Which are we to believe? The carefully scripted “we will destroy them” stump speech or the unrehearsed “I don’t think we (you, whoever) can win”? I just have the minor in psychology but if I had to choose which one was closer to Bush’s true belief (if he can be said to have true beliefs other than “tax bad,” which I question but which is fodder for another thread) I would choose the off-the-cuff we can’t win response that wasn’t filtered through who knows how many handlers before escaping his mouth.
Liberal,
I am having trouble with your argument.
Let me see if I can come up with what you are say?
-
Liberals have grown soft and lost focus
-
Because of #1, Bush was able to divide America along the conservative and the liberal lines.
-
Also leading to #2 is that liberals focus on small matters and have lost sight of the big picture.
To beat Bush, stop the war, etc, Liberals should publicly protest more and sling mud.
Fair enough, but I have a question. Did the Americans of 1968 really win via their protests and mud slinging? The liberals of the day did not win the white house from the pro-war administrations, nor did they stop the war. We lost it due the buffoonery of administrations that the Americans voted into office.
The Vietnam war had plenty of reasons for America to dislike it on its own, but still, there was a core of Americans that supported it. Hell, even today, you can find people that think Vietnam was glorious and we lost only to because of the hippies, and because of the tactics.
Iraq is not Vietnam in many of the senses, and other than a staggering cost, it is rather a tame little fiasco. This is why I think half of the people of America can still just wave a hand at it like it was nothing.
All of the issues can be stated as such. “Eh, why should I care?”. I honestly think half of America is willing to vote for Bush because half of America is republican. Neither of the candidates has the pizzazz of a TV star to capture a majority, so why bother to think other than to vote party lines.
Apathy is the reason why this will be the cluster fuck of all elections. People just don’t care. Sure, on TSDMB, you have the core group that argues the points, slings the mud, and what not, but in reality, I really don’t think that Joe Blow gives a fuck anymore. There are many members that don’t discuss or care about politics. Just amplify that by millions and you have America. You have a small number bashing each other over the head with politics, and the rest are talking about what they saw last night on TV.
My vote for Kerry is getting more and more reluctant, as he is beginning to look like he doesn’t get it much better then Bush.
Bush said the war couldn’t be won.
IMO, the correct response – “of course, so why the hell did you declare it, you moron? We can’t even adequately define what terrorism is let alone wage a war on it.”
But no, Kerry has to run out and say – “Well, maybe he can’t win, but I can.”
In a stroke Kerry has pratically committed himself to continuing this idiotic crusade. I want someone to get us OUT of it.
Liberal, I do appreciate the unguarded way that you have of telling me what you think. For the record, I really find no fault with any of the statements that you have made in your replies to my post. Further, I do want to clarify that the Democratic and/or Liberal “side” is not really close to my personal politics. To be honest, I am really struggling with those now.
If there could be said to be a position somewhere on the spectrum between Libertarian and Anarchist, that is probably where I would be. The problem is that both of those political philosophies tend to really assume a degree of self-reliance on the part of the people that I just do not think is present (although that could be said to be baggage from my Liberal upbringing). Hence, as I really believe that we are only as good as demonstrated by how we care for the least amongst us, I find the sheer cost of human misery that would accompany implementing either of those philosophies unacceptable.
And, I find myself continually voting for the more Liberal of candidates, if for no other reason than the fact that they feel (or give lip-service to) an obligation on the part of society to care for all of its members.
So I don’t know. I guess that I am looking for answers. I suspect that the brutal truth is that it is true that the tree of liberty has to be periodically watered with blood, but to be honest I find that depressing and wish that it were not so.
On preview, this post is rather more maudlin that I would like. Alas.
Jay-zus came to him in a dream and told him to keep pursuing TWAT with reckless abandon. And, by Og, he will, and someone else will pay for it.
While not feeling any reluctance in my voting for Kerry from this, I agree with you, Boyo Jim. After a comment like that, you just wanna… “<smack> What the hell are you doing? Read what you’re told to read, dammit!” Man, it is kinda reminiscent of Dubya, isn’t it. 
LilShieste
He dreams about rap stars?
Sounds like you’re confusing the War on Terrorism to the War in Iraq, which have nothing to do with each other. And I wish the Democrats would make more of the distinction. They need to really pound home the idea that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I don’t know that I like the strategy of saying we shouldn’t try to fight terrorismm though. I don’t really see a problem with committing oneself to fighting terrorism, because the beauty of it is that you can define “fighting terrorism” any way you want. Bush defines it as invading Iraq, but Kerry could define it as building a better relationship with other countries and restoring confidence in the U.S., or however he wants. “War on Terror” is just an empty phrase, but decrying it can only hurt Kerry and can’t possibly help him.
The Democrats are obviously trying to turn the Republicans invective back on them. The Rep. memes have been, “Kerry is a flip-flopper” and “The democrats are pessimists”, so the Democrats are just trying to show that the Republicans are just as guilty of both things. And I agree that there’s a certain irritating schoolyard mentality to the whole thing. I guess that’s how the game is played, though.
How do you figure? Bush’s statement was on the “War on Terrorism”. Kerry’s statment was too, if the press sources I saw were correct. Maybe Kerry was confused about what war he was referring to, but I wasn’t.
Mud? Gah, no! That’s exactly what I went to great lengths to illustrate as something you shouldn’t do. That’s what you’re doing now. — Bush talks funny! He should have waited four minutes instead of five minutes! He won’t even tell us who’s on his platform committee! He tells lies! He won’t tell the swift boat vets to stop! Won’t someone please intervene! — He is herding you into pens like sheep, and all you do is baa.
And your protests are no good either unless you represent America. When you’re not calling upon foreigners to help you, all you ever do is preach to the choir. I mean, Barbra Streisand? C’mon. A simple mug shot of her clueless gaze is all Fox News needs, along with John Gibson’s smirky use of “Babs”, to ridicule your protest right into the dust. If all you’re trying to do is convince other bleeding hearts that they should vote for the bleeding heart, then you’re fine. But when you’ve got people from Moscow coordinating their protests with yours, you might as well carry “I hate America” signs.
Once again, I invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. Look at his example. He didn’t make fun of Lyndon Johnson’s accent; he called on Lyndon Johnson to bring forth the American ideal of equality under the law. He didn’t complain that life is unfair; he cited the nobility of struggle and made plain that he was willing to struggle for his just cause. He never appealed to the United Nations to impose its will on America; he called on Americans to impose their will on their government. He succeeded because his ideals were lofty. Even against racism and bigotry, he struck chords that resonated deeply in the hearts of freedom loving Americans. He never said, “Well, white people are free, so why shouldn’t we be free?”. He said, “Freedom is the precious gem given to all people by God.”
Someone earlier called it sloganeering, but you’ve already got slogans. It’s just that they’re pathetic. It isn’t a matter of simply having a slogan, but of what the slogan contains. You get what you fight for. You’re fighting for grammatical correctness, American submission to foreign whims, and recognition of Michael Moore’s considerable talents. Meanwhile, the Republicans have dipped into the roots of liberalism and pulled out its trump cards to use for themselves. Although they do so deceitfully and with shameless hubris, they appeal to the very noblest of American values — freedom, goodness, and charity.
And you have followed right along, taking sides with the people Bush told you to take sides with. You give every Democrat Carte Blanche. It is YOU, and not the Republicans, who should have condemned Hillary’s Marxist declaration to take things from people. It is YOU, and not the Republicans, who should have demanded that Congressional Democrats acount for shirking their oversight responsibilities. It is YOU, and not the Republicans, who should have said the war was about liberation all along. It is YOU, and not the Republicans, who should be saying, well since we’re there, let’s make the best of it — here is our full support, and we’re glad to do the job.
You need to stand against your own leadership, just as Martin Luther King Jr did, in order to point them in the right direction. Instead, you’ve chosen to defend them no matter what. They are, after all, on your side — on the side defined by George fucking Bush. You would have surprised conservatives by holding to your values of individual liberty. Instead, you joined with them and allowed your Congressmen to vote for the Republican agenda without so much as a, “Damn! What the hell are you doing!?”.
This wailing and lamenting from the left, ever since Jimmy Carter, that America is some blight on the earth, that capitalism is some evil force, that socialism is the way of the future — these are things that you need to move AWAY from. Like Bill Clinton did. That’s why, despite all his problems, he won a second term. He demonstrated that he agreed that people should have to work to earn their keep, that the market would rescue the economy, and that goodness was America’s greatest virtue. He sent more troops to more places than any president before him. And when Republicans complained, they came across as sour and unpatriotic. It isn’t that I endorse sending troops all over the place, or for that matter, any particular action by any particular lying politician. But if you want to win this thing, you’ve got to get with the program.
Your own leaders have lost their way, and like Democrats in the 1960s, you have got to put them back on the path. Tell them that liberal does not mean socialist. Even Franklin Roosevelt didn’t tax people just because they were rich. It was John Kennedy who slashed the oppressive 70% tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. Step outside the lines that Bush has drawn for you. Refuse to be defined by him. Stop defending every Democrat for every stupid act. Stop relying on greedy slobs like Michael Moore to do your talking for you — he doesn’t even like Democrats. In fact, he called himself the anti-Democrat. This is not a job that you can do by lying down and pleading for interference from the UN. This is a job that you must do by struggling, by getting dirty — not from mud and fret, but from blood and sweat.
I can’t promise you victory. I can’t promise you good times. But the one thing I do know…
[all the kids file out]
Whoa! Whoa! I promise you victory! I promise you good times!
