Read Before You Vote!

[skinsfan51]

Please read this before you vote on Tuesday. It's worth considering. (I received it as an email.)
__________________________________________________

Mathew Manweller, professor of Political Science at Central Washington University, wrote this guest column for the Ellensburg Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington). It was published October 6, 2004 ELECTION DETERMINES FATE OF NATION "In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.

Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow.

Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters.

Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation.
Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place.

When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller

[portisizzle]

Thank you Skinsfan.

[Painkiller]

Very nice. For the most part, this piece echos my thoughts.

[Thiebear]

And if Something Unknown happens 5 months into the NEXT presidency I expect whomever it is to take control of it....

No 4 year Presidency can destroy the system.. hence the checks and balances...

I would say 2000, 2004 and 2008 were all looked at the same..

Gloom and Doom is not how you should vote.. Vote your Core....
If you fail to vote your Core you only harm yourself.

Every Generation says the next one is shiftless, yet we always seem to see the next one stand up when need be...

[SkinsNumberOne]

The question isn't "Who do the terrorists want me to vote for?" (so I can presumably vote for the other guy)... it's simply, do I think this guy will be successful at keeping me safe (potentially compared to the other candidates)... and of course, I would still consider the other issues about which you care.

I don't care if the terrorists want me to vote for Bush or Kerry or the Easter Bunny. It's irrelevant. I'll vote for whomever I want, and if safety from terrorists is a concern, then that's an issue just like the others; you look at the candidates and decide if they'll keep you safe from terrorists. You don't look at the terrorists and decide on what they think of the candidates. I didn't bother reading your article very closely because I preferred not to waste my time, but it seemed from a few snippets that this was part of it.

BTW, Bin Laden can spin either result as a win for him. If Bush wins, he can say, good, thank you for reelecting Bush as I wanted, I have enjoyed polarizing my religion (I've seen mentions of this in the past). If Kerry wins, he can claim victory based on the kind of argument that seems to be presented in this article.

Relevant snippet:
Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters.

Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Thiebear
And if Something Unknown happens 5 months into the NEXT presidency I expect whomever it is to take control of it....

No 4 year Presidency can destroy the system.. hence the checks and balances...

I would say 2000, 2004 and 2008 were all looked at the same..

Gloom and Doom is not how you should vote.. Vote your Core....
If you fail to vote your Core you only harm yourself.

Every Generation says the next one is shiftless, yet we always seem to see the next one stand up when need be...

T-bear, Expecting and doing are 2 different thing's, and I believe that's the difference here, Kerry has been an apologist his whole life blaming america for everything, may God forbid something happening here, but if it did under Kerry's watch would he offer an apology because he understands the frustration and oppression the muslim world is under by the U.S.? Because we wont get on our knee's and worship Allah, or the fact we wont let them destroy Israel, or slaughter anyone who wont follow Allah, or because our success scream's the lord truley is God, and Allah is incapable of bringing riches to his people, would Kerry then seek out peace with people who want all our head's on a stick? Well the way he has critisized Bush and this war I wouldn't trust him, personally I don't consider him a man, let alone a leader!

I have to disagree with the fact that no 4yr president can destroy the presidency, not in the past, but right now we are at a very criticle point in our countries history, dem's want to lock this country down for themselves, how? Everytime they get into office they elect liberal judges who are accountable to them not the truth, once you have enough in place you can get away with anything, voter fraud will never be proven or prosecuted because the court's wont allow it, in so doing you will never be able to vote them out, we already saw the tip rearing it's ugly head in florida when the judges couldn't hand down a just decision for Bush in 2000, the election had to be decieded in the supreme court, what happen's when that fails because every judge is liberal? I will tell you, DICTATORSHIP! And it's only a matter of time, oh yea we will call it a democracy, but that is only a name, their action's will say communism!

[freakofthesouth]

Here is the problem w/ this article, and the problem w/ Bush.

George Bush has alienated this country; if anyone here travels to Europe or anywhere outside of the US, the anti-american sentiment is at an all-time high.

For example, Tony Blair is not even allowed to really be around GW, according to his own political party.

On another note, we can all say that the #1 concern in our world today is the threat of terrorism.

