Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Many people commented on the differences between what was in Woodward's book, and the way it was handled in the publicity interviews.

As for why it's on the recommended list, ask them, not me. :lol:

I don't have to ask them. I read the book, it's obvious to me why its on the list. It reflects very favorably upon the president, more so than probably any other book on that list. Karl Rove couldn't write a more favorable treatment of his boss, and you say Woodward leans Democratic? Have you read the book?

Strangely enough, while the book actually reflects a positive image of Bush (which isn't spin), the much bigger image, one that played out on television, reflected very negatively on Bush. Like the flip flopping Kerry, Woodward thus gets it both ways, ergo more votes and book sales.

This is the strange dilemma of a modern-day liberalism that has lost it's way in the post-Reagan Revolution, imho. Liberals have core values but they can't be honest about them because they are political suicide.

Some fourth turn, eh? Keep dreamin', liberals, coz just at the very moment that you are ready to throw in the towel is when the downpour will dispel the drought.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Strangely enough, while the book actually reflects a positive image of Bush (which isn't spin), the much bigger image, one that played out on television, reflected very negatively on Bush. Like the flip flopping Kerry, Woodward thus gets it both ways, ergo more votes and book sales.

You mean more votes for Bush and more book sales?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Strangely enough, while the book actually reflects a positive image of Bush (which isn't spin), the much bigger image, one that played out on television, reflected very negatively on Bush. Like the flip flopping Kerry, Woodward thus gets it both ways, ergo more votes and book sales.

You mean more votes for Bush and more book sales?

Yes.

But that isn't how Democrats are thinking at all. That's just the way things will pan out, as liberalism faces the true music. Bush's song, I believe, is the one that most everyone will sing come November. It is a song that all the fringes, the Saaris, the little seadogs, the Kifflies, and the liberals loathe with every fibre of their being. But it is the song of middle class America. And they like it.

Hitler sang that same song, you know? And he took all of Germany down into the pit with him. 8)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Bush gains little or nothing from waging war. Sorry, but that's just the facts of the matter. If they can oust him, they can spin it as having sent a message, "The West is scared of us!"

As for our allies, they don't see how it's in their self-interest to help us, and electing Kerry won't change that. I'm sorry, but the end of the former alliance system is just something you're going have to deal with.

The only thing you should be sorry for is for constantly spinning your opinion into "the facts of the matter."
In my opinion, Bush and terrorists both benefit from this war. If the terrorists did not generate a response that they could spin into more support, then they would be easily marginalized within their own societies. Since they can now point to Abu Ghraib, or more dead Palestinian/Iraqi/Afghani civilians, and the invasion of Iraq - they have a big "I told you so" to work from. They go from marginal to mainstream every time an innocent Iraqi loses his or her life. Terrorism is a option chosen by militant groups that do not have the capabilities to engage their enemy in the traditional manner.
Obviously these people who have complaints against the United States will not be able to participate in any traditional democratic forum, because by doing so they would threaten the forii's stability and thus become a national security threat that would need to be preempted.
So they will remain marginalized and militant.
Bush on the other hand lacks a domestic agenda that he is willing to fund.
So he nees war just as much as they do to remain credible.

I think that little may change under Kerry except the perceptions of the reality. And in policy and politics, that's all that counts.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Brian, you would do yourself a favor to speak of what you know, and keep silent about the rest.

I do.

You don't.

Bush is not really as far down as you think he is, the current numbers mean no more than the 90% approval did a year and a half ago. The country was divided 50/50 then, and now.

This is an article of faith with you which you never seem to honestly question. The current polls suggest that you are mistaken, although that might be just as misleading as the 2000 election result was in upholding your opinion. But support for Bush does not really equate with religious conservatism or vice-versa.

The current numbers mean MUCH more than the 90% approval rating he had a year and a half ago, because we are a year and a half closer to the election. There are certainly issue on which the country is divided 50/50, but the reelection of Bush is not among them. Moreover, his current numbers aren't the problem so much as the trend. If he doesn't reverse that trend, it's going to be a Kerry landslide.

