It makes 'em republicans. National-socialism is a political ideology. It takes more than the quotes above to make someone a fascist/nazi and although I think that George W. Bush is one of the worst American presidents ever, he's certainly not a nazi.Originally posted by VonDondu
Then what does it make them?
There's two sides to the story'
She says: Lou, it's the Beginning of a Great Adventure
I don't understand why people say that Senator Kerry is "not campaigning". He works on his campaign and talks to the media or potential supporters nearly every day. He nearly always mentions Bush's poor record, whether in passing or in great detail. He has spent millions of dollars on ads so far, and he's going to spend over $10 million more next month. (Or is it $18 million?) That's a lot of money even by Bush's record-breaking standards. Kerry is ahead of Bush in all of the so-called "battleground" states, so I would say that he's doing something right. If he's not running for office, then I don't know who is. 
I guess the problem is that he's not on television 24 hours a day. Even if he were, if people didn't listen to him, then I guess he wouldn't make a sound.
I hate to say it, Fable, but I think you're buying the story the "damn liberal media" is offering instead of looking at the facts. Kerry has a tough job ahead of him to define himself to the nation as a whole because he'll have to work against the false images of him that ignorant reporters are propagating. Someone says that Kerry is "overly cautious" and they all repeat it without bothering to look at Kerry themselves and make their own assessment. "Kerry's campaign is adrift." "Kerry is flip-flopping." On the contrary, I don't think he could be a true war hero or a U.S. Senator if he didn't have motivation, brains, and backbone. He says that he knows what he is up against, and he is prepared to deal with it--on his own terms. The election is over five months away, which is a lifetime in politics. Give him a chance.
In a way, you're right about one thing, though. Kerry WILL move cautiously when it comes to things like Iraq. He's positioning himself as someone who wants to finish the job we started there, as opposed to a "dove" who just wants to pull our troops out immediately. The difference between him and Bush, as he sees it, is that he would try to do things right instead of adhering to failed policies that have caused so many disasters. All of Kerry's advisors initially supported taking action against Saddam Hussein. (However, they didn't want to rush things, they wanted an international coalition, they wanted a plan for peace and a smooth transition to a new Iraqi government, and most of all, they only wanted to go to war as a last resort in the true sense of the term.) Since they essentially support the war and its, uh, current objectives (we can pretty much forget about the original objectives, whatever they were supposed to be), that distinguishes them from the mainstream Democratic Party. If Kerry manages to become President, some things aren't going to change right away. That would bother a lot of Democrats who won't believe that things are changing fast enough. But in that case, they won't be calling him "cautious"; it will probably be something else. You know how those damn Democrats are always stabbing each other in the back.
I guess the problem is that he's not on television 24 hours a day. Even if he were, if people didn't listen to him, then I guess he wouldn't make a sound. I hate to say it, Fable, but I think you're buying the story the "damn liberal media" is offering instead of looking at the facts. Kerry has a tough job ahead of him to define himself to the nation as a whole because he'll have to work against the false images of him that ignorant reporters are propagating. Someone says that Kerry is "overly cautious" and they all repeat it without bothering to look at Kerry themselves and make their own assessment. "Kerry's campaign is adrift." "Kerry is flip-flopping." On the contrary, I don't think he could be a true war hero or a U.S. Senator if he didn't have motivation, brains, and backbone. He says that he knows what he is up against, and he is prepared to deal with it--on his own terms. The election is over five months away, which is a lifetime in politics. Give him a chance.
In a way, you're right about one thing, though. Kerry WILL move cautiously when it comes to things like Iraq. He's positioning himself as someone who wants to finish the job we started there, as opposed to a "dove" who just wants to pull our troops out immediately. The difference between him and Bush, as he sees it, is that he would try to do things right instead of adhering to failed policies that have caused so many disasters. All of Kerry's advisors initially supported taking action against Saddam Hussein. (However, they didn't want to rush things, they wanted an international coalition, they wanted a plan for peace and a smooth transition to a new Iraqi government, and most of all, they only wanted to go to war as a last resort in the true sense of the term.) Since they essentially support the war and its, uh, current objectives (we can pretty much forget about the original objectives, whatever they were supposed to be), that distinguishes them from the mainstream Democratic Party. If Kerry manages to become President, some things aren't going to change right away. That would bother a lot of Democrats who won't believe that things are changing fast enough. But in that case, they won't be calling him "cautious"; it will probably be something else.
You know how those damn Democrats are always stabbing each other in the back.Um, Coot, let's look at the comparison once again. Sojourner gave examples of "misuse of power, being dishonest, manipulating public opinion, etc." and you just said that makes them "Republicans". Republicanism is a political ideology, not a criminal state of mind, and I don't think your remark was fair to Republicans.Originally posted by Coot
It makes 'em republicans...
When I asked "what does it make them", it was not a rhetorical question. I was simply asking you to fill a void. Think of it this way. We know what they aren't (i.e., they aren't Nazis), but do we know what they are? What are they? "Republicans with criminal minds"? "Neocons"? I mean, what would would you say?
If you really think those things make them Republicans, well...okay, I guess. I just want to be sure that's what you really meant.
@VD, I should've included a smiley as well...
I don't think Republicans are crooks. I strongly disagree with their political views and ideology, but of course that's another matter entirely.
I do believe, however, that the current American administration does a lot of things wrong and that a lot of their actions are questionable. On this forum, and in this thread, that may be stating the obvious though.
I don't think Republicans are crooks. I strongly disagree with their political views and ideology, but of course that's another matter entirely.
I do believe, however, that the current American administration does a lot of things wrong and that a lot of their actions are questionable. On this forum, and in this thread, that may be stating the obvious though.
She says: Lou, it's the Beginning of a Great Adventure
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I hate to say it, Fable, but I think you're buying the story the "damn liberal media" is offering instead of looking at the facts.
There is no liberal media of any impress in any market left in the US. When the restrictions on media monopolies were lifted in the early 1980s, nearly all top 100 market leading newspapers and television stations were purchased by one of four major international conservative conglomerates, led by the true media tycoon of the English-speaking world, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch and his imitators have the nasty habit of firing less-than-conservative editorial staff if they don't tow the line--as in one case in Detroit, where the editor-in-chief for fourteen years, who was liberal, refused to adhere to Murdoch's political stance, and was thrown out of his job. Drubbing the "liberal media" in the US is like trying to scratch an amputated leg. There's nothing there but a memory involving greater movement in all directions.
Someone says that Kerry is "overly cautious" and they all repeat it without bothering to look at Kerry themselves and make their own assessment. "Kerry's campaign is adrift." "Kerry is flip-flopping."
I don't care what news models who parade about on television or in newspapers are saying, to be honest. I've been listening to and reading Kerry, not his critics, and it's Kerry to me who's the problem. It's that he's refusing to really, truly attack the government, hitting them hard, endlessly and vigorously, on a whole range of issues upon which it's vulnerable and can be hit. For example, there's the 1997 NeoCon think tank white report made by more than half-a-dozen of the top officials in the current administration, laying out a plan whereby the US would go on the offensive militarily (to the tune of $45 billion defense budget increase) to control the MidEast and the world's supply of oil--Kerry hasn't mentioned it. Kerry hasn't asked repeatedly, as he should, in the strongest language possible, where the link is between terrorism and Iraq. Kerry hasn't asked loudly were those WMDs are. Kerry hasn't asked how the US plans to pay Medicare or Social Security in the next decade when it's so far down in the hole economically that if you listen carefully you can hear the Chinese.
I compare the rhetoric of Kerry with Kennedy, for example, and in the latter case I hear both genuine anger and a well-honed scalpel wiling to savage the administration. When I listen to Kerry, I hear the equivalent of love taps uttered with a pompous delivery that only deadens whatever tiny momentum his comments possess. Show me a fiery, public, national speech by Kerry in which he lashes out at Bush, hammering him passionately and repeatedly with detail and fact for anything Bush has or hasn't done, and I'll be perfectly willing to revise my opinion. Believe me, I'd love to. But thus far, I've found nothing, and I've certainly searched.
