NYCivic

A few thoughts (8) on your two-pager:

1. Kerry could have defused Vietnam issue had he done what even Jane Fonda did: apologize for verbal excess in 1971. He would have won Great Statesman points and no one would have listened to the Swifties. Indeed, many Swifties would have stood aside.

2. Gay marriage issue was pushed by Massachusetts Supremes. This is a community-specific issue, but the specter of judicial fiat settling the matter was too much for conservatives, and rightly so. Amendment is not the answer, but the anger over judicial imperialism was justified.

3. No other social issue could have gained comparable political traction. It takes a galvanizing event to ratchet up the intensity level for campaign utility, like judicial excess.

4. Blue-State America is just a few cities and suburbs. Go to this website and scroll down halfway to see the real political map on the right side. < http://hannity.com/ >

5. Kerry is indeed entitled to credit for his combat service. But he did not exactly volunteer. He asked for a deferment after graduating Yale, to attend the Sorbonne. Selective Service denied it and classified him 1-A. So Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserve as an office, much like Bush did in the Air National Guard. Bush's plane, the F-102, was not used in Vietnam. Kerry was sent. He was already an ardent antiwar advocate at Yale. The truth would have worked better for him--he was antiwar, yet he went--to Vietnam, not Canada. And pushing Bush/Cheney Guard service was farcical. Who cares if Bush skipped a physical in 1972? Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, and Michael Moore, none of whom can be confused with Audie Murphy.

6. Bush has made many mistakes in Iraq. But Kerry was positively incoherent. Iraq was the wrong war and the wrong time in the wrong place, but he would ask France to send in troops. He dissed the allies who went in with us as a coalition of the coerced, bought and bribed--not a way to keep friends--and did so days before the Australian election. France, Germany & Russia, on Saddam's payroll, would NEVER have consented, no matter what Blix found. If 1991 28-nation UN-backed Gulf War did not meet Kerry's global test, what would? Calling pre-9/11 terror strikes a "nuisance"--WTC in 1993, the Cole, etc.--says volumes. (Better bomb placement in 1993 would have toppled one tower into the other and killed everyone in the towers and thousands in adjacent streets.) Kerry's aversion to using force save in humanitarian ventures would have proved paralyzing.

7. But what a gracious concession speech. Unlike Al Gore, Kerry put the country first. Chance of cooperation with Bush is greater this time, if Democrats pick less partisan Senate leader than Daschle (not hard).

8. Palestinian "new start" cannot begin unless they get non-terrorist leadership. West Bank Sadat, where art thee? Until then there is no good reason to shove Israel to the table to please Old Europe. Borrowing from Gertrude Stein's famous gibe about Oakland, CA, "there is no "there" there."

J.W.

"If his attitude and actions live up to his expressed intentions?...
When has that ever happened with W? He made the same b.s. speech the first
election around, vowing to bring the country together - his actions created
more division and divisiveness between races and classes of Americans than
ever. You're naive if you expect anything different this time around. Bush
will take care of his "base" first and foremost, preserving and
strengthening it for the next Republican candidate. He will continue to act
as if he was swept into office on a tidal wave of approval -( his handlers
have had the gall to throw the word "mandate" around in the press). If Bush
were really committed to bringing the country together he would start by
acknowledging the fact that almost half of his citizens desperately wanted
someone else as their president. He would recognize and deal with the fact
that the country is bitterly divided in its thoughts about the war in Iraq,
and the crappy economy, and civil liberties vs. security issues. Instead, he
and his spin doctors find it easier and more advantageous to personify
those who hold liberal beliefs as "elitists", "out of the mainstream of
America", "secular humanists without faith" etc.

The 52% or 55% or whatever the exact percentage was, of Americans who voted
for this man may bitterly regret it down the line. I think America is on a
path to disaster and decline, although it may take a long time to hit the
point where it becomes irreversible. I hope this is the case.

Whether or not we survive over the long term or go the way of the Soviet
Union will depend upon many factors, not just who sits in the White House,
yet I haven't been so filled with despair and disappointment since the
election of Richard Nixon. But at least with him, you knew what you were
getting. G Bush is a one-eyed jack who presents his homey, folksy
"I'm-just-an-ordinary-person" face to the world. And while the truest part
of that image is that he's only of average intelligence, he has the
dangerous overzealousness and tunnel-vision of the reformed sinner. I'm sick
of lies and liars. Sick of empty reassurances about how the President will
keep America safe. We had better wake up and understand that there is no
"safe" anymore. And no one can keep us safe. We need to deal with the
world - the global state, with real understanding of the forces at play, and
of the consequences of our own actions and positions over the last fifty
years. We need to understand the nature and world view of the adherents of
Islam, both the fundamentalists and the moderates. I don't believe we've
done this up til now, and we're still not doing it. We think we can fight
this war the way we've always fought wars, and it's just not going to work.

