a scratch pad for half-formed thoughts by a liberal political junkie who's nobody special. ''Hard Heads, Soft Hearts'' is the title of a book by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, and tends to be a favorite motto of neoliberals, especially liberal economists.
mobile
email

 
comment on winds of change:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005751.php

Well, I'm not a moderate libertarian, so his case against Bush is obviously not mine. On foreign policy, the most urgent issue is Iran's nuclear program, next is moving forward in Iraq (and Afghanistan), next is North Korea, and then a whole a host of other issues. Frum a humanitarian perspective, Darfur is just as urgent as Iran, and there is also Haiti, Liberia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. etc. On domestic policy, 600 billion dollar (having Biblical knowledge of) deficit, 600 billion dollar (having Biblical knowledge of) deficit, 600 billion dollar (having Biblical knowledge of) deficit, . . .and health care, poverty, job creation, the coming retirement of the Baby Boomers, rising levels of household debt, and all that unimportant stuff. It seems to me you should vote based on who you trust more to deal with those problems. And the extent you think these are problems.

It seems to me that the key difference is that 1)Kerry is hard-working, willing to bust his hump 2)Kerry is not intellectually insecure, and is willing to listen to constructive criticism, and change his mind accordingly. 3) Kerry is a member of the reality-based community. It seems all these criticisms of Kerry's ideology miss the point, because Kerry is capapable of changing positions if the facts warrant it, and of quickly correcting his mistakes . Bush, who asserts his economic policies are working despite the deficit, and despite being the first President since Hoover to lose net jobs, is not. Or else he is just a liar. Likewise, compare the polls of Iraqis on the liberator/occupier question in mid-2003 with the current polls. Read Chris Albritton's latest posts. The strategy we have to be following in Iraq is pretty clear. Keeping in mind Bush's record on this score, who do you trust to execute the strategy in a more effective, results-oriented, paying-attention-to-detail manner?

Israel is in deadly peril from Iran's nuclear program. Who do you trust to deal with the problem in a prompt, energetic, immediate manner? Keeping in mind what Bush's Iran policy has been for the past 4 years, and keeping in mind Kerry's passion for dealing with the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Whatever your answers are to the previous questions, especially, IMO, Iran's nuclear program, is who you should vote for.

posted by Anonymous at 5:01 PM