US Presidential Election 2004

Hi

I'm not an American, but I find American politics very interesting.

I'm curious as to what people think about the candidates, the issues, and the campaigns.

I expect this to degenerate into a total flamefest - I guess that's ok. It's part of what makes politics so interesting!

Anyway, I have a feeling Bush will win. He is weak in many areas, but definitely has the right stuff when it comes to being as 'War President'. I will not comment on whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, the fact is, there's a war, for good or ill, and it takes a certain type of leader to prevail in war.

Kerry seems like a decent sort who wants to do the right things but he is just lacking the charisma necessary to defeat an incumbent president.

The campaigns so far have gotten mired in the dirty mudslinging games, and have detracted from what should be the issues. Of course, this may just be the fault of the media, maybe the candidates are trying to address the issues, but the coverage would rather focus on bullshit like the Gunboat Vets or Rather's f/u.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what others think. Who do you like? Why? What are the issues that are important to you? To America?

Cheers

Once again, the Democrats have underestimated the Republican machine.
Sadly, the Swiftboat controversy took it's tool, and Kerry is struggling to be noticed again. I don't think Bush's military record will be much of an issue.
One thing I've noticed between the two candidates....Bush keeps hammering home the same message, "I'm a decisive leader, I'm tough on terror, I'll keep you safe". It's pretty much the same thing where ever he goes.
Kerry is more all over the board, trying attacks from various angles, hoping one will stick.(health care, Iraq war, gun control....)
I don't think Bush is strong, decisive, etc....but the technique the repubs are using is having it's intended effect.

A bigger concern, I believe, is the Diebold voting machines being used this time around. I think I read somewhere that the state of California filed a false-claims lawsuit against them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Once again, the Democrats have underestimated the Republican machine.

---

Agreed. 1 for 1.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Sadly, the Swiftboat controversy took it's tool, and Kerry is struggling to be noticed again.

---

Agreed. 2 for 2. But I think it took its toll, rather than its tool. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I don't think Bush's military record will be much of an issue.

---

Agreed. 3 for 3. This is largely because Bush never MADE his military record an issue. Nobody is terribly interested in what either man did 30+ years ago when they were teenagers.

Frankly, I'd feel pretty darn pathetic if after 20+ years in the Senate, the only thing I had to be proud of was something I did for 4 months when I was 18 years old.

Kerry's catch-all defense of "I served in Viet Nam" is analogous to a 60 year old, pot bellied, beer swilling loser, sitting on his porch talking about the time he scored 3 touchdowns in a high school football game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
One thing I've noticed between the two candidates....Bush keeps hammering home the same message, "I'm a decisive leader, I'm tough on terror, I'll keep you safe". It's pretty much the same thing where ever he goes.

Kerry is more all over the board, trying attacks from various angles, hoping one will stick. (health care, Iraq war, gun control....)

---

Agreed. 4 for 4.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I don't think Bush is strong, decisive, etc....but the technique the repubs are using is having it's intended effect.

---

I think he is very strong and decisive. I just don't like a lot of his decisions. Gay Marriage, prescription drugs entitlement program, immigration, the Patriot Act, not repealling the DMCA, the list goes on.

Disagreed. 4 for 5. Though I guess the net effect is about the same as if I'd agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
A bigger concern, I believe, is the Diebold voting machines being used this time around. I think I read somewhere that the state of California filed a false-claims lawsuit against them.

---

Agreed. 5 for 6.

Any sort of electronic or internet voting needs to be fully open source so everyone knows exactly what is going on behind the scenes, and so security holes can be found and fixed.

Wow. I can't believe I agreed with Kestra on 5 out of 6 points. :)

Living in a heavily democrat city I keep asking the question that no one can seem to answer, is Kerry the best that the Democrats really could come up with? Both Bush and Kerry have come through this city and the suburbs so many times in the last 2 months that it's almost ridiculous, but I've had the opportunity (that I didnt get living in New York) to see how attitudes can change over the course of time.

