that's pretty close to my general disposition these days.

I support the war in Iraq, but what angers me to no end is that there has been no leadership from the administration in the aftermath. The reason the Bush has allowed the media and the left to spin the aftermath by totally abdicating it's duty to motivate and inspire the American public to stay the course.
I like George Bush alot, but talk of evil-doers and thugs and killers is wearing thin. No shit George we know the terrorists are bad. Explain why we let Sadr skate. Explain why we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Fallujah. Explain why the guy who rallyed a nation while standing on the smoking ruins of the towers doesn't appear to have the stomach to prosecute this war.
The media hated Reagan too, but he was articulate enough to connect to the average American on a visceral level. If Kerry wasn;t such a complete and total tool I might consider voting for him.

Count me as three.

Go read the transcripts of recent speeches and statements by Bush and other administration and millitary officials and tell me again that he doesn't have the stomach for this war. I think they squeezed in a couple partial quotes at the bottom of that All New, All Shocking Prison Abuse story.

Sure, I also wish we knew more about why certain tactical and strategic decisions are being made in Iraq. Frankly, though, there's no way for them to tell me (or you) that doesn't involve telling the entire planet. I guess I'll just have to trust that the smartest and most adaptable millitary on the planet isn't run entirely by incompetent fools. A conclusion which really doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

I don't care about arguing bias anymore; I'd be happy with simple competence. It's painfully clear that the media outlets that do such a wonderful job on detailing JLo's latest marital exploits are completely out of their depth when asked to actually, you know, report stuff and learn things. Look at the ridiculously poor reporting on the 911 Commission report. The result is that every "defeat" is on the front pages for weeks and, somehow, everything must be a defeat. Until, of course, it suddenly becomes unimportant and disappears from the news altogether. Reading Belmont Club and excellent analysis just makes the problem that much clearer.

Perhaps the key point is that Reagan indeed could connect to the public. He also quite clearly was in charge in his administration, not the social-conservative wing of his party (which he acknowledged but kept in its place). Nor was he seriously distracted by antics in his cabinet, unlike now.

You want an example of someone who rallied the nation? Then why isn't Rudy Giuliani the nominee? There are Republicans out there who would sweep the blue states -- Arnold, John McCain, Rudy G. -- but they'll never be on the ticket.

Hence this dilemma.

And it could be that the lack of leadership in Iraq is, more and more, due to a lack of military service experience by W., Rummy, Cheney and others. Anybody can give the "go" order. Not everybody understands how complicated a field operation can be, or how military components interact. All that is coming out now -- we under-organized, -equipped, and -trained the invasion. Dressing up in flight suits à la Michael Dukakis isn't going to dispel that image.

Bryan is right: the US media are doing a lousy job of covering public affairs. Probably just as well for John Kerry: I've seen him speak, and the more of it the media shows, the more sleepy everyone will get.

Right. The problem is that they're all chickenhawks. Genius!

The press gives at best minimal coverage to Bush's speeches, and he doesn't try at all to get his message out despite them.

Anyway, the original post (by CenterFeud/Sullivan) reeks a of self-involvement. An election isn't about youyouyou or your relations with your leftist circles, it's about the future of the country and the world. If Sullivan et al. can't separate those two things (and so far he at least can't), we should be castigating them for lack of seriousness, not holding them up as exemplars. If you have substantive complaints about Bush, complain. But get over yourself and this "personal betrayal" baloney.

In the end, however, I suspect most of these votes will land with Bush. Pique is pique but a voting booth tends to increase one's seriousness.

That's right, part of the problem is George W.'s posturing -- nobody prevented him from volunteering to fly in combat like his father had. Part of the problem is what David Brooks points out in today's column --
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/22BROO.html
-- that the public would turn away from W. but for the utter failures of the competition. John Kerry is sort of like Walter Mondale, but without Mondale's charisma or joie de vivre.

Not going to be a fun election.

Though I have been impressed with Bush's resolute pursuit of his strategy for fighting the war on terror, I often find myself wishing he could be more articulate. When giving speeches, he is generally good at making his points in plain English, and in a firm, steely manner that many people find reassuring and others interpret as bellicose. But I agree with Foppa21 in that he relies entirely too much on the same tired stock phrases - "thugs, killers, evildoers, hunt them down, bring them to justice" etc.

I wish Bush was capable of the level of passionate, articulate argument displayed by Tony Blair. Anyone who has seen Blair in action in Parliament, responding to his critics in often raucous debate, can only be in awe. Then comes the thought: "George W. Bush would not last two minutes with these folks. They would eat him alive."

