Centerfield

I LOVE IT!!!! Bring it on. By all means, try and convince me that his centrist should vote Democrat. I look forward to the debate.

I'll do this a few at a time:

#1. Evaluating domestic policy is kind of murky, and you're right to challenge us on this. I think it's possible to offer a domestic agenda with a combination of bold initiatives and fiscal caution -- basically, you go for radical changes on one or two things, and look for other areas to cut spending and save money, making it possible to afford your radical changes. I think Bush, by contrast, has gone for more spending on virtually everything.

#3 I agree. John Kerry is a liberal, and Democrats are making a mistake today when they confirm his nomination by giving him two southern states. It's hard to see why one candidate with lots of foreign policy experience, but also a record that can be painted as Carter-esque pacifism, would be preferable to candidate B, who has little experience but clearly a more moderate perspective. In the long run, offering a reasonable perspective means more than having experience.

#11 -- Yes, and he deserves credit for campaigning the way he did in 2000. He should be criticized now for his statement in the State of the Union in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Surely that's something states should be able to handle on an individual basis.

#12 -- I have a somewhat different idea about education policy than what's currently being offered. It relies on two principles, one drawn from the right end of the spectrum and one the left. I can elaborate, if you like.

#13 -- Absolutely. Major kudos for signing the CFR bill.

#14 -- I have a basic sense that this is a bad bill -- throws a lot of money at the problem without establishing a sound foundation for the future of the program.

#15 -- If that's the case, then he's not even quite pro-life, I guess. The proof will be in Supreme Court nominations. Abortion rights are protected in our country because the court says they are. And that balance might be tipped rather quickly, for the president who decides to do it. Do you think Bush wants judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade? Or is he truly of the opinion that we're not ready for that? I think he mentioned once that Scalia and Thomas are his two favorite judges.

Reading through your whole post again, I realize what you're really asking is how "we" can support Democrats in comparison to Bush ... and, more specifically, Kerry, the likely nominee.

I don't support Kerry, and I haven't noted much enthusiasm here for him. I was a Lieberman guy for most of this campaign, and then more recently an Edwards guy. Even so, I realize both are left-of-center (yes, both of them, not just Edwards), and I have wondered if it's possible to support Edwards from a centrist perspective.

To answer your question simply -- I don't view Kerry as likely to bring us strong centrist leadership.

I would actually tend to favor an independent or third-party solution, if it were possible to find a good candidate. I sensed that it might be possible to organize something like that back when Dean was the likely nominee, but it's less likely now.

#5 I agree that criticism of the Patriot Act has been way over the top. Most of it has been concentrated on a provision allowing inspection of library records, which has never actually been used.

I'm conservative on immigration, and don't like Bush's policy, not that the Democrats are any better.

My dislike of Bush is mostly personal, and not policy-related. I cringe whenever I see him. I find his rhetoric insipid. By contrast, I found Reagan inspiring and hitting the right notes, despite my original skepticism about him.

I'll contribute more to this (very useful, BTW) conversation later. But from a purely practical point-of-view, I'd suggest that having both the legislative and executive branches controlled by the same party is a major factor to be considered.

Unless someone can make a good case for the liklihood of the Dems regaining a majority in the House or Senate, a vote for any Democrat (within reason) stands justified.

IMHO.

I would tend to look at what would actually happen in a second Bush term as compared to a first Kerry term.

It's tough to know the answer to that question, but it is the bottom line.

On foreign policy, it should be somewhat clearer to us by election day whether Bush is successfully managing the Iraq rebuilding effort. We can compare that performance to whatever strategy Kerry tells us he will follow.

On domestic policy, supposedly Bush will make a push to implement private market accounts in Social Security. This is a clear difference with Kerry, and in my opinion a plus for Bush. I think we're running out of time for such a measure to have any appreciable effect on the generation about to retire.

Then we have some basic fiscal questions to ask. Bush has been clearly irresponsible, but will Kerry be any better? Specifically, can he forego spending on new programs for the sake of lowering the deficit?

A liberal in centrist clothing? Boy, does that beg a few questions! Namely, what's a centrist anyway? Or a liberal, for that matter? Or a conservative? I despise most pigeonhole patellar-reflexive labelling of others. (You want to label yourself, that's fine.) But most such labels are misleading at best, a cultural shorthand that changes constantly.

So I'll steal the words of others, and hope they shed some light. Andrew Sullivan said of himself that he was a "fiscal conservative, a social/cultural liberal, and foreign policy hawk." That's me. And Dennis Miller said that if two guys wanted to get married, that was their own business, but if someone wanted to blow up their wedding, they should be hunted down and eradicated. That's me too.

I'm not a Bush-hater, I'm not a Bush-lover. I shudder to think what the national response would have been to 9/11 if Gore had been Prez at the time, but I don't think being strong on national security entitles Bush to a free pass on the naked Good Ol' Boy corruption I've seen the last few years. The Medicare bill is a good example--billions and billions in public money for the drug companies and insurance companies, a price tag going nowhere but up, not a single uninsured American helped, all with guaranteed top-end retail pricing and no bargaining, a smallish benifit for most seniors, and a big gigantic whopping tab for the rest of us.

Nor do I care all that much for the Dem candidates, like Kerry. Gee, just what we need, another Ted Kennedy style big-government tax & spend liberal, as sold out to special interests as anyone in Washington, or more so....

Yet I may vote Democrat. Why? Because I think that a divided government is less dangerous to the overall health of this nation and its people than a unified one, with all branches in the hands of one party. Checks and balances!

For the record, I'm not young or old or idealistic or partisan. I'm an agnostic cynic by inclination, and if you want to sway me, better use verifiable and relevant facts 'cause propaganda either amuses or bores me, but doesn't impress in the least. I've already seen and heard it all, and sometimes helped create it. I've been an elected public official, and am still an appointed public official (for which I get paid not a dime, raising suspicions of altruism...OK, maybe I'm a little bit idealistic). I work on an average of three campaigns a year at the senior staff level, and get paid for maybe one. I don't pick my campaigns by party, but by candidate.

I register every year or two for the party currently lying to me the least, so I can vote in the primaries. Tht's made me a Republican for the last decade, but hey, the pendulum keeps swinging!

So what the hell is a centrist or a liberal anyway?

MY first reaction when I started reading this blog is that was clearly a fairs ways left of center. Over time, I can honestly say it is merely a little left of center.

While I do not like Kerry, I may vote for him assuming the Elephants will keep control of congress. I see not other way to get some fiscal sanity. I suspect that reality will keep Kerry from going soft on terrorism and congress will keep him from being a tax and spend liberal.

As someone who's admittedly more right-of-center, I believe there is a left-of-center tilt here, but I think overall there's been pretty fair criticism about the president.

Indeed, I share a lot of the questions about Bush's reckless wobbles from the path of free trade, his unserious attitude toward the David Kay statements and his apparent inablility to veto a pork laden appropriations bill whether its farm subsidies or a new expansion of the NEA. I also really don't care for Ashcroft -- he's better than Janet Reno, to be certain -- I just find the man disagreeable; I believe he's far too eager to press for additional law enforcement goodies under the cover of fighting terror. (And just for balance, I like the proposed immigration reform and find the idea of Social Security privatization to be an excellent one.)

There are plenty of valid reasons not to support President Bush, and I think, to a certain extent many of the people who write here aren't so much supporting Kerry tacitly as they're voting for a change in the Bush Administration status quo.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit -- how I'll vote in November -- and it's still kind of early to firmly commit, but I guess it boils down to the fact that I just can't trust John Kerry not to go all wibbly if -- when -- some new 9/11 attack occurs.

Michael Totten recently wrote that the "worst that can happen with a Democrat in the White House is we’ll have a weaker response to the threat than we currently have. Then we will get hit again. And in all probability, that weakness on the left will come to an end. It will have little chance of returning until the new war against fascism is over." (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000271.html)

To me, that basically says, "in the worst case" a Kerry presidency leads to another 3,000 Americans incinerated and at point, according to Totten, Kerry will get serious about the GWOT (global war on terrorism).

Forgive my cynicism about the man, but I take his rhetoric at face value. I know he's been pulled leftwards by the Dean phenominon and rallying the base to get out the vote for the primary. But, honestly, I think he's really not campaigning insincerely; I don't really see Kerry doing more following a second 9/11 attack than appeasing the French and the U.N., "addressing root causes" (rubric I read as: terrorists hate us because we reject Kyoto and the ICC) even more fervently and endless hand wringing talk talk talk with the terror apologists at the UN and elsewhere in old Europe. (Yeah, that means you, M. Villepan)

Also, forgive my unsophistication, but if there really IS a global war on terror (and not a really difficult law enforcement problem that been "exaggerated" to use Kerry's language) shouldn't we have a president who'll set the hard core "we /will/ hunt you down and kill you if you attack us, and damn the torpedos" tone to anyone who's foolish enough to execute another 9/11 style operation?

I admire the desire for divided government. I share this desire because it's the only reliable way to force the partisans of the right and the left to compromise and govern toward the center. But I think you're fooling yourself if you think Kerry's going to have the muscular, robust stance on terror that Bush has, even if a second attack were to occur. I still don't quibble with your rationales if you decide Kerry's a better choice to lead the United States -- reasonable people can and should disagree about important issues. But I would be wary of thinking John Kerry is the candidate who'll be resolute on terrorists and terrorism.

So given the choice between the hand wringing Kerry position on the GWOT and President Bush's hard core position about people commited to kill as many Americans as possible, I'm going for Bush.

But I'm not going to like it.

Hi Mark. I share your concern about a Democrat "going all wobbly" on foreign policy, but I think I understand it in a different way.

The danger, it seems to me, is of someone plugging into the pacifist vein in the Democratic heritage -- those in the party who were so reluctant to use force that they virtually abandoned that tool in our arsenal. Guys like Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Adlai Stevenson, etc.

What we need is someone who's balanced -- willing to use force, but eager to use all of the tools available to him, including our enormous diplomatic and economic influence, and to match the right tool with each battle we're fighting in this war. Guys like JFK, Truman, and FDR.

I don't have any sort of complete understanding of Kerry, but some of the information floating around about him suggests he was in that pacifist vein for stretches of his career -- he favored the nuclear freeze, supported cuts in defense spending, and opposed the first gulf war. His vote in favor of the second Iraq war is a fairly transparent effort to maintain presidential viability.

That said, the worry is not that someone like Kerry would fail to respond to a second terrorist attack. Any president would respond militarily to such an attack. If Gore had been president on 9/11, we would have gone to war in Afghanistan -- it's just that we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.

The worry is that such a person wouldn't use the full range of tools to combat terrorism and potentially stop a second major attack from occurring.

And it's a kind of murky concern. A big attack could come even if we do take all the right steps. It's impossible to predict. Living in a free society means we're inherently vulnerable, and there's just no way to eliminate all the possibilities for ways we could be attacked.

I want a president that uses all the tools at his disposal and matches them logically with the problems at hand. This probably means boots on the ground somewhere in the world, at any given time. Maybe that's Pakistan right now, with the coming effort to fight radical forces in the areas that border Afghanistan.

I also want someone who can bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion, and that means both the grim determination to stay and see it through and a skillful use of all our diplomatic and military resources.

Politically speaking, we're really in an odd place right now. We have the president, who in my opinion doesn't marshall our diplomatic resources effectively, and the Democrats on the other side, who got so worked up against the Iraq war that they allow little room for a moderate realist to emerge in their ranks.

Meanwhile we need grownups -- determined, experienced realists -- to deal with these very tricky immediate issues we face in the world.

There are a lot of good thoughts and arguments here... I especially agree with William that a third party would be the ideal approach, I just doubt that it is very probable.

When I have more time I will provide more in depth thought. Very good discussion though.

I'm of the "gridlock is good" camp -- in my ideal world, there would be a centrist Congress and a centrist charismatic President who would between them promote a moderate, problem-solving, fiscally responsible domestic policy and a muscular foreign policy. That does not seem to be in the cards -- even Edwards, who I like a lot more than Kerry, is pretty wobbly on free trade and various other moderate-to-conservative causes that I support.

Kerry is certainly a lot more liberal than I am. But let's face facts -- how many of Kerry's wish list policies are going to make it through a Republican Congress, which is almost inevitable in 2004-06, at a minimum? I'd rather have them hash out a vaguely centrist compromise policy than give Bush another four years to run up the debt and push the country well to the right of where I am.

RD

I'd definitely rather have a "vaguely centrist compromise policy" on domestic issues, although I see little chance Kerry would be less profligate than Bush.

My main worry with Kerry is that he has thus far been uncommitted to staying the course in Iraq. I expect he'll sail rightward after he sews things up, but there's really no reason to trust his resolve. I REALLY don't want the next President to go to Old Europe and APOLOGIZE for Bush, and go hat in hand to the UN and get very wishy-washy. I think it would be a mistake to go back to the old business as usual sabre-rattling without any follow-up.

That Kerry has suggested that terrorism should be approached as a "law enforcement" issue signals to me that he has no resolve. He's ready to let our enemies go back to hiding in the shadows while he gives forceful speeches at the UN that in the end come to nothing achieved. Kerry is the sort of guy that all his life has thought he was actually getting something done whenever he gave a talk to a room full of suits and got people to clap and nod their heads and say "here, here!"

