Back in 2000, I recognized Bush for the hand puppet that he was/is and was adamantly against the idea that Gore was the lesser of two evils, villifying anyone that supported Nader instead or simply didn't bother to vote when they knew they were in a swing state. Gore ran a terrible campaign, much worse than Kerry's, underestimating both Bush and his level of support (and, in retrospect, his electoral vs. popular vote strategy) and, controversies aside, when all was said and done, he lost. Even worse, he quit the fight before it was done.
For all the outrage Fahrenheit 9/11 engendered, the most galling moment for me was watching Gore silence members of the House attempting to register a protest over the certification of the election results on the basis of disenfranchised voters in their districts because they lacked a co-signature from a Senator. ANY SENATOR!
And now, four years later, with our world a very different place post-9/11 and Bush & Cos. wrongheaded plans fully in action, a half-assed alternative like Kerry - who simply disagrees with many of Bush's methods, but not his fundamental objectives - isn't the answer because he will be set up to fail. The next four years are going to suck, no matter who is President. If Kerry pulls off the victory in the bottom of the ninth, it'll be all for naught as the job ahead is daunting for the people who screwed it up, even moreso for someone looking only to tweak it here and there.
It's like deciding to cut back to a pack a day once you've discovered you have lung cancer. It's too late!
A Kerry victory guarantees a relative status quo with a more palatable veneer. The Republicans are expected to maintain their hold on both the House and Senate this election - where are the rallying cries of support for change at the state and local levels? - and will make it impossible for Kerry to accomplish anything of real importance. In 2008, he will then get his hat handed to him by McCain or Giuliani.
So yes, even though my original statement of "Democrats deserve another four years of Bush." was specifically in reference to "Democrats" and meant as a snarky I told you so for nominating Kerry, after some frustrated thinking over lunch, I've come to the conclusion that AMERICA needs another four years of Bush.
While Kerry is definitely better than Bush, that's a no-brainer (no pun intended!), he's not better enough to risk status quo. The same way an addict needs to truly hit rockbottom to kick their habit, this country needs a swift kick in the head to turn off the TV and jar it back to its senses.
Bush/Cheney is the team to deliver that kick and complaining about how much it's going to hurt is at least four years too late. Twelve years, if you believe Ross Perot had tapped into something in '92 that was squandered during the Clinton years.
In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.NOTE: This started as a response to Dyanna's post in response to my previous entry, but it started getting longer than I intended so I posted it here instead.
--J. William Fulbright
A country which proposes to make use of modern war as an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralized, all-powerful executive, hence the absurdity of talking about the defense of democracy by force of arms. A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic.