September 02, 2004

Young George W Bush Turns out we haven't "misunderestimated" him.
posted by Sullivan 20 years ago
  • Also here
  • Also here, here, here, here and a lot of other places. Love the internet.
  • aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh make it stop please someone make it stop
  • Why are we even talking about this? It is obvious that Kerry lied about his Vietnam activities, then he lied about the veterans, and now he is hiding from the media instead of releasing all his records. Why doesn't he sign the form 180?
  • Get Your War On said it best.
  • It may be just me, but I don't think the "he was a REALLY rowdy young adult" argument is getting to the fence-sitting voter. And, sadly, neither is his mysterioso National Guard records, either. Kerry - and this is just my opinion, but still - would do a lot better to focus on domestic and economic issues (and there are plenty) and let the war stuff languish. For whatever reason, right or wrong, he just can't seem to make those things stick, and he's suffering for it.
  • See, this is what gets me, though. How do the Republicans do it so effectively? A woman interview on NPR this morning said she doesn't plan to vote for Kerry because she thinks he "stretched the truth" about his war record. Yet Bush's causes no concern? How do they make it stick, when the Dems can't?
  • Replays show that Michael Jordan really only had 42 points and 2 assists on 3-31-90 instead of the 44 and 4 that were reported in the official boxscore. Meanwhile, I did very well on that same day in a 2 on 2 game in my driveway. Therefore, I am actually a better player than Michael Jordan. Brought to you by The Republican Center for Logic.
  • MCT - I think that anyone to the left of George Bush has been portrayed as so dangerously leftie-pinko, godless, baby-killing, etc, to the good, church going, pro-life, folks who get frightened when others don't go along with their drill, that they see no contridiction when faced with this sort of conundrum. "Stretching the truth" is scarey when Kerry may have done it, but since GWB is one of their own, well, he was sowing his oats and has now seen the light (amen!), or, maybe it's just all lies, or whatever. That has to be easier than agreeing with the demons on the left.
  • Yeah whatever. The left thinks this, the right thinks that. We don't exactly need a tutorial on the conventional wisdom here. I am utterly unconvinced that what is called "conventional wisdom" is "conventional". Where do these mythical easily-frightened folk live? Certainly not in Ohio or Colorado or Pennsylvania! Not everyone is so absolutely led by the media portrayals or campaign talking points as you might think. There are clear differences between both major candidates, and one can make a case for choosing either candidate without having to resort to any silliness involving events in the 1970s, some unnatural allergy to nuance, or what have you. Why does the right get away with it? It doesn't! Have faith in your fellow Americans if you still belive in Democratic principles. If this is the final picture in November, I'll be entirely happy (and unsurprised).
  • Why does the right get away with it? It doesn't! Amen! Americans are "so conservative," "so stupid," "so gullible," you hear this all the time. And yet: last time Repub. got more votes for president: 1988.
  • fugare - I met a lot of them when I lived in Oklahoma - a state that was a bastion of Baptist persuasion, even in its most "cosmopolitan" city, Tulsa. Since most people were born-again Baptists, they were used to preaching to the choir. I met very few people who could debate issues. I also grew up in a family which was Texan, fundamentalist Christian on my father's side. If I offered an opinion that disagreed with that provided by the Nazarene church, they, like the Oklahomans, did the deer in the headlights thing. Believe me, this does exist in many parts of the US. I a recently discovered, distant cousin with whom I shared genealogy information. He was really happy that research had indicated that the family had slaves at one time. He even used the "n" word. That "silliness" happened over 100 years ago, but it's still a big deal in several southern state. Even here in California, in the Central Valley where I live, there are a lot of people who are descendents of Dust Bowl migrants who still share the prejudices and fundamentalism of their ancestors. I don't know where you live, but I'm convinced that you haven't been out in the southern and midwestern states, especialy in the rural areas, to get opinions or to try to talk about the issues that really upset them. The one's I've met cannot contemplate dissenting opinions. They aren't educated to deal with them since pretty much everyone they know parrots the same screed. I'm not saying that everyone in those areas is the same. I've had some rousing discussions with many of them. But there is a large populace that thinks that way.
  • Texas and Oklahoma are not battleground states. I live in PA, but I've also lived for many years in Columbus OH. I used to go drinking there with an ex-marine, ex-truck-driver, who grew up in Tulsa and was schooled in southern arrogance in Dallas. This guy has come to dislike Bush so much, he forwards every negative thing he reads about him to every one of his friends. He stubbornly refuses to relent, even though I've done my best to convince him that he doesn't need to convert me. (I used to be Republican myself once, though, like Miller laments about his party, the Republican party has deserted everything I believed in.) Anecdotes mean nothing; I am strictly countering path's anecdote with mine. There are fairly regular salt-of-the-earth people whom Bush and his gang of thugs have lost.
  • tensor - I know there are. I'm not saying that all Oklahomans Texans, southerners, mid-westerners, etc., can't parse out what's going on. What I was responding to was middleclasstool's report (up there somewhere)of the woman who said she wouldn't vote for Kerry because he "stretched the truth" about his Viet Nam service while paying no attention to the news about Bush's apparent avoidance of any service during that action. Read my first comment: "I think that anyone to the left of George Bush has been portrayed as so dangerously leftie-pinko, godless, baby-killing, etc, to the good, church going, pro-life, folks who get frightened when others don't go along with their drill, that they see no contridiction when faced with this sort of conundrum. "Stretching the truth" is scarey when Kerry may have done it, but since GWB is one of their own, well, he was sowing his oats and has now seen the light (amen!), or, maybe it's just all lies, or whatever. That has to be easier than agreeing with the demons on the left." Those people do exist in large numbers. I've met bunches of them who would respond the same way that woman did, in spite of the fact the GWB's record in that era appears to be worse than what the Republicans are charging Kerry with. And, anectdotal evidence is non-admissable? What kind do you have to refute my proposition, besides your own anectdote? I also said that I've met some people who could debate issues. I think I made it clear that I wasn't tarring all with the same brush. I'm sure that Bush has lost some of them, but there are plenty out there (and here, in my back yard) who are listening to the messages sent out from the the Bush election committees who think that God did, indeed, tell Bush that he was somehow chosen, so any conflicting messages from the dangerous left can be ignored.
  • path: well, I'll just say that our experience differs regarding midwesterners. I seem to have lost you regarding the actual point I was trying to make, which is that anecdotal evidence is indeed inadmissible when speaking about a large enough group of people. This is absolutely fundamental statistics. This is why social scientists are always so up-front about biases, or why stereotypes are often derided as inaccurate or propaganda. This is why we have polls based on random sampling, with error bars and trend lines and least-squares curves, conducted by ostensibly independent agencies. And yet, despite the best polling practices, the results of these polls, particularly in battleground states, are very commonly inside the margin of error. In other words, be very wary of statements made before the election. Sorry for the condescending tone.
  • Again, tensor, I wasn't saying that some statistically determinable percentage of the population in any area of the county is naive in the way I described. Just trying to provide a possible answer to middleclasstool's question based on personal experience. It isn't "evidence," just opinion.