Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

"If Kerry wins, he will be scrutinized just as much as Bush has been, if not more. One reason I'll be voting for him is that I believe his administration will be much more open with the American public."

I agree with Turbodog's critique of the media favoring Kerry. Polls of journalists and media members have indicated that they, by a wide margin, favor Kerry.

How has the Bush administartion not been open (I'm assuming you are referring to the war in Iraq) with the American public? Journalists were embedded in practically every unit, there has been no shortage of briefings over there, nor has the media been censored.

One thing is for sure: a defensive posture focussed on educational efforts in the Arab world, coupled with a dependence on French public opinion regarding our own foreign policy, will result in a less safe world for America. We can see the fruits of 30 years of "do-nothing" policy clearly now.

'One thing is for sure: a defensive posture focussed on educational efforts in the Arab world, coupled with a dependence on French public opinion regarding our own foreign policy, will result in a less safe world for America. We can see the fruits of 30 years of "do-nothing" policy clearly now.'

That is an amazing amount of speculation and generalization wrapped into one statement. You must be trying to push someone's buttons. Or perhaps you're serious???

Because all presidents are scrutinized and critisized. It's part of the job description.

I realize that there are quite a few here who see the media as being in the pockets of the democrats, but I just don't see it that way. We live in a capitalistic society and the media is going to do anything it can to make a buck - schmooze the politicians when that is convenient and aggressively attack them when that is what will sell newspapers, magazines, TV airtime, web ads, whatever.

This is why, I believe, we see so much 'radicalization' of the airwaves in this country (check out any talk show on TV or radio). Extreme opinions sell and get people all fired up. And then they come back for more.

Myself, I can't stand all the accusations, rudeness, and attacks from both sides of the political spectrum, which is why I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC (of course, I'm one of those liberals from the northeast so those choices only make sense ).

Merely summarizing the last 39 pages of argument.

In reply to:

---

If Kerry ends up being a lousy president, then I'll be criticizing him just as harshly as I do Bush. You can count on that.

---

I'm on record even a year ago saying I absolutely believe if Kerry wins he would go down in history as the worse President ever.

The man just has ZERO character ZERO backbone ZERO vision. Howard Dean is a retard IMO but at least that man has those 3 qualities that Kerry lacks.

I'm curious where you would rank Bush on the spectrum of U.S. Presidents.

Dislaimer: the link is biased, but dies give a good summary of some of America's best Presidents and their views.

In reply to:

---

I'm on record even a year ago saying I absolutely believe if Kerry wins he would go down in history as the worse President ever.

---

And there are many who believe that Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever.

Bush won't go down in history as the worst ever - there are too many complete failures (like Grant, John Adams, Carter) for him to be classified as such.

How about Kerry? Look at the news yesterday and today. Bush announces planned troop withdrawls (and eventual base closures?) in Europe. Kerry blasts him on this in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars despite having said last month that he was for scaling down overseas military deployments.
Why the flip-flop? Kerry's campaign manager called it "new thinking"!
More likely he sees an opportunity to curry favor with the Europeans (who - despite their loathing for Americans and their opposition to our foreign policy and ideology - really love the influx of cash that our military bases bring), a chance to paint himself as pro-military at the last minute (that is absurd given his voting record in the Senate and his rhetoric after the Vietnam War), and continue his anti-Bush attacks on all fronts.

I don't think there is much need to worry, though. Looks like Bush will get re-elected, IMO.

In reply to:

---

...absurd given his voting record...

---

Not absurd at all. The fact that Kerry, who's record is generally pacifist and anti-military, is trying to run on his war record shows how vital his team thinks that is to his success.

I live in Washington (state of) and am represented by Senator Patty Murray, the "mom in tennis shoes" candidate who's voting record has also generally been anti-war and anti-military. She voted against both the Iraq war authorization and the later 80b war appropriations bill. Yet just the other day I saw a campaign commercial for her that touted her recent pro-military work and votes without ever saying she supported the war. Why would she do that?

This beautiful land also produced Seattle Congressman "Bagdad" Jim McDermott, who famously went to Bagdad just before the war to meet with Saddam and pre-denounce the coming invasion. He also took Saddam's money (which he later returned.) His reelection website still trumpets his anti-war position, but no longer mentions his trip. It made sense when he did it, but it wouldn't go over very well these days, would it?

I think these politicians, as smart and informed as they are, and as separated from the body politic as they are, have seen something. I think they've seen America changing right in front of their eyes.

Americans are beginning to realize that, suprise, we actually are at war, even though it's a new trans-national, slow-motion, hurry up and wait kind of war. And suprise again, a war most Americans believe was forced upon us by an enemy that seeks our destruction, not our attention. A war where, painfully, some of our "allies" have shown us their backsides. And obviously, a war we can lose. Who wouldn't get serious about that? To me, if a candidate isn't talking about the war, they've got nothing to say.

So this year voters have a job to do, maybe their most important job in 140 years, the results of which will undoubtedly affect the entire world for a long time to come. That frightens a lot of people, but not me. I look forward to it. I trust the American people.

Who do you trust?

In reply to:

---

Who do you trust?

---

not george w.. !!!

but you make some very valid points. there seems to be alot of 'flip-flopping' going on from both sides regarding the war. its just gonna be a whirlwind ride right down to nov 2nd.

may the least worse candidate win!!

bigjohn