Conservative does not Equal Facist: I never understand why people on the Left think that anyone who happens to be a conservative is somehow a closet brownshirt. Witness this silly article from Salon about the elections in Spain. Anyone who is a conservative is portrayed as evil in some way, while the Socialists are great lovers of freedom. Now I have nothing against Socialists. In a democracy, there are always differing views to how society should be run and the great thing is having a debate about this. What bugs me is when some Socialists think that they are pure and virginal while we conservatives are the direct heirs of Hitler. Listen, facism is a sorry outgrowth on the right, I will admit that. However, most conservatives have repudiated the evil that is fascism. Socialists would not like it if I said that they are responsible for Stalin's bloodbaths or Pol Pot's genocide since they were both Socialists. I just wish that if the Left is going to criticize conservatives that they not simply paint everyone with a wide brush. We don't all have pointy tails.
For the Sake of Appearance: On one level, I don't blame the Spanish Prime Minister-elect for wanting to pull his troops out of Iraq. It was a war that was not approved by a large number of Spaniards. However, the appearance of the Spanish Army leaving right after these attacks tells folk like al Queda that to get their way one just has to kill a few hundred people. I don't think the Socialists are soft on terrorism, nor do I think they are appeasers. But it will certainly look like a white flag of surrender to the Isalmic terrorists and give them reason to try it again: in Britian another ally in Iraq or even here in the US. I hope he does reconsider.
Just a thought: Since the timing of 3-11 was only days before the Spanish elections, one has to wonder what could happen before our general elections on November 2. You have to wonder if the feds are thinking of stepping up security in the days before the vote. Somehow this vote will have more significance this year.
The Election so Far: Speaking of the Bush-Kerry race, I am not amused. I don't know about others, but I get the feeling that Kerry is only reaching to his Democratic base. I don't feel that he reaches someone like me and he needs Indepenents and moderate Republicans in order to win. While I didn't agree with his trade message, John Edwards could inspire swing voters. For some reason, he was uplifitng while Kerry seems tired. I hope Kerry picks Edwards as his veep. If so, he might get some fire back in his belly.
Here's a factual equation:
"Bush in White House = Recession"
Unfortunately, thanks to the far right and far left elements that have taken over the parties, "Republican" DOES mean facist and "Democrat" does mean "Meddling Social Engineer."
I changed party affiliations to back Dean because I agreed with him on issues, and I disagreed with W's Far Right Wacko Squad on just about anything I could think of, from tax policy to the war to immigration to jobs.
I'm not hot on "Prune Face" Kerry either, but Bush's Crew is clearly incompetent. At least in the first three years of the Clinton administration, we saw progress on a variety of issues - WHILE HE WAS WORKING WITH A HOSTILE CONGRESS. Bush has had a GOP dominated congress for his whole term, and he still can't get anything but tax breaks for the super-rich done.
And while you're looking for October surprises, W's intelligence crew will trot out bin Laden just in time to insure the Chimp's re-election. Talk about appearances!
Posted by: Kevin at March 18, 2004 07:10 PMWith regards to what could happen in the U.S., the possibility of a terror strike just before the Nov. election, it would actually work in favor of Bush. Voters here will react against what they would view as a bullying tactic by terrorists and would vote to keep Bush in office.
The difference was that a vast majority of Spainards were against the war in Iraq, while in the U.S. there is still a vast majority who support the war on terror while split almost even over Iraq (the wholesale deception to invade Iraq brought those numbers down). A terror strike here on election day and the voters won't care about who lied about WMD.
And there was another reason the conservatives lost in Spain. Not just because they were supporting the U.S. in Iraq. It was because their leadership was too damn arrogant and bullying: look at how they mangled the immediate aftereffects of the terror strike, blaming the wrong terror groups and insisting their media and investigators see things their way even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I think people might be overlooking that in judging how that vote went.
Tony,
Thanks for the clarification. Your points do make some sense and give me a lot more to think about.
Posted by: Dennis at March 17, 2004 08:53 AM"Hear me out before you condemn my argument"
I'd never "condemn" your argument Dennis!