Furthermore, if you go back and look at my posts at the height of Bush's popularity, you'll note that I said at that time that as the election approached, the polarization would reappear and the poll numbers would start gyrating.

They aren't gyrating. The movement is all in one direction.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Brian, you would do yourself a favor to speak of what you know, and keep silent about the rest.

I do.

No, you don't. Rather than address the logic or lack of such in my response to Gore's attack speech, you posted an insulting statement about my motivations. Sorry, that won't cut it for 'posting what you know.'

Bush is not really as far down as you think he is, the current numbers mean no more than the 90% approval did a year and a half ago. The country was divided 50/50 then, and now.

This is an article of faith with you which you never seem to honestly question.

On the contrary, the divide has been reflected in every Congressional election since the late 80s, with a brief exception (and not that big a one) in 1994. It was reflected in the 1996 Presidential election, which saw Clinton, with the advantages of incumbency, a good economy, and vastly superior political skill, get 50% of the popular vote.

The motives of the various groups on each side vary, but for whatever reason, they've reached a state of near-equilibrium. That could still be disrupted by a suicidal screwup on one side or the other, but so far it hasn't happened, even though Bush and Kerry have both had ample chance. It's looking as if Kerry is a fairly canny strategist, or has some working for him, we already know Rove and Co. are such.

The current polls suggest that you are mistaken, although that might be just as misleading as the 2000 election result was in upholding your opinion. But support for Bush does not really equate with religious conservatism or vice-versa.

I neither mentioned nor implied anything about religious conservatism.

The polls show a large discontent with Bush, they show almost no movement toward Kerry. The reason for that is that most of the right-wing discontent with Bush is not such that would produce a movement toward a Democrat. How, if Kerry could induce a right-winger to run as a third party, that would be a different matter, it might well be sufficient to cut Bush out of the running.

But the discontented right-wingers are not likely to vote for Kerry out of frustration with Bush being insufficiently aggressive or hard-nosed.

The current numbers mean MUCH more than the 90% approval rating he had a year and a half ago, because we are a year and a half closer to the election. There are certainly issue on which the country is divided 50/50, but the reelection of Bush is not among them.

Sorry, Brian. It's true his approval numbers are slipping, but many of those disapproving are disapproving for reasons exactly the opposite of what the Democrats disapprove of him for. Given a choice between him and Kerry, they'll mostly vote for Bush.

It's no different than the high numbers 18 months ago. Even those Democrats saying they approved would still have rather had a Democrat, as I said then when my fellow conservatives were gloating and the libs on the board were depressed.

The situation, for all the noise since then, has not changed materially, or at least not yet.

Furthermore, a large chunk of the national electorate isn't even tuned in yet, and won't be until Labor Day. Up until January 1, it looked as if Howard Dean had the Democratic nomination locked up, based on most of the polls. But the polls weren't reflecting anything but the hard-core political types who pay attention all the time, and the rest of the party weren't nearly as enthused over Dean as the hard-core.

So don't take any of the polls too seriously yet. We've still got the rest of the summer, the conventions, the Labor Day critical point, the debates, and several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of dirty tricks, attack ads, and speeches to get through between now and November. It's actually quite early yet.

Moreover, his current numbers aren't the problem so much as the trend. If he doesn't reverse that trend, it's going to be a Kerry landslide.

Brian, Kerry will be lucky to win a narrow margin. Nothing has changed, not even 911 changed anything that mattered.

Do you really imagine that the people who voted for Bush in 2000 have magically come to prefer a Democratic/liberal view? The discontent on their side is that Bush is giving in too easily! You're not going to like what's likely to happen over the next few months, but get ready, because odds are the polls are going to gyrate back and forth, and then stabilize in something like a close race.

Furthermore, if you go back and look at my posts at the height of Bush's popularity, you'll note that I said at that time that as the election approached, the polarization would reappear and the poll numbers would start gyrating.

