PhotoDude.com

Photodude,

I’ve been wondering for a while now just exactly how honest you’re being when you say you’re undecided this political season.

You just enlightened me. You’re not undecided, friend… you just don’t want to cop to the fact that you’re going to vote Kerry. Talking about playing people for a fool. But I shouldn’t be so presumptious… maybe you’re even still fooling yourself. Nevertheless, look at what you just wrote!

You’re clearly missing the point Cheney is making… so clearly that I think you do so willfully. Cheney asserts that we’ve been successful in avoiding attacks, and you agree. Let’s ask: why do you think that is? Cheney’s argument is that the Bush Administration’s actions around the world deserve the credit for the US avoiding attacks. It’s not like we’re just running around dodging raindrops by luck… the actions the administration has taken have borne fruit – no successful attacks in the US.

And you agree with this! Or do you? Because the corollary, that electing Kerry would cause US policy to shift away from effective actions to a law-enforcement style set of responses, you reject. And that’s what Kerry is saying… not that the American People would forget 9/11 and start begging for lawyers instead of soldiers to respond, but that Kerry (by his own admission… heck, he thinks it’s a better idea) would treat terrorism as mostly a law-enforcement issue, and that Kerry would discard the pre-emption doctrine in favor of a strong response to attacks.

Cheney is saying that this election is a critical choice because a return to 9/10 thinking by the Kerry Administration would be disasterous, put the country in more danger, and moreover would inevitably lead to an attack to which we would respond after the fact… not before, as the current administration does.

Cheney isn’t insulting Americans, he’s saying that 9/10 thinking (i.e. terrorism is crime, and the FBI and Interpol should be the ones chasing Osama, Zarquai, et al, not Delta Force) is dangerous because it doesn’t work. The Bush Administration’s policies, OTOH, do work.

Perhaps you should revisit your “undecided” label… and perhaps this thought might inform your consideration: Would you rather respond to “The Child Killers, and The Gates of Hell” by sending the FBI to surround Anywhere High, USA, and begin negotiations, or the 101st Airborne to surround a Chechen terrorist enclave in Southeast Asia and do what they’re trained to do?

Finally: Let me quote someone whos words you can probably parse a bit more coherently than Cheney’s:

“Opposing views are welcomed, however, I will delete your comment if you descend into personal attacks, ad hominem…”

“This is logic twisted by a poisonous intent…”

“Cheney is… playing you for a fool. Or is certain you are one.”

“But wait, there’s more illogic! Insulting illogic!”

Maybe you should delete your own comment… or is this the way it goes in your house, too? Like Kerry, you just Will Not Have It!

(unless of course, you’re serving it).

Tony, responses like yours are the reason I don’t even like to write about this anymore. You are so wrapped in your partisan viewpoint, you have no desire to see anything else. So, you tell me who I’m going to vote for, after I’ve just spent 3,600 words saying I have no horse to ride in this race. You’re right, I’m not undecided. As I explained in excruciating detail, I can’t vote for either man, and my vote for either man will have no impact at all.

So I can tell you that if the election were held today, I would not vote for Kerry … or Bush … but of course, you don’t believe that. There’s no way I’m going to convince you of anything …. nor will you convince me. And that’s the “magic” of the 2004 election, isn’t it? You don’t even take my words at face value, you claim to know what I’m thinking better than I do. I was under the impression my opinion of Kerry was that he was a stiffer-that-Gore, man-with-no-vision (only a past), who would try and negotiate deals with Iran and North Korea, who’ve done nothing but break the deals they’ve made.

I can’t vote for that man. Yet you claim I will. You must be an incredibly smart man.

Or something.

I’m disgusted with both of my electoral choices, and still, I will continue to criticize the remarkable things they sometimes say. You may be so used to your binary cocoon that when someone criticizes Bush/Kerry, your knee jerks that “he must be a Kerry man.” When I criticize Kerry, will you think I’m voting for Bush? I don’t get a vote of composing today’s news cycle. Today was Cheney’s turn. I didn’t pick him, he opened his mouth wide, and reporters took it down.

I don’t need you to parse and explain “what Cheney really meant,” he’s got press secretaries for that kind of plausible deniability.

Hours after Mr Cheney's words caused a stir on news wires and cable news programs, his spokeswoman told reporters that he stood by his statements, but she sought to explain them [...] Asked whether Mr Cheney meant to imply that a Kerry presidency would result in a terrorist attack, Ms Womack replied: "The Vice-President is saying that we need to ensure that we have the right politics in place to protect Americans. The campaign stands by and the Vice-President stands by my explanation of his statement."

