« Back to you, Bill | Main | wanted: title to one short story [Updated] »

HERE THERE BE DRAGONS

[The following is a rant. A venting. There's probably no point to it, but sometimes I have to remember that my blog is a personal space in which I let off steam and I don't always have to make a point or answer a question, even my own questions. Sometimes I just want to yell.] The young girl was about 14. She was leaning against her mother, reading from her notebook as she waited for the doctor to call her in. She had a pen poised in the air, ready to write down an answer. But the look on her face gave away the fact that she was unsure of the answer. So she asked her mother. "What's the difference between the left and the right?" The mother shrugged. "What left and right? What do you mean?" "Politics, mom. This is for global studies, duh." "Oh. Hmm. Then, one is voting for Bush and one is voting for Kerry, I guess." The daughter rolled her eyes. "It's not as simple as that, mom." No, it's not. In fact, the answer is so complicated, deep and profound that I'm surprised it was given to a high school kid for homework. Unless the teacher said something like "Essay question, 15,000 words or more," it is unlikely any of the students will come up with a good enough answer. Maybe in a different year, in a different election, the answer could have readily been given. But not today. Not this time. The political spectrum has been stretched so thin in the past few years that it's hard to see where one group begins and another ends. And that's more so on the left than on the right. The right still has solid lines between certain groups; the left is becoming one big blur. So, what's the difference? Let's start with the big one. For the most part, those on the right believe in their candidate. They trust him, they respect him, they truly believe that he is the man for the job and that he is sincere in his campaign promises and dreams for the next four years. On the left, for the most part, we have people who don't even like their candidate. He's the lesser of two evils, the fill-in for the next four years until something better comes along, the best they could come up with, the guy who isn't Bush. I see very few die-hard Kerry supporters. I see a lot of anti-Bush believers. That's a pretty big difference when you think about it. One set of people will go to the polls and vote with confidence. The other group will go to the polls and vote with trepidation. One uses their heart to guide them, one uses their hate. It's the hate that separates them, too. I don't think many people on the right actually hate Kerry. They don't think he will make a good president. They don't like his nuance, they don't trust him with the keys to the country, but they don't hate him. At least nobody is writing plays about killing him. Hate and fear. That's what I'm seeing from the left. And it's funny in a way, because it wasn't too long ago that the left was accusing the right of running a campaign of fear. But look who's fear mongering now. 33 days before the election and just a few days before the first of the presidential debates, Kerry’s Massachusetts mouthpiece Ted Kennedy says:
Number Five, and most ominously: The Bush Administration's focus on Iraq has left us needlessly more vulnerable to an Al Qaeda attack with a nuclear weapon. The greatest threat of all to our homeland is a nuclear attack. A mushroom cloud over any American city is the ultimate nightmare, and the risk is all too real. Osama bin Laden calls the acquisition of a nuclear device a "religious duty." Documents captured from a key Al Qaeda aide three years ago revealed plans even then to smuggle high-grade radioactive materials into the United States in shipping containers. If Al Qaeda can obtain or assemble a nuclear weapon, they will certainly use it - on New York, or Washington, or any other major American city. The greatest danger we face in the days and weeks and months ahead is a nuclear 9/11, and we hope and pray that it is not already too late to prevent. The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely, and it never should have happened.
It's not just Ted that's running off the litany of fear tactics. It's the whole campaign. Kerry and staff are feeding the hate and fear frenzy that has erupted on the left. The anti-Bush crowd are meandering zombies and the Kerry campaign are throwing them brains in the form of vitriol. I can't tell the difference between the left, the liberals and Democrats anymore. There used to be subtle - and sometimes profound - difference between them, but they've blended into a swirl of colors, each one muting the other, the dark colors infesting the bright, until they became just one shade of ugly, crap brown. They frolic with Michael Moore, align themselves with Ramsey Clark, feed off of George Soros and spew out a steady stream of books, plays, movies, websites and clowns on stilts that are nothing more than a call to arms for a movement of hatred and fear. They don't believe in their candidate. That's evident from OpEd pieces in major newspapers right down to the folks at Democratic Underground, who can often be found bickering over Kerry's stance on Israel, among other things. There is very little praise for him, the most praise coming in the form of "He's not Bush." I see more bumper stickers that call for voters to get Bush out of the White House than those that call to put Kerry in the White House. So what will happen if Kerry wins? Will the anti-Bush voters become actually Kerry supporters? Or will they turn their anger towards the new president when he doesn't enact every single they want, when he makes no move toward pulling the troops out of Iraq or setting up a Marxist type government? Is Kerry wrath on hold, just waiting until the "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" celebrations are over? How soon after the inauguration will the first signs proclaiming Kerry to be fascist spring up? What will I do if Kerry