2 → Shane Cavanaugh  –  (Jul 31 2004,  3:58 PM)

(Whoops. Looks like I broke something.)

4 → Kelly  –  (Jul 31 2004,  5:04 PM)

I can’t even begin to describe how powerful Kerry’s speech was in person.  I’m so glad that it came across that way on TV as well.  Before going to the convention I was all about voting for Kerry because he wasn’t GW and that was all that mattered.  After spending 5 days in Boston and hearing so many speeches about him and meeting so many people and talking to them about the campaign and who Kerry really is I can wholeheartedly say that I am all about John Kerry.  Yes, I have a few criticisms of him and yes I wish he were a little more animated at times, but every bone, every instinct, every moral fiber in my body tells me that John Kerry is the man for the job.  There is no worthwhile activity between now an November 2nd except working to get him elected. 

6 → Shane Cavanaugh  –  (Aug  1 2004, 12:17 AM)

What makes you three believe that John Kerry is any better than George W. Bush in the honesty department (or, for that matter, Bill Clinton)?

Well, aside from the fact that I have never heard Bush utter anything with any believable sincerity, I don’t think it matters. I don’t know how to prove that Kerry is being honest because my intuition isn’t a precise instrument of science. All I know is that Bush failed this country in possibly the worst way, aside from blatant treason.

For the past four years, “I hate this country” has been my mantra. Europe and Canada began to seem like better places to live than the U.S.. Now Kerry comes along telling me (from the main post’s quote) that the environment is important, that military intelligence doesn’t have to be an oxymoron, and that shitting on the Constitution is a bad thing — all of which I agree with.

I never gave much of a damn that Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval Office from a woman other than his wife. That’s actually none of my damn business, and it never should have been Bush’s either. What is my business is this country which I would pledge my allegiance to given just cause. I’ll never know that Kerry isn’t bullshitting me, but for the time being I’ll believe it because I’ll take what I can get.

Bush done wrong. I don’t trust him. Kerry’s innocent until proving guilty. That’s the basis of my reasoning for voting for Kerry in November, but I’ll be skeptical should he be elected. I’ll simply be indignant/infuriated/an emigrant if Bush is re-elected.

Seeing that you criticism is entirely unconstructive, I implore you to explicate your sentiments regarding Kerry’s honesty. Plus, you website says you’re political science major. I’m curious to hear an opinion from someone hopefully more knowledgeable than me.

8 → Shane Cavanaugh  –  (Aug  1 2004,  1:03 PM)

Honestly, I’m too tired at the moment to argue with someone whom, for the most part, I agree with. I don’t want to convince you to be enthusiastic about Kerry because I’m happy enough knowing that you’re not voting for Bush. I’ve just chosen to wager most of my optimism on Kerry. As a result, I can’t help but be enthusiastic about him. This isn’t blind faith. If Kerry f’s up, I’ll be enthusiastic to call him on it. I’m optimistic while being skeptical. You’re simply skeptical, and thank Jeebus for that. Essentially, you’re criticizing me for being optimistic, but relative to the past four years, I don’t think it’s fair of you to do so.

10 → Kelly  –  (Aug  1 2004,  9:45 PM)

I have finally found the energy to respond to Mike thanks to Noah telling me that he somewhat agreed with him.  Mike, I think that you have one serious flaw in your argument that you then keep repeating:  You are lumping Kerry and Bush into the same person simply because they are politicians.  You claim that we can’t trust Kerry’s promises about credibility because Bush made promises and he turned out to be a liar.  You claim that we can’t trust Kerry’s promises about credibilty because we couldn’t trust Bush’s intelligence about WMDs.  It is simply illogical to judge Kerry’s credibility based on Bush’s record. 

Yes, Kerry and Bush are both politicians and yes, politicians do make promises in order to be elected.  I don’t think you’ve stumbled across anything new there.  But simply because some promises were broken by some politicians doesn’t mean that all political promises are to be ignored.  Instead we have to judge the promises according to their own  merits.  Why shouldn’t we believe that Kerry will be more open about his motives and our intelligence and the threats to our nation than Bush was?  Clearly Kerry hopes to learn from Bush’s mistakes as well as build upon his own record of integrity.  And besides, it was Bush that failed us in the past - not Kerry.  It is that very failure that Kerry is rebelling against, so I find it very easy to deem him more credible than Bush.  Bush had his chance to prove himself and he failed.  Kerry has a long history of leadership, is qualified to do the job and most importantly - has not fucked this country up.  A blank slate is far more credible than a horrible horrible record of deception, manipulation and failure.

