Election(s) 2004

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I have an idea what it is, and I don't like it. He is mostly pushing for tax cuts (most of them towards the upper class by the way). And he hasn't done anything else towards domestic policy. Name one thing besides that medicare bill (which is horrible by the way) which he has done.

"No Child Left Behind" is horribly underfunded, but it does exist. Part of that was increased potential Pell Grants for college students like me- again, good idea, but underfunded. The goal was to up it by about 1500, and so far it's only been increased by 400. And there was proposed energy resource exploration, but at least some of it was in protected areas. So there's not just one thing I know that slants opinion against Bush, there's two. :)

The tax cuts are also a separate, more murky issue than they appear. There are more than enough testimonials of small and large business owners who say "Bush tax cuts have aided my business" as well as statistics that suggest taxes under Bush are actually slightly more progressive, that they have spurred overall economic growth, and that many people didn't recieve any refunds from the tax changes because they weren't paying anything in Federal taxes anyway.

Does this mean said cuts were ultimately good? I can't say. I'm absolutely positive there's parts of the story I'm missing I just haven't found yet that could slant the issue one way or another. But objecting to tax cuts because they are "for the rich" and not truly understanding what taxing the rich does to the economy isn't a well-founded position. Based on the way you present your opinions, it sounds an awful lot like that is the case for you.

I haven't really said a lot of what I could have in this thread because I'm in a learning phase right now. It makes no sense to try and argue from what would be an incomplete standpoint at best. Or to shorten that, I have an idea what's going on, but that's not enough.

[Jedieb]

Tell you what, Jedieb. I'll admit Cameron lied if you admit Dan Rather lied. Otherwise we're not going to persuade each other and ought to just shut up about it.

Oh, hell no, I'm not going to admit that Dan Rather lied. I don't even particularly like the guy. There's simply no proof that he lied. Anyone who's followed the story knows the man who supplied the memos has been identified and he's the one who forged them, not Rather. You can call Rather stubborn, arrogant, careless, pick an adjective, but you can't call him a liar on this one. And most people agree with me on this. I've seen more than one survey/poll that says most people believe CBS made an honest mistake about the story. You want to be one of the people that believes Rather and 60 minutes decided to make the whole thing up then you're entitled to your theory. You won't find any proof of it, but you can't keep believing it.


And as for the secretary, Killian's son refutes her claims. It's her word on his and that's not enough to build a report on.


Again, you're ignoring what the thrust of the report was. It wasn't just that Bush missed drills and dodged a physical he'd been ordered to take. It's that he got into the Reserve because of his family's influence. But that's been completely overshadowed by the whole memo controversy. Which again, is a perfect example of how the Republicans are so much better at fighting dirt than the Democrats. The whole idea that Bush used the Guard to get out of serving in Vietnam isn't even really news. It's been out there for years and for most, it's just common knowledge. It's common knowledge that if you wanted to avoid Vietnam the Guard was one of the places where you wanted to be. Guard spots where notoriously difficult to get. Bush and half a dozen Dallas Cowboys didn't get spots in the Champagne Unit because of their stellar test scores. They got into the unit because of political favors. I can't remember the name of the former Texas politician who admitted to giving Bush preferrential treatment, but I could really care less. He's a partisan Dem and that alone is enough for some to never believe him. But that still doesn't change the fact that most people know what the Guard was about back then, and it wasn't what it is today. Simply put, it was a way to get out of Nam.



The speech will be about terrorism, the economy and the choices America face. According to McClellan, its in light of John Kerrys attempts to "launch false attacks and mislead the American people on these big priorities".

Is it just me, or am I sensing a hint of panic from the White House, or some nervous twitching at least
I wouldn't go that far. It's just another opportunity to cram in yet another stump speech. Both of these guys are going to be going full tilt right up to election day. Both sides are going to be living and dying with every story and every poll shift.


I have an idea what it is, and I don't like it. He is mostly pushing for tax cuts (most of them towards the upper class by the way). And he hasn't done anything else towards domestic policy. Name one thing besides that medicare bill (which is horrible by the way) which he has done.

Bush's domestic policy? Oh man, where to begin.

No Child Left Behind is a friggin' joke. It's underfunded to the point of being laughable. Honestly, I can't think of a single teacher I've ever worked with that has anything positive to say about NCLB. It's simply a running joke amongst us. It's one thing to demand standards, but it's another thing to ask for them by simply setting arbitrary percentages on multiple choice tests, and then not providing the funding to help districts meet the standards.

The tax cuts have been way too one sided and haven't brought the economy all the way back. They've also helped increase the deficit to record amounts. And contrary to what some people think, we can't just simply ignore deficits. Every year some portion of the budget has to go to paying the interest on that money and that leaves that much less money to budget on defense, social security, etc.

The prescription medicare bill cost almost 25% more than advertised and hasn't convinced many seniors that Bush has the answers they need.

The Environment. I'm not a big fan of the caribou or whatever godforsaken piece of Alaskan dirt he calls home. But drilling there isn't the answer. For one thing, it won't really provide us with that much oil. I've heard we'd get a few months of oil, 6 tops. Conservation or alternate energy resources would produce an equal amount in savings than drilling for oil in Alaska. Here's an idea, for Dem and Reps alike, how about we go back to forcing Detroit to get some decent MPG on new cars? MPG has actually decreased since the 80's. Things got good and we forgot about the energy crisis of the 70's. And of course there's the suburban obsession with SUV's. Let's see, mini-van or Hummer? Well a Hummer would be excessive. I'll just go with that Ford Explorer that barely gets 12 MPG and doesn't fit in my garage. After all, the kids have got to be safe! :rolleyes

Tonight, the Scowl V. the Doo, I can't wait!

[Jedieb]

oops, forgot one of Bush's more pathetic domestic issues. What's such a dangerous threat to the American way of life that we need a constitutional amendment to protect ourselves against it? That's right, gay marriage. Not that Bush thinks it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, he knows it doesn't. They why would he pursue it? I don't know, maybe the 4 million evangelical voters who stayed home in 2000 have something to do with it? Maybe he's just pandering to some of the baser insticts of his far right supporters? Or maybe he doesn't like Dick Cheney's daughter and he wants to make sure she can never get married.

[Jedieb]

double,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Pierce Tondry]

You want to be one of the people that believes Rather and 60 minutes decided to make the whole thing up then you're entitled to your theory. You won't find any proof of it, but you can't keep believing it.

You missed my point in your diatribe. There are similarities of situation between the Cameron and Rather. You want to claim Cameron lied about the Kerry quotes. Since the report was never meant to be taken seriously I don't think that's true, nor do I think Rather out-and-out lied, though I do think he rushed things and that his claims that independant analysis confirmed the report were sketchy. But I compare them to show you that, all conspiracy theories aside, these are silly media mistakes that are being made too much of.

I mean, c'mon. Don't tell me those fake quotes don't give you at least a mild chuckle.

Anyway, I plan on not responding on this line any further and shutting up like I mentioned earlier. You can feel free to respond to me, but that's your choice- I'm out.


But that still doesn't change the fact that most people know what the Guard was about back then, and it wasn't what it is today. Simply put, it was a way to get out of Nam.

So riddle me this: why is an apparently widespread phenomenon from thirty years ago suddenly being drudged up as news? If everyone knew, what's the point of such a report to begin with?

I see it as partisan reporting and therefore do not take it seriously at all. You disagree, apparently, and that's the end of that.

[CMJ]

Cheney cleaned Edwards' clock. Of course VP debates don't mean jack. No one will remember this by Friday morning.

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by CMJ
Cheney cleaned Edwards' clock. Of course VP debates don't mean jack. No one will remember this by Friday morning.

Eh, what?!

[Pierce Tondry]

No, but I'm pretty sure new job numbers will be out that day. If that's right, those will be huge and I guarantee you they WILL get brought up, no matter who they support. They could very well be a deciding factor, even.

If Kerry takes the second debate, I predict it will give his campaign substantial credibility with the voters and continue to give the impression of building momentum. Then I think he'll ride the wave to victory, unless something blows up against him in the domestic policy debate.

[Zarell Karna]

Cheney put up alot of smokescreens as Republicans are nefarious at doing. One Child Left Behind is in absolute shambles if you have been following the news, it would be no new news.

Cheney lied about social security, he is in fact in support for deprivation and barring. Halliburton is indeed under investigation and that no-bid contract for Halliburton is duplicit in nature as Cheney was once the company's CEO.
It is no secrete that the Republican party represents big business and wealth, just ask Swarzeneggar who is beginning to show his true colors now. Alot of Republicans hate Edwards, do you know why? He made his wealth off lawsuits against big business. Edwards is an absolute brain, every one talks about it. Yet, Cheney is Bush greatest asset and lethal weapon.

[CMJ]

Zarell...Dude, anyone that knows me on this board or in RL knows I'm not partisan at all. I argue the democratic side to republicans and vice versa. I haven't decided who I'll vote for. When you start babbling it makes me shut off just like reading a adamant pro right wing post.

But Cheney whipped Edwards like a rented mule.

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by CMJ

But Cheney whipped Edwards like a rented mule.

Please elaborate how?

[CMJ]

It is my impression from watching the debate. Not sure where to start or where to go. Cheney just seemed stronger than Edwards to me. Whether I agreed with him on everything or not is insignificant(because I didn't). His presence was tough as nails and I didn't feel Edwards measured up in the least.

[Zarell Karna]

I understand dude, the debate offered alot to absorb and if I had Tivo I would have recorded as I would had the Kerry/Bush debate. Cheney fell back on that "inconsistancy/flip-flop" notion far too much and gave alot of duplicit smokescreen of statistics without delving into the cons which Edwards in his brilliance countered and brought to light. Cheney of course did not give the entire facts but rather half truths of any given subject, he tap danced all over the thin ice, and in fact painted everything deceitfully rosey.

Don't take Cheney on every word and I am sured he fooled alot of Americans because he gave the impression of being assertive.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the VP debate is meaningless anyway. I mean Dukakis VP (Bensen I think) made Dan Quale look like a fool and didn't help Dukakis one bit.

[imported_Eve]

Cheney kicked Edwards-booty. No doubt about it. Normally I wouldn't say that the VP debate would stick, but because Cheney was so strong and to-the-point, I think soundbites will resonate. And what Cheney did well, Bush will push on in debate two.

The thing that stuck out for me was Edward's attendance record. A couple news channels had other senators confirming this.

In any other job in the world, if you don't show up for work, you get canned.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is because of him running for President. When Dole ran he was hardly there either.

[Pierce Tondry]

lol, Senator Gone. Whether that's actual truth or just a slant on it, I have to think Cheney chiding Edwards was "the soundbyte" from this debate.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Cheney just repeated the same sad rubbish. He's just plain obnoxious. Edwards, I had problems understanding his accent. I dont know why, but Edwards could have been speaking Chinese for all I could make out. I'm scoring it 'Change the Channel' as both sucked. I know that's pretty harsh, but my distaste of cheney should be well known. My surprise was flat out the way I just could not understand Edwards. Admittedly, I do have problems with some US accents. However, it's unuslal someone in public life causes me a problem.

Thank god this board has an ignore button.

[Zarell Karna]

I thought the fireworks really flew with this one and very much in Edwards favor. He shined brilliantly. I have lived through four Republican terms and two Democratic terms, sheesh, I just hope America does the math. Reagan did bring democracy to Russian and it's ailing ecomony, tore down the Berlin Wall, and gave us military might. Bush Sr. well, ..... he ousted Saddam out of Kuwait. And Bush Jr....

To reiterate something I said earlier, the Republican party represents the wealthy and big business, their policies undeniably confirm that. The Democrats are more human issue oriented and represent the poor and middle-class.

::laughs:: I remember when Reagan was in office and was doing some budget cuts on public schools and suggested school kids can find nutritional health and sustenance in ketsup as a substitute for a vegetable and ketsup alone. Luckily it got shot down. And this A FACT!

[Figrin D'an]

Most people know that I'm fairly non-partisan as well, and I tend to stay out of the more heated political discussions. I like John Edwards as a person, and have liked some of the ideas he presented back in primaries. Conversely, while I respect Dick Cheney, I do disagree with him on a number of things.

However, I agree with several others here that Cheney buried Edwards in that debate. Edwards made the fatal error of allowing himself talk in circles in a few key moments, and gave the appearance of contradicting himself a couple of times, and Cheney offered some perfectly timed counters that cast Edwards in a less-than-stellar light and punched some holes in his credibility. Looking at it objectively, from the standpoint being a former member of a championship debate team, Cheney was much more skilled, particularly in his rebutals. His superior experience in that area showed though very clearly.

Again, this is absolutely no reflection on how I feel about the specific content of their remarks, or their stances on individual issues; only from the point of view of judging their skill at effective presentation.

[Zarell Karna]

Well, Cheney was a great bluffer during that debate and showed skilled in appearing assertive. There is no doubts that Cheney is a brilliant man and excellent debator. No doubt. But his physical manner and his repetitive arguments hurt his rebuttal as it likewise did Bush during his debate with Kerry. Edwards was much more clear and precise overall.

[Master Yoghurt]

It was easy to see Cheney had much more experience and confidence as a debater than Bush ever will have. In contrast with Bushs attempt on last thursday, Cheney quickly and confidently displayed a wide amount of numbers, statistics and facts as response to Edwards attacks. And he did it with a stinging and intelligent sharpness, allmost to the point of insulting Edwards on a satirical level. A much more capable opponent in the art of retorics. That much is for sure.

But more importantly, Cheney displayed having a higher level knowledge of the actual politics conducted by the sitting administration, the senate voting records and the effects of than the sitting president ever could hope to achieve. He also had a great level of understanding of economy, foreign policy and the mechanics of national level administration in general. His veteran experience having high positions in goverments really showed, as well as his experience in the senate. Personally, I had to ask myself during the debate why and how in the world Bush became a republican president nomine 4 years ago, and not someone much more capable like Cheney.

So basically, all respect and credit to Cheney for fullfilling every single of my expectation of the role of a "hawk". Very dangerous and impressive opponent to the democrats indeed.

But thats where all my praise ends..

On the surface level, it would seem like Cheney won this round clearly, just on the basis of high retorical skill and high knowledge of voting records and the consequental statistics. He was quick and able to respond to Edwards arguments. HOWEVER, there was one heck of a reality distortion going on here. For one thing, he painted an extremely rose tinted picture of what was going on in Iraq. While it was an admirable effort defending the policy there, the question is if Americas undecided voters will take the bait.

Claiming that Iraq Coalition is as strong as the 1991 Gulf War Allied force is just way out on the reality meter. You have to live in your own universe or be Cheney to believe that. Also his description of the democracy building process and progress in peace buildup is in stark contrast with what we see on the news every day. Had I not known better, I would be mislead to believe this was a country bustling in growth and prosperity with a stable security situation.

Then there is Cheneys connections with Haliburton which puts a dent in his credibility. I dont even want to go into that here, only to say, you have to wonder how such a company can win so many contracts.

Oh, and on the domestic politics. What excactly if anything did Cheney win on there? I did not hear much that will help them win the election. Mostly about tax cuts and bragging about the questionable economic growth. Edwards on the other hand talked about healthcare, education, social welfare, jobs, science, the enviroment, homeland security and the list goes on.


Cheney just repeated the same sad rubbish

Thats one way of putting it :p

Another way of putting it, no matter how skilled and experienced a poker player is, he is only going to get so far bluffing with consistantly poor cards. Sooner or later, someone will call the bluff. Ultimately, I think thats what the undecided voters will do:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml


A CBS News poll of 178 uncommitted voters found that 41 percent said Edwards won the debate, versus 28 percent who said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent said it was a tie

Certainly no cleaning of Edwards clock. More like Bush time is starting to run out..

[jjwr]

The impression I get is people are getting really tired of hearing the same old information from Bush/Cheney, the same tired arguments, the same rosey pictures that everything is great when millions of people know its not.

As Howard Stern was commenting this morning, he was wondering last night who was running the country while Cheney was in his debate cause it was fairly obvious which of the two actually knows what they are doing.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the polls showed the debate as a draw. Of course this doesn't impact the election anyway. We will have to see what happens with the next debate now.

[Jedieb]

I thought the debate was pretty even. I certainly didn't get the sense that Cheney beat Edwards as handily as Kerry beat Bush last week. The first pundits I saw gave Cheney the victory, but all the post debate polls I've seen gave Edwards the win. But again, if the spin continues to be that pundits thought Cheney won, that'll be what's remembered.

Senate Attendance
Oh please, of course he's missed votes. He's been campaigning for the better part of the last year. Missing votes is inevitable and it's an empty criticism. And Cheney's 'we've never met' jab was particulary laughable considering these men have met before and on more than one occasion. There's video of them together at events and there's even transcripts of Cheney INTRODUCING Edwards at one event. Hell, they're showing video right now on MSNBC of Cheney and Edwards sitting right next to each other at the now infamous prayer breakfast. But the whopper from Cheney was his ""I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, " Are you friggin' kidding me? Holy crap, that took some testicles. After the debates it didn't take long for people to bring up Cheney's Meet the Press statements where he did exactly that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.main/index.html

Different polls, different results. Unlike last Thursday, a clear winner will not emerge from Tuesday's debate. What I do give both Cheney and Edwards high marks was their command of 'facts' and information last night. Both men were quick with their responses and in their element. But Cheney was far more impressive than his 'boss.' You can say that Edwards was slicker than Kerry and smoother, but the difference between listening to Cheney and Bush is just striking. To be blunt, one of them clearly sounds like he could be President and the other sounds like he should do nothing more than stay in the other's shadow. Again, I don't believe Bush is an idiot. But there's a reason the man avoid press conferences like the plague. He's great on a stump speech, but the second he's forced to respond to unfiltered questions and the press his performance suffers.


So riddle me this: why is an apparently widespread phenomenon from thirty years ago suddenly being drudged up as news? If everyone knew, what's the point of such a report to begin with?

I see it as partisan reporting and therefore do not take it seriously at all. You disagree, apparently, and that's the end of that.
Why ask a question if you're "out?" Make up your mind! ;) These things have been brought up in every election. It's sloppy and cheap reporting, but for the most part, it's not partisan. Unless, you're dealing with Fox. Then it's just brazen GOP schilling. :smokin

Some networks I'm more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to, but when it comes to Fox you just assume the worst because their "objectivity" is just a running joke.

[Pierce Tondry]

I am, and continue to be, out of the Rather discussion. However, I did not feel like leaving myself open to the criticism that I had dodged part of your response and therefore I asked a rhetorical question, which I then promptly answered to be clear of my position. This was motivated in part by my personal expectation of a (and I'm putting this gently) of a venomous response from you.

I trust I have satisfied your line of inquiry? If not, you know where to find me.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089452537.html

For those not registered, here is the article


At first, it seemed like it might go down in history as one of those killer debate moments: Vice President Dick Cheney, who presides over the Senate, said he'd never met Senator John Edwards until their encounter in Cleveland.

"I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session," said Cheney, turning to Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat, whom he faulted for skipping lots of votes.

"The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

But the bon mot backfired. Cheney was wrong.

Within an hour, Democrats circulated photographs and video snippets showing Edwards and Cheney standing next to each other on the dais at the February 2001, National Prayer breakfast.

"Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends across the country and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honoured to be with you all this morning," Cheney said, according to a transcript.

Edwards also met Cheney at the ceremonial swearing-in of Senator Elizabeth Dole, on January 8, 2003, according to newspaper accounts.
Advertisement Advertisement

It also was a stretch for Cheney to suggest that he frequently presides over the Senate.

Cheney wields the gavel only when he's needed to cast tie-breaking votes, which happened only three times in 2003.

He does visit Capitol Hill on Tuesdays, for strategy lunches with Republican senators, but no Democrats are invited.

Cheney aides said that his comment wasn't misleading. It pointed up a larger truth, they said: that Edwards has often been absent from his Senate duties, busy running for president.

"The vice president has no recollection of meeting Senator Edwards," said Anne Womack, Cheney's campaign spokeswoman.

"The important point is during his Senate career, Senator Edwards has failed to establish a record."

During 2003, as he was beginning his run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards missed 38 per cent of the 459 roll-call votes.

He's missed all 45 votes held since Senator John Kerry named him as his running mate in July.

I can understand why Edwards would be Senator gone at the times highlighted. But, I think this could really turn and bite Cheney on the backside badly. People aint goign to remember the debate, they'll remember what Cheney said - and as such I have to think that the debate will work best for the Democrats.

Ninja edit : WTF, cleaning clocks?!?! That cant mean there what it does here.

[Master Yoghurt]

That waffle about never meeting Edwards before is a good one, as is the claim that he never said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Those are fine examples that if youre a critical or an informed viewer, you will see straight through the retorics and realise a distorted picture was being painted. Nice try, allthough I think these snappy rebutals will backfire as the facts trickle out on the newswire. Cheney was probably hoping for a sequel of the Lieberman debate in 2000. He must have been fairly disappointed to find that was not going to be the way at all.

Now here is a funny story. You probably remember when Edwards rolled out a series of accusations towards Cheney regarding his involvement in Halliburton. Cheney half in panic directed the viewers to go to the independent factcheck.com to see for themselves what was the real deal. However, when millions of viewers went to that adress, they were directed to georgesoros.com which is an anti Bush site! Now thats what I call factchecking! :lol

Of course, what he meant was factcheck.org, which is run by Annenberg Center at University of Pensylvania. They got a published article about Cheneys work in Halliburton. But even that page would probably not have been what Cheney wanted. Its stated on the page that Cheney falsely suggested that Annenberg Center disproved the accusations Edwards fronted in the debate about Cheneys work as boss for Halliburton. Its further stated that they in the past published an article which rejected some previous/old accusations, but goes on to say Edwards claims in the debate were correct.

The page is down at the moment of writing unfortunately. I guess its due to the amount of traffic.

[Jedieb]

I just read about Cheney's factcheck gaffe. Between that and the picture of Edwards, Cheney, and Bush all stading together on stage, it's been a fun post debate fact check for the Dems. I've mentioned post debate spin several times. Two gaffes like that are liable to make a virtual draw be remembered as a slight win for Edwards. Either way, it's not going to be remembered as a Cheney win the way his 2000 debate with Lieberman was.


I am, and continue to be, out of the Rather discussion. However, I did not feel like leaving myself open to the criticism that I had dodged part of your response and therefore I asked a rhetorical question, which I then promptly answered to be clear of my position. This was motivated in part by my personal expectation of a (and I'm putting this gently) of a venomous response from you.

I was venemous? :lol

Man, lighten up. I basically disagreed with your use of the word partisan. Partisan implies that Rather and CBS rely on DNC talking points to get their stories on the air, a criticism that's been leveled at Fox and Rupert Murdoch for years. We're not as far apart on Rather's story as you might think. I'd have no problem with an argument that states Rather's had a thing against the Bush's for years. ("What if you were judged by the time to walked off the air?" that's as close as I can remember Bush Sr.'s tert reply to a tough line of questioning from Rather years ago.) But it's not because Rather's a Democrat who's favored the party for years. He's ripped EVERYONE for years, at the desk and on 60 minutes. Some people have enough credibility that you believe they made an honest mistake, some don't. Rather's got that credibility, most people from FOXNews simply don't.

[Pierce Tondry]

I am, and continue to be, out of the Rather discussion.

[Jedieb]

:lol
CBSNews was one of the polls that had Edwards winning the VP debate. Curse that Rahter and his evil partisan ways. HAS HE NO SHAME!!! :crack

[imported_Marcus]

Well, now you have the Admin basically forced to concede all the reasons they gave for war have proven false and clinging to "Well he was a bad man'.... reasoning. Which, is a silly strawman argument. Yeah, Hussein is a bad man, but so are a good dozen other countries that are also killing their citizens or really do have WMD. If your going to use the Bad Man strawman, then reasoning why other just as bad regimes arent rolled over should be given. Iraq was never a threat to anyone.

Anyway...

Election day tomorrow for us Aussies. Prediction time.

Howard deserves to be thrown out. His Govt, depite a few idiots, are however on the whole pretty good. Latham has campained well, but voters probably have no real compelling reason to vote the Govt out. It is difficult to shift Australians, we have only had 4 Govt changes since 1949. There has to be a compelling reason to change and there simply isnt one.

It will be close, but the Liberals should be re-elected and I am hoping that Howard is voted out from his parlimentary seat, hence becomming unable to be Prime Minister. That I feel would be the best outcome.

Latham has presented a case that he is capable and I suspect that the next election people will feel more compfortable with him. He's too new in the job of Opposition Leader. No one's really comfortable that he can be Prime Miniter just yet. Good ideas, good vision, just not ready as yet. It's a pity this is true, Lathm has certainly shown he's true Prime Minister material and I personally like what he's put forward in policy. Next time, he's almost certain to get up.

As we have a preferrential voting system, I'm going with a local canditate for the parlimentary seat and preferencing Labour. Two-party preferred system means I can lodge a protest or idiot vote, but still, my vote will go to one of two canditates, whomever gets the most in primary votes. My preferences can be directed to whomever I wish, or done along party lines. Also, it's mandatory to vote. $150 dollar fine for not doing so.

We have a senate to be elected but I doubt anyone truly understands how preferences get worked out there. It's about as whacked out as the Florida 2000 vote.

[Pierce Tondry]

I'm reading the report now and actually starting to get worried. Iraq got a lot of under-the-table illegal money from other countries. Over 11 billion. Kinda makes me think multinational coalitions won't be forming anytime soon.

I know that seems like small potatoes compared to, say the US national debt, or even its yearly budget. But I know what I could do with that kind of money.

[Figrin D'an]

www.jibjab.com has a new animation about the election, as a followup to their "This Land" parody, called "Good To Be In D.C."

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think you got to pay for it though.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I guess I was wrong or at least they were on CNN. I liked the first one better although there were some funny moments.

[Jedieb]

Many of the Electoral College sites I follow have shown that Bush's post convention lead was erased by the first debate. A couple of them now have Kerry back in the lead. That makes these last couple of debates even more critical. Bush either puts the brakes on Kerry's momentum or he heads into the final days of the election trailing.
www.electoral-vote.com
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=879

The first site is run by a Democrat, but it's data is very solid. He gathers data from several polls; independent, Rep., or Dem. The site has informative graphics and you can chart the race by state or by the Electoral College as a whole. I've been using it in my class and the kids really enjoy it. I think it's been having some server problems today because of increased traffic. Hopefully it'll be back up by tomorrow. Zogby's reputation is well known and he's got Kerry with a slim battleground lead.

Transmitter Rumor
Has anyone come across this? Basically there's been a theory flying around that Bush was wearing an ear piece and transmitter during the first debate. There are pictures floating around showing a bulge in the back of his jacket and a bunch of people are going on and on about how his performance shrieked of someone who was listening to a voice in his ear. Bush has used them before and it's not all that different from a teleprompter if you think about it. But using one during the debate would have violated rules of the debate. Personally, I think it's just too juicy and embarrasing to be true. I doubt it'll go anywhere mainstream.

Bush should definitely bounce back tonight. I don't see how he CAN'T. He's spent days now reviewing his performance during the first debate. Half the debate will be on domestic issues where Kerry is suppose to have an edge. Both candidates will try to spin today's job numbers to their advantage. Bush will tout the 98,000 jobs added. Kerry will point out the figure was 30,000-50,000 below expectations and that previous figures have been revised downward. Whoever ends up on the defensive tonight will more than likely come out the "loser." Right now, Bush can't another post debate fall.

[Figrin D'an]

The campaigning in my home state of Wisconsin has been non-stop by both Kerry and Bush. Polls in New Mexico, Colorado and Wisconsin are all within the margin of error at the moment, and since Wisconsin has the most electoral votes of those three states, I guess the reason for all the attention on the state is pretty obvious.


The rumor about Bush using a radio transceiver and earpiece is kinda silly. Seems kinds of reactionary to the rumor that Kerry took a 'cheat sheet' out of his pocket as he approached the podium. It's just typical mudslinging by both sides, IMO.

[Jedieb]

Keith Oberman is going to have the radio transceiver as one of his 5 top stories. This is the first I've seen of it on cable or network TV. Oberman's show is pretty funny so he's probably going to have some fun with the story. I heard the cheat sheet rumor came from Drudge's site. But the video clip showed that Kerry's paper wasn't folded, but Bush was snagged unfolding a piece of paper himself. Both rumors play into the perceived notion that Bush can't speak without being coached. I'd take both stories with a grain of salt.

[Jedieb]

There's a new wrinkle in tonight's debate. The majority of the audience is going to be made up of "soft" Bush and Kerry supporters with only a few undecideds. That coupled with the fact that the questions will be read by the audience members themselves should make the evening more interactive. Something which I think should benefit Bush. But Kerry may yet surprise people. He's done around 70 of these Town Hall style meetings to Bush's 19. But still, both men undoubtedly performed their TH's in front of supporters, not undecideds and their opponents soft supporters.

[CMJ]

I felt the second debate was a bit of draw personally. Bush was on the defensive quite a bit, but as the incumbant that's usual. I'd say it was a push - or maybe slightly to Kerry.

[Pierce Tondry]

I can't call it. I think maybe Bush by a tad, but I honestly don't know.

[CMJ]

I agree..it was close.

Kerry 50.1
Bush 49.9

I mean seriously...no clear winner in this one. Even though the last debate was close, Kerry won on most cards. I'm not sure that will be the case this time.

[darth_mcbain]

It was close - I'd have to give it to Kerry, but it wasn't a runaway by any means. Bush definitely seemed on the defensive in this debate, even moreso than in the first one...

[Jedieb]

I have to go with CMJ's take, a draw with a slight edge to Kerry. This is one of those debates where each side will claim victory, and pundits will split. The after debate surveys and polls will start coming in soon and I expect a very even result. I think Bush can walk away with a moral victory because he definitely improved upon his first performance. We'll see if this puts the brakes on Kerry's surge. It'll take a few days before the numbers bear out.

What I found interesting was the aggressive tone of the debate. These guys didn't take much time to portray much empathy. They had an audience and really didn't use them effectively the way a Clinton or Reagan would have. It'll be interesting to see how that plays. Now, let the spinning begin!

[darth_mcbain]

I found it very interesting how Bush completely ignored the moderator on that one question and just start rebutting away...

[Jedieb]

Was it rude, or aggressive? I know what my initial reaction to it was, but I'm not neutral. But it certainly was memorable. Again, we have to wait and see if it gets a lot of coverage and how people judge it.

[Pierce Tondry]

MSNBC has a couple people leaning towards Bush. (omg that's right I don't drink Republican kool-aid gg FNC)

Anyway, their responses were more of a "Kerry wasn't bad, Bush was good" situation. So, this makes it insanely hard to call.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well those two are republicans. Fascist Pat Buchanan and I forget the ex republican lawyer. So I don't count that. They have a very biased panel. The other two are very pro Kerry too. I think they do that on purpose. I think it was a draw honestly with Kerry winning slightly. I think Kerry won for me but I am biased. I think those comments he made to Gibson were very rude but hey again I am biased.

[Pierce Tondry]

Heh, good game for my ability to think on my feet.

What I meant to say was that if Bush had out-and-out won, those two would be crowing their heads off. If Kerry had won, the other two would be doing the crowing. I'm sort of making it an issue of who was doing the most praise, and I sense more jubilance in the Bush camp, but not overwhelming amounts. I don't sense that in the Kerry camp, and I'm kinda trying to find it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well on CNN they are being pretty jubilent from what I hear. Also I don't think MSNBC picked good democrat people I mean Pat Buchanan would say that regardless as you can tell I hate that man.

[Pierce Tondry]

Yeah, but among cable news choices I see CNN about as liberal as FNC is conservative, and MSNBC as the best the middle ground between the two. That's why I'm tuned in to it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think CNN is that liberal heck my mother a stauch democrat thinks they are conservative. I think they are in the middle myself.

[Pierce Tondry]

lol, but then again, some conservatives think FNC is liberal. I dunno, I'll defer to popular opinion on this issue, but MSNBC has been suggesting Bush won slightly. Or actually, let me rephrase. More people on that channel have been praising Bush.

Anyways, I shall await the the spin doctors review.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am going to wait for the polls on Monday that will tell us the most, IMO.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Kerry, for certain. For one thing, Bush was spin, spin, spin and nothing really of .... anything else. However you expect that of the incumbant. But it did get wearisome.

Highly enjoyable to listen to, I managed to get it live. Kerry IMO was actualyl debating and doing a good job of it. Bush was presenting his political line okay... but I know that line has some serious flaws, esp about Iraq. Now, I understand this format was supposed to suit Bush - well it did seem that way to me. Kerry held his own well tho.

[Marcus Telcontar]

.....

2 hours after polls closed. No one expected this. I cant believe Australians are this stupid

It's a Liberal landside.

I'm ashamed to be Australian today. We are, to put it bluntly, idiots to fall like sheep or lemmings for what was quite clearly Liberals scare campains on interest rates. We rejected policy for fear.

Hello, my name is Mark and I'm a New Zealander. How are you all?

[CMJ]

I admit I don't live in Australia, but I got heard and read that the economy is bustling along there right now. It's hard to beat an incumbant if everyone is making money - no matter their foreign policy.

[Jedieb]

Analysis and polls are starting to come in droves now. I think it's going to be remembered as a draw. With each side claiming "it was close, but my guy came out on top." I can't think of any one image that may end up representing or dominating coverage of the debate. Which is good. The last one is next Wed. and then, unfortunately, we're back to stump speeches, commercials, and whatever the news cycle dredges up.

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/content/goodtobeindc/frameset.html

There's another link to the latest short by JibJab. I know I couldn't find it with the earlier link so if you haven't seen it check it out. Not as good as the first, but pretty funny. Although the image of Edwards in a red thong is .... disturbing. Disturbing, but.......strangely.......alluring.........

[Pierce Tondry]

Tomorrow's CBS News headline: Jedieb is gay! ;)

As an aside, in that little video, I swear Kerry looks like he wants to eat everything with that giant mouth of his. But anyways.

I'm inclined to agree. I think what this debate did was essentially firm up each side's base. The first debate was a Kerry confidence booster, the second one boosted Bush. So I suppose the third one will end up being the winner-take-all.

Walking into that debate, I see Bush with an innate disadvantage. We know domestic policy is his weak point, but last night showed he could spin facts his way to an extent. Kerry, meanwhile, has the arduous task of proving unequivocally that he is the better debater. Expectations will be high, but he has already met two performance bars.

I get the sense the final debate is Bush's to win or lose. Anyone agree with me here?

[Jedieb]

I get the sense the final debate is Bush's to win or lose. Anyone agree with me here?
I complete and utterly disagree. I AM NOT GAY!!! "Not that there's anything wrong with that." ;)

Yeah, Kerry has doen an effective job of improving his image and showing he's competent enough to be President during the first 2 debates. I don't know if I'd say this last debate is Bush's to win or lose, because it's on Domestic issues and that's "suppose" to be Kerry's strength and Bush's weakness. Going in I think people will expect Kerry to have the edge because of the subject matter and his performance in the first 2 debates. Honestly, I'd be surprised if we don't get another 'Draw.' Just because I can't imagine Bush reverting to his smirking and scowlilng.

"Want some wood?" & "This is the first time we've met."
I don't know why both Cheney and Bush would misstate facts that could so easily be checked out. I don't know, maybe they were just trying to set the other guy up for a moment of debate levity. Bush got some chuckles with his responses last night. But these are the kinds of gaffes that send internet bloggers and spin misters into overdrive. From FactCheck.org:
"President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income,'but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as 'royalties' on a different tax schedule.)"

[Jedieb]

Well on CNN they are being pretty jubilent from what I hear. Also I don't think MSNBC picked good democrat people I mean Pat Buchanan would say that regardless as you can tell I hate that man.

I'm no big fan of Pat Buchanan, and I took his effusive praise of Bush's debate performance with a grain of salt, but he has been a vocal critic of Bush at times. He was on Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago and he ripped Bush over the invasion of Iraq. In some respects, he's similiar to Nader. An outcast of a party that sometimes delights in sticking it to the party they use to have close ties to.

[Pierce Tondry]

"President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income,'but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as 'royalties' on a different tax schedule.)

Has nothing to do with that. Of course Bush knew he had stock in a lumber company, but he didn't own the company like Kerry mistakenly said, so Bush went with that.

Edit: actually wasn't a lumber company Bush held stock in, which further muddies the waters.


FactCheck.org wrote:
Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

[Jedieb]

Your edit shows that it wasn't just some stock, it was a holding company that Bush owned. A holding company which now owns "50% of the tree growing-company." Which means Bush has more of an involvement in the Timber business now than he did back in 01. Which means that his answer to the debate was a mistake. I wouldn't call it a lie because I can understand how Bush can have so many holdings that he could lose track of one like this, but the bottomline was that he slipped up. Not a big deal, but still something that can opponents can take delight in. :evil

It's amazing how many mistakes and manipulations both sides can let fly in a debate. FactCheck.org went over the debate and found plenty of mistakes by both candidates.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11050766%255E1702,00.html

Who ARE these idiots? Anyone with a clue and a knowing of the Aust election knows Iraq and the US Alliance featured exactly zero and was nothing of the sort tas described. Howard won because of economic issues.

[Master Yoghurt]

A group of enthusiastic peace loving people in Norway collected the money for a half page ad in Washington Post adressing President Bush and the US led war effort in Iraq.

The ad:
http://www.tellhim.no/dokumenter/annonse.pdf

Quite unusual, so I thought it might be interesting :)

Proposal for Norwegian national budget was also recently published by the goverment (coalition between christian democrats, liberal center and conservatives). The parliamentary opposition (social democrats and the right wing progress party) is having a mad fit about it. Key figures that caused reactions were lowered high income tax, increased VAT and higher consumer cost for prescripted medicines.

Its one year until parliamentary election, and even though we have strong economic growth and high budget surpluses (because of the oil exports), we might very well see the social democrats replace the sitting goverment at next election. I wont bore you with too many details, just to say our unique budget situation with high surpluses and more than $100 billion acumulated in our "oil fund", the controversy how to best manage our wealth for future generations and how to upgrade our current infrastructure without overspending and causing inflation are important issues.

For those interested, some news about the budget in English:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article885139.ece

For those thinking Norwegian politics are :zzz you may safely move along.. move along

[Jedieb]

Tomorrow is your last chance to catch the "best" of what's left in the campaign. After that, it's going to be 2 1/2 weeks of non stop crap before the campaign barrels into the final weekend. The election could very well be decided by mud. Who slings the most, and who fights it the most effectively. Sinclair, who ordered 6 of its ABC stations to pre-empt Nightline when they read the names of U.S. casualties, one ups themselves by ordering over 60 of its stations to show Stolen Honor. A documentary they're actually passing off as news. Whispers are Rove may even try to start a smear campaign on Teresa H. Kerry. Who knows what guys like Soros have in store for Bush. These last 2 weeks may well have been the highlight of the campaign. Hold your nose after tomorrow, because it's going to stink pretty bad.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659

For anyone who wants to actually say it - leaving Saddam in power WOULD have been better. I'll post another article soon that is a total must read. However bad Saddam was, the situation is now a good deal worse.


rom: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under
virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-<smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont> story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April
when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when
Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the
country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of
landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there
were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods./CONTINUED BELOW

WSJ reporter Fassahi's e-mail to friends /2
9/29/2004 2:47:12 PM

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard
units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being
murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that
almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18
billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage
and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for
insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about
elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months
while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the
government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in
the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree
elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

[Jedieb]

Blix gave an interview today in which he made many of those same assertions. But, the focus is on domestic issues tonight. This is it, the last grasp at some form of civil discourse. You won't see these two men share a stage together again. If you haven't made up your mind, this is your last chance to see something that isn't a stump speech, commercial, pay per view documentary, prime time documentary, or news coverage.

[Figrin D'an]

I watched a good portion of the "debate" (lol... using that term in this context still cracks me up). Seemed to be a push again. Neither one of them really distinguished themselves. Bush stumbled on social security, but Kerry did the same regarding taxes.

The problem I've seen for both of them, from the perspective of the undecided voter, is that neither one of them produced any kind of memorable moment or major quoteable statement in any of the three debates. Swing voters, for better or worse, will often go the direction of the candidate that really does or says something worth remembering. There wasn't a moment like that at all this time. The post-debate environment isn't any different than the pre-debate one. That means that a lot of people are probably going be walking into the polling stations on November 2nd still mulling over who will get their vote.


On a slightly different topic, has anyone else heard/read about the initiative on the ballot in Colorado? It would allow the state's electoral votes to be divided among the candidates based upon the percentage of the popular vote each receives within the state. This isn't a new concept by any means, but here are the real kickers on this... if it passes, it will be immediately retroactive to THIS election, and in that case, it's likely to be taken to court as the state legislature technically never stated how the issue should be decided (Constitutional law says that only the state legislatures can determine how their state's electoral votes are to be distributed).

In other words... Colorado could end up being this year's "Florida".

>_<

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe

Someone explain to me how this can possibly happen. This Democrat / republican registration is confusing enough.... I flat out dont understand the registration process. Someone educate me please?

I mean, wouldnt it make sense everyone to auto register for voting when they turn 18 and all they need to do is hand in a postal address, plus id themselves? It just seems needlessly complex. so, please explain it to me. I'm genuinely confused.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah Fig Colorado could be a mess either way. I personally think that they should go with that on the national level. Would make the Popular vote matter more than it is now. But that would take a constutional amendment which is very hard. As for the Debate early polls have Kerry winning this one. So according to the polls he won all three. If that is the case here is one interesting thing to note. Nobody has ever lost all the debates and won.

[Jedieb]

On a slightly different topic, has anyone else heard/read about the initiative on the ballot in Colorado? It would allow the state's electoral votes to be divided among the candidates based upon the percentage of the popular vote each receives within the state. This isn't a new concept by any means, but here are the real kickers on this... if it passes, it will be immediately retroactive to THIS election, and in that case, it's likely to be taken to court as the state legislature technically never stated how the issue should be decided (Constitutional law says that only the state legislatures can determine how their state's electoral votes are to be distributed).


That's going to be an interesting vote to follow. I expect that it will be challenged in court by whichever side loses the election. Especially if losing a couple of Colorado votes makes the difference. Colorado has 9 electoral votes. If the initiative passes the winner of the state would be award only 5 or 6 votes instead of all 9. Basically, if the initiative passes it's a win for whoever loses the state. Colorado wasn't in play 4 years ago but it is this year because of an influx in independents. I expect Bush to eke out a win, but it will be closer than in 2000.

[Jedieb]

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story...95&nav=168XRvNe

Someone explain to me how this can possibly happen. This Democrat / republican registration is confusing enough.... I flat out dont understand the registration process. Someone educate me please?
Both parties have been mobilizing like madmen to get people registered to vote. I've seen stories where paid employees of PACs and 527 get paid $5 for every voter they register, but only if they register the voter for a specific party. I would expect lowlifes from both parties to trash or not register voters for the opposition party. So far, most of the people getting caught have been Republicans, but I'm sure there are some instances of Dem. voter registration fouls.

Am I the only one that expects a significantly higher turnout this year than 4 years ago? I honestly can't see how people can sit this one out.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I hope for a high turnout. The higher the turnout the more likely Bush loses. Usually a higher turnout favors the challenger not the incumbent.

[jjwr]

I hope the new voter turn-out is huge and it crushes Bush. After everything that has gone on it amazes me the man is still in the race.

Course I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 but I was pretty dead set against Bush anyways but this is just ridiculous. What does it say about our country with a guy like this leading it.

[Jedieb]

I think both sides will get a big turnout. Both the Dems and Reps have done a great job of getting people mobilized and registered. I think the turnout is going to be very surprising. But I wouldn't be surprised if many of those voters who passed on 2000's election vote for Bush. I don't think he'll get more than Kerry, but he will get a fair share. A lot of evangelicals that sat out 2000 will come out and vote. That's one of the blocks Bush has been catering to and he's been very effective at it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003

Listen and watch this Now. Brilliant stuff.

[Doc Milo]

You do know F9-11 is pure leftist propoganda, right?

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003

Listen and watch this Now. Brilliant stuff.

Agreed. I saw this the other day. The best part is that, over the past month or so, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show have really made Bill O'Riley eat his words after the disparaging comments he made.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
You do know F9-11 is pure leftist propoganda, right?

It also has a lot of truth in it, mixed with BS. Which makes it dangerous. You have to think. Now, I know the brainwashed from FOX dont, but if you do think and then go researching, F9/11 does a lot of good. And that is always the real secret - find out for yourself.

F9/11 does hold up to examination surprisingly well, dispite it being pure propoganda. But, it's not telling us anything we didnt already know, which is also a problem. I watched it and went "So? That's nothing new".

What disturbs me is the attiude of voting for one man because of shallow reasons. Say, someone fromt he Religious Right voting for Bush SOLELY because 'He's a good christian" and ignoring the other real problems in like Iraq or the ecomoy - or the fact Kerry is hard core Catholic/Christian (but believes in seperation of church and state). You can pick these people too easily. They repeat the party line too readily and show no real knowledge of the issues. Happens on both sides.

To really example the point, I was taliking to a Pastor a few weeks ago and he had no idea Kerry was Catholic, but had taken on the Religious Right's propoganda without looking further. So, is Kerry really a Liberal? From what I've found..... well, go look for yourself :p

[Jedieb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login

That's an in-depth article on Bush and his faith. It's from the NY Times who've already endorsed Kerry and have been brutal on his handling of Iraq. It's written by Ron Suskind who's already taken Bush to task with the book he wrote with Paul O'Neil. It's one thing to be a man of faith, but it's another to let it blind you.

[Doc Milo]

Well, let's see:

The movie opens with the 2000 election. Moore claims that numerous investigations showed that Gore won Florida. Moore chooses not to name these sources for the simple fact that he has no sources. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today, all who investigated the election mess of 2000, all reported the same concensus after both recounts: Bush won Florida. The truth of the matter is that Bush never was behind in any count in Florida. I remember watching the FOX News election coverage that night; when they called the state for Florida early in the night (before the polls closed in the pan handle, in fact) and they showed the graphic of the way the voting was going, I remember thinking, "How do you call a state for someone when they don't even have the most votes yet!" Which brings me to another of Moore's distortions in the movie. The way it is presented, it makes it look like FOX never called the state for Gore (it did) and that when it finally corrected itself, and called it for Bush, it was trying to influence the election in some way. This is absolutely false. It wasn't until 2:15 AM that FOX called the state for Bush, well after all the polls had closed. And to suggest that all the other news agencies were merely following FOX's lead is preposterous. All the news agencies go by the same data! Now, in a documentary, one would expect the film-maker to be fair and not distort facts, but Moore isn't making a documentary, he's making a political propoganda piece. Which is exactly why he doesn't point out that the news agencies (FOX included) calling the state for Gore cost Bush approximatley 8000 votes in the more conservative pan handle, where people didn't vote because the state had already been decided, this is according to Democrat strategist Bob Beckel.

Moore then brings up Bush's "convoluted" relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi King. He tells us that Bush thinks more about what's good for the Saudi's than what's good for Americans. Except for the fact that, if this was the case, Bush would have never gone into Iraq. The Saudi King stood against the invasion: he said, Saudi Arabia "rejects outright any infringement on Iraq's unity, independence, resources, and internal security, as well as a military occupation." There is a simple reason why the Saudis rejected it: The United States would be liberating their enemies! The Saudis are Sunni and the war on Iraq would be liberating the Shites!

Then we have Moore trying to make a connection between Bush and the Bin Ladens somehow seem insidious. This connection is made through the Carlyle Group, a highly connected DC firm that speicalizes in aerospace and defense investments. The Carlyle Group is is owned by the Bin Laden family (who claims to have disowned Osama). Fact is, there are many other people in Washington associated with the Carlyle Group: George Soros, one of the most anti-Bush people working to elect Kerry -- has $100,000,000 invested in the Carlyle Group. Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Jimmy Carter are all associated with the Carlyle
Group. This connection comes into play in the fictional account known as Moore's movie, with the claim that the White House allowed the Bin Laden family to leave on 9/11 when all other commercial craft were grounded. The truth is that Richard Clare admits to making the decision to let them leave by himself, and that the family did not leave on 9-11, but in the days following after the grounding had been lifted. More half-truths to purport a lie.

Moore tries to make it seem that Bush is lazy, taking too many vacations. He cites the Washington Post claiming that Bush was on vacation 42% of the time in his first 8 months in office. This is also a misrepresentation on two fronts. The article says 1 year and 8 months, and includes trips to foreign nations and Camp David where foreign policy was discussed with foreign leaders. Some vacation!

Moore tries to make it seem that Bush ignored a memo that told about the 9-11 attacks -- a memo that said "Bin Landen wants to Attack America." Moore does't bother to say that this is information we already knew since 1993, and that the memo did not state a when or where such an attack would occur. Thus the memo provided the US with nothing. He then tries to make the Afghanistan war seem like an elaborate plan created before 9-11, knowing 9-11 would happen, and somehow allowed it to happen so he could put this plan in motion. It has something to do with a piple line and a meeting between the Taliban and Unocal to build the pipelline that would bring natural gas to Afghanistan through the Caspian Sea. This meeting took place with Unocal when Bill Clinton was president, not when Bush was president, and at Bill Clinton's concession. But Moore's presentation of the facts make it look like Bush is somehow involved in all this (Bush was governor of Texas at the time.) And when the pipeline deal was
announced and implemented in 2002, Unocal released a press release stating that they had no plans or interest in getting involved in any projects in Afghanistan. In other words, there is no connection between Bush and this pipeline, which is somehow why Bush went into Afghanistan and allowed 9-11 to happen. The argument is pure speculation backed by lies and misrepresentations, and has nothing to do with the truth.

Moore tries to make it seem as if Bush was unaffected by the news that of the attacks, continuing to read to children at the time. But witnesses, including the teacher of the class where he was reading, have said that Bush was in complete shock and distress, but conducted himself with professionalism. The teacher, who did not vote for Bush, even stated that his calming effect helped them through a difficult day, even going so far as saying that she didn't vote for Bush, but on that day, she would have.