I just believe that Bush had more of an influence on the election in Spain than the bombings did. With or without the bombings, the government would have been voted out of office. With or without the bombings, Spainish troops would be leaving Iraq. It does not "appear" to me that al-Quida had anything to do with it.
Bush made al-Quida equal to Iraq in minds of us in the US but the equality is simply not there unless one thinks that kicking any Arab butt is equivalent to kicking al-Quida's butt.
Perhaps I can make my point plainer ...
Imagine that Bush goes to the UN and articulates a new doctrine that encourages the spread of Democracy and the transformation of rogue regimes through international organizations and turns control of Iraq over to the UN - and Spain stays committed to the effort.
Does al-Quida win?
Imagine that Zapatero and Bush get into a very visible, public exchange and Zapatero makes even plainer (though it's already pretty plain to me) that he wants a new UN mandate and downsizing of US control in exchange for staying the course and Bush says no.
Does al-Quida win? The argument is not about them - it's about Bush's arrogance.
I think the people al-Quida recruits understand very clearly what's going on.
It's the rest of us who don't or refuse to speak the truth in a public forum.
Posted by: dorsano at March 16, 2004 11:22 PMTony,
Hear me out before you condemn my argument. I'm not saying the Spanish were cowards to vote for the Socialists and I respect their decision. If you look at some my recent posts, you'll see that I agree with their reasoning. What I'm saying is al Queda does things for reasons and maybe the new Prime Minister would want to not be so hasty to pull his troops out because it will "look" like a surrender even though that has been policy of the Socialists long before the attacks.
We condemn Bush for being inflexible, but it could be said that the new PM is also being inflexible as well. What I am arguing for is being somewhat flexible not kowtowing to Bush, but knowing that we are not going to play into al Queda's hands.
I know this sounds confusing, but then this whole mess is confusing.
Posted by: Dennis at March 16, 2004 10:36 PM"Conservative does not Equal Facist" - nor does Liberal equal communist/socialist.
Never-the-less, that is war the country currently seems to be engaged in.
But if communism means Government control of the means of production and Facism means corporate control of Government - I'd say we're closer to the latter.
Posted by: dorsano at March 16, 2004 10:00 PMDennis wrote
"But it will certainly look like a white flag of surrender to the Isalmic terrorists and give them reason to try it again: in Britian another ally in Iraq or even here in the US. I hope he does reconsider."
Spain is not reacting to the attacks. They want the Bush Doctrine renounced. If the Bush Doctrine is renounced and a new UN mandate for the occupation is obtained, Spain will keep her troops committed (so they say - all 1,300 of them).
They are distancing themselves from the US only to the extent that they are distancing themselves from the US unilaterally reshaping the political landscape of the planet.
I doubt that "appearances" matter to al-Quida. They will think whatever they they wish to think and kill whenever they feel like it.
It is we who are enamored by "appearances".
Posted by: dorsano at March 16, 2004 09:56 PMI agree with your dislike of painting with a broad brush (conservative=fascist). Writing from the perspective of a liberal democrat (liberal by world view, dem by lack of choice) who has had to change his language to "progressive" to avoid being dismissed becuase of the way the far right has demonized the word liberal over the last 30 years, believe me, I understand how frustrating it is to have one's views pigeonholed and misconstrued.
I suspect we disagree on many things - but I find your approach refreshing - nice to know there are still reasonable people in the world. I sincerely hope that more Rockefeller Republican's re-emerge to take your party back. I probably wouldn't vote for them, as I frankly think Kerry is too far "right" - but it would be a huge improvement for our nation and our public debate. Thanks for backing Dean (I was Kucinich) - I think he and his group have a chance to really impact politics (especially if people stop painting him as a "Liberal" - he's really not... "Left of McCain and Lieberman, sure - but Liberal?, no way.
I'm guessing you are aware of www.soulforce.org and www.tcpc.org - but if not, thought I'd pass the contacts along - think you might enjoy their stuff. Good luck in your future endevors as I see you're moving on). btw - stumbled across you off a google search for Dietrich Bonehoffer - so don't worry - you haven't been cited on liberal blogs or anything :-)
Grace and Peace