They aren't gyrating. The movement is all in one direction.

Brian, Kerry's numbers haven't moved at all. Bush has had a lousy two months, and as is usual in such cases his approval numbers are down. But if you imagine some kind of vast groundswell happening, sorry, there's no evidence for it.

The gyration has probably just started, though it's possible we won't see gyration, just a gradual alignment of the numbers.

I know you like to imagine that America is 70% liberal and 30% conservative, but that's your wishful thinking (and your opposition's, too, except that they like to reverse the polarities). Overall, it averages to 50/50, and has for over 15 years.

Originally Posted by Terminator X

In my opinion, Bush and terrorists both benefit from this war. If the terrorists did not generate a response that they could spin into more support, then they would be easily marginalized within their own societies.

For the most part, they already are marginal within their own societies. The whole point of 911 and their other activities was to change that, and it didn't work, or didn't while we hit back hard.

As Osama himself put it, "when people see a strong horse or a weak horse, they naturally prefer the strong one."

That's part of why the 'Arab Street' has yet to rise, in spite of endless predictions that they would do so if provoked. We're more likely to produce Arab armed hostility by seeming too hesitant than too forceful.

Since they can now point to Abu Ghraib, or more dead Palestinian/Iraqi/Afghani civilians, and the invasion of Iraq - they have a big "I told you so" to work from. They go from marginal to mainstream every time an innocent Iraqi loses his or her life.

Yet most of Iraq remains quiet, and the Arab Street continues to merely mutter. al Queda doesn't need anger at America to prosper, they've already got that, and have had it for many years.

What they have to do is demonstrate that they can hurt America, and the America is either unable, or better yet unwilling, to do anything about it. That is where their key to success or failure lies. They haven't made any secret of that, BTW. They themselves have stated that America's decision to back out of Mogadishu when faced with casualties was their indicator that we were too weak to resist them, no matter how powerful our military and economic resources theoretically were.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Hitler sang that same song, you know? And he took all of Germany down into the pit with him. 8)

1) Friedrich Nietzsche and the Abyss both say hi.


2) Godwin's Law alert!


3) No man is a complete waste; he can always be used as a cautionary example!

[quote="HopefulCynic68"]

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The current numbers mean MUCH more than the 90% approval rating he had a year and a half ago, because we are a year and a half closer to the election. There are certainly issue on which the country is divided 50/50, but the reelection of Bush is not among them.

Sorry, Brian. It's true his approval numbers are slipping, but many of those disapproving are disapproving for reasons exactly the opposite of what the Democrats disapprove of him for. Given a choice between him and Kerry, they'll mostly vote for Bush.

It's no different than the high numbers 18 months ago. Even those Democrats saying they approved would still have rather had a Democrat, as I said then when my fellow conservatives were gloating and the libs on the board were depressed.

The situation, for all the noise since then, has not changed materially, or at least not yet.

Furthermore, a large chunk of the national electorate isn't even tuned in yet, and won't be until Labor Day. Up until January 1, it looked as if Howard Dean had the Democratic nomination locked up, based on most of the polls. But the polls weren't reflecting anything but the hard-core political types who pay attention all the time, and the rest of the party weren't nearly as enthused over Dean as the hard-core.

So don't take any of the polls too seriously yet. We've still got the rest of the summer, the conventions, the Labor Day critical point, the debates, and several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of dirty tricks, attack ads, and speeches to get through between now and November. It's actually quite early yet.

Moreover, his current numbers aren't the problem so much as the trend. If he doesn't reverse that trend, it's going to be a Kerry landslide.

Brian, Kerry will be lucky to win a narrow margin. Nothing has changed, not even 911 changed anything that mattered.

Do you really imagine that the people who voted for Bush in 2000 have magically come to prefer a Democratic/liberal view? The discontent on their side is that Bush is giving in too easily! You're not going to like what's likely to happen over the next few months, but get ready, because odds are the polls are going to gyrate back and forth, and then stabilize in something like a close race.