wins? I'll do the same thing I've done every time one of my candidates has lost. Sigh and hope for the best. Regardless of whether I vote for him or not, if Kerry wins, he'll be the President of the United States. As a citizen of that country, I feel it will be my duty to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and support him as our government goes through its transition. And if he proves to be a terrible president, I'll start working with my fellow Republicans to bring forth a formidable candidate to oppose Kerry the next election. But I won't be standing in the thick of a hate-filled protests, holding an effigy of our president. But that's just me. And what if Bush wins? It's what I want the most, yet I also feel a sense of dread when I think about it. The left is so hyped up on their anger and hate right now that I can't imagine what this country will be like if Bush takes the White House again. The brains that Kerry and crew have been feeding these zombies will be gone; what will they feed off of now? I believe their anger and hatred will rise to levels we have not yet experienced. There will be claims of voter fraud; denial of Bush's victory will be the prevalent mindset. They're already talking about taking up arms, moving out of the country, ceding from the U.S. They believe that Bush will round them up and put them in camps. Where the hell did this line of thinking come from? bq. I am frightened by what I am learning about America during this election. I think that a majority have an irrational fear of liberals, and that if Bush wins, and decides to send liberals to camps for their "protection," most would support the move and say "About time too." There would be some dissent, but the majority of Americans see liberals as a threat, and nothing would be done. The press would hold debates, but people wouldn't care. I think that all Bush has to do is say the word, and we'll be rounded up. Who would stop him. You know what's crazier than that thought? That people believe it and agree with it. Their inane hatred has clouded their thinking. Once upon a time, you would only find rantings like that coming from a fringe group of extremists. Not so anymore. You have otherwise normal, sane people falling for the police state propaganda hook, line and sinker. Why? Because they hate. And why do they hate? Because Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Moore, Clark and others tell them to, in so many words. The campaign that was supposed to be smooth and nuanced is now playing the fear and loathing card. I've been through many an election in my time. My first was in 1980. I've voted for Democrats and I've voted for third party candidates. I've never once pulled the lever with my teeth clenched and hatred in tow. I don't vote with hate, I vote with hope. I talk to a lot of people during the course of day about politics and this election. I liken the left-leaning people I converse with to dragons; constant flames shooting of their mouths, smoke pouring from the nostrils. I don't see that with those on the right. Maybe the left feels they have something to be angry and hateful about, but as soon as I think that, I chastise myself for giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're making shit up. I have no other way to put it. Sometimes I look at the rantings of Al Gore or Barbara Streisand or some regular Joe from Lodi, New Jersey posting on a message board and I think, my god they have gone crazy. They have collectively lost their minds. Fascism? Police state? Hitler? Crushing of dissent? No free press? I picture Al Gore, face contorted, eyes bulging, and I think, that's the face of the left. The collective head of the left is already bloated to the breaking point with a volatile mix of hatred, anger and fear. And lest you think all that hatred is directed at Bush and his policies, take a long, hard look. You'll find people who laugh in derision when a car bomb goes off in Iraq. You'll find people who shrug at hostages being killed. You'll find people who hope that things goes horribly wrong so they can have more ammunition for their side. You'll find people who blame America for 9/11, who think that it is our duty to find out what drives the terrorists to their evil plans rather than hunting them down and killing them, people who think it's wrong to counter-act an attack on your country with an attack at those who put that attack into motion. Don't tell me that these people do not represent the left. They are there, right in the midst, at the Democratic convention in the president's box. They are there, throwing money at people who consider themselves mainstream Democrats. The left is one big party now, bringing together the conspiracy theorists, the Democrats, the liberals, the moonbats, the BusHitler crowd, all cozied up together on one little love seat with their arms around each other, bringing on the demoralization of the Democratic party and the hatred of America. They are a vocal bunch and their choruses of America the Wretched are being heard the world over. I would have loved to explain this all to the young girl with the Global Studies notebook. I worry that she'll be just another future voter who will be blind sided into thinking that America is a fascist regime and Bush is the Hitler force behind it. I was once that young girl. I was once ambushed with propaganda, false statistics, conspiracy theories and outright lies that suckered me into a groupthink mentality. It took several years and an attack on our nation to allow me to see the true faces of the people I had been associating with. I look around today and I see the claws of the left snatching up young, impressionable people, showering them with a steady rain of fear and hatred, teaching them to harness their negativity and breath it out in the form of fire. Dragons. Dragons with the face of Al Gore. Think about that one for a while.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference HERE THERE BE DRAGONS:

