More reasons to want a Bush second term

Oh, yes there are reasons. Mine was that John Kerry would be capable of sweeping America's worst offenses back under the rug from which the Bush administration has pulled them and made them unavoidable except by the most willfully blind. That, and maybe that within two years the Asshat would be so despised and his illegitamacy and outrages so outrageous that he would face impeachment, or maybe even prison, taking the rest of the criminals along. Let me dream.

I'm just not at all confident that America will wake up and really, truly turn the corner with John Kerry. I may not need to concern myself with that, however, as it's a sure bet the Rethugs will hit harder than ever before to destroy a Kerry White House. Some people, however, still have hope. A woman I traveled with in Venezuela put it this way: We must work hard to get John Kerry into the White House. And then we must immediately hit the streets and work harder than ever before to make him change.

Al Giordano has a lengthy post discussing what happens after Kerry is elected, and gives this reason why it's necessary to elect him:

A Bush victory would bring certain doom to the dying dream of authentic democracy whereas a Kerry victory would bring continued uncertainty: I choose uncertainty over certain doom. And I choose what Howard Zinn called last summer "the small ledge to stand on" that a Kerry presidency would bring to social movements. We must occupy that ledge and expand that tiny space into multiple spaces, platforms, and gardens that retake a whole damn country, a planet, and a human race that craves change in a different direction than that which the current economic and other fundamentalisms foist upon us.

On the other front, looking at reasons to keep Bush in office, LA Times columnist Jonathan Chait offers these...

To say that I consider Bush a "bad" president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word "bad." I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my "bad" category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as "good." There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky.

...I won't attempt to deny that [Bush] has done some awful things. What I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection.

...[If]f John F. Kerry is elected and tries to raise taxes or rein in spending, he'll probably suffer substantial political damage...But...he'll not enjoy Democratic majorities in both Houses, which means he stands a good chance of failing. That would be the worst of all worlds: Democrats would suffer the political costs of demanding sacrifice from the public, without the corresponding benefit of making the country better.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has estimated that there's a 75% chance of a major financial crisis within the next five years if we don't reduce our budget deficit. That may be too high, but assume he's right. Whoever holds office would quickly become extremely unpopular, whether he had tried to deal with the deficit or not. If the choice is Bush doing nothing versus Kerry doing nothing, why not let Bush take the blame for his own mess? Why have a Democrat bail him out?

...Now it's probably too late to do anything but salvage something short of total anarchy [in Iraq]. If Kerry is president, conservatives will blame him for the failure in Iraq — if only we still had a leader of Bush's unwavering resolve, they'll claim, we would have won the war. If Bush is president, he'll be held accountable for his own bungling of the invasion.

...[Republicans] get tens of millions of social conservatives marching to the polls to vote for them every two years but, because key points of the social-conservative agenda never gets enacted, they suffer hardly any political consequences for their positions.

Now, suppose Bush does appoint a couple justices. Maybe they will overturn Roe vs. Wade. If Roe falls, presumably states would decide how to deal with the abortion issue, and a reinvigorated pro-choice, center-left majority would be able to protect abortion rights in most places. In fact, the fear of a backlash would probably cause Bush's justices to chicken out and uphold Roe anyway. Then how would Republicans persuade social conservatives to keep supporting them?

I don't know. There are a lot of non-thinking, "moral" and uneducated people who are scared shitless after 9/11 and watching their jobs melt away from under them. They need somebody to lynch and somebody to blame. But it has to be a "liberal" or an "evil doer" - which are two descriptors of the same target in their view. Those people will support Republicans come Hell or high water. Republicans depend absolutely upon ignorance of the electorate. Bush's justices, presumably, would be people like Antonin Scalia - a man who has shown that he is not afraid to adjudicate with ideology.

Otherwise, Mr. Chait makes some good points.

The issue of choosing justices came up in the "debate" last night. Butthead was asked who he'd appoint. He thought he'd be cute, I guess.

BUSH: I'm not telling.

[Ed: Smarmy smile.]

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

[Ed: Smarmy smirk.]

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

But John Kerry's rebuttal was exactly what a thinking person would want to hear.

A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.

And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody. Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.

I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen.

The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?

These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

The transcript doesn't give you the visuals and the pauses, and so you miss the amazing moment when Butthead jumped from his seat (which he did quite often) and took on the moderator, Charlie Gibson, when he apparently thought Gibson might not give him rebuttal time. After a moment's pandemonium with Butthead talking over top of the moderator, Charlie apparently thought better of insisting on the rules he set out in the beginning. Wouldn't have mattered anyway. Butthead was going to have his say. Talk about shrill.

I watched the debate on CNN, and listened to a few people who called in immediately after the broadcast to comment. The ones that said Bush was more articulate and direct must be from another planet (Oklahoma, for one that I recall). Some nimwit woman called in to say she was voting for Bush because Kerry's a lawyer and speaks like one, and she can't understand what he's saying. Which in fact is what Butthead said in the debate, too. After Kerry spelled out his position on the abortion issue, the smirking butthead covered his inability to quickly pick up that ball and his pregnant pause (Dufus spontaneously aborts more thoughts than anyone I've ever heard) by saying, "I'm trying to decipher that."

And here's a perfect example of why we might actually prefer a lawyer as president....

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. -- Butthead

If you'd seen the dolt while he was stammering this one out, you'd have realized that he has no idea what the Constitution says, and he himself realized it halfway through his sentence.

Another caller said he'd been undecided even after the first debate, and going into this one, but he was now leaning toward Kerry. When asked what weighted his decision, he said that when the question to Bush was to name three mistakes he's made as President and how he would correct them, he didn't even offer one. The caller said that everybody makes mistakes and if a man can't even admit to one, there's a problem. Actually, Butthead did admit to mistakes. He said he made mistakes in some appointments of people, "but I won't name them", said with a smirk. Asshole. The Idiot Son of an Asshole, actually.

Which brings me to Eric Blumrich.

Again- Bush just delievered the same canned answers he's given time and time again. Kerry was conversational- spoke with the audience, the camera (directly), and cross-referenced questions given earlier. He proved himself in command of the issues, and the forum, against someone who was just there, blinking, delivering lines with an attitude of "what don't you morons not get about what I'm telling you?"

So true.

KERRY: Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it. If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.

LaBelle sends a quote from James Wolcott, explaining perfectly the real reason for Bush's apparent electronic feed...

Indeed, he is able to tune into favorite frequencies simply by adjusting his head like an antenna trying to pick up a Spanish station on UHF.

When he turns his head to the right, he hears the voice of Karen Hughes telling his tie gives him secret powers. When he cocks his head to the left, he hears the voice of God telling him that Democrats are a race of devil-men. And when rotates his head semi clockwise and pauses, he hears the ruby-lipped, husky-FM-radio voice of Sister Cocaine telling him she knows her baby would like a taste of her sweet white goodness, yes he would, you know you want it, baby, Sister Cocaine make you feel so fine...and so on, as he begins to sway on his feet and a strange smile strays across his face.

Animated gif courtesy of ...

You Forgot Poland

After Bush loses the election, many will be sad that we have lost a President who so easily finds ways to make us laugh. Don't worry, the new guy is well qualified:

Go check it out. Laughter is good.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.