Regarding that, the latest Gallup poll is showing the race essentially at a dead heat.

The following information is posted for illustrative purposes without intention of infringement or profit.

Presidential Race Tied


PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of American voters finds little change in the past two weeks in either the presidential contest or presidential job approval. The race for the White House remains a virtual tie, with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry receiving 49% and President George W. Bush 47% support among likely voters. More Americans disapprove (49%) than approve (47%) of the president's job performance. About 8 in 10 likely voters (but 7 in 10 registered voters) say their votes are firm and will not change before Election Day.

The poll, conducted May 21-23, shows Kerry enjoying a slight advantage among registered voters, 48% to 46%, but well within the poll's margin of error. There has been little change in the presidential contest during the month.



With independent Ralph Nader in the race, Kerry receives 47% and Bush 46% support among likely voters, while Nader gets 4%. Among registered voters, the pattern is similar: Kerry 46%, Bush 44%, and Nader 6%.



When asked if their decision was firm, or could they change their minds, the vast majority of both Kerry and Bush supporters indicate a firm decision. Overall, 42% of likely voters are firmly for Kerry, 40% firmly for Bush, with an additional 7% of voters for each candidate indicating that their support could change by Election Day. Another 4% of likely voters express no opinion.



Now, that said, these polls I just quoted should be taken only for what they are worth, which is almost nothing right now. One can produce various results by how you perform a poll, and in a polarized electorate results are untrustworthy because small shifts back and forth can have big effects.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by TrollKing

i agree with you 100% on this quote. but i don't define such things as approaching treason.

I don't either, I was quoting Sam Johnson (R Texas) a war veteran congressman and former prisoner of war in Vietnam who called it borderline traitorous. That's a shade further than I would go, but it is out of line.

ok, but you said:

As one highly decorated vetaran in Congress said, it bordered on traitorous.

which would normally mean that you would characterize it that way as well.

in any case, there's less disagreement here (between you and me) than it appeared.


TK

You're right. Something about this particular speech did push my buttons more than it should have emotionally. I think Johnson is basically right, but that 'traitorous' is too strong a word. But this does go beyond 'politics as usual'.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Would the GOP, dominated by Boomers, do the same now? I'm afraid they might, and I would be just as angry about it if they did.

you would be? see, i just don't get angry about this stuff. part and parcel, etc., whether its left or right.


TK

Normally, I don't either. My usual attitude is fairly detached, but the indifference to human life we're seeing displayed does get to me.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Strangely enough, while the book actually reflects a positive image of Bush (which isn't spin), the much bigger image, one that played out on television, reflected very negatively on Bush. Like the flip flopping Kerry, Woodward thus gets it both ways, ergo more votes and book sales.

You mean more votes for Bush and more book sales?

Yes.

But that isn't how Democrats are thinking at all. That's just the way things will pan out, as liberalism faces the true music. Bush's song, I believe, is the one that most everyone will sing come November. It is a song that all the fringes, the Saaris, the little seadogs, the Kifflies, and the liberals loathe with every fibre of their being. But it is the song of middle class America. And they like it.

Hitler sang that same song, you know? And he took all of Germany down into the pit with him. 8)

Marc, you can make your points without descending to the level of your opponents. Just a reminder.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They aren't gyrating. The movement is all in one direction.

Here in a nutshell was the sole purpose of Al Gore's speech the other day:

• Mr. Kerry on Security
  
  The Washington Post
  Sunday, May 30, 2004; Page B06
  
  SEN. JOHN F. KERRY'S 11-day mini-campaign on the theme of national security appears unlikely to produce sensational headlines or seize the country's attention -- which is, on balance, to his credit. At a moment when the crisis in Iraq dominates the national discussion, Mr. Kerry is resisting the temptation to distinguish himself from President Bush with bold but irresponsible proposals to abandon the mission, even though that course is favored by many in his party. Nor has he adopted the near-hysterical rhetoric of former vice president Al Gore, who has taken to describing Iraq as the greatest strategic catastrophe in American history and calling U.S. handling of foreign detainees an "American gulag."
  
  Instead, Mr. Kerry is in the process of setting out what looks like a sober and substantial alternative to Mr. Bush's foreign policy.

I would liken last week's events as marking the offical kickoff of the 2004 presidential campaign. All the lines have been drawn, and the players are positioned on the field of engagement. The first play from scrimmage involved extensive stealth gadgetry designed to make the real quarterback, who is still in the lockeroom even as I write, look better than last years quarterback Al Gore.

The play worked like a charm. Now Kerry can emerge from the lockeroom, suited up and ready to play. The crowd will cheer wildly as he stands in stark contrast to past leadership. How the game actually plays out from this point is anyone's guess, but this much is clear: boy, that Al Gore, what a team player he is, eh? :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Rather than address the logic or lack of such in my response to Gore's attack speech, you posted an insulting statement about my motivations. Sorry, that won't cut it for 'posting what you know.'

What I was addressing was the fact that you chose to post such a long, involved response to Gore's speech. Truth to tell, I couldn't be bothered reading all of your response, but then, nor could I be bothered reading all of Gore's speech. I did read some of it. Standard political stuff. Much I agree with, some I don't, can't tell if Gore believes it or not. Though I suspect so as he's not running for office these days.

The fact that you felt a need to do that shows a bit of desperation. The fact that you keep using the word "sorry" and other rhetorical devices designed to close discussion shows something close to hysteria. You also seem to be making more spelling and grammatical errors than usual.

Besides, I didn't address those comments to any particular person, nor did I name you. Why did you immediately decide the shoe fit? Obviously in the back of your own mind, you recognize that you are feeling a bit defensive on behalf of Mr. Bush, which is only to be expected if you're one of his supporters. (Why you would be is another question. And possibly you're beginning to question that, as well?)

The motives of the various groups on each side vary, but for whatever reason, they've reached a state of near-equilibrium.

If, as you say, this equilibrium has been reflected in every Congressional election since the 1980s (1994? really?), no doubt it was in place in 1996. Was that presidential election a close one?

Presidential elections with incumbents running are very seldom close, cultural divide or no cultural divide. There are many reasons to support or oppose Bush.

The polls show a large discontent with Bush, they show almost no movement toward Kerry. The reason for that is that most of the right-wing discontent with Bush is not such that would produce a movement toward a Democrat.

It doesn't have to. A Bush voter who doesn't vote is half a vote for Kerry. I'm sure that's what Bush League is really worried about. I observed earlier that in their ads, they are tarring Kerry with accusations that don't matter a hilll of beans to anyone likely to vote for him in the first place. It's obvious to me that the strategy is to make the Bush base afraid enough of Kerry that they'll vote for Bush even if they don't like him any more, rather than stay home.

It's true his approval numbers are slipping, but many of those disapproving are disapproving for reasons exactly the opposite of what the Democrats disapprove of him for. Given a choice between him and Kerry, they'll mostly vote for Bush.

Or stay home. And I don't think you're right about the reasons, either. It seems to me that these poll results are connected, at least temporally, with the degenerating situation in Iraq and with the prison scandal. As well as the economy, of course. Those aren't all of the reasons a Democrat would disapprove of Bush, to be sure, but they are some of them.

Furthermore, a large chunk of the national electorate isn't even tuned in yet, and won't be until Labor Day.

Don't be so sure of that, either. There aren't nearly as many uncommitted voters out there as there usually are.

I know you like to imagine that America is 70% liberal and 30% conservative, but that's your wishful thinking

No, that's not what I imagine. I imagine that what percentage goes which way depends on what issue you're talking about and where you draw the line between the two terms. I also imagine that you, in your own mind, pick and choose issues and dividing lines so as to make certain that the division is half-and-half.

