posted
The governor of New York just gave his introduction speech, and I think he just lost my vote.
quote:He said (I'm paraphrasing from memory her):
There are those who complain about WMDs. September 11 proved that anyone with box cutters could hijack a plane and threaten American interests. Some called the removal of Saddam an abuse of power. I called it progress.
So what does this mean? That in his second term President Bush will no longer even give the pretense of finding WMDs?
I always gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he misinterpreted the intelligence he had; maybe he overexaggerated his case for Iraq.
But as Pataki's speech makes clear, four more years of Bush means more wars, and this time, without the pretense.
[ September 02, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. It's a terrible thing to depose the dictators your country's been funding. You've got to have an excuse that says it's in your own best interests first.
For clarification: I don't support more wars because we're already overextended. Once the situation in Iraq is resolved then we can go on to the next country--only we will probably be under some isolationist President by then.
posted
Just curious and I'm making no asssumptions, did the Republicans have your vote to lose? And by that I don't mean that they could theoretically cast some magic spell and make you vote for Bush. And why would one speaker's opinion possibly make that big of a difference? Especially when the speaker has no influence on foreign policy?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They lost me admidst all the Spet. 11 hype.
I am ashamed that they run this country.
I wasn't going to vote Bush this election, but I have voted Republican in the past....now, if I don't like the other candidates better than the Republican, I just won't vote at all.
posted
I keep hearing that it's bad to talk about September 11th in the context of the election. I understand that some people feel it's disrespectful, BUT...
If Bush really did a good job of handling the crisis, why shouldn't he cite that as a reason to vote for him?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as it turns out, my vote won't matter anyway.
Bush gave the speech of his life. Unless something drastic happens, he has won this election.
He was confident without being arrogant, he was commanding without being pushy, he was funny without being disrespectful, and he was sentimental without being sappy.
Bush looked so much more comfortable than Kerry, whose robotic hand gestures always seem a second behind his speech.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just curious and I'm making no asssumptions, did the Republicans have your vote to lose?
I was kind of on the fence. I disliked the way Bush handled Iraq, but like many swing voters, I wasn't quite sure what Kerry would've done differently.
Can I discount Pataki's comments? He is making a speech in prime time, at a key moment of the campaign. I have to assume that many Republicans in the administration share his vision.
digging_holes, that speech was good not just by GWB standards, that was simply the best political speech I've heard in a long, long time.
Unlike Kerry, Bush gave several specific plans for improving our country's future. Of course, it is doubtful that all (or even any) of these plans will take off, but at least he went on the record with them.
In November, voters will remember that Bush mentioned private retirement accounts, simplified tax code, expanding Pell grants, and most importantly, continued efforts to "expand" liberty across the world.
I doubt anyone would remember Kerry's speech. Heck, the only thing I remember from that convention was the hamster speech. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remembered "Hair pollution." Not that the media did. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio people noticed, but I didn't see a thing on TV or in print.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering what gets mentioned in Bush speeches generally gets cut if its something which makes you go "yes!", I'd suggest voting against him if its those thigns you want. I still recall: private retirement accounts (wait, didn't we just hear that . . . again?), Americorps, free trade, stop being world policeman (I give you that September 11th changed this. I also give you that prior to September 11th its well documented that his admin was looking for a case against Iraq), consistently far too high improvement estimates to justify tax cuts and spending increases (anyone remember $2 trillion from the debt in ten years, back in 2001? I also remember every small gain that's far less than the needed improvements to justify the plans trumpeted as a triumph of his economics), et cetera.
I find it exceedingly odd to make political decisions based on the best speeches. There've been (without naming names) many very bad people who've given excellent speeches, and many very effective and good people who give crappy speeches.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, many swing voters will vote for the candidate they consider the most likable, the most decisive, or the most confident. I believe George Bush's speech tonight has delivered in those areas.
Of course most of the programs Bush talked about will never get off the ground. But many swing voters will not take the time to analyze these issues in detail. They hear a message of optimism from Bush and a message of "I could've done that but I would've done it differently" from Kerry.