» After November from TechnoChitlins
Michele at A Small Victory: rock'em sock'em version has a long post about the upcoming election and the differences between... [Read More]

» Groupthink from Babalu Blog
From Michele: I would have loved to explain this all to the young girl with the Global Studies notebook. I worry that she'll be just another future voter who will be blind sided into thinking that America is a fascist... [Read More]

» After November from TechnoChitlins
Michele at A Small Victory: rock'em sock'em version has a long post about the upcoming election and the differences between... [Read More]

» Hatred on the Left, Hope on the Right from Shouting Into The Wind
An outstanding post at A Small Victory which discusses the pure hatred on the part of the Democrats. Read this and think of it when you hear rumors of the draft returning, potential voter fraud and disenfranchisement in Florida, and other scare tactics... [Read More]

» Spew from Pirates! Man Your Women!
Thank you Michele. Once again you have made it clearer than I ever could. The words are like an entry from the encyclopedia of life as to what the difference between the left and right are these days. Hatred is why I have no regard for the left wing... [Read More]

» Chasing Dragons. from Sharp as a Marble
[Read More]

» What She Said from Jay Reding.com
I was going to go off on a rant about the current state of the Democratic Party, but Michele Catalano already did an excellent job of it today and I've really nothing much to add. Read it now. [Read More]

» Hate? from HALIP
There is a very well written post on “A Small Victory” concerning the left and right and their apparent approaches to this election. Is this guy right? Are Republicans voting with confidence while Democrats (or at least the “anti-Bush... [Read More]

» All the "NEWS" that fits, we spew... from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "Loser loser LOSER!!!" [Works best if you hear it in a Peanut voice] "All the while, in the words of admirer Sharon Moeller, 40, a student and consultant in Apache Junction, Kerry must 'keep... [Read More]

» Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates from After Gutenberg
If she had just waited until the debate, the difference would have been obvious. The evile godless left wear red power ties whereas the good 'n righteous right wear blue power ties. [Read More]

Comments

Wait. Doesn't this make you a fascist?

I'm pretty sure it's a little late for that call, Allah.

Powerfully written, Michele. You rant very coherently.

Dad of two elementary-aged boys here - I drew the distinction for them between 'The Left' and 'The Right' along common-sense lines.

I explained to them that the Right tends to be more common-sensical about things, to a point. More 'size up situation, consider the alternatives, and go with what you think is best, based on what you know.' That sort of thing.

The Left, I explained, tends to be bat-shit crazy thinking that people with common-sense are evil and that the cloud fairies will plant the money trees that will pay for all the stuff they want to do.

I think my message is getting through.

One way to look at is that the Left takes away your rights and freedoms "for the good of The People", while the Right takes away your rights and freedoms "for the good of the State". Neither side is much interested in giving back anything that either has taken.

Another is to think of them as disfunctional, abusive parents, one, the Mommy, saying "do what I say and I'll give you a treat", while the Daddy says "do what I say or I'll beat you with my stick". Both are much more interested in your obedience than providing the promised treats and lack of punishment.

The Liberals (there are still a few of us about, people who think that adults should be free of government telling them what to do when they're not harming others) are the decendants of those who tossed the tea into Boston harbor. Both the Left and the Right have a passionate undieing hatred of us, as we are proud of our disobedience.

The Left has been losing for 30 years. The day (c. 1979) when Ted Kennedy could call for nationalizing the oil companies is dead and gone. A DEMOCRAT ended lifelong welfare. And now even the military is respected again. Haven't we learned anything from Vietnam?!? A long, long way from the Great Society and Watergate.