Ahh- this feels pointless. For the next four years we will have leadership
no better than we deserve. But we do deserve a better America that the one
G. Bush and his posse have in mind.

D.J.

Good insight on the election, except for the “bad news” on social conservatism. Family, faith, duty, putting others first … these are positive attributes. Right? Cherishing the sanctity of the family is not uniquely a Republican, Democrat, Red or Blue value. The bad news is that one of our major parties can’t speak/relate to the vast majority of Americans. Political hegemony would be bad for the Republic. However, this is where we are heading unless the Democrats begin a conversation w/ social conservatives. Democrats used to care about issues that would be considered socially conservative. My parents (my family) are Bronx Irish Catholics (BICS … my name in your book) … as recently as the late 1970s, you could say Bronx Irish Catholic Democrats … no longer. Why? The Ds have abandoned social conservatism … To equate wanting to preserve marriage as being intolerant to gay people is to completely miss the point. Having legal protections for Gay Americans; privileges in social arrangements; visitation rights; contractual rights; employment and housing rights … society can/will guarantee these rights and privileges w/out redefining traditional marriage. Moreover, the nation seems to be pro-choice, but anti-abortion. The vast majority of Americans want restrictions, but the Ds are so extreme on the issue that they can’t support parental notification or a ban on partial-birth abortion. That’s out of the mainstream … Indeed, I would argue that social conservatism is the mainstream. Don’t let the few crazies on the fringe define for you what social conservatism means.

J.R.

I read with interest the NY Civic report, "What We Learned from
the Election." I am an African-American physician and former
schoolteacher. At one point in the past I wrote to you
discussing my experiences as a young college student training to
be a teacher and you asked if I'd give permission for the letter
to be reprinted at some point, permission which I granted.

Perhaps I'm unusual, but I believe that the Electoral College, as
counter-intuitive as it is to most twenty-first century citizens,
is one of the best features of the American political system.
Our Founding Fathers (although they had envisioned a slightly
different system from the one we currently use) were opposed, for
what I consider to be sound reasons, to the direct popular
election of presidents. As a result, our constitution does not
recognize such an entity as the "popular vote" in presidential
elections.

It is interesting, of course, to add up all the votes to see who
received the most, but discussing the cumulative "popular vote"
as if it has a status beyond our own imaginations misleads the
public about the nature of our polity. In fact, nowhere in
American law is there any instance of the legal recognition of
"popular vote" across state lines. The largest accumulation of
"popular votes" is at the state level. Beyond that, "popular
vote" is legally meaningless in our system of government,
whatever our emotional attachment to the concept might be.

In your report on the election, you suggested that it would be
"unfair" for a candidate with a cumulative, legally meaningless,
plurality of "popular votes" to lose a presidential election,
even if that person had achieved the majority of votes in the
Electoral College prescribed by the constitution as the basis for
winning such an election. I submit that such an assertion
ignores the basis for the establishment of our system of
government, falling into an emotional trap from which our
Founding Fathers strove to protect us.

The "republic, if you can keep it" (quoting Benjamin Franklin)
that was established at the Constitutional Convention at
Philadelphia in 1787 bears little resemblance to the behemoth
that currently extends its tentacles into all areas of our
lives. Montesquieu, you may know, believed that "democracy"
could not exist except in small governmental entities.
Recognizing that even the original thirteen colonies were larger
than the size that Montesquieu thought manageable, and in
deference to his (and their own) wisdom, our Founding Fathers
established multiple layers of governement. It was only at the
smallest units that "popular vote" determined election outcomes.

Thus, representatives in the House were to be elected by "popular
vote" because it was likely that such persons were close enough
to the people electing them to be well-known and directly
accountable. Senators, of course, were to be elected by state
legislatures, the members of which were even more "local" than
congressmen. Presidents, the most distant of all from the
people, were to be elected by a college of "electors" chosen by
voters at the state level.

