US election campaign 2004 - All gloves are off

[13788]

Javierdude22: I thought it might be a good idea to have a general campaign 2004 thread. All commenst, remarks, opinions on anything all very welcome.

I am not an American citizen, although more and more, especially during the Dubya years, I have felt like a constituent since most decisions in the US seemed to affect my everyday life. And I dont like that. Well, only if it is affected in a positive way, which I cannot recall.

So, I seriously hope Kerry will win the race. Although I am worried that he might not, as I heard this morning that Ralph Nader, again, will run. Can you be more self centured? I thought 4 years of Bush would have taught him. But no...

About the first week of the Bush campaign. I think his 9/11 ad is tacky, misplaced, and undeserved (although he thinks differently).

He said he had the quote -right- the use the iamges of 9/11 cause of all the wonderful things Bush did for it.

I dont get that. What wonderful things, what does he mean by that? Does he mean the fight against the taliban (still not won, once US leaves, taliban rules again, ask the Russians). Does he mean his fight against Al Qaida? (Osama, where art thou Osama?). Or maybe Iraq? (ill keep that as a pending issue).

Ok, so maybe he does mean all of that, but then, wouldnt you show images of the work you do in those countries, instead of those horryfying images of 9/11?!

To me this means we have a president that would rather strike fear into peoples hearts than show the solution. And that is what his campaign is about, Fear with a big F.

Ive got a better ad for his campaign. It starts off pretty much the same as his, but I think he left out the secodn part.

Its in Spanish alas, its called -faces of terror-

http://ee.1asphost.com/dinkplus/Las_caras_del_terror.pps

On a sidenote: has anybody noticed the smirk on Bush face everytime he finishes a sentence (ya know, when the machine calls for the crowd to applaud). Today on CNN:

Bush preaching in front of the choir: Kerry has very strong opinions....(3 second pause to read next sentence)...too bad he changes them all the time...(smirk begins with a sequential subtle nod of the head)...(crowd laughs diligently)...(smirk climaxes as he realises it worked)...

Oh well..

 

[Pecker]

It's too bad that you despise Mr. Bush so much. It's really hard to see the good in a man when you think he's Satan incarnate.

 

[13788]

norseman: Jep, Javier( the Ricky Martin look-alike),

it seems the gloves came off particularly early this year.

I'm not convinced that Nader is going to be much of a threat this time around. He has no political party this time around (last time he was part of the "green" party) and is not even likely to make it onto the ballot in many states. Media coverage to the contrary, I think he'll end up as a mere footnote in this year's presidential race.

Like you, I too don't like or "get" GW Bush. Sometimes I think its the part of the country I live in. I'm in Kerry's homestate and I'm surrounded by people unhappy with the current administration who never supported it in the first place.

At the same time I'm aware that there is a huge constituency in this country that DOESN'T think he's an idiot, DOESN'T think that he's a vindictive SOB, think that our conduct in the world community under his leadership is hunky-dory, even admirable, and think that we're all better off since he took office.

I try to understand the why and wherefore of that point of view. I think some of it is blind Patriotism ("My country, right or wrong"), some of it is a preference for status quo ("The devil you know is better than..."), some of it is gullibility, WANTING to believe.

I'm sure there's more to it, and I'm sure that we'll see volumes of posts with enless lists of links PROVING beyond the shadow of a doubt that we all live in the Garden of Eden and its all due to the generosity, grace and intelligence of GWB.

Besides, as we all know, Kerry is an Elitist, Double-Talking Northeast LIBERAL from that state where they're going to allow the fags to get married........(kidding, I'm kidding.....)

Norse

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#1 date=03/09/04 at 07:47:55]It's too bad that you despise Mr. Bush so much. It's really hard to see the good in a man when you think he's Satan incarnate.[/quote]

He wasn't a particularly good student in college. He graduated in the bottom half of his class, and was arrested for theft and vandalism while there.

He wasn't a particularly good soldier in the National Guard. This issue's already been over-debated on here, but even a charitable interpretation of the facts leads one to conclude he contributed less than other soldiers in his unit.

Following his National Guard enlistment, he wasn't a particularly good citizen. He was convicted of DUI in 1976, and lied about it afterwards.

He wasn't a particularly good governor of Texas. The "Education Governor" saw a 30% increase in teen drug use and a 9% increase in the high school dropout rate during his tenure. He truthfully claims that SAT scores increased during this time -- but neglects to mention that nationwide these scores were increasing at a faster rate.

He's hardly "Satan incarnate". At least Satan knows what he's doing.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

This will probably be the first year I vote for a presidential candidate just to defeat the other one, rather than feeling pretty good about the vote in and of itself. I think Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction and hope he doesn't get reelected.