Of course there is the whole thing about the Patriot Act -- and to this day there have been no cases of the Patrito Act being used to abuse civil liberties. I myself have a few problems with the patriot act, but I don't believe it to be anywhere near as dangerous as Moore tries to make it out to be. Moore then outright lies to the audience. In speaking with Rep. Porter Goss, Goss informs Moore that there is a toll free 800 number that can be called to report any problems with the Patriot Act. Moore informs us via a flash of words on the screen that there is no 800 number, and then gives the audience Goss's private number. Maybe not an outright lie on Moore's part, but pretty darn close. Yes, there is no 800 number. But there is a toll free number, using the 877 area code. (877) 858-9040.

Moore then tries to get Senators to sign their kids up for the
military (a parent cannot sign their kids up for the military), and outright lies again when he says that only one member of congress has a child in the military. In fact, 8 member of congress have children in the military -- Tim Johnson (d), Marylin Musgrave (r), Ed Schrock (r), Joe Wilson (r), John Kline (r), Duncan Hunter (r), Todd Akin (r) and Joe Biden (d). There are also 36 veterans in congress.

Moore tries to make us believe that the Coalition Bush built only has small countries that haven't contributed troops, leaving out the larger countries like Poland, England, and Australia that do have troops committed to the Coalition. Moore then depicts the "evil military" as targeting the poor for enlistment. Yet I fail to see how poor people enlisting is a bad thing, since the military offers a great deal of opportunity other than war. The military is purely voluntary (and will remain so) and I, having had two brothers in the Air Force, resent Moore's implication that the military is somehow forcing themselves on the poor.

Moore has said that there is no terrorist threat. And that he believes the terrorists should win. How can anyone take the word of a propoganda artist who misrepresents facts with cut and paste tactics to somehow legitimize his Anti-American stance?

Anyone can agree or disagree with the war, with the president, and I have no problem with them. I do have a problem with the tactics people like Moore use to misinform the public in order to effect a presidential election. To me, this film is a way of giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war, and should be considered treason.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Anyone can agree or disagree with the war, with the president, and I have no problem with them. I do have a problem with the tactics people like Moore use to misinform the public in order to effect a presidential election. To me, this film is a way of giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war, and should be considered treason.

The tactics Moore uses are essentially the same as those used by the candidates themselves to attack the records of their opponent. Sure, Moore distorts facts and figures to serve his purpose, but that really isn't any different from what Bush or Kerry are doing, or other presidential candidates in the past. I don't really see how the film aids or comforts the enemies of the United States. It's providing information that is on the public record, and despite it being not presented in an unbiased or completely factual form, it's not violating any kind of national security statute or anything.

Sure, it's propaganda. So is what comes out of the candidates mouths on TV spots every day. So is any number of other things in American culture. That's part of the nature of free speech. Unless it's giving away information vital to the national security of the country, it's fair game to talk about in public and have an open opinion on. That's hardly grounds for treason. If Moore is to be criticized on that level, then the same finger has to be pointed at anyone who decents against the views of the government in a public manner.

[Doc Milo]

The difference is in the presentation.

Bush or Kerry are candidates for office, and their stump speeches, ads, and other ways of communicating their message and attacking their opponents is viewed in that context.

Moore markets and presents his film as if it were an unbiased documentary on the events of the past four years. Documentaries are films that are supposed to document facts and events . . . Moore's film is not a documentary because it takes facts and misrepresents them to make events seem like something they were not. But the context in which Moore presents his film is as a documentary, and thus he is trying to capitalize on the credibility with which people view documentaries.

It's like the difference between hearing a news story on talk radio (liberal, moderate, or conservative) and hearing it on the news itself. The talk show makes no pretense at objectivity. You will hear any given news story from the bias of the host. But the news is not supposed to report with bias -- and thus people view assign a story seen on the news with more credibility than they would if heard on a talk show.

How does it give aid and comfort to our enemies? Because of the way in which it is presented, people tend to assign it credibility. Which gives to our enemies a propoganda tool to use to weaken the leadership of our nation -- to use as a terrorist weapon against our sitting President, a weapon to use to try and interfere with a presidential election. When a weapon of such weight is given to our enemies, I consider it treasonous.

Just as I consider Jane Fonda's actions in Vietnam treasonous.

This is not the same as someone standing against the war in a public forum, or protesting our nations policies.

Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to slander and libel someone else -- public or private.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Moore markets and presents his film as if it were an unbiased documentary on the events of the past four years. Documentaries are films that are supposed to document facts and events . . . Moore's film is not a documentary because it takes facts and misrepresents them to make events seem like something they were not. But the context in which Moore presents his film is as a documentary, and thus he is trying to capitalize on the credibility with which people view documentaries.


But, as I believe CMJ once pointed out, all documentaries have a bias or an angle that they play, depending upon the director. They present a certain amount of fact, but they also present that fact from a particular point of view, and will fill the the gaps with things slanted to that point of view. Granted, Moore's film does this more than many documentaries, but it isn't different conceptually from the documentary formula. Moore is hardly the first person to create a documentary to spout his political views and influence the opinions of others on such things.




How does it give aid and comfort to our enemies? Because of the way in which it is presented, people tend to assign it credibility. Which gives to our enemies a propoganda tool to use to weaken the leadership of our nation -- to use as a terrorist weapon against our sitting President, a weapon to use to try and interfere with a presidential election. When a weapon of such weight is given to our enemies, I consider it treasonous.


That's a really, really big stretch of what constitutes treason. By that logic, just about every form of media would be guilty of treason against the United States government. The credibility people assign to different forms of media isn't a constant, either among the forms of media or among the populous itself. Much of it is up to the individual to interpret, and is greatly influenced by one's own personal biases and point of view. Nothing, not even the most basic newstory, is 100% factual.



Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to slander and libel someone else -- public or private.

Whether or not Moore is guilty of slander would be for a court to decide. His film is cannot be categorically labeled as slander, however, because the content of the film cannot be demonstrated to be completely false.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Moore markets and presents his film as if it were an unbiased documentary on the events of the past four years. Documentaries are films that are supposed to document facts and events

HE. DOES. NOT. DO . THAT.

He has clearly and unabguously stated it is propoganda designed to rid the White House of Bush. It makes no effort to tell the other side and he has made no bones about it. It's also quite plain in the movie itself.

Oh, BTW, Moore had no problem bashing Clinton or Democrats either in his books and other movies.


To me, this film is a way of giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war, and should be considered treason.

Oh... stop it. That's a ridiculous statement. The fact is, this 'war' was based on BS and it's about time you Americans woke up and reeled the hawks in. How many thousands of people have died, how many billions peed down the drain, how much of Iraq covered in D.U. dust? Aid and comfort to the enemy my...... yeah.


to use as a terrorist weapon against our sitting President, a weapon to use to try and interfere with a presidential election. When a weapon of such weight is given to our enemies, I consider it treasonous.

Or is it someone trying to get you to go looking for the truth? The fact is, the Bush admin absolutly deserves as much critisim, harsh or soft as it can get for it's actions Internationally. Whatever way you choose to look at them, they were wrong.


Moore tries to make us believe that the Coalition Bush built only has small countries that haven't contributed troops, leaving out the larger countries like Poland, England, and Australia that do have troops committed to the Coalition.

POLAND??? AUSTRALIA???? There were only ever 2500 troops at the maximum of the aust deployment, about what Poland has. There was only ever a handful non logistics or aircraft controllers in that total from Australia - they call themselves fire Crews, in reality the SAS. (My neighbours actually. I'm surrounded by Iraqi veterans. Man, did those guys have some stories to tell! One of them was in Baghdad two days before the first of the USA troops). There are only a few thousand Brits. The reality is, with over 150,000 troops in some sort of commitment, the USA is truly a co-alition of.... one. No one apart from the Brits and Aust went in at war time and we pulled out fairly soon to pure logistics. Moore's point of no coalition is 100% accurate.

And Howard only gave troops to get a FTA out of Bush. He had no popular support. The images of 2 million protesters before the war are still vivid.

[Charley]

Moore's not guilty of treason. He's guilty of being a smarmy fat man who makes terrible books and movies, but that does not treason make. I have no problem with labeling him as an unscrupulous lying huckster, but lets give credit where credit is due and not jump to conclusions that can't be supported.

D.U. dust, Mark? That's a bit tinfoil, isn't it?

[Marcus Telcontar]

D.U. dust, Mark? That's a bit tinfoil, isn't it?

Unfortunantly, possibly not. The veterans back here are worried by it, no doubt. They werent in the zones where it's most prevalent however, so they think they wont have problems like a few of the Gulf I vets do. I suppose I could pull up some good links on the issue, but nothing really beats the boots on the ground who were there. Apart from the SAS, the Air Force guys in this street were at Baghdad Airport and the Green Zone. So, it's not quite like they have gieger couters out, but they do know something about the issue.

Probably understandably, they only mentioned that while haivng a few beers while most of the car nuts in the street were gathered to watch the Bathurst motor race. To them, it's not a big issue cause they are out.

In the end, no one seems to really know the full story. It will be a problem in some, hopefully only isolated areas. It'll be a problem I guess we'll only know the full extent of in a generation.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11103388%255E421,00.html

Hey look, now it's Australia refusing to send anyone else to help the UN!

[Doc Milo]

Okay, treason is a bit harsh. It was a word I used to rile up the crowd.

But it is no more harsh than the outright lies of this movie.

And documentaries might tell a series of events from a point of view, and they may use some facts and ignore others to do that. But Moore outright lies in this film, not just slants facts -- he outright lies, and makes accusations with nothing to back them up but his lies.

And whether or not there were WMDs, I do not believe our actions in Iraq or Afghanistan were wrong. I don't care if the rest of the world is against us. The rest of the world has been on the wrong side of history since time has begun! If we listened to the rest of the world, we'd have appeased Soviet Communists. If we listen to the rest of the world, we'd wimp out and elect socialists to the government that have stated they would appease terrorists (ala Spain) in order to have them not attack us. This world would be a horrible place.

So, if the USA has to withstand a little criticism for doing the right thing and going after terrorists, and regimes that support terrorism (like Hussein) then so be it.

"War is a horrible thing, but not the most horrible of things. The decayed and degraded state of human and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. A man that has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values greater than his own life, is a miserable creature that has no chance of being free unless made and kept so through the efforts of greater men than himself."

Because of Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden, and all regimes (including Saudi Arabia and some others who call themselves our allies); because of Iran, Lybia, Syria, and all other hotbeds of terrorism and regimes that support their activity, 3000 plus died in 9-11, and countless others in attacks that have happened previously upon American interests, American troops, and American embassies. Sometimes, the sacrafice of life in a military effort is worth the trouble. And this is definitely one of those times. To blame America for the ills of the mideast is ridiculous. Of course, if America pulls out, and the terrorist strike again in one of those countries like France, I'm sure America will get blamed for not doing enough.

It's time to face the facts. America is not the enemy. Terrorism, and regimes that support terrorism, is the enemy. And America has vowed to go in and stop it once and for all. Bush has said this would be a long protracted war that would see the loss of a lot of life and would take us to many places along the way. He said this before we went into Afghanistan. I can't fault him for telling me the truth at the time.

On the issue of WMDs. All the intelligence said that he had them. So he didn't. Doesn't mean Bush lied. He acted on the intel he had -- even Kerry, who saw that intel, agreed with going in. It's not right to look back with 20/20 vision and say we should have acted based upon that clarity -- a clarity that didn't exist at the time the decision was made.

And regardless of WMDs, it was right to rid the world of Hussein. And I still believe he either had them, or at least had the technologies to begin their construction -- and the big threat is not that Bush lied about them, but that now, someone else either has them or the technology to build them. That scares me more than the possibility that we went to war over a lie.

Hussein repeatly interfered with the efforts of the inspectors, and the UN had to pass 17 resolutions condemning him. This is not the actions of a man who has nothing to hide. But the UN is a wimpy organization that, IMHO, should go the way of the League of Nations. I don't care if we didn't have their "approval" to go into Iraq. I, for one, don't want my country asking the approval of some world organization before we have to act on what we know to be right.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Rant




I'd take your post apart line by line, but I've linked and posted rebuttals to just about every one of your 'points' already over the last two years. Not a single thing you said is justified on the evidence before or after the war.

But I will answer a couple of things before goign to bed.


And regardless of WMDs, it was right to rid the world of Hussein. And I still believe he either had them, or at least had the technologies to begin their construction -- and the big threat is not that Bush lied about them, but that now, someone else either has them or the technology to build them. That scares me more than the possibility that we went to war over a lie.

Hans Blix said, directly before the war he believed NO WMD exised. Various intelligence agencies said so too. Hussein was NOT a danger to you, me or anyone outside his borders. all he had was harsh language.

No one has the right to roll a soverign nation when they are a danger to hardly anyone. I say it was the wrong thing to do, even with Hussein killing his own people and starting wars. Your govt supported him and gave him WMD in the 80's. Your Govt overthrew democratic governments and put dictactors up in their place. Your Govt, the present one botched the real war on terror in Afghanistan by divering resources to a foll's war. Your Govt have no moral high ground to stand on at all, so why justify actions by claiming the moral ground? It just doesnt work in the view of this admittedly tired and remote Aussie. It even seems rather hypocritical. And that's probably I realise, getting close to trolling instead of an honest POV, so I'll desist there.

Now, if your going to use this reasoning and moral high ground, then you are kindly invited to go and clean out Nth Korea. Unlike Iraq, they DO have WMD. And they ARE exporting the technology. And they are just as bad to their starving population.

So..... Iran and Nth Korea really do have nukes. And really are supproting terrorism. Unlike Hussein. Dont you think your position has a real problem?

A bit too harsh, but I cant find better words to place my POV for now.


If we listen to the rest of the world, we'd wimp out and elect socialists to the government that have stated they would appease terrorists (ala Spain) in order to have them not attack us. This world would be a horrible place.

Over 90% of the population in Spain did not support the war in Iraq, even before the bombings. It's suggested to go do some reseach and find out why the Spainish people really booted their Govt out. I'll give you some starting hints - They were initially lied to and also they never approved of their Govt's actions in the first place. I try my best these days to be informed before being critical. The Spanish electionon the evidence was certainly no cave-in to terrorists.

Terrorist blew up the Aust Embassy in Jakarta last month. According to your logic, we would of voted Howard out. Well, he was voted back in in a landslide and terrorism and the now three times Aust interests have been hit in the last two years hardly were a factor. Despite the overwhelming disappoval of our involvement in Iraq too.

I believe most here realise terrorism isnt something fought with by loads of guns. It's fought by undermining the support terrosits have, cutting them off and choking off cash and other support, fighting militarily when appropriate, liek Afghanistan. Frankly... because of the USA actions in Iraq, the whole damn place has become one big Terroist breeding zone. I shouldnt need to link evidence for that.

Edit - Hey Mods, apologies if that came across as a out of line flame. I really should be in bed. I did edit out some rough language, hopefully it reads okay now. Okay, tiredness isnt an excuse for raising the temperature level. If it's out of order, let me know and I'll clean it up and reword my laguage as required.

edit 2 : Blatant trolling seen and removed. Just proves it, I'm way too tired to be attemptign to post without emotion and using facts.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
Unfortunantly, possibly not. The veterans back here are worried by it, no doubt. They werent in the zones where it's most prevalent however, so they think they wont have problems like a few of the Gulf I vets do. I suppose I could pull up some good links on the issue, but nothing really beats the boots on the ground who were there. Apart from the SAS, the Air Force guys in this street were at Baghdad Airport and the Green Zone. So, it's not quite like they have gieger couters out, but they do know something about the issue.

Probably understandably, they only mentioned that while haivng a few beers while most of the car nuts in the street were gathered to watch the Bathurst motor race. To them, it's not a big issue cause they are out.

In the end, no one seems to really know the full story. It will be a problem in some, hopefully only isolated areas. It'll be a problem I guess we'll only know the full extent of in a generation.

Yeah, I was aware of the rumors regarding DU, but it really isn't much in the way of being substantiated. To be honest, I've heard lots of things from the boots on the ground over there, but so much of it is the kind of stuff to be taken with a grain of salt that I have to filter it. I also recall hearing that I'd get cancer from my cell phone ;)

(Yes, I know DU is a carcinogen, but I still doubt that it's in significant quanities to cause any real maladies. I've seen the chicken little websites about it, but their "research" is pretty shady)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Doc I disagree with you about Saudi Arabia. Based on other evidence I think the Saudis are in bed with Bin Ladin and why did we not do one thing to stop them? Sure I think Moore exagerates but there is some connection there if it is because without the saudis are economy would go in the crapper I don't know. But we are letting them get away with a whole lot. And about Iraq, we are making more of a mess in there, IMO. If Bush get relected I see us getting out within the next two years and then a civil war will take place and who knows who will be in power. Iraq was no threat, heck Iran and North Korea to me are more threats to the world and we have done almost nothing about them. And you can't say well Saddam was bad and was hurting his own people well that is false logic. If we got rid of every bad man like saddam rulling countries we would be in a lot of wars. I can name 5 states which are ruled by worse men who have killed and oppressed more people. China, Burma, Laos, North Korea, and Zimbamwai. Why not attack some of those countries then? Especially the three weaker ones all are horrible people like Saddam.

