Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by MisterMark, Aug 1, 2004.
The discussion continues...
The September issue of Esquire features an article entitled "The Case Against George W. Bush". From the article:
Some may be quick to dismiss the article as "Bush-bashing", which -- although meticulously documented -- it is. But the source of the article may be a bit surprising if you skipped over last week's convention: Ron Reagan.
What may be even more surprising even if you did watch the convention -- is that the five-page criticism never mentions the president's stand on stem-cell research. Reagan makes an entirely different case here.
Well, it's interesting: Republicans accuse Kerry of flip-flopping -- and anyone who's in Washington for 20 years can't help but flip-flop -- but say Bush is resolute. Yes, Bush is resolute, just like one George Armstrong Custer.
I don't think it can be called bashing to speak the truth, and cite evidence to back it up. If the picture painted is unflattering, so be it. I didn't see any hysterical language or even strong attempts to sway opinions, but then again, mine is pretty secure. Why didn't anything ever happen as a result of Abu Gharib? Why don't we ever hear about any of the negatives about this administration? I had to hear about a bj for several years......it bears contemplation.
If the language in the beginning of the article seems a little heady, I will suggest that Reagan wrote that way for one reason only- because he CAN. The fact that he is intelligent enough to write well should not detract from the content of what he was saying! Jeez, I hope having a president of less than premium intellect doesn't lead the American public to mistrust intelligent thought as a whole.
Madame, as always insightful and rational.
It's unfortunate that this sort of coherence isn't contagious, so it could be spread throughout the voting public. The Right seems dedicated to whip people into a frenzy based on emotion (oh my god, he got a blow job in the oval office!! the desecration!! let's spend money and lots of it to impeach!!, versus whipping people up into actuallly caring about what's relevant and how it affects where this country is headed.
The rules don't apply to them as long as they can keep the fiddlers playing. The rules only apply to others, in order to keep the spotlight from themselves -- and if there aren't rules to control others, they'll make up new ones. The rules are meant for other countries, not for the US. Promises are useful for misleading and gaining leverage, but aren't meant to be followed through on.
This is how the the Right has failed us, and how its institutionalization in foreign policy and internal politics have ruined our credibility and good will around the world.
Where the fuck is Waldo?
BTW, thanks for letting me ramble again
I find it baffling that so many people find Bush's resoluteness and one-track thinking to be an admirable trait. Even if you agree with the president on a particular issue, it's still a sign of stubbornness and small-mindedness. He doesn't even change his positions based on new information or situations. Strange.
Who could ever stop you?? :lol:
Aloofman, you said a mouthful! Whether or not you agree with any certain policy or act, I find it mind boggling to support an unwillingness to change or devolop new ideas. Resoluteness by definition is stagnation and, as you said, small mindedness.
You know, from reading nothing but the articles posted here, I'd bet I would be in the top 10% of this country in being informed on government and issues pertaining to the election, and to take it further, we actually discuss these issues! I wish there were more places like this where people converge to discuss the matters that affect us all. My primary fear this election is from the uninformed, ignorant, voter.
Resoluteness=Dogma=puppy on a bone. Hmmm. LOL
My karma ran over my dogma
Hmmm... Is there a possibility of it running over a shrub?
Yes, with a bush hog!! lol
I just finished reading Ron Reagan's article in Esquire. I did not know that Bush had become a cultural icon which has not only changed the direction of the country but of language.
I thought I was pretty cool and keeping up with the "in" meanings. Ask anyone over 40, "What is the meaning of the L-word?" And the answer is: liberal. Ask the same to those under 25 and the answer is lesbians. <<smile/smirk>>
Now I find that Republicans have retaken the L-word and it means Liar!
Damn, this is confusing to a simple college kid.
This is the Kool-aid that the Bush-Cheney campaign would have you drink. Their spokespeople have repeated these talking points over and over and over in press interviews: (Both list items link to George W. Bush's official campaign site.)
John Kerry is the number 1 most liberal Senator!
John Kerry is a flip-flopper!
Now, if you buy talking point #1, then it must follow that John Kerry would have to be very consistent about voting liberal in order to outrank the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. How, after all, could a fence-sitting flip-flopper be so extreme as to rank as the number one liberal member of the Senate? So, if you believe talking point #1, you must reject talking point #2.
Conversely, if you buy talking point #2, you must believe that sometimes Kerry votes one way on an issue, and sometimes he votes a different way on that same issue. That is, some of his votes are liberal, and a significant number of similar votes are conservative. Then, you must also believe that John Kerry could not possibly be seen to be as liberal overall as those Democratic members of the Senate who do not flip-flop on their liberal agenda. In other words, if you believe talking point #2, you must reject talking point #1.
It is possible, of course, to reject both talking points. (You may, for example, believe John Kerry to be a steady, consistent, moderate Senator.)
It is not logically valid, however, to accept both talking points, since they are mutually contradictory.
Now regardless of whether you believe 1 but not 2, or you believe 2 but not 1, or you believe neither talking point, it follows that the Bush campaign is engaging in at least one misleading negative attack against John Kerry.
And that, my friends, supports the Democratic talking point that George W. Bush misleads the public.
It's called the kettle defense: I didn't borrow the kettle, I returned it in perfect condition, and it was broken when I got it.
Mindseye, thanks for posting another interesting set of articles. What stood out to me is that the second article showed very little flip-flopping if you read it. It says what he voted for and what he says now. I can easily understand how you could vote for a proposition that seems viable, then not like how it is being carried out in reality by an administration so prone to twist things up. I don't see that as flpi-flopping, I see that as raising objections. Some of the responses they posted from Kerry make him look quite good, I can only imagine the ones posting these articles must be as dense as the shrub himself.
I couldn't help but chuckle at this Reuters headline today: Bush Eats It Raw.
I had a completely different idea about what he could do with that ear of corn.
Great points, Madame.
Additionally, there seems to be the right wing spin on Kerry's 'flip-flopping' -- however when we look at the converse (Bush) he never changes his mind. Even when he's wrong.
All together now, with lots of sarcasm:
"Oh, that's much better than changing one's mind."
A friend sent me this and I think it's hilarious (neither pro nor con either party). The movie is about 3.5 megs. Enjoy!
"Raw corn is typically fed to livestock, but Irvin Anderson, a professor of corn physiology and biochemistry at Iowa State University, said some people liked it raw."
This told me everything I needed to know, bush pretty well qualifies as livestock...