Afghanistan liberated from the Taliban as a step in crushing AlQaida and turned over to the Northern Alliance war lords with Osama and his principal henchmen still on the lose.
Iraq relieved of Saddam but no trace of the unconventional weapons that provided the principal justification for going in, 130,000 US personnel in country, reservists and Guardsmen called to extended active duty, the country teetering on the brink of civil war, bombs dismembering US soldiers and Iraqis every day, government officials assassinated, basic services still not restored, no NATO or UN help and no end in sight. Worse yet, the armed forces strained to something approaching its limit and diverted from the imperative job of running AlQaida to earth.
No terror attacks, but no sign that any have been attempted, other than periodic yelps out of Secretary Ridge and General Ashcroft to look out for falling skies any day now.
Hard to tell if we have a solid economic recovery or whether such recovery as we see is the result of anything the Administration has done. I see that Exon has record proffits last quarter – is that the recovery we are banking on? The US Attorney in PA has just indicted some drug company for price gouging on pharmisudicals and paying kick backs to HMOs – is that the recovery we are looking for?
Fewer taxes, but the lions share of the breaks to the people who don’t really need them and a mounting deficit that will have to be paid for one way or another, sooner or later.
It’s going to be hard because Kerry very wisely taken many of Bush’s talking points away. His stated position on the war (at this point) is essentially indistiguishable from Bush, he acknowleges the economy is doing well but wants it to do better, he’s taking very centrist positions on domestic issues, and has introduced no big new plans or ideas.
All of that takes the incumbent’s advantage of going last in the conventions and turns it around; Bush risks looking like a me-too. I expect the pubs will attack Kerry on his weak-on-defense voting record in the senate; but you don’t want a sitting president to be the one going negative, so I doubt Bush himself will say that except in debates.
I suspect that Bush will introduce several new domestic initiatives at the convention, as well as announce that he’s taking up some of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations. Of course, any big new programs should make him even more vulnerable to the charge that his spending is out of control; but I don’t think it’ll stick because Pubs are so firmly entrenched in people’s minds as being fiscally responsible.
The Marriage Amendment will be his bone to the base; other than that I think we may see more of the sort of catering to the middle we saw here.
But not during his speech. Look, I’m not saying that Bush is correct in saying those things, but they sound great in an uncontested speech. I could pick Kerry’s speech apart and expose how silly it is, but that’s not the point. Both of these guys get to stand up and give their version, uncriticised, of how things are and what they will do. If you want to chuckle at one of them, in a self-congradulator sense of superiorty, go right ahead. It won’t mean shit in the long run.
Pretty much. I half suspect the Pubs could put forth a platform McGovern would be proud of and still be thought of as “fiscally responsible but indifferent to social problems,” while the Dems could nominate Atilla the Hun and still be “compassionate but soft on defense.”
It won’t always be that way, and I think/hope deep divisions in both parties will come to the fore in the near future and lead to some realignment. But for now, running against stereotype is damned hard. Kerry’s trying and he seems to think being in 'Nam will be enough, but his senate record will make it hard.
But, rjung, that’s not John’s point! His point is that people were asking what W would say in an acceptance speech, and these are the “accomplishments” he will point to. No one is going to get up in the middle of the convention and say “Yeah, but…” John isn’t addressing the merits of the Bush admin, he’s listing the things they will claim they have achieved. And he’s dead right - they will claim exactly those things, and there are people, even intelligent well-educated people right on this board, who will agree with some or all of them. The fact that you and I consider them utter and complete bullshit won’t matter a hoot to the Republican Convention, any more than the Republicans’ disagreement and/or disbelief of Kerry’s talking points mattered to the Democratic one.
A lot of people’s political orientation is largely a measure of to whom they’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt. For these folks, the candidate on their ticket is, above all, always well-meaning, and the opposing side is always sinister. It’s a form of prejudice, really, that is only exacerbated by the trend toward political homogeneity in communities (red state, blue state; liberal or conservative “oases,” etc).
I may be falling prey to my own biases here, but it seems to me that the 'pubs are more active in encouraging this kind of thinking. Conservative commentators like Limbaugh and Coulter promote a blanket hatred and disdain of the left, whereas Moore and Franken tend to direct their scorn at policies and politicians while cutting conservative laypeople some slack. In his speech, Kerry reached out to Republicans, whereas the Bush team has been aggressively characterizing liberals as “out of touch” and “out of the mainstream,” which insults and excludes a large group of people.
To get your base fired up and translate that into voter turn out for your guy. This did that. Those who were predisposed to like Kerry like him more now. We are psyched.
And to declare which flank of your base you will be appealing to. Kerry is appealing to the middle. He is aiming for disillusioned Pubbies and independents.
He is hoping that some Bush suppporters will at least just stay home as well as his core being revved.
Anti-Bush feeling is high. Pro-Bush feeling? I don’t know, but I sense less high. Some of those might not vote for Kerry but might feel like abstaining rather than vote for Bush again if the other guy is not ananthema. But Bush is coming up to swing.
Depends on the ‘critique’. A serious and thoughtful critique of the government should get a serious and thoughtful response. After all, there are undeniably a lot of REAL problems with this administration. A ‘critique’ of the government involving hand waving and hysterical responses involving the US ‘going to hell in a hand cart’ or stating that the world is now safe for Haliburton, the overly simplistic and knee jerk position that the economy is tanking, etc etc…well, lets just say that if you REALLY think these are valid critiques, I’d say its a valid point to say ‘you just hate Bush’.
It would certainly be nice, but I have serious doubts it will ever happen (especially considering the actual thrust of your post). In the last 3 years I’ve noticed a upward trend in the amount of partisanship on this board (I wasn’t here during the Clinton days, but I doubt it could have been much worse than under Bush). Either way in this election I don’t see it lessening. Either Bush wins and the attacks from the left continue constantly, or Kerry wins and the left gets their turn in the hot seat for founded and unfounded attacks from the partisan right. Certainly many posters on this board have ‘earned’ a turn around, and it will be amusing for me (if Kerry wins) to see the shoe on the other foot, as its always easier to attack than defend a political position. As I don’t care who wins, I’m actually rooting for Kerry somewhat just for that reason.
Pish posh. Just the other day I heard a Pub rattle off a list of defense bills Kerry had voted against (the F-15, the F-14, the Bradley, etc). It was quite long, and included most of the pieces of equipment America has come to know and love from watching CNN. Voting to defund intelligence after the WTC 1993 isn’t gonna look good. Voting for the Patriot Act makes him a hypocrite. And they are going to ride his straddle on Iraq all the way to the end.
“Kerry voted to send troops to battle, but voted against giving them body armor” isn’t quite accurate but its close enough for political purposes. This stuff would be especially effective in debates.
How can people on the right complain about distortions from Moore while propagating these outright lies? Senators don’t vote to approve specific weapons systems; they vote on full budget packages. If I tell you I don’t want to go to McDonald’s for lunch, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to have lunch.
Can someone expound a little on the anti-anti-Bush/“liberals hate America” feeling?
There are really those who feel that disliking Bush is somehow being un-American?
I am very much anti-Bush. I am moderately excited about Kerry and thrilled that as time goes on I have someone to vote for rather than just someone to vote against. But truth be told I’d have voted against Bush if it was between him and a potted plant. At least the plant would not be actively causing harm. By many conservatives assessment I am a liberal (although on Political Compass I map out much more liberterian than liberal) … is there a sense that someone like me hates this country because I expect more out of it than the current administration is delivering on my behalf?