Happy Fun Time--and One "Shove It" for Good Measure

In spite of having to reorganize over the weekend, I managed to read a couple of pieces like this The New York Times article that focuses on efforts to "be positive." An earlier report I saw yesterday (but can't seem to locate right now) went so far as to indicate that speeches are to be vetted for language, although Al Sharpton stated his intent to "answer" some of the questions Bush posed in his speech to the Urban League last week.

It's obvious as to the motive, namely, efforts to avoid a Democratic version of the 1992 Republican convention, which is now considered an excellent example of the term "hate fest." I believe it was Molly Ivins that noted Pat Buchanan's speech sounded "much better in the original German." At the same time, it is my hope that a balance can be struck. Yes, positive themes are very important. But the Democratic Party must point out some obvious differences between their ideas and those of of the administration. And it's difficult to point out these differences without comparing and contrasting, unless you honestly believe that one set of policies are as good as the other.

Which is why, for instance, I like Teresa Heinz Kerry telling a journalist to shove it. Unlike Mr. Cheney's exercise, she didn't use profanity's equivalent of a thermonuclear bomb--but at the same time, she showed an unwillngness to back down, i.e., she showed a little backbone. The rest of the party would do well to follow her example.

I've been on record as more A.B.B. than pro John Kerry, and I intend to vote that way. In other words, if the Massachusetts Senator is within the margain of error IN LOUISIANA (remember, we are dealing with fifty statewide elections), then I'll vote for him and hope for the best. If Bush is well ahead, then, yes, I will likely cast my ballot in a way that helps a third party--maybe, but not necessarily Nader.

Because, while I'm as pissed off as anyone as to the stagnant nature of two party democracy, I'm downright appalled at the way Team Bush has done everything short of taking a cigarette lighter to the Constitution--both when it comes to "fighting terror" and as they ramrod a domestic agenda down the throats of the American public. Between late-night weekend votes in the House (where fifteen minutes often morphs into several hours), the Patriot Act, the whining about needing such big changes to stave off "another 9/11" (when it is CLEAR that we COULD have either stopped it or severely constrained the carnage had the people in power simply done their jobs), the country has gone so far off track that Bush can call himself a "conservative" even as he deficit spends to the extent that Keynes would blanch.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ: has ANYONE in history chosen to CHARGE the cost of a war (of convenience)? Now, I still think the invasion of Iraq was completely stupid, but, that said, wars generally involve some degree of universal sacrifice--after all, those who pay the biggest cost are the men and women who are lost (or wounded) in battle, and their families. Yet, this administration is so enamored of their elites that they don't even ask them to, at the very least, shoulder the financial "burden" (a two percent hike in the top margainal tax rate isn't exactly a heavy load). But, no--Bush won't even do that. No wonder he won't attend any funerals and sends out form letters to the families of those killed.

Four or eight years of John Kerry won't change my perception of the Democrats, either. If he becomes our next president, and I certainly hope so, I'll probably seek to pressure him on all sorts of stuff, and criticize the hell out of him when he panders to his own set of elites. But I think the Senator actually believes in most of the principles of the Constitution. Bush shows nothing but contempt. And that's why he's got to go--our country can't afford four more years of that.