[kids cheer]
-Bart Simpson
Unlike the OP, at least Derrick Jackson’s ‘President Flip-Flop?’ op-ed in the Boston Globe points out the questions Lauer asked (as pointed out by Zut, in GD yesterday) that garnered the “I don’t think you can win it" response.
There’s plenty to kick Bush in teeth for…this ‘flip-flop’ ain’t one of them.
Well it was your statement, “why the hell did you declare it, you moron?” It implied to me that you object to the way Bush is fighting the “war”. My point was that Kerry ought to repudiate what Bush is doing, but he ought NOT to repudiate the general principle of doing something about terrorism, which is a legitimate issue. I didn’t feel that you were making any kind of distinction between Bush’s feckless “War on Terror”, and the legitimate things that could be done to address the issue.
Let’s say Candidate A says, “We need to teach children to read; let’s give them issues of Hustler Magazine.”
The proper response of Candidate B would NOT be, “No, teaching children to read is stupid”, but rather should be, “Teaching children to read is a laudable goal, but giving them Hustler Magazine is the wrong way to do it.”
“He should have waited four minutes instead of five minutes!”
I understand your point that you don’t think that’s important, Lib - but it wasn’t 4 vs. 5 minutes, it was SEVEN minutes, and he shouldn’t have waited AT ALL. You might say “what’s the diff?”, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why, if sitting in the classroom for 7 minutes was such an insignificant thing, that you would feel the need to continually present a strawman version of the issue to make it seem even more insignificant. If it’s a cogent point, I don’t understand the need to exaggerate it.
I’ve got to agree with boyo jim’s sentiments here.
When I first read Bush’s words, my thought was, “No shit! So maybe we shouldn’t have this ‘war’ on terrorism, because it’s such a nebulous, doomed-to-failure task! And, that doesn’t jive with everything you’ve done and said up until now. WTF!?”
Then, when I read Kerry and Edwards’ response, I was more pissed! “What do you mean we’ll win it!?!?!? At least half of why I am not voting for Bush is because I think the ‘war on terror’ is a crock of shit. You know it and I know it. You’re not stupid people, where do you get off saying, “now’s not the time to give up,” and “we will win the war on terror”??? Get your heads out of your asses long enough to do something more productive than jumping onto whatever platform is the exact opposite of Bush’s (what, Shrub says we can’t win? Then we say we can!); try to have a thought of your own for a change!”
Gah. Disgusted. Nothing but pure partisanship on the Kerry Edwards front, designed to try to appeal to all the war hawks out there. Lame.
The 9/11 Commission Final Report (page 38) says five to seven minutes. I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, a person might say that I’m exaggerating.
Regardless of whether it should or not, this is going to be very bad news for the Bush administration.
Their primary meme against Kerry has been casting him as a “flip-flopper”, and Cheney and Miller’s speeches tonight just hammered on that point like there’s no tomorrow. It’s ridiculous, of course, and the same charges can be made against Bush, but Kerry has not been very successful in squashing it. (This is mostly because he has, in fact, changed his vote or position on several issues, the way any intelligent person will do with new information or insights.)
Now, maybe Bush has offered an example that Kerry can sink his teeth into, and he can expose this meme for what it is. He shouldn’t have come back to disagree with Bush and say that we can win, though; Bush was caught in what Michael Kinsley called a Kinsley gaffe–accidentally telling the truth.
Is there some reason you failed to address the other part of my criticism? - the fact that you just pulled “4 minutes” out of your ass, and that nobody has ever suggested that Bush ought to have waited 4 minutes? It’s not just that you used the lowest possible estimate of time you could get your hands on, it’s that you also coupled that with the lie that the difference between what people thought Bush ought to have done, and what he did, was only 1 minute. Again, I agree with you that the whole thing is not particularly Earth-shattering, but it’s quite disingenous to continually make it even less so by changing 7 minutes into 1 minute.
That makes no sense. Is that a joke? Obviously, nobody would accuse you of exaggerating if it works against the point you’re trying to make. Picking the smaller of the two numbers HELPS your point; you didn’t do it to stave off criticism. I swear, I can’t figure out why you can’t just make a point without being obfuscatory and disingenous. You’re obviously smart enough. What gives?
Liberal, I’m curious about what you think of the numerous disruptions made at the RNC by pro-Kerry supporters. Are they doing what “we” should be doing? Or is there something wrong with their tactics?
I think the press is really de-emphasizing their messages, which is a bit unfair to the public, in my opinion. For example, one group of protesters was wearing shirts with some printed message, but the only camera angle they gave was from the side so that you couldn’t read the shirts. It seems to me that if you care enough to infiltrate the RNC and stage a protest, people ought to be able to at least find out what your message was, even if the press doesn’t want to give the protesters any attention. I also have to say I didn’t hear about any infiltrators or protesters at the DNC. What’s your opinon, Lib? I suspect you will say they made themselves too easy to ignore, that they should have staged something truly newsworthy (and violent?) to get the press time. Guns next time, perhaps?