Dear John

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:12

I think Kerry won it. Bush seemed flustered. I'm sure Bush supporters see it exactly opposite of me.

-Zeke

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:22

Bush supporter here, and to be honest, I think Kerry did have an edge. He was more well-spoken and presented more well-thought answers throughout. It certainly wasn't a runaway, but I'll concede this one.

To be honest, it's hard to imagine Kerry making it through the debates without gaining support. He's a much better speaker than Bush is.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:27

Agreed.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 11:14

While Kerry was the better orator in last night's debate (Bush's responses were plagued with his long lapses in speech), I can't say that either candidate came out far on top. Both stuck to their politcal rhetoric guns, agreeing to disagree. And unlike the last presidential elections, one candidate has the opportunity to use the "he did it wrong and I can-do/would-have-done it better" arguement.

There were several times that Kerry's accusations caught Bush off guard (or perhaps the sensitive nature of the subject didn't allow for a response). Either way, there were times when Bush's answers fell short. He kept bringing up and overusing several "key phrases" that Kerry let slip early on in the debate. Part of the "strategery", I guess.

On the flip side, there were several moments in the debate where Kerry's answers flip-flopped - a seeming change in opinion or tune - which is a image that seems to recently plague the Kerry campaign.

In the end, I'd say that you could probably skip the debate because this sums the issues up quite handily.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:11

Both sides did a good job of making out the other side to seem good at debating before the debate itself. That said, despite Bush's desperate word-searching, I think he did better than I would have expected. He showed some actual knowledge in places that I didn't expect him to. (Which is not to say that I agreed with his conclusions.) In most things, he felt quite like a politician, but I was quite surprised to hear something that felt like honest conviction about talks with North Korea. And there were only a few verbal gaffes -- "transshipping" (which it turns out is a real word, but wans not the "transport" he was looking for) and "noo-cya-ler".

I noticed Kerry trying to grab some hawkish votes, or at least make himself appear more hawkish. The most prominent thing was that he never spoke of capturing terrorists -- only killing them. It bothered me that he misused "Muslim" as an adjective multiple times (it should always be "Islamic" -- "Muslim" refers only to Islamic adherents), but that's hardly as egregious as Bush's usual verbal blunders.

Speaking of "noo-cya-ler", I think that's emblematic of his administration. By now, he's bound to know that it's wrong, but he's committed and is unwilling to admit a mistake, so he just keeps doing the wrong thing.

Posted by: genixia

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:13

I thought Kerry showed some restraint to not pound on some of Bush's gaffes. I'm not sure why that was - perhaps he didn't feel like he needed to. Regardless, there were a few occasions where the President was left searching for answers, and he had to resort to the "It's hard work", _shrug_ combination.

Kerry also gave him enough rope to hang himself by allowing him to repeat ad infinitum the, "You cannot lead if you send mixed messages." line right until the end when he pointed out that certainty does not automatically make you right.

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:20

Yes, there were several overused phrases that kept popping up during the debate, including the "hard work" phrase. Bush needs to come up with some more "material", I think.

However, Bush wasn't the only one hanging himself last night. There were several occasions where Kerry's double-talk, flip-flop political trend was brought to light, sometimes by his own mouth. One thing is for sure, Kerry is definately politically correct where Bush is not.

Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:30

I still find it hard to believe Bush has any supporters at all. I'm in absolute amazement.

For example, I watched the movie "Envy" last night. Yeah, the Jack Black and Ben Stiller picture about the dreamer who invents the spray to get rid of dog poop. I would (at any point in time, without seeing proof) have an easier time placing faith in someone (anyone) about coming up with such an invention, than I would in Bush's capacity as president. For any public position in fact.

In any other country this election would be a land-slide.

Bruno

Posted by: DLF

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 14:53

I'm a Bush non-supporter whose friends are almost unanimously pro-Bush, so let me try to explain. Like in most societies, elections are popularity contests based on the cult of personality. So disregard all policies and issues right away (as we did when we elected Reagan twice). Americans like Bush, in part, for the same reason they like The Jerry Springer Show: hey, look, it's somebody more whack than me! And in Bush's case, they even get to dream of being President themselves; after all, if GWB can get there and do it, it can't be all that darned hard!

I'm sure the Bush supporters on the BBS have other theories (he's unscripted and unrehearsed, plain-spoken and speaks simply and directly about things he's genuinely convinced are right/true, etc., even if it turns out later his thinking or his actions were flawed). Yeah, blah, blah, blah. He's Forrest Gump. You got some kinda problem with Forrest Gump? Well do ya?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 15:47

I will be voting for Bush because I agree with his stance on most issues. You can call him stupid, me stupid, whatever makes you feel good about yourself. However I will not do likewise. It is nice to live in a country where we can sharply disagree and say so.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 19:46

I would argue that your list was brought to us by extremely stupid people, at least stupid in the "common sense" and/or "long term view" departments.

But I see your point.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 22:46

Quote:
I will be voting for Bush because I agree with his stance on most issues. You can call him stupid, me stupid, whatever makes you feel good about yourself. However I will not do likewise. It is nice to live in a country where we can sharply disagree and say so.

Hrmm... I re-read my post, and I can't find where I called Bush or you stupid. Could you point it out to me?

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 22:49

Quote:
I don't think people are thinking that. There's serious prejudice these days against smart people.

Sadly, Bitt, I think you're right. My point was that we should consider what we're doing when we can't say our leader is the best we have to offer, that he or she represents the best qualities of our people.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 02:35

Actually, my list was brought to you by the letters "t", "c" and "p", and the number "80".

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:12

Finally watched the debate on the Tivo.

I agree that Kerry won, and that Bush seemed a bit off his game. Bush resorted to repeating himself too much instead of direct answers. Bush wanted the "extra" 30-second rebuttals far too often, I think, Kerry was very good about not asking for those much.

But that's not the thing that "got" me.

I can't believe I haven't heard anyone else pick up on this in the news media yet. Everyone talks about how there weren't any gaffes or missteps to seize upon. Or they make the jokes about the Poland line.

No, what GOT me was this...

Kerry is saying that we need to finish the job in Iraq quickly and then get the heck out of there. And he's got a plan to get us out of there while still getting the job done. Whether I believe he can really accomplish that task is a different discussion, but at least he's saying we don't have any business staying there. And the Kerry campaign has leveled thinly-veiled accusations at Bush of deliberately wanting to stay in Iraq for selfish reasons, such as Haliburton, or Oil, or installing permanent military bases. Which the White House denies of course.

Then Bush says this. This is the entirety of one of his 30-second extensions...

Quote:
The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they're coming across the border is because he recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They're fighting us because they're fighting freedom.

They understand that a free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be a major defeat for them. And those are the stakes.

And that's why it is essential we not leave. That's why it's essential we hold the line. That's why it's essential we win. And we will. Under my leadership we're going to win this war in Iraq.

Did ANYONE catch that? Come on.

"...that's why it is essential we not leave."

Not, "... until after the job is done", not "... before Iraq is free".

"...it is essential we not leave." Period, full stop.

Bush wants us to stay there indefinitely. He wants us to be a long-term occupying force, for whatever reason. You could argue that it was a simple misstatement rather than a Freudian slip, sure. But if it quacks like a duck...

Bush wants us to stay there indefinitely. I dunno about you all, but that idea doesn't sit well with me, and I wonder if it were publicized, if it would sit well even with Bush's own supporters.

Here's the other moment that, although it didn't "get" me, I wondered why Kerry didn't seize upon it:

Quote:
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.

I don't think it's a good idea for the President to emphasize that he watches the war with the same detached interest as most other television viewers. I'm sorry, I don't think anyone watching on TV can truly imagine how hard it really is simply by watching it on CNN.

I don't know if Kerry can accomplish the things he said he'd accomplish during the debate. But he certainly sounds like he's willing to try. George had his shot at it, and it's clearly not working, but he's telling us he's going to keep right at it. Kerry kept saying that Bush promises only "more of the same", and Bush didn't deny it.

If he were my employee, and was showing that kind of performance, I'd say, "sorry, next review, you're outta here, we're hiring someone else".

Wait a minute, he is. And I will.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:16

Quote:
If he were my employee, and was showing that kind of performance, I'd say, "sorry, next review, you're outta here, we're hiring someone else".

Wait a minute, he is. And I will.

You and i are voting the same, i bet, but I gotta tell you... good luck with that. Firing people from this job is probably about as easy as getting rid of people at mine.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:27

*Nod*

Yeah, we gotta convince his other bosses, too. That's the hard part. They like him.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:52

seeming change in opinion or tune - which is a image that seems to recently plague the Kerry campaign.

Every time I hear that sentiment, the image comes to mind of George Bush saying, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts!"

tanstaafl.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 14:14

Quote:
If he were my employee, and was showing that kind of performance, I'd say, "sorry, next review, you're outta here, we're hiring someone else".

Wait a minute, he is. And I will.

Well, what we can't seem to do is fire the HR department. Because you see they've only brought us the two options . . .

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 14:18

Quote:
In the end, I'd say that you could probably skip the debate because this sums the issues up quite handily.

I was going to say this same thing!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 15:32

I thought that Bush's squirming and irritated expressions were more annoying than Kerry's smiling, honestly.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 18:30

Before I get into my impressions of the debate, it's worth mentioning what they teach you when you get "press training". You don't so much look at the conversation as an attempt to convince the other side of your opinion. Instead, you look at the conversation as a negotiation over what your sound bites will be. You're supposed to have no more than three points, and if you get a question somewhere else, you try to connect the answer back to one of your three main points.

That said, my initial impression of the debate, before I watched any of the "spin" was that neither candidate won, but Kerry was at least trying to address the questions. Bush was clearly in "press" mode, giving many of the same answers repeatedly. Furthermore, Kerry did a resonable job of looking reasonable, keeping his cool, and speaking well. Bush lost his cool, had terrible body language, and clearly suffered brain-lock at several points before he dragged himself back onto one of his talking points.

Based on that, I can't say that Kerry "won", but on the signature issue where Bush is supposed to be kicking Kerry's butt, we instead saw Kerry holding his own and land a couple blows in the process.

Watching some of the post-debate "spin" made my head hurt. I'm not sure if it's funny or just sad watching the Republican partisans trying to make the case that Bush somehow did a good job in the debate. The "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" did a half-way reasonable job of skewering the whole debate process, and Saturday Night Live did an astonishingly funny opening parody of the debate. SNL's Kerry parody said "I've consistently had one position on Iraq" and then proceeded to give an amazingly convoluted answer. Likewise, the Kerry parody claimed he'd consistently said one thing to pro-war audiences and the opposite to anti-war audiences. "It's not flip-flopping, it's pandering." The Bush parody whined a lot about how hard it is being the president and criticized Kerry for things he never said. Very fun, and for SNL, it was quite unusual because it was far more biting and insightful than their usual shallow humor.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 18:46

In fact, I think large portions of the Bush dialog from the SNL skit were taken verbatim from the actual debate. Funny.

Posted by: boxer

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 19:39

Quote:
Bush's greatest asset in debating is his ability to ignore whatever questions are being asked and repeat the same answers over again

Isn't that a definition of a politician, Bush is just a recent perpetrator?

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Dear John - 04/10/2004 13:21

Define the definition of "is."

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 01:41

Interesting, I was completely unaware of the new Kerry biopic "Going Upriver" until about 20 minutes ago.

Even Boston's right-wing daily gave it three stars and criticized it mostly on what I would consider "real" filmmaking issues of "balance". Still a Massachusetts newspaper. Don't burn them bridges!

DVD of the movie "expected to ship October 19" Cutting it close, aren't they? Showing on 3 screens in Seattle, I see, versus 7-8 screens for F9/11. I wonder how many people will go to see it? I wonder how many *Republicans* will go to see it??? Michael Moore didn't make it, so I can't see why anybody would avoid it.

Posted by: boxer

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 10:40

Now, if I wasn't timed out for editing, I would substitute "was" for "is".
Point is, the world is full of mediocre "politicians" who think that they are "statesmen", and their is a world of difference between those two words.

Posted by: jmwking

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 11:02

Quote:
the world is full of mediocre "politicians" who think that they are "statesmen",

I always liked Bloom County's take on Statesmen - "A Statesman is a dead politician. And lord knows we need more statesmen!"

-jk

Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 11:26

I was reiterating your point with a Bill Clinton quote, ad-nauseam.

Posted by: boxer

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 11:48

Quote:
"A Statesman is a dead politician. And lord knows we need more statesmen!"

I love that quote, which I hadn't heard before and will now quote it ad nauseum!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 13:26

On the other hand, Jimmy Carter is doing a damn good job as a statesman. I'd vote for him for President in an instant if he'd run again. I'm somewhat curous about how our Christian-oriented voters would feel about that.

Posted by: mdavey

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 13:36

Quote:
...how our Christian-oriented voters would feel about that.

They'll probably suggest that he is past it.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 13:46

Which is fair; he is an old man now. But otherwise. He seems to be a very solid Christian man, moreso than Bush, I'd dare.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 17:31

I'm kind of afraid to watch the vice-presidential debate tonight. I've got a lot of respect for Cheney, he's a very intelligent guy...