So I hope you made whatever point you had to make. If it was that “Bush administration policies work” ... tell that to Osama and the 1,500 Al Qaeda who got away when we didn’t commit the proper forces at Tora Bora, and whom we’ve been chasing ever since. Tell it to the people who live in Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf, Sadr City, and other cities we’ve completely abandoned to militants, yet must have civil control over to hold the first vote in the Iraq we claim we’ll make a “safe and free democracy.” We haven’t made things safe, or free, or democratic, we’ve made a huge freakin’ mess because we “miscalculated,”made sloppy assumptions, made half assed commitments, and engaged in blindered policies in Iraq.

Do I believe Kerry has an answer to any of those failures? Hell, no, and his quickly rejected policy on dealing with Iran is suitable proof. But I hear that I’m going to vote for him anyway…

So, Tony, what am I having for dinner tonight?

You’re having crow, I think. Cheney was quoted out of context by AP… check it.

Perhaps I’m misattributing a universal disgust as more heavily weighted against Bush/Cheney, but I don’t think so.

For example: You think we’ve completely abandoned Sadr City to “militants”, yet we still lost a good few soldiers there yesterday.
Of course, calling Sadr City a city is a bit like calling Watts a city, but that’s just nitpicking. Have we done it right every time, have we been effective across the board? Clearly not. You’re absolutely right that things have not always gone well.

But you’re basically ridiculing Eisenhower for not predicting the Bulge. This is not the attitude of an “undecided” voter. You’re burning Kerry for dopey policies, but you’re burning Bush and Co. personally, and IMHO that illuminates your opinions.

Saying that things aren’t more democratic as a result of our actions further exposes your opinions. Practically ANYTHING in Iraq is more democratic than the former regime, yet that doesn’t seem to count for you. Nowadays you can be female in Kabul, go to school, and not get killed. This is your huge freakin’ mess?

Could things have been done better? Yes. Clearly you’re unhappy with the quality and amount of improvement from the Bush administration. And that’s fair enough… but descending into personal attacks is hardly cricket. It was easy enough for me to understand what Cheney was driving at… only someone either:
a)predisposed against one candidate, or
b) predisposed against all candidates,
could interpret what he said the way you did. Either way, you don’t come off undecided. Add to that your misery at only being one man in a sea of more conservative Georgians, and I can’t figure what you’re claiming to be undecided about.

I say, cop to it! Go on! You’ll feel better.

You know, I’ve done you a disservice. I should’ve more closely read your post before this one… sorry about that!

There’s clearly no point in talking about relative fairness re: politics – you’ve made your choice as clearly as the 95% of other people you see as having chosen.

OK. Nevermind. I disagree with your assessment of the WoT in general and I think you’re cherry-picking details… but it’s irrelevant because anything I say is automatically partisan. I disagree with your assessment of the economy (as do most economic publications and in fact the GAO and Wall St.) but again, I’m partisan.

Bah, there’s no point in continuing. Nevermind!

“You’re having crow, I think. Cheney was quoted out of context by AP”

Tony, I didn’t link to AP. I linked to and quoted from the full White House issued speech. I read the whole thing, too.

“Perhaps I’m misattributing a universal disgust as more heavily weighted against Bush/Cheney, but I don’t think so.”

That’s a fair misattribution of my disgust, solely because I’ve got four years of Bush/Cheney actions (and their consequences) with which I disagree. With Kerry, all I’ve got is vague “proposals” with which I disagree. One tends to bring forth a lot more heat than the other.

“But you’re basically ridiculing Eisenhower for not predicting the Bulge.”

People in the Pentagon we’re telling Rumsfeld et al these things before the invasion. It’s been well documented that Rumsfeld bullied through a lot of good advice … from his own department, not lefties. “The Bulge” was predicted within the Pentagon.

And, yes, I hold Bush responsible for Rumsfelds actions … he gave him the reins, and let him run with it.

“Practically ANYTHING in Iraq is more democratic than the former regime, yet that doesn’t seem to count for you. Nowadays you can be female in Kabul, go to school, and not get killed. This is your huge freakin’ mess?”

