The american presidential election

[Schoeler 0]

Starting in November the race is on. Can Bush recover from his abysmally low 52% apporval rating? Can the Democrats come up with a viable candidate? What about John McCain? Will he jump parties or become an independent and run again? Will America see through the glizty ads and high dollar campaigns after a sobering war has woken them up?

[blackdog~ 0]

you sound like one of those classic 60's movie endings where they tell you to wait till _insert time when sequel is released here_

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Starting in November the race is on.

Not again!

Quote[/b] ]Can Bush recover from his abysmally low 52% apporval rating?

Probably: no doubt he's got something special planned for 9/11/01's anniversary that will fry my circuits.

Quote[/b] ]the Democrats come up with a viable candidate?

Doubtful. Kerry's the smart bet, but his policies and track record are vanilla at best, and spotty at worst. Lieberman's a moralizing geezer, Edwards doesn't have the chutzpah, Gephardt's been a loser for so long that he doesn't even remember what 'win' means, and Howard Dean... well, you know, 48-2 and all that. The rest of them could make a damn good sketch comedy team, though.

Quote[/b] ]What about John McCain? Will he jump parties or become an independent and run again?

No. I'd vote for him if he did, though. I respect that guy more than any other man in the Senate, and not just because he has one of the worst attendance records

Quote[/b] ]Will America see through the glizty ads and high dollar campaigns after a sobering war has woken them up?

Of course not- we won remember? We found WMDs in the scientist guy's yard, we kicked Al-Qaeda out of Iraq for good, and Saddam Hussein's sons are dead!

[Major Fubar 0]

It's a similar situation to what we have here in Australia - Australians are pissed off with our PM John Howard about being lied to over the reasons for going in to Iraq.

My personal opinion: I would love to see Bush, Blair and Howard blasted out of office at the next elections, but honestly, I can't see it. People can only maintain righteous anger over being lied to for so long, then they revert to the same lazy, non-caring slobs who don't seem to rub their two brain cells together before they vote.

At least here in Australia we have compulsory voting, which seems to be less susceptible to getting a biased vote than elective voting. When you force people to the booth, sure you get a certain percentage of uniformed voters who just close their eyes and tick a box at random, but I believe you get a better representation of the whole cross section of society. It's funny really - I used to be dead against compulsory voting, until I had a closer look at the American system.

[theavonlady 2]

@ Sep. 10 2003,09:29)]

Will America see through the glizty ads and high dollar campaigns after a sobering war has woken them up?

Of course not- we won remember? We found WMDs in the scientist guy's yard, we kicked Al-Qaeda out of Iraq for good, and Saddam Hussein's sons are dead!

I don't think many people are going to buy these lines, no matter how much glitz you shmeer on it.

The big problem, as already pointed out, is what's the alternative?

Indeed, Sen. McCaine would have my vote.

[theavonlady 2]

It's a similar situation to what we have here in Australia - Australians are pissed off with our PM John Howard about being lied to over the reasons for going in to Iraq.

Did he outright lie or was he assuming that what Washington says must be right?

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I would vote for Mr Letterman if he was a candidate. I really would.

[theavonlady 2]

I would vote for Mr Letterman if he was a candidate. I really would.

And I always thought of you as the mascot of the Democatic Party.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I would vote for Mr Letterman if he was a candidate. I really would.

And I always thought of you as the mascot of the Democatic Party.  

Oh Im sorry, you must be confusing me with the dancing cats.

[ralphwiggum 6]

It's been awhile since i banned someone.

Quote[/b] ]Can Bush recover from his abysmally low 52% apporval rating?

depends. if the economy picks up reasonably. meaning people can actually feel the economy coming back, then yes. Voters will let incumbent stay as long as he can feed them good, and with economic situation like right now, it is a bit murky for Bush.

He can wave the 9-11 flag, but i wonder how much of that will be offset by the current war in Iraq. with questionable results from the war, and lack of WMD, people would start suspecting the motive. However, most Americans do not care about international news unless it is something spectacular.

Quote[/b] ]Can the Democrats come up with a viable candidate?

either Dean or Kerry has the best shot so far. Dean actually has some followings for his attitude, but Kerry would make a good comparison with Bush in terms of military service.(3 tours in Vietnam, while Bush was AWOL). It is very hard to tell.

