In the first debate he was a total bufoon.
Debate number 2 he was acting like a man on crank.
Debate number 3 he was the speed freak coming down from his high, all confused, giving answers that did not match the questions and having delsions.
So which GW Bush do you prefer?
Kerry is truly not the man of most Democrats. That is my conclusion after seeing thousands of potshots against Bush, but very little in support of Kerry. The left must think their only hope is to defeat Bush -- not elect Kerry. It's, of course, the same thing, but Kerry must be really indigestible for a lot of liberals.
That's 15 yards and loss of down for useless, unproductive name calling. wmblake, where are ya, my friend?
I must confess at 52, I am no longer the fiscal nor social liberal I once was. I clearly am not a conservative.
I think more about the future of my almost adult children in the 21st century than I do about me (I am responsible for what I have sown).
Both traditional liberalism and conservatism both fall far short of the new context of the 21st century.
I do business with India a lot. They have no social infrastructure. I see a culture of entrepreneurial "can do" that will quickly stun us, if current trends hold. I suspect the same is true in China. It's an interdependent, interconnected global community.
We hold a unique position of global military might, and we need to be very careful as to how we use it. But we should use it – once we coalesce and retain a global perspective of moral authority.
For all of you who shout, “do we need the Euros to execute foreign policy” ” the short answer is “yep” and the long one is “nevermind.” Maybe someone with more patience than me will perhaps piss into that wind yet again.
So when all you Bush people support him, think about this. What is it about you that supports a unilateralist view: is it not ethnocentrism, a hallmark of mid-way adult moral development according to all moral systems I have read?
Liberalism fails in that it believes gov’t should take care of the underperforming. This is nonsense in the global community when supremely educated and skilled Indians will produce excellence at $25/hr, overhead and all. We all look at America and shudder at the absurd values that foster a Jerry Springer.
For example, JK sells the idea that he'll save American jobs via smoke and mirrors, when the reality is that foreign countries are hungrier than we are. His budget numbers rival my daughter’s.
Make no mistake about it – JK seems to me to be a political opportunist. Beyond abortion rights, stem cell and gay unions, I am not sure what the hell he’ll do. His positions will shift not only in the wind, but also in the fart. As the Bush people have clearly articulated, and fair enough. The guy's a tired and true liberal. Liberals are dead, but their votes are not.
That being said, I have obviously put a lot of time into this forum articulating my support of Kerry and in opposition of GB.
I won’t recount these reasons yet again. But my perception of run-of-the-mill conservatism is that it fails in that it believes that America is absolutely moral without blemish or need of self-examination. “America love it or leave it,” has been all over this board. My response is, “Without self-examination, there is no hope, no true optimism nor true courage.” If I underestimate you Bushies, please point me to the post that reflects or implies this.
We're about to get swallowed by our arrogance – and our 4-year election cycle with its conservative/liberal myths and images. Neither party is raising the horn to the real situation.
We need a new set of leading ideas because the FUNDAMENTAL CONTEXT is changing, and changing very fucking rapidly. Both liberals and conservatives inhibit this. Where are the leaders?
So here's the challenge to those who've read this far. We're out there - "whoremongers" one of our own called us. Bad boys and girls, to be sure.
When does emotion and inertia give way to self-examination and reason? What does it mean to continue on a path of adult moral development? Who’s got the courage to admit to the obvious internal bullshit, self-deceit and cowardice that mark us all?
My belief is that we must become a more mature people that drive a more solid government if we are to survive.
I don't agree with everything the Bush Admin has done, but I have to disagree with your point here. This meme about Bush trashing our relationships abroad can't be supported by the facts. Look at Afghanistan first; all of the NATO countries including France & Germany have resources committed there. On the financial and law enforcement side of the GWOT, there is unprecedented cooporation among a broad coalition of countries. All because of diplomatic efforts.
The Proliferation Security Initiative is a very successful program initiated by Bush to keep North Korea isolated and unable to traffic illegal arms. It comprises the Navies and Intel agencies of the U.S., U.K., Russia, Japan, the ROK, and Australia, and diplomatic efforts from China. A captured arms shipment bound from NK to Libya helped precipitate that country's disarmament.
Every member of the G-8 has been persuaded to significantly reduce Iraq's outstanding debts.