The main problem with the original system was that it did not
recognize, in the electoral college, the distinction between
votes for president and votes for vice-president, producing the
disastrous "tie" between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr in 1800
that resulted in that election's being decided by the House of
Representatives. That initial mistake resulted, of course, from
the Founding Fathers' desire to avoid political factionalism and
the development of pemanent political parties. It is ironic that
this group of men, so respectful of the foibles of human nature
that they developed an intricate system of levels of government
and separation of powers, didn't recognize that "factionalism" is
inevitable in human politics. It was the one area in which they
deferred to a utopian instinct.

As a result of the problems with the 1800 election, a series of
reforms, including a constitutional amendment, gradually produced
the "Electoral College" system we have today. Although it has
generally served us well for two centuries, it is different
enough from the original system that very few people understand
why it was established in the first place. And that's
unfortunate, because the reasons for its establishment were well
thought-out. One can disagree with those reasons, but no one
bothers any more, because almost no one seems to understand
them. Thus, there is practically no political discourse on this
issue, which is a shame.

I, for one, believe that popular election of Senators is also a
BIG mistake, and I would be in favor of returning their election
to the legislatures, as originally prescribed by the constitution
and practiced until the early twentieth century. That might
actually increase the public's interest in the legitimate popular
election of state legislators, producing better quality and
better accountability of state governments. I doubt that more
than 5% of Americans even know who represents them in their state
capitals, with the resulting corruption problems that occur
behind the scenes. If state representatives were once again the
electors of US Senators, the public and the press might take more
notice of them, and a better quality of person might be attracted
to the job.

Alexander Tyler, in "The Fall of a Republic," wrote in the
eighteenth century:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It
can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote
themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on
the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most
money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a
dictatorship..."

That's why "democracy" as such is so problematic and is one of
the main reasons our Founding Fathers intentionally created a
"republic." James Madison, in his notes on the constitutional
convention, indicates that there was a robust debate about the
form of government that should be established by the
constitution. Direct "democracy" was intentionally rejected and
a "republic" with a carefully crafted structure was established.
We have forgotten that debate and have lost track of its
arguments.

We are getting perilously close to the "collapse over loose
fiscal policy" that Tyler predicted prior to the establishment of
the United States of America. The "show-business" aspects of
modern politics produce generation after generation of political
thespians who promise "bread and circuses" to an ever-increasing
"popular-vote" majority voting itself tribute "from the public
treasure." Ours, unfortunately, will not be a "permanent form of
government" either. We lost our way when we forgot our roots.

V.P.

Good article.
You were influenced by the press and New Yorkers too much and that is why
you were so worried!
I usually discount newspaper polls by 2 to 3% when they discuss Democrats
and liberals.
I also think New Yorkers missed the fact that many in middle America thought
Senator Kerry' seeming approval of things like Whoopi Goldberg's vulgar humor
referring to "Bush" as part of a female at a national event was seriously immoral.
I also think Osama bin Laden last minute threats against American's who vote
for Bush also helped Bush with the Christian Right.
I thought Kerry's concession speech was great! He surprised me!
J.M.

A post election note to my disappointed friends:

One day after the concession speech of the junior Senator from Massachusetts, as the disappointment and for some the anger dissipates, remember that commitment is not a one campaign issue.

The good fight of a loyal opposition continues when there are issues on which no common philosophical ground can be found, all done in civil tone and devoid of the current politics of personal destruction which burns more bridges than any transportation or public works department could ever reconstruct.

Partnering for the betterment of the nation and its subdivisions is the tonic or balm that heals, when there are matters of mutual concern upon which a true meeting of the minds as to viable solutions can be found.

Disappointment is transitory. Disappointment in a political result is a fading blemish, not a permanent tattoo. Commitment to the cause, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, is of necessity permanent.

As former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, MD, said in an email of 3 November, 2004: "We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives. "

And as was said by a true shining point of light who left the public stage in 1968: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."-The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Take heart. Courage! Stay the course and...keep the faith!!

E.R.

Great article. Now you can write about what national position Guiliani will be offered. He was an intricate part of THIS campaign. Do you think he helped? After all, he is a national hero to the people. Oy! People should only know. Judy was no fool while dressing him up and thankfully having him rid himself of that comb over piece of hair he had left.

J.S.

I agree with you and hope that since the burden of trying to get re-elected for another term is now past Bush he might concentrate on the realities of the world instead of trying to please a whole bunch of evangelical Midwesterners.

A.M.