Quote[/b] ]What about John McCain?

i think he'll stick with GOP. He considers it his place whether he gets shunned for going aginst the party's leadership. he gains enough support from that group. His move to an independent candidate woul somehow mar his image, not to mention difficulty in maintaining a successful campagin.

Quote[/b] ]Will America see through the glizty ads and high dollar campaigns after a sobering war has woken them up?

maybe, maybe not. not many are capable of seeing the whole picture.

[denoir 0]

Will America see through the glizty ads and high dollar campaigns after a sobering war has woken them up?

Not the war but America's horrible financial status. You've gone from having one of the best economies in the world to having the world's largest budget deficit.

If you compare America to Britain, very few people are interested in the war, the lack of WMD etc. I think that also in many cases a form of misguided patriotism works in Bush's favour. What he does reflects back on America, and thinking that America has done something wrong couldn't be right, right?

On the other hand, you never know how people think and react. On Sunday we have an election here in Sweden where we'll be choosing if we'll be switching to Euro as our currency. The 'Yes' side has all the money and all the reasonable politicians from most main-stream parties advocate a "Yes" vote. The "No" side are more or less hardcore leftists that got less than 10% in the last election. Yet sample polls show consistently that the "No" side is leading significantly.

My point being that people can be morons for their very own special reasons that do not have to have any connection to reality.

[ralphwiggum 6]

My point being that people can be morons for their very own special reasons that do not have to have any connection to reality.

like you voting for a party that has more beautiful model cheering for?

[Major Fubar 0]

It's a similar situation to what we have here in Australia - Australians are pissed off with our PM John Howard about being lied to over the reasons for going in to Iraq.

Did he outright lie or was he assuming that what Washington says must be right?

That's the million dollar question..."honest" Johnny would have us believe the latter.

Even assuming this is true, most Australians are resentful againt Mr Howard for toadying to Bush and whoring out our military...

[theavonlady 2]

It's a similar situation to what we have here in Australia - Australians are pissed off with our PM John Howard about being lied to over the reasons for going in to Iraq.

Did he outright lie or was he assuming that what Washington says must be right?

That's the million dollar question..."honest" Johnny would have us believe the latter.

Even assuming this is true, most Australians are resentful againt Mr Howard for toadying to Bush and whoring out our military...

Your bottom line is quite different than your original statement.

[Major Fubar 0]

It's a similar situation to what we have here in Australia - Australians are pissed off with our PM John Howard about being lied to over the reasons for going in to Iraq.

Did he outright lie or was he assuming that what Washington says must be right?

That's the million dollar question..."honest" Johnny would have us believe the latter.

Even assuming this is true, most Australians are resentful againt Mr Howard for toadying to Bush and whoring out our military...

Your bottom line is quite different than your original statement.

? Er, no, personally I believe he lied...

Me confused.

[Dauragon 0]

what kind of school do you need to have done to present to the elections?

[Supah 0]

what kind of school do you need to have done to present to the elections?

President-school, kinda like hairdresser-school but easier

I hope he wont be reellected but having seen the shady doings in the last ellection which still has me wondering who really won that (btw: Anyone remember saddam offering to send ballot counters back then to help the american democracy? I laughed for hours ). Besides over here in europe you dont really get an idea of democratic party runners because of the coverage of iraq and stuff. So for me, just like last time, its Ficus OR Nader for president!

Quote[/b] ]chutzpah

What on earth does that mean? Im thinking "balls" or "Stumach" seeing it in context ... but still ?

[canukausiuka 1]

I think there is still too much of Bush's presidency left to decide if he'll get re-elected. He will have his hand full though if he wants anything better than a close race.

First, we need to be told more about whats going on in Iraq. I don't think that there is a whole lot that can be done about the sporadic terrorist attacks (its like spraying a bees nest w/ poison, then complaining when they sting you before they die... at least in the case of Hussein loyalists. Al-Queida and other organizations, that's a whole other nest), but I want to see how Iraq is becoming a better place. I want to hear about the reconstruction of infrastructure, the updating of schools and hospitals, the expansion of freedoms. And, many people, myself included, want to know what we've found out about the WMDs. If they have yet to find good evidence that they were, at one time, present, Bush will have a hard time gaining support.