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 17:36

Murderous cyborgs are pretty much intelligent in the artificial sense by definition.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:11

Heh, great transcript.

"I have no idea what he's doing. Have you heard from him? Apparently he left for the heartland to discuss healthcare and that was the end of it. That was a month and a half ago."

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:21

Quote:
Heh, great transcript.

"I have no idea what he's doing. Have you heard from him? Apparently he left for the heartland to discuss healthcare and that was the end of it. That was a month and a half ago."

I got a video of it after the fact. Larry King seemed really caught offguard....

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:24

Quote:
Heh, great transcript.

Really.

I'm with Derrick. Respect for Cheney? Kinda like having respect for Gort....but I kinda got the sense that Gort was nicer deep down inside.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:34

Klaatu Verada Nikto.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:59

You should read Sympathy for the Devil, an essay about Dick Cheney written by John Perry Barlow, Grateful Dead lyricist and co-founder of the EFF. Very revealing piece about Barlow's dealings with Cheney when Cheney was a Wyoming congressman.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:07

Quote:
You should read Sympathy for the Devil, and essay about Dick Cheney written by John Perry Barlow,

Both of them? Oh, you meant "an" essay.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:19

Oops. Fixed.

Actually, syntactically, with that typo, "essay" would be a verb, which would mean I'd want you to read and then write an essay about "Dick Cheney written by JPB". Now, I'm not sure how we can modify Dick Cheney with an attribution to his author....

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:23

Bitting Bitt. I hear you can go blind doing that...

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:29

Quote:
Oops. Fixed.

Actually, syntactically, with that typo, "essay" would be a verb, which would mean I'd want you to read and then write an essay about "Dick Cheney written by JPB".

... which is even more nonsensical, really.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:29

Quote:
Bitting Bitt. I hear you can go blind doing that...

That might actually be better. At minimum it would certainly solve some problems.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:35

Hey, if you're going nonsensical, you might as well go whole hog.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:45

Quote:
Hey, if you're going nonsensical, you might as well go whole hog.

I've been gone for years. Ask anyone.

Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:54

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 20:25

I'm ashamed of myself. I was so caught up with the fact that Bush has Blair's picture on the credenza that I missed the issue with the phone.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 20:40

Heh, didn't notice that until you pointed it out. Ahaha

Posted by: lastdan

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 21:55

funny photo, but the phone looks to me to be on his right (in real life), and the photo in the background doesn't have the same aspect as the frame.

I like the one with the field glasses with the caps still on better.

I wonder if Bush supporters could pick a different v/p, who would they choose?

Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 22:21

Quote:

I like the one with the field glasses with the caps still on better.

Lol! hadn't seen that one before.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 00:47

Webroach:

Quote:
I'm sorry to all the Bush supporters on the board, but I have a hard time buying that you're supporting him for any other reason than shared faith. By that I mean, faith in the Christian god, faith in keeping gays from marrying, faith in ... in whatever. I don't know. But I do know that I understand what Kerry said about "re-considering your decision based on the new information" (not sure if that's exactly how he put it). And I know that if you showed a Christian proof, solid proof that none of it was real, they woulod say "you're wrong, because I believe". And that is exactly what I see from Bush.

I read your comments with interest, and thought of them this morning when I heard this locally-produced story about voter registration drives in Washington State churches (evangelical, in particular).

The quote that hit me was this:

ARMSTRONG: “The moral issues are really going to determine whether God blesses this nation, and if God blesses this nation, we don’t have to worry about the economy, we don’t have to worry about what our insurance rates are going to be, we don’t have to worry about all these other important issues – the bottom line are these moral issues.”

So I am going to say -- that if you can judge from this gent's point of view -- that your assessment may be correct. Economy? Environment? Peemptive war? War crimes? The economy??? No matter! So long as the candidate lines up correctly on certain "moral" issues, then nothing else matters. If we are "blessed", then everything else will work out as a matter of course.

Scared? You bet.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 01:33

Quote:
Scared? You bet.

I'm not nearly as scared by this guy as I am by people I know who, though I want to believe they are intelligent and worthy of respect, find nothing wrong with what he said.

But yes, I am scared.

Posted by: peter

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 07:02

Quote:
Economy? Environment? Peemptive war? War crimes? The economy??? No matter! So long as the candidate lines up correctly on certain "moral" issues, then nothing else matters.

