but they don't appear to answer any questions.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NQO0RRNLYFNLICRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=5761856

-- Modified on 7/24/2004 5:47:07 AM

the American people will learn about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.  It is inevitable that they will compare him to George Bush in this regard.

Some on the right will say that he "betrayed" his fellow soldiers by later opposing the war.  But the public has already spoken decisively on their feelings about Vietnam protesters by electing a protest organizer as President in 1992, and re-electing him in 1996.

Charges that Kerry somehow did not deserve the medals he was awarded will seem small-minded to most Americans, who will reason that Kerry was indisputably at least willing to put himself in danger by going to Vietnam.  Again, they will compare him to George Bush, who also supported the war but avoided combat.

The public's opinion of George Bush as a man is sinking, but my prediction is that after next week, their view of John Kerry as a man will have risen.

Watch the polls.


-Gotta go to Yosemite now for the weekend.  Back later.

Don't relax about that.  I hate to tell you, the polls for the president don't mean very much unless they are broken down by the states and then calculated into the electoral college votes.  As is shown in this forum, Bush's constituency is unyielding, pride themselves on being unyielding.  Kerry could take 95 percent of NY state, but that's still no more than 33 votes in the College.  You look at the EC votes, and Bush has that "cultural advantage," i.e. a solid block of Southern and Western states.  At this point, I still see Bush winning.  I'd like to think that Edwards gives Kerry a chance to capture a Southern State, maybe Tennessee, but more than likely, it won't happen.  Bush could be defeated, but it's going to take more work, and I hate to say more of a revitalization of liberalism than Kerry has represented so far.

Bush may be incompetent, he may be corrupt, but the important thing to his culture warriors is that he stands against gay marriage, for the war on drugs, for funnelling money to religions, against abortion and birth control, for guns, for holding the line on integration, against creationism in schools, and against sexual liberalization. He doesn't have to rail about these things, his opposition only has to be symbolic. If he does all that, his constituency will let him funnel money to the rich and make  a mess of the war on terror.  In fact, to win that culture war, the culture warriors are willing to sacrifice everything else. Unless some guerilla/provider sneaks and gives Bush a blow job in the oval office, they are going to support him.

The American left is divided into its niche markets: environmentalists, feminists, civil rights activists.  There's little coherency between them.  They need to get on the same page, because conservatives are on the same page in the same book, and will defeat them all the way Rome divided and conquered.  

/Zin

   

 



-- Modified on 7/25/2004 7:23:42 AM

"The American left is divided into its niche markets: environmentalists, feminists, civil rights activists.  There's little coherency between them.  They need to get on the same page, because conservatives are on the same page in the same book, and will defeat them all the way Rome divided and conquered."

    Good point, also a good one on cultural warriors (from the side that supports Mr.Bush).  One thing about politics is that idealism often overtakes practicality in the minds of some people, that is why there are Nader supporters, Libertarians, far right parties and far left parties.  All the variant viewpoints are great from the perspective of freedom to vote for whomever one wishes, but as you correctly pointed out, conformity wins elections and allows people to get at least some of what they are looking for.  

if there are so many "cultural warriors" out there concerned about abortion, war on drugs, gay marriage, etc. then why did Gary Bauer & Alan Keyes do so AWFUL in the 2000 primaries.....I mean, those 2 were the furthest right on social issues by far & they did poorly in the primaries & withdrew quickly from the race.....Quite an irony isn't it?......

It seems that these records answer one question but pose another.   Bush was not AWOL in Alabama according to these records because he has put in enough service time in Texas and was not required to serve in Alabama.  However, if that is the case why has he consistently lied about doing guard service in Alabama when he didn't have to.  Other than being a habitual liar, the only other possible explanation was that this was a time when W was an alchoholic and a cokehead so his memories understandably are a bit fuzzy.

There are more "cultural warriors" any of the larger balkanized liberal factions, and their influence goes quite far beyond their core believers.  Since they have their own common literature to point to: the Bible, interpreted in some fashion.

The reason why is that the Bible is practically the only source of morality and standards of individual behavior in this culture, and everything else we have is a weaker echo of it.  People who need   "the moral compass" for one reason important to them have to practically buy into the whole package.  Hence, if they are quesy about abortion, they end up being against gay marriage too, because the source that tells them not to kill denounces gays, too. And so on.

/Zin

 

I believe the general source of why an individual is so against gay marriage is insecurity.  This same person also worries about what language other people speak (``speak the language or GTFO").  

Consequently, they advocate a ``common goal'' where of course, in a perfect America, everyone is molded into their likeness:  ALL Gays are now on a straight course, ALL gas station attendants speak perfect English, ALL abide by the good book, and my current favorite - ALL love NobleBush(tm) [okay, maybe the last was uncalled for, generally].









-- Modified on 7/26/2004 7:57:54 AM

Don't assume that all Bush supporters are party-line religeous conservatives. As with some liberals holding their noses to vote for Kerry, alot of Bush supporters don't agree with all of his positions on various issues. At least with Dubya, we know where he stands.

RLTW

But that's his most faithful, solid base of support.  Even corporate interests do not like some of his policies, like his protectionism for some industries, or his high deficit spending.  However, the fundamentalist Christians and the conservative sects have gained the most from having Bush in office.  He's a closet fundamentalist, and he's happy to always throw them pieces of red meat.  As a block, I take it that they are over ninety percent for Bush, if they are not part of a militia.  And they are concentrated in the South.  

Plus, they have an influence beyond their block, since the moral reference they adopt is adopted, albeit more weakly, by almost everybody in this culture.  They at least communicate very well with the rest of the nation.

/Zin

What's so bad about belonging to a militia? Where else would we have the opportunity to shoot kittens and puppies with high powered firearms?

RLTW