[Doc Milo]

I hope we do take care of North Korea and Iran. After all, they are part of the original "Axis of Evil."

About Hans Blix. How would he know if Iraq had WMDs before all this happened? He and his inspectors weren't even allowed to go everywhere they needed to go, due to Hussein's interference.

Marcus said we fight terroism by cutting them off from the things that support them. Well, that has to include the governments that sponsor them -- and Hussein was guilty of it.

According to the September 11 report:


* With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request . . . [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

* In March 1998, after Bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these
meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

* Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)


In addition, two other recent accounts have shed more light on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. A June 25, 2004 New York Times article, "Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says," reported on the contents of a mid-1990s Iraqi intelligence document believed to be authentic. According to the article,


* bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative."

* the Iraqi regime agreed to bin Laden's request to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda.

* bin Laden "requested joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. had a strong troop presence in Saudi Arabia at the time.

* following bin Laden's departure from Sudan, Iraq intelligence began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship."

While the report says that they did not help bin Laden attack the US, the War on Terror is not just about retaliation for that specific event. It is about wiping out terrorism. Whether or not a link exists to those specific attacks is irrelevant. If a link exists between Hussein's Iraq and any terrorist organization, it is enough to target Iraq as a threat to the security of the United Nations and a target in the War on Terror.

And yes, I believe we should be going everywhere such links exist. Not all at once, but in due time. That is the nature of the War on Terror. So Iran, yes. We should go there.

And with the Saudi question, I do believe they too sponsor terrorism and we should seek to correct that situation. Of course, with all these situations, diplomacy should be given the chance to work first. Just as we tried in Iraq for diplomacy to work. In Iraq, diplomacy did not work. I suspect it won't work in Iran either. I don't know about Saudi Arabia.....

[Jedi Master Carr]

Evidence since that time has show that their was no connection between Iraq and Al Quadi. About Iran and North Korea there is one problem we have no troops to take on both. If we did we would have to bite the bullet and do a draft. I don't think would be looked very favorably by the youth of America. I think we might be able to avoid war with North Korea by talking with the directly. We should scrap these stupid quilaterial talks. North Korea and South Korea hate each other so they won't really be talking. China really probably doesn't care what North Korea is doing. Knowing the Chinese they are probably laughing at the situation they still hate us, they just like our money. And Russia, I wouldn't trust Putin, especially now he has become a dictator up there.

[Marcus Telcontar]

About Hans Blix. How would he know if Iraq had WMDs before all this happened? He and his inspectors weren't even allowed to go everywhere they needed to go, due to Hussein's interference.

But they were in the end. And subsequent investigations proved him right - and susequent reports showed high raniking intelligence officials also had serious doubts about WMD.

And to reply to your assertions about Hussein supporting terrorism...


Evidence since that time has show that their was no connection between Iraq and Al Quadi. apart from some discussions that resulted in nothing.

I believe I posted in 2003 it was perposterous that Bin Laden and Hussein would be in kahoots. Hussein and Bin Laden are polar opposites. Hussein was and still is hated by fundamentalist Islamics. I believe Rumsfield has come out and said there was no connection between al-Quadia and Iraq. Last month IIRC.


I hope we do take care of North Korea and Iran. After all, they are part of the original "Axis of Evil."

Do you know why nth Korea and Iran are desperatly trying to build WMD and create links with any one that can help them? Because of that one totally dumb and retarded label. Nth Korth was quite happy being a pimple on the bum of the planet, until Bush opened his stupid frigging mouth and gave Kim Il Jong a huge case of paranoia. Becuase of Bush's stupidity, they think they're next and turned the place, esp Korea into the nightmare senario, where an extremist regime has nukes, has missiles and is crazy enough to use them.

You try and oust them by force now, your going to kill million of civilians and soldiers in wars that cant be won. Get it right - this so called War on Terro can NOT be won the way Bush and co want to fight it. They are in fact just simply fanning the flames. Just look at Iraq which really has been turned into a terrorist breeding ground. a bit of intelligence and even if the war was unjustified, it wouldnt be the looming disaster it is now. Thanks to Bush and Co you have one hell of a mess on your hands. Do you really think the neo-cons have the answers anymore?

[Dutchy]

(guess I'll repost this in here, since the Post War Iraq-discussion seems to have moved to this topic instead)

The other day I watched an item on TV about a small village that lost 5 soldiers in the war. A kindergarden teacher told her children: "He died for us".

Is that really how people look at it? That soldiers die for the USA? In the beginning, when they were still looking for WMD's and preventing for them to get launched to the States it was pretty much true, but after that appeared to be bogus and the war was all about deliberating the Iraqi people, I'd say that soldiers die for them.

Right now, though, I'm not sure what soldiers are dying for in Iraq. Pretty much in vain, or so it seems.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.stormwolf.com/essays/president.html

Michael Stackpole with some thoughts on the election


I've agonized over whether or not I should write and post the following. I have decided to do so because I think this election is, by far, the most important of my lifetime. I've voted in Presidential elections since 1976-the first year I was eligible-and, in all that time, I think I've voted for a candidate once or twice.

The rest of the time I've voted against someone.

If you're reading this essay, I know you don't think I'm a stupid man. If you did, you'd not be here, you'd not have read my books. Please don't judge me as stupid if you read the following and decide my choice is not your choice. I don't think those whose opinions differ from mine are stupid, provided they have thought about things, reasoned them out and are confident in their choices. Reasonable people can disagree and often do, and the intellectual freedom and honesty that allows that to happen is certainly to be respected and celebrated.

Some of you will just want the box score, and won't read the material that follows. I won't torture you by forcing you to scroll down: I'm going to cast my vote for John Kerry for President. My reasoning is explained below and if you'll indulge me and read through it, I think you'll understand how I reached the decision I did. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

The War on Terrorism

My novels make it very clear how much I respect the sacrifice and heroism of the men and women who choose to make it their life's work to defend us and our way of life. Many of you know my brother is a career military officer in the Army. He's currently stationed in Afghanistan and was the first Ranger officer on the ground in Grenada. My respect for the military is certainly colored by my love and respect for my brother, but as a historian and an avid reader of military histories, I have a grander sense of the tradition and responsibilities of warriors.

The President has taken great pains to let us know we're at war with terrorism, but there are countless instances of his taking his eye off the ball. I find it incredible, insulting and wholly irresponsible for him to address an international audience and say to the terrorists, "Bring it on!" It's fine for an American general surrounded in Bastogne to reply to a Nazi offer to accept surrender with "Nuts!" since he was there and was going to be taking the shelling that would result. It's something else again for a man who has never seen combat to hide behind an ocean and invite our enemies to blow our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives and grandparents to pieces.

I've read a great deal about the war in Afghanistan, which was conducted brilliantly by Special Forces operatives, especially the Green Berets, whose heroism and skill allowed us and our allies to do something that had defied the British and the Russians/Soviets: conquer Afghanistan. (Alexander, Ala-ed-din Mohammed, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane all managed it too, but in those days the Afghan tribes could just retreat to the mountains and no one was dumb enough to go after them.) The histories of our war in Afghanistan do make it quite clear that the mission was left unfulfilled as assets were moved into position for the attack on Iraq, so our best shot at getting Osama bin Laden failed. (Curiously, the Bush administration turned the job of getting him over to the same warlords who had failed to get him when the Clinton administration had them working on the problem.)

The reasons we went into Iraq don't bear discussing for two reasons. The first is that they constantly shift and don't make sense. For example, the supposed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been debunked, and common sense points out that it never existed. Bin Laden's anger with the US began when he was denied the chance to take his Moslem warriors to liberate Kuwait from Iraq in the first war-so he had no love for Saddam. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Moslem organization and Saddam had a secular realm, so the intersection there fails as well. Moreover, if there had been a connection, we would have seen surplus Stinger missiles (which the Taliban and Al Qaeda had plenty of) used against our planes during the the 90s and the latest assault. We never did.

The second reason they don't bear discussing is that they are immaterial to the situation at hand. We attacked, we got in, and we're stuck. The military dreads, with good reason, mission creep, and that's exactly what we've got there. The military is trained and directed at destroying the enemy, and they're better at it than anyone else in the world. They are not trained to build nations, and while I know every single man and woman over there is doing the utmost for the Iraqi people, they haven't the knowledge nor the funding to be able to accomplish that task. It's like asking a Matador to keep peace in a day-care center-the cape works for a while, but then you have to stick someone with the sword, and that's when all the fun stops.

The President has said that we're going to establish democracy in Iraq. The Vice President has pointed to El Salvador as an example of a place where democracy has succeeded against a guerilla insurgency. Certainly the 1980s and 1990s were rife with examples of democracy succeeding: the former Soviet Union, the Philipines, Nicaragua, Chile and a few other places have embraced democracy. There is no doubting what Winston Churchill suggested, that democracy may not be a perfect form of government, but it's the best alternative we have.

What the President and the neo-conservatives have missed is that in all the cases they care to cite, democracy was never imposed. Democracy is government "of the people, by the people, for the people." It arises from their work to throw off oppression and is valued because of the hard work to get rid of the despot. In essence, it has to be earned, and because we got rid of the tyrant, we deprived the Iraqi people of their chance to earn it. Moreover, because we became the new authority figure, and we invested power in people who had been exiles and long on our payroll, we supplied them a new master to hate.

The Bush administration has shown repeatedly that it fails to understand the fundamentalist Moslem mindset as regards the West. At its height, the Moslem empire extended from Spain to Indonesia. To them, the loss of Barcelona to Charlemagne in 801, their expulsion from Spain in the 15th century, and the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 are fierce blows that still sting mightily. The Crusades were a clear and still lasting reminder of the West's hatred of Islam, and the meddling of colonial powers in the 19th and 20th centuries didn't help anything.

As proof of this we need look no further than Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on the West, when he referred to the United States as Crusaders. Whereas we view our move into Saudi Arabia as one to free Kuwait, he saw it as the conquest of Islam's most holy sites by the Crusaders. (With Jerusalem in the hands of Israel, and Iraq now in our hands, all of the major Islamic holy sites are controlled by the West. Regardless of your politics, you have to know that's going to stick like a bone in the throat of any faithful Moslem.)

Moreover, the battle between fundamentalist Islam and the West is a clash of cultures. In the United States we have a parallel situation in the clash between fundamentalist Christianity and more secular groups. The vehemence and hatred, even violence, that issues like abortion and same-sex unions engenders here is akin to what we're seeing directed at us by Al Qaeda. This isn't a war that can be won by bullets and bombs.

This battle will take generations: two, to be specific, if we are lucky, and quite probably more. The first is the transitional generation-the one that suffers under the imposition of strictures and the second is the generation that grows up under them. Direct parallels are the civil rights and equal rights movements here in the US. I grew up with affirmative action, forced integration and the expanding role of women in the society. The next generation has grown up with that stuff being normal, and they are far more accepting. And yet, despite this being a qualified success here in the United States, it was something that grew spontaneously out of our society. Had it been imposed, it would have been resisted and we'd still be fractured.

So, we're in Iraq. We're going to be there for a good long time. I will vote against President Bush both because he got us stuck there and because I don't want to risk his advisors deciding it's time for the next domino to fall.

Homeland Security

I fly a great deal, and I think a great deal about security. In one of my more recent novels, Ghost War, I outline a simple, low-intensity terrorist campaign that is sufficient for deposing the government of a sophisticated and technologically advanced society, much like our own. The book goes into the whole thing in great detail. I was thinking about that issue before 9/11, and nothing I have seen imposed in the way of security measures since the tragedy would prevent terrorists from doing here exactly what I outline in the book.

I find that terrifying.

The simple fact of the matter is that all the security measures put into place since 9/11 have not prevented a single terrorist act from taking place in the United States. The only thing these measures do is to close the barn door after the horses have left. The means the terrorists used on 9/11 were denied to future terrorists not because jack-knives were no longer allowed on planes, but because the passengers now know what the rules of the game are. I sit in First Class fairly often and the sense of those around me is that we're not going to be cowed as others were. We will defend ourselves and the plane.

The security strictures imposed are smoke and mirrors. A small sack full of pennies in a sock becomes a club, but they're allowed on planes. Take any CD and snap it in half. Now you've got two crescent-shaped blades with which you could stab anyone. According to the 9/11 Commission report, the 9/11 terrorists did test runs using eye-drop bottles stuffed with nitroglycerine-soaked cotton, which was sufficient to blow a hole in the hull of a plane. None of the security measures I've seen instituted would prevent anyone from hauling such a mini-bomb along with them, assembling it in the lavatory, and having it go off later.

The only way we're going to be safe is if the government institutes educational programs telling us what to look for and how to deal with it. They need to beef up the Neighborhood Watch program, allowing us to have a stake in our own security. They don't do that because, as well they know, information is power. They don't want to relinquish any.

I'm not a grand conspiracy theorist who believes that security alerts are called to deflect criticism and attention from important issues. I do feel, however, that the security planning is poorly directed, has no clear mission, has none of the resources it needs to be effective and has failed to enlist the greatest resource we have-our people-to deal with a problem that threatens us all. For this failure I will vote against the President.

The Science Issue

I'm a science fiction author. I do a lot of reading and research. I've been interested in the promise of genetics for decades and have read a great deal about it. Recently the First Lady opined in a speech that those who touted the promise of stem-cell research were holding out false hope to people because any true results would be years in the future.

By this reasoning, research into a polio vaccine never should have happened because the beneficial results were years in the future. The campaign to wipe out small pox never should have happened because the results were years away. It is a ridiculous argument that insults the intelligence of anyone with enough neurons to form a synapse.

I understand the moral argument against using fetal stem-cells for research. It is seen as an encouragement of abortion. People can differ on that issue, but the core situation is this: abortion is still legal in the United States, and if the genetic heritage of an unborn child can be used to save the life of someone else who is gravely ill, how better to honor that child's unrealized potential? These unborn children become the ultimate in organ donors, who will save millions and perhaps even allow those maimed by war to get their eyes back, or otherwise regain some normal life.

Despite calls for us to travel to Mars, the overall record of this administration has been anti-science. I cannot support that. I believe that the advancement of knowledge is good, especially when it holds the promise of making life better. For this reason I will vote against the President.

The Education Issue

In having read this far, you've now read more in one sitting than the President reads in a day. I will admit believing, based on his lack of erudition, his ease of confusion, and his overwhelming reluctance to admit reading anything, that he is functionally illiterate. I think this is dangerous because what I've read on my own about Iraq and terrorism and history and intelligence has allowed me to make the assessments I have concerning policy and where I think we should go.

That the President is less well read than I am on any subject terrifies me. Moreover, having issues and facts read by others, digested and presented to him with their slant is scary. James Bamford's book A Pretext for War is a very readable overview of all that has gone on. It provides some chilling profiles of the men who advise the President. Events clearly have not unfolded as they have long believed they would and yet there is no evidence to suggest they are adapting to the new circumstances.

Which brings us to education. The "No Child Left Behind" bill was a good idea. In fact, the only bad thing about it is that the government failed to fund it. This is akin to your employer coming to you and saying, "It's company policy that all employees will now drive Hummers. However, it's not in our budget to provide them, but if you want to stay employed, you have to drive one, so do what you can."

The President and others would say that the war on terrorism is eating up the budget (see below). That's fine, but to then turn around and tout your education program, or any of a number of other unfunded mandates to the states, is disingenuous and really shows no respect for the electorate. For this reason I will vote against the President.

The Economy

It has to be a bitter pill for Reagan conservatives to watch the President spending like a drunken fool. We've gone from a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus to a projected half a trillion dollar deficit in four years. Moreover, despite the deficit, the President insisted on signing more tax cuts into law. It's one thing to spend more than you're bringing in-most Americans do that. It's quite another to turn around and tell your boss that he can cut your wages, too, since the money he saves clearly will be invested in the business and will get the economy going again.

I should state right here that I've been a beneficiary of the Bush recession. My foreign rights contracts are negotiated in Euros, so as the dollar drops, I benefit. In fact, I've benefited quite a bit from that exchange rate.

Unfortunately, the recession has hurt me. The stock market collapse cost me, in a conservative estimate, about $40,000.00. Moreover, the tightening of the economy means folks have less money to spend on things that are not considered necessities, and books get numbered among these. While science fiction and fantasy are the only genre not to see a reduction in sales in the wake of 9/11, publishing in general has seen negative sales growth, so there is no money to pay authors, like me, big advances. (Most of us just count ourselves lucky to still be employed, and many more are not.)

My personal feeling is that we ought to have taxes hiked, and hiked in specific areas that will enhance our lives and help pay for the war on terrorism. I listen to a lot of old radio shows from the 1940s and the last time we had a global war, there was rationing and taxes to pay for it. I realize Americans are not as dedicated as we were then (and we're a bit thicker around the middle, too), but there's not a one of us that doesn't realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Let's be realistic, let's get the economy going again, and let's not make our grandchildren pay for our neo-colonial adventure in Iraq.

I'd love to see some leadership in the area of the economy, but I'm seeing none. The President plotted his economic course even before 9/11 and he's not deviated one degree from it. We continue on this course, and it's off the edge of the world we go. For this reason, I will vote against the President.

Legislating Culture

The President's proposal for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex unions offends me for a whole variety of reasons. First off, it will never pass, so even suggesting it is a sop to the conservative Right. It does nothing but make them feel good and deflect attention from key issues that ought to decide this election.

Second, being a historian, I remember reading about when it was illegal for blacks to marry. I remember reading about laws that prohibited mixed marriages. Those are bygone days, and for good reason. It's impossible to legislate against biology, and it's just evil to prohibit consenting adults from enjoying the rights and privileges the majority of humanity does.

Third, doesn't the government have something better to do with its time, given the war on terrorism, than worrying about what folks do in their bedrooms? Why even suggest legislation designed to make people feel miserable? Why back legislation that bars folks from being able to visit someone they love in the hospital? It seems pretty damned mean-spirited to me, and given that it will never come up for a vote or succeed, that all just gets even more magnified.

I should qualify my comments here for clarity. My sister is gay and I attended her Civil Union. I like her partner, and my sister, no matter her orientation, is still my sister. Knowing what her sexual orientation is doesn't matter-no more than it matters what anyone else's orientation is.

Regardless of my sister's situation, the bald political nature of the proposed amendment offends me. It was a divisive move that was hardly needed, since we know the conservatives weren't going anywhere. Who were they going to vote for? Ralph Nader? It was just a hand-grenade that didn't need its pin pulled, and for the inability to see that alone, I will vote against the President.

End of Days

Another sticking point I have with the President and a number of folks in his administration, is that they are fundamentalist, End of Days, Christians. Many of you may not know what this means. It's simple. They believe that Lord Jesus is going to return to Earth and haul the lot of them up to Heaven with him.

Like tomorrow, the day after, tops.

Now, there are conspiracy theorists who will point to this belief as the reason the President stepped away from the Middle East peace process. In their minds, they believe that End of Days folks believe that Armageddon will begin with a war in Israel. Anything that brings that war closer to fruition is something that hastens the return of our Lord. (TV preacher Jack van Impe is priceless to watch on all of this. His shows have changed the Anti-Christ from the Soviets to someone in the European Economic Community with the frequency others change their undershorts.)

I don't think the President had that in mind when he walked away from the peace process. I think, rather, he's operating under the sort of reasoning you find in THIS scenario: A landlord comes to you with nine cases of cold beer, a chain saw, two sledgehammers and a small back-hoe, takes you to a suburban home and says, "We're tearing it down tomorrow. Drink all you want and have fun." Pretty much anyone would say, "Where are the keys? It's Miller Time."

I understand that attitude but, dare I ask this, "What if they are wrong?" I have to say, Saint Paul thought Jesus would return in the generation after His death. Countless people thought the year 1000 AD would be His encore, and a whole bunch more folks have predicted His imminent return down through the ages. (If I had a nickel for every prediction of His return that was wrong, I could pay for the war against terrorism myself.)

If you want to take the Bible literally, then the granting of dominion over the Earth to man did not come without a price. We have responsibility for the creation. This means making it a better place, not letting corporations delay clean-up of the environment or promoting the drilling for oil in pristine wilderness areas. We've not been good stewards of the planet, but we have the means and technology to reverse the damage.

The President's willingness to treat the world as a playground someone else will clean up is another reason I will vote against him.

But Mike, about that drilling thing don't we need the oil?

No doubt about it, we are oil dependent. (I could be snarky and note that it's too bad we didn't decide to let Iraq pay us back for its liberation with oil revenue because with prices where they are, a barrel or two a day would about cover things.) Providing more oil would be a good thing, but that's like suggesting that the solution to being a heroin addict is just to provide more heroin. It doesn't work that way. (I could be snarky again and note that the heroin, about 70% of the world's supply, is flowing from Afghanistan, but I won't.)

Let's fund research into alternative energy sources. The state of Arizona had a program of tax incentives to encourage the purchase of and conversion to alternative-fuels vehicles. (It turned out to be a debacle because the funding was not capped, and the tax credit was a percentage of the purchase price, so folks were converting Mercedes land cruisers to hybrid vehicles and sticking the state for a huge bill.) Still, it was a step in the right direction. The simple fact is that solar cells for hot water and electrical production, with government tax encouragement, would provide a lot of relief. Ditto windmills and alt-fuels vehicles.

This government has made no moves in that direction, which is ridiculous. We're in the Middle East because that's the teat from which we get our energy. Wean the United States from it, and it can go to Hell in a hand-basket. It won't matter. Moreover, advanced fuel and energy technology would once again make the United States a world leader, would provide a boost to our economy and make the US a more pleasant place to live. I'm not seeing the down side.

This administration has not seen the upside. For that reason I will vote against the President.

Vietnam

Vietnam became a huge issue for reasons that defy reason. The only thing that matters to me in the whole Vietnam discussion is clear: when each of the candidates faced being called to serve in the armed forces and experience combat, one of them went, one of them had his daddy get him into the Texas Air National Guard. (As the current joke goes, "Osama bin Laden has found a place where he's safe from combat, doesn't have to do much work, and no one can seem to find any trace of him: the Texas Air National Guard.")

As it is, I was in high school during the tail end of the Viet Nam war. I lived in Vermont. Had the war continued, I'd have been registered for the draft and would have faced fighting. I lived right near Canada, and it never crossed my mind to flee-which might mark me as stupid to some, but living here in the United States comes with some obligation. I knew that then and knew I'd not shirk my duty.

Not that I was looking forward to going to war. I would have tried for and probably gotten an educational deferment for four years. If things were still going hot then and my number got picked, or if I failed to get the exemption, I'd already figured out what I'd do. I would have enlisted in the Army and tapped flying helicopters, working in Military Intelligence or the Adjutant General's office as my MOS. (Yes, I know the rhyme, "Twinkle, twinkle, little shield, keep me off the battlefield." So I once entertained the idea of being a lawyer. Sue me.)

My point is this: I never even considered joining the Vermont Air National Guard. I knew that my duty and responsibility to the nation would be to serve it in the Army. If that meant slogging through rice patties and bleeding there, so be it. I wouldn't look forward to it, I wouldn't like it while I was there, I'd be happy to leave it, but I sure as hell wasn't going to wear a yellow stripe down my spine for the rest of my life.

And I'd have clean died of shame had any relative engineered it so I could avoid it all.

Vietnam was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place for a variety of reasons, but that does nothing to diminish or tarnish the brave sacrifice made by our warriors who served there. I've read many books about it, including the citations for the Medal of Honor winners in that conflict. Those will bring tears to your eyes, and I can't thank enough those who were brave enough to accept the responsibility our nation thrust upon them to go and fight over there.

Vietnam is not an issue that will cause me to vote one way or another. Then again, if I had to be stuck in a trench with George W. Bush or John F. Kerry, my choice would be rather simple. My preference for a President is someone who has taken shots, not done them.

The inability to acknowledge error

My biggest sticking point with the current administration is its inability and unwillingness to acknowledge error. This is not the same as the willingness of members of the administration, like Dick Cheney, to lie about things. It's sad to say, but I've come to expect politicians to lie or, at the very least, cloak things in weasel-words, so they can deny it later and appear to be clean.

The biggest knock against John Kerry throughout the campaign has been that he flip-flops. Aside from the fact this is propaganda and not sustained by any reading of the situations in which these accusations have been made, what we're being told here is that John Kerry is capable of changing his mind. I have to say, I like the idea that a man might make one decision, keep reading and studying an issue, decide that he was wrong, and change his mind. Who among us, save for my mother, has never been wrong? (You didn't hear this from me, but I've been known to make a mistake or two.)

There is a curious phenomenon in the circle of born-again Christians, and it is called "giving testimony." This is where an individual in a community stands up and shares with everyone else the story of his finding Jesus and accepting Him as his savior. Turn on any Christian television talk show and at one point or another you will see someone giving testimony. The audience response, over and over, is praise and acceptance for that individual.

Testimony is never questioned, it is merely accepted as truth, motivated by Jesus, to be shared with the community. There are some very well known cases, like Mike Warnke and Lauren Stratford (authors of The Satan Seller and Satan's Underground respectively) where investigative journalists have unraveled a tissue of lies to expose the individuals in question. (Mike and Lauren both claimed to have been involved in vast Satanic conspiracies during specific periods of their lives. Both made a good living traveling around and testifying in revivals until Cornerstone magazine revealed the truth about their stories.)

I don't mention this to suggest the President's conversion has been faked. I merely want to point out that he has been socialized to accept at face value what he's told, especially when he trusts the individuals he's speaking to. He's also not used to being questioned, or having his dictates questioned. Moreover, for him to admit he's wrong in one area would begin dominoes tumbling, and his having re-examine decisions in other areas.

I think it is rather clear that our President is not someone who delves very deeply into the realm of self-examination. He does not question his conclusions, nor does he admit there might have been a better way to do things. Given that we now know Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor harbored Al Qaeda members, for him or the Vice President to suggest they would have done the same thing all over again is simply ridiculous.

It is one thing to believe, "My Country, right or wrong," but that clearly should not pertain to our elected officials. They are, alas, human. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton all made mistakes. On Iran-Contra, Reagan actually apologized for it. The ability to recognize a lapse of judgment and make changes to correct the damage from same is the mark of a great and intellectually vibrant human being.

I would like a great and intellectually vibrant human being in the White House. Because he does not fulfill this criteria, because he does not acknowledge mistakes nor tolerate dissenting opinions, I will vote against the President.

"Al Qaeda wants you to vote for Kerry."

I've seen variations of that theme all over the place, including on a sticker on a cash register at a Radio Shack store. Please, let's be serious. That's like saying "child molesters want you to vote for Bush." Aside from the fact that no one is enough in touch with terrorists to be conducting a poll, who in Hell cares what they think? They hate the West, our culture and lifestyle. They blasted US targets during the Reagan administration and Clinton administrations. They're equal-opportunity hate mongers. If you're going to be swayed by some made-to-motivate propagandistic slogan, I'm not sure you're smart enough to be trusted with the vote.

Moreover, how do you know the terrorists aren't lying because they're actually more afraid of Kerry? They're the sneaky sorts who would do that kind of thing, after all. Can't trust them, remember? In fact, given what Bush's actions are doing to swell their numbers, were I Osama bin Laden, I'd be having agents comb through Chicago graveyards registering as many folks as I could to vote for Bush.

In short, while this sort of sloganeering seems the soul of wit, it's really the brevity of intelligence and should be stamped on like a cockroach.

In conclusion

This essay has gone on a long time, and I appreciate your taking the time to stick with it. There's generally nothing more boring than listening to someone justify a decision, but I hope you can see I've given it careful deliberation.

In the wake of all the above, I see John Kerry as the only alternative to George W. Bush. (Nader doesn't have a chance of winning, so using him as a protest vote is, in essence, a vote for the status quo.) I don't agree with John Kerry on everything and, having grown up in Vermont, I was high on Howard Dean in the primary. However, one plays the cards he's dealt.

What I do like about Kerry is that he's smart and willing to listen to others. I never expected him to stand up and fight Bush in the debates as he has, and that heartens me. While he's been knocked as being a Patrician, he showed a lot of shanty-Irish in the debates, and that's good as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not worried about his prosecution of the war, either. (Excepting Gulf War One, you have to go back to the McKinley administration to find a war a Republican has won, and that was the Spanish-American War in 1898. Korea and Vietnam were draws at best, and Gulf War One didn't wholly settle the issues in that area or we'd not be there today. The Great War and World War Two, on the other hand, did fine under Democratic leadership.)

I have two hopes for the above essay. It may surprise you to know the primary hope is not that you'll feel motivated to vote for Kerry, but just that you'll feel motivated to vote. Voting is not only a right, it is a responsibility. It doesn't matter if you think your vote won't count, it's your duty to express your opinion. There are lots of local issues and national candidates that will have their futures decided at the polls. While your candidate for President might not make it, your vote can decide the composition of state and national legislatures, which will act to advise on policy. Your vote is your voice, and silence is a tacit endorsement of the status quo.

Secondly, I do hope my arguments are persuasive. I hope you will decide that regime change begins at home. I have heard folks lament that even IF Kerry is elected, it will be the same-old, same-old.

Could be, but then we'd at least know we had a President who's capable of reading all you've just read, thinking on it, and making a rational decision as a result. That's more than we've got now.

Our future demands more. Vote and vote wisely.



Michael A. Stackpole
12 October 2004
©2004 Michael A. Stackpole www.stormwolf.com

Now if I can only find the Green Zone article on SA...... help me SA goons? I think it was in GBS

[Master Yoghurt]

+5 to Michael Stackpole's essay above. I recommend everyone with voting rights to read it.

[Charley]

Just don't take all the rhetoric at face value. He seems to think John Kerry's a viable alternative for the presidency.

I've been thinking about how this election is going to shape up in the non-battleground states, and I've been wondering about the old addage "throwing your vote away". I wonder, if your state isn't up for electoral contention, who is the person who's throwing their vote away? The third party voter, or the "second party" voter? When you consider that federal matching funds status looks at the national popular vote percentages, it really makes all the Dixie Democrats and KKKali Republicans look a little silly out there.

So to all you silly wishful thinkers out there, please make your vote count and vote for Michael Badnarik. Please. Its the only chance we've got at real presidential voting reform.

[Doc Milo]

I'm going to digest everything that Stackpole has presented in his essay, but I'd like to comment on one thing.

On taxes, he is flat out wrong.

This is where all liberal democrats seem to misunderstand the economy, thinking that we play in a zero-sum world. They seem to be unable to grasp the concept of "creation of wealth."

This is clear in his illustration of a the government being a worker agreeing to have his wages cut. This makes the assumption that if we cut taxes, then the revenue to the government will go down. This is just absolutely ridiculous and wrong -- and can be proven wrong historically.

John F. Kennedy reduced tax rates. The revenue to the federal government as a direct result of tax reduction increased. Ronald Reagan reduced tax rates. After that reduction, revenue to the Federal government more than doubled, almost tripled.

"Then why did Reagan have deficits?" Simple, there were two reasons: The Cold War, and runaway social spending by a Democrat-controlled congress.

Bush Sr., in an effort to reduce the deficit, violated his "no new taxes" pledge, and went along with the Democrat-controlled congress on a deficit reduction tax increase. The deficit grew because the tax revenue did not increase as they thought it would. Because as a direct result of the tax increase, the USA went into recession. When Clinton got into office, he went back on his pledge to "middle class" America and did not give a tax cut to us. He also increased taxes on those who he defined as "rich." (Of course, the Democrat definition of anyone who makes $200,000 a year or more as rich is also ridiculous.) The country did not respond well, nor did the economy. Two years after his election, the people kicked out the democrat controlled house and senate (something that they controlled for 50 years!) and elected a republican majority to both. That republican majority rolled back the Clinton tax hikes, cut taxes on the middle class, and dragged Clinton into a balanced budget. To reduce the deficits of the previous 14 years, we cut taxes, we did not increase them.

--- I have to go --- more later on how tax cuts work to increase revenues....

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am still voting for Kerry in my state and he won't win South Carolina. It is more because I like Kerry and that is my reasoning who cares if he doesn't win SC. About Stackpole's article it is great he really hit the nail on the head in a lot of points. And I wouldn't call him a biased Kerry supporter. He is defintely against Bush. I agree with him about not like someone who reads. I know Bush doesn't read anything that scares me too. I don't want a president that is barely literate he should have to read things not read nothing and instead get told what is going on. also completely agree with him on the whole thing you can't force democracy on people. That idea has never worked. Democracy has only worked by choice. If somebody doesn't want it they won't accept it.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I am still voting for Kerry in my state and he won't win South Carolina. It is more because I like Kerry and that is my reasoning who cares if he doesn't win SC.

That may be, but its still a vote with no payout.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But so is voting for somebody else. If you don't vote for Bush in my state you could look at it as a waste vote. I rather vote for somebody I like, well that is my opinion on it.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
But so is voting for somebody else. If you don't vote for Bush in my state you could look at it as a waste vote. I rather vote for somebody I like, well that is my opinion on it.

Wrong, and precisely so for the reasons I already stated. A third party vote will take numbers nationally, and put them toward the goal of qualifying a party for matching federal funds, which is a major goal in terms of making a third party a viable alternative.