Well, that's not necessarily a view reserved for the right wing. I'd agree with him that the economy is less important than moral matters -- it's just that moral matters for me include the environment (the despoiling of which is good for the economy, at least in the short term) and pre-emptive wars (the waging of which is also good for the economy, at least in the short term).

Peter

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 07:28

Quote:
...and pre-emptive wars (the waging of which is also good for the economy, at least in the short term).

No kidding. I have no idea what America would do with the $150B+ we've put into this "war". I mean, it's not like we could do much with that. Nope.

Thank god for that pre-emptive retalitory strike. Our economy would be balls-out [censored] without it.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Dear John - 07/10/2004 00:07

I have no idea what America would do with the $150B+ we've put into this "war".

Oh, we could build 200 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers! Oh, wait -- that would be nuk-u-lar powered carriers, wouldn't it?

Seriously, though...

How about two million fully-subsidized college educations... It almost makes me weep to contemplate the long-term benefits to the country of a program like that.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 07/10/2004 01:07

Quote:
How about two million fully-subsidized college educations... It almost makes me weep to contemplate the long-term benefits to the country of a program like that.

GASP!!! How can you even suggest that educating our people could be a better idea that support the whims of our FEARLESS LEADER?!?!?

Pffft. Now really.....what the hell good would a bunch of educated people be? It's not like they could be the president or anything. We've apparantly set an IQ cap on that job. And set it looooooow.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 07/10/2004 01:16

Quote:
Pffft. Now really.....what the hell good would a bunch of educated people be?

A little Truth or Consequences quiz for anybody on the BBS who is getting ready to pull the lever for GWB:

Situation: A series of CAT scans and MRIs reveal that you have a brain tumor. Operable....but very, very tricky. Your neurologist refers you to a neurosurgeon and that neurosurgeon turns out to be George W Bush.

Soooo, the big question: Do you go under the knife? Or do you go looking for a different neurosurgeon?

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Dear John - 07/10/2004 10:19

Quote:
How about two million fully-subsidized college educations

Clearly, someone forgot about the bureaucratic structure necessary to dole out said educations. That brings the number down to about 46.

Posted by: muzza

Re: Dear John - 08/10/2004 20:21

I like the irony that you're trying to vote in a John and we're trying to vote one out

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 09/10/2004 04:06

I thought your prime minister was a pig farmer. Oh right, that was only true on the Simpsons.

Simpsons is *not* life. Must keep telling myself that.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 19:12

Quote:
I'm sorry to all the Bush supporters on the board, but I have a hard time buying that you're supporting him for any other reason than shared faith. By that I mean, faith in the Christian god, faith in keeping gays from marrying, faith in ... in whatever. I don't know. [.........] I don't know if this country can survive another four years of someone who thinks its better to ignore new information and "stick to yer guns, by god."

Well, just to cheer you up, her's a long article by Ron Suskind in today's NYT.

Just kidding about the "cheer you up" part, but it certainly does support your contention vis-a-vis Bush's source of support.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 19:18

Quote:
Simpsons is *not* life. Must keep telling myself that.

Yet these days, I find myself wondering which reality I'd rather live in.

Posted by: Ladmo

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 19:47

Well they did not 'yank' Comrad Klinton out of office, and at least Bush is not diddling the interns with cigars (that we know of!).
I am surprised at how liberal this board is...Just imagine Kerry (check out his real Viet Nam record) leading (?) a war or what he would have done in the first day after 9-11....scares the crap out of me.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 19:49

I just reread a bit of that Suskind article and one part jumped out at me again. Y'know, we all shake our heads now over the heady stock-option dot.com days and half-laughingly ask "*What* were we/they thinking???"

Well, read this section of Suskind's article:

Quote:
The [Bush] aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Bring back any memories? I submit (and can !, will I coin a term here?) that we are in the middle of the Faith Bubble .

Posted by: genixia

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 19:50

Err...what exactly do you think he would have done September 12th that is so scary?

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 19:58

Quote:
Just imagine Kerry (check out his real Viet Nam record) leading (?) a war or what he would have done in the first day after 9-11....scares the crap out of me.

Yeah, I shudder to think. Kerry probably would have been too chicken to commit US ground forces and probably would have weasled out by using Afghan warlords to chase Osama Bin laden -- and Bin Laden would have gotten away! Boy, that would suck.

And Kerry would probably have been too chicken to go into Iraq to get the WMD!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 17/10/2004 21:06

Quote:
I am surprised at how liberal this board is.

Didn't think we were smart enough not to be jingoists?

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 00:09

As a newbie, I haven't figured out how to insert the quotes yet, but Suskind's article horrified me. If, during Grand Rounds or a mental status exam, someone was saying that he,with help of God, was leading the next crusade, the decision to commit him, or at least to increase to his meds to a point where he wasn't dangerous to society, would be unanimous--if he weren't President of the United States! (I wish THAT was a delusion!) No wonder these folks frown on reality!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 00:19

You can click the reply button and edit out the irrelevant stuff or just copy and paste from the old post and put [q] and [/q] tags round it.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 05:42

Quote:
Well they did not 'yank' Comrad Klinton out of office, and at least Bush is not diddling the interns with cigars (that we know of!).
I am surprised at how liberal this board is...Just imagine Kerry (check out his real Viet Nam record) leading (?) a war or what he would have done in the first day after 9-11....scares the crap out of me.

Hrmmm.. So I'm assuming from your comments that democrats are commies, being liberal is something to be ashamed of, and going to Vietnam and having a (in some peoples opinions) questionable record is worse than not going. Not a strange opinion for you folks down in Colorado Springs, sadly.

I personally don't give a damn if our president wants to stick cigars in the vaginas of young interns. To me, it's better than invading other countries with no excuse except a large pile of misinformation.

And what you should be concerned with isn't what Kerry would have done after 9/11. What you should be concerned with is why you're still, at the age of 51, unable to shrug off you're prehistoric, bipartisan political views and try to help the country be a better place, rather than thinking it's clever to refer to "Comrade Klinton."

By the way. It's spelled Clinton. Or maybe that was some more of that rapier wit that the "right" is known for?

"Right" or "left", I don't give a damn. Why don't people just stop this petty crap and try to improve something?

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 11:21

Quote:
Yeah, I shudder to think. Kerry probably would have been too chicken to commit US ground forces

PBS Frontline, last night, had a two hour special with the political history of Kerry and of Bush, going back before either held political office. Kerry's refrain has always been that he, indeed, doesn't want to commit U.S. forces except as a last resort, but he was also quoted on September 12 as being "angry" and wanting to do something right away. I imagine that, under a Kerry (or Gore) administration, the Afganistan invasion would have begun largely the same way as it did under Bush.

Interestingly, when Bush ran for Texas governor against Ann Richards, one of his more effective ads criticized Richards for being soft on crime and presiding over a large increase in crime. In fact, crime had gone down during her tenure, but the accusations still stuck. Now, we're hearing accusations that Kerry will be soft on terror. Really, it's the same "weak on crime" arguments respun for a new political environment.

This year's election completely defeats the usual third party arguments that the two major candidates are indistinguishable. You can distinguish them on anything from tax and education policy to healthcare and environment. Trying to distinguish them on how Kerry might have responded to 9/11 by assuming that Kerry would have botched it is unfair to Kerry and distracts from the real issues that separate the candidates.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 11:24

I think you're responding to sarcasm, but point taken.

Posted by: drakino

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 14:19

Quote:
Not a strange opinion for you folks down in Colorado Springs, sadly.

Hey now, when did this become a city thing?

People here are just as varried as many places. I read an article the other day in the local paper about how a family who had members serve in Iraq got a nasty anti Kerry letter on their car. Basicially it talked about how supporting Kerry was a vote against the troops. They aparently missed the Support our Troops next to their Kerry bumper sticker, and vetran license plates.

To me though, it is incredible that people still do point out Clintons sexual mistakes while in office. So what? Did it impact the world? Did innocent people lose their lives over it? No. So, it's a horrible argument to try and justify any things Bush has done.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 14:34

Quote:
This year's election completely defeats the usual third party arguments that the two major candidates are indistinguishable.

As a 3rd-party guy, I'll try to distinguish them on a few things:
War in Iraq -- both in favor
War on Terror -- both in favor
War on Drugs -- both in favor
Gay Marriage -- both opposed
Middle Class Tax Cuts -- both favor
Deficit Budgets -- each has theirs
Huge Boondoggles -- each has more than one.

*edited to add tax cuts*

So by what means do you clearly distinguish them, Dan?

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 15:35

Quote:
War in Iraq -- both in favor
War on Terror -- both in favor
War on Drugs -- both in favor
Gay Marriage -- both opposed
Middle Class Tax Cuts -- both favor
Deficit Budgets -- each has theirs
Huge Boondoggles -- each has more than one.

Actually, I think these are the issues where we can best differentiate the candidates.

Iraq: "in favor" is a fair description of Bush but not a fair description of Kerry. He's been quite clear with his whole "wrong war, wrong time, ..." rhetoric. I believe Kerry's point is more along the lines of "now that we're stuck in this mess, we need to find a way out of it without tearing the Middle East into pieces."

Terror: Bush thinks Iraq has something to do with Islamic terrorists. Kerry doesn't.

Drugs: We're not hearing enough from either candidate on this issue.

Gay Marriage: Bush wants a constitutional ammendment and seems to be generally opposed to any sort of "civil union" concept. Kerry doesn't want an ammendment and seems to be in favor of some kind of civil union.

Tax cuts: both want cuts for the middle class, but you can distinguish them with their policy for the rich. Plus, Bush is all about corporate tax cuts and loopholes. If we're lucky, Kerry won't be.

Deficit: Bush clearly feels other priorities are more important than deficit reduction. Kerry at least pays some lip service to the deficit, and particularly toward how we need to cover the forthcoming Social Security crunch. Bush's private Social Security savings would only reduce the dollar flow into Social Security and would do nothing for the dollar outflow.

Boondoggles: Every president has boondoggles. I've never seen a candidate run on the platform of "No more boondoggles!" Although, if you replace "boondoggle" with "unjustified war that destabilize the Middle East", then maybe you're getting closer to Kerry's platform.

Personally, I think the big issues that need to be discussed and sadly aren't are things like environmental policy (global warming, pollution, etc.), the outsourcing debate (Kerry talks about changing tax incentives, but nothing about the sweatshop working conditions of international garmet workers), health care (particularly the way that medicines are priced and how lower-income or unemployed people will get coverage), and maybe even intellectual property issues (the erosion of fair use and the public domain, abuse of the patent system, etc.). Of these, the only issue that clearly differentiates the candidates is the environment and maybe some medical issues like stem cell research. I have no idea how either candidate feels about intellectual property reforms.

I'm not one of these people calling this "the most important election ever", but I think it's foolhardy to claim that Kerry is somehow equivalent to Bush.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 19:23

Of course, middle class tax cuts are largely not relevant. It's upper class taxation which is the issue which is contentious.

Also, your view of the issues seems to be one of someone looking at them from several miles away through feeble field-glasses rather than with any detail.

Dan has offered better criticisms, I'm not going to, I'm more of a mock and run kinda guy

Posted by: DLF

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 20:37

Quote:
Of course, middle class tax cuts are largely not relevant. It's upper class taxation which is the issue which is contentious.

Unless you're me, in which case any cuts in revenue at a time of record-breaking spending is totally and utterly, uh, contentious.

Quote:
Also, your view of the issues seems to be one of someone looking at them from several miles away through feeble field-glasses rather than with any detail.

The devil is in the details, eh? Wanted to keep the post short, but I'll be glad to detail and then disagree with both candidates' "positions," if you like.

Quote:
Dan has offered better criticisms, I'm not going to, I'm more of a mock and run kinda guy

Hey, me to! Hence my original post and its total and utter lack of detailed criticisms.

Posted by: genixia

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 22:00

You've got to be blind if you can't distinguish between the two main candidates.

One is a self-declared "War President". The other only wants to use war "As a last resort".
One has racked up the largest single-term deficit in history, more than every president in history combined, and still wants to cut taxes further. The other wants to balance the budget, and will raise taxes on 1% of the population in order to try and do so.
One badly wants to privatise Social Security. The other strongly believes that would be a mistake.
One wants to protect drug company profits. The other wants to protect the free market economy.
One wants to create the first amendment to the Constitution that would explicitly remove a right in order to deal with an issue whilst the other believes in state's rights.
One believes the War on Terror (tm)(R)(c) is useful to explain away an invasion of a sovereign nation, the other believes that it's about catching Osama Bin Laden and preventing further terrorism.

They're chalk and cheese. If you really think that Kerry is so similar to Bush then I guess the RNC spin doctors have earned their money.

Posted by: ninti

Re: Dear John - 18/10/2004 22:02

That's right, cherry pick a couple of issues and compare the two just based on that. Here, let me choose a couple of different ones.

Environment: Bush opposed, Kerry for
Abortion rights: Bush opposed, Kerry for
Abolishing the Death penalty: Bush opposed, Kerry for
Seperation of Church And State: Bush opposed, Kerry for
The 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments: Bush opposed, Kerry for

Posted by: music

Re: Dear John - 19/10/2004 03:56

Quote:
sweatshop working conditions of international garmet workers

You meant, of course, international garnet workers.

Plus, I need an excuse to use the word "demantoid."

By the way, good work on the eVoting studies!

Too bad my locality is totally disregarding your efforts and moving full steam ahead. I'll cast my vote (again) this year in an insecure electronic manner.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Dear John - 19/10/2004 13:54

Errr, garment workers, but I suppose garnet workers might have their own troubles which would garner our attention.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Dear John - 19/10/2004 20:11

I could challenge some of your own spin (Kerry is pro "free-market" and states' rights?), or I could just refer you to the fifth and tenth answers by Jeff Taylor here.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Dear John - 19/10/2004 20:35

You're right, I can't believe my oversight in neglecting to point out that both candidates/parties are simultaneously pro-life and pro-death! Woo-hoo! Go fetuses and felons! But I guess that's not so different from "War: it's good only when I say so, dammit!"

So it's come down to "cherry-picking" from the Bill of Rights, has it? (Hey, at least Bush likes the 2nd amendment, doesn't he?) 3 of 10 is the best we can reasonably hope for nowadays?
/game-show buzzer
Not quite good enough for me.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Dear John - 20/10/2004 05:09

Quote:
I'll cast my vote (again) this year in an insecure electronic manner.

Why not vote by absentee ballot? At least it leaves a paper trail.

Posted by: music

Re: Dear John - 20/10/2004 16:21

Quote:
Why not vote by absentee ballot? At least it leaves a paper trail.

A couple of reasons:

I like the excitement of voting on election day. It makes me feel the buzz of democracy. I can truly feel like I am doing my duty as a citizen and being a part of the process.
Apparently, in some states the absentee ballots are never tallied unless they could potentially alter the outcome. So when the final results are reported (x people voted for Candidate A, and y people voted for Candidate B), these numbers might not include the absentee votes if it is a runaway landslide in the state in question. Since I live in a state which is extremely non-contested (i.e., my vote won't make a difference either way), I feel like my absentee ballot would be discarded. So I'm voting on Election Day so that I will be counted and show up in the statistics!

Posted by: mcomb

Re: Dear John - 20/10/2004 16:27

Quote:
Apparently, in some states the absentee ballots are never tallied unless they could potentially alter the outcome.

Interesting, do you know which states? I'd been planning to do absentee, but that might discourage me from it.

-Mike

Posted by: music

Re: Dear John - 21/10/2004 01:16

Quote:
Interesting, do you know which states?

Hmmm, my information might be out-of-date. Perhaps this isn't done any more.
I don't know where this information is consolidated for all states, so people will have to look it up somewhere at <yourstate>.gov.

I looked up California (where you appear to reside) and they claim they do count all absentee votes regardless of outcome or closeness of the race.
That is, they are counted if they are deemed valid.

Dear John

Dear John - 30/09/2004 13:02

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 13:05

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 13:06

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 14:03

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 14:15

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 15:23

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 15:38

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 17:26

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 17:32

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 18:17

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 18:25

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 18:33

Re: Dear John - 30/09/2004 23:29

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 05:36

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:09

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:12

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:22

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 10:27

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 11:14

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:11

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:13

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:20

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 12:30

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 14:47

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 14:53

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 15:47

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 15:52

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 16:28

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 18:36

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 19:46

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 22:46

Re: Dear John - 01/10/2004 22:49

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 02:35

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:12

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:16

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:27

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 03:52

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 14:10

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 14:14

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 14:18

Re: Dear John - 02/10/2004 14:22

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 15:32

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 18:30

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 18:46

Re: Dear John - 03/10/2004 19:39

Re: Dear John - 04/10/2004 13:21

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 01:41

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 10:40

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 11:02

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 11:26

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 11:48

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 13:26

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 13:36

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 13:46

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 17:31

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 17:36

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:11

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:21

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:24

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:34

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 18:59

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:07

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:19

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:23

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:29

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:29

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:35

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:45

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 19:54

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 20:25

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 20:40

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 21:55

Re: Dear John - 05/10/2004 22:21

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 00:47

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 01:33

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 07:02

Re: Dear John - 06/10/2004 07:28

Re: Dear John - 07/10/2004 00:07

Re: Dear John - 07/10/2004 01:07