Monday, October 25, 2004
head explosion
Kerry endorsement from DJ Blurb
Jon over at Blurbomat publicly endorsed Kerry for President today, and asked his readers to chime in with their own endorsements. I am horrified and shocked by how many of them said they were voting for Bush. Even more upsetting, the reasons that people cite for voting for Bush seem wrong to me... such as national security. Where, other than Bush's own ads, do people get the idea that we as a nation will be more secure with Bush in the White House? Is his administration really doing anything that helps people living in the US to be more safe? Or, to ask the question another way, is there anything that Kerry's administration WOULDN'T do that would put the populace at more risk?
And what is this thing about "fighting the terrorists over there before they come act all terroristy over here"? You all know that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, right? And that the situation in Afghanistan is still really unstable, yeah? And that head guy... what was his name, something with an O... he's still on the loose? Also, it seems irrational to me to think that large-scale combat in another country is going to do anything constructive to prevent guerilla acts of terrorism in the United States. For example, there was a suspected terrorist operative arrested coming into the US from Canada in Port Angeles, Washington, in 1999. The press reported that he was intended to undertake some kind of terrorist act at LAX airport. He was Algerian and was supposedly affiliated with the Algerian Armed Islamic Group. He'd come into Canada asking for refugee status before heading to the US on his terrorist mission. Now, let's think about this - would it have made a damn bit of difference if the United States had deployed troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or even in Algeria? I think not. The solution in this case was an alert customs official and her colleagues. Those are the kinds of people who are on the front lines against terrorism inside the US.
Then there's the pack of people who oppose Kerry based on his pro-choice and pro-fetal stem cell research stances. I can't argue with those people - while I am personally pro-choice and think that stem cell research holds a great deal of promise, I can't in good conscience argue with someone's moral stance. Although, I will say for the record, I continue to be mystified by people who identify themselves as "pro-life" but support the death penalty. Isn't that kind of pro-death?
Some people say they're voting for Bush because he takes action based on his beliefs instead of bending to popular opinion. Um. I was under the impression that our democracy was based on electing officals who are to REPRESENT their constituents, not rule with absolute authority based on their personal beliefs. And besides, I don't want the president to make policy decisions based on his personal beliefs anyway - just because a particular action might be right for an individual, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right for an entire country.
Some people seem to be making the argument that if Kerry was so great, he would have distinguished himself more as a senator. I can't speak to that, not having exhaustively researched Kerry's senate record, but I feel QUITE SURE that his political experience is more extensive and germane than Bush's. Bush had held precisely one elected position before becoming President, meaning that he had NO experience in dealing with matters of foreign policy before becoming the Commander in Chief. Doesn't this bother anyone else?
And finally, I am most mystified by people who are put off by Teresa Heinz Kerry as a potential First Lady. Eh? Since when is that an elected position? Or even an official position, for that matter?
Jon over at Blurbomat publicly endorsed Kerry for President today, and asked his readers to chime in with their own endorsements. I am horrified and shocked by how many of them said they were voting for Bush. Even more upsetting, the reasons that people cite for voting for Bush seem wrong to me... such as national security. Where, other than Bush's own ads, do people get the idea that we as a nation will be more secure with Bush in the White House? Is his administration really doing anything that helps people living in the US to be more safe? Or, to ask the question another way, is there anything that Kerry's administration WOULDN'T do that would put the populace at more risk?
And what is this thing about "fighting the terrorists over there before they come act all terroristy over here"? You all know that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, right? And that the situation in Afghanistan is still really unstable, yeah? And that head guy... what was his name, something with an O... he's still on the loose? Also, it seems irrational to me to think that large-scale combat in another country is going to do anything constructive to prevent guerilla acts of terrorism in the United States. For example, there was a suspected terrorist operative arrested coming into the US from Canada in Port Angeles, Washington, in 1999. The press reported that he was intended to undertake some kind of terrorist act at LAX airport. He was Algerian and was supposedly affiliated with the Algerian Armed Islamic Group. He'd come into Canada asking for refugee status before heading to the US on his terrorist mission. Now, let's think about this - would it have made a damn bit of difference if the United States had deployed troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or even in Algeria? I think not. The solution in this case was an alert customs official and her colleagues. Those are the kinds of people who are on the front lines against terrorism inside the US.
Then there's the pack of people who oppose Kerry based on his pro-choice and pro-fetal stem cell research stances. I can't argue with those people - while I am personally pro-choice and think that stem cell research holds a great deal of promise, I can't in good conscience argue with someone's moral stance. Although, I will say for the record, I continue to be mystified by people who identify themselves as "pro-life" but support the death penalty. Isn't that kind of pro-death?
Some people say they're voting for Bush because he takes action based on his beliefs instead of bending to popular opinion. Um. I was under the impression that our democracy was based on electing officals who are to REPRESENT their constituents, not rule with absolute authority based on their personal beliefs. And besides, I don't want the president to make policy decisions based on his personal beliefs anyway - just because a particular action might be right for an individual, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right for an entire country.
Some people seem to be making the argument that if Kerry was so great, he would have distinguished himself more as a senator. I can't speak to that, not having exhaustively researched Kerry's senate record, but I feel QUITE SURE that his political experience is more extensive and germane than Bush's. Bush had held precisely one elected position before becoming President, meaning that he had NO experience in dealing with matters of foreign policy before becoming the Commander in Chief. Doesn't this bother anyone else?
And finally, I am most mystified by people who are put off by Teresa Heinz Kerry as a potential First Lady. Eh? Since when is that an elected position? Or even an official position, for that matter?