While having our country run about, invade and rebuild countries may be relatively effective, it is not the answer. Why? Because terrorism can be one individual acting out against a power, for his own personal convictions. Terrorists are not countries...

Bush is already making this worse by spreading hate for americans w/ his actions. People worldwide do not agree w/ how aggressive this nation has been recently. Anyone think this lessens terrorism, or strengthens it?

Next, and this is the big point- combating terrorism takes global cooperation. That's 'global.' It takes policing forces to recognize, analyze, and uproot terrorism cells within their own countries; but the movements of our nation has not been in agreement w/ the global community. So, in a sense, this makes the threat of terrorism greater because of a lessened sense of a global community.

Here's my closing thought- immediately following the September 11th attacks, the ENTIRE world was with us. Because of the movements of our coutry since then, a good part of the world now completely and strongly disagrees w/ us.

edit: I know that most of you will disagree w/, and slam this post. But man, you guys are warped if you think it's us against the world. That's how major, major wars are started. It's not timidity, but an emphasis on communty that voters are thinking. This is the most importent issue IMO, and that's why I'll be voting Kerry. :kungfu:

[Painkiller]

Freak, it's not us against the world. It's us against the Terrorists. You want the U.S. to go back to a Pre-9/11 mentality. Well we have seen what that gets us.

Europe doesn't like us right now, because we did something without getting their permission. Sorry, I don't think we need it.

Global Cooperation? We do have it. Heck, Pakistan has captured more Al Qaeda then we have.

I believe it is our will to use force, and defend ourselves against threats that will protect our country, because those who would harm us will see there are consequences for their actions. Like it or not, there are evil people in this world, who don't like us for who we are. We must defend ourselves against them, whether France and Germany like it or not. We didn't ask for this war on terror. It was brought to our doorstep on 9/11.

[DjTj]

I have a very different view of our City on the Hill, and I think the author of this piece is confused as to how we got here.

America is the world's beacon of freedom because we are the country everyone looks up to. Hardworking people across the globe dream of America as a place where decent people can make a living and enjoy basic freedoms - for decades of immigrants, America was where everyone wanted to be.

He's right that the greatest generation built our City on the Hill, and we did it by leading the fight in two World Wars and the Cold War. In those conflicts, we fought with not only our military might, but the great diplomatic efforts of a succession of Presidents from Wilson to FDR to Reagan - Presidents that recognized that our greatest weapon against our enemies was the hearts and minds of the world.

Terrorism is not an American problem. Like the Germans and Japanese of the World Wars, or the Communists of the Cold War, terrorism is a global problem affecting many nations. In a world where travel between nations is easier than ever and international trade is driving our economy, it is crucial to have as many nations on our side as possible. The next terrorist attack won't come on a direct flight from Iran, it will come through France or Mexico or Canada. We need those countries on our side, and President Bush has put those diplomatic efforts at the bottom of his priority list. When he had a groundswell of support after 9/11, he squandered it all rushing into Iraq.

The City on the Hill was alive and well when Bush took office, and it was never brighter than in the days after 9/11. This election will be a turning point in America's history. If we re-affirm the policies of this President in turning away from the rest of the free world, we will relinquish our status as leader of that world. We will be no better than China or France or Germany - economic superpowers deploying their military might only for their own selfish needs. Other countries will look to us only for what we can give them and will look upon all our actions with a deep suspicion. If we continue on the path Bush has chosen, America will never regain our status as the beacon of freedom in the world. Instead of a world order where ideals reign supreme, we will create one where every country is only out for itself.

I believe that America is the greatest nation in the world, and I believe Bush has tarnished that reputation over the past 2 years. That's why I will vote for John Kerry. The stakes are just too high.

[Island Boy]

Originally posted by Resurrection
Freak, it's not us against the world. It's us against the Terrorists. You want the U.S. to go back to a Pre-9/11 mentality. Well we have seen what that gets us.

Europe doesn't like us right now, because we did something without getting their permission. Sorry, I don't think we need it.

Global Cooperation? We do have it. Heck, Pakistan has captured more Al Qaeda then we have.