This analysis was very fair and I appreciated it in the aftermath of an election which did not reflect my personal choices. I do think you put your finger on an important issue with same sex marriages. I don't know if you saw the film "Bush's Brain" about Karl Rove's early and continuing association with the Bush family and his dirty tricks politics, but it was great. I found your comments provided real food for thought. On the local level here in Staten Island there were some consolations including the election of Ms. Savino to State Senate. She will join several reformers there and be the first woamn to be elected to state senate from staten island.

Is it naive to think that Ed Koch may be offered a suitable position in the administration? He waged a mighty single-handed effort which may have influenced the Florida results. Ambassador to Israel? A.S.

"depended upon to maintain what remains of the existing social order"
Like entropy tending toward the maximum, that's where our social order is heading, I fear.
A.D.

I have no faith.

Our wildlands will be pilfered and polluted, our children will cheated and
their education dumbed to the lowest denominator. We will be less secure
as our corporations defraud and despoil those less advantaged countries at
the behest of their illegitimate and exploitive leaders. Our tax dollars
supposedly set to increase our security will simply line the pockets of
those corporations that contributed adequately to the winning side. Our
freedom will suffer as Ashcroft rounds up the next set of pot smoking
liberals in the name of national security and the next set of supreme
court justices are appointed and embarrass Scalia and Thomas for their
markedly liberal views. After it's all said and done, Iraq will have a
fundamentalist regime, Iran will have nuclear weapons as will North Korea,
Afghanistan will have a pipeline that will make Halliburton an inordinate
amount of money while heroin productions remains their primary national
product and the country is ruled by various drug lords. Our debt will rise
and our trade deficit will expand as the results of supply side economics
are realized. The rich will be richer and the poor poorer, The middle
class will dwindle. Eventually we will be unable to make payments on our
enormous debt and the faith in our economy will plummet. The long term
effects of our glorified stock market based economy will cause the
greatest depression the world has ever seen. We will emerge a poor and
decrepit nation much like Spain after their colonious downfall.

Maybe when it's all said and done if we are not dead or devoid it will
have all been worth it and America will be a decent place to live again. I
can only hope.

M.S.

Social conservatism has emerged as a force in the midwest and south because social looniness and decay has emerged as the defining character of the east.

Just got back from Pa where I was on the lawyers'/ballot integrity swat team for W putting into practice the things I learned working for '41 on his NYS '88 campaign, for Andy O'Rourke in 86, for Rudy in 89 and as a vol. in 93 and as a vol for pataki twice. not to mention many campaigns for various good folks running for local office.

our team was folks from all over the country -- and it was a joy to work with women - and men -- who recognize it is no longer 1973 and maybe technology and things like neonatal surgery and fetal medicine may force us to rethink positions we all held in 1973.

on gay marriage, the judge in massachusetts who forced his personal opinion, coming out of left field, on a totally unprepared, un-nurtured country did more to bring out the panicked votes of social conservative than Karl Rove could ever have done.
Not to mention highlight the fundamental arrogance of the east coast elites about being able with a stroke of their pen to dictate to the rest of the country their opinions.

this is coming from someone who is strongly supportive of the right of my gay friends and relatives to build a life with the one they love -- and whose opinions on life are also based on love,not a catch word of 'choice' divorced from scientific reality.

or maybe being out of new york city i just couldn't get my usual nightly glass of chablis and am having public policy delirium tremens.

I am sure in a few days I'll go back to calling it a 'choice" instead of a highly developed genomic neonatal being with a nervous system that can feel what is being done to it and will go back to smugly snubbing people in the south who want the courtesy of having their opinions cultivated and developed on issues that are new and startling to them before being ordered by the judiciary to change their beliefs. would be nice if the east coast liberals truly tried to develop public opinion through persuasion rather than judicial dictat.

enough seriousness.back to celebrating W's great victory and the defeat of the michael moore fifth columns in our country. get out the Wild Turkey and let the good times roll

S.T.

What a dark day for all of us. How to face a future terrifying in so many ways? At the moment most of us, or maybe all of us, don't know yet.

But, we are still here, the world is still spinning, we are OK, and all hope is not lost. In Union Square today, the kids were protesting, saying that this is not the end, there is more to come. That was very encouraging to me. I had to smile.

On to the second act.

K.R.

I really enjoyed reading this - a thorough assessment of what this election was about. Most of my friends are very depressed today - the outcome is not what they, or I, wanted.

