August 13, 2004

• I'm not angry. *lies*
• on the Swift Boat Republicans ad: KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked [it] to be condemned [by you, the President], the attack on his service. What do you say to that? . . . G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad huh.
• What a shock that the idiot son of an a**hole -- who has sequestered himself in a bunker with ten neocon hypnotists -- doesn't sense the anger coming from Americans. Wait til the RNC, Georgie boy.
• Yeah, well which one of his aides is going to tell him how hated he is? I wouldn't. And it's not like he'd find it out from the newspaper, even if he did bother to read one.
• exactly - he's so out of touch it's painful yet he just plain doesn't give a shit. Why should I vote for a leader like that? (Not counting the googol issues i disagree with him / it / them on)
• Dudes, they keep all the angry people behind razor wire 500 yards from wherever he is, of course he doesn't see any angry people.
• I'd say this would make for a nice surprise for him come November, but I'm sure Karl Rove knows how hated he is and is taking it into account in his machinations.
• I remind my fellow Monkeys that not everyone is a Bush-hater. In fact, at least 1/2 the country is definitely not hating Bush. So please don't act so snarky and shocked, *shocked* that not everyone agrees with you.
• Yeah, well -- Hitler was popular, too.
• rushmc - I understand why I dislike Bush but what I don't understand is why you like him so much... What is it about him that makes you want to vote for him and keep him in power? I'm genuinely interested and not trying to get a rise out of you, I'm just curious.
• Yes, Davidmsc, do tell. I would love to hear a moderate conservative make a case for Bush, NOT predicated on the "but Kerry is (or would be) worse" excuse so often bandied around by you folks. Make a case for the man and his adminstration on what he's done.
• >>I remind my fellow Monkeys that not everyone is a Bush-hater. yeah there are LOTS of vehement kerry haters out there too. hate hate hate, all over the place. and me, personally, i HATE it when politicians deny having seen ads. YEAH, RIGHT. he's not only seen that ad, he's studied it carefully. or at least "his people" have. christ. do they really think we're that stupid?
• /Godwin lives yet again...
• stupid, smart, well reasoned debate or no debate - none of it matters and I think they know that. The GOP is counting on the far right religious vote and that's really all they'll need to win. The only way Bush will lose is if *everyone* votes. i personally think those 50/50 poll numbers are way off, but then I've got a bad attitude about quantitative research in general. (on preview, yeah f8x that's what i was going to say before SideDish distracted me . . )
• That's because he's a sheltered Dauphin. I remember when his father, in around October '92, went to a grocery store and made a big show out of it. He was amazed at the scanners in the checkout line, and made them let him scan things again and again. Those scanners have been out for, like ten years. Just like Michael Jackson believes that he's still loved by the world, and just like Saddam Hussein believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he could use on a whim, Bush is sheltered by a legion of yes-men that prevent him from ever getting an unbiased view of the world.
• Bush intentionally shelters himself from public opinion, prefering to have his news spoonfed to him by sycophants, and Laura. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/15/1084570989001.html?from=storyrhs

  "I don't watch the nightly newscasts on TV, nor do I watch the endless hours of people giving their opinion about things," the president said. "I don't read the editorial pages; I don't read the columnists." ... Bush, who is known for devouring the sports section of newspapers, said he scans the front pages of a few major dailies and, if he finds a particularly interesting story, "I'll skim it." White House aides, including chief of staff Andy Card, cull the newspapers for information that they present to Bush, who also relies on First Lady Laura Bush's recommendations in deciding which news stories to read ...

• Why are we so surprised? Excerpt from Brit Hume's interview : BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything. I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage. HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've... BUSH: Practice since day one.
• ...a case for Bush, NOT predicated on the "but Kerry is (or would be) worse" excuse so often bandied around by you folks. "You folks?" I have never stated that I am simply voting for President Bush simply because Kerry is or would be worse. I'm voting for President Bush because I believe in many of his policies and his integrity. I disagree with some of them (religion, stem-cell research, etc), but the most important factor in this election is, literally, national security and the war on terrorism/Islamo-fascists. That single issue largely negates my differences with the President, because frankly, if that one issue is not "front and center" and acted upon, all of the other issues are moot.
• If "national security and the war on terrorism/Islamo-fascists" is your most important issue, davidmsc, why do you think Bush would be a better President than Kerry? What do you think Kerry would do that would make the country less safe? And, conversely, what has Bush done to make it more safe? Do you think the US is safer now than it was four years ago?
• In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything. ahh . . what? I'm missing the context there . .
• Oh, don't you worry your pretty little head about that, pete_best! We'll take care of them terrorists. You just go and bake me some cookies.
• Pete : There was no context. The discussion was about criticism in the re-election year and he was asked how he gets his news.
• Bush is strong on national security? If I didn't have to worry about hurriocan Charley (coming right my way) I would have fun bitch smacking this down.
• I meant "hurricane Charley." Sorry, I had a momos moment. I blame it on George W. Bush.
• Not to make this even more OT then it already is, but... I think what davidmsc said is interesting. It's my perception that most moderate conservatives who support Bush do it because of this reason - as long as they agree with him on National Security, that trumps everything else (i.e., they can disagree with him on abortion || gay marriage || stem cell research || etc). The perception is, I think that Bush is good on Nat'l Security because he will bomb people and send troops if needed. What bothers me is that Democracts have been Hawkish for a while now - Clinton called himself a Hawk on the Daily Show and he bombed Saddam back when he was president. I think people think, had Kerry been president on 9/11/01, he would not have ended up bombing Saddam, and Bush did. So Kerry is characterized as being 'soft' of Nat'l Security, even though he's made it clear that while he does prefer diplomacy, he will use force when necessary. The worst assumption here is: willing to bomb = good at Nat'l Security
• davidmsc wrote:

  I remind my fellow Monkeys that not everyone is a Bush-hater. In fact, at least 1/2 the country is definitely not hating Bush. So please don't act so snarky and shocked, *shocked* that not everyone agrees with you.

  But the context of the post is that the President is largely ignorant of the fact that the other half of the country doesn't agree with him.
• I think people think, had Kerry been president on 9/11/01, he would not have ended up bombing Saddam, and Bush did. nicola: I don't know if you mean to, but you're perpatuating the myth that there's a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The two are separate issues. If Kerry (or any other Dem) had been prez on 9/11/01, I think he would have pursued Bin Laden and Al Qaeda just as much as Bush did, including attacking Afghanistan and removing the Taliban regime from power. The Iraq war, however, would never have happened.
• I've just about decided that most of the Bush support comes from people who (a) don't have a reason not to and (b) won't seriously engage in a lengthy - data driven discussions about his actions & policies. (*foo*)Filter participants don't usually fall into this group but apparently close to half of Umurikans do. Which is not to say that an argument can ever be won, and that issues even matter when it comes to election day.
• I'm curious where you got at least 1/2 the country is definitely not hating Bush, davidmsc. The (poll) numbers I've been hearing have been "at most, less than 1/2," and that's assuming that every single person that intends to vote Bush has no hate for him. Yes, people will vote for someone they hate. I haven't heard of a politician that I don't hate, but since they're the only ones on the ballot, I've had to vote for some of them.
• I'm a Canadian. Here is my US presidential election prediction: 60/40 in favour of Kerry. Write that down. It's gonna be accurate.
• *writes down*
• Wow, that's a pretty wide margin.
• My prediction, and I'm dead serious, is this. Terrorist attack in NY before Convention, protesters are humiliated because Bush saves the day (rather, he appears strong to America, despite the fact he let us get attacked again...the key is that we're frightened), Bush gives speech, wins. EITHER THAT OR: Osama captured during or slightly after convention, Bush still wins by a good margin. Call it 20%. Come on people, why would they choose New York for a convention?? Why the largest, densest most liberal city in the US? It has to be something to do with the protesters being shown up. Bush wants to be confronted.
