After the third and final presidential debate concluded with the candidates reciting their prepared closing statements, the television pundits repeated their equally predictable conclusion that the event was a draw, with Kerry ahead on “substance” but Bush besting him on “style.” But soon afterward, the voters weighed in with a different decision, declaring Kerry the winner by margins ranging from 52… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (35)Page 1 of 1 pagesi’m afraid of two things: one, that the republicans will again steal the election, and two, that bush will continue to erode the separation between church and state.
virgin mobile sponsored a contest encouraging young people to create PSAs on why it is important to vote in November. please go to www.psaupload.com and vote (just vote, nothing else involved) for one of the five finalists.
Posted by sms81 on Oct 18, 2004 at 3:56 PM If all that Senator Kerry has to offer African-American voters is the theme that he is less evil than President Bush, then how worthy of their support could he be? During all the years that Senators Kerry and Kennedy have wielded influence in the Congress, the masses of Afro-Descendants in Massachusetts have continued to suffer from mal-education, sub-standard housing, high unemployment, environmental racism and the increasing flood of drugs and firearms into ghettoes like Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. There is only one class that both Bush and Kerry owe ultimate allegiance to: the ruling class, the top one percent which owns 46% of all private wealth. Like Bush, Kerry favors the policy of pre-emptively striking any nation deemed to be a sufficient threat. And like Bush, Kerry fiercely opposes Reparations for Afro-Descendants while fiercely supporting both Reparations and massive military aid for Israel.
Sincerely,
Malik Al-Arkam
www.AllForReparations.org
Posted by Malik Al-Arkam on Oct 18, 2004 at 4:13 PM This election has really got me worried - big time. If Bush is the best the Republican party can field at this point in time, it shows the astounding level of indifference and ignorance they have about the world around them. The ‘anything to get elected strategy’ which includes presenting a candidate such as gwb shows the alarming amount of ignorance that is consuming the united states at the moment. I would consider Kerry ‘my type of guy’ when he speaks, by his actions or his record but goddamnit he LOOKS and SOUNDS presidential, knows his stuff and has a history of service, hard work and seems committed to his ideals - John Kerry wouldnt have dropped to his knees and swore off the booze just like that - he would have gone to AA, got a sponsor and tried to fill in the whole in his life - Bush has no ideals;he has no creed, no culture and no conscience. What sickens me most about him and his ilk is that they continue to use possibley the most famous icon for love, peace, harmony and progress, Jesus Christ, as some sort of justification for their actions. I am not a christian, but if I was I would be sick to my stomach for the way these opportunists kept twisting what should be a gentle, kind religion. Honestly, if Bush wins, we’re all in BIG trouble - As the late great Bill Hicks declared - ‘isnt great that Bush (Snr) and Reagon were gone? For the last twelve years we’ve had fundamentalist christians with their fingers on the button just waiting to Gods instrument of the apocalypse’ Well Bill, your gone to that great comedy fest in the sky now, but if you get big JCs ears, put in a word for us poor smhoes down here, please????
Posted by Ian C on Oct 18, 2004 at 7:00 PM Democracy must be a “two way street” for ideas, information and speech. To try and limit one side’s responses by name calling and claims that the other’s opinions are “unpatriotic” or “detremental” to our country smacks of a dictatorship - not a free land.
Posted by Barbara Lewis on Oct 18, 2004 at 7:31 PM Oh god, the next pres is going to be an avid hunter. That’s a plus for civilization.
Posted by James on Oct 18, 2004 at 10:55 PM I think it’s amazing that people think that Bush has somehow disgraced the conservative movement and the Republican party. In fact, if you go back and read through what they have been saying for forty plus years, you’ll realize that GWB is simply the logical culmination of conservatism and the distillation of its essence. It seems Americans haven’t cottoned on to how dangerous conservatism really is (and always has been) until it became incarnated in a virtual idiot.
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Oct 18, 2004 at 11:03 PM Please clear the confusion for a non resident of the US.
