A Sad American
First, read this.
Hmm...Somewhat cogent, yes. And even somewhat truthful. While I agree with some things this person says, I must respectfully disagree with many of her "by the numbers" points.
1. You didn't give me clear positions on the issues.
Excuse me? Kerry was a hell of a lot clearer than Bush on many issues, including Iraq and the "war on terror". The Republican echo chamber, however, did a fantastic job of painting Kerry as a "flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal"...and this person bought it. Unfortunately, you had to look outside the major television/news media to get this picture, and few people have the time or inclination for that kind of effort.
2. You didn't convince me that you would defend America against the threats of terrorism. Kerry seemed to think that terrorism is like any other crime.
I understand the sentiment behind this statement. We were attacked on Sept. 11, yes, there's no denying that. However, we were attacked by terrorists, not by a soverign nation. Treating a terrorist attack as an act of war gives the act a veneer of respectability it does not deserve. I do see Sept. 11 as a paradigm-shifting event, but I do not see it as an event worthy of a military response of the magnitude that ensued--and I CERTAINLY do not see how that act of terrorism justifies pre-emptive war in Iraq. Further, I don't understand how "going on the offensive" is going to "keep it from ever happening again". Aren't we seeing the exact opposite right now in Iraq, where our military presence as attracted terrorists from all over the world, and the situation on the ground has deteriorated so badly that the "chosen" leader has just essentially imposed a 60-day total lockdown on men 15-60 years old in several areas of the country?
3. You insulted my intelligence by the constant mantra of Kerry's service in Vietnam.
It seems to me that in a time of war (setting aside for the moment the question of whether that war is legitimate), one would want a leader who actually served in the military, as opposed to a leader who used family connections to avoid military service in a time of war. What is the greater insult to one's intelligence: Kerry's service, or Bush's dodging, lies, and unreleased records? The distinction seems lost on many who voted for Bush, no matter how moderate their views are otherwise.
4. Your constant references to the opinions of the rest of the world scared me, and I'm not talking about the "global test" comment. I don't care what Europeans think about me or my country.
That's too bad. Our global community gets smaller every day, and it behooves us to realize this and to act as global citizens, and not just as selfish little children only concerned with our own opinions, our own tiny issues. As the rest of the world is called on more and more to finance our country's debt, we would do well to remember that more and more, our economic stability depends on the rest of the world and, more specifically, on global investors' confidence in our integrity. See http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt_a.htm for some scary pictures that bring this sharply into focus.
5. You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich.
I'm actually with you here, for the most part. There are "rich people" hard at work on all sides of politics. Many of them got their money honestly. I didn't get that rich people were being demonized, though, so much as tax cuts directed disproportionately at them and at corporations were being demonized--and rightly so! Many of this country's largest corporations already pay essentially NO Federal tax on their revenues--yet corporations receive subsidies paid for by taxes, avail themselves of more taxpayer money by forcing the nation's social programs to pick up their slack (read: Wal-mart and public assistance/welfare, etc.), and assume rights previously reserved for human citizens (free speech, anyone?).
6. Here is something you could work on right about now: I could not stomach to listen to your incessant hatred of President Bush.
Oh, please. Once the right puts a leash on Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. I might actually listen to this tired canard. They lowered the level of discourse...and yet they are shocked, shocked! when Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever start to respond in kind. What in heaven's name did they expect? That "liberals" would just take it forever and ever amen because they are too "nice" to stand up and fight?
7. Lastly, and I hope this doesn't hurt anyone feelings, because my objective is to make you think, not emote: I don't think you really want my vote.
Essentially the same complaint as #6, but repackaged. I can't defend Air America Radio--I haven't listened to it. However, the pot is still calling the kettle black here. I don't agree that responding in kind is the answer...but then again, being all "liberal" and respecting the opinions of right-wing pundits and talk show hosts hasn't gotten those "liberals" very far, now has it? And since when is any political talk show, left- or right-leaning, all sunshine and moonbeams and honesty? Was listening to radio talk-show hosts all this person did to seek out another perspective? If so, I'm not surprised that she's still for Bush.