Tom, my memory of this, which was a hot topic in the Junior Common Room when I was at university, is that Reagan had proposed that the individual who contributed to an insurance scheme should be entitled to name their beneficiary. I think it may have been a little more nuanced than you suggest, and not clear cut that Ronnie had lied. I remember that quite a few Socialist politicians in the UK cut Reagan a bit of slack over this one.
roger, tomndebb is right. Here’s a link to a transcript of the debate:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/80debates/cart4.html
Starving Artist, I can see the accusation that Reagan had changed his stance after calling four times for the system to be made vountary, but no cites by Carter to those four occasions. Are they indisputable?
roger, sorry, I can’t answer that as I was primarily looking to see just what was said, as I didn’t have any recollection of it even though I watched the debate. (Of course, all I really remember about it was the “There you go again” comment.)
It looks to me though like these are things Reagan had said over a period of some 15 years and that there were extenuating circumstances that could have caused Reagan’s ideas about the right thing to do to shift with the times and differing peripheral circumstances.
I think perhaps friend tomndebb is being a tad harsh about Reagan lying, but I don’t know enough about it to say for sure. I would think, however, that a televised pre-election debate would be about the last place where a candidate would lie about an easily verifiable fact.
I would have come back to this earlier but the Boards went tits-up and I couldn’t get on…
Just to clear up a couple of points:
Kerry in the British Media.
For those that don’t know the British media is split into two – Broadcast and print. Print media is very opinionated, with certain papers and journals being strongly left wing, (New Statesman, Guardian etc) and others strongly right wing (Telegraph, Spectator and so on). There are also the red-top tabloids, but to them Jordan isn’t next to Israel but is a footballer-shagger with big bristols.
In the left leaning, and therefore pro-Kerry media he is portrayed as best they can, but even here they are quite despairing of him. You must remember as posters have said above, that to these people Bush isn’t the opposition he’s Satan, and so is anyone who supports him (“big-oil” “military industrial Complex” Christian Fundamentalists (and these are the people who they really really hate). As such they simply cannot understand why he isn’t wiping the floor with Bush. After all, 1,000 dead Americans (we Brits don’t think the USA has any stomach for a war – we’re being proved wrong); an economic recession; patriot act; Guantanemo etc etc all dictate to these people that Kerry should be romping home. The fact that he hasn’t really laid a glove on Bush makes them wail and rend their (scruffy) garments.
The right wing media just think he’s a big-chinned tosser with American hair. More specifically they think he flip-flops and can’t put together a coherent campaign. As I say the guy is a decorated Vietnam vet and he lost the argument about military service to a bloke who dodged the war altogether so he could snort Charlie rather than fight him.
As for the broadcast media. These are supposedly neutral – but all display a leftish tint (IMHO anyway). You will see an awful lot of anti-bush stuff on the TV – mainly comedy (and he is comedy gold isn’t he?). However even here they struggle to make Kerry look like a viable alternative.
We don’t have the equivalent of political radio Rush Limbaugh types.
Purple Heart:
This is a Mickey-mouse medal that the WHOLE of the rest of the world thinks is risible – even the French! I suspect I got wounded worse that most holders of this getting my cub-scout proficiency badges.
So to get back to my OP – Is there a hope in hell that Kerry is going to win?
I find the term “Bristols” fascinating. What’s the connection with the city of the same name?
Jordan is also a river, a Hong Kong neighborhood, a basketball player, a car, Jimmy Carter’s spin doctor and four cities in America, but you knew that.
What’s “American hair” to you, exactly?
It’s a medal for people who get wounded in an actual war, neither more nor less. Surely there’s a British equivalent? Have you been wounded in a war? Was your father, grandfather, or great-grandfather? If so, how was it?
What, exactly, has led you to believe that the world holds decorated veterans in such low regard?
I take it that you’re saying at all people from France are cowards, or that you’re under the impression that you’re being funny? What have the French done to arouse such hatred in you, since the days of Napoleon?
That’s anybody’s guess, really. It’s a tight run thing and could land both ways, but I suspect you knew that. You might as well ask what the weather’s going to be on election day.
