And, for all those who would much rather laugh than talk politics on this Election Day [snort], Kasamba is safely in the UK trying to make sure her parents don't move to Boca from Monsey. Hilarious as always.
- Judith is live-blogging the election from Manhattan.
- YidWithLid has a bit to say about a few candidates around the country if you're pro-Israel.
- VA: Meryl Yourish wants your write-in. (Wouldn't it be hilarious if she beat out some listed candidates? Or actually affected a close outcome by stealing votes? She could be the Ralph Nader of Virginia!)
- NJ: Chaverai ties today's elections to the gay pride parade in Jerusalem. Heh.
- NY: Orthomom has a great post quoting R' Yakov Horowitz and a very funny but pointed poem by Ogden Nash. BeyondBT has R' Horowitz in full.
- --: Sephardi Lady is shocked that some people aren't registered to vote. [ducks]
- NY: DAG asks people to think before voting.
- NY: Wolf says it simply.
- CA: Robert notes the terrorists' pick.
- GA: Basil explains why he's voting for at least one Democrat.
- MD: SoccerDad is picking Steele, and with good reason.
- CT: Kesher Talk's Van Wallach cast a wide net this morning in Stamford, CT.
- OH: I wish I was still able to vote in Ohio, where my vote was actually worth something. No, Mom, this doesn't mean that I'm going to move there just so it would be.
- NY: TownCrier's picks are up.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Do Your Duty II
Some other good J-blog posts on Election Day:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Small correction: My co-blogger Van Wallach voted this morning in Stamford.
ReplyDeleteI am live blogging in Manhattan.
CA: Robert notes the terrorists' pick.
ReplyDeleteYou should be ashamed.
Judith - Thanks. I was wondering... I just guessed that you lived in Stamford and commuted.
ReplyDeleteJA - Huh?
They actually interviewed members of terrorist groups. What's the problem?
Because it plays to insipid, knee-jerk politics.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're doing is like if Palestinians had said, "The zionists think we shouldn't vote for Hamas!"
ReplyDeleteMore precisely, "The zionists pray we don't vote for Hamas!"
ReplyDeleteIt may be true, but it's a cynical and effective way to bring out the hate/fear vote.
I'm not sure what the problem is there. It's a completely truthful statement.
ReplyDeleteMost advertising and campaigning is meant to play on people's hopes, feelings, and on occasion, fears. Much of this is done improperly, through lies and whatnot. But this is not like that, particularly if you read the article. This points out clearly who the terrorists would prefer should win, and why. They insist that unlike Dem claims that the insurgency would stop if the US pulled out of Iraq, it would merely symbolize victory and that they should keep on pushing. Is this *not* an important point?
It would be if Dems claimed "that the insurgency would stop if the US pulled out of Iraq." But they haven't. This year's whole campaign by the GOP has been, "If the Democrats win, so do the terrorists!" It's disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteAnd, for all those who would much rather laugh than talk politics...
ReplyDeleteOr you could have the best of both worlds; laugh aboutpolitics!
JA - They haven't? Then what do they mean when they say that the US presence is causing this insurgency/making it worse?
ReplyDeleteElie - I saw :)
They're making terrorism worse.
ReplyDeleteThat implies that if we'd leave, it would get better.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism =/= insurgency.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. Who do *you* think is carrying it out?
ReplyDeleteIt's a civil war, Ezzie. Yes, terrorists are there, too. But the U.S. intelligence agencies agree that the war in Iraq has made terrorism worse, not better.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that it hasnt caused problems or had its flaws. I'm arguing that overall, it's better for us to have gone there, and it's better for us to stay there. Should they fix whatever issues there are? Of course! But running away will only cause more problems.
ReplyDeleteI'm arguing that overall, it's better for us to have gone there, and it's better for us to stay there.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm pointing out that the intelligence community and the majority of the American people disagree with you.
Should they fix whatever issues there are?
"Issues" is kind of an understatement.
But running away will only cause more problems.
Most Dems aren't advocating that, regardless of GOP talking points.
