(post transferred from Iraq thread to bore-ass the readers of this thread instead)
I'm finding it harder and harder to maintain a basic respect for the Republican party when the people in its leadership positions continue to violate basic standandards of decency in their public statements and actions. They have shown in this election year that they will say or do almost anything to keep their hold on power, regardless of the consequences their actions have on American politics as a whole.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/hastert.remark/index.html" target="_blank">At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, [Speaker of the House of Representatives] Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.
When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."</a>
I would vote for Kerry this year if for no other reason than to make sure that these kinds of tactics aren't effective.
As for Kerry's "foreign policy," it would be a major risk for him to make specific statements about what he would do if elected. Iraq is so unpredictable there is no way to know what the situation will be in Iraq in January. Kerry has made public comments of some of the general changes he would make to policy, and they are the kinds of things that the majority of the foreign policy community and the Senate republicans who have been critical of the administration's handling of the war have been saying from the beginning: internationalize the security forces, the handling of the reconstruction and the transition to "democracy." But, what has been the response from the adminsitration to Kerry's position? Claiming that Kerry would seek permission from France and Germany before conducting American foreign policy. In other words, they simply pander to the most dogmatic and spurious elements of their party's base. And it's working.
I think the Kerry campaign's message has been weak and convoluted, even when I think it's been correct in its positions, (Kerry's vote for the authorization of the war as a tool for the adminsitration to use to force inspectors into Iraq, rather than a vote for the president to simply launch an invasion makes perfect sense, and that's the way the resolution was sold by the adminsitration in any case. The use of the claim of flip-flopping is pandering to political ignorance, and will have long-term politcal implications the next time an adminstration goes to Congress for a use-of-force authorization.)
Basically, I think the problem is that there is a tendency, (and yes, I think the republicans are leading this), to pander to the worst kinds of political ideology in America in this election cycle. I think the democrats are torn on whether to take the high moral ground or to get down in the mud with their opponents. Ultimately it's a strategic decision that democrats have yet to make, and until they do the republicans have the advantage with their coordinated campaign of demagoguery. It's a strategy that may be good for the republican party, but bad for America.
Personally, I'm torn on what advice I would give the Kerry campaign. I'm afraid of the idea that they should take the high road and get Dukakised for the sake of civility. But at the same time, I don't think the democratic base would respond to the kinds of tactics that the republicans are using. I think Moveon.org only appeals to a limited segment of democrats and liberals, while the effect of the Swift Boat Vets is substantial, (purple heart band-aids were "all the rage" at the republican convention). I also think that a fine example of all this theorizing of mine is supported by the fact that the Bush campaign is so resistant to the debates. They want as few debates as possible because they don't want to be in a position where Bush might have to defend his poli