quonsar at 3:47 PM on October 18, 2004


oh, and it really freaks me out how many people didn't get the stuff about where she lives and why she's voting here. it was a question uppermost in my mind as well, and the article answered it fully and completely on the first page.
posted by quonsar at 3:49 PM on October 18, 2004


amberglow: The funniest thing is that her vote won't even count--NY is safely Kerry

The elections aren't over. One doesn't stop running only because the end is closing.
posted by elpapacito at 3:58 PM on October 18, 2004


I ascribe it to bad writing. That part just didn't register with me. I was too keyed on the Ohio/swing state part.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:00 PM on October 18, 2004


quonsar, we don't read the stuff, just yell about it
posted by jmgorman at 4:01 PM on October 18, 2004


Just as a contrast, I just read Spiegelman's In The Shadow of No Towers which provides a view of a New Yorker who does not feel safer due to the "war on terror".
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:03 PM on October 18, 2004


I'm a clam for chowda!
posted by troutfishing at 4:08 PM on October 18, 2004


Current polls are putting Bush's support among Democrats at about 14%. I haven't seen info about Republican support for Kerry.

I would imagine that a lot of those people's thinking is somewhere along the lines of this woman's (only Bush can protect me from the Jihad), so it's nice to hear that perspective more fully laid out, even if I remain just as skeptical. Good link, Steve.
posted by cell divide at 4:09 PM on October 18, 2004


Don't know if I'm pointing out the obvious or the irrelevant, but is anyone really that astounded to hear a pro-Bush opinion from a Murdoch owned news source?
posted by arha at 4:12 PM on October 18, 2004


I am determined my children will grow up in a world of increasing democracy where terrorists are captured, tyrants overthrown.

This is the line that made me laugh out loud. Her idea of "increasing democracy" is a little different than mine. It doesn't seem to bother her pretty little head that the citizens of the US have fewer rights than they did 4 years ago, that Big Business has more pull in the White House than the People, and that (as in the case of the Semi-automatic Weapons Ban) what the majority of the voters want is of no consequence to the legislators.

But Hey! George Bush needs to win, cuz we don't want any of those terrorists having a party.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:12 PM on October 18, 2004


If you didn't read the thread when it first appeared, Bush Like Me was a decent FPP that is related and worth a look.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:15 PM on October 18, 2004


Hi Steve, nice to see you back. Sure took you long enough to find a link to "balance" the tedious political discourse.

Here's a thing: why do people bother to register as a Democrat or a Republican? Does it change anything in the process? Anyway, why don't voters in states with slimy governors like Ohio and Florida just register as Republicans so that their voter registration cards are not "accidently" thrown out by Republican election officials?

Would solve a lot of problems for Democracy and cause a lot of problems for the anti-democratic state governments that are playing all of these nasty tricks to get Democrats off the voter list.

No matter what happens this election, everybody should register to vote as a Republican in every election from now on. It's just safer.
posted by sic at 4:16 PM on October 18, 2004


Wow, so you managed to find one, eh steve? Don't worry, you'll win this thing yet. All you need is a few more to replace these guys.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:21 PM on October 18, 2004


Just as a contrast, I just read Spiegelman's In The Shadow of No Towers which provides a view of a New Yorker who does not feel safer due to the "war on terror".
You can find many of us, Kirk. I'd venture to say we feel the target painted on us (that was always there) is now bigger, and spinning, and there's a carnival barker shouting, "come one, come all--3 tries for a dollar"

sic, some of us vote in the primaries, which are closed here in NY.
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on October 18, 2004


Me? I'm voting for "Candidate Removed"!
posted by EmoChild at 4:23 PM on October 18, 2004


The Primaries, oh yeah, I forgot about them. Thanks for clearing that up Amberglow. Still, for all of the Democrats who registered in the last few weeks, the ones that apparently are the victims of thin voter card rejection in Ohio and lord knows what hijinx in Florida, it would just be safer to declare yourself a hardcore Republican.

By the way I have dual citizenship as well, So I am the first kid on my block to be able to vote against Aznar and Bush in this election cycle, Hurray! Unfortunately Illinois is as Blue as Metafilter, so my vote is not vital...
posted by sic at 4:28 PM on October 18, 2004


Wow, so you managed to find one, eh steve? Don't worry, you'll win this thing yet. All you need is a few more to replace these guys. posted by Space Coyote...

Yeah, but he had to go all the way to England to find one.
posted by limitedpie at 4:30 PM on October 18, 2004


I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat

How fucking dense is this lady? The global jihadists make their trade (terror and violence) the same way the defense industry in the United States make their trade: fear-mongering and unabated war. There's no doubt in my mind that Bin Laden and company would absolutely love to see Bush re-elected, because it means a continued and protracted war between the christian fundamentalists and the islamic fundamentalists. They don't want Kerry's law-enforcement approach--far from it. Suggesting otherwise seems tragically misguided.
posted by The God Complex at 4:33 PM on October 18, 2004


but the idea that Bush is losing Republicans to Kerry is a bit of wishful-thinking

I don't expect that to happen. That would imply that Republicans have dignity. But you are equally deluded if you think that the most divisive president ever is going to attract any type of support from Democrats. And please, no Zell Miller nonsense.
posted by owillis at 4:42 PM on October 18, 2004


The American Military takes women, she can always join them and make the world safer.

Lodurr - while your idea would work and has been done with groups the the Austraulian Aborgines and American Indians tribes, your plan is one of the complaints of Osama. Your plan would work better if America 'stopped speaking with forked tounge' and started being a bit more honest.

Ok, alot more honest.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:48 PM on October 18, 2004


owillis, maybe a Kerry supporter needs to put together a little Zell Miller piece about what it takes to switch over to the Republican side? I.e., utter loss of perspective, reliance on reductive arguments into absurdity (reducto ad absurdium? is that right), complete detachment from reality, lots and lots of anger pills and the need to burn bridges and betray your constituency.

That and it would be fun to see him all piss and vinegar again with his pathetic little moment in the GOP spotlight. He reminds me a rooster with those furious beady little eyes.
posted by fenriq at 4:55 PM on October 18, 2004


So how come she wants George W Bush to remain president?

Two possible reasons:

1. She's stupid.

2. She's a writer trying to produce an interesting story.
posted by Ynoxas at 4:55 PM on October 18, 2004


I'm going with the latter.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:00 PM on October 18, 2004


summary:

"wah wah wah I'm so scared, I need ole bushy bush to come help me!"
posted by delmoi at 5:04 PM on October 18, 2004


That depends on where in Illinois you're registered, sic....we might be able to use your help getting rid of Hastert!
posted by cookie-k at 5:14 PM on October 18, 2004


I am - quite frankly - embarrassed on behalf of my country for this woman's outpouring of bilge.

I currently work on secondment in the US, and hope to think that I have a fair idea of exactly what is going on in the US, and how the US is perceived from afar, especially the UK

I can safely say that she will find herself in a small minority amongst her fellow English carrying the views that she holds. I am staggered that she believes in The War On Terror™, and find myself sitting here aghast at the hypocrisy that the article exposes.

Did she notice last month that five fox-hunters managed to break into the central chamber of the House Of Commons, and a the next day a bloke dressed as Batman scaled the front of Buckingham Palace? War on terror? WAKE UP!

Blair? Labour?

Amazing.
posted by catchmurray at 5:16 PM on October 18, 2004



She's delirious if she thinks we're safer now--she should read the 9/11 Commission and the Duelfer Reports.


The 9/11 commission is a joke, plain and simple. The recent cover article from Harper's (October) entitled "Whitewash as Public Service: How the 9/11 Commission Report Defrauds the Nation" (by Bejamin DeMott) should be required reading. It's spot on from what I've read of the 9/11 report (I haven't the stomach to read the whole thing, or the time, frankly).
posted by The God Complex at 5:20 PM on October 18, 2004


They wimped out on assigning blame, but lay out what's needed pretty well, i think. It's appalling that homeland security is not at all a priority, and this Sarah should know that.
posted by amberglow at 5:41 PM on October 18, 2004


Former Gov. Bill Milliken (R-MI) endorses Kerry
Cats befriend dogs; Earth spins on new axis
posted by aaronetc at 5:44 PM on October 18, 2004


Steve_at_Linwood, I read the passage you cited, but it actually didn't elucidate anything for me. There's no such thing as "dual citizenship" as far as the United States is concerned, nor does the child of a US citizen automatically become a US citizen, so she in fact didn't explain why she is a US citizen, which I think is par for the course of this astonishingly poorly-written article.

I mean, I can piece together a story--she was born in the US at her mother's parents' home, she illegally kept two passports into adulthood, she moved to New York recently and used her birth certificate and/or US passport as proof of citizenship in registering to vote--but isn't the point of journalism to actually explain confusing elements of your story, not just to add even more confusing and inaccurate handwaving?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:47 PM on October 18, 2004


Speaking of Michigan (and elsewhere)
posted by amberglow at 5:49 PM on October 18, 2004


And, re: "balance":

Thanks, Steve. You've brought us a dull, amateurish, poorly-written pro-Bush opinion piece, which I suppose balances dull, amateurish, poorly-written pro-Kerry opinion pieces people post here.

Is this a race to the bottom now?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:50 PM on October 18, 2004


sic, some of us vote in the primaries, which are closed here in NY.

And that's why my parents continually berate me for being registered "Independent". 22 years registered, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to register with an actual party... I've been toying with registering Working Families, but old habits die hard...

On preview: Lighten up on Steve@Linwood. If he's done nothing else, he's given all y'all something to snark about.
posted by lodurr at 6:00 PM on October 18, 2004


When Bush said in last week’s debate: “We can be safe and secure if we go on the offence against terrorism and if we spread liberty around the world,” I felt he spoke with conviction. When Kerry said he was going to “hunt and kill” the terrorists, I heard a politician’s soundbite.

I actually prefer genuine neocon reasoning to this stuff. This is more "I just don't like his tone of voice" or "he's so, stiff, so wooden" or "Bush just seems more trustworthy." By comparison, explaining that using the military to begin transformation of the middle east into free market democracies seems quite reasonable.

But it's interesting to hear her point of view, and understand what some of my fellow voters are basing their decision on.
posted by weston at 6:01 PM on October 18, 2004


Rough_ashlar: That my idea might well work -- arguably, has worked -- does not make me terribly happy. I bring it up more as an illustration of the fact that these people aren't really after what they say they are. If they were, they'd conquer the world with Coke and Britney, not bombs and bullets.
posted by lodurr at 6:03 PM on October 18, 2004


"So how come she wants George W Bush to remain president?"

Definitely because she's scared. Certainly because she's willing to sell her freedoms for security. And quite possibly because she submitted an article to the conservative Times of London and wanted to get it published. It's like offering bananas to monkeys. (Watch out for the flying feces!)

The Times of London is rapidly becoming Britain's obsolete voice of a dying patriarchy. It has found itself eclipsed in recent years by strange new inventions called newspapers that excite the general public by telling them stories about things that actually occur in the real world. How can it compete?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:08 PM on October 18, 2004


do it, lodurr--primaries are cool (and you get more choices, so there's usually someone that more closely fits your wants/aims/etc).
posted by amberglow at 6:10 PM on October 18, 2004


Is this a race to the bottom now?

Has been for a while now, and you're all winners.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:26 PM on October 18, 2004


I think lodurr makes an excellent point about the way to win the "war on terra".
posted by Stuart_R at 6:32 PM on October 18, 2004


Sidhedevil: I mean, I can piece together a story--she was born in the US at her mother's parents' home, she illegally kept two passports into adulthood...

Not true. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it is, but it is perfectly legal to have an additional passport from another country besides America. My older brother has an Irish passport along with his American one and I am eligible for one as well by virtue of having parents from Ireland. I think the only time it's an issue is if it's a country that the US regards as an enemy state.

And Steve_@_L, while I thoroughly disagree and quite frankly think this woman is out of her mind, I do appreciate overall lack of flame-yness of this post.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:35 PM on October 18, 2004


What do you mean "you", Kemosabe? You seem to be racing as fast as anybody else.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:36 PM on October 18, 2004


I enjoyed this post but then I also sometimes read the site that must not be linked.
posted by meech at 6:46 PM on October 18, 2004


Echolalia, you are absolutely correct regarding current US law, and in fact one can theoretically be a dual citizen of the US and anywhere else--even Libya or Cuba or North Korea--at the moment.

However, the US's INS used to be a lot more disapproving about dual citizenships than they are now; at least, that was the experience of my Canadian-born relatives. Having said that, there do seem to be other fortysomething people in the world who are dual US and UK citizens, so I guess there must have been some allowance for it even then. My bad.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:47 PM on October 18, 2004


I'm a trout for fishing!
posted by soyjoy at 6:54 PM on October 18, 2004


What do you mean "you", Kemosabe? You seem to be racing as fast as anybody else.

Anybody?

Besides, don't encourage me, I'm trying to quit.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:03 PM on October 18, 2004


The biggest two intelligence failures in the history of the United States happend during whose watch again?
posted by euphorb at 7:16 PM on October 18, 2004


Rutherford B. Hayes? that's it, right? ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:40 PM on October 18, 2004


Its been reported many times that most terrorists think Bush is great. After all, he manages to unite the Arab world, not divide it.
posted by xammerboy at 7:47 PM on October 18, 2004


It was the kind of glittering occasion at which John Kerry and his wife would feel at home. There were millionaires in tuxedos with their Botoxed and bejewelled wives, graceful daughters with flawless skin in evening gowns, members of the Kennedy and Hearst dynasties and, because this is New York high society, there were artists surrounded by their patrons and benefactors.

Lost me at the first paragraph. Kerry's rich, huh? That's so unlike our president and his dynasty.
posted by interrobang at 7:48 PM on October 18, 2004


(and the Hearsts are Republicans, too)
posted by amberglow at 7:55 PM on October 18, 2004


John Eisenhower: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
posted by y2karl at 8:17 PM on October 18, 2004


Duh! Eisenhower warned against the EXACT THING that is happening right now: the rise of the Military-Industrial Complex. They're the ones who are controlling our foreign policy right now, for crying out loud!
posted by interrobang at 8:40 PM on October 18, 2004


that Eisenhower speech :
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


posted by amberglow at 8:44 PM on October 18, 2004


This kinda reminds me of The "I Can't Believe I'm A Hawk" Club, in terms of just being really fascinated with one's own self-absorption.

I agree with Smackfu.
posted by inksyndicate at 8:54 PM on October 18, 2004


The only thing we have to fear is--get this--fear itself, dumbshits. That's what terrorism is all about.
posted by interrobang at 10:55 PM on October 18, 2004


Look at the phrases she uses: "Millionaire arts patrons", "designer Democrats far wealthier than me" -- and easily a dozen like them. Like many British people and especially those on the left, she has a major chip on her shoulder about class. I think we're dealing with the British analogue of exactly the kind of misplaced reverse snobbery that motivates a lot of the right wing in the U.S. as well; the idea that Bush shares their social background and Kerry does not. Nothing can be further from the truth -- Bush's silver spoon puts Kerry's in the shade; but Bush fakes it well, and the earthy good ol' boy mode of speech is a good cover for someone who simply can't speak very well and probably suffered for it socially before he hit upon on the faux-folksiness dodge.

But that's all by the way. We're not looking at fear here, we're looking at -- wait for it -- class warfare. But of a particularly British kind: she brought this one with her.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:24 AM on October 19, 2004


"On September 11, 2001, a global wave of anti-Americanism was unleashed."

Is she kidding? More like a global wave of unity and support that was squandered.
posted by gfrobe at 12:58 AM on October 19, 2004


Thanks for the link Steve, please keep contributing.


And the lady in the article is a nutjob.
posted by sic at 2:13 AM on October 19, 2004


Also, she's not a "Democrat for Bush"--she's a Bush supporter who registered as a Democrat because, in her own words, she "wanted to put the party on notice".

exactly. she writes that she has never voted in the US before, hence she's as much of a Democrat as, say, stevie_at_linnwood.

anyway, thanks stevie for providing "balance" with a lame pro-Bush op-ed straight from a Murdoch paper. this gives you so much credibility when you whine about those ugly lib'r'uls on MeFi

______

Is this a race to the bottom now?

Has been for a while now, and you're all winners.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:26 AM CET on October 19


wrote the man who posted a FPP about the Canadian government planning a new Shoah
*snicker*
posted by matteo at 4:14 AM on October 19, 2004


A fine article...





It captures well the same bizarre, fearful illogic that I hear from my father and some siblings.

I confess I cringed yesterday when I heard some of the Kerry quotes on the radio (yes, I am a supporter) -- he is not putting my best interests to heart, that is to be certain, just as this authors interests are subverted by the "one issue".

I simply can not understand it. I never will. Am I braver than others? Less fearful of death? I can not count myself as more enlightened or smarter than Bush and his suporters. I can only remain puzzled at the disconnect I read. So broad a gulf. So very puzzling.

I also will never buy into the "war for oil" point except in this repect: the modern boarders of Iraq were created through the strength of Britain's position at the fall of the Ottoman Empire during WW I. Their mandate enabled the creation of a country whose boarders were most strongly influenced by the location of known oil reserves.
posted by Dick Paris at 6:44 AM on October 19, 2004


Error in the title: Baxter meant to write "I'm an idiot for Bush".

Case in point. She says: “I feel that Bush has the character to say, ‘They did us wrong, and I’m going to get them back.’ Kerry can talk the talk, but that’s all he’s good at.”

Boy o boy, W sure got back at them darkie Murslims, didn't he? I mean, he bombed the shit outa them Iraqians. Where all them Talibanistas were hiding out. In Ahforgotistan. Or Sa-udi Arabinia. Or Cuba. Whatever, don't matter. He got 'em.

What a fuckhead. Her opinion is her own, but it is based on so much complete drivel.
posted by mooncrow at 7:30 AM on October 19, 2004


interrobang, um yeah, fear's the only thing we need to fear? That was a nice speech 60 years ago but it doesn't wash now. There's plenty to fear and having an idiot president is a big fear for me.

But hey, thanks for the dipshits insult, I'm sure that won alot of people over to your perspective.

Insults are a great way to win support, did you learn that one from the GOP?
posted by fenriq at 8:27 AM on October 19, 2004


I'm talking about the philosophy behind reacting to fear, dipshit. The way the Bush administration acts, they completely fall for the reaction terrorists are looking for. We go imperial-nuts, and they get wave after wave of new volunteers because we look tyrranical.

Dipshit.
posted by interrobang at 5:14 PM on October 19, 2004


wrote the man who posted a FPP about the Canadian government planning a new Shoah
*snicker*


Another lie from matteo? *snicker*
posted by Krrrlson at 6:03 PM on October 19, 2004


Dear Interrobang,

I take extreme umbrage with your choice of words in detailing your perspective with regards to your previous comments in this thread. If you cannot be civil then don't interact with me. Life is far too short to suffer the company of people without basic manners.

Resorting to personal insults undermines any point you may have been trying to make.

As it stands, I couldn't give a damn what point you may have been attempting to make. Calling someone a dipshit doesn't make them one, it makes you look like one because you're acting like a stupid little boy.

Yes, we all get in crappy moods from time to time and I'm as guilty as the next guy but that doesn't excuse your personal attacks against my person.

Are you incapable of putting together a cogent argument without resorting to stupid little insults? Or do you think its cool to insult people you don't know? Because you're safe in your parent's basement?

If you'd actually said "the philosophy behind reacting to fear" in your previous comment then I wouldn't have had to ask for some clarification. As it is, who gives a damn what you have to say since you're incapable of saying it in a civil manner?

In other words, play nice or just shut the fuck up.
posted by fenriq at 7:29 PM on October 19, 2004


Dear Dipshit,

Taking "extreme umbrage" with someone who you've decided to be insulted by because their original post seems to call you a dipshit--and then telling them that you don't give a damn what they think because they used the word "dipshit" and you've decided that that term must refer to you--does indeed make you a dipshit.

In other words, if the truth hurts, that's no reason to tell someone that they should just shut the fuck up. Did I ever tell you to shut the fuck up? No. I just said that the rational response to terrorism is not to give in to the terror. Maybe you enjoy feeling scared--you certainly seem to enjoy feeling like the immediate subject of such hard, hard words as "dipshit"--but the rest of us would like to get on with our lives and feel like the government's not helping the cause of terrorism.

In other words, I welcome your criticism, since I didn't make myself clear enough the first time, and I like to follow through with things.
posted by interrobang at 8:15 PM on October 19, 2004


Also, I have more than one parent, and I don't live in their basement.
posted by interrobang at 8:17 PM on October 19, 2004


(Though looking through your posting history, fenriq, we shouldn't be fighting, because we basically agree. Except that I don't think "dipshit" is that bad a word.)
posted by interrobang at 8:30 PM on October 19, 2004


Nor do I think it's a bad word, just unnecessary in making your point.

Tell you what, first round is on me. And I know some really cute lushes.
posted by fenriq at 9:49 PM on October 19, 2004


It was though, a spectacular link.
posted by crasspastor at 9:52 PM on October 19, 2004


this gives you so much credibility when you whine about those ugly lib'r'uls on MeFi


I've never called anyone here "ugly."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:57 PM on October 19, 2004


It's a deal, fenriq. I would like to meet a cute lush right about now.
posted by interrobang at 6:41 PM on October 20, 2004


It's a deal, fenriq. I would like to meet a cute lush right about now.
posted by interrobang at 8:41 PM CST on October 20


May I suggest one of the Bush daughters?

/lowblow
posted by Ynoxas at 6:31 AM on October 22, 2004


Ynoxas, NICE! Yeah, you can party with the Bush twins but you have to sign a loyalty oath to Bush first. I do think Jenna is a pretty cute girl and we know she inherited the party gene from her daddy!

Interrobang, if I were still single I would probably get myself a lush, a good supply of her chosen joy juice and hole up until the election's done. It'd be even better if she were a GOP lush!
posted by fenriq at 1:42 PM on October 23, 2004


« Older Peak Oil? Include Me Out,...  |  The Evolution Control Committe... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments