Define “Spain”. And define “this move”. How can the collective outcome of the election possibly be compared to negotiating with terrorists? Aznar got his ass handed to him because a) he was a lapdog kissing Bush’s ass whilst the people disagreed, and b) he tried to put political spin on last week’s bombings.
That’s all that happened. The electorate kicked Aznar out. How does that equate to “negotiating with terrorists”?
I think the problem is that Bush supporters seem incapable of changing their minds.
Hope I got most of it. 
well, if the ballless sacks of rabbit mung who operate as our press ever got the cahones to try to tke W on without their mega-corporate slavemasters crushing them in the birthing stages, Joe Conservative would just laugh it off as “Liberal bias”
Touché.
<tipping hat>
Well, in a way, it is. Just cause I’m right doesn’t mean I’m not biased.
Unfortunately, you can only fix Kid Charlemagne’s coding, not his stupidity.
Withdrawing from Iraq is, in this numbnuts’s opinion, the “equivalent of negotiating with terrorists.” What a fucking moron. In case you failed to read Dead Badger’s post, dickweed, let me point out that this withdrawal from Iraq is predicated only on the US remaining in full control. Today’s New York Times says:
Do you get it, dickhead? If control is turned over to the UN, where it should have been in the first place, Spain will apparently stick around.
The polls showed the Popular Party to have 3-5% lead prior to Thursday. The PSOE won by roughly 5%. That’s an 8-10% swing. 8-10% of Spanish voters changed their mind specifically because of the bombing (unless you can point to another reason why there would be such a dramatic swing in a couple days). Regardless of what 90% of Spain thought of the PP’s handling of Iraq, the majority still wanted them in power…until Thursday. Hell, one could reasonably argue that AQ elected the PSOE with its proxy swing vote and that they timed the attack to do just that. IMO, those who reversed their votes because of the bombings are essentially negotiating with terrorists, i.e, “Stop bombing us and we’ll put someone in power who we know will pull the troops out of Iraq.” I think its a short-sighted move.
And thanks for the editing–you got it right.
that is correct, it is good to recognize your own biases, i myself have jumped considerably left since Dubya got into office, mostly as a reaction to his administration’s policies. Clinton was pretty bad as well, i am not biased enough to start heaping undeserved praise (and from living in SF, i am conservative compred to the people here. Some of them are so freaking stupid they make me want to marry Bush. Two weeks ago i was overhearing some idiot talk about how Germany split after WW2 because of cultural differences and any historian should have seen it coming, and it paralleled the US and the two cultures here. I so wanted to murder him)
Anyway, for the last time, terrorists do NOT want Kerry in charge, as he will accomplish stuff instead of spreading hate and suffering. Kerry-not want the terrorists want. Voting for Bush-voting for Osama. Thank you.
(this post is biased)
Given this degree of ire I assume that you believe I was referring to you as one of the bandwagon jumpers. Do you also turn your head when someone says “hey asshole?”
8 to 10% of people who were polled, a big fucking difference.
Perhaps those stupid polls didn’t correctly capture the sentiment of the people?
I made no assumption about whether or not you were referring to me. I simply pointed out the idiocy and/or ignorance that seems to be such a hallmark of your posts in this thread. Saying that the Spanish people have been “essentially negotiating with terrorists” just by their votes in a national election is both offensive and stupid.
Ahh, the morning after.
I would take a little bit of the venom out of the post, but the idea is the same. The people of Spain have just given Al Quada their single biggest tactical victory ever. They have shown that terrorism works and you can scare people in a supposedly democratic country into voting how you wish. I am sure that these events will only produce more terrorist actions and death.
Exactly.
I’m consistently amazed at the unreflective credulity with which some people treat pre-election polls, ignoring the fact that there are often large last-minute swings, and that people might express one intention to a pollster but perform the opposite action in the voting booth.
If everyone had such wide-eyed, dribbling-fool faith in these polls, why would we need to hold the election at all? Why not just choose a government based on polls?
But none of the idiocy, apparently.
See, this logic confuses me. Radical Islamic terrorists want to advance a “final confrontation” with the West, just as many kook Christians want to do in the Israel area, for similar reasons, right? Then couldn’t you argue that they might WANT Bush reelected, in the belief that he’ll push the War on Terror enough to precipitate that Armageddon battle they so want between Christianity and Islam? Or am I missing something, here?
It is idiotic to be pissed off that a people allowed their election to be de-railed by terror? It is idiotic to be bitterly disappointed that they have played right into the hands of murderers?
Jesus now you’re argument has degenerated into “the polls are wrong?” I suppose it is my fault for coming into the pit expecting intelligent debate. Every single article on the election cites the bombing as the major reason for the upset. If you want to challenge the idea that it was an upset then go right ahead but that’s a different argument entirely. The reason I quoted a poll is because it appeared to me that you lacked the gift of nuanced insight required to understand that the fine print of Zepatero’s plan is completely inconsequential when compared to the zeitgeist behind the vote.
Sure. You start waving around the “terrorism” banner and shouting enough and maybe some people will vote the right way.
Or is that not what you meant?
So how would you be reacting if the terrorists caused people who sincerely believed that the Socialists were better for the country to change their vote? Isn’t that just as much capitulating to them?