Political Ranting

Cheney is telling people that if Kerry is elected, then another terrorist attack will occur. Yeah, appeal for votes through sheer fear, best yet if its unprovable! As my friend said, "like there won't be another attack if Bush & company are in office." Now Cheney is backtracking, saying, "I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack. Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks." I guess I took your statement, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." as saying that if voters vote for the "wrong choice" (which I would call Bush but I'll assume for argument's sake that you meant Kerry), the US will be hit by terrorists. Silly me for thinking that was an unfair low blow that played on fear that that you know that you can't prove at all. (and everyone else who thought the same thing I guess...) A friend doesn’t think that the statement was over the line because Cheney only meant that he believes that American safety would be better served by the Republican policy than the Democratic policy. That may be what he meant, but that’s *NOT* how or what he said. He said it the way he did to cause fear in people. Not as a "our policy is more sound" type of analytical argument. At least the Democrats focus on real reasons they think their package is better - such as focus on the real threat in Afghanistan rather than the fake threats in Iraq, working WITH the international community rather than snubbing our noses at it so we actually HAVE the support of our allies. It’s not just a "attacks will come if you vote for Kerry! Oh, and the sky is falling!" soundbite bullshit.

As first pointed out by Peter, the BBC did a poll showing that the world would choose Kerry as President. They polled 35 countries, and only three - Philippines, Poland, and Nigeria - would back Bush as president. Anyway, the top 11 countries (with the highest margin in favor of Kerry over Bush) were Norway (74% for Kerry o 7% for Bush!); Germany; France; Italy; Spain; UK; Canada; Mexico; Brazil; China; Japan. As he pointed out in his post, Kerry scored best in the traditional US allies (i.e. Canada and Western European countries). Now that works against the theory (largely fueled by conservatives and swallowed by the gullible) that only terrorists want Kerry elected. Alas, this probably doesn't matter to Republican, Cheney, Bush, or most of the American public. Why? Because as my friend pointed out during our disccussion of the poll, Americans generally have a very zero-sum mindset when it comes to how they are perceived in the world and other nations’ interests. A "fuck them all for telling us what to do, and if they think that A is right, then B is obviously the right answer because everyone is against our interests" attitude.

Did anyone read Carter's letter to Zell? Jimmy friggin' Carter, who never seemed upset, who always seemed so friggin' diplomatic, was pissed!!

Also, the alleged Bush bounce is much better articulated on Ruy Teixeira site than I can do. Basically, he went over the poll contradictions between Time/Newsweek and the Gallup poll (and then between the Gallup poll and the Gallup statements). Though as my friend pointed out, "in a democracy, the people as a whole tend to get exactly the type of government that they deserve. Since a plurality of our actual voters are dim enough to think that Bush will be the better president and run the better administration, they're going to get what they deserve." This would be ok, but I’m stuck on the ride too!!

The (alleged??) Bush military records that individuals were "pressured" to "sugar coat" his records. This is interesting b/c Bush's croanies keep questioning whether Kerry was "injured enough" to get his medals. (I mean, since he he lived and all.) But the fact that people who refused to serve their country would attack someone (such as Kerry, Cleland, and McCain) who did is disgusting. It is amazingly hypocritical for Bush (and Cheney) to attack Kerry's military service. I agree with Jen that perhaps that’s not relevant now and doesn’t show what the individual will do as a president. (After all, Bush, who avoided the war himself, has had no problems sending *other* teens to war.) Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t actually illustrate what an individual will do as president. (Though there is something to be said for war heroes as Presidents, that’s how Eisenhower got elected) but the fact is, you *can* be president without serving in the military, so let’s focus on now and not a generation ago. But now they are saying that the Bush military documents are fake. First, if they are as fake as the media is saying, then CBS did a crappy job authenticating them. And CBS seems like SUCH liberal media outlet too! Give me a break. This is the network that pulled The Reagans after conservatives complained! Second, if they are as forgeries, and as obvious forgeries as the media is saying, why did someone not make GOOD forgeries. It leads to a question - who would BENEFIT from making things that were CLEARLY forgeries because they used a friggin' computer that OBVIOUSLY didn't exist back then? The Democrats...or the Republicans? Just curious.

And I hate it when OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women. If you want to see the video. Sigh. THIS is the man we put before the world as our finest leader?? No wonder the rest of the world thinks Americans are idiots...