Who Is John Kerry?

"Saying is one thing and doing is another: we are to consider the sermon and the preacher distinctly and apart."

    -Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), French essayist

Political pundit Dick Morris pretty much nailed John Kerry for me in his New York Post oped, "The Bagel Candidacy." Morris, assessing Kerry's Friday night Democratic Convention speech, raises important questions that deserve answers:

"What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?

What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?

What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?"

Morris says that all we know about Kerry is he fought in Vietnam and then ran for president.

In his speech last night, Kerry had an opportunity to fill in some of these blanks as well as elaborate on how he plans to deal with current issues like Iraq, future threats to our security and the economy. The Washington Post editors (registration required) say his speech failed to provide that critical information to the American voter:

"He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy...But what is 'the job' in Iraq? He didn't say...a President Kerry...would face momentous decisions based on inevitably imperfect information, whether about Iran or North Korea or dangers yet to emerge. How would he respond?"

Lawrence F. Kaplan shares many of the Post editors' concerns in an article in The New Republic Online titled "Apocalypse Kerry," and criticizes Kerry for touting his four months of service in Vietnam as experience that would enhance his effectiveness as commander-in-chief:

"...whether it describes a Republican or a Democratic candidate, the fact that a politician has 'fought under that flag' tells us nothing about his qualifications to be a wartime leader--even less when the would-be leader devotes far more of his convention speech to a long-ago war than he does to the war in which America happens to be presently engaged.

If his Vietnam service offers proof that he is 'decisive' then why is it that for two decades Kerry has been 'only an average Senator,' as pro-Kerry columnist Al Hunt wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal? If his wartime feats prove that Kerry is 'strong' on national security, then why did he oppose virtually every stand-out weapons system in the U.S. arsenal today, speechify against the first Gulf War, and refuse to fund the second? Why, indeed, unless no correlation exists between his biography and his record?"

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Mr. Kerry doesn't give us the details of his Senate achievements of the last 20 years because there are few of them to brag about. I believe his reluctance to tell us specifically how he plans to deal with the Iraq and Afghanistan situations, how he intends to retaliate against possible future attacks on our homeland, and how he would manage our long-term economic issues stems from not wanting to be called to task should he fail to fulfill the promises he made as a campaigner if he becomes our next president.

This is not surprising, for it's how many politicians run a campaign. I just expect more in a race of this importance. If Kerry really wants to have a shot at winning this fall, he'd enhance his chances by being less evasive and much more specific as he presents himself to potential voters across the country. If he doesn't do this, I predict that Bush and the Republicans will bury him come November. 

Update: Tom Maguire at his weblog JustOneMinute has some thoughts too. In addition to a couple of the links I used he provides some others, and there are many interesting comments in response to his post.

Update: Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell weighs in on Kerry's "Missing Years" in this Townhall.com oped.   

Walking Home a Different Way

"Normal day, let me be aware of the treasure you are. Let me learn from you, love you, savor you, bless you before you depart. Let me not pass you by in quest of some rare and perfect tomorrow. Let me hold you while I may, for it will not always be so."

    - Mary Jean Irion, American writer, educator

Christian McEwen in this Christian Science Monitor essay titled "Take the Time to Take Things More Slowly" urges all of us to slow down a bit and enjoy the moment we're in--something that in today's world can be difficult to make ourselves do. He shares one of the experiences he had teaching a writing class in London twenty years ago:

"There was a man in this last group whom I'll call George. He was a creaky, lanky, doubtful sort of fellow...I remember his response to one of my assignments: It was the sort of lesson--at least for me as a teacher--that I hope I will never forget...I had asked the class to take some ordinary task--washing the dishes, dusting the bedroom, tidying up the children's toys--and tackle it at less than half the usual speed."

George, a retiree, had a part-time job and at the end of the day always walked home using the same few streets. Thinking about McEwen's assignment, he decided to make his way home using a completely new route. I hope you'll go to the link above and read what George had to say to the class the next day.

McEwen's reaction to his student and his perceptive advice are worth anyone's consideration:

"It sounds so simple--almost too simple to be worth saying. But taking the time to slow down in this way can be a tremendous source of joy. It gives you time to listen, to pay attention. And that in turn allows you to take in whatever surrounds you in the outer world: to be engaged and nourished by it.

Just as important, slowing down frees you to listen inwards: to muse, to remember, to imagine, to dream. It gives you time to mull over a book you've been reading, or to sort out your jangled reactions to a difficult conversation."

How do we slow down and tune in? How do we become more aware of what's going on around us and immerse ourselves in the present moment? How can we truly savor each day, and live it to the fullest?

I don't believe the old Nike commercial, "Just Do It!" is the solution, though it has its merits and sometimes works for me when I'm procrastinating about something. These questions, instead, require some reflection, and that's what McEwen is suggesting we do--slow down, become more aware of things and reflect a bit about what's happening around us. Keeping that in mind, I'd say there are two things that have helped me do this.

Writing is one of them. Not the writing I do on this weblog, but the writing I've done over the years in my personal journals. I find that sitting down, usually in the morning, taking a pen in hand and writing about whatever is on my mind, has always helped me to better understand what is happening in my life.

Many times after writing about something that is troubling me I find in my written reflections an answer that I don't think I would have discovered had I not taken the time to put my thoughts on paper.  Going back and reading something I wrote years ago can be helpful too. Reading about my past has often given me the insight I've needed to deal with things going on in my life today. 

The other thing that has helped me with these things is photography and art. As a kid I always enjoyed drawing and sketching. Seeing something that was pleasing to me and drawing it gave me a great deal of satisfaction. When I discovered cameras, another world opened up for me. I found that, as with the sketching, I was always looking for something to photograph and this constant search for a subject enhanced my sensitivity to the things around me.

Now, anytime I find myself too busy, too caught up in the hectic times in which we're living, not interested or engaged, or taking the beauty in my world for granted, I try to remember to reach for my journal or my camera, or both. They help me to slow down, lookaround and consider the things that are important in my life. Soon, I'm back on track. They work for me. What works for you?  

He Just Can't Win

"Experience informs us that the first defense of weak minds is to recriminate."

  - Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), English poet

There's no way George Bush can win. At least that's what Rich Lowry thinks. In his National Review Online article titled "W.'s Double Binds" he tells us why:

"Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters."

Lowry explains how Bush's decisions on the major issues of the day are being evaluated by his political adversaries:

"If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all.

Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.

If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion."

There's more, and it's a fun essay. Mr. Lowry's conclusion, in particular, is hilarious. Read the whole thing if you need a chuckle.

Contrarian Steyn

"Neither smiles nor frowns, neither good intentions nor harsh words, are a substitute for strength."

     - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), 35th U.S. president

With practically every poll I see showing the Kerry/Edwards ticket defeating Bush/Cheney, and listening to my wife tell me she thinks the Democrats will win in November, it would be easy to become discouraged about the Republican's chances of being re-elected this fall. But I am still optimistic for many of the reasons suggested by columnist Mark Steyn in his article in the U.K.'s The Spectator magazine (brief registration required).

In his inimitable manner, Steyn opines that the "anyone but Bush" Democrats whose votes Kerry and Edwards are counting on may become disenchanted if Kerry doesn't do something to hold their interest between now and election day:

"...the question is whether the base's strong anti-Bush motivation can survive its non-existent pro-Kerry motivation. Key demographics--such as blacks and Hispanics--are reported to be antipathetic to the candidate and difficult to corral. Even the fawning press has a tough job talking him up."

He quotes Jodi Wilgoren writing about Kerry in the New York Times:

"Like a caged hamster, Senator John Kerry is restless on the road. He pokes at the perimeter of the campaign bubble that envelops him, constantly trying to break out..."

Steyn suggests that it would have sounded better if Wilgoren had substituted "caged tiger" for "caged hamster," but surmises that she had her reasons for describing him as she did. His reaction to the Wilgoren piece leads him to describe Bush as a rat--lab rat that is:

"Bush, meanwhile, is like some indestructible lab rat. They keep tossing some lethal new poison in there every week and he digests it all and keeps on going. The economy's a bust! Iraq'sa quagmire! There are no WMD!But Bush just ploughs through it all, and in the end the dynamic of the race seems barely affected."

