Hurricane I

As a Political Science / Communications Studies double major, I relished the opportunity to take PSCI classes that also counted for my CMST major. One such class was a class called Political Communication, taught by Professor Richard Pride. (Side note to Vandy students: if you need an easy three hour A, take his American Political Culture seminar, a.k.a. the Feelings Class, on TR from 2:30-4. And this isn't one of those easy-if-you-know-politics easy classes. It's HOD easy. Like, you write 750 words a week on how you feel about things. If you use the phrase, "I felt angry when..." you will get an A. And girls, he will stare at your boobs and invade your personal space.)

Anyway. The prof is sort of a douchebag (see above on boobs and personal space), and that class was completely weird, but looking back on it, there were some really valuable things that I learned. For instance, re: the liberal media and the success of Fox, he told us that people tend to not listen to or read things that they disagree with. I disagreed with that statement, both because I believed that intelligent people prefer to keep reading to challenge the argument and that non-intelligent people don't think for themselves. Alas, I have changed my mind (flip flop flapjack) and I will now concede there is more wisdom in Professor Douchebag's argument that I originally allowed.

Barack Obama (oh how I love that man) said in his keynote speech at the DNC (I'll look up the link and stick it in later, but I don't feel like it right now) that there was not a "Red" American or a "Blue" America [for the non-political savvy, Red States are Republican states and Blue States are Democratic states] but there was only one America that basically needed John Kerry. I loved the speech (We take our children to Little League in the Blue States and we have Gay Friends in the Red States!) but I think it's false, at least until Nov. 2.

I was exploring the links on Instapundit, and becoming increasingly distressed at all the more conservative blogs that I found. I had heard of them, but I guess I thought they existed along the same lines as the swing voter and the Loch Ness Monster. Wrong. Clearly. Some of the comments left my jaw hanging open, mostly about how Kerry is unfit to be Commander in Chief (side note II: Why have we taken to referring to the President as the Commander in Chief? I've read the Constitution. It says that one of the many roles that the President of the United States will play is that of the Commander in Chief of US forces. We are not voting for the Commander in Chief. We are voting for the President. The two should not be used interchangeably, as one is much more limited in responsibility.) I could understand if it was just another flip-flop argument, but this doesn't sound like sheep logic.

Kerry's long record in public life - both upon his return from Vietnam, and in the Senate - is equally clear: Calumnies [SIC] against both his fellow soldiers in Vietnam and America's current allies in the war on terror that are never repudiated, or apologized for. A long history of votes against defense & intelligence appropriations, and of opposing U.S. military action abroad, even in the face of clear threats. Declarations that that we are engaged in global police work in the wake of 9/11, and not a war. The endless preoccupation with Vietnam.

The only explanation I can find for people who believe a Kerry Presidency would not be Carterite to its core (and worse) is sheer wishful projection. It is a measure of Bush's lack of competence as a campaigner and persuader that these illusions have not been utterly shattered, and that Kerry is still in the race.

Yes, I agree that Kerry needs to stop talking about Vietnam. He's starting to remind me of that John Goodman character in "The Big Lebowski" who screams at the weird bowling guy about how bowling isn't like 'Nam, there are rules! But. I would much rather have that man as my President than the current man who doesn't understand that his actions have consequences, so I'm pulling the lever (or, inking a dot, thank you California) for the Democrats and for Kerry.

And Bush's lack of competence as a campaigner? Are we living in the same news cycle? My friend Charlie (and ex-Republican and Bush supporter, from Texa/Alabama/Georgia, no less):

The deficit's reaching epic proportions, the fundamentalists are clearly in charge of social policy, the war's been one half-assed miscalculation after another, al Qaeda is recruiting like the Oklahoma football team, global terrorism is getting worse, not better, we're well on our way to a flat tax, and the challenger is behind in the polls?

Conclusion: We only see what we want to see, and I have absolutely not a clue about what will happen in November. Or, moreover, to my country afterwards.