Your fifteenth article appears to give all citizens the right to vote; amendments later set age restrictions. Many citizens seem to lose that right because of a large number of restrictions, such as, no registration, unacceptable proof of citizenship- address etc. inability to locate ones polling station and so forth. Appeals are made to state courts and these appeals must follow due process. The US Supreme Court then sets a date for all appeals to be dealt with. The effect of this decision is the dis-enfranchisement of many.
I can find nothing which tells me that the Supreme Court has the right to set an arbitrary date for the individual State vote counts to go to the Electoral College.
A large number of past Presidents were not Sworn into Office many months after an election; I believe that Rutherford Hayes is an example of this.
The US seems to be the most difficult democracy in which to cast a ballot.
twain
Posted by twain on Oct 18, 2004 at 11:11 PM A bit of optimism.
1: In the last election Bush although heading into election day was ahead by 4-6 points but lost by 1/2 a million.
2: There were and are now more registered Democrats and by some accounting an even more dramatic - newly registered voters in areas that normally vote Democratic.
3: Many of the experts are suggesting that the polling numbers are very difficult to read because of the large numbers of new voters and that many voters won’t answer pollsters questions.
4: The president has not done anything worth him being reelected! And the D’s have been energized to defeat him from day one!
5: Kerry and Edwards are a much better tandem than Bush & Cheney that have lied, obfuscated and cheated the American people out of a future; and worse - cheated over a thousand American families of having a loved-one with them for the coming holidays and for the rest of their lives. Cheated over 20 thousand innocent Iraqi civilians of the same. And thousands of wounded, maimed, blinded and psychological disabled veterans that will have a tough time getting benefits from the same Bush administration that is willing to sacrifice their lives and has no regrets, a made “no mistakes” president! Amazing!
6: we just can’t be dumb enough to allow the worse president in our history to continue ruining our stature in the world community!
7: although I caution any acceptance of the polls - today I heard that Kerry had taken a lead in 13 of the 16 or 19 battleground states.
____________________________________________________________________________I have listened and read intelligent people - like Chrisopher Hitchens and William Saffire defend this president and his reasoning for the war but they never address the substantive issues of his domestic policies nor indeed the ramifications of his preemtive logic, or how this invasion has made the world any safer.
Many supporters also seem to ignore that Bush is all the things the above article points out and doesn’t seem to fit the billing he gets as a strong and determined leader.He really is a “hollow man” in more ways than one.
And Kerry doesn’t fit the billing that the Republicans have tried to convince us of, of a flaming flip floping liberal and a soft on terrorist wimp. He knocked the stuffing out those epithets.
The choice is clear!
Posted by BAM on Oct 18, 2004 at 11:35 PM No New Champion in the Debates
In the ring, the challenger can only win by having at least a knock down of the champion (if not a knockout). Kerry did not even have a knock down, though he may have been ahead on technical points. In any case, victory goes to the incumbent champion.
And in reality, how could Kerry really challenge Bush when he agrees on all the critical issues (Iraq occupation, Isreal, WTO/NAFTA, Dominant U.S. role in world affairs).
Everybody is betting on Kerry being different than his public image (that he does care about ending the war, that he is concerned about corporation corruption etc), but maybe he truly is his public persona.
There are other candidates and parties to vote for, and while I prefer that Bush is voted out, I’m not holding my breath.
www.wordsareimportant.com/kerry.htm - Mr. Kerry on the Yellow Brick Road, if he only had some courage
www.wordsareimportant.com/coderedwhiteandblue.htm - Top 10 reasons Bush wants to postpone the elections.
peace
AGThere is no “W” in peace
Posted by AG on Oct 19, 2004 at 5:14 AM We have become a visual and white coat electorate, watching TV and increasingly believing “the pundits” Television is intensely visual. Reading the printed word is different, you sort of build up your own pictures, it takes more effort, but is very rewarding. In doing so you engage in a little battle of ideas with yourself, with what you are reading. I don’t have television. I refuse to have it, and wheneverr I see it at someone else’s place I am struck at the low quality of the material. I didn’t even know who OJ Simpson was, so I apparently missed the trial (I skipped it in the newspapers)!! So I have read a lot about Bush and Kerry. As much as we hem and haw about Kerry, he is eons beyond Bush. Eons! Bush has neither ideas, nor the ability to deal with any situation that involves pros and cons. He refers to his “faith” a lot, but we know that attracts the yokels in the corn belt and in KKK Kountry, for a man of genuine faith engages in self-reflection and that is something Bush has yet to do. He is not an amiable person, he is a sourpuss, and he is such because he is surrounded by people who are his betters and that makes the psycopath in him envious. And that is where he connects to his constituency.