There is no liberal media of any impress in any market left in the US. When the restrictions on media monopolies were lifted in the early 1980s, nearly all top 100 market leading newspapers and television stations were purchased by one of four major international conservative conglomerates, led by the true media tycoon of the English-speaking world, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch and his imitators have the nasty habit of firing less-than-conservative editorial staff if they don't tow the line--as in one case in Detroit, where the editor-in-chief for fourteen years, who was liberal, refused to adhere to Murdoch's political stance, and was thrown out of his job. Drubbing the "liberal media" in the US is like trying to scratch an amputated leg. There's nothing there but a memory involving greater movement in all directions.
Someone says that Kerry is "overly cautious" and they all repeat it without bothering to look at Kerry themselves and make their own assessment. "Kerry's campaign is adrift." "Kerry is flip-flopping."
I don't care what news models who parade about on television or in newspapers are saying, to be honest. I've been listening to and reading Kerry, not his critics, and it's Kerry to me who's the problem. It's that he's refusing to really, truly attack the government, hitting them hard, endlessly and vigorously, on a whole range of issues upon which it's vulnerable and can be hit. For example, there's the 1997 NeoCon think tank white report made by more than half-a-dozen of the top officials in the current administration, laying out a plan whereby the US would go on the offensive militarily (to the tune of $45 billion defense budget increase) to control the MidEast and the world's supply of oil--Kerry hasn't mentioned it. Kerry hasn't asked repeatedly, as he should, in the strongest language possible, where the link is between terrorism and Iraq. Kerry hasn't asked loudly were those WMDs are. Kerry hasn't asked how the US plans to pay Medicare or Social Security in the next decade when it's so far down in the hole economically that if you listen carefully you can hear the Chinese.
I compare the rhetoric of Kerry with Kennedy, for example, and in the latter case I hear both genuine anger and a well-honed scalpel wiling to savage the administration. When I listen to Kerry, I hear the equivalent of love taps uttered with a pompous delivery that only deadens whatever tiny momentum his comments possess. Show me a fiery, public, national speech by Kerry in which he lashes out at Bush, hammering him passionately and repeatedly with detail and fact for anything Bush has or hasn't done, and I'll be perfectly willing to revise my opinion. Believe me, I'd love to. But thus far, I've found nothing, and I've certainly searched.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@Fable: Okay, now I see where you're coming from. John Kerry is not the type of person who gives loud, fiery speeches. If you think that makes him unfit to be President, that's your choice.
However, political strategists will tell you (and you can see for yourself) that loud, fiery personalities have not been able to secure Presidential nominations recently. Pat Buchanan was a good example back in 1992, and Howard Dean is the best recent example. Lots of people (including political veteran Al Gore) thought that Dean had the nomination wrapped up before the polls were even open, but when it came time for the caucuses, voters decided that they wanted someone who is "electable" instead. They chose John Kerry. Whether or not you agree with other voters, you can't argue with overwhelming election results in a democracy. And it would be political suicide for Kerry to ignore the obvious conclusion about what it will take to win the upcoming Presidential election.
What Republicans and Democrats are both dealing with are: 1) their base, 2) the other side's base, and 3) swing voters. The U.S. is very polarized right now, so both Bush and Kerry must not lose the support of their base if they want to win the election. They don't intend to steal votes from the other side's base because they know they can't. That makes swing voters very important in this election.
The results of the Democratic primaries show that even though the Democratic base loves to hear people like Howard Dean bash Bush, they would rather support someone like Kerry because he is "electable". Consequently, Kerry is not going to give any speeches that might undermine his "electability". He wants to present himself in the best light to the Democratic base. And needless to say, he doesn't want to offend swing voters.
