Goose the Blog 2.0

"Oh, ha! Sarcasm: The last refuge of sons of bitches!"

the importance of being earnest

by John at 6/17/2004 03:37:00 PM

You know, for the last couple of months I've been trying to keep things pretty light-hearted on this blog. Even when I criticize the current administration, I've tried to do in a joking way. So I thought for a while before posting this, because it isn't funny at all. But some evenings I read the news and, at the risk of being too earnest, I just feel like I have to say something, even if no one is listening and even if I don't expect to change anyone's mind.

I don't need to tell you that our nation is facing a crisis. Anyone who has their eyes open knows that. It's not the worst crisis of our history - it's probably not even in the top ten - but from where I stand it still looks pretty serious. The Bush administration has amassed a terrible record, and they have placed the nation in a very difficult place. This administration has presided over the longest jobless recovery in modern history, created record deficits, made our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, damaged the ability of our armed forces to defend us, ruined our international credibility, threatened our constitutional freedoms in the name of security, abused and expanded the power of the Executive Branch, widened the political and cultural divisions among Americans, substantially increased government spending, put young men and women at unnecessary risk for the foreseeable future, dangerously mismanaged the occupation of a foreign nation, mislead the nation both deliberately and negligently in pursuit of their goals, and demonstrated dubious ethics and morality throughout. And there's more.

These are not the things that most conservative voters believe in, are they?

So, I say this to conservative voters: The Bush administration has given lip service to conservative ideology to get your support, but it has not delivered on conservative values. Voting for Bush-Cheney in November is a vote for ideology. It is a vote for ideology over results, ideology over competence, and ideology over ethics. Your vote is your voice, and a vote for Bush indicates explicit approval of the things his administration has done. The Bush administration is not good for you - it is not good for any of us. Vote for your ideology in 2008 if you want, but this November, vote for a change. At least think about it. Is the alternative to Bush really that frightening?
« Home | Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »
| Previous »

Blogger Weisshaupt said at 6:59 PM

Ok, I started to answer this point by point, but why bother.

Some of it simply isn't based in truth, other parts are simply opinion and interpretation with no facts to back them up, and some parts I might even agree with.

What would be even more interesting is to hear exactly how Kerry plans to deal with these situations now that they are real, and what he will do differently than Bush in the upcoming months.
we can complain about the past all day, and woulda coulda shoulda ourselves to death, but I fail to see how that will move us forward. .

Kerry has voted to the Left of Ted Kennedy. After careful study of the actual effects of Democratic agendas such as affrimative action, freedom from religion, gay marriage,women in the military, welfare etc, I am quite certain that Kerry would do more harm than good. especially since he hasn't bothered to tell anyone what his plans are. It seems the unifying point of the platform is "we hate bush" and if Kerry gets elected it will be because he is "not Bush", and not becuase anyone believes he has the right plan for America.

Which is pretty much the subject of your rant...    



Blogger John said at 7:27 PM

Well, you are right about this essay arguing for people to vote against Bush. You might have noticed that I specifically left out Bush's transgressions against liberal ideas, because this is an argument to convince conservatives to vote against Bush (liberals already have enough reasons to vote against Bush!) They most likely won't like Kerry's positions, but my argument is that even Kerry's "liberal" government (*whatever it is!*) will be better than Bush's disasterous one. And then, in 4 years, you can vote in your guy again. Voting against a bad thing is not at all a poor way to excerise your voice.

As to which of my assertions are false (they aren't all false are they?), why don't you pick the problematic ones and I can provide some support for why I believe it.

As to what Kerry's positions are, try http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/    



Blogger John said at 7:57 PM

On second thought, don't bother telling me which ones you think false. I'm pretty certain any facts or arguments I present won't change your mind.    



Blogger Weisshaupt said at 10:59 AM

John,


Since I did accuse you of false statements, here is a short justification. The polemic you leveled contains numerous terms coined solely for the useage of the Democrats and the Left, and as you tend to place such importance on sematics and precise defintions in your arguments, it would be nice if you defined these terms.

"This administration has presided over the longest jobless recovery in modern history"

Please define "jobless recovery". the term itself is political spin, and hence having the longest one is probably a factor of looking for an angle to use otherwise promising statistics as a club. Most economic indicators are looking up, including lots of recent job growth. Hence the retreat from job growth as an issue to "the longest jobless recovery". On average, unemployment is about the same as it was for the average of Clinton's years, and he didn't have 9/11 to contend with, and he did have the advantage of huge boom set off by the Internet Bubble. Check out the department of labor and the Bureau of Labor Stats
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
http://www.dol.gov/

"made our nation more vulnerable to terrorism"

There hasn't been a second sucessful attack in the U.S.. So on what evidence to you place the "more vulnerable" statement? Or are you referring to putting our soldiers in harms way (in which case you are just repeating charges )

ruined our "international credibility"
What the hell is this coinage called "international credibility" It seems to be traded in liberal circles, but I am pretty sure the U.N. has never heard of it, or if they have, they don't use it. Just look at the oil for Food scandal and the U.N.s refusal to turn over records to the public. Or the U.N.s mishandling of the last five civil wars in Africa. What can one expect from a debating club that should have no real authority.

"abused and expanded the power of the Executive Branch"

I have no idea what this charge is about. Are you implying that Bush has done something unconstitional?

widened the political and cultural divisions among Americans

So does "cultural diversity", a major plank in the Democratic platform. However, the country was just as divided in the Bush/Gore election. So "failed to bring us together' might be a decent charge.    



» Post a Comment