This is pure frustration. Much like the Goldwaterite reaction to Liberalism triumphant. Fear and anger didn't work then, and it won't work now. What they need is their Reagan, who can communicate their case well, with a smile, and get even his opponents to like him. But they're not there yet.

you go, girl. I've had many of these same thoughts, but have never been able to articulate them so well.

(another) Michelle

They believe that Bush will round them up and put them in camps. Where the hell did this line of thinking come from?

It's what they ("they" being the usual denizens of DU) would do, so therefore the icky rightwingers must want to do so as well.

I like htom's delineation best. Both parties are seeking to do the same thing, they're just using different bait.

This whole election is turning ugly. Both sides are taking on extremist attributes. I guess the few of us that hang onto our sanity by a thread are just waiting it out until critical mass is acheived, and the whole thing blows itself to bits.

And as for all this 'at least he's not Bush' stuff: Yeah, unfortunately there is a highly marketed approach that people should not vote for Bush. It's kinda sad, but I guess that's the ghost in the machine. Besides, it would be realyl fun to see all the anti-bushers try to justify their candidate if and when he becomes president and makes some mistakes. They'll be grasping at straws just like everyone else.

It seems to me that "right" has now become much more liberal (in the true sense of the word) than the "left". As Roger Simon has said, the left is now reactionary. The Dems desperately need to weed out the extremists or the entire party will collapse.

I could agree with Shank if this were not our nation Kerry would be playing with. I will write to my legislators and my president after the election with my views on domestic issues which need to be addressed,. I do firmly believe all the domestic issues will be of no importance if we do not get the upperhand re. terrorism. We need Bush to do this.

A question:

How much hate is displayed by a long rant against people on the opposite side of the political spectrum?

OK, now imagine that someone on the DU had written this about right-wingers. Does your answer change?

It's sad but when it all comes down to it many people have gone crazy when it comes to politics and made it a point to attack others on a personal level. I keep thinking of the period before the civil war. Hope it dosnt go that way!!

In the end most of us are decent hard working folks with family's and love ones we care a lot about.

Michele, I liked the reaction from the 14 year old girl. Anyone that young that can see through her Mom's simplistic answer has got a good head on her shoulders.

Since you mentioned that you might not be posting reguarly, I haven't been checking in as frequently. Reading this post made me realize one thing - I miss your rants. This was an excellent, excellent rant.

One question - if the haters win, will they not likely turn on each other, each trying to interpret the victory to suit themselves? This is potentially Jimmy Carter redux - in a time of war.

Mark, none. There is no hate in her diatribe. None that I can see. Just fact. CBS is so hateful they are making stuff up almost every night now. So is Kerry! All this talk about the Bush bringing the draft is a complete lie. The democrats are the ones trying to revive the draft. It is more likely there will be a draft under a Democrat, obviously. So why are Rather and Kerry trying to scare everyone with these hateful lies?

Is it then hateful for me to note that I put a Bush sticker on my car and that very day my car was severely keyed in a parking lot? No, it is merely a sad observation.

Recognizing hate is not hateful. It is merely identifying what is being presented.

If someone keyed my car, I would begin my own personal jihad. A jihad that makes Al-Queda look like some damn cub scout troop. A jihad to end all jihads. I would be like Hemingway, but instead of being at war with the world from within, I would be at war with the world from the barrel of a gas powered AR-15 and a bandalero of fire bombs. I can't believe people key cars over this political BS. Is nothing sacred? What did the car ever do? I'm getting all worked up just thinking about it.

Great post, Michele - and way too logical and reasoned to be labeled a "rant," IMO.

It's fascinating to me to see the Democrats so eagerly taking up the "Party of Hate" banner for themselves, after so many years of trying to tag us with it ("Hate is not a family value!")

And the "they're gonna put all Democrats in concentration camps, then put us to work as slave labor in Halliburton's Caspian Sea underwater oil mines" certainly is crazy talk. And like you, I've been stunned to hear people saying this stuff, then talk with them a little, and realize they're not just engaging in hyperbole. They really do believe a mass Rethuglican roundup of dissenters could be just around the corner.

But that very fact is why I'm slightly optimistic that the hate will subside at some point: it really is that crazy, and mass delusions are generally broken at some point. If Bush wins big, that (I hope) will be such a shock to the left that it'll be like getting hit by a 200 mph Clue Train, and knock them back into some semblance of sanity and the real world.