Carl Wernerhoff: Congratulations on that comment: The GOP has had a strange history since its last great president, Abe Lincoln. Teddy R. is overrated, but at least he was a little smart. They had the rubes behind them in the 20s, and look where that got us… Ike was fine, but if he had had the guts, he would have stomped on McCarthy not so much for denouncing Commies, but for endangering our liberties (Commies—- Liberals——Terrorists, follow the fear, and look who is benefiting), also he had little sense for politics….. Nixon… well we know where that went… Ford (chosen prez, can’t walk and chew gum)... Ronald Reagan: vastly overrated, the man who destroyed the USA’s economic backbone of manufacturing, introduced hamburger slinging as a form of survival, the “laziest” president.. forget the East Bloc, it was collapsing on its own, I was there, I know… but no editor in the USA wanted to mention it).... Bush, the only Prez to serve without a Vice Prez, and now this character… You sound German, you’ll know what a Gruselkabinett is…
Regards
Posted by Marton on Oct 19, 2004 at 6:49 AM What amazes me is the low standards the U.S. electorate has for politicians. Bush prides himself as a man whose strength is foreign policy,yet while campaigning for the presidency in 2000, he was forced to acknowledge that he did not know who the leaders were in such critical nations as Chenchnya, Pakistan and the worlds second most populous country, India. There was a story in the Times yesterday about how in an oval office meeting with advisors Bush insisted that Sweden had no armed forces and was nuetral. When it was suggested that he perhaps was confusing Sweden for Switzerland, Bush remained “steadfast”. The fact that he is ignorant doesn not dampen his sense of certainty. He claims he has good “instincts”. He doesn’t make decisions based on facts. He seems to belief he has a kind of special gift.
The “debates” revealed just what a shallow person he is. He responds to everything by repeating the same talking points. How can anyone vote for this guy? I have a great sense of despair and anguish over the prospect of another four years of W in the White House.
Posted by David Valachovic on Oct 19, 2004 at 12:55 PM Marton:
Your observation about TV is accurate and your notes on the presidents is fair enough but the relation with TV and our TV era presidents and how people respond to them probably can only be appreciated by citizens that have been here through it.
Ronald Reagan was indeed an overrated president but he fit the mythic - macho - John Waynish - [the actor] image while even providing that grandfatherly quality as he crippled the backbone of the American economy; and the masses knelt at his image when it appeared on their TV screens. He was “tough” “I’m paying for this microphone” & “Tear down this wall Mr Gorbachov” are his two most memorable lines, both of course much admired by a large segment of the electorate.
Bush too, although less capable fits some mythical image of a “war president” a man that appears on TV
under very controlled circumstances and when he does appear in less controlled circumstances we observe how he really is. The debates of course are our best example. The masses now though have bought into the mythic George Bush and disassociate the reality from the controlled TV appearances and commercials. Selling George Bush is not much different than selling unhealthy fast food in this country
and that’s what many people seem to want.
There has been much said about the psychological state of the electorate since 9/11 and the media
has in effect been paralyzed and incapable of being critical of this man, this mythic warrior that stood upon the rubble and spoke for the nation that he would seek out and destroy our enemy (while methodically and incrementally destroying America - doing more damage than the terrorists).
9/11’s fallout was like a dark cloud that radiated out over the nation and many of us can not see through the smoke today.
Kerry is demonstratively the more intelligent and qualified to be president as was witnessed on those omnipresent TV screens, but it’s irrelevant, we no longer are using logic in our decision making but
fear dominates the thinking in many people; as a famous quote from a president [FDR] that you did not mention “there is nothing to fear but fear itself”- we are under the control of that fear and the Bush administration has been using it to further their agenda and we buy into it and ignore the many lives that have been lost, the billions of wasted money, the drastic distrust of this country in the world and the ineptness of this president.
Apparently we would have followed Mickey Mouse after 9/11. And he was a more likable than Bush -who is leading us like lemmings over the cliff. (Not even Mickey would have done that)
Reading has declined as a means of obtaining information for many and the political campaign gears itself to primarily control the visual medium, spending millions to sell themselves like hamburgers and laundry detergent.
Our process is so flawed as to be frightening but there doesn’t seem to any serious effort to correct it.
Our third parties are considered by the majority to be on the fringes and the mainstream media won’t give them the time of day so new or different ideas are not welcome and suppressed.
You mentioned OJ Simpson. I would offer this as an example of how myth trumps reality. OJ Simpson
was proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” to be guilty of murdering two people but the jury ignored the facts. Bush is obviously incompetent and responsible for thousands of deaths but much of the jury ignores the evidence. In both cases we have pundits/lawyers that argue with distortions and accusations
to give the jury/voters any reason to acquit…
We can only hope that in this election, intelligence will win out over fear and ignorance.
Welcome to America.
Posted by BAM on Oct 19, 2004 at 2:11 PM A postscript to the above. There is an underlying paradigm percolating in the electorate and that is “The Apocalypse” is upon us, the end is near as aparrently predicted in the “bible”, and that, according to one scholar - has a lot to do with how people are reacting here in America…
Of course the end is always near, and for many baby boomers it’s getting nearer…
Another example of how logic is failing - former Mayor of NY city - Koch - said last night that he disagrees with Bush on all his domestic policies but supports him in the war on terror and that’s why he’s voting for him! (absolutely mind boggling)
Posted by BAM on Oct 19, 2004 at 2:50 PM David:
Many of us are to say the least in a state of disbelief that this president has displayed his incompetence
for three years and those watchdogs in the media could not, would not reveal anything other than to serve as visual and written support - in essence been asleep while the burglars are taking everything of value.
He has managed to avoid any serious questioning - and we have been painfully made aware of why with his performances in the debates.
The speculation about whether he is wired or not has become more a topic for the comedians than serious journalists. Even on Meet the Press when a Republican was asked by Russet what the bulge was the reply was that it was a connection to aliens and never addressed seriously.
Nobody seems to care? Bush’s ignorance and inability to speak without - being wired or with a written text is considered a virtue apparently.
The foreign press would have never let this president get away with what he has in this country.
His certainty is buttressed by the knowledge that the media will not reveal that the man behind the curtain is not a real wizard and they will allow him he to continue with the smoke and mirrors and fool many people. That is the most frustrating part of this process.
Hang in there.
Posted by BAM on Oct 19, 2004 at 3:52 PM To me, the $64 million dollar question is this: How is it that at least 45% of Americans are willing to re-elect this guy? Is the grip of their christianity that strong? Is it fear that we will be attacked again, even though 9/11 happened under Bush’s watch? Is it the odd disgust at anything labelled “liberal” (forget the fact that many of our precious New Deal programs are so-called liberal creations)?
What does it say about our society that we seem very willing to be victimized again? And that a whole lotta folks out there would be far more upset with one American life taken versus 10,000 human lives from other continents? Do we think we are the divine, chosen race? That we will be immune from the effects of global environmental degradation and climate change?
Those questions are more infuriating to me than the fact that Bush isn’t qualified to head up an Eatser Egg hunt, much less run the world’s greatest superpower. “The Easter Bunny is on the march!”
