rpost,
I strongly disagree with your contention that Republicans are more civilized than Democrats. It's true that there are a lot of annoying young hippie/activist/"anarchist" (quotation marks are deliberate) who are totally intolerant of other people's views, can't think of a better way to present their argument than dressing up in weird costumes, and generally suck ass. But that's not the mainstream of the Democratic party, nor does it mean that their beliefs are neccesarily off base.
BTW, so you know, I'm not interested in debating left v. right. I'm pretty in the middle myself, tending to be a conservative on economic issues and a liberal on most social issues and the environment, and a libertarian on some other stuff. I consider myself an independent and have voted for both Dems and Repubs at different times. I just want to stick to the point about who is "more civilized".
As I see it, there's plenty of scum on both sides of the aisle, and some very decent people too. But my main reason for voting Kerry this year is precisely because I think the Bush admin is one of the least respectful groups toward those who disagree with them to ever hold the white house. They don't get into the streets and start yelling, but in other, far more effective ways they silence anybody who criticizes them.
Some examples:
1. The current Swift Boat controversy. Numerous independent investigations have raised serious questions about the ?Swift Boat Vets for Truth?. The Navy?s own records contradict their statements, as do statements made by some of the members of the group as recently as a year ago. One guy, a Doctor, who claims to have treated Kerry for some of his wounds never, according to Navy records, treated Kerry for ANYTHING. And many vets who served with Kerry have stepped forward to defend his side of the story. But Bush refuses to condemn the ads (and, a number of people affiliated with his campaign have been linked to the group), and so the controversy continues. Result: Kerry has to spend time defending his record in Vietnam, instead of talking about any real issues of relevance.
2. Eric Shinseki was chief of staff for the Army. Before the war in Iraq, he testified publicly in a congressional hearing that the number of troops needed for a successful mission would be about double what the Pentagon was claiming. He was fired shortly after. (I think we can all agree, regardless of opinion about the war, that things might have turned out better if Gen. Shinseki?s advice had been followed).
3. Joseph Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to obtain Uranium from Nigeria, and found them to be false. Bush later made that claim, famously, in his State of the Union address. When Mr. Wilson wrote an article pointing out that Mr. Bush (or someone in his administration) had to have known this claim was not true, somebody?yet to be discovered?leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson?s wife was an UNDERCOVER CIA operative, thus placing her LIFE in jeopardy. This is a treasonous crime, but nobody in the Bush white house has yet to admit responsibility for it.
4. Bush had trouble convincing even members of his own party to support his Medicare reform act, expensive as it was. So his administration sent false estimates of the cost to congress. When Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the program, tried to tell congresspeople about the true costs of the program, he was threatened with dismissal. The act eventually passed. Just a few weeks afterward, the white house admitted to the higher costs, but by then?too late.
5. How many people were labeled ?unpatriotic? during the days leading up to the Iraq war? I ask you: is it civil to question somebody?s allegiance to their country just because they hold a different viewpoint than yours? Is it respectful to debate, or healthy for democracy? By shooting the messenger, it prevents any thoughtful discussion of the message.
I could go on and on, but I don?t want to spend hours writing a post, nor do I want to argue with anybody here. People are going to vote the way they want, and I respect that, because it?s a free country. But I, who am usually quite moderate, feel very strongly that Bush must go, because I really feel he is a threat to democracy and that should trump all other concerns. So, to anybody who is out there who is still on the fence, please consider what I?ve said, do some research, look beyond the sound bites and the smear campaigns, and then go vote your conscience.
