Rick's Cafe Americain

The Republicans, or at least the far right Republicans currently controlling the party, scare me.  I don’t like their vision for America and I hope that Bush is soundly defeated, even if Kerry is an uninspiring candidate.  But I don’t get the people who want to violently protest the RNC, or be mean to delegates.  Doesn’t sound like a very good way to communicate your views to those who disagree with you or are uninformed and I don’t think it is in keeping with the American spirit of open debate.  Argue with their message, don’t protest their presence.

That being said, my prediction is everything will go smoothly and New York will, again, show itself off well to America and the rest of the world.

Did you just comment on your own post?  Couldn’t you at least get Ugarte or Rick to comment on it?  Sheesh, I come over to Rick’s on my own for once (as opposed to with Dawn saying ‘oooooh did you see what they wrote about you’) and this is what I find. 

I wish the Republican party was controlled by the far right.  Then maybe our president wouldn’t be forming new entitlement programs and proposing immigration amnesty.  But, I know, if you didn’t think they were (oooooh scary) far right, then how could you talk yourself into voting for the very similar Kerry?

Lastly, on your point about the protestors, it’s been said before and I believe it: the protestors will make more people vote for Bush than the convention will.  Bring. It. On.

The comment was contemporaneous to the post.  I felt that aspect of it better appeared in the comments section than the main part of the post as it was a separate thought.

You may be correct about the third paragraph.  However, like I said, I think the anti-RNC protests (as opposed to speaking out against the Republican platform) will ultimately turn out to have been a lot of pre-convention talk, without much reality.  But I could be wrong, in which case I agree that it will be counterproductive.

BTW—if you think Kerry is so similar, why don’t you vote for him to voice your displeasure with Bush’s new entitlement programs, rampant spending, et al.

I think most republicans can agree that Bush is not their ideal candidate, as most democrats agree that Kerry is not theirs.  I personally am very ambivalent about Kerry, and frankly wouldn’t vote for him if there were any other reasonable option. 

Sure they’re similar: they are both politicians.  They will say in large part what they are told the American people want to hear, and to the extent they are getting the same advice in that regard they will sound the same. 

However, where they are not similar, and probably the fundamental reason why I’m voting for Kerry, is that Bush and his administration consider themselves above the law, and see power and victory as their primary objectives.  They are both messianic and thuggish in a way that I can’t imagine John Kerry being. 

I concede that in voting for Kerry I will not be voting for a man I think would be an excellent president—I am voting for one I believe will be less dangerous to the country, to the world, and to my future and my childrens’ future.  I believe John Kerry is committed to public service in a way that Bush has never been.  I believe he has a sense of honor and decency that Bush lacks, and a sophistication that will allow him to engage and take the lead in policy issues in a way Bush is incapable of.

So, where it really counts, they are not similar at all.  I don’t have to “talk myself into” voting for Kerry—that’s a no-brainer.  I’m just disappointed that there’s nobody better to vote for.

Because whereas Bush is wrong on several issues, he isn’t a total fraud like Kerry.  Kerry has no positions on anything that matters to me.  He is both here and there on everything.  I have no idea what he stands for or what he will do as president (other than definitely not be named Bush).  Voting for Kerry is irrational to me, especially for liberals.  If I was a liberal I would vote Nader.

It depends on your definition of “total fraud.” I believe a man who repeatedly lies to the American people about what he is going to do and/or why he is going to do it is not only a “total fraud” but a real danger to the country.

Kerry isn’t “here and there on everything,” he’s just a bad politician.  And if you truly have “no idea” what he stands for or what he will do as president, it’s only because you don’t care, because your mind has already been made up for you. 

Kerry has indeed been trying way too hard to say what he thinks people want to hear, but that is hardly as bad as pursuing a personal agenda monomaniacally and regardless of what is in the national interest or what the people want.

And though your syntax is tough to parse, I think you are saying that you think it is irrational for liberals to vote for Kerry.  What’s your basis for that?  What do you mean by “liberals”, for that matter.  We do not strive, like you Bushies, to become fungible parts of a homogenized whole.  Rather, “liberal” (like “conservative”, if only conservatives would admit it) cuts across a wide range of beliefs and positions.  Regardless of whether I was a conservative or a liberal or a whig, I would vote for the person I though would do the best job (or the least harm).  I believe that person to be Kerry.  Not Nader, and not Bush. 

