« That Was Predictable... | Main | German Media: Indoctrination - Not Information / Deutsche Medien: Indoktrination, nicht Information »

Comments

Yes some do. If more did, the numbers would be even higher for Bush. Unlike Germans, Americans expect their leaders to lead. Part of the problem is Americans have not a clue what Kerry stands for even when he tells us. I do not think running on a platform of "I'm not Bush" is going to be a winner.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not either speak or read German. What we need are more German Big Media products in English.

Of course there is a bit of a downside risk to having more English language German Big Media products. That risk is Americans could just say to hell with Germany and Europe. So this is probably not the best of plans as today most Americans have no opinion on either.

Americans don't read German newspapers, but the American ones they read are also doing their damnedest to get us to vote for Kerry. However, I believe that Americans maybe are the most newsmedia-savvy people in the world and can see through a great deal of bullshit. Despite all his faults, they see that Bush does act like a leader in a time when leadership is absolutely necessary. What the hell is Kerry? Who has a clue? Not even his media support can put forward any information on this besides that he served on a Swift Boat in Vietnam for three months. My son has served a year in Iraq now. I guess that makes him four times more qualified than Kerry to be president. Iraq does = Vietnam, doesn't it? That's what I'm told by the newsmedia and Kerry supporters anyway.

@ Mark:

"Not even his media support can put forward any information on this besides that he served on a Swift Boat in Vietnam for three months. My son has served a year in Iraq now. I guess that makes him four times more qualified than Kerry to be president."

I got a glimpse of the "Veterans for Truth in Vietnam" news conference in Washington yesterday on CSPAN. Unlike Kerry's "band of brothers," which consist of 4 of 5 members of his former crew and one Green Beret soldier that they pulled out of the river, this group consisted of his entire chain of command, his fellow swift boat commanders, key NCOs in his former squadron and the fifth crew memeber that served under him. The message was that Kerry was for Kerry, that he served only 3 months in combat, when everyone else served a year and that Kerry embellished his own record. The message was also that none of them observed war atrocities which Kerry told Congress about 31 years ago. They accused him of lying about the atrocities.

It was powerful stuff. I think he can no longer run on his war record.

@ Mark:

"Not even his media support can put forward any information on this besides that he served on a Swift Boat in Vietnam for three months. My son has served a year in Iraq now. I guess that makes him four times more qualified than Kerry to be president."

I got a glimpse of the "Veterans for Truth in Vietnam" news conference in Washington yesterday on CSPAN. Unlike Kerry's "band of brothers," which consist of 4 of 5 members of his former crew and one Green Beret soldier that they pulled out of the river, this group consisted of his entire chain of command, his fellow swift boat commanders, key NCOs in his former squadron and the fifth crew memeber that served under him. The message was that Kerry was for Kerry, that he served only 3 months in combat, when everyone else served a year and that Kerry embellished his own record. The message was also that none of them observed war atrocities which Kerry told Congress about 31 years ago. They accused him of lying about the atrocities.

It was powerful stuff. I think he can no longer run on his war record.

If they (the German press) want us to listen they could try English.

However, I believe that Americans maybe are the most newsmedia-savvy people in the world and can see through a great deal of bullshit.

Is this why Clinton was voted twice into office? SCNR.

At the time, the Republicans used something of a seniority system in picking their candidates. So the choice was Bob Dole. Dole who would probably would have made a very good president and would be in his second term now could not compete with Big Media’s candidate of Clinton.

Please do not confuse the stance of Big Media today as something directed at President Bush. Big Media always pulls for and pushes the democratic candidate. They did everything in their power to elect AlGore and failed.

The Republicans having learned their lesson in 2000 chose George Bush over John McCain.


And where was Bush when Vietnam was going on?
And where was Cheney? ("other priorities")
And where was Wolfowitz?
Ane where was Rush Limbaugh? (Unfit for service because he had a boil on his butt!)

I'll take Kerry any day over the current ragtag band of evaders, chickenhawks, tough talkers and ideologues.

What do you call a man who believes what he says, even if what he says is false?

>>What do you call a man who believes what he says, even if what he says is false?

A man who believes he is a canned ham from Venus, when he is obviously not, could be called insane.

A man who believes he is a savior of his people, yet oppresses and massacres their lives and their hopes, could be called a sociopath and a dictator.

A man who believes there are WMD in Iraq, although the grounds for that belief later prove erroneous, could be called misinformed.

A man who believes he can do something wonderful, but understandably stumbles, could be called principled.

A man who believes what he says, even after saying the exact opposite of what he says, could be called John Kerry.

A politician who waffles? I'm shocked. Let's see if my google search of "Bush Waffles" (no this is not a breakfast dish) can lighten this up a bit.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits.

Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

See, this is a game that anyone can play.
(hat tip to Salon blog)

Karl, I'm going to throw in my two cents.

=====================================================
DISCLAIMER: I don't have ANY ideological preferences when it comes to US political parties. I believe that the Democrats are more conservative than the German CDU.
=====================================================

Now, Kerry... I'm not going to talk about flip-flops, because those things were in the past, we should mainly look in the future. I don't think there is any politician who isn't familiar with flip-flops.