Second, the economy needs to show more visible signs of improving. I don't really know how bad it is to find jobs right now, and my spending habits haven't changed (well, except for being at college). But prices, gas especially, have climbed and continue to do so. Hell, if the war in Iraq was about oil, we did a piss-poor job, b/c I'm paying almost 50% more now than I was before the war!

Third, let's not forget Afghanistan. We still have troops there, but b/c of the media frenzy over Iraq, we get almost no news out of there. What progress has been made? Is the Afghani government taking form?

And of course, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, a pressing question is when will we be ready to leave? I'm definitely not in favor of pulling out until we have finished the job, but I need to know that the job is getting done, too. Furthermore, I want to have two men captured or killed: Osama and Saddam both need to meet their justice.

I myself do not believe that Bush intentionally lied about Iraq having WMDs. It would not suprise me terribly to find out that he was advised that there was intelligence indicating that, and saw that as reason enough, plus maybe a bit of "finish-the-fight" mentality. If he intentionally lied, then not only has he destroyed himself, but he has been a plague on this nation. Our credibility is already shaky enough w/ the rest of the world, just b/c we did things "our" way. If it turns out we did them "our" way for no evident reason, what alliance can we hope to have in the future? Don't get me wrong, I stand by my country, including the war in Iraq. That decision is bigger than I am, but like in baseball... if you swing, you follow through. And I like the rest of the world too. I've been to Europe, it's nice (although we did wind up in one town in France that was not nearly as clean as the ones in Germany and Switzerland. We were lost, lol). But there are growing cultural differences in the US and Europe. I am afraid that if we are not able to show the world that we had a good reason to attack Iraq, we will begin to lose all of our established alliances. With the polarizing effect of the Soviet Union absent, the US may look like a power unchecked. But the important thing to remember is that the US is checked, just not checked the way many in Europe would have it. We are checked by our own system a lot stronger than by any international system, whereas in Europe, the opposite seems to be the case. And our system, though it is not perfect by any means, does work. At this point (provided of course that the Democrats manage to prevent factioning among themselves), Bush will have a lot to do if he wants to serve a second term.

[Schoeler 0]

I think there is still too much of Bush's presidency left to decide if he'll get re-elected.  He will have his hand full though if he wants anything better than a close race.

 

 

 

 

Good post.

I think the race is going to be very close and very bitter this year.

Quote[/b] ]First, we need to be told more about whats going on in Iraq.  I don't think that there is a whole lot that can be done about the sporadic terrorist attacks (its like spraying a bees nest w/ poison, then complaining when they sting you before they die... at least in the case of Hussein loyalists.  Al-Queida and other organizations, that's a whole other nest), but I want to see how Iraq is becoming a better place.  I want to hear about the reconstruction of infrastructure, the updating of schools and hospitals, the expansion of freedoms.  And, many people, myself included, want to know what we've found out about the WMDs.  If they have yet to find good evidence that they were, at one time, present, Bush will have a hard time gaining support.

I think if the administration manages to bumble about getting the reconstruction done in its current incompetent manner and we keep losing middle class American kids at the rate of two and three a day for another six months or so, Bush is effectively screwed.  I also think the enemy knows that too.

Quote[/b] ]Second, the economy needs to show more visible signs of improving.  I don't really know how bad it is to find jobs right now, and my spending habits haven't changed (well, except for being at college).  But prices, gas especially, have climbed and continue to do so.  Hell, if the war in Iraq was about oil, we did a piss-poor job, b/c I'm paying almost 50% more now than I was before the war!

Bush keeps trying to take credit for an economic recovery and the economy keeps giving him a reality check.  Jobs are still at an all time low.  More Americans have been out of work for longer periods than have been seen since the Great Depression.  This is where Bush, like his father stands to take the biggest hit, and asking for 87 billion more while trying to make the taxcut for the ultra-rich permanent is just plain stupid.

Quote[/b] ]Third, let's not forget Afghanistan.  We still have troops there, but b/c of the media frenzy over Iraq, we get almost no news out of there.  What progress has been made?  Is the Afghani government taking form?

Afghanistan has been a disaster and I think the Democrats are holding that card as their ace in the hole.  I expect it to be played at the last moment as a counter to Bush trying to take credit for responding to 9-11.  Don't forget, Osama is still out there and can throw a wrench into the gears at any time as well.  I find it interesting that this Administration just "discovered" that the old British colonial strategy of simply maintaining a strong military presence in the capital of Kabul (and hoping that it will scare the warlords ruling the surrounding countryside into falling into line) still doesn't work.  Now they are backpedalling and trying to throw more money at the problem.  Troops are finally getting into the smaller towns and villages, which is where they should have been from the start.

Quote[/b] ]And of course, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, a pressing question is when will we be ready to leave?  I'm definitely not in favor of pulling out until we have finished the job, but I need to know that the job is getting done, too.  Furthermore, I want to have two men captured or killed: Osama and Saddam both need to meet their justice.

I think Saddam will conveniently be caught at a key point in the race, but hey thats just me being a very bitter cynic about this administration.  Of course I have some good reasons to be that way.  Look how they got elected in the first place.  Now look at how much it profited from this war.  Strange how all the companies the administration is deeply levereged into got all the big contracts.  It makes me sick.

Quote[/b] ] I myself do not believe that Bush intentionally lied about Iraq having WMDs.  It would not suprise me terribly to find out that he was advised that there was intelligence indicating that, and saw that as reason enough, plus maybe a bit of "finish-the-fight" mentality.  If he intentionally lied, then not only has he destroyed himself, but he has been a plague on this nation.  Our credibility is already shaky enough w/ the rest of the world, just b/c we did things "our" way.  If it turns out we did them "our" way for no evident reason, what alliance can we hope to have in the future?  Don't get me wrong, I stand by my country, including the war in Iraq.  That decision is bigger than I am, but like in baseball... if you swing, you follow through.  And I like the rest of the world too.  I've been to Europe, it's nice (although we did wind up in one town in France that was not nearly as clean as the ones in Germany and Switzerland.  We were lost, lol).  But there are growing cultural differences in the US and Europe.  I am afraid that if we are not able to show the world that we had a good reason to attack Iraq, we will begin to lose all of our established alliances.  With the polarizing effect of the Soviet Union absent, the US may look like a power unchecked.  But the important thing to remember is that the US is checked, just not checked the way many in Europe would have it.  We are checked by our own system a lot stronger than by any international system, whereas in Europe, the opposite seems to be the case.  And our system, though it is not perfect by any means, does work.  At this point (provided of course that the Democrats manage to prevent factioning among themselves), Bush will have a lot to do if he wants to serve a second term.

I think he lied.  Or, he just chose to ignore the vast amount of evidence being presented to him by rational people within the intel community that screamed "Hey! Asshole!  the WMD aren't there!" which is the same as lying in my book.  I think that Bush is delusional.  He thinks he's doing the work of God, and his rightwing born again ethics lead him to do some very illogical things.  Take the fact that he didn't do anything to avert the crisis with North Korea when he had the best and last opportunity to do so, simply because he felt it was immoral to negotiate with communists.  WTF is that all about?  Its better to ignore the problem and face a nuclear crisis than it is to negotiate with communists?  That is just plain stupid and delusional.

[Poet 0]

nm

[canukausiuka 1]

I think if the administration manages to bumble about getting the reconstruction done in its current incompetent manner and we keep losing middle class American kids at the rate of two and three a day for another six months or so, Bush is effectively screwed.  I also think the enemy knows that too.

What bothers me about this is a) we dont' appear to be changing much in response, and b) our enemy wants Bush out.  I sometimes worry that some of the Democratic candidates will not be tough on terrorists the way Bush was.  And for all his flaws in doing it, Bush has gone after them pretty strong.  It would be a shame to lose what progress we have made while fixing the damage we did.  Then it has really been a waste.

Quote[/b] ]

Bush keeps trying to take credit for an economic recovery and the economy keeps giving him a reality check.  Jobs are still at an all time low.  More Americans have been out of work for longer periods than have been seen since the Great Depression.  This is where Bush, like his father stands to take the biggest hit, and asking for 87 billion more while trying to make the taxcut for the ultra-rich permanent is just plain stupid.