But there really is only one issue that matters in a presidential election with an incumbent running: Is the incumbent doing a good job as president? If people think he is, he wins. If they don't, he loses.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

You mean more votes for Bush and more book sales?

Yes.

This is what I thought, but it doesn't agree with Hopeful's implication that Woodward was partisan against Bush.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Rather than address the logic or lack of such in my response to Gore's attack speech, you posted an insulting statement about my motivations. Sorry, that won't cut it for 'posting what you know.'

What I was addressing was the fact that you chose to post such a long, involved response to Gore's speech. Truth to tell, I couldn't be bothered reading all of your response, but then, nor could I be bothered reading all of Gore's speech.

Thank you for the admission. Yet you opined about it anyway.

The fact that you felt a need to do that shows a bit of desperation. The fact that you keep using the word "sorry" and other rhetorical devices designed to close discussion shows something close to hysteria.

Brian, I stated facts, that have not changed. It's you that has a problem with cold facts.

The reason I did such an elaborate response is that the speech itself, by its structure, couldn't be analyzed any other way. I've always had a tendency to analyze things line by line, going back to my early debates with Eric Meese 2 years ago.

And no, this isn't standard politics. It's almost unprecedented for the opposition to do what they're doing right now with troops on the ground.

Besides, I didn't address those comments to any particular person, nor did I name you. Why did you immediately decide the shoe fit?

Oh give me a break! You were referring to me and we both know it, as you've admitted above. Now, that's fine with me, but don't try to bring in nit-picks to cover your error.

The motives of the various groups on each side vary, but for whatever reason, they've reached a state of near-equilibrium.

If, as you say, this equilibrium has been reflected in every Congressional election since the 1980s (1994? really?), no doubt it was in place in 1996. Was that presidential election a close one?

No, but it was because Dole failed to bring out his base. It's possible that Bush will do the same, though unlikely under the circumstances. But that's the only way Kerry is likely to get a 'landslide'. Maybe it's a question of definitions, to me a landslide requires that you get a huge majorty of the total vote, not just the largest minority of it.

The polls show a large discontent with Bush, they show almost no movement toward Kerry. The reason for that is that most of the right-wing discontent with Bush is not such that would produce a movement toward a Democrat.

It doesn't have to. A Bush voter who doesn't vote is half a vote for Kerry. I'm sure that's what Bush League is really worried about.

I don't doubt that either. You seem to be reading me my own posts from a year and a half ago. It's always been likely to turn into a turnout election, unless one side self-destructs.

I observed earlier that in their ads, they are tarring Kerry with accusations that don't matter a hilll of beans to anyone likely to vote for him in the first place. It's obvious to me that the strategy is to make the Bush base afraid enough of Kerry that they'll vote for Bush even if they don't like him any more, rather than stay home.

So? That's what I was predicting a year ago. The election in such a closely polarized electorate is likely to turn into a contest of turnout. You're right that nothing they accuse him of is going to matter to a Democrat (or most Democrats). We'll be seeing a lot more of that on both sides before this is over.

It's true his approval numbers are slipping, but many of those disapproving are disapproving for reasons exactly the opposite of what the Democrats disapprove of him for. Given a choice between him and Kerry, they'll mostly vote for Bush.

Or stay home. And I don't think you're right about the reasons, either. It seems to me that these poll results are connected, at least temporally, with the degenerating situation in Iraq and with the prison scandal. As well as the economy, of course.

What is your point? Of COURSE they're connected to what's happening in Iraq! What you misunderstand is the nature of their discontent. The Democrats are upset, more or less, that we're in Iraq at all. The GOP discontent is closer to a sense that we're trying to fight by half measures, and playing a 'pc war'.

Bush can't satisfy both groups.

Furthermore, a large chunk of the national electorate isn't even tuned in yet, and won't be until Labor Day.

Don't be so sure of that, either. There aren't nearly as many uncommitted voters out there as there usually are.

True, but not relevant to what I said.
[

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

You mean more votes for Bush and more book sales?