However -- the July/August issue the the Atlantic Monthly has as its cover story "When George Meets John" (not yet available online), an analysis by James Fallows which focuses on the coming presidential debates. Fallows reviews debate tapes from both men going back to their early careers and observes that though we are used to thinking of W. as an awkward and inarticulate speaker, his early debates (e.g. against Ann Richards in the Texas gubernatorial race) show just the opposite - a sharp debater who knows how to strike just the right tone and who stays relentlessly on message. Fallows is at a loss the explain the discrepancy other than a) Bush is out of practice, but can communicate this way if he makes it his focus; b) He is playing the game he has successfully played against his adversaries from Richards to Gore to Chirac to Saddam: inviting his enemies to "misunderestimate" him.

Mostly though, I want to see Bush turning his critics' logic back on them, reminding them that the reason so many people "hate us" is because of a realpolitik foreign policy that touts the glories of freedom and democracy but reserves it for domestic consumption only, and happily accommodates dictators overseas in pursuit of our own interests. Bush has said in the past that that approach (championed by Kerry, Clinton and Bush 41) has resulted in the mess we are in today. He needs to keep reminding people how we all got here, so we understand why he refuses to go any further down that road.

Bryan C, well put.

Just out of curiosity though, was there something substantive in the piece that Joe Katzman linked to that is supposed sum up the “dilemma” for “centrists”? All I read was the tail-end of a (supposed) email from one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers bitching about how he feels “betrayed” and Bush “abused his trust” without anything factual or substantive to back it up.

It seems to me that the author of this email really isn’t making a substantive argument so much as engaging in the political equivalent of someone ranting at a bar without saying much of anything. Granted those people vote too, but what exactly about his email is supposed to be applicable to Bush or Kerry rather than just the opinions/prejudices of someone who doesn’t provide anything factual to back them up?

PurpleStater:

Fallows's article is really brilliant—balanced and impeccably researched. It's must reading.

Mr. Winston is on to something, and it's something we're losing in the talk about red and blue states. Certainly, to answer Joe's question we have to ask (1) are any centrists around, (2) where are they and (3) is anybody going to listen to them in all the noise?

The Economist (www.economist.com, do a site search for "series on swing states") has been looking at the "purple" states, one by one -- seven so far. Might be useful, though maybe not lending itself to simple answers.

PurpleStater,

First, Bush 43 is no Reagan. Second, he does not have a Ben Elliott so the official and personal, political, bureaucracies surrounding him as Presdient overprocess his speeches to mush. Here's Peggy Noonan on the subject:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005212

"... And as I looked out at them I thought of the most unsung hero of all. His name was Bentley Elliott. He went by Ben. He ran Ronald Reagan's speechwriting department from 1982 through 1986. He hired most of the speechwriters. He shaped and refined Ronald Reagan's speeches, directing themes and approach. He was a great writer. Ronald Reagan said a lot of famous things, and he said them in part because Ben Elliott got them past the bureaucracy, past the powerful so-called pragmatists, so Reagan could consider them, rewrite them, underscore them. But Ben is the one who got the draft to him.

Ronald Reagan could do and say anything he wanted--he was the president. But every time Ben fought the bureaucracy to get the right draft to Reagan--to get the president's own conservative views to him--Ben made an enemy. He faced a million swords, and without bureaucratic protection. In politics, friends come and go but enemies accumulate. By the time the bad guys got him, Ben looked like a human pincushion.

We owed him so much. Making his position even more difficult, and painful, there were those on his staff and around him who wanted his job, or who wanted him removed because he didn't assign them enough speeches. They were right, he didn't. He didn't because he was protecting them. Dick Darman, our boss of all bosses, would read a draft from one or another of them and he'd call Ben and say, "If I see another speech by him I will fire him, he is over." And he meant it. So Ben would hide them to save their jobs."

Tom Holsinger

Thorley, speaking for myself, as someone who previously supported Bush from a positive perspective, I'll tell you why I feel betrayed.

I feel the occupation of Iraq has been substantially mishandled. And as someone who advocated loud and long for the war, I feel that my trust in the administration to pull this off has been betrayed.

This is a very complex issue and each of the detailed criticisms of the occupation are subject to detailed rebuttals and defenses, many of which I find reasonable.

But there are at least two criticisms which are valid and without answer in my opinion.

1) Abu Ghraib: either through malfeasance or negligence, the country has suffered embarassment and harm. I don't really care which it is. Ultimately the administration is responsible.

2) The absence of any coherent program to get our message out to the Iraqi people via credible, grassroots media. I applaud SoA and I am incredulous that this effort wasn't done sooner, larger, and by the CPA. I can't understand this, and I can't understand why the administration isn't responsible.

These are not inconsequential failuers. Each of these failures has arguably reduced the leverage we have to achieve our goals in Iraq going forward. The damage is real, and lasting.

I’m embarrassed by these failures and I’m no longer inclined to defend Bush (except from scurrilous and false criticism). Of course I’m no closer to supporting Kerrey either. This leaves me free to vote according to a negative, cynical calculus of my own derivation.

