The Official US President Election Thread

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

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).

I guess you... er... like the Democrats?

[The Gaffer]

I don't really know enough about their policies to say I like them, it's more a question of being appalled by the other lot.

[Nurvingiel]

Ah, excellent point. Actually this applies to me too. I want John Kerry to win because I really don't like Bush, and Kerry seems like a decent fellow so he won't be a bad president. Actually, Bush isn't a bad president in every way, but I don't trust him as far as I can throw him (which would be a couple of meters probably ) so I'm willing to risk it one someone new.

[Janny]

Okay fair enough Gaffer... I certainly hiave a high opinion of BBC news on radio; I'm very fond of both Radio 4 and 5. The news on radio is far less sensationalised than on TV, so it appears to me at least a little less biased. I think it's far to use sunny's term that the BBC is 'soft-left'.

Certainly Channel 4 is the most in-depth of TV news (with the exception of BBC's Newnight [again, a fan]) but C4 news is pretty damn left. If it misspelt its captions, I'd call it the Guardian of TV news...

Yeah, you're right about the respective conventions, but I think that might have been more of an incumbant president thing than a political bias. Again, to see coverage of Rep Con you needed to watch Newsnight.

[The Gaffer]

I think the BBC does a pretty good job of being apolitical, and they give everyone an equally hard time. If they seem soft-left, it's probably because all the major political parties are soft-right or hard-right.

Originally Posted by Janny

Certainly Channel 4 is the most in-depth of TV news (with the exception of BBC's Newnight [again, a fan]) but C4 news is pretty damn left. If it misspelt its captions, I'd call it the Guardian of TV news...

Newsnight's on too late for me these days. Well knackered by 10 with these night feeds.

Originally Posted by Janny

Yeah, you're right about the respective conventions, but I think that might have been more of an incumbant president thing than a political bias. Again, to see coverage of Rep Con you needed to watch Newsnight.

You mean the Dem Con?

Anyhow, what scares me about Bush is that they don't even bother to hide the strings these days. (e.g. him needing Cheney to hold his hand in the 9/11 commission.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

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.

Well more accurately the problem that kerry faces is trying to engage bush on the war at all. because its really an impossible task for him. the republicans are doing a good job of convincing many americans that a vote for kerry is a vote for the terrorists because any break in leadership will weaken us in the world according to them. but kerry keeps butting his head up against this wall for some reason. hes been doing a slightly better job lately bringing up domestic issues and exposing the facade that is the bush administration (a vehicle for the rich and big business) but bush counters with the whole values thing which brings the populace running back to him as soon as they begin to worry about big oil and the screwing over of the middle class. If the economy was truly weak then bush would have his hands full because he would be struggling to convince people hey its gonna get better dont worry. but the economy, although not booming, is lumbering along at a good enough pace that most people arent terribly concerned and therefore bush can push the TERRORISM and VALUES buttons non stop till November 2.

I heard a talking head on a news show the other day say that when the economy is bad people act more liberal and get more outraged about policies that favor the rich because they see that they THEMSELVS could become the poor. but when the economy is good people act more conservative because they see themselves as possibly becoming rich. so perks and breaks for the rich seem more inviting to them. and less corrupt and unfair. the attitude is generally hey screw the poor. times are good. or when times are bad hey help the poor! i could be one soon!

finally, as much as i would like bush out of a position of power at this point Im really concerned that Kerry isnt the man to do it. americans simply dont see him as firm and committed and containing any substance whatsoever. they see him generally as a decent enough guy but a pure politician and a back climber who will say what he has to say to get elected. the republicans have done a very good job painting him as a guy who is full of hot air and who will say or do whatever it takes at any given moment to get an extra point here or there. the democrats really need a John McCain type who gives the impression that damn the polls and the winds of popularity Ill follow what I feel is right and true. That the office itself is bigger then the man who runs for it. That its not simply about getting elected but standing firm for what you believe in. of course a guy like this hasnt a chance of getting elected in america in the near future. he would quickly be painted as a left wing wack job out of touch with most of america who would damage the country with his radical and stubborn ideas. so what can you do. you push a competent but empty shell like kerry out there and hope he develops along the way and stops spinning like a top in the wind. dont know if its working though. I really think the approach needs to be hey this guy has some great thoughts. I want to follow him. Not hey this guy might actually be palatable enough to actually win. How can we make him look even better??

[Janny]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You mean the Dem Con?

Nah, Rep Con. To get actual coverage of the things that were interesting you had to watch Newsnight. To get the real stuff, you had to get the transcripts from CNN...

Mind you... there was still stuff about Dem Con... 'reporting for doody' ring any bells?

