2004 Presidential Election

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.A. Foreign Policy1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.B. Domestic Policy1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.ConclusionThe failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

I don't think he's going to win by a landslide, but I think he's going to win, nonetheless. Some people simply refuse to be convinced by any evidence that he's not a good president; to them, any fact that contradicts their view of Bush must be a priori wrong or untrue.Would you send me that email? I believe my address is on my profile.

I agree, Kerry has a great vietnam record, is a strong leader, and is articulate is speaking. He is also plainly a "good" guy. Channel Thirteen helped me come to this conclusion with the show "Choice", a broadcast about President Bush and Senator Kerry.

---

"Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."Ephesians 5:14

There was a bit on the radio here (CBC) last night about some organization that had received 500,000 in funding from the Republican party and had in some fashion impersonated America Votes (a non partisan get out the vote organization). This impersonator collected voter registrations and destroyed Democratic ones.I'm beginning to think that you guys need more election monitors in there. If we don't help get your election run fairly we may have to end up sending in peace keepers next to try to restore order.I only half listened to this bit. Does anyone else know anything?

Employees of the organization in two states have testified to the shredding of Democratic registrations - Nevada and Oregon.

Well, it isn't a matter of refusal to be convinced by the evidence, it is a matter of weighing all of it and forming an opinion.Politics isn't like physical science. In politics, multiple, independent lines of evidence lead to differing opinions and conjectures. And this happens on both sides.Some hold irrational beliefs in the efficacy of the UN, despite evidence that it is primarily a tool of Third World kleptocracy.Some cling to a concept of an "international community" that doesn't really exist. For example, yes, France opposed US intervention in Iraq. Why do you assume French and US interests coincide ? There is no evidence that they do, and much evidence that they have diverged, and well before either Bush came on the scene.Extra credit question: What year did France withdraw its forces from NATO ?If France is no ally, but increasingly an unfriendly country, there is little reason to have regard for their views on US actions.Kerry advocates not cutting taxes, and protectionist trade policy as a proper response to an economy just emerging from a recession and weak stock market. So did Hoover, and this resulted in a recession going into a full depression. It is the height of irony that Kerry dares to compare Bush to Hoover. It is Kerry's proposals that resembles Hoover's actions.I think there are a host of sound reasons to consider Bush as having done a good job. You obviously don't agree, and that's fine. Vote for someone else.But don't dismiss your opponents as stubbornly avoiding the facts as you see them. You sound like a fundamentalist YEC when you do that.IMO, I think Bush will win. If he does not, IMO Kerry will be a one-termer, failing in Carter-like fashion. And you'll get some even more right-wing Republican in 2008 as backlash.Which leads to what I tell my offline friends in academia, more than slightly tongue in cheek:"Bush now, or Ashcroft later".

You'd think so, but that's not the experience I've had with Bush supporters, like my parents.When evidence is presented, if it contradicts their position, they know it's wrong. Because France has been a target of terror, too? Ok, but there's a lot more nations in the world than France. Even among our "Coalition", it's pretty hard to get them to actually commit troops. Most of their contributions are supply-chain stuff. And see, that's exactly what my parents say. And the conversation is much like this one is going to be:"Bush has done a great job.""Based on what evidence?""..."Even Bush doesn't bring up his record. All he campaigns on is what he's going to do, not what he's succeeded at doing so far. It's like he's forgotten that he's been the president; so, it seems, has everyone else. I can only report my experiences as they have occured. And it has been my near-universal experience that Bush supporters ignore inconvenient facts instead of addressing them.Be the guy that proves me wrong, I guess. Unfortunately, history and the polls are very much against him. Undecideds break against the incumbent almost 4-to-1, and there's no reason to suggest this will be any different, especially with Kerry's three-fold victory in the debates.

Urp! That's not even remotely funny.

Jeb, Neil, Marvin in the wings.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, that doesn't imply that France and the US will have the same views on how to respond to terrorism.They didn't have the same views on how to respond to Nazi Germany, after all. The Vichy government had a policy of collaboration, and during the North African campaign in 1942 allowed German troops to pass unimpeded through Vichy controlled territory, while opposing US troops with force. I suppose we can be thankful FDR had less respect for French sensibilities about preeemptive attacks (Vichy wasn't at war with the US at the time) than Kerry.The point of all this being, US interests and approaches may not coincide with French (or other nations). But the British (a division), Australian, Ukrainian, Italian,Polish, and South Korean contributions of combat forces (all about a regiment each) are significant. The French and Germans have already stated they won't participate, Kerry or no Kerry.Name a nation that is in a position to send a combat division (10000 to 20000 troops) to Iraq that hasn't yet, that Kerry could convince to do so with "better diplomacy".Otherwise, it's just talk.In any case it implicitly implies that being in Iraq makes sense, but is being mismanaged. On other occasions you (and Kerry) say we shouldn't be there in the first place.You (and Kerry) can't have it both ways. If you think we should withdraw immediately, fine. It's not a very popular position, but you're entitled to it. May I suggest a candidate who holds this position and is straight in saying so (Nader, or the Green candidate )?Either Kerry is going to cut & run and is currently lying (my opinion- worth what you paid for it of course) , or he's telling the truth, in which case he's still being somewhat disingenuous, as it's going to be the current coalition plus indiginous Iraqi forces either way if we stay.

