From Seattle writer and consultant Matt Rosenberg...

« Damned If You Blog.....Damned If You Don't | Main | Kerry The Appeaser »

A Bush Convert Speaks

October 09, 2004

...aka Martin Krongold.....my long-time friend, super-mensch, father of three, devoted husband, non-profit grassroots consultant, Cleveland boy, and Harvard Kennedy School of Govt. (M.A.) grad.

I never knew him to be remotely "R," and am sure that like me, he would still rather hang out with (for instance) a room full of musicians, journalistas, and community organizers whose politics don't jibe with his own - as opposed to Republicans.

Martin and I met many moons ago, at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL; before we both ended up in Taxachusetts, for a time. Me at Brandeis, learning why 98.6 percent of Karl Marx was B.S., and Martin at Harvard. Many years later, 9/11 hit Martin's now-longtime family home (Staten Island, NY) hard. And since then.....or perhaps even before...his views have been....evolving.

Here's the latest from Martin, originally posted in a comment string at Rosenblog, which I want to highlight here on the main page.

I find JO**hn KE**rry slicker than Slick Willy. He knows what social strata he doesn't want to be a part of and would do anything to reallign himself with the elite of PC establishment. I respect that he's at least remained a thinker, although he doesn't have the wherewithal to keep or defend the thoughts consistently. He's eastern boarding school who knows of his humble Jewish roots, but has been directed by family and into America's elite. With that background of confident elitism, he'll make Slick Willy appear moral. I'm holding my nose and voting for Bush cuz he could of held off on Iraq even though Saddam gone is a good thing. Oh, God, that means Hillary in '08!!! Oh, well.

By the way Bush lost the first debate and it hurt him a little. Cheney just edged out "Boy" Edwards, and it maintained the R advantage. Bush and Kerry tied yesterday's which means the base is stabilized, leaners are going to those they would go to anyway, and increasingly the incumbent will get the few remaining votes barring a horrible debate or national catastrophe. Bush doesn't particularly inspire, so he won't get a landslide of last minute undecideds.

Staten Island is Bush country. NY isn't. I don't know about New Jersey. They have a Democratic Governor who is stepping down for trading political favors for gay sex with a Jewish Mossad agent. No kidding. (The) race was close last week, but the undecideds will tell.

Yes, Matthew, I'm coming out of the closet. The strength of the market place, and the faux easy-fix lure of the governmental handout has turned me into...... a Republican!!!!

So with that, my advice to you and your readers is not to be "Economic Girly Men". Martin

It happens to the best of us, Martin. Say it loud, and proud! And perhaps in the future you can share YOUR snappy replies to the inevitable questions from certain in-laws....i.e. "How DID you get to be so CONSERVATIVE?"

Which is always asked in a manner similar to, "When did you start buggering badgers anyway, and how can we help you with this problem?"

My answer (in debt to N. Podhoretz): "I was mugged by reality." If that makes me a "neo-con," OK. What's in a name?

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 9, 2004 10:27 PM


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/543

Comments:

During the second presidential debates, the church mouse finally woke up and shot a few holes in the farrago of appeasement and protectionism that marches under the banner of the Kerry campaign.

Yet, contrary to my initial impression, Bush's fortunes continue to sink. Forget the polls, and look again at the IEM futures market; Bush's probability of winning is now down to about 53% and falling. What went wrong? How could Bush do better in the second debate and continue to falter?

Was it the Duelfer Report, reminding voters in the middle yet again that Bush gave the wrong justification for the war to the wrong people at the wrong time? Perhaps. But I am beginning to suspect something more troublesome: squishiness on the war in Iraq.

Robert Novak has now written two columns reporting that his contacts in the Bush administration confirm an intention to pull out of Iraq as soon as the two elections are held (ours and theirs). This is at least not inconsistent with the latest delphic pronoucements from our Secretary of Defense, one disavowing any convincing evidence of an al-Qaeda link, and another indicating that there would be no American troop draw down before January. (Meaning there will be one after January??)

So is that the plan? Hold a quicky election, stand up a make-shift defense force, and get the hell out? If that is so, what exactly is the difference between the Bush plan and the Kerry plan?

Count me a Bush voter ever more puzzled and wobbly.

Posted by: Tom Rekdal at October 10, 2004 11:57 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?