Yes.

This is what I thought, but it doesn't agree with Hopeful's implication that Woodward was partisan against Bush.

Actually, as I said above, my view is more that Woodward is pro-Democrat than anti-Bush.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Much I agree with, some I don't, can't tell if Gore believes it or not. Though I suspect so as he's not running for office these days.

No, but Kerry is, and he's the one on whose behalf Gore made the speech.

You also seem to be making more spelling and grammatical errors than usual.

Comes with posting late at night after working a very long day. A habit I should probably break, truthfully.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

You mean more votes for Bush and more book sales?

Yes.

This is what I thought, but it doesn't agree with Hopeful's implication that Woodward was partisan against Bush.

Obviously you didn't read all of my post. Woodward set forth a very anti-Bush effort for the TV cameras. Basically, in the words of John Kerry, he 'voted for president just before voting against him.' So while Woodward wrote one potrait of Bush in the book, he wrote an opposite view on television. He thus sells more books, but because this flip flopping closely resembles the Democrats message right now, it is an indication of how lacking in message they really are.

Thus Bush is going to clean their clocks. And I could care less whether Woodward votes for Nader or not.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Terminator X

In my opinion, Bush and terrorists both benefit from this war. If the terrorists did not generate a response that they could spin into more support, then they would be easily marginalized within their own societies.

For the most part, they already are marginal within their own societies. The whole point of 911 and their other activities was to change that, and it didn't work, or didn't while we hit back hard.

As Osama himself put it, "when people see a strong horse or a weak horse, they naturally prefer the strong one."

That's part of why the 'Arab Street' has yet to rise, in spite of endless predictions that they would do so if provoked. We're more likely to produce Arab armed hostility by seeming too hesitant than too forceful.

Since they can now point to Abu Ghraib, or more dead Palestinian/Iraqi/Afghani civilians, and the invasion of Iraq - they have a big "I told you so" to work from. They go from marginal to mainstream every time an innocent Iraqi loses his or her life.

Yet most of Iraq remains quiet, and the Arab Street continues to merely mutter. al Queda doesn't need anger at America to prosper, they've already got that, and have had it for many years.

What they have to do is demonstrate that they can hurt America, and the America is either unable, or better yet unwilling, to do anything about it. That is where their key to success or failure lies. They haven't made any secret of that, BTW. They themselves have stated that America's decision to back out of Mogadishu when faced with casualties was their indicator that we were too weak to resist them, no matter how powerful our military and economic resources theoretically were.

1) If we are discussing Al-Qaeda only, then Hammas and Hezbollah do not apply to this discussion, nor does information that Saddam Hussein was aiding terrorism in Israel.

2) But if we are discussing terrorism in general, I must ask you how they are marginal within their own societies, yet we have states that are identified as supporters of terrorism, and many others that perhaps are not on that list but do (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)?
If they are so marginal, why were we compelled to disable the entire ruling apparatii of two countries?

3)Terrorism did not start in 2001, nor in 1993. As a child we saw a marine barracks blown to smithereens, planes hijacked, etc. In 1972 there was Munich. In 1968 Sirhan Sirhan gunned down Bobby Kennedy in California.
How far back do you wish to go? If these movements are so marginal, how have they managed to prosper for so long?

4)The Arab Street is very used to being ruled by foreigners and despots. Today it's the Americans, sixty years ago it was still the Brits, French, Italians, and the like.
The question is, why is it the Arab Street that feels it necessary to bring down America? Why isn't it the Subsaharan Street? The Latin American Street? We've had interventions all over the world. We've played puppet master as best we could from Chile to Nicaragua to Angola to Vietnam.
But they haven't formed martyr's brigades and come to our own soil to kill us. That has come out of the Middle East.
Once we can answer that question with a more thoughtful, less knee jerk response like "let's invade and sort it out later" then we can perhaps start to understand how we can truly stop terrorism as we know it.
I like the question "why?" I feel it is a very important one.
And you should come up with a better answer than "they hate us because we're so rich and cool" or "they hate us because we have it so good being fat and uninsured." Many areas of the world can stake a claim in that kind of reprension towards the US. Why is it the Middle East that has spawned those who are willing to act on it?
Look, both sides of the equation are horrible when it comes to explaining this and both look to the wrong historical precedents.
Nutty Boomer lefties keep saying "quagmire" and "Vietnam" while psycho Boomer conservatives keep quoting Churchill and talk about rescuing the abysmal failure of Arab civilization.
But what about the other failing civilizations?
What about the other history?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You also seem to be making more spelling and grammatical errors than usual.

