Less Swearing This Time

I admit that when I write about politics on this blog there isn't a whole lot of nuance but there is a lot of swearing aimed at republican politicians and Bush in particular. I take the point that there is emotion and anger without much substantive analysis. When it comes to Bush, as I've said, I don't really think that much needs to be said and anything I say will be nothing new. Let's see...Iraq. Even if there was nothing else negative to say about his administration, the quagmire in Iraq would be enough to bias me completely against it. They lied to create fear and compliance in our populace. The argument about "WMD" was just a rationalization for an aggressive war of choice. I have heard many arguments about why we invaded but the only one that makes any sense to me is "because we felt like it." If history has taught us anything about war, it should be that it is a last resort because once it starts, everything changes.

Then there is the record of torture, secrecy, anti-environmental policies, etc. As I already said, the list of bad things about these guys is manifold and I don't think I really need to make any arguments about why I am rationally justified in my anti-Bushism. To me the justification is self evident.

I will concede that my ad hominem attacks on the current batch of Republican candidates comes across as crass and unnecessary. And it is unnecessary. And it is crass. But, again, I don't really need to have an internal Socratic dialog in order to justify to myself why I don't like any of them. And I don't like any of them. Not even a little bit. There are certain issues that I cannot compromise my views about. One of them is the matter of abortion. I believe that women should have access to abortions. I don't like abortion but whether or not I like it, it is important for people to decide if and when they will be pregnant. That is how I believe and I don't think I can be dissuaded of this belief which I have come to rationally. When it comes down to it, people are going to get pregnant who do not want to have children and a percentage of those people will wish to end the pregnancy whether or not abortion is legal. They always have and they always will. It just makes sense that people should have the ability to have an abortion without unduly risking their lives. I wish this weren't such a divisive issue but it is and I have my position. This certainly isn't the most important thing to me but it sure is to a lot of people out there. And since I believe in legal abortion, that makes only one of the Republicans out there even remotely acceptable and that's Rudy Giuliani. And there is no way I would support that guy.

I feel compelled to say that abortion is not the reason why I can't really give thought to any Republican candidates but that it serves as a useful example of why I cannot give them more than a cursory appraisal as to their worthiness of my vote.

I am having trouble with the Democratic candidates though. I believe that the top three, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama (listed alphabetically) would each be a better president than the current one. But no matter who it would wind up being he/she is going to inherit a bunch of problems, especially Iraq. There are no good choices there. If we leave, blood bath. If we stay, lots of blood. Anything in between, still lots of blood. And where we are now is why we should have never gone in in the first place. This is exactly why we shouldn't have wars of choice. Or if we do, do it in a jerky international muscle flexing kind of way like in Granada, Panama, and Kosovo. At least in those situations we didn't tear the entire fabrics of those places apart. Anyway, that is beside the point. Back to the Democrats...

Clinton. I have a visceral negative reaction to Hillary Clinton. I see her pretty much as most of her political adversaries see her, calculating, insincere, concerned more with winning than in having beliefs. Those are all high negatives but her policies are closer to mine than are any of the Republican candidates. I will vote for her if she is the candidate but like a lot of liberals I will be holding my nose. On the other hand, I am excited to see a woman with a real chance to win.

Edwards. Yeah, he seems slick. Yeah, he gets $400 hair cuts. Yeah, he is super rich. But his rhetoric lines up closer to where I am than any of the other candidates. I wouldn't mind the lack of a southern accent in our next president, but if there has to be, I hope it is from this man. Also, he had a sweet mustache. He won't be the nominee. That's too bad.

Obama. The main negatives on this guy seem to be that he is untested and lacks experience. I am tempted to go along with this line but the other two front runners don't really have a whole lot more "experience." I tend not to really see experience as being that important. Then again, Bush didn't have much experience either and look where that got us. Hmm...must think about this. I am inspired by his speeches. Good speech giving has gone by the wayside in the last fifty years and it is exciting to hear passion. As with Clinton, I am excited to see an African-American with a real chance to win.

And I guess that just about does it. I don't see politics as personal and I certainly regret coming across as if I am attacking anyone that I care about. But the reality is that some of these things make serious impacts on peoples' lives. This war is the biggest mistake in my lifetime. I can't treat it as if it is a difference of opinion on tax policy or school vouchers. It is serious and thousands of people are paying the price. It is a tragedy that our country could have and should have prevented.

P.S. My birthday is coming up in a few more days. OMG!!! I'll B 28 LOL!!