For comparison, look at Bush's strategy. He is trying very hard to appeal to the Republican base, or at least the religious right. He doesn't expect to win any Democratic votes, so he's blowing that off. That leaves swing voters. Bush is making a political calculation that might seem strange until you consider the polls. Swing voters are likely to support him if he wins the war in Iraq because Americans love it when we kick ass, whatever the cause. But if Americans believe that we are losing the war, they will turn on Bush, no matter what they used to think of the war. Bush is betting that he can convince the American that everything in Iraq is okay (whether it is or not), so he is sticking to his guns.
Kerry is well aware of that, so he intends to let events play themselves out instead of opening his mouth too much. The Kerry campaign was rather annoyed with Al Gore for bashing Bush last week. Given the way that Kerry perceives the dynamics in this country, he doesn't want to inflame Democratic passions all the time because he sees it as a delicate balancing act.
The thing about leaders in this country is that they can't set trends; they have to follow them if they want to retain the support of the people. Bill Clinton honed that to a fine art. Republican leaders rely on a wide variety of voices to set the terms of the debate in this country and, in effect, to keep the public brainwashed and/or complacent. Why is there such a persistent myth that Democrats are not as strong on national defense as Republicans? Why are Democrats perceived as corrupt and immoral while Republicans can do no wrong? It's because Republican voices have remained unified and consistent for the last thirty years, and their message has stuck, regardless of the merits.
John Kerry does have a voice of his own. For example, he created quite a stir back in the early 1970's when, as a war hero, he protested the Vietnam war. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' That line is about as memorable as they come. But he hasn't forgotten the backlash it caused, so now that he wants to become a candidate for national office (rather than a Senator from a small liberal state), he wants to widen his appeal and avoid alienating potential supporters who might like him if he stays away from the hot issues and proves to them that he's right about the less-controversial issues. Like actually giving our troops the support they need instead of saying we're going to support them and then cutting the funds for their pay, equipment, and benefits. When someone screams, you can't really have a conversation like that.
However, political strategists will tell you (and you can see for yourself) that loud, fiery personalities have not been able to secure Presidential nominations recently. Pat Buchanan was a good example back in 1992, and Howard Dean is the best recent example. Lots of people (including political veteran Al Gore) thought that Dean had the nomination wrapped up before the polls were even open, but when it came time for the caucuses, voters decided that they wanted someone who is "electable" instead. They chose John Kerry. Whether or not you agree with other voters, you can't argue with overwhelming election results in a democracy. And it would be political suicide for Kerry to ignore the obvious conclusion about what it will take to win the upcoming Presidential election.
What Republicans and Democrats are both dealing with are: 1) their base, 2) the other side's base, and 3) swing voters. The U.S. is very polarized right now, so both Bush and Kerry must not lose the support of their base if they want to win the election. They don't intend to steal votes from the other side's base because they know they can't. That makes swing voters very important in this election.
The results of the Democratic primaries show that even though the Democratic base loves to hear people like Howard Dean bash Bush, they would rather support someone like Kerry because he is "electable". Consequently, Kerry is not going to give any speeches that might undermine his "electability". He wants to present himself in the best light to the Democratic base. And needless to say, he doesn't want to offend swing voters.
For comparison, look at Bush's strategy. He is trying very hard to appeal to the Republican base, or at least the religious right. He doesn't expect to win any Democratic votes, so he's blowing that off. That leaves swing voters. Bush is making a political calculation that might seem strange until you consider the polls. Swing voters are likely to support him if he wins the war in Iraq because Americans love it when we kick ass, whatever the cause. But if Americans believe that we are losing the war, they will turn on Bush, no matter what they used to think of the war. Bush is betting that he can convince the American that everything in Iraq is okay (whether it is or not), so he is sticking to his guns.
Kerry is well aware of that, so he intends to let events play themselves out instead of opening his mouth too much. The Kerry campaign was rather annoyed with Al Gore for bashing Bush last week. Given the way that Kerry perceives the dynamics in this country, he doesn't want to inflame Democratic passions all the time because he sees it as a delicate balancing act.
The thing about leaders in this country is that they can't set trends; they have to follow them if they want to retain the support of the people. Bill Clinton honed that to a fine art. Republican leaders rely on a wide variety of voices to set the terms of the debate in this country and, in effect, to keep the public brainwashed and/or complacent. Why is there such a persistent myth that Democrats are not as strong on national defense as Republicans? Why are Democrats perceived as corrupt and immoral while Republicans can do no wrong? It's because Republican voices have remained unified and consistent for the last thirty years, and their message has stuck, regardless of the merits.
John Kerry does have a voice of his own. For example, he created quite a stir back in the early 1970's when, as a war hero, he protested the Vietnam war. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' That line is about as memorable as they come. But he hasn't forgotten the backlash it caused, so now that he wants to become a candidate for national office (rather than a Senator from a small liberal state), he wants to widen his appeal and avoid alienating potential supporters who might like him if he stays away from the hot issues and proves to them that he's right about the less-controversial issues. Like actually giving our troops the support they need instead of saying we're going to support them and then cutting the funds for their pay, equipment, and benefits. When someone screams, you can't really have a conversation like that.
Originally posted by VonDondu
Republican leaders rely on a wide variety of voices to set the terms of the debate in this country and, in effect, to keep the public brainwashed and/or complacent. Why is there such a persistent myth that Democrats are not as strong on national defense as Republicans? Why are Democrats perceived as corrupt and immoral while Republicans can do no wrong?
I noticed that. It's worse this time. There are outright lies now being perpetrated in the Press. If Kerry seriously wants to win, he'd better start paying attention.
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Originally posted by VonDondu
@Fable: Okay, now I see where you're coming from. John Kerry is not the type of person who gives loud, fiery speeches. If you think that makes him unfit to be President, that's your choice.
@VonDondu, that's the second time you've used that tactic of putting words in my mouth, the first being when you accused me of criticizing Kerry because I'd supposedly (according to you) been listening to the "liberal media."
I'd really appreciate if there wasn't a third, okay? You brought up Kerry's image in the press, and I replied by criticizing his inability to conduct a decent campaign against Bush. I fail to see where anybody could assume I believe bad speeches equal a bad leader, and implying that is pretty insulting.You are welcome to disagree, but for myself, no candidate I've seen from either party has been fit for the presidential post in quite a very long time; and I get the impression from a number of other people on this board that they may feel the same way. Kerry is to me the lesser of two evils, and that low estimation of mine has nothing to do with his speech-making, and everything to do with 1) his record in Congress, and 2) his willingness to accept the standard US imperialist line.
Prove me wrong. Show me where Kerry did not wholeheartedly back the invasion of Iraq. Show me where he's stated opinions that he'll stand up forcefully to Sharon, and insists that it's US diplomatic, economic and military actions in the MidEast which create terrorists. Reveal to me his complete restructuring of American foreign policy along fresh, innovative lines that don't pit the US against some dark villainous power. Point out to me where he's worked in Congress against the support of incredibly corrupt, vicious regimes which are *still* US client states because they're considered "vital to US interests." Give me a list of initiatives indicating how Kerry plans to free the US from its complete dependency upon fossil fuels. (Carter actually did this right. Unfortunately, Reagan cut alternative energy research out of his budget, and it hasn't been back, since.) Show me his how hard he's worked to remove both the electoral college and partying junkets for Congressional members to Europe paid by lobbying interests.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Fable, I apologize for jumping to conclusions when reading your remarks, which had the unfortunate effect of "putting words in your mouth". I'll try not to do that again.
For what it's worth, I'm not trying to use any "tactics" to argue with anybody, especially not you. We seem to agree on a lot of issues, so I don't want to undermine you. (That would be dumb.) If I were using any sort of "tactics", the question is, what would I be trying to accomplish? The answer, really, is "nothing". They would be tactics without a purpose, which strikes me as pretty useless. All I'm trying to do is comment on other people's posts and introduce ideas of my own. I don't expect to "win" anything. I don't even expect to change anyone's mind. To me, it's just conversation for the sake of conversation. I'm too sleepy/sleep-deprived to get into a real debate on here, but it passes the time. If I misquote you or misunderstand something you've written, just say so, and I'll apologize and we'll go from there. Okay?
My first mistake was in thinking that you might be basing your opinion of Kerry's campaign on the secondhand reports that are commonly reported in the press. People who believe what they read in the newspapers are bound to be misled; it's a sad fact. I said I was "afraid" that might be the basis of your observations, because until you clarified your remarks, I couldn't think of any other reason why you thought that Kerry was "putting people to sleep" or "remaining silent". I've been reading some of the remarks he has made to the press (he gives several interviews a day from what I've read), and he seems to be drawing a lot of cheering crowds, and I didn't have the same impression you do. If this had been a live conversation, I would have asked you why you believed that before offering my own speculation, but that is not particularly convenient on a message board. So I went ahead and posted what I was thinking, which was related to a few other ideas that I was thinking about posting, anyway.
My second mistake was in jumping to the conclusion that you would regard Kerry as unfit for the Presidency if he cannot run a bold campaign or run a bold administration. That's what I meant to say. I admit that my choice of words was poor, but that's what happens when I try to be concise. But you see, if you really believed that, I might actually agree with you. This country needs bold leadership--someone who can unite us behind good ideas instead of bad ones. I'm like you: I haven't seen anyone I'd consider to be fit for the Presidency in a long time.
If I may introduce a new issue, a lot of people are going to vote for Kerry because they regard him as "the lesser of two evils" or because they want to vote for the guy named "Anyone But Bush". That's why I'll vote for Kerry. In other words, a lot of people might vote for Kerry even if they don't like him. So he might replace Bush, and if he does, that will be great, right? But I foresee a disaster in the making. If Kerry is President and the American people don't like him, then our country won't have a leader. Kerry will be criticized for everything he does, and he won't get anything done. Maybe that's better than having a bad President like the one we've got now, but we really need something better than that.
What I'm reading into your remarks is that you hope that Kerry's campaign will come alive and he'll win the election and run a successful administration. I'm hoping for the very same thing for the good of the country.
By the way, when you ask me to "prove you wrong", I can't. I can't take Kerry's words and prove anything about his past actions or future actions, since words are just words. I suspect that, like everyone else elected to office, a lot of his decisions were made as a result of political calculation and offstage wheeling and dealing and not simply on the basis of his stated reasons and principles. People do things for all sorts of reasons besides the words that come out of their mouths. I can't really comment on Kerry's record in Congress because I'm not familiar with it (and I'm sure that a lot of what I've heard misrepresents it), but personally, I suspect that his willingness to toe the "US imperialist line" is the result of posturing to be "strong on national defense" as much as anything else. But I can't be sure.
For what it's worth, I'm not trying to use any "tactics" to argue with anybody, especially not you. We seem to agree on a lot of issues, so I don't want to undermine you. (That would be dumb.) If I were using any sort of "tactics", the question is, what would I be trying to accomplish? The answer, really, is "nothing". They would be tactics without a purpose, which strikes me as pretty useless.
All I'm trying to do is comment on other people's posts and introduce ideas of my own. I don't expect to "win" anything. I don't even expect to change anyone's mind. To me, it's just conversation for the sake of conversation. I'm too sleepy/sleep-deprived to get into a real debate on here, but it passes the time. If I misquote you or misunderstand something you've written, just say so, and I'll apologize and we'll go from there. Okay?My first mistake was in thinking that you might be basing your opinion of Kerry's campaign on the secondhand reports that are commonly reported in the press. People who believe what they read in the newspapers are bound to be misled; it's a sad fact. I said I was "afraid" that might be the basis of your observations, because until you clarified your remarks, I couldn't think of any other reason why you thought that Kerry was "putting people to sleep" or "remaining silent". I've been reading some of the remarks he has made to the press (he gives several interviews a day from what I've read), and he seems to be drawing a lot of cheering crowds, and I didn't have the same impression you do. If this had been a live conversation, I would have asked you why you believed that before offering my own speculation, but that is not particularly convenient on a message board. So I went ahead and posted what I was thinking, which was related to a few other ideas that I was thinking about posting, anyway.