My opnion is tentative and contingent on future events and fuller understanding of past events, but that is where I’m at now. As always I'm open to persuason by reasoning; those who see in my remarks an opportinity to tee up a polemic screed would do well to seek an alternate venue.

I read the Atlantic Monthly article yesterday and thought it was very interesting (and, as Dave notes, well-researched).

Fallows' conclusion is that Kerry is a good debater who has worked hard for his ability. Bush, on the other hand, is more of an enigma--he clearly has the capacity to be intellectually sharp and relentlessly focussed in debate, but his style has become markedly more "folksy" and loose since he beat Ann Richards in 1994. I'd guess that we won't learn the reasons for this shift until after Bush leaves the White House, but I do share some of Fallows' evident curiosity.

Also, the "Bush = chickenhawk" implication is both tired and contemptible. If you wish to be taken seriously, Bob, you will avoid far-left cheapshots.

Here’s a link to the Fallow’s article in the Atlantic Monthly for any who wish to read it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/press-preview/fallows.htm

We can drop the chicken-hawk comments when we also stop with attacks on the service records of people like Max Cleland or John McCain. (Hastert said recently that McCain has no idea of sacrifice. May 19, if you don't believe me and want to google it.)

And when we have better signs that George W. actually understands how the military functions.

Meantime, we have the very real question of whether this Administration is competent to continue this conflict. Give the order to go in, yes. Equip and organize a force capable of occupation and establishing a legitimate government? No. In that regard my own background is very much on point: see, e.g., the 15-6 discussion.

Something is seriously wrong in Iraq, and it isn't confined to Abu Ghraib (i.e., the massive failures of theater organization that MG Taguba points up). Rather, it points to management failures in G1, G4 and G5 areas, maybe in G2 as well. And now we're talkiing about a war with Iran, with occupation a likely outcome?

Seems to me that if your pitcher is starting to throw wild pitches and it's the 7th inning, it's time to send in a relief. I could vote for Rudy G. or John McCain. I can't vote for this.

Bob, the chickenhawk comments are offensive not because they are partisan, but because they demean and disenfrachnise every American who hasn't served in the military.

Last I checked, civilians were the first victims, and the first defenders, in the terror war. Suggestions that I lack standing to advocate for military conflict due to my civilian standing do not go over well with me, or with many others.

Why do you feel entitled to play partisan tit-for-tat games with this issue? It's not Bush, it's a huge chunk of America you're swiping at.

All this from someone who agrees with you completely on McCain and Giuliani.

lewy14, That's a reasonable point and maybe we need to stay away from ad hominem issues. Including among us, BTW.

Trouble is, since W. has made national security the centerpiece of his campaign, his ability to conduct it is very much on point. And he has shown some bad taste in some of his uses of it -- the Thanksgiving trip last year, the USS Abraham Lincoln appearance. Leadership is one component of being a competent commander in chief.

It is true that Ronald Reagan's war record was somewhat minimal as well. Difference was, Reagan always seemed to put things right in his appearances, his speech and his results as Commander in Chief (although some of the details were awry -- Command & Genl Staff materials did not think Lebanon a good example of a peace-keeping mission). Even Iran-Contra didn't raise the kind of risks that we're engaging in now.

Reagan seemed to be leading events. W. seems to be losing control of them. LBJ got into that momentum starting in late 1967 and there was no saving him.

Reagan always seemed to put things right in ... his results as Commander in Chief.

You have a long way to backpedal on that one to get back in my zipcode. But I really don't want to discuss Reagan.

The centrist dilema now concerns Kerry and Bush.

Here's my centrist premise, widely shared: the terror war is not misnamed, it really is a war, one without real precident.

Bush really does get it, and his results are uncompelling at best.

Kerry claims to get it, lately, sort of, and I find no reason to believe him.

I wish the Republicans had the courage to dump Bush and draft McCain. I wish the Democrats had the courage to dump Kerry and draft Leiberman. That would be a race.

lewy14, On that we agree. Maybe then we'd have more confidence that somebody has ability, ideology notwithstanding.

Bob,

Your tu quoque reference of McCain and Cleland is entirely beside the point. You were the first to bring them into the discussion; they had not been previously referenced in a disparaging manner in this thread. As far as I'm aware, Dennis Hastert does not comment on Winds of Change (his loss).

"...it could be that the lack of leadership in Iraq is, more and more, due to a lack of military service experience by W., Rummy, Cheney and others."

Bush has military service experience--he served in the Texas Air National Guard. Rumsfeld and Cheney, between them, have an almost unparalleled degree of experience in the field of executive Defense policy. This should not be news to you, which makes your comment above almost inexplicable. You may not agree with their policies (obviously, you do not), but this putative explanation for their presumed "failure" is flatly counterfactual. As lewy14 noted above, it is also contrary to the principles of a civilian-controlled military, and disrespectful to the memories of our wartime leaders (of both parties) who performed exceedingly well without prior military experience.