I’m curious to know (a) why you seem to think that who you vote for depends on what party or denomination you are in, and not who will do the best job and (b) why you would vote for Nader.

‘And if you truly have “no idea” what he stands for or what he will do as president, it’s only because you don’t care, because your mind has already been made up for you.’

You’re right, Rick, I don’t follow politics at all and I’m just brainwashed.  I can’t imagine why I don’t take you seriously.

Y’know, Rice Chex, every time I think you’re capable of engaging in reasonable, intelligent discourse, you go and prove me wrong.

You are the one who said you had “no idea” what Kerry stands for.  There are only three reasons you would have said that: (a) you were being dishonest; (b) you are “brainwashed” (i.e., you have decided to vote for Bush regardless of what Kerry stands for, so it doesn’t matter to you what he really stands for and you haven’t tried to figure it out); or (c) you are too stupid to figure it out.

I know it isn’t (c), and your sarcastic response indicates you don’t think it’s (b), so it must be (a), which is why I can’t take you seriously.

Seriously.

Rick, go to Kerry’s website and try to tell me that you understand what he would do about National Security (my #1 issue).  ‘Getting allies’ is not a plan since A. plenty of allies participated in the Iraq war and B.  even in previous wars in which the US fought with a coalition, we shoulder most of the burden anyway.  So, to answer your question, it’s D) Kerry has no real positions on National Security.  He wants to be both the pro-war and the anti-war candidate. 

His economic policy consists of the obligatory ‘we won’t ship jobs overseas’ (the question of ‘how’ is shockingly not addressed) and nonsense about ‘creating’ jobs.  Presidents don’t create jobs.  You’d have to be a Democrat to believe they do and sorry, I’m not C) stupid.

Even Ms. Summers agrees that most of Kerry’s policy ideas consist of ‘elect me and then I’ll share my secret to solving our problems’.  An example from the website: ‘John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to address soaring premiums and cut Americans a break’.  Of course, they never tell you what that plan is exactly but don’t you worry, they’ve got a plan.

And Rick, even your co-bloggers think you’re corny with the cereal jokes.  Let it go.  We get it. My name is Karol, people call me K, there is a cereal called Special K.  It’s all very hilarious.

See, you know what his positions are, you just have problems with them.  Ironically, your main problem is that he isn’t forthcoming enough about the details of how he’s going to do the things he says he’s going to do.  Careful with those stones.

Also, “Special K”, you missed the joke.  You used to call yourself “Kashei”.  There is a cereal called “Kashi”.  Hilarity ensued.

P.S., “corny with the cereal jokes” —now that’s hilarious!!!

P.P.S., I notice you managed to avoid answering every one of my questions.

I’m not asking for details, just a plan that is somewhat feasible.  Short of putting bullets in CEO’s heads, you’re not going to stop outsourcing.  Same for France going into Iraq.  Nothing was going to make that happen.  If you think that Kerry does have clear positions, then it’s clear who is brainwashed here.

Still don’t want to answer the questions, huh?

Incidentally, I never said anything about outsourcing.  However, if you want to know what I think, the way to stop outsourcing is to do something about the abysmal educational system in this country.

I have no idea what shooting CEOs in the head has to do with France in Iraq.

Oh my gosh, I just reread your original comment and did you seriously write (and then link to) that corny post that uses the phrase ‘dominant paradigm’?  Could you be more pretentious?

But here are the answers to your pressing questions, oh corny one:

I’m curious to know (a) why you seem to think that who you vote for depends on what party or denomination you are in, and not who will do the best job and (b) why you would vote for Nader.

A)Party identification is the number one indicator of whom you will vote for.  So, it’s logical for me to assume that you will vote for someone based on your party affiliation and B) If I had been against the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, then I wouldn’t go for the candidate that supported all of these.  Call me idealistic. 

So, now are you going to tell me what the hell Kerry’s plans are should he be elected?

Does every one of your comments have to include some sort of personal attack?

Your answer to (a) is nonresponsive. You weren’t predicting who I would vote for, you said if you were a liberal you’d vote for Nader.  I continue to maintain that that statement reveals something fundamentally wrong with the way many (most?) people approach the democratic process in this country.