And I'm pointing out that the intelligence community and the majority of the American people disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteThat's not true.
Most Dems aren't advocating that, regardless of GOP talking points.
Most "leading" Dems are. (Kennedy, Pelosi, et al.)
That's not true.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean? Do you think the leaked intelligence report was a fraud? Or that surveys of Americans are false?
Most "leading" Dems are. (Kennedy, Pelosi, et al.)
Some are, some aren't. The Dems are still pretty divided on Iraq. I haven't seen a great argument that staying there is helping anything, though.
The intelligence report shows only that we seem to have caused more terrorists. My point is that despite this, it is still better for us to have gone there.
ReplyDeleteI really couldn't care much about what polls say, as you know. Polls generally look at small pictures, not the big picture. But many surveys of Americans are misleading. :)
I have seen many reasonable arguments that leaving would make it worse; I have yet to see one that says leaving would make it better.
I think Best of the Web noted a few arguments for staying recently.
We have caused more terrorists, so it's better for us to have gone there why?
ReplyDeleteLeaving has benefits which are too obvious to list: no more dead American soldiers, no more hemorrhaging money, no more spreading ill will, no more creating new terrorists.
Except those aren't true, except perhaps in the very short term. Getting back to the original point of this discussion, that is exactly what that article was about.
ReplyDeleteSo you admit that the Iraq war has caused more terrorists yet you also believe the terrorists when they tell you that leaving Iraq is good for them?
ReplyDeleteYes, yes. The solution to (a) is not (b). It is (c) or (d). I've long felt that building up Iraq stronger and faster is the key, and they will choose for themselves to no longer put up with the terrorism by actively - not just passively - fighting it, all the way down to the base support.
ReplyDeleteAnd, since you like polls, according to Iraqis, I'm actually right! :) (See my post from about a month and a half ago.)
I agree that your way or getting out sometime soon are probably the least bad outcomes. I'm just not sure your way is possible, either politically or practically.
ReplyDeletePolitically depends on people like you.
ReplyDeleteI think the practical is primarily limited by the political.
So, if 60% of people are "like me" and aren't willing to treble the number of troops to really win, you're arguing the president should shut his eyes and ears and say "lalalalala?" You have to work with reality, not what you wish reality was.
ReplyDeleteYou push and prove people wrong. You can't keep waiting until people "trust" you - otherwise, the delay makes it less likely, and they are even less likely to think it will happen. You press forward, and the confidence grows with.
ReplyDeleteBush has no more credibility, with the American people or abroad. You have to face facts -- it may be the least bad move is to pull out. It's all well and good to dream about sending 300,000 more troops over to do things right, but if it ain't gonna happen, you can't just keep the failing status quo.
ReplyDeleteBut that's my point. You can't say, "Well, Bush has no credibility, might as well throw in the towel!" That's a guarantee of failure.
ReplyDeleteWhat must be done is to press forward in the best way to get Iraq stronger and more stable. It's not as bad as people think (see that post from last month), but it needs our time and effort. The more we push now, the easier it will be to see results sooner.
Side note: Pelosi's first statement was that we should start pulling troops out now, so there goes that.
She hasn't realized the most important lesson from yesterday - this election was NOT about Iraq. Those who voted against Iraq were pretty much voted out. Those who voted for basically stuck around. Best of the Web has a great post on this today. All in all, the winners yesterday were conservative Democrats - not liberal ones.
Iraq is in a civil war, or close to it. It's worse today than a year ago. There's some chance we could turn it around if we trebled the number of troops, but then we'd need a draft, which isn't going to happen. Frankly, I don't see a way we can win it at this point. Sometimes, cutting your losses is the best (least bad) move. As it was in Viet Nam.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are many people who would argue (with much basis) that pulling out of Vietnam was a mistake as well. BOTW had a great piece on this recently: Who gained out of our pulling out of Vietnam? The Vietnamese? No. The US? No. Who?
ReplyDeleteAnd Iraq is not at all comparable to Vietnam in the first place.