Presumably, you wish to be taken seriously. It is difficult to do so when you include nuggets of far-left propaganda in your commentary.

For Harmon, being a naval aviator isn't "military service experience".

The fastest credibility self-evisceration I've seen in a while...

Folks, no need to pile on, Bob seems to have conceded the point.

Bob, here's the deal: I type a dozen clever snarks a day into the "Comments" box. I love my zingers and I'm proud of them. And lately I've been successful at deleting them before I hit the "Post" button, which results in a less giddy but ultimately more worthwhile satisfaction. I pass on this free advice, worth every penny, because I agree with Sam that you seem to value credibility.

lewy14, I'm willing to concede your point on this front as well. Maybe this is illustrative of Joe's point, which is that centrism is getting to be a lost art.

For the record, W. was not a "naval aviator." Air Nat'l Guard is a USAF enterprise. Landing on a carrier deck carries its own risk; I was trained as a pilot and that was one risk I never had to undergo.

One thing that did set me off was the comment about Andrew Sullivan, above. That was part of what started this thread, after all. AS wants to support national defense, seems to be a Republican, but there's no place for him in the GOP, for reasons that should've been obvious to him. Beyond that, I find it highly offensive that patriotism or support for national security is exclusive to the GOP and nowheres else.

Bob,

As someone who has mostly voted Democrat throughout his life, I am dismayed that the Democrats seem to despise Bush more than the people who want to kill us in very large numbers. The main Democratic themes in this election are Bush-centric: he "lied", "misled us", "betrayed us", "dragged us into an unnecessary war", "alienated our allies", "squandered our goodwill around the world", etc.

There is definitely a critique that can be leveled at Bush and his policies, but the stuff coming out the Democrats is increasingly shrill, and ignores the real problem of how to combat an ideology that wants to drag the world back to the 9th century. You'd think so-called "progressive" people would have something to say about the threat of radical Islam. But they are too busy bashing Bush to take a stand, with a few notable exceptions like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, both of whom have been marginalized by the Democratic base. That's what underlies the perception that only the Republicans care about national security.

Purplestater, That is true. And it is very hard, here in an area that is home to both International Answer and Michael Savage, to try and argue that point, that progressives should see Wahhabist Islam as an enemy, or that by voting GOP, that they wouldn't undermine everything else they care for.

Which I suppose proves Joe's point, that centrism is becoming more and more about two unpalatable alternatives.

Oddly enough, the GOP in this state showed it could come up with a better way -- Arnold does seem to be successful -- but Arnold would never get close to a GOP nomination elsewhere. Just see what kind of reception he gets at the GOP national convention, and then we'll see if there is room for centrists in the GOP.

We're going to see a lot of shrillness before this election is over, I fear. I've seen the early moveon.org ads and they're not pretty. I'm sure the soft-money groups on the GOP right will be equally ugly. But that's the way the campaign-finance laws worked out: rank-and-file party activists will be marginalized and 3rd party advocacy groups will move out front. I've been at the campaign-law briefings: I know how it works. It's frustrating to see this coming, while the war goes on.

For the record, I'm not talking about Bush. Not that F-102s were the safest things around.

Your smears (Dukakis!?) were absurd, as you seem to be realizing.

No, I wouldn't expect the "progressive" crowd to vote Republican; I just would have preferred both parties would be outdoing each other on how we were going to bring loathsome regimes like Saddam and the Taliban to and end. Then national security would be a non-issue and we could argue about health care, social security and gay marriage.

Here's an irony: Imagine back in 2000 someone had said, "By the middle of the next Presidential term, we will be at war again on several fronts, this time with radical groups from Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia. One of our political parties will attempt to play down the threat, the other will urge that we we confront it."

Then I would be asked to guess which party would be softpeddling the threat of radical Islam, and which would be fighting back. Naturally, I would have assumed the former group to be the GOP and the latter to be the Democrats. After all, the stereotype of the GOP is that it's in bed with the oil industry, beholden to the Saudis, and only cares about keeping the oil profits rolling in.

And I would have assumed the Democrats would have be in the human rights camp and opposing regimes that are clearly racist, sexist, homophobic and antisemitic. I would have assumed they'd view Saddam Hussein the same way they saw Slobodan Milosevic (Clinton and Gore both professed to during their term), and have no issues about using force to remove him, whether Europe was on board or not.

That Bush would break that mold and actually take seriously our ideals of freedom and democracy, that would never have occurred to me. It got me taking conservatives seriously in a way I previously hadn't. I didn't become a Republican, but I can no longer just parrot the usual liberal slogans. There's too damn much at stake.

This whole election is getting to be absurd; that's the problem. It'd be nice if it was about issues and ability, not about snappy sound bites. Centrism doesn't do very well exactly because it involves explanations.