In July everyone was predicting that Kerry was going to walk away with Ohio and the overall election, but recently he's really done a lot to piss off the ohioan Democrats. He comes out to his events and talks mostly about how Bush is bad and how he [kerry] served in vietnam. No one here cares. Bush comes out to Cleveland, a HUGE democrat city, and what does he do? He goes and hangs out with the Cleveland Browns, invites people to come and have food.. things like that. Every event Bush has had here in Ohio has involved free food, every event Kerry has held involves him bitching about Bush and talking about how he served.

Im surprised at how much this has really grated on the nerves of people here in Ohio, even in Cleveland, the normally staunch supporters of the democratic hopeful are really very wary of supporting him. Now rather than supporting Kerry and faulting Bush people seem more inclined to distance themself from Kerry and hedge towards supporting Bush.

I think what it comes down to in states like Ohio is that Bush portrays himself as more of a normal guy with money, where Kerry pretends that he's a normal guy and that his money is irrelevant.

Hmm. That's a very astute observation of the different tactics being used.

Honestly, I really even don't feel like going out to vote this year because I know I'll be voting for the candidate that I dislike less rather than the candidate that I like more. I actually think that's why this election has gotten so ugly. Both sides are trying to convince you to hate the other candidate more than you hate them. :) The democrats are doing more of that than the republicans, imo, but mostly because there's a lot of Bush hate already in the left. Unfortunately, I bet ta lot of people feel like I do, and that will just cause people not to vote rather than to vote against a person. I'm much more excited about voting FOR a candidate than against a candidate.

Still, I'll end up voting because there was a time that I could not vote even if I wanted to do so. The right to vote is precious to me. I just wish I could be more excited and happier about voting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Kerry's catch-all defense of "I served in Viet Nam" is analogous to a 60 year old, pot bellied, beer swilling loser, sitting on his porch talking about the time he scored 3 touchdowns in a high school football game.

---

Al Bundy for President! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
voting for the candidate that I dislike less rather than the candidate that I like more

---

You know you have a serious problem on your political hands when everyone goes to the polls thinking, "I'm SO glad they can't BOTH win".

*looks back at what he just typed*

You know you have something pretty good on your hands when everyone goes to the polls thinking. But that's different.

as I posted before, Bush keeps on receiting the same mantra:"I'll keep you safe, going into Iraq was the right decision, etc etc....."

And for a while now, it seemed his resolve and unwaivering front seemed to work in his favour. But now I feel this attitude is bordering on either being totally blind and ignorant to the situation in Iraq, and/or he's now come too far to make any kind of acknowledgement of error or mistake; as it would mean losing the election.
Either scenario paints a poor image IMO.

His recent UN speech mentioned how "democracy is on the move" in Iraq, on the same day that Al Qaeda beheaded an American there.
I don't see the wisdom in electing a man for 4 more years for the reasons above, and who can not even mention WMD's or bin Laden.


:eek

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
His recent UN speech mentioned how "democracy is on the move" in Iraq, on the same day that Al Qaeda beheaded an American there.

---

Don't you understand that it is precisely because there is hope for the first time of a democratic Arab nation that these evil Islamic terrorists are resorting to such dramatic barbarism?

This is their desperate attempt to scare spinless Americans into losing their will.

This has nothing to do with George Bush. I could care less if he is President or not. What I care about is that we must not lose our will to fight and win.

You cannot negotiate with these Islamic Jihadists.

You cannot appease them.

You cannot reason with them.

You cannot bargain with them.

You cannot sway them to our side with diplomacy.

They absolutely will not rest until we are either dead or our civilzation broken.

You must find them and kill them before they kill us.

well, I really really try to keep an open mind every election. I try to ask myself, who the best person is on the most all around issues. I've never been the politics type who follows every single media event and such. I do see quite a bit though. My biggest issue with Kerry, is the flip-flopping. He almost -never- attends senate meetings regarding security. When he did finally decide to attend, he issued supporting statements regarding the looming danger in Iraq (as well as the middle-east in general) and the need for serious and swift intervention due to the threat of WMD's, nuclear development (this included Iran) and the like. Now, he acts like we never should have been there and that Bush is doing things totally wrong.