That Clue Train will definitely hit them at some point; the main thing I'm worried about is that, if we don't have a policy of total victory in the war, it'll be a 20 megaton clue bomb in a container ship that destroys Newark, or Mobile, or Norfolk....

You've summed up exactly what it feels to debate with my left-wing peers, here in San Francisco.

Thanks.

=darwin

Okay, lets start from the top.

George W. Bush is a very nice man personally. I'd probably enjoy watching the World Series with him if the opportunity came my way.

His government, under his orders, however, has asserted the right to label anyone they choose an "enemy combatant" and detain them indefinitely without the right of heabus corpus, or the protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution, or the protections of the Geneva Convention in war.

It does not matter whether someone is a U.S. Citizen or not, or whether he has been detained in the United States or not, or what circumstances he is being detained about. The administration has asserted the right, if it pleases, to lock him up for good solely on its own say so.

They have asserted this right absolutely, without ANY authority of the Constitution or of Congressional law, and without ANY oversight by ANY court.

This is a piece of tyranny, in exactly the same sense that one kernel of corn IS corn and nothing else.

Tyranny. The thing we fought against when we founded this country.

To get it perfectly clear, substitute President Hillary Clinton for George Bush and imagine the same edict promulgated by her administration.

What part of "tyranny" don't you understand, Michelle?

very well put!

BRAVO!!!

Joseph: Again, this is why the left just doesn't get it. Do you honestly believe those things? There's no basis in fact for them:

His government, under his orders, however, has asserted the right to label anyone they choose an "enemy combatant" and detain them indefinitely without the right of heabus corpus, or the protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution, or the protections of the Geneva Convention in war.

So did FDR. Ever hear of a little thing called Ex Parte Quirin? Yet the United States didn't become a fascist police state or anything like it then.

There are people out there who would gladly plow airliners full of innocent people into buildings. We can't give Tony Soprano more protections under the law than Mohammad Atta and expect to prevent another attack of that magnitude or greater. So far only a handful of people have been placed as enemy combatants. 3,000 were murdered on September 11. I don't trust the government in everything (no one wise would), but when you say this you're simply wrong:

They have asserted this right absolutely, without ANY authority of the Constitution or of Congressional law, and without ANY oversight by ANY court.

Except the Supreme Court heard the cases of Yasir Hamdi and Jose Padilla. In the case of Hamdi, the Court struck down some of the terms of his detention.

Can't people pay enough attention to events to remember a series of major court cases that happened not all that long ago? Or are there some who are so infused with hatred for the President that actually sitting down and finding the facts is simply too much?

I wonder if some of the people on DU are rethinking their hostility to the 2nd Amendment in light of the immenent internment.

And if Kerry wins, we can count on the same Democratic infighting that paralyzed Congress during the first year of the Clinton Administration.

Joseph,
you have no need to worry about the rise of a fascist state. you can quit wetting the bed now. The ACLU has already taken the Patriot Act to District Court. The Patriot Act was decalred unconstitutional by the court, Ashcroft said the Bush administration will probably appeal.

Short blurb here: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6375954

I know, getting your panties in a bunch feels real good. just make sure that your not doing it in vain.

Two utopian novels clarified the left and the right for me. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and B.F. Skinner's Walden Two. Thank God I was exposed to both when I was still in school and had the time and resources to learn more about philosophy, politics, and economics.

"The collective head of the left is already bloated to the breaking point with a volatile mix of hatred, anger and fear."

And envy. You forgot envy.

But that aside, your description is a perfect encapsulation of every leftist dictator who has managed to seize power. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or any other murdereous thug of that ilk.

You know, Michele, you're seeming pretty deranged by hate and fear yourself. Of course, you don't just hate Kerry. You hate all of us!

"The left is so hyped up on their anger and hate right now that I can't imagine what this country will be like if Bush takes the White House again. The brains that Kerry and crew have been feeding these zombies will be gone; what will they feed off of now? I believe their anger and hatred will rise to levels we have not yet experienced."

How, exactly, does this differ from left-wing rants about Bush being Hitler? How is this logical, or even rational? Oh, wait! It's rational because it's true, isn't it?

"I picture Al Gore, face contorted, eyes bulging, and I think, that's the face of the left."