"It'd be nice if it was about issues and ability, "

It'd be nicer if those were congruent virtues.

It seems to me we must choose between a less-than-able candidate who supports middle-American issues; and a marginally-able candidate with a history of opposition to middle-American (or support of urban-collectivist, however you prefer to phrase it) issues.

I think Lewy14 really got to the heart of the issue earlier: "Here's my centrist premise, widely shared: the terror war is not misnamed, it really is a war, one without real precident."

The key is the last part: this is an entirely new kind of war, and we're necessarily feeling our way in the dark for effective ways to fight it. To my mind, that means two things:

1) We shouldn't rely too much on grand strategies. We really don't know what's going to work in this war, so if we're too committed to large-scale visions of how to fight it, we risk taking ill-advised actions because we're more concerned with implementing our grand plan than with on-the-ground realities. We also risk passing up opportunities if they don't fit into our pre-ordained framework.

2) We need to execute flawlessly, or at least well. This is pretty much always true, but I think it's especially true in an uncertain environment. When we have even less of an idea than usual about what kind of effects our actions will have, it's even more important to avoid the adverse effects that we know to be caused by sloppiness in execution.

Point 1 means that it's very difficult to judge Kerry on terrorism policy, because it means that we shouldn't be asking for what he would do. Frankly, the thing that would scare me the most is if Kerry came out with a comprehensive plan saying exactly what foreign policy actions he would take to defeat terrorism. He hasn't done that; his plan is pretty much just to strengthen all of the organs we have to deal with terrorism, to do a few targeted foreign policy things like securing Russian nuclear material, and to try to improve the execution of the things that we're already doing. I think on some level we'd all like it if Kerry articulated a clear, comprehensive vision of what he's going to do going forward (something like "first Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan" or whatever); it'd give us something to sink our teeth into, define a unique position on terrorism for Kerry, and show people that he takes the issue really seriously. However, I think it's important to think about whether a man with a plan is really what we need; I'd argue (as above) that it's not.

So, if we shouldn't be asking what Kerry's vision is, what should we be looking at? I'd argue, based on point 2 above, that we should be looking at execution. Again, it's almost impossible to judge Kerry on this, for obvious reasons. But the Bush administration has established a record of poor execution through pretty much his entire presidency, and they seem to be getting worse. I think it's pretty much impossible to contest the claim that Bush's Iraq policy has been poorly executed pretty much from start to finish (with the exeption of the few weeks of conventional war). Afghanistan isn't looking great right now either. I think that this pattern of poor execution is why, with some trepidation, I'd pick Kerry over Bush to lead the war on terror. We need a fresh start, and the current administration hasn't given any indication that it's going to try anything new.

Sean pretty much says it. I haven't heard anything coherent from the Kerry campaigns material nor any recent platforms. Any party's platform in an election year goes through that great big blender -- I've helped write platforms and resolutions, believe me -- and they come out bland, generalized, and worthless to the new Administration's national-security policy papers.

Trouble is, I'm worried -- see the thread on the 15-6 report -- that the actual operational planning is losing its way in this Administration. Civilian leadership means enunciating national (not military) strategy: emancipation in 1862, unconditional surrender in 1942, restoration of ROK in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990. Military strategy does grow from national strategy, and it's getting worrisome.

Any chance that Rudy G. can be nominated? By anybody?

That both Kerry and Bush are bad choices for centrists is hardly surprising. A two-party plurality system will always give centrists bad choices.

If we really want candidates that are representative of the entire country and not just of their respective parties, I have just one word: Condorcet.

Sean,

I've been thinking a lot about who to vote for in this election. I've come to an opposing conclusion from you. About your Point 1: I have followed Kerry thoughout this campaign ratherly closely and am struck by his opportunism. Up until the last month, Kerry has taken the position that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated. Of course, he recently changed his mind but he still doesn't really talk about it in his campaigning. It's about healthcare and the minimum wage. I just don't think he gets it. Really, I don't.

This leads me to your Point 2: since we don't know really how he would execute the war, we'd have to look back at his history of leadership to get a clue. This is where I find him even scarier if that's possible.

Following his career, he fought in Nam and came back to protest the war. He is honored by the Vietnamese in their war museum as a key leader in the protest movement leading to their victory. He said we could never fight Communism and we should accept it. He also has admitted to Congress that he committed war crimes in Nam and accused the entire military of doing so as well. Many of what he accused the military of was further proven untrue and most of his comrades detest him to this day for slandering them. Both my uncles who served in Nam would never vote for him. Not a great record for a man who wants to be CinC of our armed forces.
In the 80s, he voted for the nuclear freeze again consistent with his belief that Communism was here to stay.
Both times he was on the wrong side of security. This leads me to question his judgment. Add to this that he never sponsored any important legislation during his entire career as a senator.
Overall, I find his record quite unsettling. Thus, while the question remains what he'd do or how he'd do it, I'm not comfortable in trusting him to ultimately make the right decisions in a given situation especially concerning national security.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

KJ's misgivings about Kerry's record are the same as mine. Repeatedly, he has shown himself to be feckless and indecisive, wanting to have things both ways. Read P.J. O'Rourke's account of Kerry's non-response when he was a US observer during the corrupt Phillipine elections and was confronted with campaign workers who were too terrified of the regime to return to their homes. It's a telling moment.

Sorry, the link to the O'Rourke article was broken.

Sean,

this is an entirely new kind of war, and we're necessarily feeling our way in the dark for effective ways to fight it...


We need to execute flawlessly, or at least well.

Can you share with us what brand of anti-cognitive-dissonance medication you're taking? It's obvously very effective...

Kerry is just the kind of stalwart malleable leader we need in America.

A man of principle who will not let his principles stand in the way of doing right. Or getting elected. Which ever comes first.

And don't call me a chicken hawk either. I served in the old nuclear Navy when you had to carry the neutrons to the reactors in buckets. A really tough job. Those neutrons are heavy. And land sakes the trouble you'd get in if you dropped even one bucket full. Some times it took days to gather up all the loose neutrons. No liberty. Boo hoo.

Kids these days got it easy.

Joe,

You might care to re-read what I wrote here on 16 May 03.

The fissioning has just begun.

The problem is that politics in America works best when the electorate is split about 50/50. Coke and Pepsi.

Trouble is given the baggage of the left there is no credible way to bring along the left and enough of the center to win elections.

The first thing that needs to happen to speed the realignment along is tthe shattering of the left. i.e. Kerry below 40%. Preferably below 35%.

When that is well along (Dec 04) the shattering of the Republican coalition will begin (early signs - Andrew Sullivan - are here already). There will always be parties, human (alpha male) nature demands it. Before the Repubs can shatter what is holding them together must fall. The only thing holding the current Republican coalition together is the Democrats. Eliminate them as a threat and the Republicans must shatter.

A lot of people are going to feel without a political home for the next few years. The end result in my opinion will be more liberty than ever.

Bob H,

since Bush has made national security his issue...
Given our current situation, what else would any thinking being propose is the major issue?

goffg, National security is indeed Topic A (see my "platforms" post above). Though someone who is out of work or denied a health procedure by his/her HMO might have a hard time seeing the big picture.

Andrew Sullivan may be the canary in the mineshaft -- M. Simon's post above is on point -- A. Sullivan is someone who desperately wants to back the GOP and national security but is hanging on by his fingertips. And getting them stamped on.

>>The only thing holding the current Republican coalition together is the Democrats. Eliminate them as a threat and the Republicans must shatter.

The Democratic party is inanimate matter; I've been to enough state conventions to see that personally.

It is up to the GOP to lose this election. Others on this thread will have to provide witness testimony on that one.

PS. My home county -- Marin, well-to-do, home of Michael Savage and Barbara Boxer -- used to be Republican (albeit progressive) territory as recently as 1992. The local, then state, GOP went from progressive-to-conservative to social conservative and the local elected officials gradually defected to the Democratic column (though still independent). That we have a GOP governor now is because Arnold struck some original themes and kept his message firmly in his own hands (Hollywood is a good training ground for that).

The national GOP should ask if party orthodoxy is going to cause it some problems. A lot of people, like in my home constituency, are conservatives on fiscal and security issues but may break if there's too much orthodoxy. Remember that Bush 41 was a great national security president but still managed to be a one-term president. The Houston convention in 1992 had Republicans banging on the local Democratic HQ wanting to volunteer, so the GOP now might want to take a warning from that.

Joe started this thread with this inquiry: where is the center? The GOP might want bear this in mind. National security emphasis, to answer the question, means that the Prez has almost unlimited power as Commander in Chief. People want someone they can trust; Rudy might have it. Bush and Kerry ...

I was pointed to this discussion by Moderate Voice, and I notice that it seems to revolve entirely around the question of the war on terror. But you can't talk about centrists getting fed up with Bush without addressing the domestic front.

When I say "Bush lies" you will come back with talk about the war. The best evidence has nothing to do with the war, though. The best evidence was the Medicare bill, shoved through Congress with a price tag that the White House knew was false all along. They were so intent on lying to us about it that a treasury department employee was told she would be fired if she talked about the true cost of the bill.

From a liberal or conservative point of view, this administration is a disaster. Bush has been, very explicitly, a divider not a uniter. He proposes to enshrine social policy in the constitution as an election-year wedge issue gimmick. Fiscal liberals can be angry because income inequality continues to grow because of Bush's slanted tax cuts. Fiscal conservatives can be angry because government spending, including non-military, continues to grow out of control. We introduced a huge new entitlement without any way to pay for it. President Bush has consistently raised taxes... on my daughter, and your children, and our children's children, because a tax cut without a spending cut is not a tax cut, it is a temporal tax shift.