My second mistake was in jumping to the conclusion that you would regard Kerry as unfit for the Presidency if he cannot run a bold campaign or run a bold administration. That's what I meant to say. I admit that my choice of words was poor, but that's what happens when I try to be concise.
But you see, if you really believed that, I might actually agree with you. This country needs bold leadership--someone who can unite us behind good ideas instead of bad ones. I'm like you: I haven't seen anyone I'd consider to be fit for the Presidency in a long time.If I may introduce a new issue, a lot of people are going to vote for Kerry because they regard him as "the lesser of two evils" or because they want to vote for the guy named "Anyone But Bush". That's why I'll vote for Kerry. In other words, a lot of people might vote for Kerry even if they don't like him. So he might replace Bush, and if he does, that will be great, right? But I foresee a disaster in the making. If Kerry is President and the American people don't like him, then our country won't have a leader. Kerry will be criticized for everything he does, and he won't get anything done. Maybe that's better than having a bad President like the one we've got now, but we really need something better than that.
What I'm reading into your remarks is that you hope that Kerry's campaign will come alive and he'll win the election and run a successful administration. I'm hoping for the very same thing for the good of the country.
By the way, when you ask me to "prove you wrong", I can't. I can't take Kerry's words and prove anything about his past actions or future actions, since words are just words. I suspect that, like everyone else elected to office, a lot of his decisions were made as a result of political calculation and offstage wheeling and dealing and not simply on the basis of his stated reasons and principles. People do things for all sorts of reasons besides the words that come out of their mouths. I can't really comment on Kerry's record in Congress because I'm not familiar with it (and I'm sure that a lot of what I've heard misrepresents it), but personally, I suspect that his willingness to toe the "US imperialist line" is the result of posturing to be "strong on national defense" as much as anything else. But I can't be sure.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
In other words, a lot of people might vote for Kerry even if they don't like him. So he might replace Bush, and if he does, that will be great, right? But I foresee a disaster in the making. If Kerry is President and the American people don't like him, then our country won't have a leader. Kerry will be criticized for everything he does, and he won't get anything done. Maybe that's better than having a bad President like the one we've got now, but we really need something better than that.
I think we have a situation right now where the media is so unrepresentative and far to the right (in general) that anyone other than a NeoCon or a conservative is going to torn to pieces by the so-called entertainers who fake having facts and sling mud ad infinitum. If Kerry gets elected, they have a vested interest in his failure with the public, since it makes them look better and raises their ratings.
As for Kerry, I sincerely hope I'm wrong in my judgements, but what I've seen thus far leads me to believe he would administer foreign policy much as his predecessors (with the exception of Shrub) have, using all the same assumptions that have led us repeatedly into political quagmires. He *does* have a gift for consensus, but achieving consensus with a Congress dominated by aggressive Republicans isn't the best way to accomplish anything, as Clinton proved when they set the impeachment trap for him.
I think we have a situation right now where the media is so unrepresentative and far to the right (in general) that anyone other than a NeoCon or a conservative is going to torn to pieces by the so-called entertainers who fake having facts and sling mud ad infinitum. If Kerry gets elected, they have a vested interest in his failure with the public, since it makes them look better and raises their ratings.
As for Kerry, I sincerely hope I'm wrong in my judgements, but what I've seen thus far leads me to believe he would administer foreign policy much as his predecessors (with the exception of Shrub) have, using all the same assumptions that have led us repeatedly into political quagmires. He *does* have a gift for consensus, but achieving consensus with a Congress dominated by aggressive Republicans isn't the best way to accomplish anything, as Clinton proved when they set the impeachment trap for him.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.