Having said that, Mr. Steyn predicts that Bush will win and provides us with an analysis of how he thinks the voting will play out in November. He summarizes by giving us another reason he puts his money on Bush:

"But the other reason I'd bet on Bush is more basic: he tends not to lose. In 2002 Michael Moore gloated that the midterms would be the shot heard round the world--a massive repudiation of the moron warmonger--and instead the President had a great night of significant incremental gains in the Senate and House. If he's a moron, he's the luckiest moron who ever lived."

He addresses issues such as the economy, Iraq, and the President's "lies" that are being touted as negatives by Kerry/Edwards, then cites a Pew poll that identifies the strongest associations people have with Bush as being positive:

"The Bush characteristics most frequently cited by the public are that he is tough and won't back down (53 per cent) and that he is strong and decisive (48 per cent), although 44 per cent did describe him as stubborn. Conversely, only 18 per cent selected Kerry as the candidate who most epitomises strength and decisiveness, and only 15 per cent saw him as the one who is tougher and more tenacious...The only theme that more of the public saw as best describing Kerry rather than Bush was that he was a flip-flopper."

Why does this matter? Steyn tells us why he thinks it does:

"...if voters think this election is about the small print on your credit-card statement or ten-year-old girls without winter coats or any of John Edwards' other bizarre obsessions, they'll ditch Bush and Cheney. But if they think it's about American resolve in dangerous times, Kerry and Edwards look way out of their league."

I don't know about you, but I think it's, as Steyn puts it, "about American resolve in dangerous times."  Stanley Crouch, columnist for the New York Daily News, does too. If Kerry and Edwards are to have a chance of defeating Bush, they'd do well to give all this some consideration, but I bet they won't.

A New Outlook

"A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience."

   - Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894), American writer

Sometimes when you're paying the least attention to what you're doing and you're not looking for anything in particular, perhaps just passing the time, something happens that gives you a fresh perspective on things. Such was the case with Michelle Brown who was meeting a friend and her children for lunch even though she was in a really bad mood.

"I was having a bad day--a really bad day. Maybe it was one of those trickledown yellings. I was working at the University then, so maybe I felt caught in one of the many departmental power struggles."

Though she had no desire to make the date, out of a sense of obligation she went on anyway and found herself alone with little Lucas when her friend, Karen, and her other two kids got ahead of them. As she and Lucas followed Karen, Lucas heard what he thought were baby birds and stopped to look for them.

"Then Lucas stopped and said, 'Listen.' I heard them, too--baby birds up in the trees somewhere. So I stepped back and looked. Sure enough, a nest was tucked into the top of a nearby tree. I told Lucas, 'See? It's right up there.' 'Where?' he asked. 'There to the left of the street light,' I said, a little annoyed, pointing to the nest. He still didn't see it, so I squatted down next to him and realized that, from his height, the nest was completely blocked by the other tree."

Michelle then reached down, picked Lucas up, and from his new vantage point the little guy was able to see where the baby birds' chirps were coming from. This made him very happy. And guess what? All of a sudden the things that had been weighing Michelle down became inconsequential. She was out of her funk. No therapy, no medication, no pity-party--a simple hug from a grateful child was all it took.

Isn't there a lesson here for most of us who are caught up in the agonies of this mad, mad world we live in today? I think so. In Michelle's case, it was a curious child that enabled her to see things in a new light. But it could be anyone, adult or child, who we take the time to connect with that could do the same for us. All it takes is a little more awareness. The rest will take care of itself.

"Poor" John

"The enemy is not conservatism. The enemy is not liberalism. The enemy is bull."

    - Lars-Erik Nelson (1941-2000), American journalist

In a Los Angeles Times opinion column (brief registration required), David Gelernter suggests that John Edwards' life clashes with his campaign message:

"...I can't believe the public is going to buy this act. Last week, I heard an admiring TV pundit explain, to general agreement from his fellows, that Edwards' 'two Americas speech' is his No. 1 asset, followed closely by his self-made-man, up-from-the-working-class life story. The problem is, they cancel each other out."

Gelernter says that Edwards' message that our country is divided by some sort of economic barricade is political guff. Economic historians tell us that American society is constantly moving from poor to middle class to well-off to rich, and this country provides myriad opportunities for almost anyone to realize the "American dream" if they are willing to make the effort. John Edwards himself is a great example:

"More important to the campaign: Edwards' life story shows that his message is false. If your story is 'poor boy makes good,' your message can't possibly be 'this is a two-part nation where poor boys are prevented from making good.' Exactly how dumb are the voters supposed to be?"