Posted by scott on Oct 19, 2004 at 5:04 PM BAM, thanks for the comprehensive answer. First: Here is the famous quote:
“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” That was in 1933, inaugural address.Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have often been compared to one another. It’s a false comparison. On December 7, 1941, the USA had a president of the size of Roosevelt. Since 1933, the Republicans have been attempting to pull apart his legacy, namely a strong, compassionate nation. They haven’t suceeded yet, and they have had Ike, Dick, Gerry, Ronnie, Georgie and Dubya trying to do it. They are getting close. The privatization of social security is definitely an attack on FDR’s legacy, and many Americans will live to regret it. It’s the application of the freemarket Friedman bilge to social security, and that bilge, like supply side economics hatched in the same kooky incubator in Chicago, leads only to disaster.
I digress: Pearl Harbor: Read the speech that FDR gave and compare it to the tacky stuff W managed to come up with. As a kid, I used to listen to an LP of Roosevelt speeches…. I knew them by heart.
The debates:
Actually I saw several debates back in the Reagan days, and interestingly you mention this Armageddon theory stuff. In one of the debates with Mondale, Ronald Reagan was questioned about this, considering the coterie of fundamentalist fuehrers who had free access to that “president’s” chambers.. Ronnie was suddenly very wishywashy and definitely evaded the issue. I knew about Armaggeddon theory because I spent years studying rhetoric and conspiracy theory, which makes up a sizable part of our political discourse. Actually that spooked me more than anything else, since after all, here was this patently imbecilic man all imbued with the narrow, materialistic* fundamentalist faith with his finger on the damned button. Well the media let him get away with it.
W is in the same mold, and yes, that is worrisome. As for Ed Koch, former mayor of my native city: He is not to be taken very seriously, like those bellhops in Marx Brothers movies.* let me explain briefly: The thumpers I have known all take every word of the bible to be the truth. This, in my books, is the ultimate in materialism. The bible is there to be interpreted, IMHO, it consists of images, some mystical some less so, in the rogorous sense of a fairytale. It is for me a highly personal document, and people like all those revivalists and self-proclaimed preachers have no business bandying it about as if it were some contract God gave them to enrich themselves on the backs of poor yokels who don’t know any better. Pat Robertson is just one of them.
Keep on being active. We shall overcome some day!
Posted by Marton on Oct 20, 2004 at 5:48 AM Marton:
Thanks for the entire quote from FDR. fonted
There has been all sorts of incorrect comparisons made about the war and Iraq. You probably recall Bush’s attempts to equate Saddam and exaggerated his threat to the world to Adolf and his threat, which of course was ridiculous and showed Bush’s total lack of understanding of history, and also illustrated his misuided sense of his role in todays world. He doesn’t compare to any leader in history that I can think of; and if he thinks that waging a war makes him a great leader, he again shows his lack of understanding.
Your observation about Ed Koch was great. (He kind of reminds me of one of the three stooges.)
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, and many others (including many Catholic hierarchy) do have an audience for their myopic opinions and unfortunately will influence many voters.
I have, with the rise of Bush as the leader of his party thought that this was the last hurrah for the Republican party as we know it, and still believe that. It remains to be seen however if Nov 2nd will be the “new beginning” or not.
Posted by BAM on Oct 20, 2004 at 12:31 PM BAM, yes, but lest we underestimate the media work of the neocons and its real target group (I use that advertising word quite specifically). The comparison with Hitler appears cheap to anyone who has at least opened a few books and read them. I think the point, however, was to grease the slide to a triumphant Prezdint. That “Mission Accomplished” bit of grand guignol was well planned. Hitler, in 1939, had an incredibly powerful and well equipped army. Before the 1991 war and last year, there were unbelievable descriptions of the power of the Iraqi army… In 1991, I’ll never forget, it was described in glowing and reckless terms. A friend of mine back then stuffed his car full of food and gas because he was convinced Armageddon was about to become reality, and when I shrugged and went back to my work, he got insulted. Well: Iraq had just come off a grueling 8-year war with Iran. By 2003, it had not recuperated at all. So the “victory” appeared all the more puffed up. It’s a lot of show. But not if you don’t use your head.
That is why I don’t believe W will move into Iran, by the way. The USA hardly ever attacks a well-armed country ready to fight back unless attacked.
If you haven’t read it: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast, check out his website. Good investigative stuff, works for the BBC and the Guardian and Observer: The chapter on Pat Robertson will give you nightmares.
Regards,
Posted by Marton on Oct 20, 2004 at 4:25 PM Speaking of Iran, former president Carter was interviewed recently and asked whether he had considered invading Iran to free the hostages. Carter said: it was suggested to him but he thought about all the innocent lives that would probably have been lost, including the potential loss of the hostages and many of our soldiers. Carter opted for diplomacy which eventually worked, and there was no blood shed.
From many accounts the sanctions were working on Iraq (although I would argue hurting the citizenry more than Saddam) and many believe that Saddam wasn’t a threat, and of course, (after thousands have been killed) it’s now been proved that he was not a threat.
Many can argue from both sides of the debate, but in the end it still comes down to - we’re now there, and hubris forces us to stay the course to not look like we lost another military action.
Bush is not a leader that I trust at all, but of course you nor I, and millions more are not lemmings, regardless of the commercials and the crafted sound bites to persuade us to follow.
And I certainly don’t underestimate the manipulation of the media by this administration.
(One thing that hasn’t been discussed much, was that if the administration believed that Saddam did have WMD, we were more or less daring him to use them on our troops and to attack Israel.)
Posted by BAM on Oct 20, 2004 at 6:54 PM I, too, am amazed that there are so many people, seemingly intelligent people, blindly following the fear-mongering, “your either with us or against us” mentality the president has championed for almost 4 years. I see my brother, an intelligent and caring man with a 12-yr old daughter, putting a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on his car and shake my head sadly. I tell him, “Maybe, just maybe, there will still be a little bit of money left in Social Security for you and Debbie when you retire, but how can you look at Katie and tell her you’re voting for the guy who is killing it for her generation?” He starts talking about terrorists, blah blah…and I say, “Ah, you’ve learned the art of question dodging from Bush in the debates!”
It’s sad, it really is. I, like the president, have faith in God, but I realize that God will have nothing to do with this, or any, election..He gave us free will, after all. I think, though, that this may be one election the Almighty is looking at and saying, “Boy, I wish I could help these people with this one….” So I’m not praying for John Kerry to win, though I always pray for America and its citizens….hopefully the overlap will not be lost on He who answers prayers.
Posted by riki on Oct 20, 2004 at 7:30 PM Ricki:
The simple answer is - many people are not paying much attention, and are still under some illusion that Bush is what the sound bites and commercials say he is.
Very, very sad indeed.
When the terrorists brought down the WTC and killed all those people, it in effect anesthetized a large part of the population, and they are walking around in a daze and denial of how inept the president really is.
Hang in there, and for the good of your brother and his family we can only hope that many people come out of their deep sleep, and vote for a positive change in course, for the good of us all.
Out of the minds’ of children (where it would seem that God would be more evident)The children’s magazine “Nickelodeon” picked John Kerry to win. They have been accurate 4 consecutive times.
