Kerry Dance

Discussion in 'Politics' started by brneyedgrl80, Jun 4, 2004.

  1. brneyedgrl80
    Offline

    brneyedgrl80 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix-it's-dry-heat-Arizona
    Ratings:
    +3
    I figure that there are just not enough positvie posts about Kerry! ;)

    http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=alterman


    It may have the ring of cliché, but America's next presidential election will be among the most crucial events in contemporary history. Rarely in the modern era has the world seen such unchecked power exercised so ignorantly, arrogantly and with such profoundly counterproductive results as the Bush Administration's bait-and-switch invasion of Iraq. As Al Gore told an audience at NYU recently, "The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States." The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Gore noted, has reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." Al Qaeda now boasts an army of more than 18,000 potential terrorists, with the Iraqi war "swelling its ranks."

    The horror is slowly dawning on everyday Americans. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, almost three-fifths of the people questioned disapproved of Bush's handling of the war--the highest level the survey has ever recorded. Meanwhile, a CBS survey revealed that just about two-thirds of those asked responded that the country was on "the wrong track," also the top level CBS has ever reached in the twenty years its pollsters have been asking the question.

    Yet John Kerry remains roughly even with Bush in a straight-ahead matchup. There are many reasons for this. The Massachusetts liberal comes across as stiff and uncharismatic, and in America's personality-driven political culture, that matters far more than it should. Bush, moreover, has spent far more money on advertising than Kerry and has succeeded in casting him as an opportunistic "flip-flopper" among people who believe political ads. Much of the media, moreover, remain in thrall to Bush, having embedded themselves in this Administration's flight of ideological fancy and, like the New York Times's Judith Miller, published its spoon-fed propaganda as gospel.

    (Miller recently escaped any censure from the Times for passing along untrue stories about Iraq's weapons program, which is only fair, since it was the editors' job to rein in her uncritical embrace of convicted embezzler and possible Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi. In a more recent example of the same type of shameless shilling for the Bush Administration, CNN's Kelli Arena reported "speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House." This was arrant nonsense, as the IISS had just reported that Al Qaeda was using Bush's Iraq invasion as a recruiting tool, having been allowed to fully reconstitute itself owing to this Administration's criminal neglect.)

    Kerry's primary problem is that he has so far failed to distinguish himself in a fundamental fashion from Bush on the one issue that has destroyed the President's credibility. Bush & Co. fooled Kerry into voting to give them the authority to go to war back in 2002 on the basis of falsified evidence and meaningless promises, and Kerry has found himself in a straitjacket ever since. As the Los Angeles Times's excellent Ron Brownstein notes, the Kerry campaign's foreign policy focus is "less on criticizing the president's policies than on questioning whether he could provide the international leadership to implement them." Brownstein quotes a Democratic foreign policy analyst worrying that "the best he will be able to say is that Bush is finally doing what I said to do all along."

    The election's dynamic is further complicated by the unwelcome presence of political kamikaze bomber Ralph Nader, whose uncured self-delusion is leading him once again to convert the genuine idealism and narrow-minded narcissism of his supporters into another victory for the reactionary Republican right. With his hypercautious position on Iraq--"measured," in the opinion of the New York Times--Kerry risks leaving many of those who rightly see the war as a catastrophe with nowhere to go to express their outrage. As with the election of 1968, an increasingly antiwar electorate is being offered only prowar choices for the presidency. It is just possible, therefore, that Nader may once again insure Bush's "victory" in the election, dooming the world to four more years of a neoconservative imperialism and rogue American militarism.

    How can this be avoided? Quite easily, if Kerry could only admit to the entire country what he told me and a bunch of other reporters back in December in Al Franken's living room: Like so much of the country--and its elite media--he made a terrible mistake in trusting George W. Bush. He underestimated both the fanaticism and incompetence of the President and his advisers and their willingness to mislead the country into war. He thought George Tenet's CIA reports were on the level. He imagined Colin Powell was more than just window-dressing.

    Today Kerry can stake his claim--together with considerable political cover--alongside the truth-tellers of the Bush era: people like John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson and generals Anthony Zinni and Eric Shinseki, who have seen their characters and reputations attacked for the sin of patriotism and professional responsibility. Without delving into too much hand-tying detail, he could promise America to extricate the nation from its hubristic Mesopotamian misadventure at the earliest possible moment. He could assure Americans that he will reunite our allies and the world community in an intelligent fight against Islamic terrorists whose enemy is civilization everywhere. He could reassure the nation that he will get America "back on track."

    It is a simple, understandable message and one that is already implicitly endorsed by a majority of Americans. Unless the Democratic nominee rethinks his commitment to this neocon nightmare soon, he risks inviting a second Nader/Bush Administration, unshackled from the need to seek re-election, thereby unleashing its most belligerent and fanatical impulses. God help us.
     
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Would you rather those 18,000 be fighting us in the U.S. or Iraq? Please enlighten as to what should be happening in Iraq RIGHT NOW if Bush or someone else were not so "incompetant." You would think that we are being counterproductive in Iraq if all you listen to is what the media stations who conducted your "polls" tell you. They don't tell that new schools are opeing all the time in Iraq or that through the help of our contractors plumbing and electricity is be restored to places that have never had it before.


    See above as to why ABC and CBS shoudl go smoke a poll instead of conduct one. They simply have no real interest in reporting anything positve and yes positive things are happening.

    It amazes me as well that Kerry is so close to Bush in the polls. People new he was a flip-flopper long before any Bush ads came out. I don't what you mean by believing ads but they are factual. He did for and against the war. He claims to be for the working poor in this country yet he was absent on a vote that would have extended benefits to those on wellfare. the vote failed by one.
     
  3. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    What does that mean?
     
  4. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    It means his record reflects the fact that he wants to be all things to all people and in some cases that requires reversing votes/decisions.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    It shouldnt amaze you too much. When they say its close what they arent telling you its close in the wrong states. If Kerry and Bush are close in California and New Jersey, two of the beacons of liberalism in the country, Kerry is in trouble because those are two states he shouldnt have to spend money in.
     
  6. brneyedgrl80
    Offline

    brneyedgrl80 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix-it's-dry-heat-Arizona
    Ratings:
    +3
    That's just the article I posted, those aren't my words other than "There aren't enough positive...."

    I just figured I would change things up a bit and put some positvie stuff about Kerry on the board, instead of negative. You know, something different... ;)

    I apologize in advance Sir Evil, but yes, I support Kerry so far above the candidates. But we'll see, ultimately it just depends on who I agree with the most by voting time. :cool:
     
  7. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    My sentiments exactley Sir Evil. There just isn't anything positive to say about Kerry. Except he is opposed to gay marriage and would stay the course in Iraq. Both of which are the same as Bush's stances. Kerry says he'll do things differently in Iraq, but hasn't said how or what. Only that he would add in additional 40,000 US troops to the region. This is yet another flip-flop on Kerry's part, as i believe he originally wanted to get us out of Iraq ASAP.

    The two major issues in this election will be Iraq/war on terrorism and the economy. The democrates can't win on the economy so that leaves the war.

    My question to Browney: What is it about these two issues specifically that would make you vote for Kerry?
     

Share This Page