In the case of Iraq; France, Germany, Russia, and China were the primary opponents of war with Iraq. Why is that? Honestly ask yourself that question. And if the U.N. Oil for Food scandal, or oil and arms sales interests don't pop up while you're considering the answer, then your not being intellectually honest.
There's no doubt that diplomacy and cooporation with the rest of the world is necessary. But refusing to subjugate our foriegn policy interests to an organization as inherently corrupt as the U.N. cannot be defined in any factual way as acting unilaterally.
RLTW
-- Modified on 10/15/2004 7:03:15 AM
-- Modified on 10/15/2004 11:25:52 AM
I have to say you seem to have some good points, but I find your constant harping that the Euros were anti war for economic reasons on the laughable side.
A) If you did not see the neocon hope of so0me oil in the ME that WE would CONTROL, YOU are not being intelectually honest. Ditto for bases there.
B) And has the Iraq war been a boon for ANYONE's Economy? Only war profiteers, who we have kept mainly to ourselves and paid allies.
C) PUBLIC Opinion in Europe is very anti war. Not just industrialists and oil executive's opinion. So people who have little to gain fron "oil for food" or other trade are also anti. Since the name of the game is politics, the leader do what the people want. In the east, where top down authority is the norm, the people go along when we buy an ally.
D) All initiatives in the UN are only as good as the states that buy in- this is alweays true.
E) Who you calling corrupt? With an administration that looks more Nigerian quality with everypassing day, and a Congress that is pretty blatantly for sale to the highest donor/interest group (votes are currency, too- just as cigarettes are where many congressmen ought to be going), do you really feel qualified to look down on the UN?
But hey- continue to flatter the naked emperor- you're so good at it! Just put that fuckin stone down, this house is all windows!
Sully
Metaphor Mixmaster/deluded soul
Well, I'll be damned. An actual exchange of solid ideas with supporting data and clear analysis.
No time to respond, but great pleasure in the process.
I'm always willing, and always have been - as long as the other side is too.
RLTW
These are potent arguments. I think Bush is right on Korea, and Kerry wrong - this may be the one area of the whole debate that gives me the greatest pause – because Kim Jong Il is very scary. But even with this significant concern, I remain strongly supportive of Kerry.
I think the area where we see things most fundamentally differently is in terms of Iraq and “unilateralism.” I am going to avoid the 20-20 hindsight about WMD’s because everyone was fooled by Saddam. When I read the analysis of what he was thinking, it plays out like a Saturday Night Live skit.
Let me return to the book you recommended, The Pentagon’s New Map. In it the author supports to the Iraq move, but with a very important caveat: America must be seen as acting in a fully moral light by the global community IF it is to take on the role of leading transitions in the “gap” countries, the countries that stand outside of the globalization process and who are the sources of most of the ugliest of human behavior.
Bush failed miserably here, weakening our overall global leadership and making it much, much tougher to address places like Iran and N Korea.
And regardless of the politics of the UN, the point is that most of the globalized world – the presses and the populous – do NOT see us as having any moral high-ground in our Iraq initiative. This is the point several of us who do a lot of international business have made in this forum and it is backed by every poll I have seen.
This matters because the largely democratic governments of the globalized world have to surmount higher hurdles to act in concert with us. This is a long-term vision that needs staying power, first at home and then abroad.
Bush simply does not have the skill to do this. Even if we could rewind the tape and let him do a do-over, I don’t think he could do what it takes to lead.
So, just where do you think Bush has left us in that regard? Back to the intellectual honesty test: how can you argue we’re now stronger in the larger context of the 21st century and the real risks it poses, when people throughout the world view us with such alarm?
I do look forward to your ideas. I know they will be coherent and potent. I don’t expect to change your mind (at least not your vote) and you won’t change mine either, because we obviously have done some homework around this. But I do think we will distill it down to the basics, and I am eager to discover what is at the core of our differing views.
I'll return and edit-in a response when time allows.
RLTW
Namecalling is not an effective method of lobbying for one's candidate.
The name calling comes from all sides, only the far leaners are too blind to see it coming from their own.
I do not remember any of the Baloney mans posts being blind to the facts.
show me where I've called another poster any names unless I was provoked First. If you can't find any, you owe me an apolgy.
The only person I really get on is BriBite, and look at his posts, he name calls 'til he's blue in the face, is the only reason I hold his feet to the fire with equal name calling back.
Name calling such as "shrub" takes no intellectual power and does not add weight to one's argument.
