Election(s) 2004

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10601931%255E421,00.html

It's finally on. Australia is going to the polls in what I expect will be one nasty and bitter campain. As the first of the allies that invaded Iraq, this could be a real pointer to how Blair and Bush may go. Blair, if you dont know, is in real political trouble and has been for some time. However, he has time to recover.

Howard came out of the war resonably unscathed, but the scandals that have come up since it's end are biting.

The other big issue is a scandal known as "Children Overboard".. The Howard governemt won in 2001 because a huge refugee story involving the Tampa and SEIV X. To find out more about this, please see this website - http://www.truthoverboard.com/

Tampa crisis - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=tampa+refugees&btnG=Search

SEIV X -

http://www.echonews.com/840/politics.html

I do think both the USA and Aust elections will be similar and in many ways linked, which is unusual IMO. Bush having one of his closest allies voted out would be a bad omen.

The other thing is that, unlike the Olympics or other times mooted as target times, the Election in Aust is a real terrorist target, because of the involvement Australia had in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Normally, I'm not worried in the slightest by terror alerts, but after Spain's bombings, I believe that if Al Quadia were to hit Australia, now is the time. Howard would wear the fault for that, much like the Spanish governemnt did. I would hate to be proven right.

I wont be spending too much time worrying about it, but I do realise it's likely. Thanks John. They didnt even know where the hell we were before your toadying to Bush in Iraq.

Anyway, hopefully this will be the end for Howard. I shall be watching what happens with interest, even if I decided a long time ago whom I am voting for.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Two big gaffes today...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10626753%255E2,00.html

Yes George, you said it right. When did you clue on?

"I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

That's Mr Bush is the first bit of common sense you have said in a long time. Pity you didnt say it earlier. Pity no one is going to like the truth this time. Pity you have been going on about winning the war on terror. You painted yourself in a corner.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10630264%255E421,00.html

And John Howard's credibility is attacked once again with the Children Overboard affair. Howard cant lie straight in bed. I think it was a grave erro for the Prime Minster to make truth an issue in the Election, when he's known to have lied... a lot.

[Pierce Tondry]

Yes George, you said it right. When did you clue on?

"I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Those of us who truly understood the nature of the beast saw this as the victory condition from the get-go. I see the quoted statement as little more than a qualification for those who didn't get the point through the rhetoric the first time around.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
Two big gaffes today...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10626753%255E2,00.html

Yes George, you said it right. When did you clue on?

"I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

That's Mr Bush is the first bit of common sense you have said in a long time. Pity you didnt say it earlier. Pity no one is going to like the truth this time. Pity you have been going on about winning the war on terror. You painted yourself in a corner.

This is nothing more than political pedantics at its worst. Trying to insinuate its a concession by the administration is foolhearty.

[Pierce Tondry]

Oh, and Mark. You know that Kerry guy you're angling for?


Mr Kerry, who is staying low-key during the opposing party's convention, said he "absolutely" believed the war on terror could be won.

Apparently he hasn't clued in yet.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think he meant to say we couldn't win, I think its typical Bush speak he quite commonly missays thing like saying I am East Texas Girl that kind of stuff. Of course now they have to say he meant it because other wise it makes him look really dumb. Personally the war on Terror can be won. When we destroy Al'Quadia and Bin Ladin yeah and end the reason countries hate us. I think these are all doable.

Now talk about flip flops

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush_30

First it was oh we can't win in a convential sense and now oh we will win in convential sense. Well what is is Mr President?

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I don't think he meant to say we couldn't win, I think its typical Bush speak he quite commonly missays thing like saying I am East Texas Girl that kind of stuff.

Precisely. Everybody get their panties out of a wad, now.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I am not saying that, but why the heck did they bother to try to say he meant something else? Just say he screwed up shows how stupid politicians are.

[Dutchy]

I think Bush' victory is gonna be as big as Kerry's hair. :)

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Dutchy
I think Bush' victory is gonna be as big as Kerry's hair. :)

I really don't know how to react to that. o_O

I honestly have no clue who will win, or who will get my vote.

[Sanis Prent]

No clue who will win, but neither get my vote.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The real problem Bush faces whith his comment is this - a 'war' on Terrorism can be won, but it cant be won via military means, with, up to now, is the 'way' it seems to me that thew 'war' would be won in the minds of the general public.


I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

However, this is a proper and effective response. Terrorism is a scoio problem as well, probably more so. I've heard Kerry talk about attackign the root cause of terrorism before, this is the first time I've heard Bush say it. And I have to reluctantly admit, that is pleasing.

Where I say it'll be a problem for him is that he's placed such a heavy emphasis on the 'war' and wining in a military sense. What he should have said is yes it can be won BUT winnign also includes buildign the conditions so terrorism is not acceptibe etc. In that, he creates a good statement that's not agruable.

So when Joe Sixpack hears Bush's latest statement, how's it goign to go down? Not well. I approve of it, you can approve we understand the real ways terrorism needs to be beaten. Joe Sixpack probably doesnt care. He just wants to hear there's no more terrorists. Preferably they got killed.

:: Note, must check Murdoch press to see if they are runnign with it ::

[Jedieb]

The campaign has gotten particularly disgusting in the last few weeks. Outright lies, resignations from campaign staff, accusations, subsequent apologies, etc. A perfect example of one of the lowpoints, jagoff delegates are wearing "Purple Heart" band-aids at the Rep convention. Can you imagine DNC delegates wearing the same kind of band-aids in 96 to mock Dole? Unbelievable. I'm hoping things will improve once the debates begin.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedieb
The campaign has gotten particularly disgusting in the last few weeks. Outright lies, resignations from campaign staff, accusations, subsequent apologies, etc. A perfect example of one of the lowpoints, jagoff delegates are wearing "Purple Heart" band-aids at the Rep convention. Can you imagine DNC delegates wearing the same kind of band-aids in 96 to mock Dole? Unbelievable. I'm hoping things will improve once the debates begin.

Considering that Purple Hearts aren't meritorious awards, but have been used by some Kerry proponents to tout his character, I figure its a case of reaping the whirlwind to a degree. Crass? Yeah, to some degree. But that's politics for you.

[Jedieb]

Dole, Kerry, McCain, Bush Sr. all of them highlighted their military careers during their political careers. And every time one of them had their records dragged through the mud it was pathetic. Some people even threw some mud at Bush Sr. and it was despicable. It's one thing to examine someone's record, but it's something alltogether different to just make crap up. Karl Rove is simply a scumbag. Whether he's having pollsters call up SC voters to ask them what they think of McCain having a black child out of wedlock, or the last month's slimefest, it's crap.

Dole's conduct the last week was particularly disheartening. First he took a shot at Kerry, and then apologized the next day. What's really sad about it is that before Dole received his catastrophic war injury, he got Purple Hearts for superficial wounds. He knew exactly how the medals are awarded. Ragging on Kerry for getting the same kinds of wounds he was recognized for was hypocritical. In fact, one of Dole's Purple Hearts was awarded when he received a superficial wound after throwing a grenade. The grenade bounced off of something, probably a tree, back towards his position, and he caught some sharpnel. It was a minor wound, but Dole was still awarded the PH, and rightly so. I would never fault Dole for that award, because those are the kinds of things that happen when you're in a war zone. You get 3 limbs blown off on your way to see some buddies for beer (Cleland), you get hit by your own grenade (Dole), you spend 6 years in a prison camp (McCain) etc. Those things sure as hell don't happen when you do backflips to stay out of harm's way. That's one of the many things that pisses me off about this whole mess.

[Sanis Prent]

There's nothing wrong with highlighting military service in politics, nor did I say so. Yet my point still stands. Purple hearts honor a sacrifice a soldier makes in combat, but its not in any way a symbol of meritorious service. Why Kerry's boosters didn't put his bronze & silver star more in the spotlight than the hearts, I can only guess. Its a total non sequitur, and I see it no different than the sensationalist emotion-fest the Republicans are gushing over in their convention. Once again, it reinforces my view that this election is going to come down to style, rather than substance.

[Jedieb]

The Bronze and Silver star were highlighted just as much as the Purple Hearts. The Silver Star was especially highlighted. They've ALL been attacked. One of the main thrusts of this whole Swift Boat disgrace has been how Kerry won his Silver Star. The whole genesis of this isn't really what Kerry did during the war, but what he did AFTER the war. I didn't say you in particular said there was anything wrong with their records, or that they shouldn't campaign on them. But I disagree with your assessments of how meritorious PH's are. They're meritorious for one simple reason, you put yourself in a situation in which you were in physical danger. A difference in tragectory of a centimeter and whatever nicked you could just have easily opened up your neck and you're a dead man. Someone could be a jagoff and say McCain doesn't deserve any credit for being a POW. After all, he got CAPTURED! How could someone get props for being caught by the enemy? That's simply a load of crap. You run that risk every time you get in that plane. Every time you get in that boat. Every time you climb into your Humvee and drive down an alley. Awards like PH's should be respected because more often than not, their earned when a soldier puts himself at risk. And that's all I'm asking for, that they be RESPECTED. But some of these pricks are outright mocking them. They have no shame.

One of the many things that bothers me about this Rep convention is that they're parading speakers who really don't represent they're platform or Dubya's social agenda. It's one moderate after another, meanwhile the platform is more narrow than Callista Flockhart's waist. If they were honest, they'd throw out a few gay marriage amendment supporters and let them tell the country why so many people will end up in hell for choosing the wrong orafice. But after Pat Buchanan's 92 hate speech, the RNC has wised up.

Man, I just want the debates to start. And if Kerry craps out the way Gore did I'll jump in front of a bus.

[Sanis Prent]

There's still nothing meritorious about a Purple Heart. The only real requirement for a recipient to voluntarily complete is to be serving in active duty in a combat zone. All the PH means is that he got nicked or worse. That pre-requisite for earning the PH is what one should take notice of and honor, not that they got wounded in action. I'd paraphrase the quote from Patton, but its cliche' and we all know it. The PH is a sign of what a vet's gone through, and what he may have left behind. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I'm a day into the RNC and already I'm wanting to go back to watching paint dry somewhere. Blah blah sensationalism blah blah emotional diarrhea blah blah 911 never forget blah.

[Marcus Telcontar]

If they were honest, they'd throw out a few gay marriage amendment supporters and let them tell the country why so many people will end up in hell for choosing the wrong orafice. But after Pat Buchanan's 92 hate speech, the RNC has wised up

Isn't it interesting that the moderates show the real tolerance, however the Religous Right, who on one hand espouse God's love and forgiveness, sprout hate and discord against 'sinners' on the other. You'ld think the religious right sense the hypocracy and change.

Oh wait. Do you mean Jesus never condemned or hate spoke against sinners, but blasted the Religious Right of His day? (*)

Oh snap.

Problem guys!

Jesus was a screaming left wing liberal hippy with every little in common with the religious Right.

anyway, now that lil aside has been said, the RNC has been interestign to listen to. However, I sort of feel it's not as well scripted as the DNC was. The DNC was politically well done. I just dont feel the RNC is being done as well, even if the line up of speakers is great so far and it's worth the listen to. There doesnt feel like there's anythign new.

The band-aid Purple Heart thing is an insult to every soldier who recieved one.

Just as an aside, how's the Switf Boat for Truth BS being recieved generally? Here in Aust, it's being made out as a smear campain that's been exposed as a lie and a Republican Party front. What's it look liek in the USA?


(*) I could be defined as a Fundamentalist Christian - I do think homosexuality is wrong and gay marrige is wrong. But.... I am noting the splinter in someone's eye and ignoring the plank in my own? Am I right with God? Am I blameless? Have I followed the rules? Have I forgiven everyone?

Left wing libralism and Jesus have much in common, so I guess these days I'm trying to personally match the fundie view and the leftist reality. Who said faith was unthinking, cause they are soooo wrong. But anyway, I muse on these things more in my own forum at Meras. If you want to debate this topic, please feel free to there :)

[Dan the Man]

Lets not lower ourselves to the neo-con's level and politicize Jesus, please. I doubt he'd be for Patriot Act, but then again, I also doubt he'd care for Keynesian economics either. Out of bounds, next serve.

[Jedieb]

As long as the award is given it will be a meritorious one. It's one of the longest standing military honors and it wil always be considered one by most people. I understand what you're trying to say, but I just don't agree with it. Again, it sure as hell wasn't highlighted more than his other military awards. But he earned them, and when they were attacked, what was he supposed to do, act like they never existed? They went after ALL of his military record. Even if he had NEVER been awarded those PH's, these dirtbags still would have gone after his other awards and his military record. One, because of his anti-war stance when he got back from Vietnam, and two, because they have no shame and they've done it before.

As for the SB campaign, it's eroded Kerry's support amongst veterans and done some damage in the polls. Who can tell what's happening with moderates. Some people are disgusted, and the Sean Hannity's of the world are having an orgasm covering it. Better it gets dealt with now than in October.

Elizabeth Dole just gave a speech and emphasized how marriage must be defended. Defended in the country that will air "Wifeswap" on ABC this week. Unreal. :rolleyes

[Dan the Man]

I've seen the PH's used by Kerry boosters far more than his merit-based stuff, so I'm really not too sure about that. Of course, it could be due to both edges of the spin sword, so who's to say.

That, combined with the whole Swift Boat farce, has elicited a nice big :rolleyes from me. To be sure, both sides are loving it. They get to roll in mud, cause a drama bomb, and don't have to worry about things like "issues".

I mean, hey! Who wants to know about THOSE!

(That being said, this slap-fight will probably overshadow the government for the next few weeks; enough time for that STUPID assault weapons ban to sunset >D >D >D

Bitch my little primadonnas! Bitch your drama queen hearts out!)

[CMJ]

The speeches I saw yesterday were pretty good. I'll always watch McCain. :cool

Good grief Dole's speech made my skin crawl. The far right of the party needs to form their own group so folks like myself won't feel bad about voting for the GOP.

I can vote for the moderates(McCain is a personal hero). Heck, I have just as many issues I agree with Republicans as Democrats, but whenever someone evokes God in a major way - it just makes me ill.

[Dan the Man]

McCain needs to have a convenient epiphany and jump ship to the Libertarian Party. We need a big face :)

(gets bottle of chloroform)

:)

[Marcus Telcontar]

That Sen Zell Mitchell (sp), not a good speech. His key points already kciked aside.

I was impressed with Arnie's speech, Cheney was the usual mind blowing excement from him and Bush... eh, not bad. But then again, with different people behind him, Bush would be a lot different IMO.

anyway, John Kerry finally comes roaring out of his hole and does what he should have done a while ago....


The New York Times
September 3, 2004
Bush Is 'Unfit' to Lead U.S., Kerry Charges
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and MICHAEL JANOFSKY

NANTUCKET, Mass., Sept. 2 - Roaring back at his Republican rivals, Senator John Kerry called President Bush "unfit to lead this nation" for "misleading" America into war in Iraq, and he accused Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of having avoided combat during the Vietnam War.

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Mr. Kerry said in remarks issued Thursday night as Mr. Bush was about to accept the Republican nomination for a second term.

"Well, here's my answer," Mr. Kerry said. "I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."

Mr. Cheney capped a weeklong assault on Mr. Kerry's character and national-security credentials at the Republican convention on Wednesday night, saying that he honored Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam but that the senator's 20-year voting record on foreign policy and military issues made him unfit to be president.

Mr. Kerry hit back last night in his toughest remarks yet about the qualifications of the Republican ticket.

"The vice president even called me unfit for office last night," Mr. Kerry said. "I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty."

Mr. Cheney received five deferments and did not serve in the military. Mr. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard.

"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty," Mr. Kerry said, turning to Mr. Bush. "Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care makes you unfit to lead this nation.

"Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit.

"That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction. I believe it's time to set a new course for America."

A spokesman for Mr. Bush's campaign, Steve Schmidt, called the remarks "another example of John Kerry trying to divide America over the past."

"The contrast between the president's hopeful, optimistic vision for the future that is laid out in his acceptance speech versus John Kerry's politics of anger and pessimism will be totally clear to the American people," Mr. Schmidt said.

Mr. Kerry's speech was released just before he took off to deliver it at a midnight rally in Springfield, Ohio, alongside his running mate, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Earlier on Thursday, Mr. Edwards said Mr. Kerry's rivals were attacking him because they had achieved so little worth celebrating.

"I can understand why the vice president spent so much of his time talking about John Kerry," Mr. Edwards said at a lively rally in Norristown, Pa. "It's because he doesn't want to talk about what they did the last four years."

Mr. Edwards, who campaigned much of the week in economically depressed areas of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, began his response to the Republican convention from his hotel in Philadelphia late Wednesday night, issuing a statement saying, "There was a lot of hate coming from that podium."

Shortly after 5 a.m. on Thursday, Mr. Edwards was at it again, sitting through interviews that the campaign had requested with NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and Fox News and offering each virtually the same assessment of the Republican speeches of the night before.

The attacks from Mr. Cheney and Senator Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia, were "way over the top," Mr. Edwards told Fox News. The attacks were filled with "an enormous amount of anger," he told ABC.

On CNN, he said, "If you got up and went to the refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would have missed any discussion of what they're going to do about health care, what they're going to do about jobs, what they plan to do about this mess in Iraq."

He also told CNN that many of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Miller's accusations were wildly inaccurate.

"It's unfortunate that under the circumstances that's what Republicans wanted said at this convention," the senator added.

Later, at a community recreation center in Norristown, Mr. Edwards said: "The anger that we heard from the vice president is not going to change this country or do what needs to be done for America. With all the anger and venom we saw focused on John Kerry, I wish we would see a little anger about the millions of people who lost their health care. How about a little anger about the almost two million people who lost their private-sector jobs?"

Even as his audience interrupted with cheers and applause, he told the crowd again and again that he and Mr. Kerry had better ideas to create jobs and expand health care than the Bush administration.

He also implored his audience to recall the less strident tone that the Democrats projected at their convention last month - give or take an Al Sharpton - and to compare it with what they watched on Wednesday night.

When Mr. Edwards invited audience members to ask questions, one man suggested that the Democrats were campaigning too timidly, a criticism that many Democrats around the country are beginning to raise.

"You're up against the dirtiest fighters in the world," the man said. "If they hit you, you've got to hit back twice. How are you going to handle it the next two months?"

"There's a difference between how you fight and who you're fighting for," Mr. Edwards said, choosing his words carefully - just hours before Mr. Kerry's blistering speech was released.

"It's one thing to engage in a lot of personal assaults, like some of the things we saw last night," Mr. Edwards said. "It's another thing to fight with everything you've got for the American people and the people you believe in."

