Anyone But Bush
AllUrHiveRblong2us
By Your Powers Combined... Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11244Members
By Your Powers Combined... Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11244Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Hurting the election?</div> It's reletively easy to see that there has been a very strong anti-bush movement in the US, and this movement oftentimes doesn't have any real standing of its own except to be against Bush. In the past few months of campaigning and choosing a democratic candidate, this anti-bush movement has translated into nominating a candidate based only on his electibility, not his issues, and his campaign has basically boiled down to "I'm not Bush, vote for me!"
The real question is do you think this "anyone but Bush" mentality has adversly affected the real choice on the ballot, considering as the opposition's only standpoint is that he is the opposition? And for those of you who plan to be voting Kerry, do you honestly think he differs so much from Bush considering the fact that he and Bush share similar views on so many issues (ie, the war in Iraq, many tax issues, etc)?
The real question is do you think this "anyone but Bush" mentality has adversly affected the real choice on the ballot, considering as the opposition's only standpoint is that he is the opposition? And for those of you who plan to be voting Kerry, do you honestly think he differs so much from Bush considering the fact that he and Bush share similar views on so many issues (ie, the war in Iraq, many tax issues, etc)?
Comments
I make the voter cutoff for the 04 elections by a scant two months...
I think this election will be decided by the swing republicans who are tired of the deficit spending etc.
If you ask me the "anyone but Bush" movement has already hurt the Democrats not the Republicans, they all rallied around Kerry far too quickly, before evaluating what a horrible choice he was. Look at his voting record, he supported the War on Terror, The war in Iraq, Bush's two biggest issues, but then he goes and doesn’t vote for a bill that would provide troops with more equipment and body armor. This stuff is making him a bright red flashing neon target.
His proposed tax on gas couldn't come at a worse time with record high gas prices, and peak oil starting to come out into the public light more and more. If he was smart he would start campaigning heavily for alternative fuels, at least that would give him something to stand on.
Another thing whether you like his decisions or not, Bush leads. He doesn’t try and take both sides of an issue, he makes a decision and sticks with it. Kerry keeps changing his base, he can't seem to make up his mind, and people are noticing.
But it's early, and a lot of people just hate Bush personally no matter how horrible Kerry is, so I guess it could go ether way.
That's my main issue with the man, he seems to be the most indecisive in a long line of middle-of-the-road democrats. I am a firm believer in the fact that you can't find a good liberal choice on the ballot anymore, even going back to the days of Perot he was the most unique of the candidates, the only one who spoke out against NAFTA, etc. In this election and the last the only even moderately visible choice candidate is of course Nader, and if he plays his cards right he could be a bigger factor this year than last year. I don't care if all the votes Nader pulls in end up with another 4 years of Bush and his kin in the white house, since frankly the two are so startlingly similar in rhetoric and stance that it wouldn't matter anyways.
I believe it was Dean’s strange fixation with kittens that was his downfall. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<img src='http://motocyclestore.ipbhost.com/forumpics/dean.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://photos.deanforamerica.com/photos/604611-M-1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Slightly more on topic, it is interesting to see what happens to a modern politician when he shows too much emotion in front of the cameras. Dean still had allot of support but his psychotic speech pretty much ruined it for him. Doubt he would have been a good president though.
<a href='http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/004723.html' target='_blank'>This</a> kind of explains when Dean's campaign went downhill <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But yes, anybody-but-Bush really is a bad mentality. The biggest criticism you can lob against Bush is the war on Iraq, and over-spending. The partial birth abortion ban and **** marriage are others, but they weren't overly disasterous.
Kerry has the benefit of not been president, so we can only criticize what he's said, or rather what he's sort-of-said. Kerry is too indecisive and duplicitous. As bad as Bush is, Kerry would be much worse, and Nader would be much worse than either of them.
You can't just not-vote-Bush without regard to who you WILL be voting for.
Anyway, now that Kerry is going to be the Dem. candidate, "Anyone but Bush" really means "Kerry instead of Bush", because we all know that 3rd party candidates really have no chance.
