Voting For Democrats
Jan. 25th, 2007 11:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertarianhawkA reason for hawks to vote Democratic:
I suspect there's a cynical assumption behind that Republican's words. If the Dems were in power on 9/11, they'd be for the war. So let them take power and drop our guard, so there'll be another 9/11. And then they'll be for it and we can get on with the war. I don't want another 9/11. For one thing the next major attack will probably be lots worse--even without bioweapons I can think of some nasty ways to deploy kerosene that'd kill more people than 9/11 did. For another I think there are many people so committed to their tranzi or isolationist ideologies that no attack would bring any response other than "pull up the drawbridge" from them.
Much better to find some Democrats who'll take the war seriously from the beginning. Sen. Clinton is famous for her attitude toward her enemies. If she applies that to the Islamofascists we could have the leadership we need--with fewer arguments over the limits to interrogations. Obama mostly draws a "who?" reaction from me, but if the rumors of him being a Muslim converted to Christianity take hold in the Muslim world he could have a very personal reason to take the enemy seriously. I'll be keeping an eye on the other contenders to see if any want my vote.
He said, "The Democrats have to win in 2008 — I mean, the whole enchilada: House, Senate, and presidency." You ought to know that my friend is a staunch conservative Republican. "Why?" I said. “Why do they have to win?” He answered, "Because that’s the only way they will be fully onboard the War on Terror. They won’t fully support it otherwise, because they will always be trying to trip up the Republicans. If you want the Democrats onboard the War on Terror, they have to be in charge. Period."That's something which, in theory, I could go along with whole-heartedly. If I was sure they'd keep on the offensive I'd be perfectly happy to vote for the Dems. But that's not what I've had offered on the ballot. Kerry wanted to pull back to modest levels of whack-a-mole while ignoring the root causes, and the Congressional candidates I've had wanted to call the troops home and ignore the rest of the planet.
I suspect there's a cynical assumption behind that Republican's words. If the Dems were in power on 9/11, they'd be for the war. So let them take power and drop our guard, so there'll be another 9/11. And then they'll be for it and we can get on with the war. I don't want another 9/11. For one thing the next major attack will probably be lots worse--even without bioweapons I can think of some nasty ways to deploy kerosene that'd kill more people than 9/11 did. For another I think there are many people so committed to their tranzi or isolationist ideologies that no attack would bring any response other than "pull up the drawbridge" from them.
Much better to find some Democrats who'll take the war seriously from the beginning. Sen. Clinton is famous for her attitude toward her enemies. If she applies that to the Islamofascists we could have the leadership we need--with fewer arguments over the limits to interrogations. Obama mostly draws a "who?" reaction from me, but if the rumors of him being a Muslim converted to Christianity take hold in the Muslim world he could have a very personal reason to take the enemy seriously. I'll be keeping an eye on the other contenders to see if any want my vote.