I believe it is our will to use force, and defend ourselves against threats that will protect our country, because those who would harm us will see there are consequences for their actions. Like it or not, there are evil people in this world, who don't like us for who we are. We must defend ourselves against them, whether France and Germany like it or not. We didn't ask for this war on terror. It was brought to our doorstep on 9/11.



:notworthy :notworthy

[gstahl]

If all we do for the rest of our lives is fight terrorists, they have won. This is not about being weak, it is about doing the right things to fight terrorism so folks here can live there lives and do great things. Just about every study has shown that there is virtually no big link between Iraq and terrorist (prior to our invasion). We are getting our people maimed and killed (and as recent reports show getting 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed) on a WAR that does nothing to protect this country. It does not fight terrorism and does not seem to, in the first place, protect us from any kind of imminent threat to this nation.

This is my mind was an inexcusable error on the part of this administration. Some will say they did not know, it is their job to know, it is there job to ensure the reasons for war meet the absolute highest standards for defending this nation. Engaging in nation building is not one of them. If places around the global are free or democracies it is not our job to "fix" the "problem" by invading. There are lots of ways to influence things, invading is not one that I see as a good choice.

Our government really should be fighting terrorist that threaten our country rather then spending our forces in a war that we should not be in. Can you pull our troops out, no, but you sure can hold folks accountable for their choices.

So I will hold this administration accountable for one of the most important and very worse errors we have seen an administration make. I will vote for someone who will fight terrorism and who I will not worry about invading other countries for the wrong reasons.

BTW, no matter who is elected Iraq in the next year will be very very ugly.

One more thing, can we all agree to not mix 9/11 and Iraq? Studies have shown little to no evidence of any terror and Iraq tie. Saying 9/11 was a reason to invade Iraq is just not the case. Saying 9/11 was part of the reason to invade Afghanistan would be a correct statement. I do not think there is much to dispute this particular issue. (and this is not saying that folks here can't think Bush is much better on terrorism than Kerry, just that the invasion of Iraq was, in the end, not about fighting terrorism).

[Tarhog]

I'll just point out 1 thing here. I travelled all over Europe in the 1980's during the peak of the Reagan years. You guys are wrong. They hated Reagan far more than they hate Bush. He was 'Satan' in the average European's eyes. As a military man, you had to be very careful where you travelled....I barely escaped getting lynched at a bar in Spain (oddly enough, it was called 'The Smurf Bar' and was decorated with nothing but blue Smurf paraphenelia!) because the clientele initially thought I was a 'punk rocker' - Marine haircut and all....when they found out I was a member of Reagan's military, I barely escaped with my life.

Are any of you prepared to argue we'd have been far better off without Ronald Reagan?

Its not that we shouldn't strive to get along with our allies....in the absence of conflicting interests, we absolutely should. But sometimes, they don't know what they're talking about.

Vote your heart. And I think the point of this column is that, contrary to what some of you are arguing, the potential of a terrorist-delivered nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan is no longer a fantasy. Its a real threat. And it may not be a question of 'if' down the road, but when.

That doesn't mean you vote out of fear. But it does mean we ought to vote for the man we believe best prepared to deal with that kind of threat. Because if its ever carried out, your pet political position is going to look pretty damn trivial. And its not forcing us into this position that'll mean the terrorists have 'won'. It'll be the mushroom or chemical cloud rising over a major city that signals their victory.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Tarhog
I'll just point out 1 thing here. I travelled all over Europe in the 1980's during the peak of the Reagan years. You guys are wrong. They hated Reagan far more than they hate Bush. He was 'Satan' in the average European's eyes. As a military man, you had to be very careful where you travelled....I barely escaped getting lynched at a bar in Spain (oddly enough, it was called 'The Smurf Bar' and was decorated with nothing but blue Smurf paraphenelia!) because the clientele initially thought I was a 'punk rocker' - Marine haircut and all....when they found out I was a member of Reagan's military, I barely escaped with my life.

Are any of you prepared to argue we'd have been far better off without Ronald Reagan?

Its not that we shouldn't strive to get along with our allies....in the absence of conflicting interests, we absolutely should. But sometimes, they don't know what they're talking about.





Good post Tarhog. And I'll add this.

When I was in Pakistan in the summer of 1998, I think anti-American sentiment was at an all time high during that summer.

Bill Clinton had just placed sanctions for nuclear tests conducted by the gov't of Pakistan and helped further cripple the economy. Random missles that summer were launched into Afghanistan doing not much of anything. Pakistan was slowly becoming a pariah in the eyes of America, and the average Pakistani knew this and hated us for trying to label Pakistan a "terrorist" nation.

Fast forward to 2003. My mom traveled to Karachi and was stunned at the lack of anti-Americanism. Sure there was the usual death to America poster in an alley, but she told me it was very little compared to what it was like in 1998.

As silly as it sounds, Pakistan is a much more important ally in this war then any European nation. And if we have their support (which I have said and agree can be tepid at times) we have a foot up in this war.

Having France's support makes very little difference to me, except that the next time I travel to Paris they will be bigger asses to me then they were last time

[DjTj]

I know that at various points in history, the U.S. was unpopular overseas and that our relations with specific countries have waxed and waned over time. There will always be times where our interests conflict with those of other nations.

However, I don't think any President since WWII has made it a central tenet of their foreign policy that they don't care what other countries think - that they're either with us or against us. I always feel like Bush is grandstanding for American voters rather than doing the real work of building alliances and trying to turn world opinion. It was hard for Reagan or Clinton to rally the world around threats that didn't seem so imminent - it took serious effort for Bush, Sr. to convince the UN then the Congress to authorize force in Desert Storm. President Bush had the backdrop of 9/11 and the sympathy of the world behind him, and he squandered it. I don't think his intentions were bad, but I fault him for a lack of effort - it was "hard work" as he said.

I don't have vague fears about a Kerry Presidency because I think Kerry will be cornered into taking a hard stance on Iraq and terrorism, and we will likely see an increase in the homeland security and defense budgets under a Kerry administration. His eye will be on a second term, and that will guarantee us a hard-line stance where he is perceived to be weakest. I also know that Kerry will put in the long hours and careful thought of a veteran public servant. Maybe it won't make a huge difference, but at least he'll try.

[gstahl]

I have to add...

It is wrong to say either man does not care. It is wrong to say either man does not love this country. It is wrong to say either will not work hard.

I believe either candidate will do every in their power to protect this country and that both love this country.

I have strong feelings about choices made and choices that will be made. As Tarhog says so well, vote your heart. Know that either man (even if you completely disagree with them and do not like them) wants to do the absolute best thing for this country.

[Thiebear]

I said it first ;p

[Coach Williams]

hmmm.....I am at the age now where politics doesn't put me to sleep anymore. After reading 100's of threads I have decided I will vote for Bush...........I can't explain why in big words BUT I can say that I feel more secure with him as president. He has the balls to stand up for us and make the unpopular decisions that are needed as president. He as done everything possible to win this war. Sure he pulled the trigger a little quick BUT when he did it made sense at the time. If he didn't do it then maybe another attack would've happened. Who knows. When I see hate ads saying , "1000 soldiers were killed and 6 were beheaded." I honestly say...wow thats it........I remember History class and how many thousands dies in the other wars, I didn't hear any democrare saying those were bad chioces. My Father told me Kerry publicly apologized to vietnam saying while we we over there we intentionally killed and raped women and children. I don't know the source but my Father wouldn't make something like that up. If Kerry is elected and he pulls out out boys then what will the republican ads say in 2008?......A Republican goes in 1000 die, a democtare comes in and all of new york is destroyed. I don't want this to happen. The economy for the next 4 years is on hold. I'd rather stay on the offensive and keep us safe. :cheers: ....sorry for typos....:laugh:.....I'm not re-reading that......:doh:

edit : would to wouldn't....:doh:

[JC]

I received this in an e-mail a couple of days ago.



From: JL
Senior Pastor
Church of the Living Christ
Ojai, CA

I recently attended the National Pastors Convention in San Diego with several thousand pastors from many different denominations. During one of the general sessions, the MC introduced a pastor from Uzbekistan. He had traveled the farthest to attend the convention, so they wanted to interview him. I don't remember his name, and even if I did, I know I couldn't pronounce it. However, I do know this: I will never forget this man. Right away, I liked him. He was humble, sincere, and gracious. He apologized for his broken English, though I thought he spoke very well. As the MC interviewed him, he began to share about his ministry in his country that borders Afghanistan. He talked about the church he pastors of a few hundred people. He also shared how it is illegal in his country to be a Christian. You see, his church is an "underground" church. Amazingly, his city also has 3 "underground" Christian schools. He talked about how the Christians have been arrested and even killed in his country.