Voting for the "second party" doesn't even do this, so its noticably less productive.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but I don't agree with most of the third parties so that doesn't work for me :p

[Jedieb]

I read an article the other day about Nader's campaign this year. The sad part is that when Nader finally takes the stage at his rallies he's one of the more subdued and tame speakers.

Doc, I don't mean to dismiss you, but I just don't have the time to go through my lengthy list of Bush rants. We've been that around here for a couple of years now. Same things with Moore, clever propagandist, but traitor? That's a stretch. He's always made it clear F9/11 was an opinion piece that he wanted to influence the election. He never even pretended he was being objective. You want something laughably insincere, then look no further than what Sinclair broadcasting is gettting ready to do. Passing off a Kerry hachet job as "news." All the while saying they're not trying to influence the election, just presenting a "story." What a crock. If it's a story then where's the positive Kerry Vietnam documentary? Will they be airing portions of Going Upriver - The Long War of John Kerry? I doubt it. If anyone has been following this story you might want to know that Jon Leiberman, the lead political reporter for the Sinclair Stations spoke out against the stations decision to air Stolen Honor.

"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," Leiberman said. "For me, it's not about right or left, it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election. I have nothing to gain— and really, I have a lot to lose. At the end of the day, though, all you really have is your credibility."

Sinclair's response? They fired him. Nice job boys, you're doing a fine job of showing you're airing this solely because it's "news."

And on another front of right wing blowhard comeuppance, I can't wait until the tapes leak out on the lurid phone sex calls of the "objective" and "independent" Bill O'Reily. Man, this is just going to be hysterical. :shootin

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Doc Milo

Snip post on taxes



You are incorrect and in fact, stating that tax rises lead to a recession is laughable. The fact was, the early 90's recession was world wide and very much not cuased by tax increases. :rolleyes

Tax revenue depends on economic conditions and tax cuts / rises have a minor effect of GDP. You are really falling for the Republican BS if you think that tax cuts are going to solve a defiect problem. That simply defies the facts of economics.

One of the major drivers of economic growth in the last 5 years have been historically low interest rates, ie: the cost of money is very low. Tax cuts give a blip on GDP, no more and that only really lasts for one quarter.

Iraq so far has cost, what, 200 billion? And there's a defiect of say 560 billion now? Good old Keynesian economics says the economy has been pumped up by govt spending, meaning more jobs and hence more tax revenue from income and company sources - eventually, but it's not going retrieve anywhere near the gap. However, the Bush admin cant keep spending like a drunken sailor, or else you wont be able to service the interest on debt.

Trade and capital defiects are increasing under Bush, jobs are flowing away O/S, raise interest rates and business spending will slow down as well as consumer spending, jobs will be lost and tax revenue lost. Tax cuts are highly irresposible on both sides right now.

The only time personal taxes should be cut is when other income sources are high, eg indirect govt income like a GST is high (note, not the rate, the dollar value). In aust, the GST has lead to a direct surge in Govt income, with huge surpluses in the order of 17 billion or more and forward estimates of 25 billion increase. It is also the case the aust Govt has little debt to service, they have retired most of it and hence there is no interest load. Tax cuts and spending increases are therefore very much justified. The economy in Aust is simply put in great shape. Thats why the Libs got back in.

when OTOH you have high debt, a high defiect and an economy that's not exactly in the best of shape, that is not the time for tax cuts. In fact, the Govt should be looking increase revenue sources. Bonds, taxs, dividends from Govt businesses. Reducing Govt income in such a time is irresponsible.

[Doc Milo]

I agree on the runaway spending. That is a big problem I have with the Bush administration. Tax cuts and spending cuts go hand in hand.

Tax cuts do not decrease government revenue. As I mentioned, both JFK and Ronald Reagan cut taxes in order to increase revenue to the government. Will tax cuts alone reduce the deficit? No, of course not. I am a big proponent of spending cuts as well. I am in favor of a very small federal government. I view most of what our (the USA) federal government gets itself involved in as the proper realm of State and Local governments -- where the politicians are more easily kept in check by their citizenry. So, before we even start talking about increasing taxes, the federal government has to cut a lot of spending. Especially spending on obsolete government programs. (For example, the federal government still finds the "Rural Electrification Agency" -- an agency that's goal was to bring electricity to rural areas of America. This goal has been accomplished -- anyone without electricity in America does not have it by choice (eg. the Amish.) Why do we still fund this agency? Because no one ever put an "end date" on it. Why the government should be funding the National Endowment for the Arts is beyond me. I don't believe that government should be involved in the arts in any form. People love to cry censorship when the government refuses to fund something or threatens to withdraw funding because the art is insensitive to one group or another. But the only reason the government has that power is because it is given them by the fact that these people seek government funds. Should young artists be sponsored and cultivated? Sure. Absolutely. And they should be free to paint, write, photograph, etc.. anything and any subject, and present it in anyway they want. But it should be done with private, not public funds; plenty of foundations can open up and be funded privately for this purpose -- and all those Hollyweird elitists can donate their money to help those artists up-and-coming. And the government wouldn't be able to say anything about it. Those are but two of a myriad of government programs that are wasteful spending, and have absolutely nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Federal government: protection from foreign invasion -- military or subversive (National Security); protection from interstate crime; regulation of trade and interstate commerce; protection of individual liberty from any form of government.

Tax cuts, however, do increase revenue -- when done properly. A tax cut to only the lower or middle class can have a negative effect if proper incentives are not put into place for businesses. You see, if you put more money into the consumers hands, this increases demand. If the proper incentives to meet the demands of the consumer are not met, then this causes a price increase on goods and services. But if tax cuts and incentives are across the board, for the rich and poor alike, then it becomes more profitable for businesses to meet demand rather than increase price. The increase in production of supply causes a need for more workers to meet the greater workload. More jobs for people, more people earning money, more people paying taxes. Increased revenue to the government through a growing tax base.

Of couse, tax cuts have to go hand in hand with spending cuts. I have no problem with that -- reduction in spending is going to be the only way, really, to reduce the deficit. (I'd also cut a lot of foreign aid. If we don't have the money to fund our own bloated bureaucracy, then we shouldn't be funding the worlds' bloated bureaucracies.) (When the air pressure on a plane decreases, and you have to put on your air masks, they tell you to put your own on first before helping others to put theirs on.)

We also have to get control of our borders and stop giving benefits to illegal aliens. We have to change the law, as well, with regards to how one becomes a citizen of the US in this respect: Right now, if a person is born in the US, they are automatically a citizen of the US; so what we have is an influx of illegal aliens coming over our borders, having children here (the children are now citizens) and collecting benefits that their parents, who are in the US illegally, have never contributed to. I say, if your parents are in the country illegally, then, you cannot be a citizen of the United States even if you were born here.

There are plenty of issues I have with President Bush and his administration. Runaway spending, our inability to control our borders are just two.

But Kerry is very good at telling us that the President has failed (in everything, if you listen to Kerry) and that he will do better because he has a plan. Problem is, he never tells us what that plan is. There are only a few weeks till election day, and I still have not one clue what Kerry will do as president. I only know that he says he will do better. How will he?

That, and he seems to think $200,000 a year is rich. My wife and I with two kids, and a third on the way, make about $120,000 a year, and we barely scrape by. If I made $200,000 I would be a little better off; I'd be able to save a little money (at least until college tuition comes around) but would I be rich? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Especially since, after the various governments get their share, that $200,000 is worth less than half of that in real dollars. (This is taking into account all Income (Federal, State, Local) taxes, all sales taxes, all property taxes, real estate taxes, all communications taxes and fees, gas taxes, regulatory fees, automobile taxes, registration fees, etc... (the list goes on and on.)

The amount of money that defines middle class has increased, yet Kerry and the democrats still insist that $200,000 and above is rich.

The only thing I have ever heard about Kerry's plan to help the middle class is through tax credits for college (a $4000 credit) and an increased child care credit (Bush also increased this credit, and talks of further increasing it.) That would be great. But it's not a true "tax cut" as he claims it to be, and does nothing to help the individual without children -- the true forgotten man/woman in American politics.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah Jedieb the Sinclair thing is horrible. I saw them talking about it on Bill Maher the other night (speaking of which I might try to hunt down his end rant it was hilarious on Bush). It is just horrible what they are doing. And about O'Reily I think this is going to destroy him. If there are tapes he is through he can't lie his way through that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

This is the Bill Maher editorial about Bush that was just hilarious. This is part off his end segement call New Rules where he comes up with his opinion on various issues. They are usually hilarious. This one was too. Also you can't tell in the transcript but he is being very sarcastic in this rant.

New Rule: And this is the hardest New Rule I have ever had to deliver, and I know a lot of you aren't going to like this, but here it is. Let Bush win! I'm sorry. I know it's terrible to say that. But like every other swing voter in America, I got to think about the issues that are important to me. And to me the most important issue is... having an erratic jackass in the White House!

"Rocky 3" isn't any good if he doesn't have Mr. T to fight with. A satirical tackling dummy like George Bush doesn't grow on trees. Without Bush, who will America's schoolchildren have to look down on? And folks, this isn't just me, you might ask yourselves, without George Bush around, where does the hate go?

Folks, I see the catharsis in a live audience every time I ridicule our president when I do my stand-up on the road - as I will be Friday, November 12th, at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti. A hate, like Bush, only comes once in a lifetime. And when it walks through the door, you grab it and hold on tight, and never let it go. Without George Bush, my job will be... hard.

It'll be hard work! I'll have to search both internets. Therefore, for the next three weeks, I will be formally working for the re-election of the president, who I probably have been too hard on anyway! I mean, come on, we all make mistakes! Who amongst us hasn't bombed the wrong country, or united the world against us. We're all human!

We try to learn from our mistakes by never acknowledging them, and then moving on. So... So, come on, liberals! Join me in getting behind... George Bush. Huh? Aw, come on, let's stay the course! The world is safer without Saddam, you can't deny that one! Flip-flopper, he's a flip-flopper.

All right, it's lame, but... but what about values? Real estate values? Please! People! I have a mortgage, okay?: I have a family to feed. Not a family, but people who call me daddy, it's the same thing. What do you want from me?! Do you want me to say it out loud? Fine! I'll say it! I need George Bush! Please let him win this election. If for no other reason than for once in his life, he should have to clean up his own mess! Thank you very much.

[Charley]

Not exactly funny, but it is pretty smarmy and pretentious, which is precisely Maher's style.

[Pierce Tondry]

It's only really hilarious if you're willing to see someone else's reputation get smeared a bit more. I've kinda backed down from humor that's a little too mean, myself.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well as I said it was funnier said too especially with Maher's wit. Also Maher despises Bush he picks no bones about it. He thinks he is a bad republican and is a fool. He says this everytime he speaks. Also he isn't some blind democrat either. He used to be a big republican he only changed recently. I wouldn't call him a democrat either he really is an independent.

[Jedieb]

Bill Maher will rag on ANYONE. He voted for Nader in 2000 and on more than one occasion he's taken shots at Kerry. Especially when things have gone bad on the campaign trail. If Kerry wins he'll spend the next 4 years ragging on him. Like a lot of Independents and former Nader supporters all he wants is Bush out of the White House. And if it means a vote for Kerry then so be it.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well as I said it was funnier said too especially with Maher's wit. Also Maher despises Bush he picks no bones about it. He thinks he is a bad republican and is a fool. He says this everytime he speaks. Also he isn't some blind democrat either. He used to be a big republican he only changed recently. I wouldn't call him a democrat either he really is an independent.


Originally posted by Jedieb
Bill Maher will rag on ANYONE. He voted for Nader in 2000 and on more than one occasion he's taken shots at Kerry. Especially when things have gone bad on the campaign trail. If Kerry wins he'll spend the next 4 years ragging on him. Like a lot of Independents and former Nader supporters all he wants is Bush out of the White House. And if it means a vote for Kerry then so be it.

This is all well and good, but he's still smarmy, pretentious, and unfunny regardless of his political orientations.

[Jedieb]

Oh yeah he's smarmy, but that's part of his act. He's always been like that. That's nothing new. What he does do better than most is give opposing opinions an outlet. There's almost always a conservative voice on his panel. And he's had everyone from Pat Buchanan, John O'Neil, and Tucker Carlson on for interviews.

Speaking of Carlson, the bow tied wonder, did anyone see him and Paul B. get lambasted by Jon Stewart on Crossfire? They definitely didn't get what they expected when they invited him on.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html
My favorite part of the interview;


STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: What is wrong with you?

(APPLAUSE)


If you've ever seen Begala and Carlson go at it, it can be pretty sad. You have to wonder how often they get talking points memos from the RNC and DNC.

[Figrin D'an]

I have the video clip of that Crossfire episode... it's pretty funny. Stewart made both Carlson and Begala look bad, although more so Carlson (mainly because Carlson tried to push back and got hammered even worse).

[Jedieb]

Carlson was just being a jerk. I think Begala was genuinely stunned. What was sad was Carlson trying to criticize Stewert for not asking the "tough" questions. What a tool. What's next, Jay Leno and Letterman are suppose to grill Clinton, Bush, or Kerry when they appear on their shows? The puppets line really put him in his place. The whole point is that the Daily Show MOCKS political shows. Apparently, Carlson doesn't get it.

[Jedieb]

More evidence that die hard supporters of both candidates are living in two different worlds.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

[Dutchy]

I read former president Bill Clinton is able to support Kerry in his last week.

That's good news. :)

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dutchy
I read former president Bill Clinton is able to support Kerry in his last week.

That's good news. :)

Good news for Bush, most likely. Clinton's a pretty huge polarizing element.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Clinton was a very popular president too.

[Charley]

HAHAHAHA thats pretty funny. Popular like the Bubonic Plague, perhaps?

I'm sorry, but having Bono from U2 brown-nose you at a concert does not a popular president make. If by popular president you mean popular to Hollywood then you would be correct. That's the only way you're correct.

[Jedi Master Carr]

he was popular. In his last term he had an approval rating over 60. He was very popular with democrats, african americans, minorities, and most independents.

[Figrin D'an]

Like Charley said though, Clinton is a pretty polarizing guy. He has high popularity with certain demographics, but the flipside is that many people that skew conservative think he is a scumbag for his sexual antics.

He just got a pass from a lot of people because the economy experienced some of it's greatest upswings since post World War I during his terms in the Oval Office.


Either way, his effect by campaigning for Kerry is going to be minimal. The election will be decided by the independents who go to the polls next Tuesday and decide to, rather than vote for a third party candidate, select the lesser of the two evils in their eyes.

It's going to be close. Maybe not quite as close as four years ago, but still close.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think it's going to be very close. I think it's going to come down to Ohio. Kerry is leading there according to a poll by CNN like 49-48. If he wins Ohio, he wins, IMO. No republican has won without winning Ohio.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Clinton was popular. In his last term he had an approval rating over 60. He was very popular with democrats, african americans, minorities, and most independents.

and in certain European countries, like mine. :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Kerry is leading there according to a poll by CNN like 49-48.

Has there been any poll by CNN where Kerry doesn't lead and any poll by Fox where Bush doesn't lead?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
he was popular. In his last term he had an approval rating over 60. He was very popular with democrats, african americans, minorities, and most independents.

And us Aussies too!

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dutchy
and in certain European countries, like mine. :)


Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
And us Aussies too!

Because that matters.

[Marcus Telcontar]

It certainly does or should matter. The President's actions have effects around the globe. Americans might only be thinking domesically, but your choice on Nov 2 affects the world to a very large degree. You realyl should be asking yourselves why quite a large majority of the worlds populace who know about what's going on (Delete a few billion chinese, africans and Indians who are more interested in just surviving another day), are hoping Bush is outed. Most of us I believe felt we could trust Clinton. USA foriegn policy is of vital importance to us and his was tolerable. A foreign policy that doesnt immensly P.O people is goign to in the end lead to a safer homeland for you lot, if you think about it.

edit... Found it!

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=55&num=14240

Best damn article on Iraq ever. This should be compulsory reading. warning, it's very long. However, no matter what side fo the debater your on, this is great reading.

[Charley]

There's simply no reason for foreign influence to interfere with sovereign politics. To imply that foreign appeal has anything whatsoever to do with domestic voting is wantonly absurd.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Charley
There's simply no reason for foreign influence to interfere with sovereign politics.

Yeah, sometimes there is simply no reason to interfere with foreign affairs. :)

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Yeah, sometimes there is simply no reason to interfere with foreign affairs. :)

Nice try.

If you really want to influence the outcome of our domestic politics, you're welcome to try in due method. Open force is, after all, the continuation of politics by other means.

[Pierce Tondry]

The issue is really centered on peer pressure. You could, for example, let someone else in a group choose what movie you go to watch, but it's unlikely you'd allow them to plan out your entire year for you. So it goes with politics.