No, that’s Afghanistan. I’m talking about a country where two Italian women there to help Iraqis are just kidnapped, where the UN high commissioner is blown up, where we say “Al Sadr must surrender or be killed,” yet the man appears to have more lives than nine cats. I’m talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Is it better than under Saddam? Of course. How could it not be? Is it anywhere near what we claimed we’d do when we invaded? Not even close. In May of 2003, the Pentagon claimed that by year’s end there’d only be 50,000 troops left in Iraq. Their approach to Phase IV was clueless from the start, and has gotten maybe 15% better since. And I’ve been ranting about it since May of 2003, this is nothing new.

Wow, that was before Kerry decided to run, isn’t it?

“that’s fair enough … but descending into personal attacks is hardly cricket.”

Personal attack? “This is logic twisted by a poisonous intent, not by a palsied mind” qualifies as a personal attack? I feel like the guy who got caught going 56 mph while everyone else was doing 100, but, OK, I’ll accept your perception I descended into a personal attack. How could I have descended to such tactics against a man who tells his opponents to fuck off ? I simply don’t know what could have influenced me so. My apologies.

“Add to that your misery at only being one man in a sea of more conservative Georgians, and I can’t figure what you’re claiming to be undecided about.”

Tony, if you want to comment here on what I write, you’re going to have to start reading what I write: “I’ve just spent 3,600 words saying I have no horse to ride in this race. You’re right, I’m not undecided. As I explained in excruciating detail, I can’t vote for either man.”

You seem to think I must. And since I won’t, I’m undecided.

But I’m quite decided. I’ve decided I cannot vote for either of these men, and live with it. That is my right, no matter what anyone else thinks. It’s further obvious to me that this election will be decided in a handful of states, and Georgia is not one of them (by about 17 points, currently).

So you and I arguing about this is about as constructive as using tweezers to rebuild a South Florida beach. If you convince me, and I vote for Bush, it won’t change the results in Georgia. If you convince me you know my mind better than me, and I vote for Kerry, it won’t change the results in Georgia.

You might well ask next, then why are you even writing about this? And that’s probably the best question of all.

Since I don’t agree with the Bush Camp, or Camp Kerry, I’m sure that a lot of people would prefer I just shut up (Like, the 95% of the electorate who’ve already made up their minds).

I said “Tony, if you want to comment here on what I write, you’re going to have to start reading what I write” ... and apparently while I was busy replying to your comment, you were busy doing so.

Cross talk. But I think we’ve finally reached the same conclusion. I’m beyond hope.

That’s all I was trying to tell ya…

I hesitate to add two cents here, but the article was about the over-the-top rancor in the campaign… I’m in my fifties and remember a time when Republicans and Democrats could discuss politics with each other in a rational and coherent manner. My Republican parents occasionally voted for Democrats when they thought the candidate was the better choice. Of course, that era is over. I’m voting for Kerry, but I still enjoy hearing comments from someone who isn’t partisan and actually tries to decipher real issues without political baggage seeping into his thought process.

I’ve been reading this blog for several years. Given (my one line interpretation) Pdude’s probable attitude that a good defense in the War on Terror is a good offense, I thought he might edge into the Bush voter category, if anything. But he’s been critical of the war in Iraq’s aftermath. Like a good realist, he tries to weigh every factor without bias, from what I can see. I don’t care how he votes; I just enjoy the commentary and research. Given his recent statements, I tend to take him at his word that if the election were held today, he’d choose None of the Above.

Like Tony, I find it hard to decipher “the undecided voter” this year. Unlike Tony, I take them at their word, figuring there are some things I just don’t get; I’m no genius. To kinda paraphrase Chris Matthews’ reponse to Bill Maher,

“I don’t get the undecideds. If you like the way things are going, the go-it-alone foreign policy, an economy that favors large corporations and the wealthy, a shrinking middle class….you can expect more of the same, and you’re a Bush voter. If you want a Clinton style foreign policy, a President who agonizes over decisions (yeah, he probably would ask the French), a middle-class oriented economy….you vote for Kerry. There are starkly different choices this year. How can anyone not make a choice?”

Just because we don’t get it, Tony, doesn’t mean that they don’t mean what they say.

Thanks for the kind words and pretty accurate assessment, Richard. But I love the way Matthews phrases my choice, and wonders at how I can’t make it. Was the man trying to be sarcastic, or was it comically unintentional? Those are indeed starkly different choices. But what about those of us who look at them and say, “you’re both wrong, and those aren’t the only policy options”?