Comes with posting late at night after working a very long day. A habit I should probably break, truthfully.

It appears you may be headed for Rush's "ignore list." Perhaps if you just agree with him, and let him have his way, he will continue to count you among the relavent posters here. That's what Hopeful would do I think. Cynic, otoh, may continue to do the routine, and thus make Hopeful's day numbered among those still in the good grace of Rush. It's a tough call. But I'm sure you'll make the right choice and still land on your feet ok.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They aren't gyrating. The movement is all in one direction.

Is that a weighed average of different opinion polls or just one opinion poll?

If the results of the last few months remain the same to November the election would be a very close one.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Presidential elections with incumbents running are very seldom close, cultural divide or no cultural divide. There are many reasons to support or oppose Bush.

Brian you are right on that point,

Either Bush will win big or be defeated big time, I am predicting the former than the latter for various reasons.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Thank you for the admission. Yet you opined about it anyway.

No. You're not reading carefully. I opined about the fact that you chose to respond at such intemperate length, and in such purple prose, to a speech by someone who isn't even running for office, on a subject that shouldn't evoke such controversy. I did not opine on the content of what Gore said or what you said in response. I actually consider that not worthy of bothering with.

The reason I did such an elaborate response is that the speech itself, by its structure, couldn't be analyzed any other way.

Why bother analyzing it at all? That's what I'm asking. Why do you feel it needs rebuttal?

And no, this isn't standard politics. It's almost unprecedented for the opposition to do what they're doing right now with troops on the ground.

Oh, pshaw. It happened for years during Vietnam. What are you talking about?

Somebody sure needs to do it!

Oh give me a break! You were referring to me and we both know it

Well, I wasn't referring to you exclusively. It seems to be a pattern to Bush-backers in general. One I understand, but that makes conversation a bit difficult.

No, but it was because Dole failed to bring out his base.

I would say rather that it was because Clinton was popular and people saw no reason to change. But whatever the cause, the point remains that
this "divide" you see in American culture isn't necessarily going to be reflected in presidential elections.

It's possible that Bush will do the same, though unlikely under the circumstances. But that's the only way Kerry is likely to get a 'landslide'.

I disagree. This election is only secondarily about Kerry anyway; mostly it's about Bush. That's the way it is when an incumbent is running. It's just not going to be a close election. If nothing really substantial changes, Bush is going to get buried. If things do a big turnaround, though, he'll win handily.

What is your point? Of COURSE they're connected to what's happening in Iraq! What you misunderstand is the nature of their discontent. The Democrats are upset, more or less, that we're in Iraq at all. The GOP discontent is closer to a sense that we're trying to fight by half measures, and playing a 'pc war'.

Then why have Bush's poll numbers gone down so much since the revelations about the prison? Look, I'm not prepared to believe that all Bush supporters are moral cripples. Torture and sadism are things that nobody with a conscience approves of, regardless of politics. And anyone with half a brain can see that Gore is right to this extent: these contemptible acts were inevitable outcomes of explicit Bush administration policies. That does not exonnerate the soldiers who actually did them, but it does indicate that blame needs to be laid on many people much higher up as well.

So no, I don't think it's just about playing a "pc war." I think the majority of people living in the red zone are better people than that, and don't want the government they voted for associating the country they love with acts they loathe. Plus they're worried about their jobs and the price of oil, of course.