I want to be uplifted by the crowds that this election created, the rush to the polls, the increase in the youth vote... but I am so troubled that so many made their selection based on so-called "moral issues," that the threat of gay marriage seemed more important than a household member who has lost a job in the past 4 years. Many pundits are saying that the Democratic party must move to the center if it is to ever gain back the presidency, suggesting those running for office on the D ticket will have no choice but to abandon some of their principles to get that "one more vote" than the opposing candidate. I was so frustrated after the 2nd debate when Kerry answered in such a wishy washy way about his willingness to provide govt (financial) support for abortion - frustrated that he did not clearly state that he supported a woman's right to choose, and I was told that I was naive to feel that way - that this is what politics is all about. I was so pleased when he clarified his position in debate #3, but now I wonder if that was a mistake, and that depresses me more than anything. I wish that the word "liberal" weren't such a bad thing in this country, but it is what it is.

I had coffee with a friend of mine tonight - she has been out as a lesbian for close to half of her 33 years. She told me that she had never felt so hated before, and that she has no desire to visit or spend money in any "red" state. I can't say I blame her. It's all just so frustrating.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks for sharing yours. I hope all is well...

M.A.

I think you missed the point of what is most
disturbing. What's disturbing is that a majority of
Americans apparently buy into the strange
theocratic-corporate-militaristic platform that now
characterizes the national Republican party. This is
a trend that I find extremely disheartening.

Kerry presented a plausible and credible alternative
to Bush on issues of national security and
geopolitical understanding--not to mention fiscal
responsibility and domestic issues--notwithstanding
the smears of him as a "flip-flopper" or soft liberal,
smears that are ultimately meaningless anyways.
Instead of choosing Kerry, America chose Bush, on the
basis of "social values," which essentially boils down
to religious fervor at best (evidence the high
evangelical vote), and bigotry at worst (evidence, the
antigay initiatives).

I'm tired of the red-state victim attitude that
they're "fly over" states, or that the government
doesn't respond to their needs. We in the coastal
areas dramatically subsidize their ability to lead
virtuous lives, while the Christian Coalition mixes
with corporate cronyism to flex increasing muscle over
our national policies. Systematic discrimination
requires power, and right now the power is in the
evangelical base. I am not anti-religious, you know
me well enough, but I wish they'd spare me the
thrown-to-the-lions rhetoric. The 48% of us who
believe in science, secular government, fiscal
responsibility, and that hegemony is a desirable
byproduct of liberal American exceptionalism, rather
than a military goal, are underrepresented.

I fear that the next 4 years will see increased
structural consolidation of Republican power, through
judicial appointments (increased partisan, as opposed
to merely ideological, appointments) and other efforts
to weaken traditional liberal institutions. At the
end of the Bush Administration, I fear for the state
of our citizenry.

I'm done ranting. Perhaps in a few years I'll be
older and more conservative...

D.S.

For years, I have been an admirer of yours. Your recent e-mail reminds me of a whining loser. Accept it, the democrat party has continued to drift to irrelevance. As they continue to drift to the left, pander to the special interests and abandon the working class, they are not even the party of the liberal northeast, but now the party of Manhattan's upper westside - increasingly isolated and out of touch. As a student of history, I'm sure you're aware of the Whig party of the early 19th century. They also became out of touch, irrelevant and, like the dodo bird, became extinct.

Excuses are not the answer, we're all used to that from the pablum of the usual suspects on the network news. Let's try to keep a strong two party system. In order to do this, we must listen to the people, not make excuses. And, maybe, you should spend more time in the red states and not just NYC.

God bless America.

D.B.

forget the French. They can go to Hell. For that matter, the rest of the
world can go to Hell. Americans should be able to select their own
leaders without interference....or opinion from overseas....lest they ,
too , wanna get nuked. Just remember, the U.S. is the only nation to use
nuclear weapons in anger ....AND WE KNOW how to use 'em.

As for domestic social policy, it's been way too long for our nation to
spend the tons of bucks on people who have spent generations on welfare.
it's time to implement a policy to limit the spread of such people . This
doesn't mean extermination. It does mean controlling their ability to
reproduce. It is plain stupid to support non-productive humans who have
demonstrated a solid track record of inability to support themselves.
Only girlie-men , bleeding Liberals have no common sense about these
incompetents.

wishes,
C.H.

I like this email. I agree with you that the social conservatism in
many midwestern states, such as mine, is disturbing. So is Karl Rove's
unmatched ability to capitalize on it; why can't the Democrats come up
with something similar? But perhaps I should not wish for that, just as
I should not have hoped for a Kerry victory in the EC despite a popular
loss. On that issue, my con law prof made a similar point to yours in
class today.