Yes, Bush shows resolute leadership in the war on terror, he understands the importance of fighing Islamic fundamentalist terror much more than Kerry does, he was a strong leader in the days after September 11. But it is now clear that the war was a good idea with bad execution. We blew the postwar because of the strange obsession with small troop numbers. The Abu Gharib nightmare was a colossal blow to the propaganda effort aimed at convincing young Arab males that it was better to want to be like us than to want to blow us up.

I say this as someone who was and still is very much pro-war. But if you say "Because of the war on terror I have no choice but to vote for Bush" you are giving this administration a green light for massive incompetence. At what point do we throw up our hands and say, you know what, good intentions are important but sometimes they are trumped by the quality of the actions.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry. Given the choice between an administration that will not fight the war I want to fight, and an administration that will fight the war I want to fight in such a poor fashion that it may actually backfire and strengthen our enemies (while making it less likely humanitarian intervention will gain public support in the future), I'll choose the president who is of a different party than the legislature so at least neither side has a blank check for budgetary insanity.

Giuliani in 2008!

Aaron does a good job in trying to pin "incompetence" on Bush -- based on the unspoken comparison with unreal Perfection.

On Iraq, it has always been obvious that a democratic Iraq requires Iraqis to fight, kill, and especially be willing to die, for their own freedom. I think Bush/Bremer have made mistakes (not enough local elections, local mayors with spending power, authority, and security responsibilities) -- but no examples of it being done better come to mind. Only the liberal Bush-hate of the press.

Abu is a real, but very small, shame. Maybe 40 Iraqis wrongly killed. Boot a general (she's gone). Maybe a Lt. Col of Mil Intel, too (he's toast, I'm pretty sure). I'm truly sorry, but it's not Bush. What are the limits of humiliation before it's torture? Still an unanswered question. Dog bites are too much. Dog threats? Nudity? Not permitted is not quite the same as torture, either. Pictures are really horrible, but that's not Bush. That's the new reality of war in the digital age.

The Medicaid bill was a page out of the Dem lawbook. Lousy if you're a Rep -- but honest big-gov't Dems should love it. They don't? Why? Bush-hate. Not on the policy, on the person. Noise.

"enshrine social policy in the constitution". What planet is this? How about that Roe v. Wade abortion amendment, how many states ratified it? Oh wait, new LAW jammed down on the public by the imperial Court; no need for voting on the law itself. Now it's gay marriage. New Law w/o votes. Bush proposes an honest democratic response, let us vote on the law process for this particular law (prolly won't pass). It's Dem supported anti-Christian social policy that is being enshrined as Constitutional rights.

Yep, Dems always hate tax cuts (on the rich!) Years of socialism everywhere shows how great punishing, er, taxing the successful creates less inequality. Or was that communism? Or Marxism? Noise.

I don't like deficit spending -- Sully has long called Bush on it. So where is the point by line item point of Dems complaining about pork? Why don't Dems push to reduce spending? And what is the right measure of excessive deficit spending, anyway -- inflation. With that high US inflation of today, that's proof of Bush incompetence (er, but there is almost no inflation ... or incompetence). Keynes said deficit spend to avoid depression -- worked on Clinton's bubble pop.

"it is now clear that the war was a good idea with bad execution. We blew the postwar"
What standard is being used??? Less than 1000 Americans have died over there. Less than one week on US highways!!! Surely it has to be at least 10% of Vietnam deaths before it is anything less than fantastic.

Oh, wait, I remember. Perfection. Costless, no lives lost, or else it's immoral incompetence.
Noise.

Bush does seem to be losing in PR (the press IS his enemy) -- but the facts, by any reasonable standard based on actual results, are so incredibly good that they're unbelievable. And so, Bush-haters don't believe such facts.

It seems to me we must choose between a less-than-able candidate who supports middle-American issues; and a marginally-able candidate with a history of opposition to middle-American (or support of urban-collectivist, however you prefer to phrase it) issues.

Seems to me that the guy has been a legislator for about two decades and managed not to author and pass any significant legislation during that time. If there is some other evidence (by which I mean something other than “how could anyone be worse than Bush”) showing Kerry would be better able to serve as POTUS, I haven’t seen it.

I don't like deficit spending -- Sully has long called Bush on it. So where is the point by line item point of Dems complaining about pork? Why don't Dems push to reduce spending?

I dunno, because of most them (particularly Kerry) either voted for the same or supported higher levels of spending. They didn’t like the $534 Billion prescription drug benefit because they wanted the $700-900 Billion one instead. They pushed for restoring agricultural subsidies and new education spending (which is of course still “underfunded” as it will always be so long as the NEA controls the Democratic Party) when they controlled the Senate. Etc.

