18 days to go

OK so we have 18 days till armegeddon, wait,no,i mean the election.
With many on each side convinced the end of civilization will commence with the theft of the election by the other side, the race remains too close to call.

It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the cellar would change their mind on who they will vote for at this point, so let's not waste the energy with proselytizing and name calling - we'll save that for a select few other threads.

My question is what character traits, ideas, or policies does your candidate propose that draw you too him?



and as a second question: if you're candidate isn't your vision of the ideal president - who is?

In my opinion,Kerry had enough moxy to come back from Vietnam as a veteran and protest what he felt was wrong. He had no way of knowing at that time that it would be a good political strategy to reference in the future. He came up against the government on behalf of his fellow soldiers to try and represent a minorty of the population suffering as a result of the terrors of that failed war. I believe sacrficing popularity for voiceing what you firmly believe in is a sign of great character. And what of the willigness to speak for the good of the whole even during a time of consistent strife?..........Does Bush have great(any) character? Nobility? If so, can you name an instance of even a minute bravery he acted out of for the good of the country? (outside of political pressures)
I watched Uncle Tom's Cabin this morning (rarely do I cry) and it struck me that if we were to somehow rearrange time and imagine Bush as president during that period what actions would he have taken on the most basic of human and civil rights? :eyebrow:

I dont understand the vitriol directed against Kerry on the issue of "flip flopping" as far as I can tell the man took a stance on the war which was based on the evidence as presented by the government of the day .........and then when it became clear that the government of the day had lied through it's whiter than white teeth he changed his mind......So.....This is a man who is willing to change his mind when the evidence presented demands it. How is that worse than a man who is unwilling to be seen to change his mind even when the evidence is proved to have been false?

I also dont see any reason as to why any republicans should be fearful of the election being robbed by the democrats.....Thus far the side with past form on this is the Republican party. There's been no attempt by the democrats to steal an election there was however a successful attempt by the Republicans to steal the last election and all evidence seems to be pointing to them making a second attempt this coming November. To suggest that this is a matter for which both sides should be considered equally culpable is somewhat disingenuous.

:thumbsup: Dana, I don't know you but I think I'm beginning to like you already. Right On :thumbsup: 2 thumbs up!!

dana, both (probably all) political parties have had less than honest election tactics. for a primer on that you can look into chicago and New York politics. the old D machine was quite adept at turning out their base voters, alive or not.

so yes, both sides do have cause for concern when it comes to dicey election tactics.

Yes, both are bad. The Democrats were bad in Chicago decades ago, and the Republicans were bad in Florida three months ago. Which is more relevant today?

Oh dicey tactics I can well believe of both sides. However stealing an election on such a grand scale as the last Republican campaign did is rather more than dicey tactics. Your initial post intimated that both sides had reason to fear the other side stealing the election. Given the shenannigans in the last election I'd say the democrats have more of a right to that fear than the republicans.

The whole world watched in dismay as the worlds greatest nation allowed it's presidency go to a man who had not won the election in any true sense. Activities reminiscent of the Congo and certain South American regimes stunned us all into near speechlessness.

We're all watching again and hoping against hope that America, the greatest nation on earth and the model for us all when it comes to freedom and democracy will have a legitimately elected President, regardless of which side wins. ....Y'see.....It's not so much that I hate the American system .....it's more that I spent my childhood being impressed by it and being wooed by Superman and Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk into seeing America as a land of heroes whose motives were founded on great and worthy principles. It took a lot for that faith in America to be shaken and frankly Bush was the final straw :P I still do believe that America can be the beacon of freedom and democracy, fair play and hope that it used to be. It just needs it's people to wrench the reigns of power away from those who have abused them and place them firmly in the hands of someone more deserving of their respect.

glatt wrote:

Yes, both are bad. The Democrats were bad in Chicago decades ago, and the Republicans were bad in Florida three months ago. Which is more relevant today?

do you honestly believe that the Republicans weren't bad decades ago and that the Democrats were innocent 3 years ago?

my point is that many who are involved in politics will go to extreme measures in order to get power. it has always been that way and it will always be that way. anyone who believes either side is completely innocent and the other is completely guilty is fooling themselves.

DanaC wrote:

The whole world watched in dismay as the worlds greatest nation allowed it's presidency go to a man who had not won the election in any true sense.

To what are you referring?

dana - america is not so different from what it was when you were a child - you are different. you now hold your own philosophical and political beliefs which you will judge the world against, and against your worldview america is now failing. so you have changed, but so has the media and the information that is available to us. once upon a time the media didn't spend 24/7/365 x4 trying to dig up dirt on any well known individual. in the information age we can find a story to fit any belief so you have a lot more information to filter through your worldview - again contributing to america's failure in your eyes.

Lookout that's a very good point.

lookout123 wrote:

dana - america is not so different from what it was when you were a child - you are different. you now hold your own philosophical and political beliefs which you will judge the world against, and against your worldview america is now failing.

Remember JFK? (no, you probably weren't born yet) "Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." How about Martin Luther King and his courageous fight to win civil liberties, not just for black Americans, but ALL Americans? Both of them assasinated. What leaders do we have today that even approach their caliber? Remember the rights we Americans could once claim under the Constitution? The right against unreasonable search and seizure; the right to a fair and open trial in a court of law by a jury of our peers? These rights are being erroded away - first by the "war on drugs" and now by the Patriot Act. 30 years ago Gitmo Bay would never have been tolerated - now no one utters a word of protest.

lookout123 wrote:

so you have changed, but so has the media and the information that is available to us. once upon a time the media didn't spend 24/7/365 x4 trying to dig up dirt on any well known individual. in the information age we can find a story to fit any belief so you have a lot more information to filter through your worldview - again contributing to america's failure in your eyes.