[The Gaffer]

Yeah, but that was about all we got on mainstream news. The Rep Con got endless flip-flops, their excellent (if rather radical) policy idea for a French veto over US foreign policy and Don King doing what he does best apart from Dick Cheney (incoherent ranting).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yeah, but that was about all we got on mainstream news. The Rep Con got endless flip-flops, their excellent (if rather radical) policy idea for a French veto over US foreign policy

How is that a flip flop? Kerry has in several speeches has said that he would only take action with approval from France, Germany and the UN. I have stated that here way before the Republican National Convention and I will not support a president who gives foreign powers veto power over our national security. Of course Kerry keeps changing his story - so based on which day you listen to him - you'll get something else.

As far as I'm concerned - Guiliani gave the best speech.

[Nurvingiel]

Hey JD, don't be a stranger eh?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I heard a talking head on a news show the other day say that when the economy is bad people act more liberal and get more outraged about policies that favor the rich because they see that they THEMSELVS could become the poor. but when the economy is good people act more conservative because they see themselves as possibly becoming rich. so perks and breaks for the rich seem more inviting to them. and less corrupt and unfair. the attitude is generally hey screw the poor. times are good. or when times are bad hey help the poor! i could be one soon!

That's a good observation IR. Obviously you can't say this about everyone, but I think this applies to Canada as well. There is a certain subset of the population (as I'm sure there is in the US as well) that will always say don't screw the poor no matter what the economy is like.

I don't think Kerry seems like a bad guy at all. But I don't know much about either him or Bush. So, a call to the politically knowledgeable. Why is your candidate good? I want the cold, hard facts, if there are any. Feel free to speak up for indipendant candidates as well. Perhaps I've already asked this, but can indies become president? JD explained the Senate and Presidents to me before, but that was more about minority governments (or lack thereof).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think Kerry seems like a bad guy at all. But I don't know much about either him or Bush. So, a call to the politically knowledgeable. Why is your candidate good? I want the cold, hard facts, if there are any. Feel free to speak up for indipendant candidates as well.

I support Bush because I understand what he is trying to accomplish in the Middle East. Whether France or Germany or the Un supports that is not our problem. We can't wait for them when it comes to our national security and the only way to defeat terrorism is go change the Middle East. Kerry would put our national security into the hands of the likes of France and the UN. The same people who said that the arms build was terrible and Reagan was going to get us into World War III are now bitching about Bush. I wonder how many times France can be wrong before people stop listening to them and worrying about what they think.

If you want to see what Bush is actually trying to accomplish, whether you agree with it or not - then you just have to check out Thomas Barnett's speech he gave about the Middle East and the fight against terrorism. I had seen his speech on CSPAN, and you can watch it for free off his site or order the DVD. I also have his book - "The Pentagon's New Map" which I am reading.

Whether people want to accept it or not - Iraq was and is a key piece to combatting muslim terrorism, whether they had WMD or not, which EVERYONE believed that Iraq had it. There are several people I don't trust - Chirac, Schroeder and I do NOT trust the UN. And Putin I do not completely trust, although I do think he's better than Chirac or Schroeder, but only barely. Also - I do NOT trust the new "government" in Spain.

Has everything gone perfectly well in the fight against terrorism? Of course not - not everything went right during the Civil War, during the Revolution or during World War II and this war is no different - just a different enemy.

Perhaps I've already asked this, but can indies become president?

Of course they can become president - if they get the votes. It's more difficult to win under the independant party because less people support the independant parties. The independant parties are fringe groups. In the last elections the Libertarians and the Green Party had a large following, this election - they're hardly a consideration. Independant parties grow by moving from the local stage, to the state level to the national level.

JD explained the Senate and Presidents to me before, but that was more about minority governments (or lack thereof).

We only have one government - regardless of who or what party is in office and that's the US government. It's not like Europe where you can say "the new government". If that is said in terms of the United States then our country has been overthrown and our Constitution no longer exists.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Whether people want to accept it or not - Iraq was and is a key piece to combatting muslim terrorism, whether they had WMD or not, which EVERYONE believed that Iraq had it.

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. That kind of thinking has created the ideal conditions for fomenting terrorism in Iraq. This neoconservative "project" for democratising the Middle East was a post-hoc rationalisation once the WMD fig leave had shrivelled and dropped.

There are many other hypotheses for that particular intervention which have far more credibility than yours, such as the "kick his ass, grab the gas" one. They also have the advantage of being backed up by all the evidence of their behaviour to date.