Many countries (Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) have cooperated with us in fighting terrorism because we've shown them we mean business. If Kerry gets elected, there's every reason to think that these countries will go back to jerking us around, seeing how much leeway they have, and lots of career UN diplomats will think it's game on again for kleptocracy as usual.

Kerry is by nature a talker, that's his history, and everyone knows it. He's always willing to talk some more, think things over a little bit more, swap grand visions over drinks. Europeans LOVE that. They and the Middle East will react accordingly if he wins. That scares me.

For a look at what Iraq might look like if we don't follow through and stay the course ("Stay the course?" I hate that cliche!), check out the latest news from Haiti.

In Haiti, we acted unilaterally to topple a military dictatorship in the name of democracy, stayed for one quick puppet election, then cut and ran. In short order Haiti was once again a dictatorship, and is now heading for an all-out civil war. The New York Times today was calling for our unilateral RE-intervention in the name of humanity...amazing how proximity makes such a difference, no?

Anyway, a failure to establish a functional democracy in Iraq will result in total failure, and a new terrorist hotbed of a theocracy. We might still be no worse off than before the invasion, but we won't be any better off either.

[re #3] Corporate interests vs. the public good.

Both as Texas governor and now as president, Bush has a terrible habit of assuming that whatever increases industry profits is good for everyone. So Bush appointees to regulatory agencies from the SEC on down are almost exclusively drawn from those with close ties to the industry they regulate. Their working assumption is that profits come before people. So the SEC didn't police Wall Street, the number of meat inspectors is ridiculously low, the Superfund is broke so communities have to pay to clean up after polluters. Bush seems to favor 'voluntary compliance' by industries. In Texas, no one complied!

One of the best books about all this is 'Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America' by Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose.

Yes, it's written from a partisan point of view, but it provides lots of documentation of these issues.

Having read some of the comments about Kerry and other Dems being 'soft' on terrorism, I gotta ask: Other than overthrowing the Taliban (where we let OBL get away -- probably because we trusted the locals too much instead of risking our own troops), how has the USE OF OUR MILITARY decreased the liklihood that hijackers will take over a plane tomorrow and fly it into a nuclear power plant?

I guess I keep seeing this gigantic disconnect between lashing out at governments with our military and actually preventing another 9-11 type of incident !!!

I'm not minimizing other forms that terrorism may take, but we need to (keep) and leverage our relationships with the world community to plug lots of little holes that are simply not visible on a military radar.

At home, we've already had studies that say we aren't dealing with the obvious security issues -- all made more impossible to fund because of the huge cost of Iraq.

Frankly, I'm afraid that in the end all we will have gained from Iraq is being able to brag about overthrowing an evil person and enjoying a huge testosterone-induced high!

(And if I were really cynical, I'd mention Halliburton.)

Erasmus,

You ask how has the use of our military decreased the liklihood of a second 9/11?

I'm not certain rehashing the talking points about Iraq for the nth time will somehow sway your opinion; you seem pretty firmly decided about the utility of the Iraq invasion vis a vis a war on terrorism. And that's okay with me. I disagree rather firmly with this view, of course, but I respect different opinions.

As for being quote "soft" unquote, it's clear to me that John Kerry perceives 9/11 as a really big and very violent criminal conspiracy. The emphasis will be on law enforcement; military force (it would seem) would rarely if ever be necessary for President Kerry. (And if I were cynical, I'd mention President Kerry seeking tacit blessings for any military strikes from Paris.)

I tend to see the GWOT as something that's going to take a really long time and it's going to have a lot of "hot" phases and cold phases. By implicitly (or at worst explicitly) taking the U.S. military off the table it seems to me, at least, that we're essentially tying an arm behind our back in a pretty dangerous world. That doesn't strike me as especially rational.

I took William Swann's reply to my earlier comment to heart; I agree with what he writes in large measure. But coming back from my platonic ideal of a presidential candidate to the choice between Bush and Kerry (if in fact Kerry wraps up the nomination), that makes my choice a lot simpler. Distasteful, yes, certainly that.

For the record, I'm not saying that President Bush's anti-terror efforts domestically are brilliant, perfect or immune to criticism, either. It's obvious there's a lot of improvement still to be done at home and abroad.

Mark

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Socrates nailed it thousands of years ago when he said, "when the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

I'm a centrist and have been called a "liberal" more times than I can recall over the last 6 months or so. Funny thing is that in the midst of the Clinton Impeachment process I was called a closeted "rightwinger" more times than I could recall simply because I had the audacity to be honest with myself about the facts of the case and agree that Clinton deserved to be Impeached.

C'est la vie.