The problem that I see with Kerry is that he isn't very convincing when he talks about the future. He might have convinced you and many other people, but there are even more people who aren't convinced by him.

Roger Simon (whose blog I read once in a while) says something like this: 'Bush is making mistakes, makes sometimes wrong decisions on taxes, education, etc, but now we are at war and he is doing a pretty good job as a war President'. And that's what most people want during a war. Those are the facts, quite simple actually.

One example where I don't really understand Kerry and his team: I have the feeling Americans feel double-crossed by their old partners, especially France and Germany. They don't want to get 'international participation'. They don't expect anything good from that. Whether they are right or not is quite irrelevant, the problem is that this is exactly what Kerry suggests.

I also think that the idea: 'anyone, but Bush' is wrong. It isn't constructive, it isn't offering a real alternative. Again, you might find this idea not so bad, but it looks like it's not good enough to convince the people.

If Democrats asked for my advice (which they won't, not knowing what they miss), I wouldn't really know what to tell them. It's hard to beat a war time President, even though I think Bush can be beaten. But I believe the Democrats themselves are betting on the wrong horse.

I would somehow get another candidate, someone that more Americans can relate to. I'm not talking about some Democratic Bush-clone, just someone ... I don't know... someone else. This is not a personal dislike, just that I can't believe that Kerry is the best man the Democrats could come up with.

My guess is that there are many more people who would vote the Democrats, they are just literally disappointed with the present candidate. I don't know the inner working of American politics, but is Kerry set in stone ?

@WhatDoIKnow


The problems the democrats have is in the way they select their candidate. In the selection process the most faithful of democrats take part. These are really the party activists. In most cases, these are the most liberal of Americans. To appeal to these voters and to win the nomination, a candidate must take positions they support. Normally these positions are to the extreme left of the political spectrum. They are also in most cases the most left of the party itself.

Once the nomination is secured, they try to track back to the center of the political spectrum. In other words they move from left to right, hoping to end up somewhere in the middle by late summer and present this position to the voters in November.

The two candidates from the Democratic Party, which more closely represented where most Americans are, in order, were Liberman and Gephardt. These two also represented probably the most serious challenge to Bush in 2004.

Because they refused to take the extreme liberal positions required to win the nomination and realizing that it would be more difficult to track back to the center for the fall campaign, they were knocked out of the process very early on.

Many of the power brokers in the Democratic Party feared a Dean nomination. They realized that while he had great appeal to a certain segment of the Democratic Party he would never appeal to the vast majority of Americans. Had he headed a ticket in November they had visions of another McGovern rout where he lost 49 states. They feared the effect of having him at the top of the ticket and the impact it would have on down ballot candidates.

So in Iowa, the first test Gephart and Dean both got knocked out. Liberman placed his efforts in New Hampshire and did not do well there. So what were left as the campaign moved on into the year were Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. Of these Edwards while well liked was felt not to have the experience and was too young. Clark had too much baggage and did not have the money or the organization. This left Kerry.

The democrats are in a position the Republicans found themselves in 96 with Dole. A good candidate but one that is probably not going to win in November.

To be able to pull another candidate out of the hat would have to be done soon. Kerry would have to have some way to withdraw and would be willing to do that. Even if he were willing, I am not sure whom the democrats could offer as a real candidate who could possible win. So it would appear they are stuck.

This does not mean I think this is going to be a rout for Bush. I think it could be a very close race. Having said that the democrats and Kerry have to give the American people a reason to vote for him other than he is not Bush. So far they have failed to do this.

Few of those Bush citations are comparable to Kerry's reckless, all-over-the-map record.

Politicians waffle, partly out of necessity (we expect them to reevaluate their positions when they acquire new information, yes? and correct mistakes?), but on matters of policy only the most inept fail to wait--or stall--a few hours before making a complete u-turn. A short while ago Kerry made a well-reasoned comment about prisoner abuse in Iraq, for example, and then *the same day* trampled over his earlier statement.

President Bush has the benefit of being predictable--a plus for Republicans and Democrats alike--and tends to eventually 'come clean,' as those same citations illustrate, whereas Kerry ironically does a "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" routine about almost everything, big or small. ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," "The family has it. I don't have it," etc.)

I really want to vote for Kerry. I am Democrat, and by no means a friend of President Bush. But Bush sounds like Bush 24/7--I can always trust him on that--yet the John Kerry I want as a president has to beat his other personalities before I will help him beat Bush. And thus far, it is a losing battle.

@WhatDoIKnow

Seems it might have started. A first report...

http://www.lowcountrynow.com/stories/050704/LOCroe.shtml

And if you look at Kerry objectively, he didn't volunteer for Vietnam of his own freewill. He was denied a deferment to study in Paris. His only other choices were to run, to enlist, or to be drafted. He chose the one most likely to get him elected as the "next JFK from Massachusetts." Just like he told anyone who would listen.

I think it is funny to see the anti-Bush crowd squirm and equivocate.

I am trying to find a website where I can learn the unbiased facts about each presidential candidate so that I can make an educated decision. Does anyone know of a good site? I'd appreciate any help on this.
--Misty, 23, Kansas City, Missouri

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28