The Official US President Election Thread

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Rian

Did anyone else besides me hear about how homosexual advocates were not allowed to bring signs into the Democratic convention because of "security reasons"? Do we have some hypocrisy going on here? I doubt that homosexual issues play well in some of those swing states.

It's not hypocritical in the least; it's smart politics that takes away a weapon that the right-wing media would use against him to distort his positions. Kerry is against gay marriage, and signs promoting it could've been used, as you said, in some swing states. It would have been easy to give an erroneous impression of Kerry's views just by showing such footage. They avoided that by keeping everyone, speakers and delegates, on-message to a remarkable degree, especially for Democrats. Kerry's position, as you may know, is that the Constitution should not be amended for such partisan issues. He believes that the states should deal with gay marriage, as they do under current law. He even alluded to this in his convention speech, so I don't see that he's really hiding from it.

Take a look at who the Republicans are featuring: Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger. They are liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay Republicans. As you know, these positions are more associated with the Democratic Party. The Democrats didn't hide Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton from prime time. I suspect, however, that Republicans will be hiding Tom DeLay from prime-time. Remember the 2000 GOP convention, when there were more blacks and Hispanics in front of the podium than in the audience? They paraded every GOP official of color, from dogcatcher on up. The Democrats aren't afraid to put their real face forward - why are the Republicans?

I'd like to compare the keynote speakers from each party with regard to their position on gay marriage. The Democratic platform and presidential candidate position: personally against gay marriage, against federal constitutional amendment: 4 out of 4 (100%) major speakers (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Kerry) were in agreement with that. The Republican platform and presidential candidate position: personally against gay marriage, for federal constitutional amendment. 1 out of 5 (20%) major speakers (Giuliani, McCain, Schwarzenegger, Cheney, Bush) agree with with that.*

Gay marriage is a wedge issue. The Republicans are hiding from their own wedge issue. Only one of their headlining speakers (the president himself) supports the party platform on this issue. I find it hypocritical to make the amendment such a key issue and then ignore it at the convention.

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Seriously, the Dems sold out the Greens, so Nader is the right choice for you, otherwise you're just going to vote for another rich corporate guy.

Well, I hope the Green Party members realize that their own nominee is David Cobb, not Ralph Nader. Cobb, incidentally, is running a "safe-states" campaign because the Green Party knows that their first priority is ousting Bush. Nader is another wealthy man who accepts corporate money. Bush, Nader, what's the difference?

*I'm not sure if Giuliani or McCain is considered the "keynote speaker" for the night, so I just included 'em both. If this disturbs you, change my figure to 1 out of 4 instead of 1 out of 5. Same difference.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

It's not hypocritical in the least; it's smart politics that takes away a weapon that the right-wing media would use against him to distort his positions. Kerry is against gay marriage, and signs promoting it could've been used, as you said, in some swing states...

I realize that different Dems have different positions and are still Democrats, just as different Reps have different positions and are still Republicans. I'm glad people aren't clones. What I objected to was that people were not allowed to bring in signs about something that is in the Democratic platform (page 36 near the bottom). Kerry can choose his own positions. I don't expect him to hold up a sign supporting gay/les issues if he doesn't support them. What I do think is hypocritical is that other Dems who have chosen their positions in line with the Democratic platform were not allowed to bring in signs. And if the Reps don't allow signs on things that are in their platform, then I'll level the same charge against them.

Gay marriage is a wedge issue. The Republicans are hiding from their own wedge issue. Only one of their headlining speakers (the president himself) supports the party platform on this issue. I find it hypocritical to make the amendment such a key issue and then ignore it at the convention.

Since when you wrote this, the convention hadn't even started, we'll have to wait and see if they "ignore it at the convention". I expect Bush will mention it. But naturally both sides will emphasize what they think are their strongest points. It's "smart politics".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

They paraded every GOP official of color, from dogcatcher on up.

BTW, doesn't Bush have the most racially diverse cabinet in history? No dogcatchers there ... give him some credit.

[Mercutio]

Here are some some articles (#1, #2, #3) about the authenticity of the documents "60 Minutes" used in their story about Bush in the National Guard.

The documents in question (that show that Bush received special treatment in the Air Nat'l Guard) have been analyzed by experts in typography who have decided that they would not have been produced in 1973 (the dates of the documents). For example, the "th" after 111 was superscript and the document used proportional spacing (an "i" gets less space than a "m", for example)--the experts agreed the document was made on a computer, not a 1973 typewriter. The wife of the officer who supposedly signed the documents also disputes their authenticity.

CBS & Dan Rather stand by the documents and their report on 60 Minutes.

[Insidious Rex]

this is such a silly issue. both the swift boat lies and now this. cant we just talk about real issues? whats with the eternal fascination with vietnam?

seems to me kerry is on his heals now. i dont understand WHY he doesnt talk about what hes going to do thats gonna be better then bush instead of playing defense about stupid issues that arent going to get him elected anyway. basically the republicans have succeeded in making the election into a one horse deal: vote republican or youll DIE! and of course americans reaction to this is AH! ok! and then kerry turns around and says oh wait a minute i can do good in iraq! really! i can fight terrorists too! really! look at me! hey look at me! these are MY issues too! when really he should be pouring himself ALL over the domestic issues more then anything. pointing out what he WILL do that will make things better then what bush will do. bush has said squat about policy (domestic) and why should he since all he has to do is open his mouth and say "terrorist" and he gets more votes. so i dont see why kerry isnt invading this vaccum with REAL substantive details about how crappy things domestically will be better when he does A and B and C. then bush would have to engage him on those things and kerry would be in much better position to make some direct hits since bush's domestic agenda is pretty much a smoke and mirrors affair.

[Janny]

I'm a sixteen year old boy and I can see people disagree with Bush. How hard can it be to produce some popularist policies to get the guy out? If I can see it, you can see, he should be able to see it, and one wonders why, if he can't see it, why is he standing to become president of the United States?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

How hard can it be to produce some popularist policies to get the guy out? If I can see it, you can see, he should be able to see it, and one wonders why, if he can't see it, why is he standing to become president of the United States?

Are you talking about Kerry here? Nevermind I see that you are. I didn't realize you were responding to IR at first.

[Janny]

What the flip-flopping, denying that national security is a problem, having a campaign fought for him by Michael Moore no-hoper? Yeah.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

What the flip-flopping, denying that national security is a problem, having a campaign fought for him by Michael Moore no-hoper? Yeah.

I figured you were talking about the candidate who would give France, Germany and the UN veto power over US National Security. For a 16 year old in Britain who probably doesn't get much unfiltered news concerning the US elections - you're very smart about them and Kerry.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I figured you were talking about the candidate who would give France, Germany and the UN veto power over US National Security. For a 16 year old in Britain who probably doesn't get much unfiltered news concerning the US elections - you're very smart about them and Kerry.

Somebody's been listening to Zell Miller.

Basically, I don't get much un-'reded' news on the election, and my opinions are quite basic.

1) America is not evil, and in no way derserved to be attacked, especially not for reasons given in the UK such as 'cultural depravity'. (I think that's a great hypocrisy on behalf of the lefties who say it... anyway)

2) America did not start the war on terrorism and deserves to be given the oppotunity to defend herself.

3) The Republicans have made mistakes in their dealing with the post 9/11 world. However, unlike the Democrats, or left wingers in general, they accept that there is a problem that will not go away by inactivity.

4) The worst situation politically for the world that occurred after 9/11 was the election in Spain. Terrorism succeeded and holds power over the Spainish people, if merely by saying that the Spanish have earnt not to be attacked.

America is the world's most powerful nation. But who needs defending from whom? And who are actually superior?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Here are some some articles about the authenticity of the documents "60 Minutes" used in their story about Bush in the National Guard...

So Dan Rather gets a story on "60 left-wing minutes" based on a single document, which is looking more and more like a forgery, while over THREE HUNDRED swift boat veterans get ignored by "60 minutes" and similar shows until the conservative press airs their story?

Sheesh.

And I strongly object to this quote from Merc's article #2 - "Mr. President, why did you lie to the American people?" said Terry McAuliffe. "Why did you tell us that you received no special treatment? Why did you say that you had served honourably in the Air National Guard?"

Mr. McAuliffe would NOT say "honoUrably"; he'd say "honorably"!
*sends a Moothug to her friends who like to add extra letters to words *



EDIT - sorry, I think I got the numbers wrong - I think it's "only" over 250, not 300. Not that it's a big difference. 250 is a huge number.

[Mercutio]

I guess this is where to put it [I don't want to start a new thread unless this goes past one or two posts]...where do you learn about the current news, Janny? Aren't the UK papers pretty...low key I suppose is what I'm getting at. I mean our average newspaper in the U.S. might contain more news that's continued day over day and less tabloid type stories (one day only sensational stuff, such as the Sun) than the higher quality newspapers in the UK.

Did that make any sense?

Are our local newspapers about equal to the Evening Telegraph, for example? And the NY Times would be million times more...hmm...I think I'm just confusing everyone.

Anybody know what I mean?

[Nurvingiel]

When is the election anyway? It seems like campaigning has been going on for quite a while. How long does the campaigning usually last?
Not a lot of news about the United States in Sweden (none that I understand anyway ) (I don't speak Swedish... yet... )

[Valandil]

November 2 this year, I think. The US elections are held the Tuesday after the first Monday of November - which always places them from the 2nd to the 8th. I"d guess that this is to keep them off 'All Saints Day' - November 1.

Yes - the campaign season justs gets interminably longer, time after time.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Valandil

November 2 this year, I think. The US elections are held the Tuesday after the first Monday of November - which always places them from the 2nd to the 8th. I"d guess that this is to keep them off 'All Saints Day' - November 1.

On Tuesday? In Spain, elections always take place on Sundays in order not to loose working days...

hehe, but I'm thinking now that there may be another reason: if we were going to have elections a day after All Hallows, I'm sure lots of people would take an extra-long vacation and would not go to vote.

... we're sooo democratical

[Janny]

Sorry... not really following...
Our local papers are very local; two or three towns. We don't really have evening papers, I think you're getting at The Evening Standard which is published (I believe) in London only. I think this may be the only local evening paper left in England (they tend not to be profitable), with the possible exception of Manchester.

The lines between tabloids and broadsheets in the UK are pretty clear, even though broadsheets have recently started printed editions in compact form, just to confuse kids.
The basic difference is that broadsheets hide the fact that all their arguments are based on prejudice (left and right) and are very good at justifying the use of pictures (usually savoury) of pretty girls. Headlines in tabloids however tend to begin the word 'busty'.

Sorry, really forgot the question there... oh right... news comes mainly through the TV now to be fair. The BBC is quite left wing, whereas Channel Four is... well you'd expect the theme tune to be 'The Red Flag'.

The Elections are on the 2nd November, the same day as my school photos. And the day before is the day Seinfeld series 1, 2 and 3 come out on DVD in the UK. Woot! Finally!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

November 2 this year, I think. The US elections are held the Tuesday after the first Monday of November - which always places them from the 2nd to the 8th. I"d guess that this is to keep them off 'All Saints Day' - November 1.

Yes - the campaign season justs gets interminably longer, time after time.

Yeah, I think Canadian and American polititians started campaigning for their respective elections around the same time, but ours was in July. After a while, people will have made up their minds, and there isn't anything more to say. I think that time has come and gone for you guys, vote already!

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Not a lot of news about the United States in Sweden (none that I understand anyway ) (I don't speak Swedish... yet... )

I can assure you - when you've learnt to speak the language, you'll see the news everywhere . I think the media here covers the elections quite well.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I guess this is where to put it [I don't want to start a new thread unless this goes past one or two posts]...where do you learn about the current news, Janny? Aren't the UK papers pretty...low key I suppose is what I'm getting at. I mean our average newspaper in the U.S. might contain more news that's continued day over day and less tabloid type stories (one day only sensational stuff, such as the Sun) than the higher quality newspapers in the UK.

Did that make any sense?

Are our local newspapers about equal to the Evening Telegraph, for example? And the NY Times would be million times more...hmm...I think I'm just confusing everyone.

Anybody know what I mean?

Not really, but that never stopped me trying to explain

As Janny said, our local papers are very local and carry only local news - "Dog bites man in Canterbury" that kind of thing.

Main news comes from national newspapers, which are divided as Janny explained into broadsheets and tabloids. I think from what you said that you've heard that British newspapers are very sensational, is that right? (by low-key, did you mean low-brow?) Some newspapers are like that, but it is not true of the broadsheets. Janny's (mostly) kidding about the pretty girls and prejudice. We have several very good, very serious, very intelligent newspapers, and that's where I personally get my news from (I haven't been following the US election, though it's been getting a lot of coverage). The idea that all British papers are tabloid trash is a myth.

TV news is pretty much as Janny said - BBC soft-left, Channel 4 a bit lefter, ITV just rubbish. I do love the BBC though. They really aren't as biased as some people claim.


You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Janny

Sorry, really forgot the question there... oh right... news comes mainly through the TV now to be fair. The BBC is quite left wing, whereas Channel Four is... well you'd expect the theme tune to be 'The Red Flag'.

You're right in that our news agenda is pretty much set by TV these days. (However, radio is an important news source for me.) That's a real shame, because I think it's much easier for politicians to manipulate TV news than newspapers.

Janny, you'll be surprised that I totally disagree with your comment that the BBC is left-wing. I'd like to see your reasons for believing that. Channel 4 news is just about the only decent, in-depth prime-time news coverage we get on the telly.

Back on topic: the coverage we get is very much filtered. We got virtually nothing on the Democratic convention, then loads of stuff from the Republican convention. The impression we get is that it's all about personalities and sound bites, not about policies. I'm sure that most voters would prefer to see discussion of policies, but the fact is that sound bites matter. It seems to me that the Republicans are winning this dirty war hands down.

IMO, the problem Kerry has, and the Democrats in general have had for the last 2-3 years, is that if put forward the real arguments against Bush, they'll have to say that their president took the country to war under false pretences. No-one wants to believe that about their own leader, so it's a very hard sell.

More generally, there's a real contrast between how the Democrats behave towards the Republican president (they seem to respect the office regardless of the occupant) with how the Republicans behaved towards the Democratic president (they went hell for leather to sabotage his presidency by whatever means possible).