Thursday, September 30, 2004

Let's Quit When the Going Gets Rough. The Democrats Should Take Their Own Advice.

To listen to the Kerry campaign, American's efforts in Iraq have failed and it's time to get out. At least that is one of Kerry's positions; it is hard to keep up. I wonder how this philosophy would go over for a high school football season. After their first loss each year a school could with draw from the schedule, hang its head and hand in the uniforms. Better still, the whole competitive program of highs schools, colleges, and even professional teams could be settled with very few games. After the first touch down is scored, the "losers" can hang it up and walk off the field. The next week the remaining half of the teams could play till the first score and then end the games. Only winners advance and the team that produces half a dozen first touch downs in the games will be state, conference, or national champion. Fans and players would save themselves a lot of suffering.
Wars are hard and terrible things, but those who give up when the going gets tough are losers. No wonder Kerry finds such an affinity for the French. I now suggest that Kerry check out the polls - admit his campaign is a failure, withdraw from the race, and save everybody a lot of suffering.


RealFruitBeverage said...

I think your clear bias against Kerry reduces the lessons we can learn from what was truly a great presidential debate. First by instantly disliking the Democratic party your analysis is not only superficial, but it’s mere simplicity takes away form the meaningful conversation that was really going on.
During the debate both the President and Kerry advocated eventually leaving Iraq. Both sides also proffered that a stable democratic Iraq would be beneficial to the world and the security of the United States. Right now it (the motivation for invading) is a mute point; both party candidates support having a lasting democracy in Iraq. The issue for debate is one of methodology (not only in Iraq but on a global scale).
One example of this was Kerry purposing an increase in the army by two divisions specifically to increase the US ability to respond to global conflicts. Kerry also mentioned an increase in the US Special Forces. Both these increases are targeted to handle conflicts outside of the Iraq context. This sounds like Kerry not only wants to maintain the current deployment in Iraq but add additional forces to handle problems elsewhere. So by the statements mentioned by Kerry during the debate, the US military involvement will likely increases not decrease.
Another example was the diplomatic approach in handling new areas of concern. Both had different views on what the best diplomatic approach was. The wisest course of action eludes me but both candidates wanted the same thing; they just had different approaches as to the best way to achieve these goals.
I do like the use of a football game/season to bring clarity to the situation the nation is facing. However I think your analogy is flawed. I purpose this as a better analogy. During the course of a football season a team dominates by running the football all the time. The other teams can’t stop it. The team wins game after game. Then during the middle of the season the team is struck with a heart breaking loss. The opposing team was able to stop the run and also able to effectively score against our team. The coach keeps to the same plan for the rest of the season. We win the rest of our games. The games are harder to win and closer as the other teams used our loss to learn our weaknesses. Now it’s time for the playoffs. We face the same team that beat us during the regular season. The question isn’t do we just give up and not show up. The question is do we use another method for winning the game when the possibility exist that our current methods can and have failed, but might yield success? That’s the choice this nation faces, not one of giving up, but one of what’s the best way to win. To paint on side a quitter does a great disservice to the hard choices this nation has to make. It effectively shuts down any exploration of better methods to achieve a common goal.

Marisha said...

The problem with your high school football analogy is the stakes that are involved. In high school, the only thing really lost in a defeat is pride. But in a war across seas that may or may not be worthwhile, lives can and are being lost. It's time to re-think a situation in which there's a question the risks involved are equal to the amount of benefits gained.

Donald said...

Your football analogy is somewhat apt, but you're using it to reach the wrong conclusion. Kerry isn't saying we should quit the game, he's simply saying our current coach is going to bring our team into last place. Kerry is suggesting that with a new coach, we could take it all the way and win... I dunno. The superbowl? Hey, it's your analogy! ;-)

But that's what Kerry said. Bush kept trying to put words into his mouth, claiming that Kerry hated the war and wanted to retreat, but Kerry never said that. He just said Bush can't win this war because he doesn't have the ability. And so far it looks as though he's right.

Chad said...

Ok, Marisha already hit most of the points I would have made, but one other thing...

The closing comments at the end, regarding the French, is really funny when you think about why they didn't want to go to war with us.

They felt that the war had largely no basis, which became pretty true when lashed out at Iraq, claiming they had weapons of mass destruction. While you still might complain that they didn't help us in Afghanistan...

I just think of it as them having a lot more foresight then the American people. Hahaha

Dan Simpson said...

I'm sorry but I am going to have to step in here. Jimmy, you have some really good points but there are still a few problems with what you said. It isn't just that they have a different strategy for winning the war, the problem is that Kerry own comments show why his method could not work.

On the one hand he calls the allies we do have in this war "the coalition of the coerced and bribed" then he says that Bush is the one who cannot reach out to other countries. I thought that it was laughable to think that with this kind of derogatory comments about people who are standing strong by us Kerry thinks he will be able to rally the world to this cause.

The other problem is the foundational hypocrisy of Kerry's arguments and stances on world issues regarding troops. He made a point of saying that we could not let the Sudan become another Rwanda. I could not agree more. It was one of the most disturbing things I ever saw reading in Delose's debate class the Time's, Newsweek's etc. portrayal of what happened over there. He made it seem that we should stop it. But here is the question. What if no other country in the world was willing to help? Why wouldn't they you may ask, but I would say Rwanda, case in point. If we have a duty to stop atrocities like Rwanda, and now Darfur, what if we are the only country willing to do so? How long must we grovel at the useless altar of the U.N. to receive world approval before we do something. Kerry claims that Bush chose to forego creating a coalition, but I would ask how long were we expected to romance countries like France who would, in all honesty, never choose to join us in a just cause.