Although Nader could very well decide the outcome of this election. I have a hard time figuring out if Nader dislikes Democrats, Kerry, or the two party system, or he just has an ego the size of the Potomac River.
Ether way he is an important player in this election, plus it sounds like he's going to get allot more votes this time around, as people are getting quite fed up with the partisan politics and polarized parties.
Although Nader could very well decide the outcome of this election. I have a hard time figuring out if Nader dislikes Democrats, Kerry, or the two party system, or he just has an ego the size of the Potomac River.
Ether way he is an important player in this election, plus it sounds like he's going to get allot more votes this time around, as people are getting quite fed up with the partisan politics and polarized parties. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Viva la revolution?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->whatever heroic efforts he may have done in Vietnam are completely besmirched by his little ribbon/medal tossing extravaganza.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He protested the war in which he fought so we would stop sending our young soldiers to die in the Godforsaken conflict . . . to me, that's a <i>good</i> thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->doesn’t vote for a bill that would provide troops with more equipment and body armor. This stuff is making him a bright red flashing neon target.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kerry voted against it as a protest vote, when it was clear that it was going to pass by a wide margin. He supported supplying the troops with all equipment necessary, but he was adamant that we fund it by axing an additional tax cut. His point was that the 87 million should have come from one of the refunds-- you know, regular Americans sacrificing something for the war effort. Seems pretty sensible to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another thing whether you like his decisions or not, Bush leads. He doesn’t try and take both sides of an issue, he makes a decision and sticks with it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he was a well informed policy hound, then this would be remarkable and admirable. Instead, it's downright <i>scary</i>. I think too often we mistake his ignorance and inflexibility for strength of character. And I don't mean to paint him with the sloppy and inaccurate 'Bush is a moronic idiot' brush. That's not the case. But he <i>does</i> have an anti-intellectual streak, and he is quite open about the fact that he relies on other people to fill him in on the most basic information and events.
I think Kerry is a bright guy, though he does lack any sort of charisma. I think it's time for a reboot of our leadership-- especially since the only thing that scares me more than the current administration would be the current administration without re-election worries. I can't imagine Kerry doing a much worse job, and he won't rescind my tiny tax cut (at least he has campaigned that he won't; we'll see how that works out in practice). If he isn't up to the task, I'll gladly vote for a solid Republican ticket next time around.
Then I remember what ALL presidents do: Hold back their first term so they can get reelected, then go nuts the second term since they can't get reelected.
Bush's second term would be a disaster. Bush is trying to avoid mistakes for reelection and the world is STILL going to hell. Imagine what he'd do when he pulls out ALL the stops.
The man is a monkey. He is a moron. He is making America into a complete laughingstock, whereas we were just seen as being stuck-up before. He is the reason, the cause, the creator, the instigator of terror. He lies, he uses fear tactics on the populace (OMGz0rz!!!11!! T3rr0rZ 4l3r7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) to divert attention from what a goddamned moron he is. He supports war, as a deserter in the US Armed Forces. He supports harsher drug laws, after being a repeat-offender cocaine addict.
I'll say it again. I do not want that moron in office. Kerry at least might be able to pronounce 'nuclear' or take his job seriously enough to remember the names of the nation-leaders he's meeting with that day, if nothing else changes.
Who would you rather have president, someone who does EXACTLY what he wants, literally ignores everyone, and then makes up lies and stories to justify why he did it, or some guy who likes to try to make everyone happy?
Kerry seems indecisive because, and his own campaign managers say this, he wants to please everyone, even though you can't. I think that because of this, he'd be an excellent president. Instead of being a corporate slob like Bush who pulls favors for his big-business-buddies, Kerry is the kind of guy who'd cut big business a break, then try to make small business happy with something else. He's actually pretty moderate, in a way.
Even if a president goes forth making stupid mistakes, it's better than a president who is backtracking himself and unable to decide on important issues.
For the record however, Kerry has a <b>LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGG</b> history of being behind someone in the polls, and then coming back within the last month or so and taking it in for the win.
Don't believe me? Go do some research on the massachusetts senator campaigns, and also take note of how Dean fell before Kerry's amazing comebacks.
Even though I won't vote for him, I have to admit it that he sure is one hell of a politician, he breaks records when he has seemingly nothing going for him...
Credit must always been given where it's due <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It will never cease to amaze me how someone who goes graduates from Yale, and subsequently risees to be the most powerful man in the world is a 'moron'. Either he's incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. Your call.
The question is, who is more <span style='color:white'>Sorry Tal, but I've got to agree with the reports. It <i>is</i> offensive. Feel free to nuke any 'tree-hugger' comments in kind <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--></span> after such a dismal showing of character, wit, and honesty.. bowing to fear tactics scared up specifically to feed and influence the paranoia emplaced there by a mistake, when the president was fore-warned by no less than seven other intelligence agencies about the attacks. Though 'mistake' is difficult to define, when it's an intentional happenstance.
To be somewhat non-spammy, I think that bush took office trying to be a crusader for America, seeking out to change the world, and was without any clue on how politics worked at all. Looking at how active he's been (for better or for worse, that's your opinion) in world politics, he looks like what would happen if you gave a Sophomore football player in high-school the presidency. "Omg we got bombed, kill the Muslims!" was how everyone without a brainstem felt after 9/11. That's pretty much how Bush felt too.
This clearly shows you weren't paying attention during the previous Presidential election campaign. From the primaries to the debates, Bush held the Conservative line that goings-on outside our borders was their problem, not ours.
<span style='color:white'>Related line nuked.</span>
On to the main topic:
You're about 6-7 months too late. And you're not alone in your "buyers remorse". The Democratic party planned early on to push this process through as fast as possible. Anybody else get the feeling that the process started a long time ago? You'd be right. They moved most of the key primary States ahead of their regular schedule by months in some cases. That squeeze put off other viable candidates long before any States had the chance to choose. Take Gephardt for example: A candidate with at least as much political background as Kerry drops out after the first caucus? Dean and Lieberman (who was the selected vice-presidential candidate for Gore in 2000) drop out a mere couple weeks later? Who's left after January? Sharpton? Kucinich? Please.
I don't want to come off with an "I told you so" attitude but it's been widespread knowledge for months that Kerry wasn't selected so much as he was "deduced" by a small percentage of States and a feverish news media.
Of course, the whispered conspiracy theories report that Kerry is the perfect man for the candidacy because the DNC (read-Clinton/Mcauliffe) wants someone they can program or mold.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question is, who is more moronic... the moron, or the ones who try to place him into office again after such a dismal showing of character, wit, and honesty.. bowing to fear tactics scared up specifically to feed and influence the paranoia emplaced there by a mistake, when the president was fore-warned by no less than seven other intelligence agencies about the attacks. Though 'mistake' is difficult to define, when it's an intentional happenstance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. The republicans are moronic because they ask the president to run again for office for his second term? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2. If our president had so much warning, where was Clinton for the past 8 years?
3. Regardless of if 9/11 could have been prevented, saying that "we should have done something different" is quite the Monday morning quarter back syndrome. Untill you are president, I really wouldn't judge how someone handles vague evidence at best amoung hundreds of other threats. I know I wouldn't know what to do in that situation and no one can blame bush either.
And yes... let me say is slowly, as it appears to be creating cognitive dissonance. If a political party realizes they have a COMPLETE <span style='color:orange'>minor edit</span> as their candidate, it is an individual's responsibility to vote against that person, even if they are the incumbent.
I make the voter cutoff for the 04 elections by a scant two months...
I think this election will be decided by the swing republicans who are tired of the deficit spending etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
John Kerry is not a good alternative to bush.
Kerry changes his stance on every issue multiple times.
(I don't really have an opinion since I haven't been following the US news for a while. I just want to hear the cons and pros of the candidates' policies.)
Telesin, I don't think you are understanding what forlorn is saying. Do you know how many warning the president gets that never actually come to pass. With out being in a need to know position in the government, there is no way you could. You can, however, get a vague idea by looking at the threat level; and that thing is jumping all over the place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question is, who is more moronic... the moron, or the ones who try to place him into office again after such a dismal showing of character, wit, and honesty<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well thanks for letting me know I'm a moron, I guess should just quit grad school and go work at Burger King. Just because someone doesnt agree with you, does not qualify them as stupid.