Then, as the interview was about to end, he began to speak very urgently and passionately. He said something to this effect: "I would like all of you to know that my church and the Christians in my country are praying that President Bush will be reelected." I was stunned. I knew that this gathering had to include many pastors from all over the political spectrum and I was certain this would not go over well. Immediately, there were murmurings and rumblings throughout the audience and the MC seemed a little uncertain about what to do next. However, this pastor would not be denied. Grasping the microphone firmly in his hand, he continued, "The officials in my country are afraid of President Bush, so they don't persecute Christians as much. Under Clinton it was very bad for us. Many of us were arrested, put in jail, and some were killed. But under President Bush, it has been so much better, so we are praying for him."

The founder and president of the huge INIM ministry in India to many nations, including Iraq and Afghanistan, told us he prays every day that God will keep the US military in those countries so that the Gospel can continue to go forth. He likewise prays daily for our President. The murmuring ended. It was suddenly very quiet. The MC paused. Then he just asked us to stand and pray for this man and we did so with great passion.

Choking back tears, I was immediately struck with this realization in my heart: this coming election was not just about me or my church or my country. This coming election would affect the entire world. And while there are many Christians and churches in this country that may not support, and may even despise our current President, there is a group of Christians halfway around the world who are desperately praying for his reelection. All of the sudden, the election became something very different for me. It is not just about the economy, gay marriage, or weapons of mass destruction. It's about the persecuted church around the world. As believers, what issues should be more important to us? This transcends politics. This is about the Kingdom of God for which Christ suffered and died, and for those believers in other countries who are suffering and dying as well.

I was also convicted in my heart about praying for our President. And I wonder, which church is praying more fervently for him: the persecuted church in Uzbekistan or the prosperous church in America? It makes you think. As the Apostle Paul said in Hebrews 13:3, "Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering." Remember, this election is not just about us. It's about them [too].

JL
Senior Pastor
Church of the Living Christ
Ojai, CA

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Tarhog
I'll just point out 1 thing here. I travelled all over Europe in the 1980's during the peak of the Reagan years. You guys are wrong. They hated Reagan far more than they hate Bush. He was 'Satan' in the average European's eyes. As a military man, you had to be very careful where you travelled....I barely escaped getting lynched at a bar in Spain (oddly enough, it was called 'The Smurf Bar' and was decorated with nothing but blue Smurf paraphenelia!) because the clientele initially thought I was a 'punk rocker' - Marine haircut and all....when they found out I was a member of Reagan's military, I barely escaped with my life.

Are any of you prepared to argue we'd have been far better off without Ronald Reagan?

Its not that we shouldn't strive to get along with our allies....in the absence of conflicting interests, we absolutely should. But sometimes, they don't know what they're talking about.

Vote your heart. And I think the point of this column is that, contrary to what some of you are arguing, the potential of a terrorist-delivered nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan is no longer a fantasy. Its a real threat. And it may not be a question of 'if' down the road, but when.

That doesn't mean you vote out of fear. But it does mean we ought to vote for the man we believe best prepared to deal with that kind of threat. Because if its ever carried out, your pet political position is going to look pretty damn trivial. And its not forcing us into this position that'll mean the terrorists have 'won'. It'll be the mushroom or chemical cloud rising over a major city that signals their victory.

Well said TG!

[Henry]

Those of you who think the fate of the balance rests on the shoulders of any one man, even the President, do not have enough faith and understanding of the strength of this country and it's system of government, in my opinion.

Vote for whomever you wish, but understand that life will go on no matter who wins the election.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Henry
Those of you who think the fate of the balance rests on the shoulders of any one man, even the President, does not have enough faith and understanding of the strength of this country and it's system of government, in my opinion.

Vote for who you wish, but understand that life will go on no matter who wins the election.

Well said Henry... My sentiments exactly.:cheers: