Why I am voting Democratic in 2006
I have decided to vote Democratic this fall.
I am a conservative and a Republican party member. I believe in small government, free markets, strong defense, etc., but Bush’s snafu in Iraq is just too much. It overwhelms those issues which for 30 years have made me vote GOP. In addition to screwing up so far, there is zero evidence that he’s changed, or that he “gets it,” or anything. Kevin Drum has a piece today “if Bush gave this kind of speech, that might be different,” not for for Drum, but for some of us. Bush does not get it.
There is another aspect that makes this easier for me. Bush has not followed a conservative agenda (not that the Democrats would); he has increased the spending, size, and reach of government, mostly in the name of fighting terror. Historically, there has been a conservative philosophy. Today, most people & media use “conservative” as shorthand for “loyal Bush supporter.” But, as many have observed, Bush is no conservative. No need to remind me of Bush’s support for Intelligent Design, and other anti-science actions of the administration.
As a voter (twice for Bush) and as a blogger who supported this nonsense, I have a hard time at this point, saying, “Yes, this war has been horribly executed and there is no prospect for improvement, let me pull the lever for more of the same.”
Midterm elections are a referendum on the party in power; they are not just about the local races. I live in NY state, in a very blue district. No contests that I vote in are in doubt, but the sum of our votes do comprise a national referendum, and the news people will add up what happened and count the wins and losses. Who we vote for in ’06, especially for Congress, matters. As for ‘08, that’s two years from now. Who knows what will happen then? The GOP candidate will almost certainly run away from Bush so quickly and completely, so 2008 will be a different situation, most likely not a referendum on Bush.
I must hand it to Bush … I never would have thought there would be a Republican president that could ever persuade me to vote for the Democrats. When the choice is between a party that promises NOT to deliver what you want versus one that manifestly hasn’t, that is not easy.
I looked at Clinton’s eight years of “Kyoto-friendly” policies an effort to get along and give more respect to the rest of the world’s priorities and after 9/11, I said “Ha! a lot of good that did.” So the shit hit the fan (9/11). Since then the Bush administration had its chance and has only made it worse. Could “Kyoto-friendly” policies be any worse?
In deciding how to vote, there is the over-arching question, “How important is the war on terror, Iraq, and the whole security threat represented by related issues?” If one says “Yes, really important, number one, that trumps all other issues,” and one also says, “Bush fouled up. Big time,” … then that is the justification for voting Democratic in 2006. I view this November’s election mainly as a vote for, or against, Bush, more than as a vote for a Republican or a Democrat
On the other hand, one could say, ” Despite ALL of the stuff the Bush administration has fubar’d, if the Democrats have not put forth anything better, any plan or strategy that is viable, … how do they deserve my vote? Just because they exist as an alternative to the current failure? … I cannot vote for a party whose platform and ideals conflict directly with mine.” That’s a position I respect.
“But the Democrats will cut and run.”
Let’s get real for a minute. No one is going to send more troops. It is not going to happen. So Dem or GOP, we are looking at “staying the course,” or “cutting and running,” or some course in between.
Iraq is totally hopeless. Today, now, it is beyond any rational expectation of recovery. I cannot foresee anything like victory, not by any remote definition, such as “getting Iraq to slightly stable, barely functioning, almost worthwhile kind of place.” I cannot see how to get there. I can see us staying there for a long, long time. 150,000 US troops, well-armed and well-supplied, in secure bases, are not easy to dislodge and are not even easy to hit with high casualties. Our guys are very smart and very tough. The insurgency cannot “drive us out” or even inflict “unacceptable” casualties. What this means, combined with what I can see from internet debates is that … as long as we meet some threshhold, as long the troops can hang on, then the “true believers” will say “There is hope. We are winning. Look at the ELECTIONS!” If we’re waiting for a defeat in battle, some military rout of the Americans, that is not going to happen. Do we then stay indefinitely, spectators to chaos? No Democratic politician will say it, but maybe they would be the party of “cut and run.”
How long does the party of “stay the course, even although we have brought things to this violent, fractured, unpromising, unending situation,” deserve my vote? If there is any magic formula, some way out (not that I can see one), at this point I have zero confidence in Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s ability to find it. Mark Coffey seems to agree on this point.
I have gotten to the “my dog could do better” position.
Update: Seems to be a lot of ship-jumping, or epiphanies, or (as one critic charged) emotional outbursts today. Senator Frist’s apparent invitation to the Taliban caused Ace to say “Good-bye, GOP,” and Allah says, “What’s the difference.” As does Bill Quick of Daily Pundit. Tim F. calls it the “Coalition of the Shrilling.” INDCent Bill suggests a beach house in Provincetown. He has a point; I’m not sure that some of these guys have expressed enough, … you know … heart-ache.
Update 2: I wrote this post before I heard of Senator First’s remarks on the Taliban in Afghanistan. The first I heard of them was when Allahpundit linked back here.
Vote Carbon
MyDD: My Dime-sized Democrat
I wouldn’t dream of voting for this guy
Palestinian Vote
Kos: Slash and burn Democratic primaries are bad