Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:41 am
by Vicsun
[QUOTE=Nippy]OK, but you could argue that every single nation who went into war created a problem by going to war - no matter the war in question. Is it right then to criticise Britain for declaring war on Nazi Germany, or, for that matter, France, the Soviet Union or the US?[/QUOTE]
Why is it that every time a thread is discussing Bush, Nazi Germany creeps into the discussion?
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:52 am
by fable
[QUOTE=Georgi]I just don't see why it took this long. The news channels here have been saying for hours that with the lead that Bush had in Ohio, Kerry would have had to win pretty much 100% of the provisional votes, which was never going to happen.[/QUOTE]
Kerry dropping out was the smartest thing he could do, though I'm sure he did it for other reasons. Hell, if he'd won with the kind of divisiveness this election has shown, the level of hatred, the extremely neo-con Congress, the war bleeding at its seams, an economy near ruin and a blissfully unaware public, he'd be walking into an unwinnable situation. Now the neo-cons can handle it, and they can't blame anybody else as they steer the ship of state over the waterfall.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:07 pm
by VonDondu
[QUOTE=Georgi]I just don't see why it took this long. The news channels here have been saying for hours that with the lead that Bush had in Ohio, Kerry would have had to win pretty much 100% of the provisional votes, which was never going to happen.[/QUOTE]
I think there was a question about how many provisional votes there are. The first number I heard was about 300,000. Then they said 150,000, and now it's back up to 250,000 last time I checked. Also, when about 80% of the precincts had reported (when NBC called the state for Bush), there was still a chance that Bush's lead over Kerry could narrow when the remaining 20% was counted. As it turns out, Bush's lead actually increased, and there turned out to be fewer provisional ballots than originally projected. And finally, a lot of people were
still voting at 3:00AM, and you shouldn't call an election before people have finished casting their ballots; it just isn't good form.
Besides, when Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, announced that they could wait "another night" to count the votes, it would not have looked good for them to concede defeat just a few hours later, so they had to wait at least until the next morning.
There are also personal and political reasons for Kerry's delay in conceding. A lot of Democrats felt that Gore conceded the 2000 election too quickly, and Kerry did not want to make the same mistake. But from what I've read, John Edwards is the one who insisted on waiting the longest. I doubt that Kerry will run for President again in 2008, but Edwards still has presidential ambitions. His old seat in the Senate now belongs to a Republican, but I don't think that Edwards is ready for private life just yet. He wants the Kerry/Edwards ticket to look as good as possible under the circumstances, so he wanted to prove to everyone that they wouldn't let their supporters down. Did you see the statement that Edwards made in which he said they wouldn't quit until every vote was counted? That's a powerful statement, and I think it made him look good.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:07 pm
by Xandax
[QUOTE=Nippy]OK, but you could argue that every single nation who went into war created a problem by going to war - no matter the war in question. Is it right then to criticise Britain for declaring war on Nazi Germany, or, for that matter, France, the Soviet Union or the US?[/QUOTE]
You can't ever compare the second Gulf War with the Second World war for numerous reasons, so your analogy is void in my view. Regardless of whether or not one supported the (second) war in Iraq.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:19 pm
by Georgi
[QUOTE=VonDondu]Did you see the statement that Edwards made in which he said they wouldn't quit until every vote was counted? That's a powerful statement, and I think it made him look good.[/QUOTE]
But they have quit without every vote being counted, so how does that make him look?
I can't see Edwards as president, myself. What do people think about the possibilities of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, anyway? I'm curious. Maybe I should start a new thread for this.
[QUOTE=Nippy]OK, but you could argue that every single nation who went into war created a problem by going to war - no matter the war in question. Is it right then to criticise Britain for declaring war on Nazi Germany, or, for that matter, France, the Soviet Union or the US?[/QUOTE]
I really don't want to start the whole war on Iraq right/wrong debate, but suffice to say the circumstances were completely different. Hitler started the Second World War when he invaded Poland. Saddam supposedly posed an immediate threat because i) he had WMD and ii) he supported al-Qaeda. The former has since been proven false, and there is no evidence for the latter.
Anyway, it's not necessarily true to say that a problem is always created by going to war. The Second World War pretty much turned around the British economy that was in decline, didn't it?
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:49 pm
by VonDondu
[QUOTE=Georgi]But they have quit without every vote being counted, so how does that make him look?[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that Edwards made that statement, while Kerry is the one who made the concession. That insulates Edwards to some degree. I'm pretty sure that Edwards wanted to fight until the last vote was counted, while Kerry was more pragmatic and more anxious to get it all over with.
Besides, don't you realize how short the American attention span is?
But still, you have a point, and I have to admit that I was too exhausted to see it coming.
[QUOTE=Georgi]I can't see Edwards as president, myself. What do people think about the possibilities of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, anyway? I'm curious. Maybe I should start a new thread for this.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I don't like Edwards as a politician. I don't question his motives or his sincerity (he's the same as everyone else), but I don't think he has exceptional character. His good looks and Southern charm do not sway me; on the contrary, I perceive him to be slick and calculating. He's alright for lower office, but I look for something better in a President.
Putting my personal opinion of Hillary Clinton aside, I hope that she doesn't run for President. Regardless of her merits, she is one of the most divisive figures in American politics, and more divisiveness is the last thing we need in our next presidential election.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:36 am
by Aegis
Now that I've read the thread, and have a second, I'm going to post my thoughts, all conviently written up prior to the election. As a Canadian, I like to think that I have a somewhat different view than both Americans, and most Europeans. As such, here are my thoughts on why I'm glad Bush won.
Indecision: 2004
Yes, yes. I know all us Canucks are sick of hearing about the upcoming American election. I also know a great deal of you are cheering on that Charismatic Black hole known as John Kerry for victory. We are a very liberal thinking people, well, at least the downtown scum of St. Catharines is, and a good portion of the Walking-Brock. But, I wonder what it is that has lead many of us to this fore-gone conclusion that Kerry is the better choice for this campaign? When comparing their campaign platforms, essentially you can sum the majority of his up on two things: He won three purple hearts in Vietnam, and he is not Bush. Well, that sad thing is, he is not Bush, he is merely Bush-lite. Currently, there is little discernable difference between a Republican and Democrat, past their exterior that is. Not only those, but does Kerry seem all that competent a politician? Last I checked, politicians were at least somewhat charismatic. Something Bush has him beat on (Face it, a Cowboy is always cooler than the Heinz guy). Sure, Bush is a puppet of Cheney, as well as a moron, but he's also a man who acts on his beliefs, albeit, those beliefs are in the interest of Haliburtan and the rich minority, but I digress.
It is because of these facts, though, that I have recently opted to change my opinion on this coming election. While America would be in better hands without a Right Wing nut job behind the steering wheel, it would only hurt America in the long run. That is why I believe it best that Bush get elected for his second term, in which I will run it down for all those people who's jaws suddenly hit the ground at hearing me, the closest thing to a Pinko-Commie most of you know, endorse the re-election of George W. Bush.
The first point in this seemingly wacked out idea is this: Even if Kerry and the Democrats made it into the White House, it is naïve to think that he could fix the problems Bush has created, not only on a global level, but even on a national level. Bush entered the Whitehouse with one of the largest surplus' the nation had seen (thanks to good old Bill), and managed to squander it on his and Cheney's war chest. The country is in such shape now, that it would require massive amounts spending, and cut-bucks, not to mention tax increases, to simply regain a fraction of the composure seen at the beginning of the Bush administration. There is no fiscal way for Kerry to make such a comeback. In this particular case, it is best to simply let Bush continue, and have the Republicans get the eventual blame they have earned.
Secondly and simply put, it took two terms to discover Nixon was a crook. Bush is a petty thug, and crook with no real sense of duty. He has done little to disprove the fact he went AWOL from the Reserve forces (though, in his defense, you have to report for duty, to actually go AWOL. A loophole, perhaps?), not to mention that he has repeatedly shown his support to the oil conglomerates and business tycoons of the U.S. in his tax breaks, and contracts for rebuilding Iraq. He is a man who is protecting his interests, and doing in such a way where he is damaging the world view of the States. The American people will learn this, but they will learn it in his second term, in which they will respond with the next President being a Democrat.
Which brings me to my final point. After Kerry, the question is raised as to who will be the next nominee for the Democratic push. I believe, firmly, that it will Hillary Clinton. She has proven herself to be a competent, patient person, but a great deal of political know how. Not only that, but the Clinton family already has experience within the White House, with Hillary more than likely having been present in many of Bill's decision making process's (probably just to smack him when he said something stupid, but hey, it works). It's as the saying goes, "behind every successful man, there is a confused woman." Well, more like a good woman, both seem to work in this case. If anyone is able to rekindle the faith in the Democratic party in America, it will be this woman. She can do far more than Kerry could do in her place, and I believe that come the election in 2008, she will be given her chance. The U.S. will become disillusioned with the Republican party (at least until 2016), and we'll see the first female president in the Oval Office.
With that, I digress. American politics are a hot bed of controversy and lies, with few people wanting to really go deep into them. But, perhaps I've convinced a couple of you to this line of thinking, and perhaps convince you to hold on to your seats for four more years of W's wild ride, only to find a stronger, more capable leader of the Free World come the end of it.
-ÆGIS
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:17 am
by Nippy
I really don't know why I bothered saying anything on the board because it seems that the majority of posters on these boards are all anti-Republican OR anti-Bush. I think I'm not going to bother after this because its clear were the political feelings lie and theres not much point in saying owt else.