As for France having a veto over US foreign policy, the only people who are talking about that are Republicans.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. That kind of thinking has created the ideal conditions for fomenting terrorism in Iraq. This neoconservative "project" for democratising the Middle East was a post-hoc rationalisation once the WMD fig leave had shrivelled and dropped.

It was not an adhoc thing at all. Sorry if your news only stated PART of what Bush was saying and that Blair only concentrated on the WMD aspect of the whole thing. Here WMD was NOT the only justification for the war.

For an example of how certain news media twist the facts - look at the argument of "bin ladin had no association with Hussein". That actually isn't true - and the 9/11 Commission states that. There had been quite a few contacts initiated by BOTH bin Ladin and Hussein. The 9/11 commision stated that the only reason bin Ladin didn't take up Hussein's offer of allowing them to set up house in Iraq was because he was safe in Afganistan. AFTER the war in Afganistan - there was another attempt to make contact between the two groups.

What Bush did in Iraq needed to be done along time ago.

There are many other hypotheses for that particular intervention which have far more credibility than yours, such as the "kick his ass, grab the gas" one. They also have the advantage of being backed up by all the evidence of their behaviour to date.

The grab the gas one one is the most assinine arguments out there. For one thing we could have done what France and Germany wanted - which was a lot cheaper - and that is lift sanctions and just welcome Hussein back with open arms. You want to talk about being interested in the oil - look at the under handed deals France, Germany and Russia had with Hussein during the whole episode of the sanctions. The look for the scandals with the Oil for Food program. Oh yeah - I forgot - liberals don't like to think that the UN has any scandals and therefore that is hardly talked about at all.

As for France having a veto over US foreign policy, the only people who are talking about that are Republicans.

Of course they're the only ones talking about it - becausde Kerry has already COME OUT and said that he wouldn't do anything without the approval of France.

I don't expect to change your opinion and you aren't going to change mine. But I wish that you would stop just going by the limited news you've obviously gotten.

[The Gaffer]

You're right to cite those deals as part of the reason for the war. Saddam was going to sell his oil in euros, and not dollars. That was part of his crime.

What you don't point out is that most of them were on hold until after sanctions were lifted; others were part of the UN oil-for-food programme. You also fail to note the shady dealings that went on prior to the invasion as the US oil companies carved up the Iraqi oil fields amongst themselvesin advance.

There was enormous political pressure from the Bush administration to provide "evidence" for their intervention. Back in 2002 they reassigned thousands of intelligence personnel AWAY from the hunt for Bin Laden onto Iraq. They didn't listen to CIA warnings about terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, then they pressurised them into providing evidence to support the invasion of Iraq afterwards. During the war, we had private Jessica Lynch, media blackout on funerals for service personnel, etc.

Bush and his cronies have consistently manipulated information in this war, right from the start and at every conceivable level, and to an extent that has never been seen before.

You make a fair comment on believing limited media coverage; as I'm sure you're aware, part of that filtration process is to try to establish the truth behind what the politicians are saying. That's what good journalism is all about.

However, the same would apply, in spades, to believing what the 9/11 Commission says about Bin Laden's thoughts. Even if it's true, that's pretty tenuous to say the least.

Let's test your hypothesis that this Project to democratise the Middle East was declared in the open. How many people here thought this was the main justification given for the Iraq war (not the threat from WMDs, not bringing liberty to an oppressed people)? How many thought it was a justification, if not the main one? And how many would still have supported the war if they had been told it was part of a policy to democratise the Middle East by force of arms?

[Snowdog]

Bush and his cronies have consistently manipulated information in this war, right from the start and at every conceivable level, and to an extent that has never been seen before.

You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, how is Bush doing this?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, how is Bush doing this?

Dan Rather must've said so...

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Dan Rather must've said so...

Hahahahahahah ahaha haha!

[Valandil]

One thing that frustrates me as we come to this election is the polls. Lately, the news will give the results of a recent poll and say that the margin of error is +/- 4% or something like that. And I'm thinking... "then why BOTHER??" Why do they even TAKE a poll in a relatively close election year that will have such a large margin of error due to its small sampling size? And if someone DOES take such a poll, how does it qualify as 'news'?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Dan Rather must've said so...

Heh heh.

Well, at the top level, we had the CIA being instructed to find evidence to support policy (rather than the other way around). At the detailed level, we've incredibly detailed media management, such as the Jessica Lynch episode, which was cynically stage-managed to create a Hollywood-style heroic rescue.

There are any number of examples in between.

[The Gaffer]

Fair point about polls, V. The margins for error are pretty meaningless. The only poll that counts is the one on November 2nd.

Sorry, I was reading back through this thread and couldn't resist it: how's this for a flip-flop:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

GW Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

GW Bush, 3/13/02