I think the "anybody but bush" mentality has hurt the democratic party a lot. It lead to a rush to nominate the democrate's presidential canidate, not giving us a full picture of who was being nominated. Kerry is a true politician, he tells people what they want to hear with no intention of doing anything he says. I think lieberman(I mean the father from ALF) would had been a better canidate, I might have voted for him.
John Kerry is not a good alternative to bush.
Kerry changes his stance on every issue multiple times.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As does Bush-- somewhere amidst the media's constant portrayal of Bush as a 'strong, decisive leader' his numerous flip flops have gone all but completely ignored.
Such as (most courtesy of dailykos):
------
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on **** marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then says he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
------
More of these, with better documentation and analysis are located <a href='http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263' target='_blank'>here.</a> (Yes, it's a left leaning think tank, but attack the points if you will, not the source).
Bush has been quietly flip flopping his way through office. Take the Department of Homeland Security, for instance-- he was firmly against it, and then when it looked like it was destined for creation whether or not he approved of it, it was suddenly <i>his</i> idea.
And the final one-- on fingerprinting Mexicans-- I heard one right wing radio host describe it as a 'cagey political move to garner the Hispanic vote'. Sorry guy, spin it all you want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . ..
Now, onto the 'Bush as idiot' debate. I think he's a pretty ignorant guy, but it's almost his choosing to be that way-- he probably has a decent intellectual potential, but he doesn't seem to have any urge to expand his horizons or expend any energy in that direction. Again, he seems perfectly comfortable allowing other people to sift, distill, and pass information along to him.
Let's be honest-- if he wasn't born George Bush, would he be where he is today? Now, I understand that he's not the only politician or figure who would suffer that challenge. But he might be one who suffers the most.
By way of comparison (especially to tick the cons off <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), we <i>know</i> what would become of Clinton if he was born in a trailer park. Imagine Bush coming from that same environment.
Additionally, I don't like some of the people he puts his faith in-- Ashcroft is <i>not</i> the man who should be the number one law enforcement official in this country, and Chalabi . . . uh . . . we can file him under '<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/02/chalabi.iran/index.html' target='_blank'>really bad for national security</a>', no? How many millions did we give that traitor?
It will never cease to amaze me how someone who goes graduates from Yale, and subsequently risees to be the most powerful man in the world is a 'moron'. Either he's incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. Your call. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was put into Yale through his father as you know but what you probably didn't know was that he was a straight C student and he majored in History. Now how can someone who majors in history not learn anything from the past and continue to make the same mistakes of the past?
Also you might have not known that he was the head of his fraternity.
Heck, I'd vote for just a McCain-as-president ticket. He's one of the few people with influence that doesn't stink of politics.
I also think Nader would do a good job, much better than Kerry. It is unfortunate that our voting system is distinctively 2-party.
Most unfortunate of all is that the good candidates generally don't get their party's nomination. Getting the most votes seems to require a lot of watering down.
1) A man with a political agenda attempting to utilize a small flaw as a weapon.
2) An idiot
I'd like to say that you are #1, judging from your posts.
I would actually have respect for Kerry, even if he threw his own war medals in protest of the VietNam war; however, if you watch one of the first interviews with Kerry when he was running for office in Massachussetts, he flat out admits that they <b>were not even his medals</b>.
How can you even START to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, when it was Clinton that slashed intelligence and defense funding? Oh yeah, that's right, Clinton was a victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. My mistake that the Lewinsky scandal broke just as it was revealed that he had sold stripped down <b>stealth bomber</b> parts to China. Funny how that happens.
In any case, it really does not matter who you vote for at this point, we're in Iraq to stay for quite a while, even if it simply means the overhanging committment of American troops to Baghdad if anything seriously happens. Kerry knows this, that's why he isn't saying much to criticize Bush over the nation building in Iraq, instead focusing on attacking Bush over smaller domestic issues.