@ Vicsun, the reason why Nazi Germany crops up is because normally every damn thread concerning Bush is about war, and the WWII is the easiest comparison for everyone to understand.
@ Xandax, perhaps my anology with the particular conflict was void, but the general point was that if we follow the board's current guidelines and political compass, any war is wrong - that was my point, perhaps some conflicts are needed.
@ Georgi, thank God! Neither do I. =o But could you argue that Hussein started his and Iraq's downfall when he took a particularly anti-US stance and used chemical weapons?
As to your second point - I wouldn't consider the salvaging of an economy a bad thing, but going by how the board reacted to Gulf War II, the loss of life wouldn't be a good enough reason.
Please bear in mind that this is more than likely my last political post.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:35 am
by CM
Aww come on. I am a republican. I am very happy that Bush won, but for an entirely seperate set of reasons.
1. Kerry is bad for Pakistan. We got nukes, we have a military government and we help train terrorists (according to some
). To Kerry we are the devil.
2. To do with anything outside the US, Kerry is no different that Bush. Rather he is worse when it comes to economic issues. He is not Bush lite. He is Bush.
3. For me if i had to vote would be chosing the dumb evil or the smarter evil. Kerry is smart and he is evil. So i chose the dumb version.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:48 am
by Qark
Well said Aegis. At least we know what Bush is up to. Bush might have an evil plan for world domination, but he lacks finesse and occasionally speaks gibberish. With Kerry you would never know what to expect. He's a sneaky one, with a plan so cunning you can put a tail on it and call it a weasel. Better the devil you know, right?
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:20 am
by fable
Which brings me to my final point. After Kerry, the question is raised as to who will be the next nominee for the Democratic push. I believe, firmly, that it will Hillary Clinton. She has proven herself to be a competent, patient person, but a great deal of political know how. Not only that, but the Clinton family already has experience within the White House, with Hillary more than likely having been present in many of Bill's decision making process's (probably just to smack him when he said something stupid, but hey, it works). It's as the saying goes, "behind every successful man, there is a confused woman." Well, more like a good woman, both seem to work in this case. If anyone is able to rekindle the faith in the Democratic party in America, it will be this woman. She can do far more than Kerry could do in her place, and I believe that come the election in 2008, she will be given her chance. The U.S. will become disillusioned with the Republican party (at least until 2016), and we'll see the first female president in the Oval Office.
Won't happen. HC is now linked in the mind of many Americans with New York state and specifically New York City; and the only time in the last century that a president has come from that state was after the Great Depression of 1929. In other words, the mood of the nation would have to be very far to what passes for "the left" on its simplistic political spectrum for a president to be heard and accepted from one of the three most traditionally liberal states in the US. And you can bet the Republicans would play this up, when they're not working on the experience issue.
I can't speak to her competence. When Bush decided to invade Iraq, HC declared it was the duty of every American to, etc, etc, etc, and that seemed to me utterly ridiculous--though no worse than any other person in Congress who never bothered to ask why we were invading. A kind of intellectual paralysis settles over any people when a leader decides to invade somebody else. It's as if everybody felt that any questions would be tantamount to eating children, or throwing bombs.
But anyway, back to your main point. I suspect Gore is already testing the waters for a resurgence. He certainly is an intelligent man and a savvy politician, and he has the advantage of coming from a state that's perceived as safely moderate (meaning, very conservative) in these times. It's too early to say what other challengers will arise, but they will have to be, IMO:
Charismatic.
Manipulative.
Backed by a moderately conservative voting record.
Strongly backed by powerful, monied interests.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:52 am
by VonDondu
[QUOTE=fable]Which brings me to my final point. After Kerry, the question is raised as to who will be the next nominee for the Democratic push. I believe, firmly, that it will Hillary Clinton...
Won't happen. HC is now linked in the mind of many Americans with New York state and specifically New York City...
I suspect Gore is already testing the waters for a resurgence. He certainly is an intelligent man and a savvy politician, and he has the advantage of coming from a state that's perceived as safely moderate (meaning, very conservative) in these times.[/QUOTE]
Al Gore also comes from a Southern state, and I think that would help him win some of the "red states". But he did fail to carry his homestate in 2000, and that's a sobering thought. Besides, I don't know if he really wants to run again.
I don't know what the political landscape will be like in 2008. Judging by election results, 2004 isn't much different from 2000, but of course, it's more complicated than that. Gore won a slim majority of the popular vote when Bush ran as a "moderate" in 2000, but Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote when he ran as a conservative in 2004. I'm not so sure that Bush would have gotten more votes in 2000 if he had run as a conservative, but then again, it wasn't clear that he would get so many votes in this election. High turnouts were supposed to work against him since his base was assumed to be narrow, but as it turns out, high turnouts resulted in more votes for him. To me, that means that there are more conservative voters out there than the pollsters thought.
