What will the excuses be?

Random said:
Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming “a uniter, not a divider”.
Click to expand...

Anything he did that was centrist was lambasted by both sides precisely because the country was so polarized. What Bush made the mistake of thinking is that there was middle ground.

Stem Cells. Coming into the Bush presidency we had a total ban on federal dollars for embrionic stem cell research. Bush made a compromise decision that allowed funds to be spent but with restrictions.

What was the result?
Left: BUSH HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STEM CELL RESEARCH
Right: BUSH HAS SOLD OUT THE PROLIFE MOVEMENT

The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. Bill Clinton for instance was a republican on many issues but to 35 percent of people he was always peacenik pot smoking communist. Now we have a country where the liberals are also polarized and extreme.

Going into the 2000 election, Gore proposed medicare reform and the issue resonated. Bush responded by making his own plan that tried to introduce choice and get market forces once again in play.

LEFT: BUSH IS TRASHING MEDICARE
RIGHT: BUSH IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Is Bush really as polarizing as people think, or are people mostly polarized and seeing things through their filters?
 
Re: Re: What will the excuses be?

Abdul Alhazred said:
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.
Click to expand...

What he said.

-z
 
Re: Re: What will the excuses be?

Abdul Alhazred said:
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.
Click to expand...

As an ABB supporter, I really had to think about this one. Would I prefer a John Kerry who managed to take the White House with the help of an army of lawyers and fraudulent votes, or a George W. Bush who was freely elected by an unarguable majority of the people?

Instictively I went for Kerry, but then I stopped and thought about it. What about world opinion? What about restoring faith in our democratic process? Should I support a president who did not technically win?

Then I thought back to 2000 and everything that was happened since, smartened up and went back to supporting Kerry.

Bush must be stopped now. We can have a more sensible discussion about it in 2008 when we will hopefully have a better crop of candidates.
 
Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be?

Random said:
As an ABB supporter, I really had to think about this one. Would I prefer a John Kerry who managed to take the White House with the help of an army of lawyers and fraudulent votes, or a George W. Bush who was freely elected by an unarguable majority of the people?

Instictively I went for Kerry, but then I stopped and thought about it. What about world opinion? What about restoring faith in our democratic process? Should I support a president who did not technically win?

Then I thought back to 2000 and everything that was happened since, smartened up and went back to supporting Kerry.
Click to expand...
You were following an entirely logical train of thinking there right up until the last paragraph quoted above, when you lost me.

Are you saying you would prefer Kerry, even if it took fraud to put him in?

I would not prefer to see Bush in office if it took fraud to put him there. I guess maybe I'm not doctrinaire enough.

I'm not saying I'm under any illusion that there won't be fraud in this election. But I would rather see Kerry elected with a clear majority than Bush with an obviously tainted one. Actually, I'd rather see Bush win 45 states, but you know what I mean. Could you explain what you mean?
 
Re: Re: What will the excuses be?

Abdul Alhazred said:
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.
Click to expand...


yeah, what he said.

But I'll go a little bit further. If bush loses. He deserves to lose.
But if he wins, he deserves to win. :p

yeah, that makes sense. hehe :rolleyes:

But.............he still going to win. :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be?

BPSCG said:
You were following an entirely logical train of thinking there right up until the last paragraph quoted above, when you lost me.

Are you saying you would prefer Kerry, even if it took fraud to put him in?

I would not prefer to see Bush in office if it took fraud to put him there. I guess maybe I'm not doctrinaire enough.

I'm not saying I'm under any illusion that there won't be fraud in this election. But I would rather see Kerry elected with a clear majority than Bush with an obviously tainted one. Actually, I'd rather see Bush win 45 states, but you know what I mean. Could you explain what you mean?
Click to expand...

Simple, I weighed the two choices in my mind and came to the conclusion that George Bush would do more damage to this country with four more years in office than a fraudulently elected Kerry.

We have seen what Bush does with the office with no real mandate. Abandoning any semblance of fiscal responsibility. A half- trillion dollar Medicare program that doesn’t even solve the problem it was designed to. Failing to address the issue of Al Queda until it was too late. And a war and occupation in Iraq that even the most virulently rabid Bush supporter has to admit has not been handled as well as it could have been.

I’m not sure this country could survive another four years of that.

I’ve seen Kerry act as our senator and when I imagine him in the presidency, the image that comes to mind is one of a poll-watching middle of the roader. If he had no mandate, he would be even less willing to go out on a limb and push for some kind of nutty agenda.

As for the damage to democracy that another court appointed president could cause, the problems with our system are still here after 2000 with only cosmetic improvements. A legitimate presidency would not encourage the real change that we need, but another president asterisk might.

Thus my conclusion that a fraudulent Kerry would be better than a legitimate Bush. I don’t particularly like the conclusion that I have reached, but that is what I am stuck with.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be?

Abdul Alhazred said:
What presumption? I asked a question, and you answered it. To my satisfaction, I might add.

Relax!
Click to expand...

OK. I just assumed that you couldn't possibly not know that at least one of Kerry's supporters could say the same, so I took it as a sarcastic slam. My bad and I apologize if I was wrong.
 
A thought to add that other people have mentioned elsewhere. I don't think of myself as an ABB, but if you want to lump me in with that group, I'd prefer to be called an ABBCRR (Bush, Cheney ,Rove and Rumsfeld...you could add a third R for Rice if you wish).
 
I am for a no CARB diet - No Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld or Bush.

I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown.
Click to expand...
"Thrown" is why there are so many challenges in this election.
 
Alright, the day is here but I don't have access to the talking heads on TV. What are the excuses so far?
 
corplinx said:
Anything he did that was centrist was lambasted by both sides precisely because the country was so polarized. What Bush made the mistake of thinking is that there was middle ground.

Stem Cells. Coming into the Bush presidency we had a total ban on federal dollars for embrionic stem cell research. Bush made a compromise decision that allowed funds to be spent but with restrictions.

What was the result?
Left: BUSH HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STEM CELL RESEARCH
Right: BUSH HAS SOLD OUT THE PROLIFE MOVEMENT

The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. Bill Clinton for instance was a republican on many issues but to 35 percent of people he was always peacenik pot smoking communist. Now we have a country where the liberals are also polarized and extreme.

Going into the 2000 election, Gore proposed medicare reform and the issue resonated. Bush responded by making his own plan that tried to introduce choice and get market forces once again in play.

LEFT: BUSH IS TRASHING MEDICARE
RIGHT: BUSH IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Is Bush really as polarizing as people think, or are people mostly polarized and seeing things through their filters?
Click to expand...
It's no fun having an argument with someone who puts across well considered points in such an even handed way. Can you not resort to name calling and adopting straw men instead ?
 
Corpse:
"The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. "

VERY astute judgment and unfortunately too correct.

Reminds me of the Doobie Brothers album title" What were once vices are now habits", except the reality is "What once was considered far right is now centrist"

Musta listened to The Pretenders "Back to Ohio" an anti-Reagan-Conservative lament 10 times today , except the line".. by a government that had no pride" should now be "by a government that had too much pride". <sigh>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom