Dennis Donohoe writes…
I am one of many (I hope) who find Saletan's shrill hostility against Bush unpersuasive. I am curious, and I bet a lot of your other blog addicts are also, what you find compelling about Kerry that would get you to vote for him. If it is just an attitude of "anybody but Bush", I can sort of understand that since that is what I thought about Clinton. If it is something else, who knows – maybe if you blog it you could persuade people over to the Kerry side, not that you have any obligation to do that. I hope your leaning toward Kerry is not just knee-jerk voting for the Democratic candidate, regardless of the merits. Somehow I can't believe that is the case.
No, it isn't. I've voted G.O.P. at times and long disdained party-line voting. (I always think it's high on the ridiculous scale when we see "news stories" that Bill Clinton has endorsed the Democrat in some race or that Bob Dole has endorsed the Republican. Like those guys have taken an unencumbered look at the contest and honestly come to the conclusion that the guy from their party is by far the best choice.)
You have not seen me post much positive here about Kerry because, frankly, I haven't seen anything yet that gives me a reason to cheer on his candidacy. Then again, I haven't seen anything particularly negative…so I guess to some extent, I am operating in "Anybody but Bush" mode. Perhaps between now and November, I'll find reasons to get enthusiastic about Kerry. If not, I'll probably vote for him with the same "lesser of two evils" motivation that has underscored too many of the ballots I've cast in my lifetime.
I don't find Saletan "shrill" by any definition. In the last piece I linked to, he quoted Bush and his crew, then cited what seemed to me like pretty solid evidence that those charges are not true. He didn't call anyone a pathological liar or a "scumbag" or any of the hysterical insults that too often infect political discussions. Do you think Saletan was wrong? If he wasn't, then he was doing his job as a political commentator. If he was wrong, then that's the problem with his piece. (I should confess to another of my prejudices here: I think about 90% of all political "attack" ads are not only nasty but are written with the deliberate intent of distorting the record and quotes of the attacked candidate.)
For reasons I've mentioned and others that will be posted here between now and November, I think Bush has been a terrible president, making things worse in almost every category. The one thing I'll give him is that he's done a good job of convincing a large segment of the population that he's being "tough" and that Daddy is in charge and protecting us from the mean ol' terrorists. That is not a small thing but I do think a lot of it is illusory. When I finish a deadline I'm presently battling, maybe I'll write more about this.
[The above message was updated at 7:05 PM to clean up some sloppy phrasing.]