We get called “undecideds,” and 95% of likely voters look at us like we’re Martians. Because they can at least comprehend The Other Side, but those of us who can’t make this clear choice, well, we’re some kind of alien beyond their understanding.

Maybe I’ll just write about the new TV season. It’s simple, harmless, and equally confusing and pointless to everyone.

Like rturner, I have a difficult time understanding undecideds until I realize that this time around I’m pretty much a one issue voter. I don’t care about the image management, it’s just smoke and mirrors anyway.
For those that are looking for a difference, my opinion is that congress will not allow for much difference. The log jam created by a split congress will even out the rhetoric of the campign. This election, I think, will be about who you want on the Supreme Court and national security. (congress will probably screw that up too) Any legislation proposed by the candidates will pretty much be ignored.
In addition, your depth of research gives you the right to be undecided about anything you want!

Sure wish I would read what I write before I post it! You will need to add some letters and some words.

I’ve been thinking about the undecideds, and more importantly the uninvolveds and uninteresteds for a good long time now (even started a now-dead website to try and figure them out), and I think my suggestion at this point is to find a third party candidate for President who’ll be on the Georgia ballot and vote for them. If you honestly can’t stomach the two big-party candidates, don’t leave the box blank. There are lots of other parties to choose from, and the more votes they get, the closer they get to legitimacy. Now, this means you’ve got to find one that’s not crazy and that you can stomach supporting, but it’s something to consider.

If Sadr and Zarqawi are alive and on the loose come election day, I know who I’m voting for.

Reid said: “I love the way Matthews phrases my choice, and wonders at how I can’t make it. Was the man trying to be sarcastic, or was it comically unintentional? Those are indeed starkly different choices. But what about those of us who look at them and say, “you’re both wrong, and those aren’t the only policy options”?

I think he was being honest and, like me, just doesn’t understand. Of all the cable politicos, he seems the most “objective” to me, if that’s saying anything. (Cable news/politics is mostly just entertainment and ratings, as Edward R. Murrow spins in his grave.) A Democrat, Matthews said he voted for Bush last time, and I haven’t heard him state a preference this time.

Maybe I just don’t understand the “other policy options”. Seriously. In my experience, it’s always been possible to find a lesser of two evils, which is always the choice in national elections. But I’m trying to stretch here, it must be that some people are having a very difficult time finding the lesser evil this time. I can get there personnaly if I imagine an alternative Bizarro universe where the choice for President was between Bush and Cheney. Or say, Bush and Cynthia McKinney. I think I’d finally be stumped in my quest for the lesser of two evils.

In either of those worlds, you really have to take the vomit factor into consideration. Let’s see, do I want to do my duty and vote and vomit the rest of the day, or do I want to stay home and get drunk first?

A interesting note. The Cheney quote above I simply copied and pasted from The White House web site yesterday. Today, it’s been changed, slightly, and in an interesting way.

It originally said: “Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again. That we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States…”

It now reads: “Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States…”

Now why would someone go in and change the punctuation of a transcript of a speech? One that said at the top, “Final Transcript—As Delivered.”

And Richard, as for “other policy options,” I don’t believe it’s a binary choice between a “go-it-alone foreign policy” and a “Clinton style foreign policy” with “a President who agonizes over decisions” and insists on consulting France. Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have assumed we have the same set of allies we did on September 10. There should have been (should be) a complete top-to-bottom reassessment of our relationship with most every country on this planet. Some of the countries we continue to call “our allies” are not (Saudi Arabia and Egypt are prime examples, but you could put France and Germany in the “reassessment” pile, too). If we could “re-sort” our diplomatic priorities and relationships, and be honest and clear about who our allies are (and aren’t), it would be a lot easier to call on those “allies” for foreign policy support. But we’ve assumed we have the same set of allies we had in the First Gulf War. We appear to diplomatically still operate in that “pre-9/11 mind set” Cheney worries about.

Should I simply accept the lesser of two evils who can’t get outside their well built binary boxes? Or should I demand my leaders look for new ways to solve new problems?

Oh, and one other note of interest. My suburban Republican wife walked in the door yesterday as they were playing the excerpt of Cheney's speech on CNN. I hadn't said a word to her about it. She listened to what Cheney said, turned to me with a shocked/angry look, and said "They’re going to blow this election."

She got his intended meaning loud and clear, immediately, with no help from anyone. And she found it disgusting.

Now, I’m going out of town and can’t really monitor this comment thread, so everyone play nice.