Anyone who thinks the world is NOT a safer place without the Taliban and Sadam are delusional. These people [Sadam, Usama, Fanaticals] would use any WMD they had to kill thousands. The fanaticals over there need to be dealt with now that we are there. If not, I feel they will be a world-wide threat forever.

I dont think Bush is perfect, no one person is. I do think he is consistent. I would rather have someone consistent, protective, and willing to hold the line long enough to see things to the end. I haven't seen any consistency from Kerry on any issue and that's what scares me about him the most.

Kshaar

PS: I watch alot of news debates and such, but if I got any details above wrong, it wasnt intended as a malicious slam on either candidate. I only wished to put up an opinion as to what I personally look for in candidates.

Kestra,

In August there were 37 murders reported in Detroit.

In August there were 36 American Soldiers killed in ALL of Iraq.

According to this website (which uses DOD and Centcom as sources) 66 US Soldiers died in Iraq in August:
http://icasualties.org/oif/

It's also worth remembering that there are only around US 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and probably only 30-40k of those are in harms way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I don't see the wisdom in electing a man for 4 more years for the reasons above, and who can not even mention WMD's or bin Laden.


:eek

---

Actually, I had the opportunity to see Busy give a speech when he came to a nearby town in my area.

I was pleasently surprised when he DID mention WMD's. I could not give you an exact quote, but he did acknowledge the fact that they did not find the stockpile they were expecting, and that even if he knew what he did now, he still would have pushed for the invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
According to this website (which uses DOD and Centcom as sources) 66 US Soldiers died in Iraq in August:
http://icasualties.org/oif/

It's also worth remembering that there are only around US 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and probably only 30-40k of those are in harms way.

---

Malacasta's point reminds me of something Juan Cole, a History Professor from Michegan wrote on this subject. It's on his web site, but you have to scroll down to the entry for yesterday (Wednesday, September 22)

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_j...e_archive.html

Bear in mind, I don't think we have any choice but to remain in Iraq. If anything, Professor Cole's piece makes me all the more certain of that necessity. However, Malacasta is right. Bush and his fans are either in denial about the conditions in Iraq or deliberately misleading the public.

I understand some people's frustration with Kerry's flip flopping, but he certainly isn't the only one.
Bush has done plenty of it himself.
Flip flopping isn't always a negative thing. Changing one's opinion on something can lead to a better perspective and understanding.

http://www.democrats.org/specialrepo...p10_flipflops/
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ng_flip_flops/

LOL.

Democrats.org and the Boston Globe.

The links section of Moveon.org really came in handy there, eh?

Didn't use Moveon.org, nor do I.
I used Google.

I want Kerry to win solely for selfish personal reasons. I'm living in South Korea. I think that if Bush is re-elected he'll try and do 'something' with North korea. Whatever he might do it will seriously seriously fuck up my life in South Korea. Whether it be a war or.. a nuclear war. It's gonna suck. Every korean I met just wants the US to fuck off out of Korea (that's adults too, not just my kids) and I seriously wouldn't mind that. I think Bush might do something, way beyond the reach of the US and try and do something with North Korea. (reach = an "acceptable" number of US casualties, I'm not knocking the raw power of the US here)

North Korea may have outdated shit but they got the artillery to level Seoul in a few hours stacked up on the borders. That won't affect me directly because I'm way down south, but it'll seriously screw up my plans of making a bit of money and quitting. So, I'm totally selfishly here, all about Kerry. Mainly because I don't think he'll do anything in/to North Korea. Oh yeah, a nuclear type war WOULD probably fuck me wherever I am in korea =) So that would kinda.. really suck =)

-tharun

I'm wondering why it takes SOOOO long. In Canada there is a limit of how long you can campaign (that isn't THAT long). In addition, we have more than 2 major parties. So here we can focus, I feel, a bit more on the issues than who is the lesser of 2 evils (though that comes into play, we have more than 2 to choose from).