Mr. Gelernter continues:

"Edwards' whole campaign shtick suggests he's a regular guy, just plain folks, a slob like us. So if he got over this barricade...why can't anyone who really wants to? Answer: Anyone can, and everyone knows it. Edwards' story says so loud and clear. This is still the land of opportunity, where a talented working-class boy can grow up to be stinking rich and even be a candidate for vice-president."

There's more. Read the whole thing and consider Gelernter's suggestion that Edwards take his campaign message and really do something with it by being straight up with American voters. Can political discourse ever evolve to really "telling it like it is?" I doubt it. I believe that most politicians would view attempts at such honesty as the kiss of death. The American people may be ready for it, but until the candidates believe they are it will never happen.

Update: Some of you have written and told me you're having trouble getting the link to David Gelernter's article to work. I've checked the URL and it's correct. Sometimes going outside the journal entry and typing it into your browser will get you there. Here's the story title and address: "Edwards' Life Clashes With Campaign Message" http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-op-gelernter11jul11,1,4514197.story . Good luck.

Vain Is a Pain

"You can't see the world through a mirror."

 - Avril Lavigne, Canadian born singer

Bernadette Malone, in what I think is a hilarious op-ed she wrote for The Union Leader, provides us with one female's reaction to some of John Kerry's recent comments:

"John Kerry probably lost untold numbers of votes when he announced he and his new running mate John Edwards have 'better hair' than their opponents George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a vain man."

She goes on to talk about what she believes are some of Kerry's other missteps:

"Kerry had already committed several offenses in this category that were starting to make me feel uncomfortable. The first was when he posed for Vogue magazine wearing an electric blue wet suit. It's only borderline acceptable for a man to pose for Vogue, and it's only borderline acceptable for a man to wear an electric blue wetsuit. The combination of the two, however, took things a wave too far. Real men just don't do that.

Then there were other reports...that Kerry receives Botox treatments to diminish his wrinkles. I thought it was great that his wife admits to using Botox, but women are supposed to be vain. The thought of my next President lying back in the dermatologist's chair to have botulism bacteria injected into his facial muscles so his eyebrows and smile will freeze in place and look taut makes me queasy."

Ms. Malone continues her criticism of the "vain male" with observations about Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Kerry's new running mate, John Edwards. She also opines about how Hillary Clinton might have become Kerry's choice for vice-president had she only recognized John's fixation with hair.

I'm wondering if Malone's turn-off with the "vanity thing" in men is a prevalent attitude among women. Somehow I don't believe it is based on comments I hear women making about Edwards' good looks, or the teeny-bopper adulation expressed toward Bill Clinton by the mostly female Oprah Show audience when he was a guest there a couple of weeks ago.

It is amusing to see the kinds of things that cause some voters to cast their ballot for a candidate and to realize how little some of these things have to do with that person's ability to perform the job. I suppose this will always be the case, however, especially with the advent of television and the ability of the media to create an image of a candidate that may or may not reflect who that candidate really is.

Phew...Glad That's Over!

"It seems a little ridiculous now, but this country was originally founded as a protest against taxation."

             - Anonymous

The Americans for Tax Reform organization announced today that the "Cost of Government" date has been reached. What does this mean? Christoper Lee, of the Washington Post tells us in this story (brief registration required):

"A group that favors smaller government will celebrate another kind of independence day today, marking the date by which the average American worker has earned enough money to cover his or her share of the cost of federal, state and local government."

Put another way, Americans have to work on average 189 days out of the year just to meet all the costs imposed by government. Amazingly, all forms of American government consume over 51% of our national income.

You know, on its face, that sounds oppressive. To think that all of us work more than half a year for Uncle Sam and all his little siblings is enough to make you want to revolt. But we won't. Withholding taxes from our income spreads the misery over the entire year for most of us, and makes our tax burden less noticeable and a little easier to swallow.

I would think those who have no withholding and must ante up a tax payment every quarter feel the pinch to a much greater degree than plain old wage earners or pension recipients like most of the rest of us. Still, it's sobering when presented in this manner, and it makes you feel like writing your representative to see if you can convince him to tighten up the purse strings at least a little bit. I think I will.

As far as I know, it's been awhile since any federal legislation has been introduced that would cut spending or reduce the size of the government bureaucracy. It would seem to me that such action is long overdue.

Our governor, Mark Sanford, is making some attempts in this area but is practically at war with the S.C. legislature. He vetoed over 100 bills this year, only to have our lawmakers overturn all but one of them. Frustrated at his lack of success, he carried a live pig into one of their sessions to drive home his point that "pork" has to go. That little shenanigan didn't endear him to (m)any of our representatives, but my sense is the populace thought it was appropriate. Such is Southern politics. 

Anyway, Sanford is trying to do something about the growth of government and taxes in our state, and I think the people are with him. We need more public servants like him who are willing to do something about the fact that we're having to work 6 months of each year to support our governments. Sadly, he's in the minority.

Update: Grover Norquist, president of the Americans for Tax Reform organization, adds his two cents in this National Review article, "Today, We Start Working for Ourselves."

If It Happens Again

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."

- William T. Sherman (1820-1891), U.S. Civil War Union General

None of us like to think of the possibility of another 9/11-type attack occurring in our country. Most of us have stored the memories of what happened on September 11, 2001, into some recess of our brain that we try not to access any more than we have to. I believe that most of us realize that we remain vulnerable despite the precautions we have taken, but we cling to the, perhaps false, hope that 9/11 was a moment in time that won't be repeated in our lifetime.

Something keeps gnawing at us, though, and we find ourselves wondering if the next newsflash will bring word of another heinous deed committed by terrorists somewhere in our country. Can't happen, you may say. All the Islamic extremists are focusing their murderous intentions on our soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're too busy over there to be able to plan anything over here.

Yes, they're over there--but they're over here too. And they're not only kneeling on their prayer mats, they're actively planning ways to kill as many of us as they can. And what if they're successful? What if they kill another 3,000, 30,000 or, God help us, another 300,000 innocent souls? What will we do? How will we retaliate? Who will we retaliate against?

Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, makes some observations about our experts' belief that such an attack is inevitable in his essay "ANOTHER 9/11?"

"Almost daily we are assured that another attack on the homeland commensurate with 9/11 is inevitable...Our experts weighed in over the 4th of July weekend and seemed to disagree only over the method of mass murder to come...We talk endlessly about 'they' without ever specifying exactly who 'they' really are who are planning to butcher us at home...While we speculate idly about the nature of the attack to come, and the inability of our homeland-security forces to stop it, very few talk about what we should do post-facto if the promised disaster actually transpires."

He suggests that when your enemies know what your response will be if they attack you, as they did in the Cold War, it can help create deterrence:

"...our silence is almost surreal given the standard past American policy in the Cold War of quietly announcing that a Soviet first strike on the United States would result immediately in massive retaliation...in the absence of any better strategy, Mutually Assured Destruction kept the peace for 50 years and prevented millions of Americans from being incinerated."

Hanson recognizes that our enemy today is totally unlike the one we confronted from the 1950's through the 1980's. We knew who the Soviets were and we knew where to find them. How do you retaliate against the shadowy foe we face today?

"So what would the United States do the next time we are hit? Strike who or what--and where, when and how? The problem with the likes of a supposedly nation-less bin Laden, Zarkawi, or their copy-catters, we are told, is that they are like metastasizing brain tumors whose ganglia are deeply embedded in the surrounding tissue. Surgery or chemotherapy often kills the host as well as the cancer. They and their stealthy patrons both know and count on just that ambiguity and imprecision.

Thus the genius of the jihadists is that they provide psychological rewards on the cheap for millions in the Arab Street without costs, and in turn thrive on 'credible deniability' of their tacit hosts. They smirk that postmodern Western liberality precludes Shermanesque collective punishment against the pre-modern. After all, a Christiane Amanpour can be at the front in 24 hours before a live 60-million-strong audience to yell to U.S. troops on patrol 'Don't step on that child!' But do they also know that another 9/11 would throw such restraint out the window?"

Hanson suggests that these killers cannot carry out large attacks without the direct aid of host nations such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and secret elements within Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and other countries. Even as their governments disassociate themselves from the murder of our citizens, many of them are aiding and abetting those who would do us harm. These countries, then, would be the targets of our retaliation for another 9/11, and Hanson feels they should understand that in no uncertain terms:

"The key for the United States...is to convey the message that if there should be a repeat of 9/11, the United States will hold any countries responsible who are proved to have aided or sheltered any of the guilty.

We should be clear about a proper response now and inform the appropriate parties exactly of the real damage they should expect--and it won't be moral fuzziness about guilt over endemic poverty, ancient support for the shah, past Aramco antics, the misery of the Arab Street, and all the other bottled causes and complaints that the Middle East counts on for its accustomed pass from a supposedly neurotic, decadent, and self-loathing West."

There's a lot more. I would suggest you read the whole thing. And while you're doing that, pretend that you are our president, or a member of congress, or secretary of defense and you're trying to decide how we should respond if we're attacked again. We should have a plan, shouldn't we? Actually, we probably do, and it could have more terrible consequences than what Hanson suggests. Can you think of a better way? One that would deter future acts of aggression, or in the event of another attack, punish the perpetrators and those who aided them?

 

This? Or That?

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

 - Yogi Berra, American baseball player, manager

Stuart Jeffries, Guardian Unlimited columnist, thinks that having too many choices has the opposite effect of what most of us believe it should. In an article written earlier this year, he surmises that "Hell Is 57 Varieties," and proceeds to tell us why having so many things to choose from makes our lives more complicated and stressful.

Citing a new book by American social scientist Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice, Jeffries suggests that reducing our options helps limit our anxiety and makes us happier. He gives us some hints from Schwartz's book about how this might be accomplished, but then offers a word of caution. He points out that having a lot of things to choose from may allow us to discover something we don't yet know we need, so if we limit our choices we may miss something that could be really important to us.

Sounds like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I agree with Mr. Jeffries that we now have tons of choices, especially here in the U.S.A. But I haven't found that having 21 varieties of raisin bran, 28 brands of vodka, a gazillion types of golf balls or 348 channels on my tv to be much of a problem. I take about 2 minutes to make my selection, usually based on price or taste, then go on my merry way. Having lots of "stuff" to choose from has rarely been a problem for me.

Life choices, on the other hand, have sometimes gotten sticky. You know--Do I want to marry this person? Should I have children? Do I really need to get a physical? Is this really where I want to spend the rest of my life? Should I let Mom move in with us? Is lending money to my friend a wise thing to do? Am I tipsy enough that I should find someone else to drive? Is it okay to lie just this once? Choosing the cereal I want to eat is a snap when you consider these dilemmas.

You may want to read the entire article and see what you think. Jeffries makes some good points, as does Schwartz, but I don't agree with them that having so many things to choose from these days creates that much stress. I kinda like it, because I can remember when there was only one type of milk, two or three brands of cereal and one flavor of ice cream at the grocery where Mom used to shop. The variety we have now is wonderful. So what kind of beer do I want this week? Eeny, meeny, miney, moe...it works for me.

Conflicting Reports

"Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world, and life seen in the newspaper another."

    - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), English writer

Iraqi blogger Omar on his weblog Iraq The Model, tells us about his reaction to the recent farewell speech of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority leader, Paul Bremer in a post titled "Small Party and Great Hopes":

"The hall was busy and everyone was chatting and laughing loud. They had Al-Jazeera on...Then suddenly Mr. Bremer appeared on TV reading his last speech before he left Iraq. I approached the TV to listen carefully to the speech, as I expected it to be difficult in the midst of all that noise. To my surprise everyone stopped what they were doing and started watching as attentively as I was."

Omar describes the effect that Bremer's words had on his co-workers and friends who were watching the broadcast with him:

"I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She'at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, 'So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?' My friend smiled, still touched and said, 'Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes, God bless him.'

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, 'I must admit that I'm beginning to believe in what you've been telling us for months and I'm beginning to have faith in America."

Take a few minutes and read the whole thing, and when you're finished take a look at this post on the blog, The Ombudsgod, to see what the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post had to say about the Bremer speech that Omar and his friends liked so much.

Sad, really. 

Gore Voters: What Will They Do?

"No man sees far; the most see no farther than their noses."

 - Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), Scottish born English writer

James Taranto, in a post for the WSJ Opinion Journal titled "Landslide Kerry?" quotes two gents who are predicting that John Kerry has the 2004 presidential election pretty well sewed up. Chuck Todd, editor of the Hotline, predicts a landslide for Kerry:

"The reason...is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators...it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout."

And Josh Marshall, on his weblog Talking Points Memo, makes the following prediction:

"President Bush's approval rating rests at 42%. Meanwhile, 60% say the Iraq war has not been worth the cost. In other words, that it was a mistake...These two numbers, particularly the first, are really close to the whole story. Incumbent presidents who fall short of 50% approval are in some danger. Those who aren't much over 40% are fighting for their political lives...I take it as a given that virtually no Gore voters from 2000 will pull the lever for Bush...And since there were more Gore voters than Bush voters last time anyway, well..." (underlining is mine)

Taranto suggests that Marshall's belief that no Gore voters will mark their ballot for Bush sounds far-fetched and perhaps "Democrats in 2004 are repeating the mistake Republicans made in 1996: assuming that the intensity of their own loathing for the incumbent means that loathing is widespread beyond the partisan base."

In a subsequent post Mr. Taranto provides some evidence that what Marshall predicts may indeed be far-fetched. Readers of his "Landslide for Kerry?" entry who were Gore voters in 2000 and plan to support Bush in 2004 wrote him with their rationale for a switch from Democrat to Republican. These make for some interesting reading and can be found at this link.

Then in another post titled "Gore No More-II," Taranto provides us with more correspondence from Gore defectors. You may read them by clicking on this link. He highlights one reader's take on why he believes significant numbers of Gore voters will vote for Bush this fall. Some of his thoughts:

1. Gore got a few points for being the incumbent...and an even bigger boost for being an incumbent when the economy seemed to be doing well. Bush will get the incumbent and 'improving economy' vote this time.

2. Most Vietnam vets remember Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War activities, and not fondly. Huge numbers who voted for Gore...will desert Kerry--especially since any doubts about Bush's National Guard service are old news now, eclipsed by his post 9/11 performance.

3. Reports from the Jewish community indicate sizable movement--all of it toward Bush. No one thinks Bush will win the Jewish vote, but even being competitive will be a big swing in several battleground states.

Taranto closes by cautioning you ecstatic Republicans out there that his conclusions are highly speculative and that there may be those who voted for Bush in 2000 and have become disenchanted enough to vote for Kerry, though he hasn't heard from many of them. If you're a "Bushie" who plans to switch to Kerry, he'd love to hear from you. You can  e-mail him at this address.

November, in political parlance, is a lifetime away. Many things can happen between now and then. I hope Taranto is right and Todd and Marshall are wrong, but at the moment it's anyone's guess--despite what any polls or pundits may say. Stay tuned. 

 

  

 

Picking Up the Pieces

"The human heart dares not stay away too long from that which hurt it most. There is a return journey to anguish that few of us are released from making."

     - Lillian Smith (1897-1966), American writer

A blogger who calls herself "Right Thinking Girl" has fallen in love with Sean, a man who lost his wife in the World Trade Center terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. She recounts what it's like to talk with him about his dead wife and to share the pain he is still carrying in his heart for her.

Recently, Sean told her he had experienced a nightmare about his wife's death:

"He started to tell me that he had a nightmare and she had jumped. She was standing in the window, in her little pantsuit and pumps, looking down. It was flames or freefall. Then he was there, beside her, and he was asking her to try and get out, then she fell...When he woke up he was sick."

"Right thinking girl" tries to console him, giving him assurances that his spouse wasn't in pain when she died, but thinks he's unconvinced. She listens to him talk about how guilty he feels that he couldn't save her and she attempts to persuade him there was nothing he could have done.

She's angry and sad that the fall-out from that terrible day continues to haunt her and many others like her, and realizes the grief will be with Sean, and with her, for a long time:

"The fight against terrorism isn't just happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. It's still happening here at home, in places like Virginia and New York City...It's being waged every time a wife wakes up to the crying baby who will never know his father, and every time a man wakes up in a cold sweat dreaming that his wife jumped to avoid being burned alive."

Read the entire post. It's a touching story, one that those of us who weren't directly affected by this great tragedy need to hear again and again.

My thanks to A.W. over at the Free Speech weblog for this link.

Update: Should you need reminding about what happened in New York City on that crisp, fall morning in September, 2001, click on the link in this old entry.