Well, like I said, the economy does not directly affect many people's lives, unless it becomes protracted.  Honestly, unless the Democrats hammer this point, I dont think it will cost Bush too many votes (but maybe enough to lose).  However, about spending money: I was taught in history class that government spending actually did more to jump start the economy than cutting taxes.  But regardless, there are few actions Bush could take at this point to have changes fully take effect before the election.

Quote[/b] ]Afghanistan has been a disaster and I think the Democrats are holding that card as their ace in the hole.  I expect it to be played at the last moment as a counter to Bush trying to take credit for responding to 9-11.  Don't forget, Osama is still out there and can throw a wrench into the gears at any time as well.  I find it interesting that this Administration just "discovered" that the old British colonial strategy of simply maintaining a strong military presence in the capital of Kabul (and hoping that it will scare the warlords ruling the surrounding countryside into falling into line) still doesn't work.  Now they are backpedalling and trying to throw more money at the problem.  Troops are finally getting into the smaller towns and villages, which is where they should have been from the start.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Afghanistan a disaster.  We did a lot to hinder the organization and security of Al-Qeida, and the Taliban was removed (although that alone is quite similar to removing Saddam... w/o the [Al-Qeida/WMDs], we would not have had almost no satisfactory reason to attack either... but thats another thread).  Do you not have any links to news from Afghanistan?  I'd rather read about it than Iraq (getting tired of hearning about it).

Quote[/b] ]I think Saddam will conveniently be caught at a key point in the race, but hey thats just me being a very bitter cynic about this administration.  Of course I have some good reasons to be that way.  Look how they got elected in the first place.  Now look at how much it profited from this war.  Strange how all the companies the administration is deeply levereged into got all the big contracts.  It makes me sick.

Yeah, that's pretty cynical .  Seems to me that Bush would absolutely love to tell the media that we got Saddam, that we got his WMDs, that we got Osama.  Even when we thought we had gotten close, there was stuff in the news.  I don't think he would keep it quiet just to time it right.  But then maybe I'm just not cynical enough yet.

Quote[/b] ]I think he lied.  Or, he just chose to ignore the vast amount of evidence being presented to him by rational people within the intel community that screamed "Hey! Asshole!  the WMD aren't there!" which is the same as lying in my book.  I think that Bush is delusional.  He thinks he's doing the work of God, and his rightwing born again ethics lead him to do some very illogical things.  Take the fact that he didn't do anything to avert the crisis with North Korea when he had the best and last opportunity to do so, simply because he felt it was immoral to negotiate with communists.  WTF is that all about?  Its better to ignore the problem and face a nuclear crisis than it is to negotiate with communists?  That is just plain stupid and delusional.

It is possible he pick-and-choosed his way through the intel, or that an underling did it for him.  Either way, it does seem he did not publicly consider the possibility that there weren't WMDs.  That may have been b/c he had no doubt, or it could have been for public appearance.  I don't think Bush thinks he is doing the work of God, but I imagine he prays for guidance and success.  He's not as religiously radical as some have made him out to be, but he is definitely not an atheist.  But unlike the Alabama 10-Commandment fiasco, he does not make a public issue of it, which is exactly as it ought to be.  As far as North Korea, I agree with you.  They have gotten more brazen, really, and something needs to happen there.  I just don't know how you can talk nukes out of a dictator like Kim Jong Il.  If Bush tries to handle this situation, he will have to do it with the world, notably Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan.  He can't pull it off alone.

Myself, I've never understood the general international hostility towards Bush (I'm mainly referring to Europe here.  Being in Europe just before the war in Iraq started got uncomfortable only at times... but since I'm dual Canadian-American, most of the places I visited put my nationality down as Canadian even though I live the US... go figure).  Sure, Bush has less respect for the UN and the international community, but at the same time he is not destroying it.  He is not ignoring it.  He just asserted his right to disagree and to act w/o its approval.  I suppose this is a difference in opinions on what the UN is.  To myself, it is not so much a ruling body as it is a source of suggested compromises.  I feel that the UN's strength lies in getting opposed parties to sit down and work things out, as well a peacekeeping, fighting world hunger, and generally trying to improve the world.  I think the UN does many good things for the world.  But, I also believe that nations have the right to disagree with the UN, and even to disobey it.  However, they must be willing to deal w/ the consequences (and yes, the US went ahead w/o UN blessing.  there are, as there should have been, consequences.  they are just not official through the UN.  but look at the opinion of the US in europe and try to tell me that it is not, at least in part, a consequence of that disregarding of the UN).