I don't know guys... This is still going to be a close race. Even with the 3 debates polls are still split almost down the middle

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

It's very easy to find evidence to support whatever the heck you want. Its very hard to wade through it all and determine what is legit and what is not what is a distortion and what is truth.I'd imagine people like your parents have judged Kerry and Bush on three things: Frankness, policy, and core beliefs. If all three point to Bush being a virtuous man who can lead, and Kerry to a scumbag who is power hungry, then they generally don't care what kind of evidence you can present because its always harder to wade through it and get the truth than it seems. So unless you want to spend your day doing political research, trusting in Bush's character and proven leadership skills is good enough for them.You on the other hand, hate Bush because he got us into a war with Iraq and lets his Christian beliefs influence him as president. So you generally believe anything bad about Bush and anything good about Kerry and I seriously doubt you spend your day wading through the evidence and researching the pros and cons of every decision Bush and Kerry have made. It will be a sad day when we depend on France to let us know when to go to war. There is a thing in leadership called initiative. It means taking charge and getting a thing done that needs to be done even if others are reluctant or unwilling to do so. Initiative is a quality to be praised in a leader. Since the world leaders are now all poloticians who must cow-tow to the demands of the masses, strong character and leadership qualities are rare. Winston Churchill was the one voice of wisdom among thousands of such spineless poloticians. If he had been heard sooner, WWII would not have happened. Bush is in the same position not specifically with terrorism, but with terrorism combined with rogue nuclear powers. Talking alone will not make the world a safer place. Bush has spoken of his accomplishments. Have you been paying attention? Did you watch the three debates? If anything, I'd like both of them to quit talking about the past and explain more about what they WILL do. The last poll I looked at showed Bush up by 4 points, just over the margin of error. I have not heard of a three-fold victory, but then again you probably read only liberal media. The first was a victory for Kerry, the second a tie, and the third a victory for Bush, though over all Kerry did gain ground. You are right about the undecideds though. I think it will be very close, but a victory for Bush.IMO, its a shame that the future of the nation is to be decided by the few people so disengaged or so stupid they are not able to make up their minds about for whom to vote.

Naturally. But at that point, reasonable people conclude that compromise is the wisest course, not unilateralism that leaves some of our short-term goals accomplished, but opposed at every turn when we try to enact goals later. And why do you suppose that is, exactly? They've worked with us before; significantly, in many cases. Except for the British, not a single country on that list has contributed more than 3000 troops. On the other hand, the American committment is over 140,000 troops.Maybe you need to tell me what you mean by "significant"? Canada? Of course, I don't know that Kerry is going to be able to convince them either. But I don't see why that's a mark against him - Bush hasn't been successful there, either.And there's a considerable argument that the immense public disfavor aimed against us in the nations of potential allies is directed right at Bush. Having him out of the office might be a big help in itself. Like it or not, we're there now. The Pottery Barn principle demands that we do our best to put Iraq back together before we pull out.That's not an endorsement of the war, though. We should never have done it in the first place. But we can't change the past; we can only change our leadership. When somebody fucks up as bad as Bush, you don't put him in charge of fixing it. That's obvious. Please, don't misconstrue my position so transparently. It does neither of us any favors.

The evidence supports only that which is true. If this is true for you, then you need to discern presented evidences more rigourously. It's just time-consuming. So what you do is pick, say, the three most important issues to you, and then ascertain the candidates' positions and history on the issues. It's not hard to cut through the spin if you focus on two or three issues. But they're not willing to even entertain the idea that Bush might not have good character, or be a good leader. Even though evidence can be found to suggest these things. I know I've corrected you on this before; I shouldn't have to do it again. I don't hate Bush. I did, after all, vote for him in 2000. I'm sure he's a great guy. But I don't think he's a good president. Not every decision, but certainly those in regards to the issues I have decided are most important to me: fiscal policy, economic policy, and science policies. There's a considerable difference between "taking initiative" and charging ahead with an idea everyone else is telling you is a bad one. So is humility, wisdom, integrity, intelligence, familiarity with the facts. Bush has none of those, unfortunately. But neither will military action against states. That's a Cold War solution to a modern problem - modern terrorism is state-independant. Intensely. Whenever Bush's record comes up... ...the subject gets changed. If you want to know what Bush will do, the answer is "more of the same." Just look at his record. No, actually, I read a variety of conservative and mainstream sources. Unfortunately, the only people declaring the second debate a tie and the third a Bush victory were the conservative wingnuts. Polling after the debate revealed that the majority of Americans construed each debate as a solid Kerry win.

From another thread, long ago...

quote:

---

I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...

---

There is quite a bit of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and others were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and used that terrible event as some kind of justification.Rice and Powel both characterized Saddam and Iraq as contained and powerless just before 9/11, but when Bush wanted to invade, suddenly there were WMD all over the place.They repeatedly made clever connections between terrorists, 9/11, and Iraq in order to connect them in people's mind.This was so effective that a majority of people believed that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi.How do you think the public got that idea?So, there was definitely some lying in the selling of the war, for sure. There was also quite a lot of ignoring of contradictory evidence because it wasn't what they wanted to see or know. They ignored Blix and the weapons inspectors who told them that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and listened to Chalabi and others because it was what they wanted to hear.This might not make them utter liars, but it does make them grossly incompetant.

quote:

---

but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq. And Blair of the UK, for that matter.

---

Unfortunately, it would have been political death for anyone to vote against Saint George at that point, with irrational patriotism and gullibility being at an all time high amongst the populace.Besides, Kerry and Edwards didn't vote for Bush to bollocks things up so badly.

---

"[Saddam] had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."-ex-chief US arms inspector David Kay