And we're the ones who are mad? You will use your "heart" to guide you? We will use our "hate"?

"Maybe the left feels they have something to be angry and hateful about, but as soon as I think that, I chastise myself for giving them the benefit of the doubt."

Yes, definitely: Smash those last rational tendencies into a tiny little ball, so you can be free, forever, from having to THINK about why anyone would oppose policies you agree with.

You can find no rational reason for opposing President Bush's re-election, therefore there can be no rational people who oppose him. You're wrong. There are millions of rational, responsible people--even Republicans--who are strongly opposed to this president's policies, and with good reason.

From Kerry on down, a lot of us know that there's no backing away from the mess in Iraq. We have to stay there and finish what Bush so ineptly began. As a parent, it doesn't make me "fucking happy" when dozens of children are killed, by murderers whom I do not consider the moral descendents of the Minutemen. It's horrific, it's appalling. Don't you dare assume that I don't believe that, just because I oppose Bush.

Setting aside whether it was right or wrong to go to Iraq, how many women and children have been killed by American weapons? I'm not making excuses for sick bastards who bomb children. But neither do our president's "good intentions" mean shit to an Iraqi mother whose child was killed by American rockets. What would you say to her if she said she'd take Saddam back if it gave her back her daughter? Would you say, "We're sorry--our president said you had nuclear weapons!" Would you say, "Iraqi woman, your daughter is a sacrifice to the freedom we have brought you!"

That is exactly what the terrorists would tell her, if they killed her daughter. And she would hate them, too.

I'm a proud American, and I don't believe America is the fascist source of all evil in the world, but I also don't believe America is infallible, and I believe that Americans who make mistakes, including the president, should be set right, or set aside. War is terrible, and reasonable people believe this president's reasons for this war were at best inadequate, and at worst criminally dishonest.

You are welcome to disagree with that, but don't you dare say, because that is what I believe, that I am "snatching up young, impressionable people, showering them with a steady rain of fear and hatred, teaching them to harness their negativity and breath it out in the form of fire."

I'm sorry, maybe you didn't mean me. Maybe you just meant the Kerry supporters who actually have been driven insane by Bush hatred. How many do you suppose there are? I mean, you must think there's a lot of them, if they have you so upset. I'm sure they exist, just like there are lots of gun-loving, gay-bashing, Apolcalypse-now Bible-survivalists who plan to vote Bush. But the funny thing is, I haven't met any. All the Kerry supporters I know--and the ones whose punditry I read--are responsible, employed citizens who love their parents and their children. Just like me.

Regardless of who wins, it will be by a sliver. If you really believe that half of your fellow citizens are as twisted as the people you describe here, then I'd like to know why you hate America so much.

"I was once ambushed with propaganda, false statistics, conspiracy theories and outright lies that suckered me into a groupthink mentality."

Wake up, Michele--it's happened again. YOU are as responsible for the divisiveness you fear as the people you love to hate.

Michele, I agree completely.

Michael Moore, purveyor extraordinaire of conspiracy theories, sits next to Jimmy Carter, ex-US president at the DNC. I've voted for Democrats my whole life--but I no longer recognize these people. I am shocked that Moore & other wingnuts are embraced rather than pushed aside.

The Republicans have crazy people, too, of course--but they didn't sit in a place of honor at the RNC. And usually when they say something, everyone else tells 'em to shut up, already.

The despicable Kos says "screw them" about US citizens murdered in Fallujah, and he is still considered respectable by what remains of the Democratic party.

I think the Democrats will lose big time this fall, and the will do so precisely because the core of the party has become so extreme.

Wow! Powerful post Michele. This is why I just keep coming back, no matter how many times you "quit" blogging. When you roll, you are unstoppable.

"but when you say this you're simply wrong:

They have asserted this right absolutely, without ANY authority of the Constitution or of Congressional law, and without ANY oversight by ANY court.

Except the Supreme Court heard the cases of Yasir Hamdi and Jose Padilla. In the case of Hamdi, the Court struck down some of the terms of his detention."

No I am not wrong.

They DID assert it.

That is exactly WHAT they asserted to the very court these cases you referred to were tried in.

They asserted that it was none of that court's business and that the executive power in this matter was absolute and beyond judicial oversight.