Even though I'm leaning towards Kerry, I predict a win for the president.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most voters will have forgotten the convention speeches by the time the debates roll around .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the debates roll around, Kerry better have some specifics to mention. Tonight Bush gave specific plans in many key domestic areas. Domestic policy is where Kerry beats Bush in the polls, but I don't think that will be the case if he keeps saying things will be better, while Bush is saying this is how I will make things better. So if I were you, I wouldn't be counting on those debates until I see a massive shift in rhetoric from the Kerry campaign, because right now the President has him beat. That speech last night was designed to beat Kerry on domestic issues, which leaves the war on terror as his only avenue to attack Bush. And the polls clearly show that Bush wins vs Kerry on the war on terror.
posted
maybe i just missed too many speeches, but it seems to me that bush's speech was the first to actually lay out a plan for what the republican party wanted to do in the next 4 years. the rest was rehashing 9/11 or ripping into kerry.
it was an excellent speech though.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me tell you why I voted for Bush last time. It was just a litmus test, to be sure. I already knew I liked most of Bush's domestic policies at the time, so I looked up his foreign policies. Specifically the ones I knew a lot about, like Russia and the other former Soviet Bloc countries. Gore was more of the same: just keep sending them money and they'll recover. Bush's people knew the incredible amount of corruption that was occuring there, and that almost every single cent America had sent there went into the pockets of government bureaucrats.
I checked into a few other policies regarding other nations, and found pretty much the same thing. Gore's people had really no plan other than 'more of the same', which I admit was sometimes appropriate but too often demonstrated a lack of perception. Bush's people had a much clearer understanding of situations as they really were and what to do about them.
I'll be doing something very similar this year. I rarely listen to the speeches. I go look at their written statements of policy to see which lines up the closest to what I would do. I know that with every single president voted in, not everything he has promised has come true. See folks, that is impossible for a number of reasons. It isn't just about lying, it is about what can actually be done.
9/11 really overshadowed a lot of policy. And it doesn't bother me a bit that Saddam Hussein got removed, by us, against the wishes of folks like Jacque Chirac and his UN cronies. (I love the idea of a UN, but the UN is so corrupt and powerless that I have no faith in it.) It bothers me far more that we ever supported Hussein. It bothers me far more that Bush's father capitulated to all the pacifists and let Hussein remain to terrorize his own people for another 12 years. My mom worked for people from Iraq in the eighties, and they came over here to escape what was happening there.
Removing Saddam Hussein was indeed progress. That doesn't mean more war is progress, it just means that for that situation, it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, there was only one way to do it.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a war monger. But I also realize that ensuring peace and prosperity will sometimes take more than diplomacy, especially when your enemy is willing to use any means necessary to get you to capitulate to their will.
posted
Amka -- I don't agree with you, but I applaud you (and most people here at Hatrack) for doing your research.
I am afraid that Bush really may win the election with that speech and more of its kind, mostly because of the multitudes of times I heard during the last election that people just could not vote for Gore because of his lack of charisma. My own mother voted for Bush only because she couldn't watch Gore speak. I see Kerry stumbling towards the same path.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to get this in before i go and cry over this post.
I'm not voting for Bush because I want him as a president. I'm voting for Bush because I DON'T want Kerry as a president. Thank you and good day Posts: 529 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Bush has improved his public speaking a great deal. The Democrats are in huge trouble."
Well, in all fairness, he HAS had time to practice. The real test is whether Kerry's going to screw up in the debates and throw him softballs he expects, thus permitting him to get onto practiced talking points.
Of course, this doesn't actually matter -- because Bush, like Reagan, completely ignored his opponent's questions in the last debates and just jumped to a talking point that SOUNDED close to the topic. If he does that this time, and Kerry doesn't manage to call him on it more effectively than Gore did, he'll "win" those debates, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
amka, it's easy to say that war is neccessary when it's someone else doing the killing and the dying for you. Iraq is in shambles and the U.S. has no real plans for fixing it (that's progress, huh?). But the big point is Bush (and his administration) either
A) knowingly lied about WMD's and Al Queida ties in order to start a war.
or
B) are so grossly incompetent that they started a war without checking the veracity of their information.
Either way, there is no way that man is fit to lead anything, ever.
I find myself, for the first time, planning on voting for a major party candidate (though I will probably have to bring a trash bag to throw up into at the polls while punching the space next to Kerry's name.)
posted
I lurk from time to time. And occasionally, I still feel the need to open my big mouth and spout nonsense.
Posts: 748 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Removing Saddam Hussein was indeed progress. That doesn't mean more war is progress, it just means that for that situation, it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, there was only one way to do it.
I'm not disagreeing, but then why didn't Bush come forward with this rationale instead of the mash stockpiles of WMDs. These are two different debates. Bush slipped this in as a part of the War on Terror, as if it were an amendment into the Patriot act. And while Iraq and the terrorists were indirectly related, don't you think that the correlation was indirect enough for this to warrant it's own debate?
There are some very good reasons go to war with Iraq. And if liberation through violent invasion of the country of Iraqi for the sake of Iraqi civil liberties is one of them, we should have talked about the death count, injury count, and sketch out a plan for reconstruction. Now if there were an immediate threat from mass piles of WsMD, I could see how we could skip that debate. But there wasn't. Instead, we were told whatever we needed to be told (immediate threat of massive WsMD) to get us to go to war.
I'm all for honest debate and decision making, but that's not what happened with Iraq. And with Israel. This kind of bait and switch makes me wonder if we are supporting Israel because it's a democracy in Middle East, or if we support Israel because if God's their side, we want to make sure that we are on the same side as the Lord. Bush lead us into a war for different reasons than he told espoused. It doesn't mean that they were worse or better reasons, but they were different, and that makes me think that he thinks he knows so much more about America than I do that he can tell me little lies to get me to obey, like bad parents do to their children.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We support Israel because a cat's-paw is necessary to keep the Middle East from consolidating under any one power.
As long as Israel exists, or exists as an agreed-upon enemy, there is always an opportunity to negotiate with different sides for a better result.
As to Bush's insistence on WMD, that was a tactical mistake. If he'd pushed the war based on a less specific example, there would be less embarassment when meaningful quantities weren't found.
posted
Personally, I didn't care for the president's speech. It lacked the fire of Zell's speech and, the first half anyway, was one social program after another. Except when he paused to support continued discrimination against gays.
He's still getting my vote. Kerry would have even MORE socialism and only give lip service to gay issues, just like Bill Clinton did.
But still... all these social programs... They never get repealed and eventually we'll collapse under their weight...
(I'd talk about the war on terror part but I think you all know what I think about that.)
posted
I will vote for Kerry, although it hasd been years since I voted for other than a third party candidate. I really don't think Kerry would be MUCH better than Bush. I don't see him working to grant full marriage rights to gay couples. I don't see him fully withdrawing our troops out of Iraq. I do think his environmental policies will be better though, although that won't be hard. But I am frightened at the idea of four more years of Bush.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of those social programs do seem like a good idea though. For example, more funding is needed for AIDS research and I like there being free community health centers in poor areas although that seems a rather ambitious project given the state of the deficit.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think the two party system is the problem. Aren't both of these guys members of skull and crossbones?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I believe he meant SOME of it. And there are parts that it's easy to tell he means when you cut through the spin; remember the whole "we must destroy the forest in order to save it" bit from two years ago? But the whole speech was, like Kerry's, designed to appeal to the middle by throwing in the kitchen sink and putting a new coat of paint on old mold.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Times Poll: Bush Opens Double Digit Lead: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader .
Details:
quote: The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry.
Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush.
Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry.
Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.
Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs.
Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.
Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry.
Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry.
Bonus:
quote: Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week’s TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved.
Terrorism: Almost two thirds (59%) said they approve of how President Bush is handling the war on terrorism, while 38% disapprove. Last week’s TIME poll found 55% approved of Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism, while 40% disapproved.
The Economy: Survey respondents were split on the President’s handling of the economy. Almost half (48%) said the approved of Bush’s handling of the economy, while 48% said the disapproved.
[ September 04, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that stuck me about the president's speech was how he applauded and took credit for the fact that more people own homes now then ever before. I'm not an economist and I have only limited knowledge of how the housing market works, but isn't a rise in home ownership partly a result of a weak economy. A slow economy causes our good friend Mr. Greenspan to lower interest rates which in turn makes it cheaper to buy a home. So isn't Bush essentially taking credit for a by product of a slow economy he doesn't want to take blame for?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