Kerry talks a good game as long as you don't hold him up to the ideals that he espouses.

Layton Lancer said...

I, for one, think that Kerry doesn't care one whitt for the American People. He's up to his eyes in lies and can't see beyond his own big head to ever care about what the United States stands for. John Kerry is trying to cover up his tracks by changing his Stinkin' opinion at every possible turn! Saying "I'm sorry" to the American public when he ends up messing our economy up anymore then it already is is a joke, at best. John Kerry is a coward! Why doesn't he come right out and say that he's made a mistake in running for president? Hasn't everyone else who's ever been wrong lived through being wrong before? He'll just go back to being an ignorant cuss after this is over anyhow! He says Bush is "living in a fairy tale world", I say HE is living in a fairy tale world by supposing Iraq to be full of terrorists! This man is so full of conceit and lies that even the devil turns his ears away then to listen to Kerry make a speach about his "plan". What is his plan anyhow .... ?

Bryan Hickman said...

For starters...I just wanna say...nice blog. I hope this doesn't stop people from posting on my blog (which is awesome, by the way).

While I agree that the football analogy is overly simplistic, I, like Dan have to disagree with Jimmy on several points.

First, I think that Kerry's proposals for bringing troops home are politically motivated. Any timetable given on the issue is, by and large, going to be to garner votes. Given the uncertainties on the ground in Iraq and the obstacles that now beset the military presence there (albeit due to some mistakes by the Bush Administration) it is asinine in the extreme for Kerry to say troops will begin coming home in 6 months and he expects a complete withdrawl by the end of his first term. Bush, as we've seen, is not at all afraid of coming off overly optimistic when it comes to Iraq, and he's refused to put up an artificial timetable.

Also, certainly Kerry did propose an increase of divisions of the armed forces and I do think that's a good idea. A few things make Kerry's claims on that issue a little dubious. First, is money. We don't have it, even if Kerry get's his proposed tax hike passed, he's earmarked every cent for other domestic programs. Second, the only thing Kerry's ever been consistent on throughout his political career is reducing the size of the military. During the 1980s he was against the arms race and the production of any new offensive (or defensive for that matter) weapons system. He called for unilateral US disarmament when the Soviets were still in existence. For him to say now that he's all for big military spending, once again, sounds a little too politically motivated.

As I've said many times (on my blog, which is awesome) that I doubt Kerry's resolve when it comes to Iraq. Even if I thought he was going to be steadfast in that regard, the Democratic Party faithful who comprise his base have been, since the outset, against the war would be more likely to endorse a quick withdrawl and decades of blaming whatever happens in Iraq on Bush.

Please check out my blog (it's awesome)

Chad said...

"He says Bush is "living in a fairy tale world", I say HE is living in a fairy tale world by supposing Iraq to be full of terrorists!"

Did you even watch the debates? He said multiple times that Iraq was a poor target because it WASN'T connected to terrorism as many of the other countries in that area are.

Layton Lancer said...

In answer to your question Chad. Yes I have, and do insist on watching the debates. I agree with Lysis. John Kerry has changed his opinions so often that it's very hard to keep up with him. I was merely stating a comment he made and using it to judge him by. If I was in the wrong I apologize profusely, but as luck may have it ... I'm not on this account. Thank you for your comment, Chad.

Silver Lining said...

For many of us who have been involved in a debate or two at one point or another, it is no revelation that many things influence who "wins" a debate (not the least of which is the judge). I watched the debate carefully last week and listened to the pundits for as long as I could stand them. The fact of the matter is this, the debates are a great opportunity to see the candidates answer questions and put out their ideas. Still, they will do so with a spin put on it and, presumably, with their best foot forward. I marveled at how after declaring John Kerry the winner, so much of the media was willing to pretend the last 10 months or more haven't occurred. Kerry was very clear at times in that debate about his views on U.S. foreign policy. (For those of you interested, I would suggest reading the article about Kerry's clarity at The author is far more ariculate than I). Still, Bush has not slipped much in the polls. Why is this we wonder? Well, in my opinion it goes back to Lysis' football analogy. When a football team looses, it can be heartbreaking, depressing, and leave their fans with an ache to see that team come back and win the game. However, in the end, it is just a game. Though an essential opportunity to experience the ideas of the candidates, in the end the debates are just that, a debate, and each judge will judge accordingly.

Presentation and style will only get you so far in the end of the day. Kerry's departure from foreign policy in his campaigning seems to indicate that he is hoping style and presentation will take him as far as needs. He isn't surviving analysis of substance.

Ares said...

Okay, Kerry said that he wants to put in two new divisions in the Army. Then he turns around and accuses Bush of a "Back-door draft". I'm just curious how Kerry plans to keep people in the army and create two new divisions if the soldiers are trying to get out (which I'm not so sure I believe). Kerry seems to me to have double-standards every time he wants to.

Medical Blog said...

Only winners advance and the team that produces half a dozen first touch downs in the games will be state, conference, or national champion.