As for (b), since both candidates with an actual chance of becoming president “supported” all of these, I suggest moving on to criteria that actually distinguish the candidates.  Such as which one is able to recognized that the Iraq war was and is being poorly executed.  Or which one is legitimately concerned with civil liberties and recognizes that the Patriot Act is hardly the silver bullet it was hoped to be.

Finally, I’m surprised that you keep bringing up No Child Left Behind, given that your boy made a big show of getting it passed, then pulled the funding out from under it.  NCLB not a big winner for W, IMHO.

As for what Kerry’s plans are should he be elected, you’re just playing games again, but I’ll bite. 

I believe forging alliances is key.  The majority of arrests and “victories” against Al Qaeda that I read about are occurring in other countries, some of which Bush has done an excellent job of alienating.  I believe the key to effectively addressing the threat of global terrorism is international cooperation—Hardly Bush’s strong suit.  And your sop to “plenty of allies” is weak, even for you.  this is hardly the starting lineup.

Devoting the vast majority of our military personnel and resources to Iraq was, in my opinion, a huge mistake.  So is focusing on missile defense.  I support Kerry’s plan to bring greater focus on modern threats such as non-state actors and terrorists.  I also believe that Kerry and his administration will listen to the Pentagon, unlike the current crop of arrogant chickenhawks who thought they knew better.

I also believe Kerry is more sincere than Bush in his expressed desire to protect the environment and decrease dependence on foreign oil.

As for creation of jobs, Kerry says he will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of sending them overseas.  Whether that will work or not I don’t know, but it is a plan.

Kerry also grasps the notion that operating a government costs money, and that the money has to come from somewhere.  His plan to cut the deficit and curtail corporate welfare are ok in my book.

I could go on, but what’s the point?  You will say that he doesn’t go into specifics.  I will respond that he is as specific or more than Bush/Cheney, that campaign statements and materials are unfortunately always vague and abstract, both because politicians are afraid of alienating voters and because voters get bored by specifics (remember “boring” old Al Gore?).  If it can’t be reduced to 10 words or less, the American people get antsy and confused.

Gotta go have brunch now.

BTW, Nader isn’t even on my ballot.

Get a room.

I believe forging alliances is key.  The majority of arrests and “victories” against Al Qaeda that I read about are occurring in other countries, some of which Bush has done an excellent job of alienating.  I believe the key to effectively addressing the threat of global terrorism is international cooperation—Hardly Bush’s strong suit.  And your sop to “plenty of allies” is weak, even for you.  this is hardly the starting lineup.

Other than France and Germany, who else would join your mythical alliance?  And, if these countries that Bush supposedly pissed off are cracking down on Al Qaeda, where is your proof that they don’t like us (or don’t like us more than they did before anyway)?

evoting the vast majority of our military personnel and resources to Iraq was, in my opinion, a huge mistake.  So is focusing on missile defense.  I support Kerry’s plan to bring greater focus on modern threats such as non-state actors and terrorists.  I also believe that Kerry and his administration will listen to the Pentagon, unlike the current crop of arrogant chickenhawks who thought they knew better.

Actually, Kerry’s position is that we need more troops in Iraq, completely contradicting your position that Iraq is taking up too many troops. 

I also believe Kerry is more sincere than Bush in his expressed desire to protect the environment and decrease dependence on foreign oil.

Once again your belief is grounded in zero evidence.  The (D) after his name doesn’t automatically make it so.

As for creation of jobs, Kerry says he will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of sending them overseas.  Whether that will work or not I don’t know, but it is a plan.

Can you imagine if Bush called for additional tax cuts on businesses, whatever the reason?  You would lose your shit.  But again, the (D) seems to cure everything for you.

Kerry also grasps the notion that operating a government costs money, and that the money has to come from somewhere.  His plan to cut the deficit and curtail corporate welfare are ok in my book.

What’s the plan? Or is this one of the ones we get to find out only after Kerry is elected? A second ago we were rewarding companies for doing business in the US.  Now we’re calling it corporate welfare.  Partisan hack much?

Yes, I am a partisan hack.  Ask anybody.  Read my site.  The glowing praise for Kerry and blatant ignorance of all his faults is evident in every word of my hackneyed prose.

I apologize for my last comment, by the way.  Clearly my inclusion in it of complex ideas has confused and bewildered you. I’ll try to spell it out.

Which countries?  How about Iraq for starters?  France, Germany and Great Britain would be good, too.  The point is, what you and others claim to admire as unwavering strength, I see as piss-poor diplomacy.  And I believe that diplomacy, not hubris, is what is going to keep us safe and prosperous in the coming decades.  And if you think other countries are cracking down on al-Qaeda because they like us, well, put down the pipe.

"Actually, Kerry’s position is that we need more troops in Iraq, completely contradicting your position that Iraq is taking up too many troops. “

Listen, do you know what Kerry’s position is or don’t you?  You’re making me dizzy.  I’m not sure I agree that we should send more troops to Iraq now, but I certainly think that if we were going to invade we should have sent more troops then.  However, there is no contradiction.  Bush’s actions both before and after 9/11 have consistently shown that fighting terrorism and catching al Qaeda are not his top priorities.  I believe that if he is reelected he will continue to do foolish things in that regard, including possibly the invasion of other countries, like Syria or Iran.  Given his stated views, and the fact that he has no personal grudges against nations or leaders, and no close personal ties to the House of Saud, Kerry is far less likely to short-change our national security the way Bush has.

On the environment, don’t make me laugh.  Although Kerry’s record on the environment is good, it probably wouldn’t matter.  Captain Hazelwood has a better environmental record and fewer ties to the oil industry than Dubya.

Can you imagine if Bush called for additional tax cuts on businesses, whatever the reason?  You would lose your shit.

OK, once again, you seem to be stymied by an apparent contradiction. The world does not exist in the binary terms in which the current administration often seeks to portray it.  “Corporate welfare” is giving tax breaks and other benefits to corporations for no good reason ("what’s good for business is good for everyone” is not a good reason.  “Because I and my Vice President and our cronies will profit handsomely thereby” also is not a good reason).

On the other hand, using tax cuts as incentives to spur economic growth is, at least in theory, a useful tool.  Note I did not say I thought it would work, or that I agreed with it.  You asked me what Kerry’s plans were, I gave you some examples.  You may recall way back in an earlier comment I said I thought the only way to keep jobs here was to fix the educational system. I think Kerry’s tax cut plan is likely a shitty idea.

"What’s the plan? Or is this one of the ones we get to find out only after Kerry is elected? A second ago we were rewarding companies for doing business in the US.  Now we’re calling it corporate welfare.  Partisan hack much? “

I don’t know what the plan is.  As I said, candidates tend not to get into specifics, either because they don’t have them or because the people aren’t interested in hearing them.  Al Gore has a brilliant mind for policy, and every time he started telling us what he would do, we told him to shut up because he was boring us.  My point has been: I know what Bush has done, what he is capable of, and what his priorities are.  Kerry lacks many of Bush’s most critical failings, and for me that is enough to justify voting for him.

Let me be clear:  I don’t like Kerry.  I will vote for him, and I hope everyone does—not because I am a partisan hack, but because I believe the alternative is disastrous.  If a decent Republican stepped into the race (John McCain, for example), I would vote for him/her over Kerry.

As I look over this comment section, one of the most serious failings of the modern party/political system becomes evident.  You are not really interested in arguing the issues—you are focused on attacking “my” candidate and me, on scoring points, on “winning”.

What does it say about our country that young idealists are getting masters’ degrees in “political campaign management” instead of policy, international relations—you know, the substance of government?

Rick, you’re a fucking lawyer.  Who are you to be talking to me about what degree I should or shouldn’t be getting.  Sorry I didn’t want to waste my time with theoretical bullshit that accompanies the programs you mention.  I actually wanted to learn how to do something, instead of just talk about doing something or discussing things that happen. 

The John McCain comment is so idiotic.  He’s the flavor of the year for dumbass Dems who don’t want to seem too partisan (though they are) and so embrace this ‘maverick’.  He is identical to Bush in nearly every way. 

I’m done.  As always, you have bored me to the point that I can even read your whole comment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bush-era Conservative American: aggressively partisan, intellectually dishonest, easily bored by substantive discussion, and prefers action unencumbered by analysis.

I don’t think it is McCain who is “identical to Bush in nearly every way”.

Rick, you flatter yourself into think you’re substantive.

P.S Which ‘ladies and gentlemen’ are you speaking to exactly?  We both know there’s no one here.