Having said that, there are some very misguided Bush-haters out there. He is NOT dumb or evil. Nor is he to blame for everything that's gone wrong in the last three years. And when people claim these things they undermine legitimate criticism. (Some Republicans did about the same things to Clinton.) There's a lot of partisan sniping that's just not connected to reality.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=aloofman link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#4 date=03/09/04 at 22:03:24]
Having said that, there are some very misguided Bush-haters out there.  He is NOT dumb or evil.  Nor is he to blame for everything that's gone wrong in the last three years.  And when people claim these things they undermine legitimate criticism.  (Some Republicans did about the same things to Clinton.)  There's a lot of partisan sniping that's just not connected to reality.  [/quote]

Aloofman, your right, but mostly people on the more Republican side of the spectrum seem to lay words in the mouths of people that dislike Bush for his presidential non-achievements.

Its easy, Bush is the president of the USA, logically speaking he cannot b blamed for everything gone wrong in the USa AND the world. However, he is the president of the USA and thus the primary responsible person for everything in the country.

In Holland we have Ministerial responsibility. It means that if something under the theme your working on is going wrong, be it Health Care or Environment, you take responsibility for it, even though it was a government official who made the mistake. When you take office in those kinds of positions, you are the first and foremost responsible for anything on the theme. And since the president of the USA has the country as his theme, he is the only to be held responsible for anything and everything in the country. The people chose him as their repreentative, who else can they hold accountable?

And that is why Bush CAN be blamed for what has gone wrong, as much as he can be appraised for what has gone well. The jit is that people that oppose the Bush administration believe more things have gone wrong than right.

Nobody thinks he is evil, let alone Satan. IMO they are exagerations made by the republican side to ignore the questions raised by the Democratic side on real problems. Instead of those exagerations I would rather engage in a discussion, and hear the actual solutions Bush has provided according to the supporters.

Cause upto now I havent heard them. Ive heard no reaction on the tax cuts, the Kyoto protocol, the huge budget deficit, the low job rate well under what was promised, proof of WMDs, the right to hold detainees on Guantamo without lawyer or trial, the threatening health care security cuts. Afghanistan is still waiting to be rebuilt and patiently waiting the milions and milions of dollar promised by Bush in 2001 and Africa is still waiting for the 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS.

I would rather hear their direct response to this than these exagerations on the Bush persona.

 

[13788]

hawl: An interesting or just amusing site for those perhaps weighing whether to step over to the dark side maybe just this once...http://conservativesforkerry.com/. Really tough question: do you think Bush, Ashcroft, et al would approve of you even being on this site : ??? ?

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Aint greed a hoot...well anyway...maybe itll give us a piece of the truth.

I havent read the book but I already love the commotion surrounding it. Rice is sweating mushrooms on her ass, Bush is learning how to spell- impeachment, and Cheney, well...he is the same plant he always was.

Some things really piss me off though, like these quotes (from CNN): Rice said Bush's "aggressive response" after September 11 put the United States "well on the road to winning the war on terrorism." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/index.html

Win? Holy crap woman, dont even go there. How dumb does she think we are. 201 Spaniards will tell her different if they could, the last two bombings in Iraq should tell her different, and the pee stains on Transatlantic flights should tell her different.

And lets not forget that Spain, Poland, Denmark, and probably even Holland will retract from Iraq.

The Polish Prime Minister even publicly anounced Bush lied to him about the threat of WMDs. The Polish Prime Minister! I love that man already, he has balls...not like my PM.

...yeah...thats him alright.

Anyway...this administration IMO failed horribly...the world has been shouting it for 1 year now...and every day, we seem to be right more...

 

[B_JohnTheHorse]

I would like to say a couple things about the 2004 US Election and other issues.

The Bush administration has been very distruptive and destructive on the world stage. I am concerned about the Iraq war very much. The war has been a disaster as far I am concerned. There never were any WMD, those were all lies it seems. It has torn the western alliace apart. Our releations with other western countries are a shambles. Much to the delight of the terrorists, every time they strike europeans blame US as much as the terrorists.

Bush & Co. have dropped the ball completely on locating Bin Landin and his just as murderous and psychotic henchman Dr. Al-Zhawihiri. the US is hated around the world (although I think that sentiment is as shallow as it is wide spread: once Bush is gone I think you'll see that improve a bit).

 

[13788]

tomarctus:

Ive heard no reaction on the tax cuts, the Kyoto protocol, the huge budget deficit, the low job rate well under what was promised, proof of WMDs, the right to hold detainees on Guantamo without lawyer or trial, the threatening health care security cuts. Afghanistan is still waiting to be rebuilt and patiently waiting the milions and milions of dollar promised by Bush in 2001 and Africa is still waiting for the 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS.