In watching a hunk of the debate, I agree that Kerry changed his views a number of times. However, Bush looked like a monkey when Kerry was talking. He was licking his lips, turning his head sideways, looking confused, etc. Oops, did I just give my bias that I'm not a Bush supporter? Whomever wins the election effects the world so, I'd rather have a flip-flopper than a man who isn't very articulate and, to me, appears to just be a figure-head who is saying what is written in front of him or coming from a listening device in his ear without any input.

Bush signed the papers to send troops to Iraq, etc who caught Sadaam and accomplished other things that, in the long run, may help the world or cause repercussions.
I think, as a Canadian, I'd like the leader of the US to be someone who is take charge, but not to the point where they go in headstrong and end up having to fabricate, or over exaggerate the reasons for their decisions.
:chat

Someone sent this to me, and it makes light of both sides.

www.jibjab.com

Click on the 'This land' cartoon. (Beware, there is sound.)

:boxers

I want Bush to win solely for selfish personal reasons. I'm living in Europe. I think that if Bush is re-elected he'll try and do 'something' with Iran. If Kerry is elected, he'll do nothing, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb, which will seriously fuck-up my life in Europe.

Furthermore, I'm still entertaining the idea of a vacation in Israel, and with Bush in the White House, Israel is more likely to remain on the map. :p

I want Bush to win. I love my country and I want us to be safe and I want us to get rid of the terrorists, quickly, strategically and most efficiently with as little casualties as possible.

I think if Kerry is elected, the war will drag out with Kerry going "we are staying" "...no, we are pulling out" "wait, let's stay....no, pull out". I don't think you can win wars not knowing what you need to do and instead just doing whatever gets you the best results from your puppet masters around the world. It may be a political war in a sense, but I still think we need decisiveness, which is something that I feel Kerry is lacking.

Frankly, I think US foreign policy will be virtually identical no matter who wins.

With the exception of a few people at the top of the food chain (who do not make the majority of the decisions), the exact same people will be working in the military and the state department no matter who is President.

Thus, most things will be the same regarding our foreign policy.

I do not think Kerry, or anyone else, will/would be able to get more help from countries like France and Germany. Their interests simply are not the same as ours. They bilked the Oil for Food program for billions of dollars and they don't want to be caught. Furthermore, they see their own economic interests being inversely related to the interests of the United States.

The great unity of the west is over. It died with the Cold War. People should stop pretending the we are still "allies."

Charles De Gaulle once said "There are no allies, there are only interests." That is truer today than ever.

Furthermore, our political process is still completely controlled by wealthy interests (I try to resist the "special interests" cliche as much as possible). They are incredibly resistant to all attempts to limit their control on the political process. Personally, I wish it were possible to completely outlaw ALL political polling during the year of an election. At the very least then they'd have to blow their money all over the place in hopes of having an effect.

Flip flopping is a tremendous problem for me because the most important thing for the government to do is BE PREDICTIBLE.

The worst thing for the economy is unpredictibility. Inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc. can all be properly absorbed by the economy if they behave in predictible fashion. Disaster strikes when unpredictible things happen.

A President who talks about cutting taxes one day and raising taxes the next day makes it impossible for businesses to properly plan for the future. This is diastrous.

But overall, I really think these two candidates are both quite weak. Neither one of them has the strength of will and leadership to grab a country as huge as the United States and point it in the precise direction he would like. Either candidate will be largely steered by events rather than steering them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Solmyr
I want Bush to win solely for selfish personal reasons. I'm living in Europe. I think that if Bush is re-elected he'll try and do 'something' with Iran. If Kerry is elected, he'll do nothing, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb, which will seriously fuck-up my life in Europe.

Furthermore, I'm still entertaining the idea of a vacation in Israel, and with Bush in the White House, Israel is more likely to remain on the map. :p

---

=))))

I like that reply =)

Woo.. Voter registration went through, Im voting in Ohio!

Here's a link sent today from a 'Euro-bud' that's just too, too funny not to share. Fear not the Deutch file name, the film/clip is in english.


http://delcour.port5.com/wahlen_in_den_usa_2004.wmv