Even so, I have enjoyed the almost encyclopedic insight into the character of various types of foreigner displayed here, as well as the deep and well-researched analysis of the lack of courage and moral fibre in politicians who don’t agree with you. And wasn’t that the real point of the thread, anyway?
**Bristols ** - london slang - Bristol Cities - Titties.
This is Jordan (an obsession of our tabloids 'cos she’s got big thruppenies (you work it out) and bonks footballers and popstars etc. Here she is (not entirely office safe - she does topless stuff):
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jebsplace/jordan_mod.htm
American Hair This wold need another thread - really it would.
Purple Heart This may come as a shock to you, but the British Army does not have such a medal - neither does any other vaguely first rate military nation. It’s the USA that’s the odd one out here. And seeing as you bring up my family - My father, Grandfather (Father’s side )and Great Grandfather all won the MC, which is a proper medal. My Mum’s dad won an Admiralty Cross too.
Motive: Nope. I really wanted to know if anyone thought Kerry stood any sort of chance in November and if so, why. So far no one has really given me an answer
Oh, rhyming slang! Gotta love that.
I’m happy to hear your family served with distinction. I’d just like to point out that being wounded in a war isn’t (necessarily) a walk in the park. Even if the wound isn’t deadly, you may go throught life traumatized (which is not the same as being a wimp). Did you know that the Purple Heart is also the medal you get when you’re killed in a war?
On the uniqueness of the Purple Heart: you’re both right and wrong.
In the last big European conflict, most countries had an equivalent. Germany, for instance, had “wound badges”, Verwundetenabzeichen, which came in black, silver and gold, depending on the number of times you were wounded. The Soviet Union also had a wound badge, which came in to classes, depending on the severity of the wound. During WW1 the British Army issued “wound stripes” worn on the left cuff and elbow. Most of the commonwealth countries awarded “wound stripes”.
The US is unique in having an actual medal for this.
Bronze and Silver stars are not tossed out to the troops like confetti.
Kerry and Bush have essentially been tied in the polls for the last several months, so the answer is obviously ‘yes, Kerry has a chance.’
Oh, and you’re right that we need a thread on the hair, sounds like fun! American politicians do tend to have a certain type of hair, I think - people like Clinton, Reagan and, yes, Kerry (and to some extent even Bush) seem to have an impressive amount of hair for their age - did Mother Nature receive a helping hand? Cheney’s an exception, but perhaps it’s a wise career move not to have better hair than your boss.
Kerry’s hair is apparently styled on John F. Kennedy’s. I would suggest that you have it backward. Appearance counts, and perhaps successful politicians normally have more hair because it’s helpful in their profession to appear at least somewhat youthful and attractive. Someone who is bald might have a minor strike against him. I’ve never heard anyone argue that John Kerry is a handsome man, but the problem isn’t the full head of hair.
I saw something similar about the polls in this morning’s Telegraph.
There was also a long article basically stating that Kerry was a busted flush and that Bush would win by a mile. Bear in mind that the Telegraph is the most pro-Bush British paper, until recently owned By Conrad Black aka Lord Black of Crossharbour, who has several titles in the USA. I would link the article but the site is a registration site.
here are some bits…
There are two months to go and appalled Democrats are starting to fear that the presidential election may be all but over. If they took a trip through the small towns of Middle America, they would be even more alarmed…
…George W Bush’s “steady as you go” message is getting through. The heartland does not want to change the commander-in-chief at a time of war, at least not for the Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.
…
This must seem astonishing, even shocking, to many in Britain. Only a fortnight ago, the polls showed Mr Bush and his challenger neck-and-neck. On paper, Mr Bush’s record is dire - a soaring deficit, more jobless, an unresolved intervention in the Middle East - just the sort of menu to make voters consider ousting an incumbent. But his clarity of vision and purpose go down a storm…
…The truth is that Kerry has had a disastrous month, fumbling his message on Iraq and failing to refute a brutal but utterly predictable assault on his character. If, as seems likely right now, Mr Kerry loses in November, he has only himself to blame.
Watching Mr Kerry try to take on Mr Bush brings to mind a classic moment in that cult film of the 1980s, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones is trapped in a back-alley in an Egyptian souk.