I would rather hear their direct response to this than these exagerations on the Bush persona.

We have plenty of responses to these issues, raised in the press, magazines, on radio and at dinner tables and social parties all the time. Eventually the Democrat Party will, I hope, make direct and cogent reference to these items. I just hope that what has happened to the USA under the current president will become evident before the election. Many of us fear that BinLaden has already been caught and will be brought out on display before the election, along with a foreign war, making changing presidents uncomfortable for the electorate.

Yes, I'm cynical, but I've seen it all before.

 

[13788]

Inwood: Well I'm not exactly a fan of Ralph but can we please stop blaming him for Gore not winning Florida. Here are the results from Florida

Bush - 2,912,790
Gore - 2, 912,253
Nader - 97,488
Buchanan - 17,484
Other - 23,055

Notice that all three minor candidate categories have more votes then Gore lost by. If Ralph wants to run he can run. One day I may run for President just for the hell of it. If I can qualify that is. ;D

As to his critics blaming Bush for everything that has gone wrong during his term. Is it right? Probably not but since Bush's team takes credit for everything that supposedly went right during that time it seems only fair that he has to take responsibility for both sides.

I've enjoyed reading some of the excerpts from the forthcoming book on Bush. There is so much commentary about it. And it does bring up that old bug-a-boo about whether Bush lies or not. There are so many things he said he did that day that under close scrutiny it turns out he didn't do. He just thinks he did it. To find out more go to the Wall Street Journal for today 3/22/03. There's a whole list of things.

I can't say I see any good in Bush. I see a lot of smugness. I see someone who can't admit a mistake and apparently learn from that experience. I don't see him as the fearless leader bringing everyone around to fight together. And still no weapons of mass destruction. But we don't talk about that anymore.

Will Kerry be any better? Can he be any worse? Only if he adds another war to fight. But if Bush wins there is an upside. This time he can't blame the previous administration for the problems he'll be facing. Because he was the previous administration and those problems will be the problems he created. At least domestically. (Added that one in since Bush didn't create the terrorist threat we now face. That was Reagan's creation.)

 

[13788]

Thumper_10x7_CA: [quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#0 date=03/09/04 at 07:31:13]I am not an American citizen, although more and more, especially during the Dubya years, I have felt like a constituent since most decisions in the US seemed to affect my everyday life. And I dont like that. Well, only if it is affected in a positive way, which I cannot recall.[/quote]


WOW! I am an American citizen and my life remains unaffected from one President to the other. It doesn't matter who's in the White House, it matters what money backs that man. George W has been an extremely clear example of that! Who do think was the Governer of Florida back during the whole "hanging chad" embaressment? YES! George W's BROTHER! And who was President the first time we went to war with Iraq and failed the mission there? YES! George W's DAD! Coincidence? Hardly.

I think in 50 years time when all these goings on are declassified, we are going to find more cover up and scandal then there ever was with JFK or Watergate.

 

[B_RoysToy]

[quote author=Thumper_10x7_CA link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#11 date=03/23/04 at 05:06:26] . . . . . . . . . . . . I think in 50 years time when all these goings on are declassified, we are going to find more cover up and scandal then there ever was with JFK or Watergate.[/quote]
Yes, Thumper, but what I find so sad is the current mentality of the majority of the citizenry, permitting them to be hoodwinked by the regime's propaganda and cover-up schemes.

Luke

 

[13788]

grantstephens: Does anyone think Lybia disclosing it's WMD program and promising to eliminate it's nuclear program has anything to do with US soldiers in the area? Lybia is just a stones throw from Europe and now over 40,000 pds of Mustard gas are not in Lybia's control. The article says Lybia is doing this to restore ties with the US. Could be they don't want to get busted? But will any Bush haters give credit - no. Lybia already knows that bombs will fall if you are harboring, assiting, or leading the world in terrorist activity.

 

[13788]

blo1988: I am stunned that Bush has an approval rating that is greater than single digits.
His administration has single-handedly destroyed our credibility abroad. We have fueled the fires of ethnic/religious strife dating to the Crusades. Now we are clearly the target for a new generation of terrorists. He did not solve a problem, he exacerbated it.
His position on a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage is blatant partisan politics.
He is what he is, a fourth generation rich kid who fancies himself as an earnest Texas good old boy. He never had an interest in the rest of the world...he had barely seen any of it before he became president.
He sees issues in two dimensions.
I am flabbergasted that anyone watching him now could be proud that he is our president.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#13 date=03/23/04 at 09:19:02]Does anyone think Lybia disclosing it's WMD program and promising to eliminate it's nuclear program has anything to do with US soldiers in the area?  Lybia is just a stones throw from Europe and now over 40,000 pds of Mustard gas are not in Lybia's control.  The article says Lybia is doing this to restore ties with the US.  Could be they don't want to get busted?  But will any Bush haters give credit - no.  Lybia already knows that bombs will fall if you are harboring, assiting, or leading the world in terrorist activity.[/quote]

Grantstephens,

With all due respect, the arguments you make are typical for the Bush Administration in trying to come up with good things they did.

Wit this I mean that your argument, and theirs most of the time, is completely taken out of context. This pick-what-you-like policy just doesnt cut it. Sure, Lybia is on its way to a certain degree of disclosure on their activities. But that still leaves me with a political gap the size of Texas. Being that the Bush Administration got a mandate from the Senate and Congress to invade Iraq because it had been proven without any doubt they had WMDs, they were a threat, and they helped terrorists. All three of these reasons were untrue, and some even flat out lied about. I wont even talk about the fact that the UN didnt give a mandate, which is a crime in itsself IMO.

So just because as a side-effect, that Khaddaffi decided to think about his pensionplan and open up about his activities a bit, doesnt mean the entire operation suddenly is justified. Cause if we are hauling in side-effect than I can bring up a few more like what this operation cost the European countries, the huge budget deficit of the USA, the thousands of Iraqi deaths, and so many soldiers deaths, and lets not forget about Spain.

With an operaytoin like this, it should have been plain and simple. There should have been proof that Iraq was a threat in the three beforementioned ways. Proof doesnt mean -Because the Bush administration said so-. They lied, so in all honesty, heads should roll, but when you name is Bush, that is impossible.

 

[13788]

grantstephens: I'm not trying to justify anything about the Bush admin being right. What my question was do you think Bush will get any credit? Of course he won't! My post was not about justifying Iraq, it was about giving some credit where credit is due. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'll vote for anyone who stands up to those that are murderers and theives. Gay "rights", abortion, fiscal policy are secondary IMO. I felt that action should have been taken againts Iraq years before Bush Jr. came to office. This should have been finished the first time Saddam ignored the UN mandates after Gulf War I.

 

[jay_too]

Grantstevens..

Interesting comment....maybe a little void of common sense...but still interesting.

I do not think that I am alone in thinking that the U.S. military could not support effectively a third military action. At the present, to fulfill their mission active duty forces require substantial support and augmentation from both the reserves and the National Guard. In other words, our military is stretched too thin. Quaddafi is a decent geopolitical strategist and realizes that a third engagement would severely strain our military. He has been moving toward compliance with the U.N. demands since the Clinton administration. Perhaps, you are partially correct in saying that he feared action by the Bush administration; however, neither you nor I nor anyone else in this country (in our lifetimes) will know if this was a factor in the decision. It is my impression from reading the business press that the major (overwhelming) reason for compliance was that the economic sanctions were hurting.

You probably know that cause and effect analyses in the social and political arenas can lead to ludicrous conclusions. A classic example is that there is a high degree of correlation between ice cream sales and pesonal assault (moreover statistically significant). But ice cream does not cause crime. During hot weather, more ice cream is sold; moreover, people are outside more and in conatct with each other, so the incidence of assault goes up.

jay

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#16 date=03/23/04 at 11:52:10]- I'll vote for anyone who stands up to those that are murderers and theives.  Gay "rights", abortion, fiscal policy are secondary IMO.[/quote]

Not to dramatize things, but this is what many dictators have said before, and how they were able to increase their power while they killed thousands of their own people.

The second the end starts justifying the means, we're a long way from home...

[quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#17 date=03/23/04 at 12:17:24]You probably know that cause and effect analyses in the social and political arenas can lead to ludicrous conclusions. A classic example is that there is a high degree of correlation between ice cream sales and pesonal assault (moreover statistically significant). But ice cream does not cause crime. During hot weather, more ice cream is sold; moreover, people are outside more and in conatct with each other, so the incidence of assault goes up.
[/quote]

Jay, thank you for bringing this up, that is on the mark. I wish the Bush Administration, and the population in general would understand how indeed cause and effect relations take place. I am certain that the support for Bush would vaporize.

 

[Synergistic]

[quote author=Thumper_10x7_CA link=board=99;num=1078846814;start=0#11 date=03/23/04 at 05:06:26]And who was President the first time we went to war with Iraq and failed the mission there?  YES!  George W's DAD!  Coincidence?  Hardly.   [/quote]

We literally decimated the Iraqi army, and drove them out of Kuwait, which was the reason we went in the first place. I don't know exactly what your definition of failure is, I suppose you think Vietnam was a resounding success.

The only reason we were paper tigers in the first Gulf War, was because the UN said so. We've realised how dangerous the UN is our national security, seeing as how they're only interested in it, when it serves their purposes as well.