The mere fact that the court disagreed with them and overruled them doesn't mean they didn't assert it at all.

They did.

I don't care that it was just "a little bit" of tyranny that they wanted to introduce into the rule of law in this country. Any more than I would care that it was only "a little bit" arsenic that someone tried to slip into the sugar bowl out of which I sweeten my tea!

And, in my opinion, it is the fact that they had the copper bottomed arrogance to even assert such a thing in America that gives me full justification to want them OUT OF POWER on any terms. Period.

With a little bit of arsenic in my sugar bowl I can just as easily die of chronic arsenic poisoning as I can of the acute form. It merely takes longer.

The same goes for a little bit of tyranny in my country.

I just thank heavens that the people in office have started to prove to be so "mistaken" about so many things: the immanent capture of Osama at Tora Bora, the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the involvement of Saddam in 9/11, the "catastrophic success" of the "mission accomplished", the application of torture to prisoners (of course, ONLY by a few rogue soldiers who "got out of hand"--isn't that how it always is?), the "progress" of Iraqi democracy and security when our enemies can now go anywhere they please and do anything they please with impunity, and the growing probability of a nuclear Iran as an untouchable training ground for a new generation of terrorists.

With so many "mistakes" we are finally starting to hear some people say, "Stop! Wait a minute! There has got to be a better way to operate." And not all of those voices are "liberal", either.

I have yet to see an honest confrontation of all these "mistakes" here on this blog. Not one.

I don't put blind faith in John Kerry. He's never been President and he might make other mistakes if he were. Moreover, the sheer number of "mistakes" which have transpired would tax the wisdom of Solomon himself to undo. But it seems to be to be a better idea NOT to trust the man who made all of them to pull these chestnuts out of the fire, no matter how Kerry would fare.

And, as I say, I want George W. Bush OUT OF POWER as a threat to liberty.

But, under the circumstances outlined above, I find it appalling that any thinking American would put what is apparently merely blind faith in George W. Bush.

He has not only taken a stance on absolute Presidential power which is radically and irredeemably corrosive to liberty in this country, he has also failed to accomplish anything that any reasonable person would conclude is a SECURE success, which will not come apart at the slightest touch, against any of our enemies, while doing it.

I have no doubt that there are many who will combine blind faith, with the mere full bowelled satisfaction that comes with having watched the display of massively expensive exploding ordinance on television, to convince themselves to vote for George W. Bush. But I would not call this process a reasoned decision by an alert and understanding American. On any terms.

Hrmmm...

"The same goes for a little bit of tyranny in my country." - Joseph Marshall

Were you just as worried about the "little bit of tyranny in your country" six or eight years ago? Were you as vehement about getting the bastards out then at any cost, even though they were your own?

"The mere fact that the court disagreed with them and overruled them doesn't mean they didn't assert it at all." - Joseph Marshall

And...

"But, under the circumstances outlined above, I find it appalling that any thinking American would put what is apparently merely blind faith in George W. Bush." - Joseph Marshall

Your entire rant seems to pretty well illustrate what Michele was talking about in her essay.

It isn't blind faith: it's observation and common sense.

Lemme put it this way: you see that the important thing is that the administration tried to overstep its bounds a bit in the rule of law, to your view. I see that the important thing is that it didn't happen: the courts overruled them.

And guess what? Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney didn't have the judges dragged out, lined up against a wall and given one in the back of the head. Paloma y plata, senore.

The checks and balances worked. And most rational people look at that and they notice that the checks and balances work.

You say that that demonstrates that this administration can't be trusted. A non-leftist says that no politician can be trusted, they're ALL going to try and game the system - and that it's the system of checks and balances that keep them from doing it that's important.

Here's where the observation comes in:

A number of years ago, those same checks and balances didn't stop a government agency under Janet Reno from burning down a compound in Mount Carmel and murdering a rather large number of people - people that could have been waited out, but poltical expediency called for a faster solution. I know a bit about military tactics - I learned tham in a hard school, occassionally from being shot at - that standoff could have gone on for a long time... the Branch Davidians weren't going anyplace, and they weren't going to do any harm to tanks and armored personell carriers. Sooner or later, they'd have surrendered.

A number of years ago, a government agent shot an unarmed woman who was holding a baby on a porch at Ruby Ridge.