A crowd closes in as a giant Arab steps forward wielding a scimitar. Snick-snack it goes through the air, faster and faster. The audience tenses. Indie shudders.
Then he draws a pistol from his belt and shoots the Arab in the forehead. Game over. The crowd drifts away.
Such is America’s polarisation that the crowd enveloping the two presidential candidates is not yet drifting away. But, notwithstanding his own twists over Iraq, Mr Bush plays a convincing straight shooter. His pistol is already drawn and all the while Mr Kerry seems happier whirling a scimitar than reaching for a gun…
and there is more in similar vein. Care to comment?
Why are you convinced by that, but not by Cite? Kerry has a chance. If that doesn’t answer your question, it’s hard to believe you want it answered.
I have a natural disinclination to trust opinion polls. Here in Britain they have been spectacularly wrong in the past (the 1992 election springs to mind – Mrs Kinnock was practically choosing curtains for Downing St on the basis of the polls – Major won).
There is a tendency to over state the left of centre support in these things. Perhaps they’re more accurate in the US? And of course it all depends on where the votes are cast (for instance in Britain the Tories and Labour party are neck and neck in the polls – but that translates into a huge labour win in real life)
For what it’s worth I think Bush will beat Kerry like a ginger step-child, and I would be prepared to have a cyber bet to that very effect. (I won rather a large amount of proper actual folding money on the last US election – but blimey all that fannying around with the chads was a bit nerve jangling).
I no longer believe that.
suit yerself mate. But it’s true.
“Blah blah blah blah blah.”
You could’ve said the same thing two months earlier. Who gives a crap? Some people have never thought he could win. Everybody has his own opinion.
And they’d be still more alarmed if they went to Texas. :rolleyes: Middle America is predominantly Republican, so I fail to see the relevance.
“Many in Britain” must not be paying attention to the fact that the Republican National Convention just ended and Bush received a predictable bounce in the polls as a result. The lead he had in the polls a few days ago, after that convention, is already pretty much gone. Of course, when you give numbers entirely out of their context, misleading comments are to be expected. There are ebbs and flows to these things.
Which he’s now doing. Two months (with most of the big action to come) is more than enough time to overcome that. As I said, there are ebbs and flows to this. Kerry had a good July and a bad August. He’s changed his strategy and some of his staff, been more aggressive, and developments in the the news will continue to have an impact on the race.
Yes, opinion polls can be wrong. That said, there have been a ton of them done so far and they all say basically the same thing. If you were asking how it can win, it would be one thing, but you make it sound like an absurd idea when it’s plainly not. The fact that you can find Democrats predicting doom (you can certainly find some fine examples on this board) doesn’t mean anything. You asked a simple question and I think it’s been answered. A lot of Americans wonder if Bush has made them safer, if things are getting better for them economically, and if Iraq was a bad idea. He has a number of weaknesses. Will Kerry win? I don’t know. But I think the notion that you can say he can’t this far off is ludicrous.
You will remember that five years later, the polls singularly failed to predict the utter tonking the Tories were about to receive, thus overstating support for the right in that case.
I believe many here, including myself, are questioning your supposed impartial stance here, owl. I happen to think Bush will win also, but not by much, and consider that he is an aphasic gibbon of a man and that Kerry is so right-wing that Anne Widdecombe would likely say that there was something of the pitch-black dead of night in a Transylvanian coal mine.
But I would not say so in a thread ostensibly devoted to earnest enquiry, nor respond to genuine replies with such blatantly partisan opinions.
If you really want this, then you should probably lay off bashing Kerry.
The way he stands a chance is that on any given day, close to half of those folks expected to vote plan on voting for him. Some days it’s over half, some days it’s under. The fact that it goes back and forth just shows how easy it is to swing a portion of the voters one way or the other, which means the election could hinge on what happens in the week or two preceding it. It’s likely a toss up until then.
I’m not sure where you get this impression from. Sure, there are some folks who will vote for “Anyone but Bush”, but there are also plenty of folks who will vote for “Any Republican you put in front of me.” There is a LOT of polarization on issues this election, so both candidates are going after those who seem to swing back and forth with the wind, more than trying to change the stance of those diehards on either side.