Low blow and utterly deserved for that contemptable smear campain against Kerry.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I liked Kerry's speech. Now Zeil Miller, since when has he become Pat Buchanan??? Man was there some hate in that speech, he basically called democrats traitors. I guess he thinks the US should establish a dictatorship.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
That Sen Zell Mitchell (sp), not a good speech. His key points already kciked aside.

He's a Dixiecrat. What do you expect?


I was impressed with Arnie's speech

It was probably the only thing in the convention that I payed any real attention to.


Cheney was the usual mind blowing excement from him and Bush... eh, not bad. But then again, with different people behind him, Bush would be a lot different IMO.

My dad's a republican and he's been going on and on for a week or more about how he wishes that Bush would can Cheney. I have to admit, that would do wonders for his image. There's something not right about that guy.


anyway, John Kerry finally comes roaring out of his hole and does what he should have done a while ago....

Low blow and utterly deserved for that contemptable smear campain against Kerry.

Hey cool, its still okay to perpetuate the slap fight. Like I said, nobody really wants to get this competition grounded on issues or anything.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but back in 92 he was the keynote speaker at the democrat convention and he went on and on how Bush Sr. was bad for our country. Now 12 years later he has done a 360. Heck 4 years ago he was against Bush jr. I think the man has gone senile he doesn't even act the same. Also not all dixecrats are like this. Retiring Senator Fritz Hollings is supporting Kerry.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah but back in 92 he was the keynote speaker at the democrat convention and he went on and on how Bush Sr. was bad for our country. Now 12 years later he has done a 360. Heck 4 years ago he was against Bush jr. I think the man has gone senile he doesn't even act the same. Also not all dixecrats are like this. Retiring Senator Fritz Hollings is supporting Kerry.

Dixiecrats really don't care about biting the hand that feeds them. They were originally programmed to hate Republicans, and now some see the republican ideal as being adopted by Democrats, and they attack there as well.

Or maybe when you're about to retire, you get a comforting sensation of having tenure, and the ability to say what's really on your mind in the first place.

[Pierce Tondry]

"The vice president even called me unfit for office last night," Mr. Kerry said. "I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty."

Mr. Cheney received five deferments and did not serve in the military. Mr. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard.

As I understand it, Kerry also sought a deferment but was denied, and his tours of duty lasted three or four weeks. I don't think this particularly means anything, especially not in the case of old rattletrap Cheney.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
As I understand it, Kerry also sought a deferment but was denied. I don't think this particularly means anything, especially not in the case of old rattletrap Cheney.

Of course it doesn't. Its just another log on the fire. There's a much easier way to kill the issue if thats what either Kerry or Bush want, but they certainly don't.

[Pierce Tondry]

You're right about that. I was a bit disappointed Bush didn't go into more depth on his plans for reshaping the tax code, but that's a sensitive issue and probably best to be trotted out later for ammunition closer to the election date when there's less time for it to be picked apart.

I have to admit I found it interesting that Kerry launched a big attack speech the night Bush accepted the nomination (after he got back from windsurfing, lol). I don't recall the same thing happening after the DNC, so it makes me wonder why Kerry's gotten so aggressive.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Maybe because he's afraid of losing.

Have you heard about the 'protestors' from NYC? There was a bunch of them outside the Fox news building, complete with 'free speech' lawyers, and they were chanting for Fox to shut up. Haha! All for free speech - at least their own. Fox also interviewed these "Kerry Supporters" to ask them what they were protesting, and the ones they talked to had no idea.

Also, here in Oregon when Pres. Bush was here my brother-in-law was thinking about being a protestor for Kerry. Not because he has any paticular political views, but the people arranging the protest were going to pay him $500 for it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well Bush spoke the day Kerry accepted the nomination, just not right after. I think this is just typical politics.

[Jedieb]

As I understand it, Kerry also sought a deferment but was denied, and his tours of duty lasted three or four weeks.
Not true, in fact, Kerry could have easily gotten a deferment if he had wanted one. His father, a career civil servant who served as a Foreign Service Officer in the Eisenhower administration, was actually opposed to his son going to Vietnam. Kerry's family could have easily gotten him a spot in a Mass. guard unit. As for his tours of duty, the second one lasted over 4 months and ended when he was wounded for the 3rd time and was granted relief under military policy. His first tour on the U.S.S. Gridley began in June of 67. In Feb. of the following year the Gridley set sail for Vietnam. In Feb. of that same year Kerry requested command of a Swift. He returned stateside for training and was back in Vietnam in command of a Swift boat in Dec. of 68. By my count, that's not exactly 3 or 4 weeks.

August's job report is due today. Depending on what the numbers look like one side will have cannon fodder for the next couple of weeks.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Maybe because he's afraid of losing.

Or, more likely, it's because the SBVfT smears and lies are actually swaying the more stupid of the swing voters. Unfortunanlty, there are people who cant think for themselves and will not look deeper into issues and allegations and these allegations were compelling and the SBVfT (for TRUTH??? man, what a laugh) voice was being heard, affectign a sizable number of voters.

Charley I think that Kerry would prefer to go with issues and policies. But, the campains and smears have gotten to a point where they have to be answers and they have to be retaliated against. It's unfortunante that Kerry had to bite back. However, dragging Bush and Cheney's war record in is I hope a way to force the republican attack dogs to be silenced on the issue.

But with that scumbag Karl rove around, I doubt it. What an ugly person he is.


Fox also interviewed these "Kerry Supporters" to ask them what they were protesting, and the ones they talked to had no idea.

Sleective editing. I bet they had soem good reasons - but of course it's not cringe worthy to put those, is it? The whole of NEWS Inc (Murdoch owned press), is controlled by the views of the Murdochs and I very much doubt they would allow the protesters to look good.

Actually, it's pretty common for news media to not make protestors look good. It's not news worthy to see a well spoken calm and rational protester with a well thought out argument.

We can only dream of FOX shutting up and a genuine free media springing up in their place. Ahhh..... the dreams of youth. The cynicism of approaching middle age however knows it wont happen :/

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/03/1093939128947.html?oneclick=true

Firswt week of Australain Election summary. Not a bad one, even if it highlights the Liberals flaws a bit too much. Latham gaffed a bit when trying to explain that a levy is not a tax.

However IMO, Howard called the election earlier than he wanted and his party is looking a bit disorganised, while Labour and Latham were quieter than expected, but obviously setting up pretty well with their themes.

You might need to register to read some of the articles of the SMH, but it is worth it. It's one of the better news sources. http://www.abc.com.au/election is brilliant.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
Sleective editing. I bet they had soem good reasons - but of course it's not cringe worthy to put those, is it? The whole of NEWS Inc (Murdoch owned press), is controlled by the views of the Murdochs and I very much doubt they would allow the protesters to look good.
I heard this on talk radio, the Laura Ingram show. It's nice how you always have a pat answer to disregard everything you don't like to hear.

Also I notice no ones touched the "paid protestor" bit that is absolutely 100% true no doubt about it, first hand information.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
Charley I think that Kerry would prefer to go with issues and policies.

I sure don't. If you wan't a great example, look no further than one of Kerry's favorite pet issues as a Senator: gun control.

Its one of the few issues that the Senator has a near-flawless voting record on. Look what the Brady Center has to say about him. They give Senator Kerry an A+ rating (highest a gun control legislator can get from the gun grabbers). Even in a campaign year which is marked by Kerry's Senatorial absenteeism, he's managed to come back in time to vote for AWB extensions. He'd rather drop babies into meat grinders than miss another chance to snub the 2nd amendment. Don't let that silly photo-op of him with a shotgun fool you either. That's the same kind of semi-auto shotty he wants banned ;)

However, if you look at the past, its such a venomous thing to approach on an election year. Look at the fallout in the Democrat-heavy congress after the first AWB passed, and look further at what happened to Gore's candidacy when he attempted to push the issue.

Look at Kerry's presidential campaign. Has he given much soapbox time to this pet project? Strangely, he hasn't. He's been curiously silent on the subject. Its ironic when combined with his voting record.

Its not just Kerry, either. Bush doesn't want to touch the issue either. His method of avoidance has been to shift responsibility away from himself. He says he'll sign an AWB extension, if it makes it to his desk, that is. That way, he can appear to be for the extension, and yet if he refuses to lift a finger to push for its passing, he can ensure it gets pidgeonholed at the same time.

Yes, I know I'm a crazy gun nut, and I know its the lion's share of what I tend to talk about. It just so happens to be a great example of what I'm talking about, and I just so happen to have a great amount of info on it. Isn't it interesting how such an important issue has been conspicuously absent from any presidential grandstanding? Not that I'm complaining too loudly about it. The bank's erring in my favor on this one ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

I heard this on talk radio, the Laura Ingram show. It's nice how you always have a pat answer to disregard everything you don't like to hear.

Or did I say what I did because it's true?

How could you even consider the dribble that comes from FOX newsworthy or even close to telling the truth, without major distortions? That not a flame or a troll, that's a genuine WTF? question that as an Australian, I cant understand how FOX could be considered reliable or even vaguely unbias

Fine, News Ltd started in Adelaide over 30 years ago. Murdoch in the 80's took over mcuh of the Fleet and came up with crap like what the Daily Mirror and The Sun has become - gutter journalism.

He took his News into the USA market via FOX and sent that lurching to the right wing and a parrot for his views.

Fastest way for an editor to loose his job at News? Go against the Murdoch in political views.

This is well known and even documents on the SMH site or on ABC.cnet.au, which I would encourage people to research through. I'd encourage anyone to getthe facts on this, as I've just done a lightning summary. The problem for me to really espouse the problems with News Ltd is that it's been around in Aust all my life and the rubbish they sprout at times is just background noise - and I've made a decision to avoid News Ltd sources and stick with the more reliable Packer / Fairfax / ABC / BBC sources. I dont know much about NPR, but they seem okay, though as I said, I dont know much of them, I am willing to be schooled on if they are actually any good.

I have been well known for ranting on how the News media is NOT free press for a long time and if you look at the facts and history of Murdoch, you will see this is in fact very true and a real woory. Media and journalism has it's bias of course, but when one man controls a great chunk of it quite ruthlessly, then you do indeed have some real problems.

The bias of FOX was seen most notibly in the Iraq war, which I dont think I really need to document - it was self evident and been posted before.

This is why FOX must be taken with a huge handful of salt and you must compare what they say to the BBC, Aust ABC, or smaller more independant news organisations.

Paid to protest? COOL! Sign me up, that's good money!

Charley, I'm a bit torn on the AWB - on one hand I understand why you dont want anythign like that in a community and on the other hand, I understand the reason why you do and why men love them. Much like I love the highly overpowered and unnecessary turbo cars.

AWB is a wedge politics issue. I can only guess no one wants to go near that wedge and I can understand why.

[Jedi Master Carr]

About the protestors some of the ones there are anarchists and those people aren't for Kerry. They are for Nobody. I bet they were the ones who answered they didn't know. Just about everybody else is there for reason. Fox is an awful network they never tell the whole truth.

[Jedieb]

Kerry's AWB stance is a plus for me, and I'm not a gun grabber. I just want there to be some form of control and the AWB isn't the end of the world. And it's also something that Bush said he WOULD sign if it were brought up to him. Neither one of these candidates is bringing up the AWB this election. They're both afraid of it.


I heard this on talk radio, the Laura Ingram show. It's nice how you always have a pat answer to disregard everything you don't like to hear.
No offense LD, but Laura Ingram is a staple of right wing talk radio. Of course you heard it there. You're not going to hear much Bush or FoxNews bashing there.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Just like you're not going to hear much Kerry or other media bashing anywhere else.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Just like you're not going to hear much Kerry or other media bashing anywhere else.

:: jaw drops ::

I respectly beg to differ. Even in this far away dustbowl, I see and hear the right wing media in the USA getting stuck into the left wing and also Kerry. I hear the SBVfT and Karl Rove's attack dogs yelping. Fox and News Ltd in general goes media bashing - though you do need to dig a little bit. News ltd ripping SMH or Aust ABC is pretty regular and I dont doubt it would be the same there.

While Michael Moore (I love SA's Moore emoticon) is the prime propagana fatty against Bush, dont think for a moment it's not returned and very shortly in spades. The 527 organisations are all into it. The GOP supporters are organising their own documentaries, their own media, etc.

[Jedi Master Carr]

You can here Kerry bashing on CNN and MSNBC if you listen at the right times.

[Figrin D'an]

I wish it was November, just so all this crap would be over and done.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
I wish it was November, just so all this crap would be over and done.

Post of the day.

[Jedi Master Carr]

You know I wouldn't mind if it got over as well. The mud is really going to start to fly the next month.

[March Kalas]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Just about everybody else is there for reason. Fox is an awful network they never tell the whole truth.

I'm also quite annoyed at Fox. I don't want to hear your opinions, Fox, I want facts. Even if I were a Liberal, I would rather have the facts about Kerry doing good and the facts about what will he do and stuff rather than have a ton of Bush bashing.

Does anyone else notice how many people hate Bush. I find it quite funny. In fact, more people I've talked to that are not voting for Bush don't even like Kerry. Most of them are just made about Bush going to war. I really think this is the main issue. If Bush hadn't have went to war on Iraq, half the people who aren't voting for Bush probably would be voting for him. I now that "half the people" is quite an exageration, but these people really annoy me.

First of all, alot of them say, "Bush sent my cousin to Iraq." Sorry to break it to you bud, but Bush ain't the reason your cousin's in Iraq. He/she's there, because he/she joined the military. It isn't a draft. And personally, I don't want anyone fighting for my Country that aren't willing to leave their comfort zone at home to fight for both of our country.

It's also funny how so many people make such a big deal about going to war with Iraq (and hopefully eventually Iran. Why do I say hopefully? I'll explain this now). In chess, there are four main principles: force, time, space, and pawn structure. The principle of time is in my opinion, one of the most important of the principles because it makes it much easier to win. Time basically deals with development; if your pieces are developed (or deployed) faster than your opponent's, you have an advantage in time, which basically means you have enough tempi(basically you're several moves ahead of them) to make an attack without your opponent making sufficient counterplay.

In war, the same principle applies. If war is inevitable, you attack when you want to. The reason there was a WWII is because Europe (as well as the USA) had plenty of time to attack, but they didn't attack when they wanted to; they didn't attack when they needed to. Now everyone here must confess that the threat of terrorism is growing everyday. This has been proven by the horrid attack on the Twin Towers and the increased number of bombings (as well as the incident in Russia with the children being held hostage). Now assume that we never attack Alqueda, assume we never attacked Iraq, and assume that no one will ever (for the time being at least) attack the terrorists in any of the Middle Eastern countries and Sadam. Now assume that Sadam and all the terrorrists have all the time they want to build up huge attacks and continue acts of terror in increased intensity. Also assume that Iran has had to time built nuclear weapons. Also assume that the Middle East has had time to build up huge armies and that Sadam has had time to take over the Middle East (which was basically his goal). Now assume that this new empire headed up by Sadam starts spreading its borders (or more accurately terrorizing all the nations of the world and I mean far more intense than now). Now what do we do about that? Well, now it is inevitable that we must fight back and attack Sadam's empire and suffer a great sacrifice of precious human lives because we didn't take care of it when we should have. Wouldn't we all look back at Bush's days and ask, "Why didn't that idiot attack when he should have?" Don't you think that the discomfort and the much smaller loss of (still precious) lives spent today is a sufficient sacrifice for what we would have to suffer in the later years?

I'll probably get loads of replies of, "That's just an assumption. Who says it's going to turn out like that? That probably won't happen exactly."

Yes I admit that it was an assumption, a guess at what might happen, but it is very likely. It has happened before. Does WWII ring a bell. Do you know why Hitler did what he did? APPEASEMENT! Don't say, "I doubt something very bad's going to happen," because another World War is too great a risk to take. Yes that example was just a guess, but it is one of the horrible things that might happen if we don't do something. So what are you protesting about you "anti-war" people? Your protesting against a costly but none-the-less inevitable method of stopping a WORLD WAR OR SOMETHING NEARLY AS BAD!!! Of course war isn't good, but it's not a matter of if there will be war, it's a matter of when. When there is an evil threat like the terrosism that is going on, war is going to happen. So when should we have war? Now when the losses will be much lower and cost much less, or later when it will become a horrible bloody event payed with many precious lives?

Sorry everyone for ranting, but this is something that is deep in my heart. I care for the good of my country not the comfort of the soldiers who volunteered to fight for me (and I would rather go to Iraq and fight in the dusty desert and save my country from evil than to sit at home in my comfort and have evil tear up my country). This has gone from America. People! Stop thinking about yourselves and start thinking about your country, about the your freedom! But oh well. That's that. nobody cares about their country anymore or so it appears. Please prove me wrong. And everyone who is not American citizen, this will affect you too. Believe me. So many people around the world depend indirectly on the USA. Believe me, this is from my heart.

So I believe the real question is who is Nevel Chamberlian and who is Winston Churchill? So what do you think? Please don't give pointless arguments to make me look bad (that includes saying, "Republicans are crazy"), just give sufficient arguments if you don't like what I said, because I'm willing to support my point and to shutup if you can prove me wrong (strategically).

[Jedi Master Carr]

I disagree with you. First what about North Korea? They are the greatest danger to the world, IMO. They actually have nukes why not go to war with them. Or do something. Instead we sit on our hands and let them build more nukes and take away troops from their border. I am telling you that is going to come back to bite us. Kim is evil. He is way worst than Saddam he could one day come to the conclusion that he wants the South and then what? Iraq was no threat, they had no weapons their army was pathetic. This isn't 1935 Germany here. North Korea is closer to that than Iraq ever was. Sure I am not sure if Kim will ever do those things but I think its more likely he will do something nuts, than Saddam ever would have.

[Marcus Telcontar]

So I believe the real question is who is Nevel Chamberlian and who is Winston Churchill? So what do you think? Please don't give pointless arguments to make me look bad (that includes saying, "Republicans are crazy"), just give sufficient arguments if you don't like what I said, because I'm willing to support my point and to shutup if you can prove me wrong (strategically).

You cant prove your point because your comparision is outrageous. Not only was Hitler a megomaniac, well and truly beyond any other we have known in the last 100 years, he had the world best fighting force ready and willing to go, just itching to right wrongs from WW1.

Saddam had some harsh words to use as weapons. Every rational person who looks at the evidence can conclude Hussien and Iraq were no credible threat to anyone outside his country. We have already discussed that to death - your entire suppositions and post is based on a bad premise and presumptions that have been proven not true. Seasrch for Post war Iraq or any SMH article that has been posted.