A lot of things could change in the next four years, so I don't know who the best candidate would be for the Democratic party in 2008. If there's a huge backlash against Bush, the next Republican candidate could very well be a moderate. Would a moderate Democrat be the best choice? I don't know. (It didn't work this time.) But I would guess that a candidate who couldn't win some conservative votes in 2008 would not be able to win the presidency, and I think that rules out Hillary Clinton, who is despised by most conservatives.
Here's a hypothetical question. Now that Kerry has lost the election, a lot of Democrats are going to blame him for it and say he wasn't a good candidate and so forth. Instead of asking whether someone like Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic candidate in 2008, why don't we ask who could have beaten Bush in 2004? Could Hillary have beaten Bush? Could Al Gore? I'd say that John Edwards and Howard Dean couldn't have beaten Bush just because they failed to win their party's nomination. Could Al Gore or Hillary Clinton have won the Democratic nomination? If they couldn't win it this year, I doubt they could win it in 2008.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:17 am
by Kayless
Personally I'm hoping John McCain is the Republican nominee for president in 2008.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:19 am
by CM
God I hope so. Now that is a man i can vote for. Secondly where the bloody 160th issue of DCI?
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:43 am
by fable
God I hope so. Now that is a man i can vote for.
McCain? You do relieve that he got into a heated public debate on several occasions with Dubya 9 years ago about who was the more "conservative" candidate? If you're looking for improved relationships with the outside world, McCain would appear to be not your man.
Here's a hypothetical question. Now that Kerry has lost the election, a lot of Democrats are going to blame him for it and say he wasn't a good candidate and so forth. Instead of asking whether someone like Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic candidate in 2008, why don't we ask who could have beaten Bush in 2004? Could Hillary have beaten Bush? Could Al Gore? I'd say that John Edwards and Howard Dean couldn't have beaten Bush just because they failed to win their party's nomination. Could Al Gore or Hillary Clinton have won the Democratic nomination? If they couldn't win it this year, I doubt they could win it in 2008.
If General Wesley Clark had possessed more than an idea of getting elected and chosen a savvy, politically competent team of experts to market him, he could have done the job. Clark was, like Kerry, a moderate-to-conservative, but unlike Kerry, his record wasn't out there for the neo-cons to lie about. And attacking a successful, popular US general would be considered in some conservative quarters "unpatriotic." He could have used Kerry's rhetoric and made it seem like he knew what he was talking about, and his experience with troops would have made Bush's every statement look amateurish.
Of course, his background would have been subjected to so much scrutiny that if he even made eyes at a cow at the age of 12, the neo-cons would have trumpeted that fact--and even if he didn't, they probably would do so: to a cult, lies are only an instrument used to install the truth. But I think Clark would have stood the best chance of winning, even if he was no more than a clothes rack to hang a uniform on.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:50 am
by VonDondu
Well, the problem with Clark is that a lot of people in the military turned on him because he ran as a Democrat. "We don't like him, he's not like us, and you know he got fired from his job as a commander, don't you?" That really did hurt him in the polls. If he had chosen to run as a Republican in 2008 (not trying to oppose Bush in 2004), he might have been able to beat McCain for the Republican nomination. (Yes, I expect McCain to run for President as a "moderate" in 2008.) But now, we'll never know.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:16 pm
by fable
[QUOTE=VonDondu]Well, the problem with Clark is that a lot of people in the military turned on him because he ran as a Democrat. "We don't like him, he's not like us, and you know he got fired from his job as a commander, don't you?" That really did hurt him in the polls. If he had chosen to run as a Republican in 2008 (not trying to oppose Bush in 2004), he might have been able to beat McCain for the Republican nomination. (Yes, I expect McCain to run for President as a "moderate" in 2008.) But now, we'll never know.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. He should have co-opted those people quietly to his side, just as Kerry should have anticipated the dirty tricks used by the neo-cons to arouse anger among former Vietnam vets who would lie before the camera because they hated his anti-Vietnam attitude. When you're fighting an enemy like the neo-cons, you have to think ahead, and you have to realize that they will use every means to distort the truth; and where they can't, they will deceive. It's best to have counters ready, far in advance.
But I don't see a Democratic candidate at this point who's savvy and ruthless enough to do this. Somebody who can beat the neo-cons at their own game. When two people play poker and one of them is cheating, it's a foregone conclusion who will win.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:17 pm
by Morlock
I find it amazing, that if Mrd. Edwards had been diagnosed with breast cancer a week earlier, the entire course of human history would be different. I am 100% sure that Kerry would've won the extra votes he needed had that happened.