• ActuallySettle, they're on the record as having chosen New York because of its symbolism regarding 9/11. They want to show they're the party against terrorism, so they're having the convention near ground zero. They're definitely wrapping themselves in the mantle of 9/11, they've openly admitted it.
• I'm surprised how this "Bush doesn't think people are angry" has slipped right under the press radar. SideDish? Analysis? I would think that'd be a good story, "President Really Clueless, Admits So on Larry King" - y'know kind of tie in how the GOP are only letting in oath-signing republican ticket-holders to their photo ops"campaign rallies". And Bush is believing that's the tone in America.
• Here's why bush is bad for national security, the short answer: yes, he likes to bomb things. that's not always a bad thing. the thing with bush is that he's throwing his bombs, not at terrorists, but right in the midst of a large group of people who will easily become terrorists given sufficient proof that America is powerful, insensitive, and back at its old game of playing mideast powers off eachother for selfish reasons. By attacking Iraq, Bush _will_ make the situation worse for America. Lets face it - Bush is wrong, the terrorists don't hate freedom, and they won't be cowed by a show of force. The terrorists are a minority who feel they have good reasons to have America, relating to decades of US interference in their own affairs, and they're people who have already decided, for whatever reason, that they're willing to die for their cause. I really don't think Kerry has a substantially better plan, but he's got more finesse which is a huge improvement. He could wage a war against terror, I think, without angering a substantial proportion of former western allies as Bush has done. In any case the best strategy in the war on terror is to focus on internal security, and here again, a more sophisticated approach than the Bush administrations' is required.
• sutureself, is that 60/40 popular or electoral? I'd agree with 60/40 popular, but it won't surprise me if bush wins anyway. Nothing succeed like success, nothing wins an election like moving into the whitehouse and calling off the recount.
• I'm surprised how this "Bush doesn't think people are angry" has slipped right under the press radar. With the stuff the press misses these days, I'm not at all surprised. IMHO, the press is in a losing battle against internet media resources--there's no way papers and tv can pick up on all the stuff that's floating around on blogs and internet info sources. Maybe in thirty years the press will wake up to the fact that it is slowly being beaten at its own game.
• but isn't that amazing given the number of news outlets on "traditional" media? Also, this is interesting, if proceduraly unfair :)
• I can't really contribute much to this discussion, as I live in Britain and it's hard for me to judge the state of public feeling in America. But I was interested in this account of Bush on the campaign trail in Columbus, Ohio. (birthplace of James Thurber, am I right?) It's useful to be reminded that Bush is a skilful public performer who knows how to play an audience. Out of touch? I wonder. Maybe he's not as clueless as some people here would like to believe.
• Evil Monkey Overlord Bush must be stopped before he manages to really piss off another nuclear power who shares his idiotic asshole cowboy attitude. He's doing his best so far. At this point, the only thing that's saved us from World War III is that we've only been unjustly killing people who consider themselves to be global superpowers if they can get their hands on a few 30-year-old Kalashnikovs. I try not to be a hater, but in this case, yeah, BUSH DROOLZ KERRY ROOLZ!
• davidmsc: I second rocket88's question -- do you think America is safer now, after Bush went to war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11? And what makes you think Kerry (no pacifist) would be bad for security?
• Some of America seems to prefer muscle to brains. Some of America seems to prefer brains to muscle. Bush seems to see what he wants to see. We'll all see where the chips fall in November.
• A caller on either WPR, Talk of the Nation, or On Point (I can't remember which) said something interesting the other day... He was a republican and he voted for WBush in 2000 but believed now that it was a big mistake. Essentially, he thought he was voting for a younger GHWBush. But GHWBush, obviously, was not nearly as incompetent, divisive, inexperienced, or 'Evil' as his son. I bet there are a lot(!) of people that voted for GWBush in 2000 and will again in 2004, mostly because they have no idea that WBush's neocon administration is so much more reactionary/fringe when compared to the relatively tame GHWBush administration. Or, many of these voters (uncle fes? goetter? davidmsc?) are just too chickenshit to vote libertarian. and pete_best has a beautiful ass.
