« In this election anything is fair game | Home | Iraqis speak »
October 29, 2004
An agonized Bush endorsement
Megan McArdle finally makes up her mind, and delivers the best refutation to the Sullivans and Jarvises and Adesniks and Pines who hope against all evidence that their guy will be an interventionist hawk when it counts:Ultimately, I've decided to take the advice of a friend's grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he'd change. "If you can't live with him exactly the way he is," she told me, "then don't marry him, because he'll say he's going to change, and he might even try to change, but it's one in a million that he actually will."Before reaching this conclusion, she goes over both candidates' positions and records with a fine tooth comb. Read the whole thing.Kerry's record for the first fifteen years in the senate, before he knew what he needed to say in order to get elected, is not the record of anyone I want within spitting distance of the White House war room. Combine that with his deficits on domestic policy -- Kerry's health care plan would, in my opinon, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will -- and it's finally clear. For all the administration's screw -ups -- and there have been many -- I'm sticking with the devil I know. George Bush in 2004.
UPDATE: David Hogberg presents the wonkish, example-filled version of the "don't marry a man expecting him to change" argument.
The philosophy behind such sentiment is determinism -- the idea that men don't so much control events as they are controlled by them. The circumstances at a given point in history force a president to take certain actions. This theory tells us that since the war in Iraq and the War on Terror will still be going on when Kerry would take office, he would have little choice but to make a strenuous effort to ensure our national security. It makes me want to throw up my hands and say: "Have we learned nothing from history?"Again, read the whole thing, send it to your liberal hawk friends with illusions about Kerry.[many examples]
. . . it is absurd to the point of lunacy to assume that electing Kerry will force him to take terrorism seriously. If we were to assume that, what is the point of voting for a president? For that matter, what is the point of having an election at all? We can just put 50 people in a circle, spin a bottle, and put in charge whomever the bottle points to. After all, current events would compel him or her to approach the War on Terror with grave concern.
UPDATE: Short non-agonized version by Jonah Goldberg.
Judith | 10/29/04 at 01:57 PM | Categories: - GOTV '04
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/3444
Comments
I have no illusions about Kerry nor would I ever want him to change: He's 1/4 Jewish and he has a brother, who is a Jewish convert, that lives in Israel. A Kerry administration would be a close friend to Israel and an enemy to terrorists.
Bush has done nothing for Israel and he's even messed up our own country and its foreign policy.
I'm disappointed that you don't have the sense to realize all of this.
Dave | October 30, 2004 06:06 AM
Dave, there are so many good refutations of your position, but here's the latest one.
Judith | October 31, 2004 12:07 AM


![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)