First of all, alot of them say, "Bush sent my cousin to Iraq." Sorry to break it to you bud, but Bush ain't the reason your cousin's in Iraq. He/she's there, because he/she joined the military. It isn't a draft.

I think Jedieb will beg to differ. And he, if I remember correctly was in Gulf war 1. He's qualified to comment on this.

Although, if pushed, I have to say my SAS neighbours who went to Iraq would also disagree with you. They all went to do their duty, but not one thought it was the right thing to do. Soldiers are paid to go and do what their Generals and Politicians tell them to do and that to them was it.

[Jedieb]

First of all, alot of them say, "Bush sent my cousin to Iraq." Sorry to break it to you bud, but Bush ain't the reason your cousin's in Iraq. He/she's there, because he/she joined the military. It isn't a draft.
Yeah, and the firemen who perished in the WTC didn't die because of terroists, they died because they joined the NYC fire department. Policemen who get killed in the line of duty don't die because of crimininals, they die because they joined the police force. That's brilliant logic. Apparently, if your willing to serve in any capacity, it's your own fault when the crap hits the fan. Man, it makes those who stay on the sidelines doing squat seem absolutely brilliant. :rolleyes

[Jedieb]

Just like you're not going to hear much Kerry or other media bashing anywhere else.
Again, what exactly are you watching? Hell, even Bill Maher plays it more down the middle than someone like Dr. Laura, Hanniity, or OxcyContinBaugh. Just last week Maher let Swift Boat liar O'Neal have his say in an interview. Every week you get at least one conservative on his panel, even if the audience gives them a hard time. As for the media outlets, on CNN, MSNBC, and the networks, you see tons of negative Kerry coverage. Talking about Air America radio is one thing, but if you're implying that most of the media is giving Kerry a free pass then you're just wrong. None of those outlets I've mentioned is as liberal as FoxNews is conservative. "Fair and balanced" is simply a joke of a slogan.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Bill Maher is the most fair talk show on the air. He lets anybody have their say. Sure he gives it back to them :p I love that show he is funny and very informative.

[CMJ]

I loved Politically Incorrect, but have never watched his new show.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I like the new show's format it is longer which helps.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
Charley, I'm a bit torn on the AWB - on one hand I understand why you dont want anythign like that in a community and on the other hand, I understand the reason why you do and why men love them. Much like I love the highly overpowered and unnecessary turbo cars.

Well its really not that cut and dry. While I will admit that there's a certain appeal to going out at the range and cutting loose, its not the reason that these weapons are protected in the BoR in the first place.


AWB is a wedge politics issue. I can only guess no one wants to go near that wedge and I can understand why.

Now what you have to ask in this increasingly polarized political race is what is not a wedge issue? Its not just gun control, I can assure you?



Originally posted by Jedieb
Kerry's AWB stance is a plus for me, and I'm not a gun grabber. I just want there to be some form of control and the AWB isn't the end of the world.

Please enlighten me as to why the Assault Weapons Ban makes any sense whatsoever? Look at what the bill covers, or should I say what it doesn't. Why would the government go after cosmetic features on semi-automatic guns that aren't even as powerful as John Q. Public's hunting rifle? Honestly ask yourself this. What's the reasoning here?


And it's also something that Bush said he WOULD sign if it were brought up to him. Neither one of these candidates is bringing up the AWB this election. They're both afraid of it.

Certainly, but I still don't see what Bush has said as being real support. Like I said, he's trying to sit the fence, and banking on the combination of little media exposure + a gun friendly House to settle the matter so he won't have to.

I'm certainly not seeing Bush as a friend to gun owners though. This is a man who has enabled the Patriot Act, and I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have to go far to lump law-abiding weapon owners with "the terrists".

[Jedi Master Carr]

Automatic weapons spray a lot of bullets that is why. You can kill more people with one than a shotgun, rifle, hand gun, etc. That is why they should be banned. They cause more death, plain and simple.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Automatic weapons spray a lot of bullets that is why. You can kill more people with one than a shotgun, rifle, hand gun, etc. That is why they should be banned. They cause more death, plain and simple.

You are ignorant to what the Assault Weapons Ban is actually trying to ban. Please actually read it. Here's a hint: fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the Great Depression, and the Assault Weapons Ban does nothing in regard to them.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10680047%255E401,00.html

Oh well now THAT's a surprise. Not. Hey watch me pull a terrorist out of my hat just in time for the election!

Lets see how close my prediction two years ago of Bin Laden being 'caught' in October this year is.

[Jedieb]

Please enlighten me as to why the Assault Weapons Ban makes any sense whatsoever? Look at what the bill covers, or should I say what it doesn't. Why would the government go after cosmetic features on semi-automatic guns that aren't even as powerful as John Q. Public's hunting rifle? Honestly ask yourself this. What's the reasoning here?
Perhaps because it's a place to START? Something's better than nothing. This wasn't a bill that passed without some kind of Republican support ten years ago. Now everyone is just scared. I don't see anything happening on it now until late 06 or early 07.

Reports are now coming in that the Bush's post convention bounce wasn't as big as the Newsweek and Time's polls suggested. He probably got around 2-5%. During the next weeks the numbers will come back together again just in time for the debates.

First presidential debate:
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Thursday, September 30
Jim Lehrer
Anchor and Executive Editor, The NewsHour, PBS

Vice presidential debate:
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Tuesday, October 5
Gwen Ifill
Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour, and Moderator, Washington Week, PBS

Second presidential debate:
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Friday, October 8
Charles Gibson
Co-Anchor, ABC News Good Morning America

Third presidential debate:
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Wednesday, October 13
Bob Schieffer
CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent, and Moderator, Face the Nation

Each debate shall begin at 9:00 p.m. EDT.


Format

The format for the debates, as announced on June 17, 2004, shall be as follows:

* Each debate shall have a single moderator and last for 90 minutes.
* In the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate the candidates shall be seated with the moderator at a table.
* The first presidential debate shall focus primarily on domestic policy and the third presidential debate shall focus primarily on foreign policy. The second presidential debate shall be held as a town meeting in which citizens will pose questions to the candidates. The vice presidential debate shall cover both foreign and domestic policy topics.
* There shall be no opening statements; there shall be two-minute closing statements.
* The order of questioning and closing statements shall be determined by coin toss.
* The moderator's job in the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate will be to introduce and change topics, to ensure that the participants have equal time, and to encourage some direct exchange among the candidates. The moderators will select all topics and questions.
* In the second presidential debate, the town meeting participants will pose their questions to the candidates. The town meeting participants will review their questions with the moderator before the debate for the sole purpose of avoiding duplicate questions. The participants in the town meeting, to be chosen by the Gallup Organization, will be undecided voters from the St. Louis, Missouri, standard metropolitan statistical area.
* The moderators will have discretion to ask follow-up questions in all debates.
* Each debate shall take place before a live audience.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Perhaps because it's a place to START? Something's better than nothing. This wasn't a bill that passed without some kind of Republican support ten years ago. Now everyone is just scared. I don't see anything happening on it now until late 06 or early 07.

Correct, at least about it being a start. Its a foothold in a larger plot by gun grabbers to chip away at gun ownership in any way they can, no matter if its legally justified or not.

As for AWB 94, that bill was passed with a Democrat-heavy house in power, and even then, it was so unpopular that they had to put in a sunset clause to even get a passing in the first place. On top of this, the fallout from the AWB was so dynamic that 20 democrats lost their seats in the following election largely due to their stances on the bill.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10680047%255E401,00.html

Oh well now THAT's a surprise. Not. Hey watch me pull a terrorist out of my hat just in time for the election!

Lets see how close my prediction two years ago of Bin Laden being 'caught' in October this year is.

No offense, but you're getting biased almost to the point of being blinded. It really seems like you wouldn't be happy if he was caught, because you'd see it as just another political bargaining chip and the fact that global terrorist leader was caught during the Bush administration can go hang.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Brian
No offense, but you're getting biased almost to the point of being blinded. It really seems like you wouldn't be happy if he was caught, because you'd see it as just another political bargaining chip and the fact that global terrorist leader was caught during the Bush administration can go hang.

Its highly cynical, but its not an unreasonable suspicion either. I'd bank on the possibility that we do have him and have had him for some time now.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think its very unlikely we have him. I think he would have already brought him out if we did. About the bounce yeah it was like Kerry's small. The election is just going to be close, have to see if the debates will help decide it now.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Dan the Man
Its highly cynical, but its not an unreasonable suspicion either. I'd bank on the possibility that we do have him and have had him for some time now.

Cynical or not, it basically brushes by the fact that he's off the streets and focuses on the political implications. If we really do have Bin Laden, that seems like a cause for some celebration, not for arguments or criticism.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Brian
Cynical or not, it basically brushes by the fact that he's off the streets and focuses on the political implications. If we really do have Bin Laden, that seems like a cause for some celebration, not for arguments or criticism.

I'd temper it with a bit of both. If we have him, that's great. However, it also comes at the cost of one of the biggest assaults on personal liberties this nation has ever seen. Pyrrhic victory could be argued.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Brian
No offense, but you're getting biased almost to the point of being blinded. It really seems like you wouldn't be happy if he was caught, because you'd see it as just another political bargaining chip and the fact that global terrorist leader was caught during the Bush administration can go hang.

You missed the point, not unexpectedly - the point being the Bush admin has the type of people in it who would not think twice of doing exactly that. I have very little doubt Bin Laden is free today. That is good. I personally hope he's dead at the bottom of a cave, where he cant be martyred.

But, knowing that the Admin has people like Rove and Cheney.... I'd say it's quite possible they'll use it for their own political ends and time the announcement of Bin Laden's fate just when it will be the best politically.... say three weeks before the election, derailing the Kerry campain? Seeing a report like that does not ally suspcion this will take place.

And of course, people wont care they have been manipulated. Terribly cynical of me I know. But as shown with the BS of the SBVfT debacle, I'm not so sure it's being cynical or just statign the truth.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes I've heard a lot about the "Swft Boat" veterans, saw briefly their ad, but didn't really listen. On a whim I looked up their site.

I must add that President Bush is *not* behind the swift boat vets, meaning, he hasn't commissioned them to speak out, or anything. If anything, as I understand it, Bush is connected to them only because he did not ask them to stop their ads. He wasn't responsible for them or their content. Then he did 'give in' to Kerry Campaign pressure, saying that he would ask for *all* veteran ads (support or dissent) to be stopped, if Kerry would also. Which, as I understand, Kerry has not.

Anyway, I browsed the site, and I find it hard to believe that all these men are wrong, and have gotten together to try and paint the 'honorable' senator Kerry in a horrid light. Rather, I believe them.

And, you can all say "Oh you're just right wing" and dismiss all my thoughts and political leanings as automatically wrong, and all right wing conservatives as loonies, or people living in the stone age. As though being a left wing liberal makes you automatically right. Frankly, I don't mind. I thought I would highlight this website, so that others can see what's really being said on the Swift Boat issue by the Swift Boat Veterans, rather than taking what's been reguritated on the left, and right, news.

[Marcus Telcontar]

1) One of the SBV's was a paid staffer on the Bush campain and has since resigned from that campain.

2) Every point so far that the SBT's have sought to bring up has been either shown to be knowingly false, has been contridicted by official DoD records, or debunked by veterans who were actually there, like the editor of the chicago Tribune (possibly wrong paper I have to admit, memory is hazy), who recently came public and blew the SBT's versions of events out of the water.

it is not hard to find evidence agaisn the SBV's and nor is it hard to find links between them and the Repubicans.

what is more, this is not the first time a smear campain has been targeted against a Vietnam vet - John McCain copped it in the 2000 nomination race. It is also true that some of these SBV's have a bone to pick with Kerry for his anti Vietnam stance after he came home. One of them went head to head against Kerry in a debate not long after Kerry went public with his anti war stance.

Unfortunantly, it takes a person who is willing to dig around a bit and find facts to see that the SBVfT is a smear. if one can bear to wade among smut and scum, SA's political forums are a good place to begin research into this issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1185665.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1182239.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1170215.htm

Even those three reports should be enough to raise some questions about the SBV campain.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1378099&enterthread=y

More links and comment

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244

DUH! Kerry was tellign the truth!

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

I could go on, but I think the point is made. SBVfT is a smear, based on lies and deceptions and should be seen as repulsive.

[Taataani Meorrrei]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
1) One of the SBV's was a paid staffer on the Bush campain and has since resigned from that campain.

That's not really so cut and dry. The "staffer" is a lawyer, whose clients include both the Bush Administration and Swift Boat vets. This shouldn't really be used to suggest a collusion between the two. I think the swifties are dubious as hell, but credit where credit is due.

[General Tohmahawk]

Originally posted by Taataani Meorrrei
That's not really so cut and dry. The "staffer" is a lawyer, whose clients include both the Bush Administration and Swift Boat vets. This shouldn't really be used to suggest a collusion between the two. I think the swifties are dubious as hell, but credit where credit is due.

Actually, i wasnt thinking about the lawyer as per say. But, I'm having trouble locating the person I thought it was, so until I find evidence, I'll concede back to that it's possible evidence of collaboration. I seem to remember an ABC report which said the links went somewhat deeper and it was someone else, but as I said, I'm havign trouble locating the report.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes I've heard a lot about the "Swft Boat" veterans, saw briefly their ad, but didn't really listen. On a whim I looked up their site.

I must add that President Bush is *not* behind the swift boat vets, meaning, he hasn't commissioned them to speak out, or anything. If anything, as I understand it, Bush is connected to them only because he did not ask them to stop their ads. He wasn't responsible for them or their content. Then he did 'give in' to Kerry Campaign pressure, saying that he would ask for *all* veteran ads (support or dissent) to be stopped, if Kerry would also. Which, as I understand, Kerry has not.

Anyway, I browsed the site, and I find it hard to believe that all these men are wrong, and have gotten together to try and paint the 'honorable' senator Kerry in a horrid light. Rather, I believe them.

And, you can all say "Oh you're just right wing" and dismiss all my thoughts and political leanings as automatically wrong, and all right wing conservatives as loonies, or people living in the stone age. As though being a left wing liberal makes you automatically right. Frankly, I don't mind. I thought I would highlight this website, so that others can see what's really being said on the Swift Boat issue by the Swift Boat Veterans, rather than taking what's been reguritated on the left, and right, news.


I am sorry they are liars. Others have come out who do not support Kerry and have called them liars. One was a big reporter for the Washington Post, he put it in a editoral saying how they are lying and he was there. Several others have too. Plus there is the record it shows the opposite of what they are saying. I think these guys were mad at Kerry for coming out against the war when he came home. So now they are making up stories to try to hurt him.

[CMJ]

Here's the deal. Even if you believe Kerry exaggerated to get more medals....AT LEAST HE WENT. Bush didn't - end of that discussion.

The only effective Swift Boat ads were the ones involving their displeasure with him speaking out on the war to Congress. You can see where they're coming from in those. The other ones are laughable.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by CMJ
Here's the deal. Even if you believe Kerry exaggerated to get more medals....AT LEAST HE WENT. Bush didn't - end of that discussion.

It makes sense that this election is about Vietnam, yes?


The only effective Swift Boat ads were the ones involving their displeasure with him speaking out on the war to Congress. You can see where they're coming from in those. The other ones are laughable.

There's an Ollie North article responding to his testimonials & a later quote from him in which he downplays his vietnam accusations. Its quite interesting to see the double standard.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Dan the Man
It makes sense that this election is about Vietnam, yes?



I was speaking just from the controversy. I could care less about Vietnam. Honestly, how the hell does it affect anything? We've had civilians that were great Commander in Chief's, former generals that were lousy ones, etc.

There's no rhyme or reason. Excelling in one is not a guarantee to do well as another.


There's an Ollie North article responding to his testimonials & a later quote from him in which he downplays his vietnam accusations. Its quite interesting to see the double standard.

I'd like to read that.

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by CMJ
I was speaking just from the controversy. I could care less about Vietnam. Honestly, how the hell does it affect anything? We've had civilians that were great Commander in Chief's, former generals that were lousy ones, etc.

There's no rhyme or reason. Excelling in one is not a guarantee to do well as another.

Agreed. Eisenhower and Grant were flops while in office.



I'd like to read that.

I'll pass it along if I ever find it again. It was shown to me on another computer.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106185/

An article being discussed on Aust ABC radio right now. With much disbelief.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I found this one a good read.


Imperial President
Opposing Bush becomes unpatriotic.
By William Saletan
Updated Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 1:16 AM PT

Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day

Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.

The 2004 election is becoming a referendum on your right to hold the president accountable.

That's the upshot of tonight's speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney and Zell Miller, the Republican National Convention's keynote speaker.

The case against President Bush is simple. He sold us his tax cuts as a boon for the economy, but more than three years later, he has driven the economy into the ground. He sold us a war in Iraq as a necessity to protect the United States against weapons of mass destruction, but after spending $200 billion and nearly 1,000 American lives, and after searching the country for more than a year, we've found no such weapons.

Continue Article

Tonight the Republicans had a chance to explain why they shouldn't be fired for these apparent screw-ups. Here's what Cheney said about the economic situation: "People are returning to work. Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high. The Bush tax cuts are working." But mortgage rates were low before Bush took office. Home ownership was already at an all-time high. And more than a million more people had jobs than have them today.

"In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat," Cheney said. What about the urgent, nukes-any-day threat to the United States that supposedly warranted our expense of so much blood and treasure? Cheney was silent.

"A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation," said Cheney. "But a president always casts the deciding vote." What America needs in this time of peril, he argued, is "a president we can count on to get it right."

You can't make the case against Bush more plainly than that.

If the convention speeches are any guide, Republicans have run out of excuses for blowing the economy, blowing the surplus, and blowing our military resources and moral capital in the wrong country. So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents. Here's what the convention keynoter, Miller, said tonight about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war:

While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

In [Democratic leaders'] warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

Every one of these charges is demonstrably false. When Bush addressed Congress after 9/11, Democrats embraced and applauded him. In the Afghan war, they gave him everything he asked for. Most Democratic senators, including John Kerry and John Edwards, voted to give him the authority to use force in Iraq. During and after the war, they praised Iraq's liberation. Kerry has never said that any other country should decide when the United States is entitled to defend itself.

But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window. You're not allowed to point out that Bush shifted the rationale for the Iraq war further and further from U.S. national security—from complicity in 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction to building democracy to relieving Iraqis of their dictator—without explaining why American troops and taxpayers should bear the burden. You're not allowed to point out that the longer a liberator stays, the more he looks like an occupier. You're not allowed to propose that the enormous postwar expenses Bush failed to budget for be covered by repealing his tax cuts for the wealthy instead of further indebting every American child.

If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as Kerry now stands accused by Cheney and Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat." You're contrasted to a president who "is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America." You're derided, in Cheney's words, for trying to show al-Qaida "our softer side." Your Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts are no match for the vice president's five draft deferments.

In his remarks, Miller praised Wendell Wilkie, the 1940 Republican presidential nominee who "made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue." But there are three ways to make national security a campaign issue. One is to argue the facts of a particular question, as Kerry has done on Iraq. The second is to sweep aside all factual questions, as Cheney and Miller did tonight, with a categorical charge that the other party is indifferent or hostile to the country's safety. The third is to create a handy political fight, as Republicans did two years ago on the question of labor rights in the Department of Homeland Security, and frame it falsely as a national security issue in order to win an election.

So now you have two reasons to show up at the polls in November. One is to stop Bush from screwing up economic and foreign policy more than he already has. The other is to remind him and his propagandists that even after 9/11, you still have that right.

[Bette Davis]

Hey Mark, move to the US and cast a vote. I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind here. I'm pretty sure we've already decided.

edit: Charley's article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Bette Davis
Hey Mark, move to the US and cast a vote. I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind here. I'm pretty sure we've already decided.

edit: Charley's article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml


No thanks. We already have our own lying, espouser of quasi christian values because he wants to split the community rat who wants to defend us from TERRIR!!!!! to vote out. As I have pointed out in the past and maybe even in this thread, Bush and Howard are quite well tied politically and the re-election chances of both men hinge on a lot of the same subjects - and there is a case to be made that both must be re-elected or both will be voted out. They are also quite close in world outlook and in values, a fact not unnoticed in australia.

However, there is a generation of politicians who are worth voting for in the Liberal party - and truth be told, they are good. Abbot, Costello to name two, both likely future PM's, Costello a very adept Treasurer who has selected soem very worthwhile policies and a man whose views fortunantly dotn match his boss. I could see Austrlia turnign a step to the decent with him. It is unfortunante that he wont be PM for a few more years. Unless Howard is gone.

Oh, and the other similarity between Howard and Bush? They both know how to play the Religious Right for their own benifit and political advantage. Same issue they use even. It's liek they take notes off each other, although Howard knows how to steal an election better. His steal in 2001, if studied, is a great essay on how FUD can turn even the most unpopular candiitate into a winner.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Found courstesy of SA

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9601875.htm



Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

AMY LORENTZEN

Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the nation faces the threat of another terrorist attack if voters make the "wrong choice" on Election Day, suggesting that Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

"John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it," Edwards added.

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.

Another interesting parrallel between the two elections- Philip Ruddock said the same thing of the Aust Opposition. Thankfully, Ruddock got the burning he deserved for such a stupid comment. But, even when he was being trashed in the media (justifiably, for such comments are moronic scaremongering), he did not recant. That is another depressing fact of the Howard Govt - even when caught out and proven wrong, they refuse to even concede the fact. sometimes, my own Govt makes me ashamed to be australian :/

A few Australian election facts -

1) Australia is a Consitutional Monarchy. this measn that Elizabeth II is the nominal Head of State. However, she no longer holds any real power. Her representitive is the real Head of State and he is called the Governor General. The GG is appointed by Her Majesty, but she will only appoint on the direct recommendation of the Prime Minister. The GG's powers are limited to signing law, appointing and dismissing governments. He can dismiss the Govt if he feels it no longer functions. The Prime Minister can dismiss a GG if he believes the GG no longer can perform his duties.

2) The parliment is in two Houses - the representatives and the senate. The Reps represent a set boundary of population, the senate are elected to represent a State. The Senate is House of review. Debate is timed and you must roster yourself to speak on any issue. The senate has power to block legislation. A Bill is enacted if it passes a simple majority in both Houses. debate is controlled by a Speaker on the Reps, a President in the Senate - and when debating, your remarks must be made to the Speaker or President. You may not address any other member of Parliment except via the two aforementioned people.

3) Australia is based on the Westminister system and is a secret vote

4) There are two rare items to Australia's method of voting that should be highlighted. One is Preferential Voting, where you have the choice to select canditates in the order of preference. What happens is that each canditate is eliminated from the voting until there is two left - and the votes allocated from the other canditates to the remaining two. Your initial vote is registered as it was and the prefereced vote as well. Thence, your vote is never wasted - even if your preferred canditate does not win, you can influence who does get up.

The other one is that Australia is one of the very few countries that has compulsory voting. Other notible compulsory voting countries used to be Iraq and North Korea. the difference beign of course, Australia is not a dictactorship. I guess this marks Australia as quite different. Normal polling attendance is near 95%. You only have to vote if your enrolled to vote, which I add is not manditory. Pregnant women, sick or injured people are also excused as well as prisioners and the mentally ill, or it is impossible to cast a vote. No other excuse is accepted. You are lto enroll at 18 years. If you can not attnd a polling station, Absentee voting is allowed if you are in the same state as you registered in. Postal voting is the acceptible method of voting if you are out of your home state or overseas. votes can be mailed to the AEC or any consular office and must be postmarked the day before the election.

voting papers are marked by numbers of preference. You may just vote 1 and not allocate preference. No other marks (Like crosses or ticks) are acceptible and no other writing is allowed to be on the paper.

I've also worked at a polling booth on Election day a few times (for the Liberals, I add) and it is generally a good and educating task.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

Originally posted by Bette Davis
Hey Mark, move to the US and cast a vote. I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind here. I'm pretty sure we've already decided.

Uh, lets play nice :)

Besides, if Australians aren't allowed to make fun of our government, then I won't be allowed to make fun of French, British, or Australian government in turn. I would be a sad panda.


edit: Charley's article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml

Ahh, thar she is :cool

[CMJ]

Latest Zogby analysis of the race.

****************************
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 [Return to Battleground Poll]

Coming out of the Republican convention, President Bush has his best showing since John Kerry accepted his party's nomination in late July.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll still shows Mr. Kerry well ahead, leading in 12 of the 16 battlegrounds in Zogby's twice-a-month polls. But Mr. Bush took the lead in two states -- Arkansas and Tennessee -- since the poll conducted a week before his convention. And there are other signs of strength for the president.

Here's how the numbers could play out on Election Day.

To analyze Zogby's results, we start by assuming that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the battlegrounds poll will vote for the same political party that they did in the 2000 election. Thus, President Bush begins our calculations with 189 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry with 172. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the White House.

Then, we add in the electoral votes from the latest poll, regardless of the margin of error or the spread between the candidates. Mr. Kerry's 12 states control a total of 135 votes, while Mr. Bush's four have 42. If you add up the numbers, you find that Mr. Kerry would win the Electoral College 307-231.

Sifting through the numbers, though, the results aren't as clear cut.

First, Mr. Kerry's leads in three states -- Florida, Missouri and Nevada -- are less than one percentage point.

Overall, looking only at the states where the results are outside of the margin of error, Mr. Kerry is ahead by just four states to three -- and his Electoral College lead shrinks to 40-36. In fact, more states' results are outside of the margin of error in this poll than in any since Zogby began conducting polls for WSJ.com in late May.

Another sign of shift: In the July 12 poll, which was the leader until now in terms of the poll with the greatest number of states outside of the margin of error, Mr. Kerry had six states (worth 80 votes) outside the margin. At that point, Mr. Bush had none.

Many states show improvement for the president. For instance, Mr. Bush increased his lead in Ohio, a key contest, to 10.9 percentage points, his biggest lead there yet and up sharply from the 5.6-point edge he had in mid-August.

At the same time, Mr. Kerry's lead in Pennsylvania slipped to its weakest since the Zogby polls began in May. Mr. Kerry was ahead there by 2.8 percentage points, inside the margin of error. In four of the five prior polls, Mr. Kerry's lead was outside of the margin; his lead hadn't fallen below 6.5 points in any of the prior Zogby polls.

All told, Mr. Bush's numbers improved in 12 of the 16 states, most notably Tennessee. That state, which has been volatile in prior polls, gave the president a 9.6-point lead. In the mid-August poll, Mr. Kerry was up 1.9 points.

Still, Mr. Kerry picked up ground in Minnesota, Washington, Michigan and New Mexico. His leads in the latter two states moved outside of the margin of error. In Washington, his lead has been outside of the margin in every poll since early June.

And, of course, even with his convention-time gains, the president is still short of the strongest results he got in earlier Zogby polls. At one point in June, Mr. Kerry was ahead just nine states to seven -- and Mr. Bush led the Electoral College analysis, 285-253.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Good analysis, I guess Zogby is the best. About the previous comments, the country hasn't made up its mind as a lot of polls suggest, this election could go either way right now. Second that Cheney article really gets me mad. How dare he say that if we vote for Kerry the terrorists will attack again. That is scare politics which was the crap they darn Nazis did in Germany. Why in the world do the Republicans want to steal plays of the Paul Goebbels's playbook? I am not saying the Republicans are fascist just stupid and despearate. But it still get me mad.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Second that Cheney article really gets me mad. How dare he say that if we vote for Kerry the terrorists will attack again. That is scare politics which was the crap they darn Nazis did in Germany.

Yeah and the DNC isn't really wearing white on the issue either.


Why in the world do the Republicans want to steal plays of the Paul Goebbels's playbook?

No such person exists.


I am not saying the Republicans are fascist just stupid and despearate. But it still get me mad.

You're skating on Godwin's Law something fierce.

[March Kalas]

Every point so far that the SBT's have sought to bring up has been either shown to be knowingly false, has been contridicted by official DoD records, or debunked by veterans who were actually there, like the editor of the chicago Tribune (possibly wrong paper I have to admit, memory is hazy), who recently came public and blew the SBT's versions of events out of the water.


I seem to remember an ABC report which said the links went somewhat deeper and it was someone else, but as I said, I'm havign trouble locating the report.


I am sorry they are liars. Others have come out who do not support Kerry and have called them liars. One was a big reporter for the Washington Post, he put it in a editoral saying how they are lying and he was there.

It's funny how all the veterans that say the SBT's are liars are in the media. Just like everything they do the media is taking a few facts and twisting them, twisting them to the point the facts are unrecognizable. Some reporters make up reasons why the SBT's are liars and use the fact that they were in Vietnam to try to be credible. You realize that had there been something like the SBT's against Bush, the media wouldn't have dug up any dirt about them and simply said, "whatever they say is true. It doesn't matter how credible they are. Whatever they say is true. See? Don't vote for Bush." Of course they wouldn't say exactly this, but you get my point. Give us some harder evidense that the SBT's are liars.

They're not liars because you don't like what they say and they're not liars because they're against Kerry, and they're definately not liars because some media guy who was in Vietnam said they were. They're only liars if you can give hard proof that they are false. (And don't say the field reports prove them false because those reports were written by Kerry)

Just as something interesting, my history professor said that he didn't like a lot of the things that Bush did in his presidency, but he's going to vote for Bush because he doesn't want a man like Kerry in office.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well that is his opinion, I am sorry the fact say they are liars. What about the guy from Californian who came forward, he had nothing to do with the media. They are making it up like CMJ those stories are laughable. I said they are mad at Kerry becuase of the Vietnam protesting and so they have an axe to grind so they are making up stories to try to hurt him. Heck even the President as basically said they are lying, sure he has come out and said they are wrong and tried to stop them but he hasn't not said one bad word about Kerry's war record.
About the previous poster



Yeah and the DNC isn't really wearing white on the issue either.



quote:
Why in the world do the Republicans want to steal plays of the Paul Goebbels's playbook?




No such person exists.
You have never heard of Paul Goebbels??? He was the propaganda minister under Hitler. He came up with what of scare tactics for Germany.



quote:
I am not saying the Republicans are fascist just stupid and despearate. But it still get me mad.




You're skating on Godwin's Law something fierce.

I am ot sure what the world you are talking about, all I said is they Republicans are stupid for using such tactics because they don't work in this country.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Give us some harder evidense that the SBT's are liars.

Except you wont listen to evidence. You have your mind made up. The evidence has been presented and SVBfT thoughily discredited. Yet, you have chosen to ignore facts.


(And don't say the field reports prove them false because those reports were written by Kerry)

As said by SBVfT, when the facts are the reports WERE written by someone else. Already proven. The lairs are the SVBfT - at least one of whom recived his bronze star for the same combat action that never happened that Kerry was awarded for. Or the one who stood next to Kerry eight years ago and praised his valor under fire during that same combat action that never happened?


all I said is they Republicans are stupid for using such tactics because they don't work in this country.

Dude, look at the post above you.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
You have never heard of Paul Goebbels??? He was the propaganda minister under Hitler. He came up with what of scare tactics for Germany.

You're thinking of Joseph Goebbels. Paul Goebbels didn't exist, like I said.


I am ot sure what the world you are talking about, all I said is they Republicans are stupid for using such tactics because they don't work in this country.

Godwin's Law is a mathematical limit that states as the length of a debate increases, the probability of somebody referring to the opposing group as a fascist or a nazi approaches one. Ergo, you.

Essentially, using that card is pretty weak sauce, dude.

[Master Yoghurt]

Originally posted by Charley
You're thinking of Joseph Goebbels. Paul Goebbels didn't exist, like I said

His name was Paul Joseph Goebbels

[Charley]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
His name was Paul Joseph Goebbels

:o point conceded. well done :o

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
His name was Paul Joseph Goebbels

Where's that "Owned Sucka" pic when we need it. ;)

[Charley]

Originally posted by CMJ
Where's that "Owned Sucka" pic when we need it. ;)

That's like me asking if you've ever heard of Walker Bush, though :rolleyes

Its the debate equivalent of a shoestring tackle.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well Yoghurt won that round :p Seriously I forgot how to spell his name and looked it up in some Germany history book and it said Paul Goebbels just copied it heh.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Well, that last exchange got a laugh outta me :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Lol yeah it was rather funny, at least we are good entertainment :p

[Jedieb]

And what comes around, goes around...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

The segment just aired on 60 minutes. Mud, mud, and more mud! Rove should have seen this coming. Better they get this over with now than llate October. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see more dirt on DUI's, coke use, and abortions fly through the air. ughh.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedieb
And what comes around, goes around...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

The segment just aired on 60 minutes. Mud, mud, and more mud! Rove should have seen this coming. Better they get this over with now than llate October. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see more dirt on DUI's, coke use, and abortions fly through the air. ughh.

Oh it'll keep going on. They may even give the debates a miss and keep slinging it. After all, this kind of thing is easy to do.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedieb
And what comes around, goes around...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

The segment just aired on 60 minutes. Mud, mud, and more mud! Rove should have seen this coming. Better they get this over with now than llate October. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see more dirt on DUI's, coke use, and abortions fly through the air. ughh.

Not unexpected. They should have seen that dragging Kerry's record through the mud, they just declared open season on Bush's own records. Although I found the article a bit convoluted and hard to follow.

Hopefully, this'll make war records a no go zone. It is getting on the ridiculous side.

edit : http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10719396%255E36596,00.html

Campaning bought to a halt due to Aust embassy bombing.

[Figrin D'an]

Relevent hilarity, compliments of The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4036

[Figrin D'an]

More comedy gold, courtesy of our President.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Nomad667/obgyn.wmv

[CMJ]

I stole this off another messageboard. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I thought this was hysterical in showing the levels to which either campaign will go. So hardcore Republicans don't get angry. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v352/CMJ01/commercial.jpg

[JMK]

:lol

[Charley]

I've never really considered using religion in political humor, much less politics in general, to be very appropriate in the first place.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It's a joke I find it hilarious honestly.

[March Kalas]

And what comes around, goes around...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain641481.shtml

The segment just aired on 60 minutes. Mud, mud, and more mud! Rove should have seen this coming. Better they get this over with now than llate October. Although I wouldn't be surprised to see more dirt on DUI's, coke use, and abortions fly through the air. ughh.



Just to clarify things, the documents have been proven to have been forged. The print has been had to have been written by Microsoft Word from no less than 2 years ago. The big guy (sorry, forgot his name) who is vouching for all this came into the gaurd 2 years after Bush.

Some have said that maybe Bush was skipping the physicals because he was on cocain and didn't want anyone to find out. The problem with this is that there were no drug tests in 1972.

It's funny how the media just took this and ran with it without questioning its credibility.

(please don't display Jesus in such a manner. It makes me sick. Besides, we don't even know what he looked like. That's why I don't like pictures and movies of Jesus)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't say proven. 60 Minutes are standing by them. Maybe doubts raised there is a big difference there. Maybe 60 minutes has something we don't know about.

[Jedieb]

It's dirt flinging time, that's why this whole "memo" stuff has come up. And as for his skipped physical, the blood test probably would have turned up coke if there was any. Most likely it would have shown a blood alcohol level that would make (insert your own famous drunk) look like a teetottler. Everyone knows he did coke at some point. Who knows whether it was the reason he skipped his physical. I don't think people have to go after what drills he missed, or why he missed his his physical. I think it's embarrassing enough that he took the safety of the Guard over serving in a war he supported. As for the physical, forget about why he missed it, the point is he missed it and was grounded because of it.

Bush has still not agreed to all 3 debates. It looks like they're trying to skip the 2nd one. Clinton only agreed to 2 of the 3 proposed debates in 96. Incumbants really don't have anything to gain from agreeing to all 3 debates.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/

[Marcus Telcontar]

Cartoon is HILARIOUS!

And makes a really good point that I think will go WHOOSH over the Religious Right's heads ^_^ A+ for humour and A+ for the truth it portrays

Ooooh, so the memo could be false? Wel, that makes up a bit for the BS of the SBVfT crock of crap.

Pigeons.

Roost.

Love it.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Two wrongs (if either are) don't make a right, unless I miss my guess. Your sense of right and wrong is all cockeyed imo.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Two wrongs (if either are) don't make a right, unless I miss my guess. Your sense of right and wrong is all cockeyed imo.


Oh? Well, when you sling mud, you better be sure the other side are on dry ground so they cant fling it back. Personally, I wont be surprised it's Rove and his doggies trying very hard to come up with anything to discredit. And, as it's Rove who usually full of hot air and BS, I would not be surprised to see their discrediting is in itself discredited.

[Charley]

Mark, that kind of attidude perpetuates this three ring circus sideshow political trainwreck.

Its stupid. All of it.

[Jedieb]

It's stupid dirty politics. Is part of me happy that Bush has had some of it flung back in his face? Oh hell yes. This crap has been a stable of Bush/Rove campaigns for years. I just hope that it runs its course and loses steam now, as opposed to October and early Nov. By then, hopefully people will be talking about the economy, the state of the war, and an overall assessment of Bush's first term.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Mark, that kind of attidude perpetuates this three ring circus sideshow political trainwreck.

Its stupid. All of it.

Which is why you wont find me anywhere near ever again a political party. What we see here at a macro level is repeated at a micro level, even right down to the local party branches. What can be done when the whole political party apparatus is so filled by that type of thing? As a bystander, I guess I can only point and laugh.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10728317%255E13780,00.html


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

HER again? Surely no one is going to take her seriously. I would have to say those claims against Bush are straight out libelous.

(Then again, I thought people wouldnt take SBVfT seriously as it was patent and obvious stupidity. Ay Ay Ay, was I wrong)

* Sigh *

Someone needs to belt Kellery upside of head

[Jedieb]

Hnestly, I'm glad Kitty Kelley's venomous crap isn't directed toward Kerry. Yeah, it's gossip at its lowest, but it's going to get a lot of coverage. She's going to be interviewed by Matt Lauer(sp?) on the Today show 3 TIMES this week! Like the Swift Boat lies, these lies are apparently going to be repeated loudly and often. Repeat a lie often enough and you're forced to acknowledge it and defend yourself. This will probably be a bad week for Bush. Watch the poll numbers tighten even further.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Hnestly, I'm glad Kitty Kelley's venomous crap isn't directed toward Kerry.

... so it's only good if it's directed at Bush? What the heck?

No, seriously, what the heck? What's your line of thinking here? I don't see why you'd say this.


This will probably be a bad week for Bush. Watch the poll numbers tighten even further.

I don't know about that. The media is going to have its own problems with the CBS document forgery. That sucker just keeps building, and with the ill-formed response that was put out at the end of last week, things are just going to continue downhill. The Internet won't let the media forget this one.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

CBS should retract ASAP, they jumped on the story that was 'so good it didn't need to be checked' which was a baaaad idea for them. I mean, honestly - they don't need to do an investigation? That's bull.

In the past week there have been about ten articles in different newspapers about Bush's record, which has also been pulled out and discussed in February, in 2000, and in 1996 when he ran for govenor. This is OLD news. Dan Rather was so happy he got the scoop on the Bushes (no love lost between him and they) that he jumped on it TOO FAST, and now look what happened. Forged documents!? It's laughable.

[Jedieb]

... so it's only good if it's directed at Bush? What the heck?

No, seriously, what the heck? What's your line of thinking here? I don't see why you'd say this.

Did I say it was good? Pay attention, I called it "venomous crap." What I was doing was assessing the impact it was going to have on the race. Yeah, I'm glad it was directed at Kerry because he's already had his share of lies to deal with. What I sure as hell don't feel is any pity for Bush, not after all the dirt he and Rove have thrown during every campaign they've ever run.

As for the poll numbers, they've ALREADY started coming together. The early polls that gave Bush double digit leads were revealed as flawed by Zogby and other pollsters. In another week or two they'll be dead even again.


CBS should retract ASAP, they jumped on the story that was 'so good it didn't need to be checked' which was a baaaad idea for them. I mean, honestly - they don't need to do an investigation? That's bull.

Actually, they've been quoted as saying they did check the story out and felt confident about their sources. They had their own "experts" (4 document experts I believe) authenticate the memos and they had people who knew the officer in question verify that the memos were his. They may have screwed up their fact checking, but they did do it. I think it's even money that they'll end up with egg on their face. But they sure as hell aren't the first media source to screw the pooch. The "internet" can try to hold them accountable, but many of those vaunted truth seekers print and follow false leads on a regular basis (Drudge anyone?) so they're no better.

[Jedieb]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

CBS looks like it's sticking to its guns. LIke I said, it's even money that they'll be issuing a mea culpa in a couple of news cycles. By then, it will be day late and a dollar short. The negative press will have already had some effect. Bush won't take the kind of hit Kerry did with the SB liars, but it'll be something his campaign will have had to expend resources and soundbites on. The dirtiest Prez campaign in years continues.

[Jedieb]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL

Now more "experts" are coming out of the woodwork saying that the memos could have indeed been written by a 1960's IBM typewriter. In a completely tactical sense, this doesn't hurt the recent attacks on the memos' authenthicity that much. The very attack on whether they're genuine or not has managed to deflect some of the attention away from their content. It's dirty, hardball politics. It hasn't been this muddy since Nixon.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Did I say it was good? Pay attention, I called it "venomous crap." What I was doing was assessing the impact it was going to have on the race. Yeah, I'm glad it was directed at Kerry because he's already had his share of lies to deal with. What I sure as hell don't feel is any pity for Bush, not after all the dirt he and Rove have thrown during every campaign they've ever run.

I am paying attention, smarty, but whatever. I won't argue over the content of your sentence with you. That would inevitably get childish and I want to avoid that.

I may be leaning conservative, but darned if I don't also want to maintain an open mind.


As for the poll numbers, they've ALREADY started coming together. The early polls that gave Bush double digit leads were revealed as flawed by Zogby and other pollsters. In another week or two they'll be dead even again.

Though polling itself is a separate muddy issue, the poll numbers aren't going to matter much. Whether you like or dislike Kerry as a candidate, he's not putting together an effective campaign. Originally his staff told the media he'd be purchasing air time for campaign ads in twenty-two contested states, which is true. But the ads for eight of those states won't be airing until late October, which wasn't mentioned originally. That heavily suggests he's not fighting for those eight. If the numbers are as close as is suggested, I don't think he can afford to do that.


Actually, they've been quoted as saying they did check the story out and felt confident about their sources. They had their own "experts" (4 document experts I believe) authenticate the memos and they had people who knew the officer in question verify that the memos were his. They may have screwed up their fact checking, but they did do it.

With the exception of one person, those experts go unnamed. His wife and son disagree the memos were Killian's. One of the people who supposedly testified in favor of the memos came out later and said CBS misled him to get him to say the memos were Killian's. The list of problems with the documents is pretty long, so I won't go into them all. But just about everything that gets dug up is suggestive of political bias.

As I see it, the reason why this is so big is not because CBS did their fact checking too fast and now have an ice cream headache, it's because they threw journalistic integrity out the window to get themselves involved in partisan politics.

Whether it's happened before to someone else or not it's happening here now, and that is going to damage the credibility of CBS majorly in the short term (through November at least) to be listened to and it will make their longer-term credibility more suspect, at least as long as they keep Dan Rather around.

[James Prent]

Obviously he isn't going to be elected. If he was, then Hillary Clinton couldn't run for president in 2008, which is what she really wants to do. Kerry will not be elected in 2004 if she has anything to do with it. :)

[Jedieb]

I am paying attention, smarty, but whatever. I won't argue over the content of your sentence with you. That would inevitably get childish and I want to avoid that.
But you're still ignoring the fact that I never said that it was "good" or that I approved of it. Which is what you implied my "line of thinking was". It wasn't, it was simply a tactical assessment of how each side was benefitting from negative campaigning. You brought up the "content" of my post first, but you don't want to "argue" it once I reply to it? After all, you did ASK me what my line of thinking was, I just answered your question. I'm sorry if "pay attention" set you off, but I thought I was pretty clear in making a distinction in what I thought of the content ("venomous crap") and the effect it was having on the campaigns.


Though polling itself is a separate muddy issue, the poll numbers aren't going to matter much. Whether you like or dislike Kerry as a candidate, he's not putting together an effective campaign. Originally his staff told the media he'd be purchasing air time for campaign ads in twenty-two contested states, which is true. But the ads for eight of those states won't be airing until late October, which wasn't mentioned originally. That heavily suggests he's not fighting for those eight. If the numbers are as close as is suggested, I don't think he can afford to do that.

Both campaigns have had their ups and downs. The Bush campaign was getting hammered early on becaue they weren't effectively using their war chest effectively. After the DNC's convention the Kerry camp was in a bind because they knew every dollar they spent was one that would put them behind the Republicans. Sinve the RNC convention was in early Sept. that meant they could keep using their war chest without touching the Federal money both sides are limited to after their conventions. So Kerry HAD to hold money back or he'd have little to spend in October. But he still had to spend some money in August and that put him behind Bush's war chest so they HAVE to hold some money back. And as for saying polling isn't going to matter much, that's one of the things they rely on to tell them where to spend money. Spending money on a battleground state that Bush won in 2000 and leads by a large margin now could end up being wasted money. Which is why you do it NOW, not in October. (Missouri) They're holding off in states like Penn. because they know it's close and the money will make a bigger difference in Oct. Polling numbers in both the popular and electoral votes have already started to come back together. The numbers are pretty clear. I check out several polling sites and here's one that shows how the electoral college race has swung from Bush and now back to Kerry in just the last few days.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/graph.html


As I see it, the reason why this is so big is not because CBS did their fact checking too fast and now have an ice cream headache, it's because they threw journalistic integrity out the window to get themselves involved in partisan politics.

Whether it's happened before to someone else or not it's happening here now, and that is going to damage the credibility of CBS majorly in the short term (through November at least) to be listened to and it will make their longer-term credibility more suspect, at least as long as they keep Dan Rather around.
On their worst day they're not going to be as partisan as FOXNews. I think their story has problems, but I don't think it's one big "let's get Bush" conspiracy. They reported SB story, and they covered this. If it blows up in their faces, which again is even money, they'll take a hit, but it's not going to be a major one.


Obviously he isn't going to be elected. If he was, then Hillary Clinton couldn't run for president in 2008, which is what she really wants to do. Kerry will not be elected in 2004 if she has anything to do with it.
Heaven help us all. :x

[CMJ]

Originally posted by James Prent
Obviously he isn't going to be elected. If he was, then Hillary Clinton couldn't run for president in 2008, which is what she really wants to do. Kerry will not be elected in 2004 if she has anything to do with it. :)

Not that stupid conspiracy theory again. She's not even a shoe-in to win the damn nomination in 2008 if Kerry loses.

[Jedieb]

I doubt Hillary could pull it off. Edwads and Obama have a better shot in 08 if Kerry loses this year. She's just got too many negatives to her.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah its the damn media's fault they play that crap up. She has never said she would run. Heck CNN is getting bad, what is wrong with them?? It is like watching Fox lately. I am glad my cable provider has picked up MSNBC they have fairer coverage, IMO.

[Jedieb]

A horrible day over in Iraq today. There were attacks and casualties all over the place. An Arab journalist was even killed on air.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040912%2F1544126187.htm&floc=NW_1-T

Those are numbers that aren't going to help Bush either.

[March Kalas]

Actually, the theory of Hillary's plan with Kerry (having him lose) and being nominated the next time shouldn't be altogether ignored. I don't doubt that Hillary has a slim chance at getting nominated, but the idea that after 8 years of a republican president, the people will want a democrat president makes enough sense. Maybe it wasn't Hillary's plan, but that's actually a good idea to have a better chance for Democrats to win next election.

[Charley]

It would have to be a cold cold cold day in Hell before Hillary ever got within eye contact of the democratic presidential nod.

Do you understand how polarized Bill Clinton turned the political environment?

Do you understand that his wife is worse?

I'd even say this in comparison to John Kerry. Yeah, he's a waffling, gun-grabbing authoritarian, but Hillary Clinton's much further left of center than he will ever be.

[March Kalas]

My point isn't that Hillary may make it. It's just that the Democrats might be using Kerry simply so people will get tired of a Republican president for eight years and want a change. If Bush is reelected, a Democrat will probably win next time. Of course that's only a theory, but it's worth considering.

[Marcus Telcontar]

It's just that the Democrats might be using Kerry simply so people will get tired of a Republican president for eight years and want a change

So ypur saying that there is a chance the 100 or so million the dems are spending is a complete waste of time and resources?

Let me put you straight. If the democrats had another Clinton type communicator going for election and were runnign a better campain, the Bush admin would be out the door this November. Even with a douchebag and a poor campain, the Dems have Bush in trouble.

Your theory is not worth considering, it is perposterous.

[Jedieb]

So, let's lose another election so we can get a guaranteed win in 08? The guarantee being that people will get tired of 8 years of a Rep. President? Is that the strategy that the Republicans used to get Bush in office? "Hey, let's run Dole again! He's sure to lose and then the public will be tired of 8 years of Democratic rule! Now, the trick will be to lose the popular vote while we win the electoral college with the help of absentee ballots, butterfly ballots, and the Supreme Court. If this confuses you then just take a look on pg. 1,876 of your 'Lose Today So We Can Win 4 Years From Now Manual!" You always try to win. There's too many variables to put any kind of lose now, win 4 years from now plan into play. What's next, the box office results of Titanic and TPM were manipulated on a global scale to vault Titanic to the top? Wait a minute.......

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL Jedieb that was great. Now we just need, who shall not be named to come in and share his conspiracy theories on this issue :p

[Jedieb]

You son of a bitch, how dare you even acknowledge his existence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shootin

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL could been worse I could have brought up his name :p Seriously, I am sure he is locked up somewhere.

[Jedieb]

shhh, if you say it 3 times he reappears!>_<

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL

[Figrin D'an]

Actually, as football fans know, the result of the election will be determined by the result of the Washington Redskins game the Sunday before Election Day.

As has been the trend, if the Redskins win, the incumbant will stay in office. If they lose, the challenger will take the White House.


And, just for the record, the Redskin's opponent on that Sunday before the election?

The Green Bay Packers.


Go Pack Go!



(HaHa! I tied the politics thread in with the NFL threads.) :mneh

[Jedi Master Carr]

Where is that game being played?

[Charley]

If al Qaeda hijacks the goodyear blimp and smashes it onto the field, do the libertarians take the upset? ;)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Charley
If al Qaeda hijacks the goodyear blimp and smashes it onto the field, do the libertarians take the upset? ;)

lol... I believe in that case, the State of Florida would have their ballots counted 50 times, in place of each other state, in which case we won't know the result of the election until it's November of 2008 and it doesn't matter anymore.



Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Where is that game being played?

Fed Ex Field in Washington.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
LOL Jedieb that was great. Now we just need, who shall not be named to come in and share his conspiracy theories on this issue :p


OMGWTF JEDI3187 FLASHBACK!!!!!!!

....

Could he be Michael Moore in disguise?

[jjwr]

How far back does that trend go Figrin? Thats great!

Go Pack! :)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by jjwr
How far back does that trend go Figrin? Thats great!

Go Pack! :)

Remarkably, it has held true for the past 18 presidential elections, dating all the way back to 1932.

[Jedieb]

Actually, as football fans know, the result of the election will be determined by the result of the Washington Redskins game the Sunday before Election Day.

As has been the trend, if the Redskins win, the incumbant will stay in office. If they lose, the challenger will take the White House.


And, just for the record, the Redskin's opponent on that Sunday before the election?

The Green Bay Packers.


Go Pack Go!

:lol :lol :lol

I can't believe I've been wasting all this time tracking polls. Thanks for the heads up Fig. GO PACK GO!!!!!!!!!!!!:smokin

[Jedi Master Carr]

Heh some of us are going to be Packers fan that day :)

[Dan the Man]

I'm pulling for the goodyear blimp with all my might.

[CMJ]

Latest Zogby analysis

*****************************

SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 [Return to Battleground Poll]
President Bush has picked up some more ground in his tight race against Sen. John Kerry, but there are also signs of resilience in the Kerry campaign.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll of 16 battleground states shows Mr. Kerry ahead in 11 states, one state fewer than in a poll taken during the Republican convention two weeks earlier. Because Mr. Kerry's lead is thin in several states, including Florida, where the candidates remain less than a percentage point apart, the race is even closer than 11-5 state tally depicts.

Let's run the numbers.

To recap, in analyzing Zogby's results, we begin by assuming that the District of Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the battleground poll will vote for the same political party this November as they did in the 2000 election. (That assumption has become less firm since Mr. Bush picked up strength following the Republican convention. More on that later.) Thus, in our analysis, Mr. Bush starts with 189 electoral votes, while Mr. Kerry begins with 172. To win the White House, a candidate must capture 270 electoral votes.

From that starting point, we add in the electoral votes from the latest poll, regardless of the margin of error or the spread between the candidates. Mr. Kerry's 11 states control 125 votes, while Mr. Bush's five states have 52. Thus, if the results on Election Day match the findings of the Zogby poll, Mr. Kerry would win, 297-241.

That 56-electoral-vote spread is the narrowest we've found in our battlegrounds analyses since late July, just before the start of the Democratic convention.

If you take away the states with the narrowest spreads between the candidates, things are even tighter. Excluding Florida and Arkansas, which Mr. Kerry leads by less than one point, the senator's lead is 264-241, with 33 electoral votes up for grabs. Taking away four states where fewer than three points separate the candidates, Mr. Kerry is ahead 254-236, with 48 votes up for grabs.

Still, there are signs that Mr. Kerry is gaining back some of the strength that was sapped during the Republican convention. In the latest poll, Mr. Kerry gained ground on the president in nine states, while Mr. Bush improved his standing in six. In one state, Wisconsin, there was no change in the margin between the candidates.

Mr. Bush lost some ground in the crucial Ohio race; his lead there had been greater than the margin of error in the prior two polls. This time, Mr. Bush was ahead by 3.3 percentage points, which is within the margin of error. Mr. Kerry's position improved a bit in Pennsylvania. That state, which had been solidly in his column before the Republican convention, gave the senator a 3.1 point lead, up from 2.8 points.

And, Mr. Kerry has made more progress than Mr. Bush in solidifying his support in the battlegrounds that the Democrats won in 2000. The senator's lead is greater than the margin of error in five of the eight battlegrounds that Al Gore won. Mr. Bush's lead is greater than the margin of error in just one of the eight battlegrounds he won last election.

Of course, all of this math is predicated on the nonbattleground states voting the same way this time as last -- and that has become less certain in recent weeks. In New Jersey, for instance, which Mr. Gore won in 2000 and which had been considered solidly for Mr. Kerry, a survey of likely voters conducted Sept. 12-14 by SurveyUSA found Mr. Bush ahead by four points.

Among other states the Democrats carried by comfortable margins in 2000: In Maine, a Zogby telephone poll of likely voters Sept. 9 found the candidates tied; and in New York, a Quinnipiac Unversity poll of registered voters Sept. 7-12 found the president just six points behind Mr. Kerry. A month earlier, Mr. Kerry had an 18-point lead in that poll.

[Brian]

A bit of what Gallup has to say:



In a new Gallup Poll, conducted Sept. 13-15, President George W. Bush leads Democratic candidate John Kerry by 55% to 42% among likely voters, and by 52% to 44% among registered voters. These figures represent a significant improvement for Bush in the past three weeks, since just before the beginning of the Republican National Convention. Bush's job approval is at 52%, unchanged from his post-convention approval. Independent candidate Ralph Nader receives 3% to 4% of the vote, while Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik gets 1%. None of the other minor-party candidates gets as much as 1%.

There's more, but you have to be a member to see it. Here's a link if you are a member. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13066)

Also, here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13096) is a link to a poll article regarding why people are supporting their candidates, and what the breakdown on issues is between men and women.

[CMJ]

Gallup's numbers have been out of whack with the other polling services for most of this election cycle. I'm not sure why exatly, but because of this I don't trust it. Most polls show a 1-5 point gap. Gallup has been above 10 point spread for weeks now. Something is not right.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I agree with you CMJ their numbers are screwy. I think they are polling wrong or something.

[Brian]

Which doesn't mean anything in and of itself, just that the results the results Gallup is getting have turned out differently.

The New York Times/CBS News polls put Bush in at a 50-42% lead though, which contradicts Zogby and Gallup in such a way that it falls between the other two. These are the numbers that feel the most correct to me.

By the by, the NYT/CBS numbers come from the following article, off of Zogby's website no less:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=9467

Speaking of CBS, did anyone catch the CBS News "Memogate" apology?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

From CBS' own page. The whole issue is a little silly, but the ramifications could be deep, especially with the Bill Burkett/Joe Lockhart link. A friend of mine predicts Mary Mapes will be fired within a week, Andrew Heyward will be asked to resign within a month, and Dan Rather will be gone after a year. I'll be interested to see how many of these he's right on.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Gallup is the most screwed up one though. The Ap poll had it 4 points and The Research Pew had it one point. Most of the other polls are closer. Also CMJ has told me that Zogby seems to be the best, and I guess I should believe him :)

[CMJ]

Zogby was the only service that I know of that called Gore winning the popular and Bush the electoral vote. Most showed it the other way...or Bush winning both.

[Brian]

....

CMJ could you be bribed to tell Carr that, because the moon is made of green cheese and it's in the House of Australopithicus, he needs to give the rest of us all his stuff or face certain doom? :)

The real question is, how does anyone know it's not Gallup with the right numbers and everyone else who's got it wrong? I'm not advocating making Gallup the sole source of truth, mind you. I'm advocating not dismissing it out of hand. It is a good polling source regardless of how well it falls in line with other polls. What everyone knows for sure is that this race is uncertain at the moment, but that overall numbers favor Bush. Even Zogby suggests that Kerry may be succeeding in the battleground states and losing in the rest of the country.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Brian
CMJ could you be bribed to tell Carr that, because the moon is made of green cheese and it's in the House of Australopithicus, he needs to give the rest of us all his stuff or face certain doom? :)


:lol Randomn hilarity.

Were you suggesting that Carr is a bit of a pessimist and reactionary? If so, I agree to an extent(love ya Carr).

I found a site a few weeks ago that had like 10 national polls...averaged them together and then spit out the results. That's probably closer to the truth than any of them.

I'll see if I can stumble across it again.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I admit I am slight pessimest at least for the fate of humanity. Don't see it going well in the long run. I am optimist for my own life. I just forget about what might happen to everybody else in the next hundred years :p

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I admit I am slight pessimest at least for the fate of humanity.

Slight?!

Dude, you always preach gloom and doom and the end of the world as we know it. Everything is a travesty with you man. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL Well I worry about the way things are going, in the world. I shouldn't watch the news too much bad stuff on it :p

[Charley]

Originally posted by CMJ
Everything is a travesty with you man. ;)

MARK IT ZERO!!! :shootin

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Charley
MARK IT ZERO!!! :shootin

Shut the f---- up Donny! ;)

[Jedieb]

Gallop's numbers are way off. Even Rasmussesn, who's a Republican, doesn't have that kind of spread. And back in 2000, Zogby wasn't the only major poll that had Gore winning the popular vote, CBSNews also had Gore winning the popular vote. What should be noted is that MOST of the major polls incorrectly called the polular vote for Bush, and that many of them had results OUTSIDE their own MOE's. (Margin of Error)

Here's a link if you want to check out the majore polls just prior to the 2000 Election:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep20.html

Bottom line, most of the pollsters missed it. Also, not many of them focused on the Electoral College or the Battleground States. This time around, I think the results will be even more out of whack because of issues such as; cell phones, overseas and absentee ballots, and new registered voters. These guys are neck and neck and the winner will more than likely FAIL to get a majority in Nov. I also doubt that either candidate will get more than 300 Electoral Votes, although Kerry has an outside shot of it because of Penn., Ohio, and Florida, all of which could easily go his way, but Bush would be hard pressed to sweep all 3 of those.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Meanwhile in the dimension of Drought.....

(It's an Aussie reference. Laugh :p)

The final 10 days of the campain are upon us and it's now gotten very interesting. Labour's Mark Latham has thrown a grenade into the chicken coup. He's come out with not just policies, but vision, plan and ploys, spending cuts and reallocations. They were real headline grabbers and derailed the Liberals campain.

Case in point - Latham's schooling policy of reallocating spending from wealthy private schools to poor public schhols set of a debate on education and it's worth. Incedibly, the Embassy bombing has not been an issue. Issues have come to the fore and some real vision - attrractive vison - coming from Labour. The Liberals are running a scare campain, which isnt really workign.

A couple of weeks ago, especially after the Embassy bombing, most commentators thought the Liberals were a shoo in. Now with Labour controlling the public debate on issues of health, education, public spending and such, the signs must worry Howard, because even a big spending campain launch hasnt really worked.

Today's Labour campain launch featured one absolute beauty of a headline grabber - a proposal for those over 75 to get free healthcare without waiting. Now, lookking at the details showed a plan for bringinign down waiting lists for all and divertion of resources, plus agreements between the states and Private hospitals, with flow on effects in reductions in private health insurance premiums. It was complex, it's well thought out, but the headline grabber was brilliant.

If you think about it, it'll sway a lot of people - plus, it's deliverable. Australia has a fairly successful universal health system called Medicare that takes care of a great deal of medical costs. It extends a scheme given to war veterans. So the over 75's, tradional Liberal voters may pause to think, because free health care will mean a great reduction in their personal costs. It means that their children will have the burden of costs lifted. It means familes will have more money to spend elsewhere. As we have a GST, it means more revenue to the Govt.

While I am going to vote Labour, the headline grabber is going to make a lot of people suddenly think. It's a "Waaaaiiittt... now that's something worth voting for!"type of policy and as I said, look under the surface and it's got some real flow on's into most unexpected areas.

The other thing I note is that Labour admit that most of their announced policies have definate losers and they make no apologies for that. But, they still advantage the majority of voters.

For wit - the education policy. 500 odd million more for schools, something like 157 million in funding reallocated from the 75 most well off private schools. I did not know that <a href=http://www.kings.edu.au/home_set.html> THIS SCHOOL</a> gets several million in Federal govt assistance. It's huge and has fees in the 40G per year range for some students. Why on earth does a school like this need extra funding?

With compulsory voting and a preferential ballot, Australia's democracy is pretty different to others. It's going to be most excting week for political pundits.

[Master Yoghurt]

Who is going to watch the presidental debate between Bush and Kerry today? I saw a poll at CNN where 60% said they were going to see it. Its also broadcasted live on Norwegian TV tonight. Im going to watch it for sure :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

I cant believe Bush thinks foriegn policy security is a strong point for him - A half competent challenger would rip Bush to shreds, there's just so much ammunition to use.

Me, I'll skip it and just catch summaries later. It's live on local ABC I think.

[Master Yoghurt]

I cant believe it either, but this is America. In the tabloid style election campaigning, its more about smoke and mirrors than content. Or more to the point; whatever theatrics works to sucker the public to vote for a candidate. Hopefully though, this debate will show the political differences and the real issues to the uninformed public.

[Marcus Telcontar]

here's hoping.

In Australia, we had a similar debate and that's where the real turn around for Latham began. He came across very well and clearly had a vision, policies and a difference. Howard only offered more of the same as we have had for 8 years.

That's what Kerry needs to do - to come across as someone worth voting for, just as Latham has become. The ealth care announcement sealed the deal - Latham is now seen as a real alternative.

BTW, you know who else goes to the polls on Oct 9? Afghanistan. However, there's not much hope it'll mean anything. The Govt hardly controls a dry fart outside of Kabul. Just one of the facts Kerry should be holding up to show the disaster Bush foriegn policy really is.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Kerry is an oompa loompa just in time for the debate. :p

[Charley]

I decided to drink beer instead of watching that insipid kids glove debate. I do believe I have made the right decision.

[Jedieb]

It was a very good debate. Many were worried that the formate was going to hamper any real discussion. Both candidates were able to differentiate themselves from each other. This wasn't like 2000, where both Gore and Bush talked on and on about a surplus that was months away from disappearing. I think the fact that the focus of the debate was on foreign policy and Iraq gave the debate great relevance. This wasn't a stump speech of empty promises or political talk (brighter future for America, blah, blah, blah). They were specific and relevant topics discussed; the current situation in Iraq and N. Korea. They outlined their differences.

Neither one of these guys knocked the other out. What they both did was show they're not clones of each other. There's a clear difference here. This was a better debate than any in 2000.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think Kerry won though. Bush seemed like he didn't want to be there and he mumbled through the last half of the debate. Most of the experts on CNN and MSNBC seem to think Kerry won. Not sure how much that is going to matter. I don't think Kerry knocked him out, just gave sent him fluttering off to the side :p

[Master Yoghurt]

Having watched this in the entirety, I was actually surprised by how smooth it all went. Both candidates in general kept their time limits, and the differences in plan and policy came through clear. The Fence sitters who did not know Kerry, should do so now. I predict Kerry will gain on Bush on the polls.


I don't think Kerry knocked him out, just gave sent him fluttering off to the side

Yes, that was my impression too. Bush seemed somewhat uncomfortable, and had a tendency to recycle the same argument while Kerry seemed much more at home and confidently played on a broader field of issues.

[Jedieb]

Here's the thing though, most people thought Gore initially won his debate with Bush as well. Undecideds were were polled immediately after the debate gave Gore the win. But as the days progressed Gore's conduct during the debate came to dominate how it was remembered. I don't think either candidate made any gaffes that will haunt them during the next few days.

Look, most of us have already made up our minds. We're biased. I noticed every pause, smirk, and mistake that Bush made. And I'm sure die hard Bush supporters got a woody every time bush used the "mixed message" line. I'm glad that we finally got to see these two men on the same stage differentiating themselves from each other. No network edited 5 second sound bites. They each had a chance to speak at length about a variety of foreign policy issues.

[Jedieb]

Yes, that was my impression too. Bush seemed somewhat uncomfortable, and had a tendency to recycle the same argument while Kerry seemed much more at home and confidently played on a broader field of issues.
I think that Kerry "won" the debate as well. But Bush did not stumble enough to unravel in any way. What I think is clear is that this is a different election than that of 2000. There was a sense of "What's the difference?" in 2000. That was Nader's main message. That's not true this time around. People like Nader can go on and on about how the major parties are beholding to big corporations, lobbies, etc. But Iraq is a prime example that there IS a difference in who sits in the Oval Office. Forget about parties, look at the men themselves. There are clear differences between these men. I don't think anyone believes that a Kerry White House will be no different than a Bush 2nd term. There's a choice here. It's too easy to sit back and say; "Ah, who cares, it's the same ol' same ol'." No, it's not. Put one guy behind the desk, and you get one kind of war. Put another one there, and it the battle gets fought in a very different way. The differences can't be more plain.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think the big thing was North Korea for me. Bush did a bad job explaining those facts to me. He has done nothing in stopping them and Kerry made some good points. Not sure if those will get remembered by a lot of people.

[Jedieb]

I think N. Korea was a perfect example of how there is a difference between these candidates. Bush wants to continue with the present course of unilateral dicussions with N. Korea, China, and the other 3 nations involved. Kerry wants to simultaneously engage N. Korea bi-latterally. Whether you agree with Bush or Kerry, those are 2 different approaches and there's a choice to be made there.

[Master Yoghurt]

They were specific and relevant topics discussed; the current situation in Iraq and N. Korea. They outlined their differences

I agree, this was the best thing about the debate. It was not just emty talk, but concrete and detailed examples of what they would do. And they not only discussed Iraq, but a wide range of issues. It was a great debate, better than I exåected for sure :)


Here's the thing though, most people thought Gore initially won his debate with Bush as well

Maybe so, but I can tell you one thing. IMO, Kerry seemed more convincing and sharp than Gore ever was in the debates. Judging by this nights debate, I suspect common americans relate stronger to Kerry than Gore, who seemed more dull and unclear.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I didn't think Gore looked great back in 2000. He worried me more. I think the debates were a wash back then. Neither one won them. Have to see what happens this time.

[Zarell Karna]

I disagree with anyone that claims the debate was close, Kerry was far more emphatic, giving eloquent answers full of facts, history, and statistics. Bush was flush in the face through the whole event and had his eyes batted several times and full of repetitive empty headed answers. It simply stems from the fact that I believe Kerry is the more educated and intelligent candidate of two. I love the facts presented by Kerry such as the 14 military bases being constructed in Iraq for American occupancy and the Bush adminstration ignoring the Iran and North Korea weapons of mass destruction controversy.


Vote Kerry folks!!!


P.S. I wish Kerry would have out right told Bush off by stating Iraq is not my mess but that would have alienated many!

[imported_Eve]

This debate was mature, smooth, and cleared things up a great deal. Kerry and Bush were respectful and yet still had a great debate. This is how debates should be. At least I don't think they're both children fighting for the big chair.

Kerry did very well. He did clear up his intentions a great deal. I think in this debate, he ends up presenting and speaking better. He was offensive in the issues (Bush was defensive). He presented "facts", spoke clearly, didn't stutter nor pause, and didn't go over time, except for maybe once or twice.

Bush was going for the approach of repeating his strongest message - the flip-flop thing (which has kept him ahead in the recent polls) over and over. He was very good about pointing out that Kerry's wavy stance on things wasn't a good thing for a leader.

People are concerned about Bush's demeanor, but as one MSNBC anchor pointed out on Chris Matthews, this doesn't necessarily work against Bush; it makes him sound like "one of us".

When I quote the word facts above in reference to Kerry, I mean that some of what both debators said have already proven inaccurate. Fact checkers on all stations are showing so. And obviously, Kerry would present his PEA format, and then Bush would say, "Well actually, it isn't that, it's THIS."

In the end, I do think Kerry reinforced Democrat ideals, and Bush does Republican ideals - they're both good candidates for their party.

Personally (and you know I have to say it), I heard several statements made by Kerry that were contradicted by himself moments later. The president missed some great opportunities to point them out. And some things he did point out, but didn't drive the point home well enough. Overall, I did see the flip-flopping in action.

Kerry did not have the same problem in pointing out what he thought were faulty claims and statements, and he DID drive it home.

My predictions: I think Kerry will gain a few points, but Bush will remain ahead in the polls. The next debate, I predict Bush will be the clear winner (after he reviews his defensive approach in this debate) and does better next time. Too bad not as many people will watch.

That's what I got.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I didn't get to watch the debate because I was at work. :(

But I heard that it was a pretty even debate, with both making clear points, but it will probably come down to the later debates to see who's really making more than the other.

Personally I just can't get over Kerry changing his mind every time he talks (a slight exaggeration). He's like the weather in Oregon: Don't like Kerry's stance on an issue? Wait five minutes, it'll change!

[Zarell Karna]

Bush always points out that flip-flop thing yet never elaborates. Consistancy doesn't employ you are a great leader as political climates constantly shift, ya know. It really makes no difference at all, it is like crying over spilled milk and what the political media never mention is how many flip-flopped empty promises Bush ever made. Let's go there for once, eh?

Here is Bush, a man that failed Yale and was a "c" student at Harvard business school. Whom before he was elected as President did not know the name of the Leader of Pakistan. Requires sessions with his staff before every speech in order understand the correct pronounciations of the names of World Leaders. The media is so politically misconstrued and corrupt, I hate listening to them. And I love the fact Nader was excluded from the ballot in nine states.

[Charley]

So the prerequisite for the presidency is knowing the name of the leader of Pakistan and flawless pronounciation?

You have interesting standards, Mister Donkey Talking Head Man.

And anybody who loves electoral injustice in the name of partisanship is probably unfit to make a character analysis outside the box. And this is coming from somebody who thinks Nader is a buffoon.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Here is Bush, a man that failed Yale and was a "c" student at Harvard business school. Whom before he was elected as President did not know the name of the Leader of Pakistan. Requires sessions with his staff before every speech in order understand the correct pronounciations of the names of World Leaders. The media is so politically misconstrued and corrupt, I hate listening to them

Ohhhh boy.... mark this one down for the records, I'm going to defend Bush on this.

1) Could you please name me the Prime Minister for Malaysia WITHOUT looking it up please

2) Pronounce his name correctly.

How well did you go? Not well? Well, even Mr Bush would need to be told who leads where. And it's only correct he should be drilled on correct pronounciations on words he's not familiar with.

BTW.... do YOU know the name of the President of Pakistan today? Pronounce it please. Your not allowed to look it up either

Now, you could try to strawman by saying he's supposed to know. Yeah well, he's supposed to know the details of 16 gazillion things. Give him a break, I bet you would fare worse.

Tge nmeida, abart from FOX aint all that bad, they do however cater for the lowest common deominator. FOX is bias beyond acceptible or resonable bounds. If you are so annoyed by USA mainstream media, then you are invited to listen to BBC, or Aust ABC. NPR from what I get here seems to be not bad.

Never make the mistake of thinking Bush is dumb. He isnt, not by a long shot. His choice of advisors isnt exactly inspired however.....

callign Bush stupid or like calling Kerry a flip-Flop. Neither is true. a simple lookat Kerry's statements actually shows he's quite consistent in his views. The term flip-flop is to me just parroting the Republican party line without thought or proper examination of Kerry. What, dont politicians get the right to change thier minds anyway? Kerry is many things (Like he's had a mogadon sandwich and a personality bpass), but a flip-flop isnt one of them.

[James Prent]

Nader was excluded from Oregon's ballot due to some extremely partisan rule-making up by Bill Bradbury, our Democratic Secretary of State.

Oh and I just looked this up. They must all be lies or something. Kerry doesn't change his mind about *anything.*
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439

[Marcus Telcontar]

You linked Bush's website. I really dont call that an appropriate source citing for facts. That would be the last place I would look for a factual and unbias discussion on a an opposing canditate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/archive/2004/09/23/KERRY.TMP

http://www.factcheck.org/

Or, browse the SA forums Political debate forums for a compilation on Bush 'flip flops' and links that show Kerry actually has pretty consistent opinions. Or go Google hunting. The flip flop smearing isnt all that hard to find solid facts on.

[James Prent]

so you would say that Bush's website is lying and not producing facts in this instance, even though the incidents are all cited?

[CMJ]

Didn't watch the debate live..was at an early screening for Shark's Tale. I am however almost finished watching the replay. Honestly, Kerry seems to have won the debate, but it was a marginal victory. Considering that foreign policy was Bush's strongest suit going in, this does not bode well for the President.

BTW - I must agree with Marcus on posting stuff from Bush's website about Kerry being bad form. I'm sure Carr or Eb could find just as damaging material from Kerry's homepage.

I'll be curious to see what the polls look like come Monday. Ir'll probably take about that long for tonight to really seep into the public conscious.

[Zarell Karna]

When did I call Nader a buffoon? Republicans love him, Mr. Elephant!

I don't know need to answer asinine inquiries, am I this nation's leader? chief of staff? Or representive of this great nation? I am not a politician and neither am I going to support any backwards Dubyanomics either. It's a disgrace there are Americans getting their heads lopped and we do nothing about it. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States either, Osama bin Laddin was a bigger threat and so is North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile Cheney, Halliburton, Dubya, and Saudi oil monguls scratch each other's scrotums and call it a dandy day.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Zarell Karna
When did I call Nader a buffoon? Republicans love him, Mr. Elephant!

I don't know need to answer asinine inquiries, am I this nation's leader? chief of staff? Or representive of this great nation? I am not a politician and neither am I going to support any backwards Dubyanomics either. It's a disgrace there are Americans getting their heads lopped and we do nothing about it. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States either, Osama bin Laddin was a bigger threat and so is North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile Cheney, Halliburton, Dubya, and Saudi oil monguls scratch each other's scrotums and call it a dandy day.


This thread is for resonable political debate, not juvenile name calling. If you feel the need to stoop to such posting, I ask you not to post in this thread - I do not wish to see it closed. I am further more, enjoying the discussion and participating in the debate, trying to further it and promote discussion.


so you would say that Bush's website is lying and not producing facts in this instance, even though the incidents are all cited?

Not as far as a lie, but a distortion and telling of the story from a certain point of view, of which other more independant sources can be found to disprove and to set the facts back right. The fact is, Bush's website is not about resonable debate or presenting unbias facts - it is there solely and fully to present only one point of view in a manner much like Michael Moore protrayed Bush in F911. The point of a political website is to advertise and to present the canditate in the best possible light. Thence, as a serious news or fact source, it can not and should not be used. It is important to research and cite other sources. It is also important to double check, to not end up like Dan Rather, or to fall for a blatant smear as the SBVfT incident proved to be.


Honestly, Kerry seems to have won the debate, but it was a marginal victory. Considering that foreign policy was Bush's strongest suit going in, this does not bode well for the President.

I'm watchign to some parts of the debate now and I have to agree - if this was Bush's strong points, then he is in trouble. Kerry came off as pretty professional. I do say though, Bush wasnt all that bad himself. He did do quite well with what I would have called a losing hand - Ias I said earlier, his National secrity policies are not good and Iraq is going pear shaped. He could have done a lot worse. I'll give him credit for that, at the least.

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
This thread is for resonable political debate, not juvenile name calling. If you feel the need to stoop to such posting, I ask you not to post in this thread - I do not wish to see it closed. I am further more, enjoying the discussion and participating in the debate, trying to further it and promote discussion.

Don't play favorites Marcus, it is unsightly and poor taste for a moderator. Look up in the thread, Charley called me a "Mr. Donkey Talking Head Man" (Democratic party symbol, Elephant = Republican party symbol)

[Marcus Telcontar]

I'm NOT a moderator.

[imported_Eve]

This "name calling" is meant to just refer to the other as a staunch candidate for one of the main parties, but it is being taken as a flame. Therefore, stop it now.

And Zarell Karna, please find other ways to make your points rather than using the term "Meanwhile Cheney, Halliburton, Dubya, and Saudi oil monguls scratch each other's scrotums and call it a dandy day." This is a family board, and such language is not appropriate.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Zarell Karna
When did I call Nader a buffoon? Republicans love him, Mr. Elephant!

Read, Comrephend, and then Post. I called Nader a buffoon. And I'm certainly no Republican, either.


I don't know need to answer asinine inquiries, am I this nation's leader? chief of staff? Or representive of this great nation?

Are you trying to justify your previous criteria? Thats not exactly bolstering it.


I am not a politician and neither am I going to support any backwards Dubyanomics either.

Wow there's a term that's fresh and innovative.


It's a disgrace there are Americans getting their heads lopped and we do nothing about it.

What would you have us do? Negotiate?


Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States either, Osama bin Laddin was a bigger threat and so is North Korea and Iran.

I'll agree that Osama was far and away the bigger threat, and that there's really no connection between him and Saddam, but that doesn't necessarily dilute my support for the war at this point.


Meanwhile Cheney, Halliburton, Dubya, and Saudi oil monguls scratch each other's scrotums and call it a dandy day.

I think you forgot to chant that "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" punchline that's hip and trendy with the kids these days btw.


Originally posted by Zarell Karna
Don't play favorites Marcus, it is unsightly and poor taste for a moderator. Look up in the thread, Charley called me a "Mr. Donkey Talking Head Man" (Democratic party symbol, Elephant = Republican party symbol)

Yes, and the shoe fits. Its not profane or anything. Its entirely fitting in terms of decorum. Are you not towing the Democratic party line here?

[jjwr]

My take on the debate was that Kerry won it hands down.

Bush looked flustered most of the time, the shots of his face during Kerry's comments were classic.

What got me most was Bush kept going back to the same arguments over and over, the "Wrong War, Wrong Time" and the Flip-Flop. He had no real answers to what Kerry was saying.

I don't recall the exact quote but I loved it when Kerry said the Mark of a good leader is realizing when he makes the wrong decision, admitting it and trying to find a way to change it.

As I told my brother last night while I was watching the debate, it still boggles my mind that Bush is president, let along still leading the polls.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wish I had an answer to that. I don't understand it either. Maybe he connects in ways I don't understand. About the debate three post debate polls all give Kerry the win. Not sure how much that matters, might have to wait for the other two debates. Kerry is the better debater that is for certain. Also I heard this on CNN from some presidential historian (one I have never heard of) he said the person who won the first debate never wins. What is he talking about, I am sure Kennedy beat Nixon in their only debate. I remember seeing pictures of Nixon sweating, in some ways that cost him the election. And I thought for sure Carter and Reagen both won their debates. I don't know where he is getting his facts from.

[CMJ]

Bush isn't the best debator in the classic "on points" way, but he is effective. I don't agree that he wasn't on his game last night. I found him to be very effective - he stays on message. After you hear the same lines over and over you start repeating them in your sleep. To call Bush a bad debator is naive. Tell that to Ann Richards - who was leading in the polls BTW. His debates with her were very much like the one last night(I'm from TX remember). Have a bout 3-4 main points you wanna hammer home and try to tie every answer into those points in some way.

For folks that are political junkies or partisans this can get old. But to alot of voters that don't pay as close attention, this is a great tactic. Reinforce constantly where you stand. Beat them over the head with it.

I wouldn't call it a blowout last night by any stretch. If I were scoring it like a prize fight the round was 10-9 Kerry. There were no standing eight counts...or TKO's. :p

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think it was a blow out either. I say Kerry was a lot better but no knockout. Of course I am biased :p

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by Charley


[QUOTE]Are you trying to justify your previous criteria? Thats not exactly bolstering it.

Haha! Pakistan is not exactly Kirakira ya know. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India has been a source of interest the whole world over. Why wouldn't the our President know the name of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. All newsgroups and plenty of political interests are focused in this region of the world.





What would you have us do? Negotiate?

That's impossible, more rhetoric (one of many). Looks like we have a irrepairable dilemna don't we.




I'll agree that Osama was far and away the bigger threat, and that there's really no connection between him and Saddam, but that doesn't necessarily dilute my support for the war at this point.

Despite the fact the war is costing 3.20 billion daily. And Iraq has fallen into civil unrest that will probably last from here to eternity. They are killing the pro-goverment police and beheading foreigners. BTW, how's that Iraqi vacation brochure looking?


I think you forgot to chant that "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" punchline that's hip and trendy with the kids these days btw.

That's not a bad expression, and your point?


Yes, and the shoe fits. Its not profane or anything. Its entirely fitting in terms of decorum. Are you not towing the Democratic party line here?

Never claimed to.

[Zarell Karna]

That's 3.20 Million! I corrected myself!

[Jedieb]

I can't stand Bush, but I'm not going to call him stupid. I'll tune that out as quickly as anyone saying that Kerry is a flip flopper. Please, Bush has plenty of his own "flip-flops." Who was it that opposed the formation of the 9/11 Comission, but then "flip-flopped?" Who said Condi Rice wasn't going to testify, and then said she was? Who campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy? Who said the United States shouldn't get into "nation building?" Who said Bin Laden was his "#1 priority" and then later said "I am truly not that concerned about him." And I could go on and on. ANY politician can be labled a flip flopper if enough money is spent and the accusation is repeated often enough. As for people who call Bush stupid, they're ignoring his sucesses and focusing on perceived weaknesses. Butcher of the English language, YES, but stupid, no.

Kerry clearly won the debate last night. But what we have to watch now is how the debate is SPUN. How is it going to be covered? How will people remember it? How will those people that DIDN'T watch it come to remember it? Not everyone saw the Gore/Bush debates, but they remember them as wins for Bush. But there were plenty of focus groups that had Gore winning them. Not blowing Bush away, but winning. But what many only remember is Gore's rude and condescending behavior. Imagine if over the next few days we see Bush's smirks and pauses repeated over and over. That's what many people will remember.

Last night was important for Kerry because if things had gone badly many pundits would have called the race over. He won, closed the credibility gap, and now has some momentum. Cheney and Edwards square off on Tues. I believe, and then next Thurs. we have the Town Hall Forum debate in St. Louis. It's not suppose to be limited to any specific topic, but the questions are suppose to be equal number domestic and foreign policy. The audience is supposed to be made up of "undecideds." Both candidates will be sitting on stools, surrounded by an audience of around 150. Audience members will be submitting questions and the moderator will select 16 of them and give each candidate a chance to answer them.

Last night was suppose to be Bush's strong suit, foreign policy. He'll get a chance to improve on his performance a bit in St. Louis. Everyone expects Kerry to have an edge in the final domestic debate and when the next debate covers domestic issues. But I think the forum bodes well for Bush. He can walk around and do his "man of the people" bit and walk over to people and talk to them face to face. Kerry has to continue to stay focused and keep his answers short and concise. This isn't the time for a blue book essay. 90 seconds is more than enough time to give a good solid answer. Bush knows how to do that, last night Kerry proved he could do it as well.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think Kerry already knew how to do that. Kerry is an excellent debater, way better than Bush. He proved that when he was going for reelection in Mass against Weld. His problem is on the campaign trail he gets way too wordy there.

[Jedieb]

A lot of people have brought up those Weld debates. Weld was even one of the post debate "experts" the cable networks used last night. But Kerry had never had a chance to show those skills to a national audience. Stump and convention speeches are one things, but a debate is entirely different.

I'll be curious to see what the ratings look like. They have to be higher than the ratings for 2000. But don't be surprised if the Network ratings are flat. The cable network ratings could easily have offset those, they have to be taken into account as well.

[Jedi Master Carr]

They were very high I read that on imdb.com. It didn't say if it set any records.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Someone went googling. Impressed != not.

Got to see the whole debate last last night. I think the problem with repeting phrases over and over again is eventually people switch off and stop listening. That's to me what is approaching with the continued repetition of Bush. There's nothing new and I see that as actually becommign a problem, especially if people begin to listen to Kerry. To draw an example from Aust, the Liberals have been runnign a scare campain about interest rates and repeating over and over again, they will go up under Labour. The problem was, when Lathan won the debate betweent he leaders, people started to listen to him, heard something new and different and started to switch off and tune out the repetition.

Up to now, repeating 'Flip-Flop' worked because no one seemed to be listenign to Kerry. But I think that now Kerry has managed to engage some of the swinging voters, the repitition will get annoying and begin to backfire and I really think it will bite Bush hard.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Kerry is an excellent debater, way better than Bush.

I wouldn't go that far, but he did win this one.

Marcus I don't agree at all. As I said earlier repeating the same lines over and over and over gets old to partisans and such, but it's proven to be effective. It's kind of like how everyone hates mudslinging, BUT it's been proven thru studies that it's the most effective campaign tactic.

Actually Joe Scarborough on MSNBC(a former Congressman for our foreign friends) has said as much in the past. He tells the story of one of his advisors telling him in his first campaign that you have to repeat yourself constantly, and about the time your staff is ready to slit their wrists, because they're tired of listening to the same junk, you're just then getting thru to the collective public.

[Jedieb]

If the lie gets repeated enough, it's believed. You repeat that phrase over and over again. It's effective. But what was different about last night is that each candidate had a chance to jab back. Most of the times these phrases get said on stump speeches, or played back on TV. Last night the candidates had to use them, and back them up. I think Bush was just a bit off his game and may have just used "hard work" a bit too much. Again, the smirking and his other facial expressions during Kerry's responses didn't help him any.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Marcus I don't agree at all. As I said earlier repeating the same lines over and over and over gets old to partisans and such, but it's proven to be effective. It's kind of like how everyone hates mudslinging, BUT it's been proven thru studies that it's the most effective campaign tactic.

Then there must be a difference in culture - endless repetition tends to annoy the hell out of Aussies. Especially the way Bush has been doing it.

CMJ, I beg to disagree - repetition works only if your opponent has nothign suitible to hit back with and isnt gettign their message across. But you see, this can happen if all your doing is repeating the same message.....

Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE INTEREST RATES TO GO UP!!!!"
Latham : "Blah blah blah blah"
Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE INTEREST RATES TO GO UP!!!!"
Latham : "Blah blah blah blah"
Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE INTEREST RATES TO GO UP!!!!"
Latham : "Blah blah blah blah"
Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE INTEREST RATES TO GO UP!!!!"
Latham : "Blah blah blah blah"
Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE PINTEREST RATES TO GO blah blah blah!!!!"
Latham : "Blah blah blah blah"
Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE blah blah blah!!!!"
Latham : "Blah blah blah blah"
Howard : "LABOUR WILL CAUSE blah blah blah!!!!"
Latham : "FREE HEALTHCARE FOR OVER 75!"

Public : What?

Latham : FREE HEALTHCARE!!!
HOWARD : "blah blah blah"

Process : Public isnt listening to Latham. Howard keeps repeating. However, latham suddenly is able to get through to the public. They stop listenign or paying attention to the repetition.


And that is what elections are about - getting your message across. Where Ketrry has failed in the main up to now is being able to get himself listened to. It's about engaging the voter. Once they are listening, then a message can be hammered into their brain - and from the days I was associated with campains for Liberals, the repetition is best off to be positive. It's more likely to plant itself into the brain. Believe it or not, the voters respond best to vision and hope. Negative campains have a tendancy to backfire and so far that's what i see Bush has - a negative campain with a lack of real substance, which so far has worked because Kerry has failed to engage the voting mass.

The probelm with negative repitition is that it can and will get ignored if the opposing canditate is able to break through. That's what happened when Latham won the Aust debate and that's something I see that can well happen to the USA campain and Kerry.

About 4 weeks out from election day is where the campains should begin to build momentum, the polls take about two weeks to catch up and by the time polling day comes around, you should have your message at the front of voters minds. Moderm political campains are more about the last two weeks and the swinging voters. That's why it was so critical for Kerry to get his message out last night, now is the time to get it all rolling forward. When it's late in the campain, it's also much harder for your opponent to respond.

I might note that before the debate, Latham was thought to be gone for all money too. Now, it's far, far too close to call, although my feeling is Latham actually has a real chance. Breakthrough, momentum.

[Pierce Tondry]

One thing I can't seem to find is what Kerry was doing that day before the debate. All the sources I've seen to date mention Bush was meeting hurricane victims, but don't say what Kerry was doing. Does anyone know?

I ask, because if Kerry took the day off, then it makes sense he'd be a lot fresher than Bush as he seemed to be to me. Even if not, though, good game on his part. He handled himself well and now has some real credibility with the voters.


But what we have to watch now is how the debate is SPUN. How is it going to be covered? How will people remember it? How will those people that DIDN'T watch it come to remember it? Not everyone saw the Gore/Bush debates, but they remember them as wins for Bush.

I totally agree here- in fact, I've collected copies of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Richmond Times-Dispatch (a local paper) in order to review the way this thing is getting characterized.

Truthfully, I don't think it was a blowout win for Kerry and I'm not saying that because I currently favor Bush. I say it because I never got the feeling that in the ebb and flow of the debates, either man really had the other by the balls.

Although actually, if Kerry puts out some domestic policies I like my vote could be anyone's game- but he's got nothing much yet.

[Figrin D'an]

Just one more month of this crap... just one more month...

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
Just one more month of this crap... just one more month...

And it will be a most interesting month nonetheless. Gawd, I just fear for our budget and economy if Bush is re-elected for a second term. He ran rampant like a maniac during his inaugeral term in Office, I can't see why anyone would want this, aside from the wealthy, conservatives, and right wingers (can hardly tell the difference these days anymore) -- of course.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Zarell Karna
And it will be a most interesting month nonetheless. Gawd, I just fear for our budget and economy if Bush is re-elected for a second term. He ran rampant like a maniac during his inaugeral term in Office, I can't see why anyone would want this, aside from the wealthy, conservatives, and right wingers (can hardly tell the difference these days anymore) -- of course.

I'm challenging you on this. What do you know of the US economy, or economy in general?

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
I'm challenging you on this. What do you know of the US economy, or economy in general?

Well, finances and the ecomony is quite a complicated endeavor to explain and was beating my brain for a good ten minutes. How about you explain to me deficit financing, recession, national debt, securities, government spending and revenues, bonds, treasury bills, inflation, and GDP? Did I leave anything out, Charley? You are taking classes on the similar subjects.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Zarell Karna
Well, finances and the ecomony is quite a complicated endeavor to explain and was beating my brain for a good ten minutes. How about you explain to me deficit financing, recession, national debt, securities, government spending and revenues, bonds, treasury bills, inflation, and GDP? Did I leave anything out, Charley? You are taking classes on the similar subjects. Actually Charley graduated.

[Pierce Tondry]

I'm also not Charley. I'm Brian.



Well, finances and the ecomony is quite a complicated endeavor to explain and was beating my brain for a good ten minutes. How about you explain to me deficit financing, recession, national debt, securities, government spending and revenues, bonds, treasury bills, inflation, and GDP? Did I leave anything out, Charley? You are taking classes on the similar subjects.

Yes, I am. That isn't the point. Anyone can use the words you have like buzzwords to make themselves sound important and knowledgeable. However, the regulars on this board know I'm engaged in completing an Economics degree. You, on the other hand, have no credibility reference. You've summarily wandered in off the street and started making claims.

You have failed to back up your knowledge and tried to pass the buck. You are not worthy of a good argument from me. Try and dredge up some real knowledge next time.

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
I'm also not Charley. I'm Brian.




Yes, I am. That isn't the point. Anyone can use the words you have like buzzwords to make themselves sound important and knowledgeable. However, the regulars on this board know I'm engaged in completing an Economics degree. You, on the other hand, have no credibility reference. You've summarily wandered in off the street and started making claims.

You have failed to back up your knowledge and tried to pass the buck. You are not worthy of a good argument from me. Try and dredge up some real knowledge next time.

Haha! That's funny, I do understand the economy and I have discussed this with Charley in a thread at Meras awhile back. But the subject of the ecomony can be topically overwhelming, what aspects do you want to discuss about the economy? Taxes perhaps? And no I have not attended school but I do read the papers and other news sources and absorb this quite well. So you have come here to show up your "educated" gist eh. And I know you are not Charley btw and thanks for the update LD!

[Zarell Karna]

double posted

[Marcus Telcontar]

Brian is 100% correct

--

And now back on topic....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/03/1096741878913.html

(registration req'd)


John Kerry has pulled ahead of US President George Bush in a poll published by Newsweek magazine showing the television debate erased the lead Bush had enjoyed for the past month.

In a two-way contest, the Kerry-Edwards ticket in the November 2 presidential election led by 49 per cent against 46 per cent for Bush-Cheney, according to 1,013 registered voters polled by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

According to the poll, 61 per cent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate said Kerry won, 19 per cent said Bush won and 16 per cent said they tied. The number of debate viewers surveyed was 770.

Bush's job approval rating dropped two points from the September 9-10 Newsweek poll to 46 per cent - a six-point drop since the Republican national convention a month ago. Fifty-seven per cent of all poll respondents - a total of 1,144 adults - said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going in the United States now.

Sixty per cent of registered voters said Bush administration policies and diplomatic efforts had led to more anti-Americanism around the world and 51 per cent said the administration had not done enough to involve major allies and international organisations in trying to achieve its foreign policy goals, the poll showed.

However, 46 per cent of registered voters said they would still like to see Bush re-elected, against 48 per cent who said they would not like to see him re-elected.

When registered voters were asked who would handle issues better overall, Bush led Kerry 52 to 40 per cent on terrorism and homeland security.

Kerry scored better on the economy - 52 per cent against 39 per cent - and health - 56 per cent to 34 per cent. He was also seen to be better at handling American jobs and foreign competition - 54 per cent against 36 per cent.

For questions put to registered voters, the margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points; to debate viewers, it was 4.1 points; and for total adults, three points.

Interesting. But will it mean anythign in the long run?

[Jedieb]

At least poll numbers are now being influenced by what the candidates are actually saying and not mud slinging. I think the next three debates will be the highlights of these last few days. After that, it's back to campaign ads and stump speeches.


I ask, because if Kerry took the day off, then it makes sense he'd be a lot fresher than Bush as he seemed to be to me. Even if not, though, good game on his part. He handled himself well and now has some real credibility with the voters.

Both candidates spent the day before prepping for the debate. Bush also spent some time with his brother touring hurricane damage, but I would imagine he made a point of getting as much rest as possible. I don't think those visits had a big effect on him. I expect him to do a much better job in the next town hall forum debate.


Although actually, if Kerry puts out some domestic policies I like my vote could be anyone's game- but he's got nothing much yet.
You'll get your chance in these next 2 presidential debates. Half of the next debate and all of the final debate are suppose to foucs on domestic issues.

The debate on Tuesday between Cheney and Edwards will be similiar to the last VP debate. Both men will be seated at a table with a moderator. The Bush camp didn't want to give Edwards a chance to move around because it's one of his more effective speaking techniques. It's going to be quite a contrast in styles. Cheney helped ease the concerns of many Bush doubters in the last election, especially after his strong debate performance. But he's a much better defined quantity now and definitely the most unpolpular of the 4 men on the tickets. Edwards strength is his positive, upbeat speaking style, but he's going to have to mix it up with Cheney. That's a characteristic of VP candidates, they tend to get stuck with the tough campaign attacks. When Cheney gets tough, and he will, how will Edwards respond? I suspect he didn't win all of those trials by being a pushover. This should be another good solid debate.

[Zarell Karna]

Originally posted by Marcus Telcontar
Brian is 100% correct.

That everyone has to be a economics major to understand the socio-economics issues breaking the news. DO you have no life Marcus, that you and Pierce have to resort to petty insults. We are on two different wavelengths in reality.

[Pierce Tondry]

Zarell: tl;dr


Interesting. But will it mean anythign in the long run?

Possibly so, possibly not. Recall Reagan/Mondale in '84. Mondale won the first debate handily, partly because Reagan seemed to have lapses in thought and memory. In the second debate, Reagan came back with the line "I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him" and that became THE SOUNDBYTE (with reverb added for effect). That killed Mondale right there, regardless of anything else.

I hate to say it, but I think the media will be looking for Bush screw-ups more than Kerry screw-ups. It's disappointing to see something so partisan leaning.

[Jedieb]

I hate to say it, but I think the media will be looking for Bush screw-ups more than Kerry screw-ups. It's disappointing to see something so partisan leaning.
And was it partisan leaning when they did it to Gore in 2000? ("sigggggggggghhhhhhh") Did all these media guys suddenly switch parties in the last 4 years? It's not about media partisanship, it's about the media's obsession with sound bites and image over substance. Bush benefited from it last time, this time it looks like he may take a hit.

[imported_Eve]

If you have not registered to vote: the deadline for mailing in voter registration form is tomorrow (I think for most places). You can also go to the local DMV and register. I do not know the deadline for that.

To print registration forms:

http://www.declareyourself.com/index.html
http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/voter101/news.jhtml?id=1490886

[forms open in pdf format]

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Jedieb
And was it partisan leaning when they did it to Gore in 2000? ("sigggggggggghhhhhhh") Did all these media guys suddenly switch parties in the last 4 years? It's not about media partisanship, it's about the media's obsession with sound bites and image over substance. Bush benefited from it last time, this time it looks like he may take a hit.

This is a difference of opinion thing. I never got the feeling people were looking for Gore to fail in '00. I got the feeling he screwed up a few times and the media pounced because they had nothing else to move with. In this election, I get the feeling that people have been looking for Bush to fail ahead of time because of anti-Republican sentiment. Which is understandable from the point of view that many people disagree with the actions of the President and his staff (who is/are the current face/s of the Republican Party), but still partisan.

[Morgan Evanar]

I really don't trust certain media sources, like Fox News. Unfortunately, they are the most popular news channel at the moment. :(

I didn't watch the debate all of the way through. I had class. I'm highly biased against Bush so of course I'd like Kerry to obliterate him. If Bush had been as weak as he was in 2000, he would have. Bush has improved there.

Bush's hard work line annoyed me. It was as if he had never had a day of hard work before.

[imported_Eve]

Did anyone watch SNL last night? They opened with a parody of the debate, which was pretty spot-on. It was hilarious.

[Pierce Tondry]

If I'd been home, I might have. I was out playing pool to celebrate my last night at work, though.

They gave me a cake! It says "Good Luck, Brian" on it! =D

Anyways, if I can catch it in re-runs, I will try to do so. The Daily Show did a pretty funny parody the night of the debate, as I recall. Catch that if you can- Comedy Central re-runs are more frequent.

[Jedieb]

The SNL skit was hysterical. The second Kerry skit was even better. Affleck did an amazing James Carville impersonation that had me in stiches. Having Hammond come in to finish off the skit with a Bill Clinton trolling for dislocated trailer trash women was classic.


I get the feeling that people have been looking for Bush to fail ahead of time because of anti-Republican sentiment. Which is understandable from the point of view that many people disagree with the actions of the President and his staff (who is/are the current face/s of the Republican Party), but still partisan.
I don't believe it's so much anti-Republican sentiment as the fact that re-elections usually boil down to a judgement on the incumbant. People are ready to take Bush and his administration to task over the last four years. It's not a partisan response, it's a response to an incumbant. The poor month that Kerry had the public responding to the Swift Boat ads and a strong RNC convention. Last Thursday night people reacted to the debate itself and how both men performed. That's why Bush has now come back to Kerry and we see the race deadlocked again.

Throughout this year Bush has had some serious problems going against him. Before this latest upsurge he had been trailing Kerry for the better part of the year. His main problems were his approval rating, the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and the "slow patch" the recovery hit. None of those things improved significantly when Bush pulled ahead. One of the main benefits Kerry received from Thursday's debate was that his numbers approved across the board. (Likeability, leadership qualities, etc.) Many people began to see him more favorably than they had in quite some time. He actually looked "Presidential." So now the race shifts back to an assessment of Bush's first term, than an indictment of his candidate.

Look, you could see this coming, the race was bound to tighten. It's a good week for Kerry, but the race is still very much alive. We still have 3 debates to get through and then we have to wait and see what "surprise" bombshell gets dropped the last week of the election. I would be stunned if the media doesn't stumble upon some "story" that last week.

[Pierce Tondry]

Heh, methinks Rather already tried that. =\

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
Heh, methinks Rather already tried that. =\


Wont stop the media from trying it again - unfortunantly.

[Pierce Tondry]

No, but everyone is going to be more cautious about it, at least for this election. No one wants to take a blow like CBS did.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
No, but everyone is going to be more cautious about it, at least for this election. No one wants to take a blow like CBS did.

Tell that to Fox. Not quite Ratherese, but they have been forced to apologise.

[Jedieb]

Marcus is referring to some jagoff Fox reporter that posted an article full of made up quotes attributed to Kerry. Fox quickly pulled the article from its website and admitted the reporter had made up the quotes. They said he'd been "disciplined," whatever that means.


Heh, methinks Rather already tried that. =\

That's not the kind of surprise I'm talking about. I'm talking about something akin to the 2000 race when during the last few days of the campaign Bush's DUI story broke. That was one of things that helped Gore close on him during the last few days of that race. Timing is the key here. Don't be surprised if some "story" breaks just days before the election; an alleged affair, someone paying someone to have an abortion, I gave him some Coke, I saw him do this in Vietnam, blah, blah, blah. There's no telling who it could be directed at or how much play it will get. But the two major clouds hanging over the horizon are a possible capture of Bin Laden and another terroist attack. No one knows for sure how each of those could effect the election.

[Pierce Tondry]

The very fact that FOX apologized promptly puts them ahead of the CBS-bar, independant of the fact that I've never heard of this reporter (Carl Cameron, I think? Whoever this guy is.) before this incident. But as a much larger name, Dan Rather is supposed to know better by default.

Also, I know timing is key, but the "memo" thing blew it for everyone. ANYTHING that's coming out is being scrutinized with fine-tooth combs, not just by opposing media but by the public as well. Add that to the fact that people in the know already expect an election week "surprise" and anything that comes out is majorly suspect. So, we'll see if the card gets played, but even if it does, I doubt it will have much of an impact.

[Jedieb]

The very fact that FOX apologized promptly puts them ahead of the CBS-bar, independant of the fact that I've never heard of this reporter (Carl Cameron, I think? Whoever this guy is.) before this incident. But as a much larger name, Dan Rather is supposed to know better by default.
No, it's not really the same thing. Rather didn't make up his story. He and CBS were sloppy enough to be DUPED, and then arrogant enough not to admit their mistake. This reporter outright LIED. If Rather had made up the story himself, then we'd be talking about the same thing.

I'd like to think the "memo" story and that the public is paying attention more closely to spin has put a stop to this, but I doubt it. Not every story is going to have the holes that the "memo" story did. Also, the memo story was a prime example of how to effectively fight dirt. Discredit the messenger, even if the message has some validity to, and the whole story gets tainted. And there was plenty of validity to that report of CBS, the memos were only part of the story. Go back and look at the quotes of the officer's former secretary and it's a pretty good summation of the entire affair. She believed the memos were fake, but thought they accurately reflected what the officer felt about Bush.

I don't want anything dragged out at the last minute to have any kind of impact. I'd rather the polls get swung by the candidates themselves and what they say during these debates and these last few weeks of the campaign. But when you have such a divided electorate, ANY kind of effect can end up being a major one.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Question please -

What does it mean when someone is a registered (Insert party here) voter? why does that mean something and why does that appear to mean somethign different between states?

[Pierce Tondry]

WASHINGTON -- Fox News apologized today for posting phony quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on its Web site. ADVERTISEMENT


Carl Cameron, a Fox reporter who covers the Kerry campaign, wrote an item that looked like a news story with made-up Kerry quotes, said Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman. The item was not intended to be posted on the site.

"Carl made a stupid mistake which he regrets," Schur said Friday night. "And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humor."

The phony item posted early Friday read in part:

"Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.

"'Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!' Kerry said Friday.

"With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

"Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

"'It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures,' Kerry said."

The item also quoted Kerry as saying of himself and President Bush: "I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy."

After withdrawing the item, Fox posted a statement on its Web site, http://www.FOXNews.com apologizing for the error. It said: "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."

Cameron has been a political reporter for Fox News since 1996, Schur said.

Asked about the incident, Kerry spokesman David Wade said: "America would be stronger if only George Bush could admit his mistakes as easily."

Outright lied? Sounds more like a bad joke ended up in the public venue by accident. That's stupid, not dishonest.

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.

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.

Edit to Marcus: being registered as a party member allows you access to the closed primaries of that party and some party conventions. It's important because if you register to vote for a particular party, you're often excluded from voting in the primaries for the opposing party. So, if you came to the US and voted in the Republican primary against George Bush, you would not be able to vote in the Democratic primary for Kerry and vice versa. I'm not sure what differences between states exist, but I know they exist and can have an affect on who is allowed to vote where and when.

[Marcus Telcontar]

So, you dont have to be a party member, just registered as a (Insert party here) voter? And differences between states?

I think I understand so far.

BTW, what do you make of the stories fo people registerign to vote in record numbers?

[Master Yoghurt]

Scott McClellan of the White House announced today that Bush is going to hold a previously unscheduled speech on wednesday.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041004-6.html


One scheduling update, on Wednesday, the President -- we announced that he was going to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. That event was scheduled for a focus on medical liability with President Bush. That has been postponed, but we will still be going to Wilkes-Barre. The President will give a significant speech on our nation's two highest priorities: the war on terrorism and the economy. The President will talk about the clear choices and real differences facing the American people on these big issues

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 :p

[Marcus Telcontar]

I think it's definantly a nervous twitch. The debate seems to have really given Kerry some genuine momentum. something has to be done because the next two debates arent on topics that will be favorable to Bush - and we now see Kerry is probably likely to carry those. Reading up on Kerry's previous debates as a Senatorial canditate, he's very good by the reports. Plus, Kerry is finally attacking as he should have a while ago. IMO, Bush simply should be eaten alive on the economy and national security.

In the last few days, you have the NY times (I think) investigation on how the Bush Admin got the whole aluminium rods for Iraq completely wrong, ignoring advice from it's specialists, plus Rumsfield coming out and saying there's probably NO link between Al Quadia and Hussein - and never was. Iraq should be an issue that effectively knee caps the Republican campain. It's now a fact that it was generally actually known by a large group of people that the reasons for war were wrong at the time of war, not just in hindsight.

I have to grudgingly admit, that Bush still has a chance of re-election is a wonder and due credit to his PR and media management, even if FOX is ablely assisting. Anyone less and Kerry would be writing his acceptance speech.

Even if I dislike Howard a lot (and he is a disgrace), I can understand why his Govt stand a great chance of re-election this Saturday. They have been in the main pretty good. Latham has a problem in that apart from Howard, there's no real compelling reason to vote the Liberals out. As I said many posts ago, if Abbot and Costello were in power, I'd vote them in in a flash.

As an outsider looking in, I cant really see a compelling reason to vote Bush back in. That is, admittedly, as an outsider. Is his record actually all that good? Does he really deserve another run? Is he moreover as I percieve him, a pretty resonable man with a crap and deplorable team behind him and it's the team that should be voted out?

I tend to think the latter - when Bush came to Australia last year, he was a much better speaker and better articulated his points than perceptions hinted at, especially in a forum where he could have 25 minutes without contast cheer interruptions.

Ninja edit : http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,10976890%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

A most unwelcome addition to political advertising appears. And a fierce backlash started. It's not very welcome, to say the least.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I sure wouldn't vote for him back in, he has done nothing good for the US, IMO. Others might disagree. About this speech yeah they are desperate the polls have tightened which makes them really nervous. About the record register voters it's hard to say, we will have to se how many actually vote. In the past high turnout usually favors democrats for some reason, not sure if that will be the same this year or not.

[Pierce Tondry]

Now I have to ask: what do you know about the domestic policy over Bush's term in office, Carr?

[Master Yoghurt]

Tonight, its the debate between Dick Cheney og John Edwards. Once again, its being broadcasted live on Norwegian TV, and Im going to try stay up. If I am correct, topics will be both be domestic and foreign policy.

Saturday, its round 2 of 3 in the boxing match between Bush and Kerry.

[Charley]

Pierce, I wouldn't advise defending Bush's domestic policy. Its pretty much his weakest leg he's got.


Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
Dick Cheney og John Edwards.

Your Norwegian is showing :)

[Pierce Tondry]

Which isn't relevant if Carr has no clue what that policy is, which is why I asked the question.

To criticize knowledgeably is one thing. To criticize when one is pessimistic and underinformed is quite different.

[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.

[Master Yoghurt]

Your Norwegian is showing

Haha, yeah. Sometimes when I read Norwegian and American news sources at once, it tends to confuse me or cause a minor incident of Broca's aphasia :p