• This brings to mind the story of Buddha. Maybe if that fucker gets dragged out into an Islamic subsection of the Bronx and has to walk his punk ass back to MSG, his third eye will open and we'll all be saved. But I doubt it.
• Okay. Time for me to roll up my sleeves and get in this debate. Why Bush is weak on national security? Because he keeps Donald Rumsfeld around.

  "Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped create and guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final report failed to offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes in an otherwise praiseworthy accounting. Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning

• I was thinking about combing some of the freeper sites to gather arguments of why W needs another term, but I simply don't wanna. Good darts, Sully.
• rushmc - I understand why I dislike Bush but what I don't understand is why you like him so much... I think you meant to address davidmsc, not me.
• I can't speak for anyone but myself but perhaps someone will agree with this: Bush stands firm on national security, important to all Americans, stands firm on opposition to stem cell research, important to many Americans, stands firm on not supporting abortion, important to many Americans, stands firm on oppostion to gay marriage, important to many Americans, Bush doesn't cowtow to other liberal and corrupt governments(France,Germany,Russia) just because they have UN influence,important to many as well. So what don't you understand exactly about the people who support Bush? Aren't these big enough reason to vote for a president? Why do I have to anal-ize every little bitty detail about Bush and Kerry if I already know the primary issues that are important to me and which guy represents them? My two cents.
• So,kwonsar: how corrupt are the governments of France and Germany? (I'll give you Russia on corruption.) I'd bet you that for every point you can fish out, we can give you a couple about how corrupt the current US government is. (Actually, already have, if you've been tracking several threads here.) Or, are they corrupt because they didn't agree with Bush's administration about attacking Iraq? Or, just because they're liberal, from your perspective? Lots of good, reputable supporting material/links would be nice.
• Bush stands firm on national security.... If by "stands firm on" you mean "is stubborn, ignorant, and unwilling to admit mistakes about", then I agree with you.
• *stays mum about French corruption because does not have links and anyway is liberal sympathizer* *oops didn't quite stay mum* *craps*
• rushmc - sorry!
• Bush has had four years: let's see what he has got right. Are we safer? Are we better off? No. Has he been fiscally conservative? No. Has he exersiced due caution in putting people in harms way? No. Where are the true conservatives who want the government out of our bedrooms, who want to limit spending? Instead we have "Firm on national security." You got a chart on that? What does firm on national security even mean? Does he have a plan? Or is the plan to go to MARS and fight the terror of steriod abuse? Abortion and stem cell research is "important" to many Americans, but how does the majority of Americans feel about it? Is this the best the republicans can do? After all these years this is all they can deliver when they control the government? Weak.
• Can you sense the anger?

• the terrorists don't hate freedom,

  Actually, the hard core of (Islamic al-Qaeda) terrorists do hate freedom. They are theocrats (not unlike prominent Republican supporter Reverend Moon) who hate the idea that people are free, or not, to choose what they believe, are free to dismiss Allah as an imaginary friend, and are free to use their own moral compass to chart the waters of life. Those people can never be reasoned with, never be compromised with, because they want everybody else dead or a slave to their religion. What matters is the fact that this is a relatively small group of people, and the real danger comes less from them, and more from their ability to gain sympathisers. The charge into Iraq is not unlike the blind support for the Shah of Iran: it is creating a bastion of millitant Islam where there was none before, and pushing people into the arms of the extremists. And *that* is one reason the current administration has failed the United States, and, indeed the "Free World" Americans so often and make such grating claims to "lead".
• They are theocrats ... who hate the idea that people are free, or not, to choose what they believe... Those people can never be reasoned with, never be compromised with... Not to disagree with you, but I cannot see how this differs from the evangelical fundamentalists running our government. Does anyone have a scorepad or chart to explain this?
• Kwonsar, are you being silly or do you really characterize Jaques Chiraq's government as "liberal"? The guy is as right wing as they come. Corrupt? What is your proof that the German and French governments are corrupt? Are there any ongoing criminal investigations against them? You know like the Valerie Plame affair, the Enron scandal or etc.?
• zedediah: Well, there are some differences. Pat Robertson and John Ashcroft, for example, may not spend a lot of time trying to discourage Christian terrorists, but I'm not aware of them actually encouraging them. But yeah, broadly, I don't make much distinction between theocratically inclined Christians, Muslims, or Jews (for example). Precisely why I mentioned Moon, in fact. That said, Moon, or Pat Robertson, or the other powerful theocratic groups in the US are not (so far as I'm aware) primarily terrorist organisations; you'd have to look at the likes of Operation Rescue offshoots for that sort of thing. (Granted, Robertson all but sanctified the WTC destruction and al-Qaeda as agents of God teaching is fellow Americans a lesson)
• I don't make much distinction between theocratically inclined Christians, Muslims, or Jews That was my point. Theocratic groups tend to be fascist. Whether they are underground cells or a world power determines the scale at which they can operate, but their goals will remain similar.
• I don't have a sense that there's a lot of anger.
• damn zedediah beat me to it. twice. I have *got* to stop sniffing this glue.
• Okay so I had a National Review article I was going to post, but then it's such a jumbled fractious basket of broken cliches and half-reasoned accusations I decided not to. Oh. Well, okay there it is, but there was one interesting line which goes like this: Why did we not get a Reaganwacked, a Reaganworld, a Lies of Ronald Reagan — a similar vast industry of paperback pulp equating Reagan with evil incarnate? Well, because we didn't have the Internet. Idiot. Reagan's disgusting era is almost quiant compared to BVSH II. And, it was the beginning of the contentious split we have now. Reagan's administration made no secret about openly doing everything to defeat any liberal democratic movements whenever possible, they just weren't as slimy at spin. Let's tune into some hate talk radio and add 20 years, welcome to today. But the point of NRO article was that there is a massive swell of anger and Bush displays a shocking lack of any kind of grasp of reality that doesn't jive with his far-right-neocon big business cronyistic smug treasury busting cowboy coloring book world.
• MonkeyFilter: a jumbled fractious basket of broken cliches and half-reasoned accusations
• pete_best- you're right about "a massive swell of anger", but I'm concerned that it may not be enough. The Internet is much more liberal than other media, and users tend to be progressive. I think we forget sometimes that this wonderful forum does not represent the mainstream. There are a great number of non-users or marginal users (i.e. AOL and MSN) far more conservative than any of the nice folks who post here. Many of them get all their news from Fox. (No offense to AOL/MSN members intended. Well, sort of)
• Actually, Islamic fundamentalists don't hate "democracy" and "freedom" because they just don't think about them the same way as Americans do. Hate to tell you this, but no one else on the planet thinks about American "freedom" and "democracy" the way Americans do - though the good news is that Canada thinks you could use a little more of it. Islamic fundamentalists hate porn, and divorce laws, and alcohol (someone should tell them the US is puritan compared to the rest of the West) - they hate Pamela Anderson and Baywatch. They also hate colonialism, global capitalism and US international swaggering (and funny enough, so do a lot of less extreme people). I would be the first to admit my ignorance of Islam (thank you to Wedge and languagehat and all the other people who have taken time to tell me more), let alone fundamentalist Islam, but even internet blabberers like us should be able to understand that when you have a different culture, they think differently, and have different priorities. I have a friend who studies intelligence and security (and I think I've mentioned 6 million times - and all these ideas are his) - and he describes this situation as "dark mirror imaging." It's an intelligence fallacy to "mirror image" your enemy - to assume that they would do what ever you would do in that situation. "Dark mirror imaging" is when you assume that if they are your enemy, they must be just like you, only opposite. So they have the same values as you, only what you love, they hate. It makes for terrific propaganda (baby killing and whatnot), but bad understanding of what your enemy actually intends. There is a reason they bombed the WTC and not the Statue of Liberty (kind gift of the people of France). If they were out for a symbol of freedom, the green lady would have been the first to go. Instead, they went for the World TRADE Centre and the Pentagon. Their image of America clearly puts these things at the centre of importance - capitalism and military. From outside the US, it's not so surprising - most of the rest of us never experience "freedom" and "democracy" in our dealings with the US. In my life, the US brings trade bullying and the cultural hegemony of the low common denominator - how exactly does this support freedom and democracy? (And I don't want to hear anything about how wonderful the US was in the world wars - where was the US in 1939? And that barely paid back what the US owed France, what with them winning your revolution for you.) Sorry - that was more snarky than intended. But, as much I really like American people, the myths they hold about themselves, their history and their image in the world really angers me. (It's a combination of being Canadian, but also being a history student, and seeing the disconnect between what has happened and how people think the world works).
• Sorry - I've just looked back and seen that the original comment was made by rogerd, who is not American. (I do occasionally mix you up with rocket88, because of the beginning of each name when you read it quickly. I also reacted as I did because you seemed to be quoting sentiments I hear repeatedly from the US government and media.) I think that my points still stand, extended out to the Western World. We can't think that people who don't share our values automatically hate our values - they just have different ones. No, they don't like personal freedom, but then again, most of our governments don't either. But freedom of speech, freedom of political expression - these very important things aren't really on the radar. We think they're important - but they may not. Look at Iran - though they have many restrictions, they have a functioning government which is trying to slowly bring in reforms. There are women in that government - they must wear modest clothing, but are to rule. This would seem very incongruent unless you think about how their values differ.
• So - we can extend that bit about myths, etc to the whole of the Western world too - we are not necessarily the bastions of freedom and plenty that we like to believe we are. Ask anyone from a post-colonial country.
• If terrorists hated freedom, then the Netherlands would be fucking dust, as would Denmark and Sweden and Switzerland and every other country that's truly freer than we are. I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel and our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said.
• I don't have a sense that there's a lot of freedom.
• (quidnunc - are you quoting something, or do you just have crazy italicness going on?)
• I wondered that too, jb.
• although it is quidnunc - he could be on the vanilla extract again.
• I only got a 404 off his link.
• Shit, it worked yesterday. The link is (was?) just a review of US comic David Cross in the Guardian: it contains that quote but is otherwise unimportant. Sorry. i.e. they're not my words, although I was amused by the passionate way he expressed himself.
• Sorry - should-a used preview. What I meant to say was AAAAARGH VANILLA MONSTERS LIVE INSIDE MY PANCREAS PLEASE TELL QUEEN OLAF TO STOP TOUCHING ME THERE WOOOP WOOOP WOOOP NOW I'M A PENCIL CASE!1!! so, yeah, sorry everyone.
• i have a sense that quidnunc has a lot of anger.
• Andrew Card Booed At UMass Commencement
• Wow. Brings tears to your eyes.
• Bush sucks.
• Miss U.S.A. was booed in the Miss Universe pageant last night, after she made it to the final five, despite falling flat on her ass during the evening gown competition. The host -- the jock from Saved By The Bell bravely soldiered on through the booing. He's a real patriot. For what it's worth.
• Sorry -- she was booed during the interview portion. She and the jock both carried on. Both patriots.
• And you, Dear Capt., are a hero for bravely reporting this.
• And you, our noble equine friend, are a hero for saying so.
• TUMmy, your ability to comment thusly makes you a large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats veggies and cheese (and tomato and onion and lettuce and condiments).
• *drools*
• *studies TUM, trying to discern if this is special "I'm so hungry" drooling, or just the usual TUM-spittle*
• he jock from Saved By The Bell Don't pretend you don't know his name.
• *wants veggie sammich
• /TUMSPUTTLE
• TUM! TUM! TUM! TUM! TUM! TUM! TUM! TUM! Lovely TUUUUUM! Wonderful TUUUUUUM . . .