I know a bit about snipers also. I've done a little bit of long range shooting with precision rifles: that agent knew precisely what he was shooting at when he pulled the trigger. There's very little ambiguity through a 20x scope, or even a 12x.

Gonzalez... a hundred BATF abuses during the Clinton years. Probably more that are undocumented.

I'll cap that off by saying that it's possible we can count on the system of checks and balances a wee bit more when one of ours is in office. Ya'll have stacked so much of that system with yours, and they watch ours a bit closer than they do their own, no? ;)

All politicians are sons of bitches. Based on the available evidence, we trust our SOB's a bit more than events have demonstrated we can trust yours. And we trust the system a bit more to keep our SOB's in check than we do it to check yours. That's not blind faith: that's logic and observation.

And based on observation.... we note that our SOB's seem to have the right targets, at least at the moment. The enemy combatant detainments your worried about setting a precedent are enemy combatants. That's rather important: it seems that when the stakes are high, we can count on our SOB's to be bastards predominately to our enemies.

When the stakes are high... your SOB's seem to have a marked tendency to be lethal bastards to our own citizens.

I haven't seen any Mount Carmels under Bush so far. And I've been watching awfully damned hard and close.

Thanks, but no thanks, kemosabe. As a libertarian, I'll take Michele's SOB over your SOB any day. Yours have proven themselves to be dangerous to the things I consider important. And that's a considered and calculated opinion, not "blind faith".

Michele, there's still hope for young people.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2004/09/michelle-malkin-explains-real-reason.html

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2004/09/polls-that-came-out-today-do-not-have.html
This is what I'm finding with my students. I'd say that 60 to 70 percent of my students are liberal. Most think the president is stupid. But, they have even more contempt for Kerry. When asked to describe Kerry in one word, they all shout out "flip-flopper." The really liberal kids are depressed. If they reflect their parents' views, Kerry is in serious trouble.

Marshal, I understand your anger. You thought you knew something about our legal system and you didn't...

If you'd taken a good law class at any time in your life, one that covered, say the consitution, then you wouldn't have had the misaprehension that foriegners have any real rights under the constituion.

Yeah the administration pushed the limits with Hamdi (because he was arguable an American) and the Supreme court put an end to it. There's that balance of power thing that was wisely put into our consitution.

And it worked perfectly, the way it usually does.

pk, you illustrate exactly what Michele was saying. You and your like thinking ilk are the reason that JF'ingK should never be president. You think your are rational and you are not. You are crazy with hate with no reason. You don't back Kerry, you want anyone but Bush. You are sad and pathetic. Let us know how you are feeling on Nov. 3.

- Predictably the left had a hot Kerry poll ready to go post debate...did the American electorate swing 8 to 15 points on the basis of one debate....Hardly.....but common sense never seems to stop the Kerry Klown express media...In the days ahead people will rethink some of the things they heard Kerry say and wonder why they thought good of Him, realizing it was basically because He orated well for the first time in a year...But the content was still confused..."No president in the history of the country has ect ect...."...[but] it has to pass the global test"...(just one example...)

- Kerry always knows just when to keep talking that puts his feet in target practice....The Bush people must be wearing their pens to a nub writing all the damning things Kerry said...Which brings me to my take on the whole thing....

- I'm convinced for what ever reason Bush was actually ill the other night....not an excuse just an observation...I don't think all the facial expressions were from annoyance....

- The Bush people, kowing Kerry's tendency to oversell every deal went in intending to give him all the rope he would take...On at least four major issues he took it....

1) - Internationalization, (the left absolutely hates the US being a world power, almost as much as they hate war, as if anyone likes war, just one of hundreds of their twisted talking points)

2) - North Korea (NK had the bomb in the later part of the Clinton years showing how effective 40+ years of unilateral talks were....stupid idea)

3) - Iran ( The one place that the US has finally gotten some concensous on with the abdurant Euros' )

4) - Coalition support ( Kerry continues to aver this comical idea that somehow he would magically turn countries like France or Germany when everyone in the political world knows these country's have so many geopolitical and nationalistic reasons for bucking the US this idea is just plain rediculous....)

- Items 2) and 3) show just how dangerous placing the keys in this guys hands would be to our collective health....As time goes by and these issues are raised by the stump speeches, no doubt we'll hear again from the instant poll Dem operatives...But this time it won't be so rosey....