You say that you fail to see the genius of Kerry and that you don’t think that Iraq and the economy will just clear up if he is elected.  I don’t think even the strongest Kerry supporters, or even Kerry himself, believes that these things will magically clear up.  Bush has dug a pretty damn deep hole for this country and it will take time to get ourselves out of it.  But he does have a plan to get out of Iraq - if you listen to more campaign speeches than just the one at the convention or if you read his campaign literature then you’ll get the details but the main points are these: restore international support and aid from the UN, not just with troops but monetarily for both military operation and humanitarian aid and nation building, beef up funding for necessary equipment for our soldiers and for better training programs for Iraqi soldiers and police so that they can slowly begin replacing our troops on the ground, add 40,000 troops by increasing benefits and rewards as incentives etc. etc.  I have not heard any such plan to get out of Iraq from Mr. Bush yet, have you Mike?

I think that your worry about a terrorist attack during the infancy of John Kerry’s presidency might be valid, but I do not think that it is an issue that John Kerry should have to defend in his campaign.  Do you think that we should avoid regime change in this country because we are worried about an attack?  Of course not, just like we should avoid other dangerous behaviors like holding  conventions or free elections.  Kerry does not need to explain how he would respond to some hypothetical attack because he will respond just as any capable, competent President would - with the full force of the military, with the department of Homeland Security, with the goodwill of the international community and without the baggage that Bush has from ruining the last opportunity for unified international action against terror after September 11th.

You said that it’s what happens in office that counts, not what happens on the campaign trail - well I agree.  Bush has a horrible record when it comes to credibility in office.  Kerry has no such record.  Therefore we have reason to be less skeptical of Kerry when he makes promises to us - we have every reason to believe that he will be better than Bush.  Skepticism is fine, but when you claim that you’re looking at people’s records and at the same time place Bush and Kerry in the same group of “promise-makers” you’re just being hypocritical.   

12 → Forgo  –  (Aug  2 2004, 11:46 AM)

I just finished reading the sequence of conversation, and would like to respond to one of Mike’s comments.  His post read:

“forging alliances with them won’t stop fundamentalist Islamic hatred for the U.S., and it’s certainly not going to end the worldwide terrorism that Al Qaeda has brutally imposed upon Americans and others.”

I think Mike’s postings reflect our widespread mistrust of government, which is simply the byproduct of the political climate in which we live.  I do applaud him for defending his position with fervor and specifics: We need more people who are willing to engage in an ongoing dialogue for America’s future.  Apathy, my friends, is the enemy.

Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, has narrowed Fundmental Islamic Terrorism to its core with constant references to “the sitting around guys.”  These are the very people who frecuent coffee shops in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Israel, and yes, Iraq, who turn to fundamentalism because their mullah’s bait them with the promise of a plethora of virgins in Heaven.  A distortion of Islam? Yes.  Appealing to those without a job? Absolutely.

The Mullahs are using a tact, not totally foreign to the leaders of the former Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes throughout history: A combination of disinformation, fingerpointing, and power-brokering which seeks to direct all of the “sitting around guys” frustration towards a known target so as to divert their attention from the true source of their misery: The Mullahs’ corrupt governance. 

Foring alliances is the best course of action for homeland security in this age of instant intercontinental communication.  We need to tap this resource not because it will stop the terrorists, but because it will give us the political capital we need to fight this war where it really matters: in the classrooms and cafes which educate and house the current and future generations of “sitting around guys.”

14 → Laura  –  (Aug  2 2004,  7:24 PM)

While we all understandably have our eye on the November 2 election, it’s important not to overlook the local primaries taking place TOMORROW, August 3rd.  Tomorrow we will decide, not on our nation’s leader, but on the leaders of our community, an equally important role.

Pleasepleaseplease come out and vote tomorrow.  The State of Michigan is expecting at 15% voter turnout.  This is entirely ridiculous.  We cannot ignore the importance of local politics.  So tomorrow, take the 10 minutes you spend reading this site and go vote.  If you don’t know where to vote, call me, call the city clerk, call the polling sites, everyone will be more than happy to tell you where and when to vote.  I’ll be at the polls from 2pm until they close at 8pm. Come visit, and vote dammit.

And if you live in the 52nd district, vote Phil Zazove, else I will smite you.   

16 → Debashis  –  (Aug  5 2004,  8:35 AM)

mmm…politics…I just make films and know nothing else. I took time out of my ADD to read  all of this and I have never felt so uneducated… oh yeah…and what’s this I hear about Laura, Bess, and my lover, Elyse taking a shower together at the whip cream party? Why must I be in Germany shooting films!!! I’ll be back in a couple weeks…maybe there can be a repeat with a cameo appearance from me in it?