This will be the first presidential election I get to vote in, and I am not sure who to vote for yet.  I myself am naturally conservative, but I feel Bush has some answering to do before I would feel comfortable voting him back a second term.  As far as the Dems go, I need them to narrow the field some before I can decide.  I won't be voting for anyone who seems to lean too far left though.  I like my presidents to be mostly middle-ground people.  The farther you get from the middle, the less capable the government is, because its harder to get people to compromise.

Edit: and I'd like to make sure I clarify, most of your points are valid. the only one I really don't think has provable validity is that they meant to lie to us. But then I'm a lousy judge of character, and if I had to assume people were either good or bad, I'd tend to assume good. Just my nature

[ralphwiggum 6]

However, about spending money: I was taught in history class that government spending actually did more to jump start the economy than cutting taxes.  But regardless, there are few actions Bush could take at this point to have changes fully take effect before the election.

indeed. as long as a gov't is not running unbearable deficit, gov't intervention in a staggering economy can stimulate it. tax cuts will help, but only if it does not cost gov't deficit, which in current situation will.

however, blindly saying that gov't intervetion always help is a big mistake. there are many variables to consider. in 70s, the pinnacle of Keynesian theory was met with unbearable gov't deficit. result? sluggish economy.

what startles me about Bush's idea of economy is that his idea relies on a probability that is small. instead of holding off on tax cuts, he went ahead with it after 9-11, which is not the best movement. now that the war is costing additional 87billion dollars on top of tax cuts that do not cut gov't spending, guess what happens.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Afghanistan has been a disaster and I think the Democrats are holding that card as their ace in the hole. I expect it to be played at the last moment as a counter to Bush trying to take credit for responding to 9-11. Don't forget, Osama is still out there and can throw a wrench into the gears at any time as well. I find it interesting that this Administration just "discovered" that the old British colonial strategy of simply maintaining a strong military presence in the capital of Kabul (and hoping that it will scare the warlords ruling the surrounding countryside into falling into line) still doesn't work. Now they are backpedalling and trying to throw more money at the problem. Troops are finally getting into the smaller towns and villages, which is where they should have been from the start.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Afghanistan a disaster. We did a lot to hinder the organization and security of Al-Qeida, and the Taliban was removed (although that alone is quite similar to removing Saddam... w/o the [Al-Qeida/WMDs], we would not have had almost no satisfactory reason to attack either... but thats another thread). Do you not have any links to news from Afghanistan? I'd rather read about it than Iraq (getting tired of hearning about it).

it is a sad thing that Afghan news are not making a good headlines. there were some serious firefights between remaining Taliban soldiers who are now getting back. Thesedays, in most cases you hear about them far after it happens.

[canukausiuka 1]

indeed. as long as a gov't is not running unbearable deficit, gov't intervention in a staggering economy can stimulate it. tax cuts will help, but only if it does not cost gov't deficit, which in current situation will.

however, blindly saying that gov't intervetion always help is a big mistake. there are many variables to consider. in 70s, the pinnacle of Keynesian theory was met with unbearable gov't deficit. result? sluggish economy.

Yeah, you're right. Cut me some slack, though, I'm an engineering major

[Renagade 0]

i`d say he had a 50/50 chance,of course i may change my mind in a blink of an eye

How does compulsive voting work,does a little man with a stick come round to everyones houses and herd them into the booths?

[Schoeler 0]

Wait till the public hears about the new airline security measures I mentioned in the Iraq thread.

The problem I have with Bush and his administration is that he made the call to go to war with faulty or fraudulent evidence. Either way you shake it, this is just plain negligent or downright criminal. Its not like we are trying out a school voucher program or something here, this was war for Christ's sake. This is the ultimate and most momentous decision a President will have to make, and it seems as if it was made in a nonchalant manner, and, for the sake of money for Bush and his cronies.