Nor do half of the Republicans on any given election. Voter apathy has been a problem on both sides for a long time. I do think you’ll see an energized Democratic base this time, but what is not yet clear is whether the Republicans will be equally energized, to the extent needed to balance that out. It’s quite possible they will, thus this election is too close to call.
Sure it happens. There are conservatives who get all of their news from Fox, too. You keep trying to make it appear that all of these negative attributes are leftist. Both parties are pretty equal in terms of how wacko their extremes are and how sane their middle is.
Who is this proverbial “we?” I’m guessing you’re suffering from “chattering class” syndrome.
I don’t consider a purple heart to be some huge sign of heroism myself. You did seem to forget about those pesky other medals, the Silver Star, which is “awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.”, and the Bronze Star, which is “awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy; or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party”. These are not given for snagging a nail. This is the same wimp who volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn’t told to go, he asked specifically. His exact words were, on paper, “I request duty in Vietnam.” Do you really not get that?
You need to expand your horizons beyond your “chattering class”, which seems to include the “Swifties.” Here is what Snopes has to say about that. You can find his stance on various issues here, so that you’ll learn what he stands for.
You get all of these impressions from the BBC? Please cite some of what they’ve said that gave you these impressions.
Neither of the above propositions is even close to universally true, so he can win. Whether he will or not is still to be seen, and likely won’t be known until the first Tuesday in November.
Why would anyone vote for Kerry? Its a loaded question that requires a long answer.
New(er) regional differences appearing. Whereas it used to be (and still is to an extent) North vs. South or East vs. West, it is increasingly the coasts vs. the middle. In general I think Kerry has more support in the coasts, Bush in the middle.
Economics. Very much related and intertwined with the regional thing above. In general, ‘on the street’ so to speak (or amongst normal americans), things are shaping up into free-traders vs. anti-free traders, though again this is a generality. This is one of the areas where people will vote based on perception far more than reality, as niether party in any way supports free trade. Both parties are partisans of economic fuedalism, also called cronyist capitalism, also called Mercantilism. Basically, if you stand to gain from the largesse of taxpayers money and/or trade restrictions handed to the special interests that back the democrats, youll probably vote Kerry; if you stand to gain from the largesse of taxpayers money and/or trade restrictions handed to the special interests that back the republicans, youll probably vote Bush, though actually this is one area that crosses party lines; whether one is a free trader or not is not a good indication of ones party affiliation.
Religon. Very very generally, if youre strongly religous in one of the eastern originated judeo christian religons (Catholics, Orthodox, Jews) youll probably vote for Kerry, though for reasons that should be obvious I think Jews are going to vote more bi-partisan this election. If youre an adherent of one of the western european originated judeo christian religons (especially of British origin, less so Lutherans or germanic origin) youll probably vote for Bush. If youre an adherent of secular religon (such as believing in a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, believing in an objective standard of value to all things, etc) youll probably vote for Nader or the Greens or hold your nose and vote for Kerry.
Terrorism. Rightly or wrongly a seperate issue from the Iraq war to most people in my opinion. The Iraq war is Bushes largest Achilles heal; if it werent for that he’d be a shoo in (well, that and his increasingly anti-free trade actions). But regardless, the potential for future attacks on the US like 9/11 or the school thing in Russia is there. Whether or not that potential was increased by Iraq is irrelevent. Depending on how one thinks terrorism should be fought (or not) etc, youll vote for either one. This is where much of the ‘what we know vs. what we dont know’ comes in in my opinion.
There are any number of reasons for people in certain situations to vote for Kerry, though the one I hear out and about the most is simply that he isnt Bush. There are people who would vote for Pinochet or Pol Pot if those were the only alternatives because theyve allowed themselves to be worked up into a lather about Bush.
Personally, I agree with those who have said this is shaping up to be one of the more partisan elections in some time, which is saying quite a damn bit. I have no numbers to back this up, but this leads me to think that voter turn-out will be correspondingly low; the more partisan the election, the more non-partisan people tend to want to stay out of it. I know Im writting in the name of someone I know and have a great deal of respect for; if I wasnt doing that I wouldnt vote at all.