resurrectionsong

September 22, 2004

Why Should I Vote for Either Candidate? (OpinionEngine)

Twinkies aside, it's time for a serious discussion on why anyone should cast their one vote if they don't like either candidate from the two major parties. ZombyBoy has accepted the challenge of convincing me why I should vote for four more years of President Bush. I'm a conservative, registered Republican that has decided that I cannot vote for Senator Kerry, but feel there are reasons against voting for President Bush again as well. A no-vote protest is my right and perhaps my duty if I cannot find reason enough to support re-electing President Bush.

Starting today, I'll start asking ZombyBoy questions that will help me determine whether to cast my single vote for the President of my choosing in November.

Today, I would say my top three personal priorities are the following:

1. National Security (keep the terrorist wackos out)
2. Affordable, flexible healthcare coverage for the self-employed
3. Public Education System (Do we really need 28 kids in a kindergarten class)

Today's question: Why should I vote for a President that I feel made a major strategic miscalculation in choosing to remove a dictator from Iraq, thus committing vast national resources to rebuilding a nation, rather than maintaining a positive International perception that we're truly hunting down and killing only the bad terrorist guys that were responsible for 9/11?

Posted by Don O at September 22, 2004 01:33 PM

Comments

This is in the "long answer" category and will have to wait until this evening. I expect the dialog to be lively.

Posted by: zombyboy at September 22, 2004 02:57 PM

I guess if the question really has all those caveats, another short answer is, "Well, you shouldn't, I guess."

But a better answer might be, Maybe some of your starting assumptions aren't totally correct. As in, maybe he didn't make a major strategic miscalculation, and he is still maintaining an internation perception that we are hunting down only the bad terrorist guys who plot and plan to kill Americans, even if they only started to plot and plan after America looked week in the wake of 9/11.
That's the way I see it, personally, but I cannot insist is the only way to see it.

Posted by: Nathan at September 22, 2004 04:29 PM

Thanks for the link Nathan. I enjoyed reading the analogies and I agree with the results, but it's too simple to assume that invading Iraq was the only way to achieve some of those things. I'm even OK with the result in Iraq if we can figure a quick, respectable way out, so that we can move on to the next target.

I'm 100% behind total force everywhere that is necessary, but I don't think our nation can sustain multiple Iraq-style campaigns, so we need to figure out a more modern method of waging war. In the analogy posted in your link, the substitute teacher doesn't sacrifice the first student's self-esteem and then pay the psychiatry tab. I would prefer a more Reagan-esque, Libya-style response each time it is necessary--a relentless use of force and superior military technology.

Posted by: OpinionEngine at September 22, 2004 05:05 PM

Well, I didn't mean to imply it was a complete answer. Just a fairly succinct and persuasive argument that from some perspectives, President Bush is doing amazingly well. It does come down to the scope of the view and what you want the President to do.
If all you wanted was to punish the people directly involved in 9/11 and then stop, well, yeah, you probably shouldn't vote for President Bush.
If you want the US to be safer, it's debatable whether or not President Bush has done so, and I'm not sure I can do any further persuading.
But one of the blogs I peruse (don't remember which one, may have been Q and O Blog again) said that the grand strategy of the Bush administration is to shrink the lawless areas, to nibble away at them. Thus, invading and reforming Iraq works on multiple levels. Afghanistan wouldn't be nearly so far along if Iraq hadn't acted as terrorist flypaper. Would Chechnya be even worse? Heard anything about the terrorists in Panchesi (sp?) Gorge in the nation of Georgia recently? ...maybe Iraq has something to do with that.
The thing is, I don't think Iraq is sustainable for the insurgents. I think if George Bush wins the election, with less than 2 months until their own election and the people getting more tired of the insurgency messing up their lives, we may some significant improvement.
But that's a gut feeling, I don't have a great deal of evidence to back it up.

Posted by: Nathan at September 22, 2004 05:37 PM