Patterico's Pontifications

10/12/2004

to clear things up

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 3:43 pm



Before I go, I’d like to respond to the charges that, to quote one commenter, “Mr. Sturm now desperately hopes against hope that Bush loses, so Sturm won’t look the fool”

Au contraire…

To butcher the old adage, tis far better to have Bush re-elected and me look the fool than to have Kerry win and me look brilliant.

Let’s be clear: I am not rooting for a Kerry win. My wallet won’t let me. The safety of my kids won’t let me. Respect for my father who served two tours in Asia during the Vietnam War won’t let me. The disgust I have for Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, Tom Daschle, CBS, class action plaintiff attorneys, Paul Begala and the Washington Post won’t let me. The hate – yes, hate – I have for the terrorists and those who would support them won’t let me. The moral values that I hold dear won’t let me. There are so many things that I would just hate about a Kerry presidency that being made to look (somewhat) paranoid and cynical were Bush to pull it off pales – repeat pales – in comparison.

Nor am I giving up. I will be voting for Bush on November 2nd. I’ll be watching tomorrow night’s debate yelling cues to Bush through the airwaves and trying to remember how to conjure up a curse to use against Kerry. More of my money is going to the Bush campaign (or whoever it is that keeps sending me my own personalized picture of Bush). I am continuing to do what little I can do to influence things through blogging, badgering my friends, and so on. I go to sleep every night trying to think of the silver bullet, the clove of garlic, the cross that would slay (figuratively, if the Secret Service is monitoring my communications) the beast that is the Kerry campaign – and wondering, if I were to think of one, would the Bush campaign actually use it (since they seem to have ignored all my other advice). I did not give up on Bush I in 92. I did not give up on Dole in 96. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t give up on the Cubs either.

Let me make this clear: nothing could make me happier on November 2nd than to have Bush win. Should he do so, I will finally exhale, I will drive all day honking my car horn, I will be bouncing on air. I’ll go play golf, knowing that no matter how bad I hit the ball, I’ll be in a terrific mood. My kids will hit me up for everything they’ve been wanting, knowing that I’ll be in too good a mood to say no. I’ll stay away from the office in order to give the pro-Kerry folks who work for me the opportunity to mourn without me there in their faces. I will be happy. Extremely happy. And knowing that I’ll be eating some crow, from all who care enough to remind me, will not matter in the least. For I will be happy. As we all should we be.

4 Responses to “to clear things up”

  1. “Let me make this clear: nothing could make me happier on November 2nd than to have Bush win.”

    Then, Steve, why are you doing so much to make him lose?

    If you want to predict privately to your wife and kids or your friends that Bush is going to lose, that’s bad enough; that can still demoralize, but at least it’s private. But to make the same prediction here, on a public blogsite, is to give aid and comfort to — well, the opposition. I won’t go so far as to call Kerry an enemy… but he has a pattern of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, however “nuanced” his reasons.

    And however nuanced yours, your “Bush Is Toast” messages cheer Carville and Begala and depress, oppress, and suppress those of us out on the front lines, wherever we live, slugging it out, toe to toe with the leftist behemoth.

    Despair among our own ranks is just one more thing we have to fight. You turn a one-front war into a two-front war, making it that much harder for the rest of us.

    I deal with lefties constantly. I’m on a bulletin board which is 40% Socialist and 50% liberal, and most of the remaining 10% are too scared to fight. Whenever some Republican (Bill Kristol springs to mind) publicly predicts doom for Bush — or even urges it, as in the case of the execrable Bob Barr — it’s thrown in my face and I’m forced to explain it.

    Come on, Steve. Have a heart. It’s hard enough to explain why tax cuts for the rich are good for everybody and why invading Iraq was a terrible blow to the terrorists without being sidetracked arguing over the defeatism of Kristol and the insurgency of Barr.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd ab Hugh (df2f54)

  2. So, you’re carrying on like this for fear of jinxing Bush by supporting him…?

    The Sanity Inspector (9e35c9)

  3. There have been many events in history in which people fought on, though with a certain belief of defeat, such as Thermopylae. Sometimes we term them heroes. Sometimes they are called die-hards, or maybe kamikaze. Sturm hasn’t said he’s surrendering the field, so, it seems unfair to declare him a defeatist.

    Conversely, Daffyd’s exertions to energize the dispirited should not be confused with superstitious belief. Many times defeat has been staved off by the rallying of retreating troops. Sometimes it is by fair words, sometimes by a bracing slap.

    I visited some left wing boards prior to the first debate and THEY were in the depths of despair. They desperately needed a good showing by Kerry and realized that Bush could have put the election away if he showed well. They got what they hoped for. We (Bush supporters) did not. At best Kerry got a minor win, but, that’s was enough for their side. Like the battle of Antietam,(a draw) it was sufficient to provide a morale boost and a (false) claim of victory for them and sufficient to end what had been a continuous string of victories for Bush.

    Predictably, morale swings with every battle’s result. Also predictably, the war continues. The leftie boards had their Sturms and Daffyds battling for hearts and minds, too, with much the same arguments. Who rallies fastest might well decide battles, wars, and elections. Some people fight best when they see good augurs. Some fight hardest with their backs against the sea. I’m happy with either, so long as they fight.

    Thomas Hazlewood (e1f98e)

  4. I agree. My problem with Sturm’s approach is that it gives the reader little reason to go to the polls. Why do that if Bush is doomed? Of course, the same result could obtain if a voter thinks his candidate has it in the bag and doesn’t need his support.

    The healthiest approach for any race, especially one that looks to be as tight as this one, is to remember that victory is possible, and so is defeat.

    Xrlq (e2795d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1669 secs.