Seems to me rather foolish for anyone who thinks that the federal government is spending too much money to trade bad (Bush) for worse (Kerry). Particularly when Bush at least acknowledges and has advocated entitlement reform while Kerry and company are still in denial.

Those are right-wing responses, not centrist responses, so I don't really think they address the centrist dilemma.

If Bush wants to spend, congress agrees to it. If Kerry wants to spend, congress will block it. This is why split government is better government. I would favor a Bush presidency if we had a Democratic congress, but we don't now and won't in 2005.

As far as Bush advocating entitlement reform, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Social Security privatization? Well, it is a good idea, but it doesn't solve the basic problem of Social Security. If all of us young workers suddenly were allowed to choose how to invest our money -- a change which I favor -- how would this solve the problem of paying for the retirement of the baby boomers?

Those are right-wing responses, not centrist responses, so I don't really think they address the centrist dilemma.

Personally I think that the term “centrist” is usually self-serving triangulation in which people define their own views as somehow being “centrist” and the opposing views as “extremist” or “ideological.” It makes it easier for some than having to actually debate policy ;)

If Bush wants to spend, congress agrees to it. If Kerry wants to spend, congress will block it. This is why split government is better government.

That’s not necessarily true. We had a slit government for much of Bush’s first term when Democrats controlled the Senate and the result was we had farm subsidies restored and billions in new educational spending. Arguably the Senate (by virtue of the Democrats ability to hold together and require a filibuster-proof majority) is still operating in that manner. In the case of the Medicare prescription drug benefit there were several versions offered and shot down until we had an expensive enough version to get the Democrats to drop their filibuster threat. In both cases having a split government lead to more, not less federal spending.

I would favor a Bush presidency if we had a Democratic congress, but we don't now and won't in 2005.

As far as Bush advocating entitlement reform, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Social Security privatization? Well, it is a good idea, but it doesn't solve the basic problem of Social Security. If all of us young workers suddenly were allowed to choose how to invest our money -- a change which I favor -- how would this solve the problem of paying for the retirement of the baby boomers?

Something else to keep in mind in talking about Social Security reform and divided government, the last time we reformed Social Security was in 1983 (IIRC) when we had a Republican President and Senate but a Democratic House. The Democrats were able to hold firm in their opposition to either switching from wage-indexing to price-indexing (which would have probably fixed the problem we’re in now) or investment and we wound up with a payroll tax increase. Like it or not this has to be dealt with and preferably before the Baby Boom generation begins to retire (otherwise they’ll be “locked into” their benefits and it will be nearly impossible to cut them). Since the Republicans (particularly Bush) are more likely to support reform (other than raising taxes again) than Democrats, the best chance for reform is to make sure that when the time comes to draft and negotiate a bill, the side that’s pro-reform has the strongest position. Right now that means Bush and a more conservative House and Senate.

Thorley Winston:

Personally I think that the term “centrist” is usually self-serving triangulation in which people define their own views as somehow being “centrist” and the opposing views as “extremist” or “ideological.” It makes it easier for some than having to actually debate policy ;)

I agree with you there, Thorley. But there are at least a small number of us who really are centrist and have at least a little evidence to prove it. Go to The Political Compass and take their test. I hit a bullseye every time I take the test even when months elapse between tries.

But your point is well-taken. Everyone is the center of their own world and those to left and right are the extremists. But us poor folks in the center look like jack-booted Nazis to those on the Left and red-tie ideologues to those on the Right.

Dave Schuler,

I appreciate the point that you’re making but I’ve taken the Political Compass before and found it considerably less than helpful. The questions are loaded, often combining forcing the taker to make a false choice, and seem designed by the authors to generate a particular outcome rather than honestly assessing people’s views on issues of politics and philosophy. WTH does anyone’s opinions about abstract art have to do with politics anyway?

"Explain why we let Sadr skate. Explain why we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Fallujah. Explain why the guy who rallyed a nation while standing on the smoking ruins of the towers doesn't appear to have the stomach to prosecute this war."

That's not what's happening. Sadr has packed up and gone home. Fallujah is flypaper.

"And he has shown some bad taste in some of his uses of it -- the Thanksgiving trip last year, the USS Abraham Lincoln appearance. Leadership is one component of being a competent commander in chief."

In what way was the Thanksgiving trip in bad taste? The troops loved it, he served food to them, he spoke to them, he clowned around with the centerpiece. What's the problem? I also had no problem with the carrier landing.

I have to agree with Thorley and Purple on Kerry. Bush would have to get way more incompetent before I would let Kerry anywhere near US foreign policy.

Bob Harmon Sez:

"Kerry is sort of like Walter Mondale, but without Mondale's charisma or joie de vivre."

Kerry's got:
McGovern's foreign policy
Mondale's domestic policy
Dukkis' regional base
Dole's charisma