[Jedieb]

Clinton is on the campaign trail for one reason, to energize the base. No one can irk Bush's base more than Slick Willie, but that's not why he's hitting the campaign trail. The Dems aren't of afraid of riling that base because that's who Bush has been playing to the entire campaign. Clinton is stumping for African American, urban, and a few swing voters. Gore didn't use him in 2000 and it probably cost him New Hampshire. Clinton could end up being a big help to Kerry in NH, Florida, and quite possibly, Arkansas (that's a stretch, but you never know).

The polls are bouncing back and forth every day now. It's coming down to the wire. Two big stories broke today, the missing 377 tons of high-explosives from the al Qa Qaa weapons facility, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer. Both sides will be attacking and deflecting the al Qa Qaa story and the Rehnquist story will once again remind voters the next President is more than likely going to have a chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. If anyone is keeping track, Rehnquist is the Cheif Justice and one of the conservative strict constructionist.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Nice try.

If you really want to influence the outcome of our domestic politics, you're welcome to try in due method. Open force is, after all, the continuation of politics by other means.

Well, considering the USA admin interfered in Aust politics this year.... and the USA has a long tradition of interfering in places like Sth America, hey why not!


There's simply no reason for foreign influence to interfere with sovereign politics. To imply that foreign appeal has anything whatsoever to do with domestic voting is wantonly absurd.

Let me answer by this quote I found...

"Since the rest of the world is going to have to live with whoever's voted (mostly foreign policy issues), it's nice to be able to actually find out *why* Americans vote the way they do. I may not be able to vote in your election, but I sure am going to have to live with your decision. "


We outside of the USA have to live with YOUR decision as it affects US. As much as I hate it that fact. I would very much prefer USA influence over Aust was a great deal less. And if that influence has to be, then I want it to be a good influence. Bush Admin certainly has not been.

Which makes the current fact that all http request outside of the USA are blocked on http://www.georgewbush.com. Excuse me? And just why cant people outside the USA have a look?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11211441%255E401,00.html

For SECURITY REASONS???????

Christ Almighty. If there was any doubt, there's not now. Bush and Co are screwed up.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And as an aside note, NEWS corp, the biggest news congomerate on the planet and right wing mouthpiece of Rupert Murdoch will be leaving Australia and moving to the USA. I'd like to say good riddance. We very much dont want him. For all the years of bad USA TV, you can now have all the FOX BS you can handle.

BTW, your not allowed to do a Return To Sender.

[Master Yoghurt]

Which makes the current fact that all http request outside of the USA are blocked on http://www.georgewbush.com. Excuse me? And just why cant people outside the USA have a look?

Yeah, I cant access it either O_o

Maybe theire finally recognising Bush is one of the most globally disliked head of state since world war II.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
Yeah, I cant access it either O_o

Maybe theire finally recognising Bush is one of the most globally disliked head of state since world war II.

Oh come on! Now we're just making a drama bomb :rolleyes

[Master Yoghurt]

Originally posted by Charley
Oh come on! Now we're just making a drama bomb :rolleyes

My comment was partly satirically intended, but the thesis is more accurate than you think.

To put it in perspective. It has often been said that we non americans cannot begin to understand how much of an effect september 11 had on your country. Maybe that is true. But I think its likewise true; americans cannot even begin to understand how disliked their president is abroad.

[March Kalas]

So why does everybody all over the world dislike Bush, because he is a right-wing strong man. Until recently. I'm about to throw up.

I can't believe Bush's stance on homosexuality. It seems that he now has no strength left in him or something, but whatever it is, he's really started to dissapoint me. I have no doubt he will stay the course on the conflict in the middle east (which is why I vote for him), but I am not happy. Bush honestly doesn't have any ground now to accuse Kerry of being wishy-washy (Kerry's still a little more in that area). I would by no means call Bush disgraceful or pathetic, for he is my leader (at least for the moment), and that would be treasonous.

I really think we have a really lousy line-up of candidates. I don't think Bush or Kerry is going to be a very good president now. I don't know. Maybe I should just forget about it and try to struggle against the hard obstacles the government has set up to make it harder to succeed. No, I care about my country, because it affects my life as well as every other American (and foreigner as indicated in the above posts).

I'm really sick of politics and government.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
My comment was partly satirically intended, but the thesis is more accurate than you think.

To put it in perspective. It has often been said that we non americans cannot begin to understand how much of an effect september 11 had on your country. Maybe that is true. But I think its likewise true; americans cannot even begin to understand how disliked their president is abroad.

No, I understand that well enough. It's just pretty silly to compare Bush to such great guys as Kruzchev, Breshnev, Chauchesku, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein, etc.

Its an obtuse observation that fails heavily on perspective.
Originally posted by March Kalas
I can't believe Bush's stance on homosexuality. It seems that he now has no strength left in him or something, but whatever it is, he's really started to dissapoint me.

He should abandon this "sanctity of marriage" amendment idea, because the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place.


I would by no means call Bush disgraceful or pathetic, for he is my leader (at least for the moment), and that would be treasonous.

No it wouldn't. Questioning authority figures is as American as apple pie.


I really think we have a really lousy line-up of candidates. I don't think Bush or Kerry is going to be a very good president now.

Vote Badnarik.

[March Kalas]

quote:
I would by no means call Bush disgraceful or pathetic, for he is my leader (at least for the moment), and that would be treasonous.




No it wouldn't. Questioning authority figures is as American as apple pie.



Yes it is treasonous. Not to George Bush, but it is an attack against America. When you declare in front of nonAmericans that our leader is pathetic and that we have weak leadership (remember how I said "in front of nonAmericans" and there are plenty of nonAmericans here) what you are doing is declaring that United States is weak and other things. Sure it's ok to express your opinions about leadership, but when you make your country appear weak infront of other foreign people, you are, in my opinion, commiting treason.

[Charley]

Originally posted by March Kalas
Yes it is treasonous. Not to George Bush, but it is an attack against America. When you declare in front of nonAmericans that our leader is pathetic and that we have weak leadership (remember how I said "in front of nonAmericans" and there are plenty of nonAmericans here) what you are doing is declaring that United States is weak and other things. Sure it's ok to express your opinions about leadership, but when you make your country appear weak infront of other foreign people, you are, in my opinion, commiting treason.

The key words here are in your opinion, which is about as far away from the definition of treasonous activity as cheese is from the surface of the moon.

The President is not America, thank God. The President is just some old guy in a suit that because of an inherent necessary evil of government, has a job in Washington DC. Most of them are liars and unscrupulous guys, and calling them on it isn't in any way defaming the rest of the nation.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by March Kalas
Yes it is treasonous. Not to George Bush, but it is an attack against America. When you declare in front of nonAmericans that our leader is pathetic and that we have weak leadership (remember how I said "in front of nonAmericans" and there are plenty of nonAmericans here) what you are doing is declaring that United States is weak and other things. Sure it's ok to express your opinions about leadership, but when you make your country appear weak infront of other foreign people, you are, in my opinion, commiting treason.


You just defined treason in a totalitarian regime. As much as the USA isnt quite as held as a land of freedom anymore as much as you would desire, you thankfully havent gone that far. So dont encourage it.

Treeason is an act to bring down a country. Some people would argue that to point out openly that a Govt is wrong and try to bring in a strong, right one is the height of the democratic process. In fact, disagreement and freedom of expression, isnt that a foundation of a healthy democracy?

What is so treasonous about speakign your mind in front of a foriegner? That is simply an absurd statement to make. It's not like we havent figured out that Bush Admin and the USA electorial system is borked anyway. I dare say, it seems we know it better than those in America do. Which leads on to todays Q and A session.

First Question - how do 58,000 absentee voting forms sent via mail in Florida go missing?

Second question - How is it India can do a electronic voting system and it works first time to handle 660 million people, while Diebold and Co cant? What is so difficult about building a electronic voting system?

<a href=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/28/1098667909085.html?from=storylhs>And to be fair, it's not like the Aust senate system is a paradigm of simplicity. There's no dispute cause no oen actually understands how it works </a>

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yes I guess people like me and Jedieb should be shot for treason. We both on this board have spoken down on Bush in front of gasp foreigners. Only in countires like China would you be locked away for expressing that view point. In america you have ever right to say that as we got freedom of speech. Sure there are exceptions someone can't say I am going to kill the president, now that is a different ball game.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
But I think its likewise true; americans cannot even begin to understand how disliked their president is abroad.

Just like they cannot even begin to understand how beloved their former president is. :)

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Just like they cannot even begin to understand how beloved their former president is. :)

You cannot even begin to understand how little we actually care.

[Jedieb]

Wow, I guess every political cartoonist, comedian, or satirist that's taken a shot at Dubya, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, etc. should be rounded up and tried for treason. Unless they waited for the President to be OUT of office. Then I guess everything is okay. :rolleyes

The final day of this week's newscycle brings us more stories on Al CaCa (spellin' it like it sounds!), the widening FBI investigation of Halliburton, and celebrity endorsements! Arnie is in Ohio today, and this week Kerry had Springsteen and Bon Jovi. I think these celebrity endorsement ARE effective. They may not garner many swing voters, but they can help get the base out. They can get people out to rallies and make them that much more likely to vote. Who's going to stay home? Who's going to show up at the polls no matter what the weather is like? That's what's scaring both sides silly.

[Jedieb]

Wonderful, Bin Laden has just released another tape brought to you by the fine folks at Al-Jazerra. My guess, after much soul searching, he's finally ready to endorse a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. And he's probably including a congratulatory message for the Sox.

Good gawd, why can't we find this jagoff.

[Jedieb]

It looks like this Bin Laden Tape is going to dominate the end of this news cycle. Already, the "partisan hacks" ( Jon Stewert is my hero!) on Crossfire were already spinning this to their guy's advantage. It's going to be interesting to see how each candidate addresses this video tape. They're both going to have to address it.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Charley
You cannot even begin to understand how little we actually care.

Oh, but I do know how lil you guys care about other countries. :)

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Oh, but I do know how lil you guys care about other countries. :)

:rolleyes You're not very good at this reading comprehension thing. Caring about your country != caring what you think about our leader.

[Droo]

Charley has actually demonstrated what someone has said to me about Americans, this is not a negative statement, insult or otherwise, just an interesting observation which seems true to me. Americans in general, as far as I have seen, have this very blasé approach to viewing the rest of the world and what is going on there. It appears like to the general American, detatched in a very young and naive sense, and rightly so because in the grand scheme of things America is a very young country that has grown up very fast. This is no cause to criticise really, it's quite admirable that so many American's are insanely patriotic, sometimes blindly so, but at least they care so much about their own country which is more than can be said for most of the world.

America farts and the world holds it's breath until it's plastered over the newspapers the following day.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Charley
:rolleyes You're not very good at this reading comprehension thing. Caring about your country != caring what you think about our leader.

Oh, I know, but in this case it doesn't matter. :)

[CMJ]

I know US policy affects everyone. So I understand why our friends from abroad are watching this so closely. That said, I don't give a damn what they think about Bush, Kerry, Clinton, or George f'n Washington.

I'm not really a fan of the President(I doubt I'll vote for him...and I didn't vote for him 4 years ago), but I can't tell you how much it irirtates me reading international folks slam him.

I think it's like my family. Take my brother for instance - I make fun of him all the time. At times the whole family might pile on him if he does something dumb. But if someone from OUTSIDE the family says something it's time to circle the wagons and beat the hell out of the offending party.

Aussies, Brits, French, etc. push more folks towards Bush by complaining about him all the time IMHO.

[Master Yoghurt]

Here is one of the great ironies of this years election though; rarely if ever was foreign policy so important to win, yet despite that fact; what foreigners think of the presidental candidates apparently does not mean much to most people.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by CMJ
Aussies, Brits, French, etc. push more folks towards Bush by complaining about him all the time IMHO.

There's a lot of truth in that statement. America, for better or worse, has a very strong "circle the wagons" mentality, like CMJ said. The more the rest of the world hammers on a sitting President, the less influence that criticism has on the average American. It comes to be viewed by many as simply overkill rantings.

I think we can see a microcosm of this phenomena right here on this board. Many here don't think Bush is by any means a great president, but the constant criticism and complaining about him by some (be the complaints accurate or not) tends to cause people to come to his support.

I know many in the international community don't like Bush, but the constant griping day-in and day-out is going to just make a lot of Americans give the rest of the world an election day version of the middle finger.

[Marcus Telcontar]

We speak out about the Bush Admin because we care what happens to our own countries and the places around us. So if we percieve that we've been wronged, it's not right to speak up?

Tis isnt Bush bashing for the sake of bashing. It's highly concerned and informed foriegn citizens who are genuinely worried. The main critics internationally aren't speaking because Bush is an American. They're speaking out almost like never before because we really think there's some serious problems in the policies of Bush and Co affecting us or with the potential to affect quite badly. It's in our self interests to try and do something to make American voters realise and vote not just on domestic, but International issues.

Edit : Especially how much percieved (ie real or imagined) interference the USA inflicts on other countries. I suppose that I could say rather cynically it's called Karma baby - Now you know why the hackles go up when someone fromt he USA sticks their nose where it doesnt belong :p - however that may be, personally I'm speaking out becuase I'm genuinely worried in the direction the world is going and not out of some sort of time to get one back. I really dont think most who are speaking are doign it to be nasty or because of a grudge.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
We speak out about the Bush Admin because we care what happens to our own countries and the places around us. So if we percieve that we've been wronged, it's not right to speak up?

It's not wrong to speak up. Far from it. It's the manner and frequency with which it tends to be done that is a big turn off to those who ultimately have the power to affect who sits the Oval Office.




Tis isnt Bush bashing for the sake of bashing. It's highly concerned and informed foriegn citizens who are genuinely worried. The main critics internationally aren't speaking because Bush is an American. They're speaking out almost like never before because we really think there's some serious problems in the policies of Bush and Co affecting us or with the potential to affect quite badly. It's in our self interests to try and do something to make American voters realise and vote not just on domestic, but International issues.

It's the perception of it being bashing for the sake of bashing that is the problem, though. International concerns for US policy is expected by most Americans. The problem is, as I said, when it comes in from every angle on almost every issue on a consistent basis, many Americans start to either tune it out as ranting, or begin to "push back" and support the sitting administation because they see it as bashing of their country.

For the record, this isn't a blame game, pitting international complaints about US policy against American patriotism... I merely stating reality. If the international community wants Bush out of the White House, a continual stream of complaint isn't going to work... it's only going to re-enforce his base and mobilize them into voting in greater numbers.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dru
Charley has actually demonstrated what someone has said to me about Americans, this is not a negative statement, insult or otherwise, just an interesting observation which seems true to me. Americans in general, as far as I have seen, have this very blasé approach to viewing the rest of the world and what is going on there. It appears like to the general American, detatched in a very young and naive sense, and rightly so because in the grand scheme of things America is a very young country that has grown up very fast. This is no cause to criticise really, it's quite admirable that so many American's are insanely patriotic, sometimes blindly so, but at least they care so much about their own country which is more than can be said for most of the world.

America farts and the world holds it's breath until it's plastered over the newspapers the following day.

Not really. I've demonstrated more than enough that I'm fairly connected in terms of world events. That simply does not enter into it when we're talking about foreign critique of domestic politics.

One doesn't need to have a "head in the sand" worldview to realize that such yammering from foreign elements is more or less sound and fury.

[Droo]

My comment was made in light of your "You cannot even begin to understand how little we actually care" post and that's all. I know that was made in reference to someone's opinion of the president so in the way I highlighted youself as being an example of such traits, I'm likely to be wrong. Your post simply reminded me of what I said in my previous post. I can't pretend to have read half of your posts in this thread let alone half the thread since I'm not that politically minded but saw that and felt the urge to post something that had been brought to my attention recently.

Personally, after all the sound and fury I've heard over the last few years, all I've recently come to the bleak view that politics, particularly any kind of democracy is simply a case of choosing the lesser of evils; no one man replacing another isn't going to change a country at the moment.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dru
My comment was made in light of your "You cannot even begin to understand how little we actually care" post and that's all. I can't pretend to have read half of your posts in this thread let alone half the thread since I'm not that politically minded but saw that and felt the urge to post something that had been brought to my attention recently.

Ah, now it makes sense. Yes that single quote was in terms of the foreign political analysis, and not of foreign interaction in general. If you read more of what I said before and after, it would be a little clearer :)


Personally, after all the sound and fury I've heard over the last few years, all I've recently come to the bleak view that politics, particularly any kind of democracy is simply a case of choosing the lesser of evils; no one man replacing another isn't going to change a country at the moment.

John Locke would be pleased.

[Droo]

(Googles for John Locke.)

Edit: Just searched and one of the first things I read was "John Locke was one of the greatest philosophers in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century. He came from Oxford, England." I'm out of it. I thought he was a politician or something.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dru
(Googles for John Locke.)

Edit: Just searched and one of the first things I read was "John Locke was one of the greatest philosophers in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century. He came from Oxford, England." I'm out of it. I thought he was a politician or something.

And as a bonus, I cited a foreigner; somebody from your own island no less :cool