I would differ with you only in your finding encouragement in both
candidates' commitments to fighting terrorism; to me a strong (and
sincere) stance against terror by both candidates was a foregone
conclusion, and no more revealing or important than both candidates'
repeated invocation of 'God bless America.'

I worry most about the Supreme court. Scalia serves an interesting and
useful role in the minority, but I fear him in the majority, or as
Chief. Charles Fried says that won't happen, but we'll see.

J.P.

It isn't clear to me what is wrong with social conservatism or social
Darwinism. Take a cue from Paul Ehrlich's Lifeboat Economics, it makes a
LOT of sense to me to eliminate non-productive humans....and there are a
lot of 'em.

You guessed it ! I do not love my fellow humans.

C.H.

"perhaps justly"

The whole world thinks otherwise.

What has happened to someone who used to be a liberal? You are beginning to sound like that turncoat Ed Koch.

J.G.

    The Democrats are in an unenviable quandary. To become palatable to Red State voters, they'll have to espouse things that matter to Red State voters, which, according to exit polls, centers on "values."
    And you and I know what that's a euphemism for.
    And if the Dems do so, won't they risk alienating their core Blue State constituency?

    If anyone wants me, I'll be hiding under the quilt for the next four years. Can you say, "Mr. Justice Ashcroft"?

S.P.

P.S. I read that Jimmy Breslin claims he's written his last newspaper column. As eccentric as he's become, I'll miss the curmudgeon's shoe-leather reportage.

I hardly consider a reaffirmation to fight terrorism "news", great or
otherwise; a simian with a lobotomy (no comparison to the actual victor
should be assumed here) who had been elected president of the U.S. at this
stage of things would have done no less.

I think the president's substantial victory in the popular vote - this time
is proof-positive of something I have always believed, and something to
which you allude in your remarks: the people will find irresistible, either
in embracing or opposing, a forthright and honest statement of an honest
belief. The senator's problem was that he too often appeared less than
forthright, and too often seemed too tentative to be believed.

I wish I could be as sanguine about the lessons learned from this election
as you seem to be, but then the ministrations of Peggy Noonan have rarely
moved me, and never convinced me - of anything.

R.G.

I believe that we lost the election at least partly because the Kerry
campaign was run by badly-drawn focus groups, rather than conviction,
with advisors saying "you can't say that, because it will offend the
(fill in the group of choice)."

A prime example of this might be Kerry's stance on Iraq. Historically,
Kerry has been against foolish wars. He was strongly against the war
in Vietnam, and appeared to be against the war in Iraq. And yet, when
asked whether "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" meant that American
kids were dying needlessly in Iraq, he said that no, they weren't. His
beliefs -- assuming that he had them -- should have led him to say
that yes, they were.

When asked whether, had he been president, Sadaam Hussein might still
be president of Iraq he said probably not. This instead of saying that
Hussein might have still been in power, but that he was so enfeebled
that he represented no immediate danger to the US, and that
inspections and diplomacy would have been capable of resolving the
situation in a more effective and less costly manner than an
unprovoked attack that went against the direct wishes of the UN.

Having failed to address Iraq in any firm manner, he also chose not to
directly address economic issues. I never heard him say anything like
"in ten years we expect to have a population of 310 million. In order
to have full employment, large numbers of people will need to be
engaged in (fill in the blanks). In order to have this happen we need
to (fill in the blanks). If little Ireland can make a decision to have
full employment via manufacturing, and make it work, Kerry should have
been able to come up with at least some discussable approach.

In terms of the debates, Kerry did well -- or at least Bush did badly
-- in the first one, and from then on he was mostly giving stock
answers often not actually related to either the questions or his
beliefs. As an example, when asked about the lack of flu vaccine -- a
problem that resulted from a long history of systemic errors -- he
launched into his people-have-lost-their-medical-coverage spiel. While
I happen to find most of Bush's core beliefs abhorrent, at least those
with whom they struck a sympathetic cord knew what they were. I don't
think that you, I, or anyone else listening to Kerry over the last six
months can identify Kerry's core beliefs.

Unless we Democrats can come up with a person of stature for 2008 --
and I don't see anyone on the horizon who fits that description -- who
has actual beliefs they are willing to express, I don't see that we
will do much better then, either.

R.I.