Posted by BAM on Oct 20, 2004 at 9:22 PM Sure wish I could get excited at the prospect of Kerry winning, but his greatest asset is pretty much that he’s not Bush. Don’t get me wrong, that’s good enough, I definitely want Bush to be fired, but that’s not at all the same thing as believing that Kerry represents a big change in direction for the US. Is he really progressive (to recast the impossible-to-rehabilitate term, “liberal”)? He’s out on extending marriage rights, he supported the USA Patriot Act, is a drug warrior, and whips out his firearm to cozy up to the NRA. He’ll continue to coddle and make excuses for Israel, and won’t do anything substantive to reduce America’s profligacy in its consumption of energy. Perhaps he’ll manage to extract some revenues out of the hyperwealthy, hopefully he’ll be able to repair the appalling state of affairs between the US and the rest of the planet, inshallah he’ll steer the clout of America toward the betterment of people’s lives at home and around the globe, but can anyone really say the guy will dramatically alter the course America is on right now? I’m overseas and have already voted via absentee ballot “for” Kerry, but really, I was mainly voting to get the incumbent and his freakshow team outta there. Sure would like to see a truly progressive candidate who had a hope in hell of getting elected…
Posted by Kuya on Oct 21, 2004 at 1:42 AM Thanks for the Carter info, BAM. I’d like to find that interview. He was definitely a fine president, and as you pointed out, he solved the hostage crisis without bloodshed, except for that attempt to liberate them on April 26 or 28, 1980, I forget exactly. There were rumors that some republicans were in fact in touch with the mullahs at the time to keep the hostages until after the election. But they have not been explored in depth so they don’t count. One thing is certain though (and this is for you ricki with the GOP bro): Because we do not use our god-given heads, we (and I mean the collective) are frightfully open to manipulation, not only by these power-mad neocons, but by others. These terrorists (and they do exist, let’s face it) have already manipulated us into dumping a lot of basic civil rights (Patriot Act). By feeding the neocon agenda, they stand a better chance to harm the USA. I’ll never forget old Khrushchev stating loudly and clearly, something along the lines of “We (the USSR) will not destroy you, you will destroy yourselves!” He might have been a red, but he was quite a smart fellow too. The other point is: Our dependencies will get the better of us, especially our outrageous dependency on oil. Blow up a few pipelines, and the price of the barrel goes up by a few dollars. Since the first oil shocks we have had nearly 30 years to mend our ways, develop more fuel-efficient cars, build a solid network of public transportation, etc… Anyway: ask yourself, what would be the best way to harm the USA today? Simple: keep George Bush in power. By the time people realize what a mess the man has made of the USA, it will be too late. We are seriously underestimating the political savvy of these terrorists. The US army was also surprised at the sophistication of the “insurgency” in Iraq. Well, boys, we underestimated the determination of those little slanty eyed fellows in black pajamas. And we also think that Gulliver’s Travels is just a funny book.
Posted by Marton on Oct 21, 2004 at 5:30 AM An afterthought: George Will, conservative columnist, has apparently given up on George Bush. And there is a letter by a 78-yr. old Republican judge that is very powerful. It’s somewhere on the Moore Website. This fellow makes some powerful arguments that make a lot of sense. Not that it will change the mind of the True Believers and the Know-Nothings, but it’s comforting.
Posted by Marton on Oct 21, 2004 at 5:33 AM Hi Marton, many excellent points. “Frightfully open to manipulation” ain’t no joke, it really boggles the mind how quickly people can be tricked; I’m reminded of Hermann Goering’s quote (forgive any inaccuracies), “Naturally the common people don’t want war… it is the leaders who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along… all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists as traitors… it works the same in any country.” Apparently, both Bush and the various al-Qaeda organizers have read Goering. Although in the case of Bush, I suppose it’s his handlers who did the reading.
Posted by Kuya on Oct 21, 2004 at 6:59 AM Marton:
In continued reflection on past presidents, while we prepare to (hopefully) elect a new one. A month or so back I viewed a replay of a interview with Richard Nixon…To say the least you could see him as, yes, a president that was forced to resign with all the baggage of the Watergate scandal (the secret bombings, the edited tapes,his service on the House of un American activities etc.) but, he was relaxed and quite likable. He of course wrote a book and spoke about much of the contents. He was a student of history and enjoyed the details and ramifications of certain events in the past and how they influenced the world for many years after. He was also quite a sports buff.
One thing stood out and that was clear to me was even Richard Nixon was a better president than the current one… Richard Nixon could write, Richard Nixon obviously read books, and Richard Nixon gave a great deal of thought to matters in the world and the US’s role in it. He also, was arguably more effective in domestic policy than our current president.
(I would dare say that the shrub is the personification of the dumbing down of America)
John Dean, former counsel to Nixon during the Watergate hearings, has written a critical book of the Bush administration.“I wouldn’t use the title, “Worse than Watergate,” if I didn’t truly believe that what’s happening in this presidency is far worse than anything that did happen during the Nixon presidency.” John Dean
Needless to say, then we had journalists that were driven to reveal the truth about what was going on. Today is apparently another story. If Bush were having an affair of course they would be falling over themselves to reveal the sordid details.
Posted by BAM on Oct 21, 2004 at 2:08 PM Marton:
You can read the transcript of interview with Carter by going to the website MSNBC then to MSNBC TV/Harball/Carter
Posted by BAM on Oct 21, 2004 at 3:37 PM Thanks for the url BAM. I agree with the Nixon description. None of us (my family) liked him, but in the dark of night wehn no one is listening except for my black Democrat soul, I welcome those days when we had at least a smart, if corrupt, prezdint up there. And RMN was at least surrounded by people who were interested in politics. The country was a degree safer than it is today. You had Kissinger running around the place as a conservative but very busy diplomat as well. Egad! And after Nixon I thought: It can’t get any worse!
By the way, not all Bushes are bad bushes: check this out:
http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.comThese are the white sheep of the family!
Have a good day
Do you know this URL???
Posted by Marton on Oct 21, 2004 at 7:21 PM Bushes’ for Kerry…that was fun. You would have thought they would have all been hog tied and force fed some allegiance oath or something…Thanks for that one.
Posted by BAM on Oct 21, 2004 at 8:03 PM Besides all the more serious reasons I want Kerry to win; I’d like to see Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Liddy and the rest of the right wing
fat heads gag on their collective consternation. O’Rielly claims he’s undecided (yea, right) so I won’t include him but his reaction will also be interesting…
Posted by abs on Oct 22, 2004 at 12:35 AM Already there is so many mixed messages regarding which candidate’s connection with the electorate is more believable. Knowing what the incumbant has accomplished in the nearly 4 years of his incumbancy should be enough for most people to make up their minds, you would think. Apparently there are people that still (2% according to most recent data) haven’t any idea which man should be the president for the next four years. (Are these people aliens and just arrived on a space craft?)
If you are to believe in the polling data you might be on your third bottle of Pepto Bismol. They are, as many savvy people have pointed out, very unreliable…FOX, CNN, Gallup and others favor the incumbent, others show an even race, or Kerry ahead. Don’t become frustrated and decide that your vote won’t make a difference and make your non-vote make a difference instead.
Get out and VOTE!
Posted by BAM on Oct 22, 2004 at 3:17 PM There are many D’s that just don’t understand the process of what is required to win the presidency. A candidate, especially a challenger to an incumbent must have broad appeal.
“Lefties” that were strictly opposed to the war perhaps were inclined to be for Dean or Clark or Kucinich. In the primaries the candidate that stood out from the crowd, the one that appeared the most electable was J.F.Kerry. So, here we are on the brink - 10 days from the day to make the great change and get the country back on course and there still seems to be doubt and distrust. What? How can that be? And those sentiments don’t automatically mean Bush is favored because the polls rate him at around 46-47% approval. I’m frankly not thoroughly convinced of the ability of many in the electorate that have taken so long in 1: making up their minds, and 2: not sure of what they are making up their minds about.
If we are going to accept conventional wisdom based on the polling data, then the “PRES” is in real trouble.
Now, certainly, I agree with some that advise that we should not denigrate the burning Bush because he’s an avowed Christian. As we all know - not all Christian’s are suffering from his lack of mental activity…
I’m just having a difficult time with the media and their inane coverage of this campaign.
Many thoughtful people have made a point of how the media has failed the public good; but it’s Jon Stewart the comedian and host of the popular “The Daily Show” that has been out front in criticism of the “real news”...and getting attention for doing so. He’s even on 60 minutes this Sunday.
And along with the many serious things the media seems to ignore, why have they ignored the obvious bulge appearing on the presidents back during the first debate, is it perhaps that it may mean what all the speculators are suggesting and just be another serious thing the media finds to difficult to cover before the election?
Posted by abs on Oct 22, 2004 at 8:01 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Kusnet
- The Hollow Man
The debates revealed just how little Candidate Bush has to offer. - Decoding Dubya
Deceptive as ever; more pedestrian than usual. - A Language for Change
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
