Shot In The Dark: The Gist

August 12, 2004

The Gist

Tom Junod, writing in Esquire, gets it:

As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.

The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay marriage. The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the second. Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for conviction—because it's easier than conviction.

And if the majority of this country doesn't get that, then I seriously have to wonder about this country after all.

Posted by Mitch at August 12, 2004 05:16 AM | TrackBack

Comments

That is absolutely fabulous! Great Points All - sad but true.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 12, 2004 01:54 PM

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Gadzooks, those of you on the right don't get it at all, do you? You truly believe that we on the left are more afraid of GDub than OBL, don't you? No wonder you think us insane!

Look, I dislike George W. Bush and want him out of power *precisely because I do not believe he is capable of defeating the terrorists.* His Messopotamian adventure cost us the troop strength, international standing, and moral high ground requisite to destroy al Qaeda. His lack of resolve in Afghanistan left OBL free. His failure to plan for the aftermath of both wars (and his willingness to listent to local thugs like Chalabi) have led to a chaotic, unsettled American presence in the world.

But believe me, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would rather have al Qaeda destroyed and George W. Bush as president than al Qaeda at large and Bush gone. I just don't believe the former is going to happen so long as our current CinC remains in office.

If you believe Bush is a better leader than Kerry, that he will be better at confrontin terrorists than Kerry, that he will be a better President than Kerry, by all means, vote for him. But I don't believe those things--and I do believe that the enemy we confront is to dangerous to leave the job to a bumbler--which is who we have in office today.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at August 12, 2004 05:20 PM

Jeff, I just do not understand how anyone can reasonably conclude that Kerry (or current Democratic leaders) would effectively fight Islamofascism's terror war. Help me will you? Be specific, concrete in the reasons. List the facts in Kerry's background that lead you to conclude he will be an effective leader. Koch, Zell Miller, Lieberman and others are excluded from the Democratic party today in favor of Moore, Dean, Sharpton, et.al. As a 911 Democrat, I do not have any confidence in the current crop of Democrats, including the Clintons. Certainly the eight years under Clinton were a disaster with respect to the WOT. Is this in doubt?

Posted by: DocC at August 13, 2004 11:56 AM