What DO they teach in our schools these days? Ever hear of the McCarthy era? Do you have any idea how many public figures (and private citizens) had their careers and their lives destroyed by rumor and innuendo as the nation and the media became involved in a mass hysterical anti-commie frenzy? 30 years or so ago when McGovern was a candidate for president, the press leaked that he had once been treated for depression. In those days such things were never spoken of, and it was considered almost shameful to admit to such a condition. Talk about the media digging up dirt! Ever hear of something called the "yellow press"? 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago before the big conglomerates took over, any citizen with a printing press could put out his own newspaper. NYC alone had at least 10 or 12 papers if not more, and some of these papers were highly slanted to put it mildly. Ever watch "Citizen Kane" about Randolph Hearst? That took place in the 30's and the Hearst empire was built on yellow journalism. If you are going to comment on changes in the US, I suggest you get yourself a good book by a reputable scholar on the history of our country. Read it and get back to us.

marichiko wrote:

30 years or so ago when McGovern was a candidate for president, the press leaked that he had once been treated for depression.

Right campaign, wrong person...Sen. Tom Eagleton.

don't confuse her with facts, she might lose sight of her conspiracies.

mari - if you read back you will see that dana was talking about the america she respected as a child. i believe dana is in her 20's or early 30's, that means she was a child during the reagan era. that is what i was responding to. the norman rockwell america never existed for the people who snuck a peak beneath the surface, as she does now.

your references about journalism are valid, but tell me - how many 24/7 news networks were in operation pre-1990? how many political blogs? hell, even the evening news was only 15minutes long before watergate. it is a phenomenon of the '90's and beyond that there are thousands of journalist/investigators digging into every possible moment of a celebrity's life.

so before you tell me to "read a book" and get back to you, stop, reread the thread and see if you have something relevant to the actual discussion we were having.

sycamore wrote:

Right campaign, wrong person...Sen. Tom Eagleton.

Yeah, you know, I actually realized it was Eagleton a few minutes after I hit the reply button, but by then a friend had come over to try to get some important information he needed from the Canadian Government website, and I couldn't get back online in time to correct my error. For an interesting trip down memory lane check out this link: http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1972.html

Lookout123 wrote:

your references about journalism are valid, but tell me - how many 24/7 news networks were in operation pre-1990? how many political blogs? hell, even the evening news was only 15minutes long before watergate. it is a phenomenon of the '90's and beyond that there are thousands of journalist/investigators digging into every possible moment of a celebrity's life.

Check out my link above for pre-Watergate journalistic smear tactics by the so-called "liberal press." If that's not digging into every aspect of a candidate's life, I don't know what is.

While once upon a time the evening news was shorter and there was no CNN or Internet, we fossils who remember those times still managed to get our daily dose of (mis)information. We did this thing they called "READING". I subscribed to so many news magazines I could barely keep up with them all. There were also plenty of radio shows then just as there are now. I remember going over to a friend's who had a shortwave radio so I could hear the BBC news (less biased, I felt), and even the Swiss national shortwave radio broadcasts in English (I can still hear Swiss Radio's distinctive little broadcast theme in my mind).

As for the America of Dana's childhood, only she can enlighten us as to whether it was the America of Ronald Reagan that enthralled her so.

To your original question, the traits I admire most, the ideal:
Intelligent.
Wise.
Understands policy- you could say I'd like a wonk.
Accountable.
Diplomatic.
Secular.

If there was no other issue in this election, I'd go with Kerry because he served two tours in Vietnam. My father also served two tours in Vietnam. I got married when Vietnam was still going on and my then husband and I had many a discussion about what he should do in regard to the military and the draft. Finally, he said to me, "This is my country and I'm not going to desert it by going to Canada, but I cannot fight in a war which I feel is unjust and immoral. The only ehtical option left to me is to refuse military service and go to jail. Will you stand by me?" He wasn't speaking hypothetically. He had drawn a very low number in the draft lottery which all but guaranteed his being called up for military service upon his graduation from college. I told him that I would be on his side, whatever happened. Lucky for him, the war ended a few months after he got his degree.

I think of these two brave men - my father who fought, and the young man who had been my husband who refused to leave his country and was willing to accept incarceration for his belief. Then I think of George Jr. who refused to even show up for his physical at the National Guard, who wouldn't fight for his country or stand up for his reasons for not serving and speak out against Vietnam. I have nothing but the deepest contempt for Bush. As far as I'm concerned he is a coward, plain and simple.

*Smiles* It wasnt Reagan's America I was enthralled with so much as Hollywood's America. I am not alone amongst my compatriots in remembering a time before we realised America was as broken as the rest of the world. :P

What I am referring to is America the Ideal as expressed through her culture and entertainment. Bear in mind that even 20 and 30 years ago America provided most of the movies we watched and much of the television. When I was growing up there was a sense of idealism to the America we percieved through that entertainment.....and I don't mean the idealism of the right, I mean the idea that the little guy matters........the ideals of personal freedoms and public responsibilities. For instance....The England I grew up in was in many ways a great deal more sexist than the America I saw on the silver screen. America is where girls who wanted more from life looked, to find a culture who'd accept them as fully fledged human beings. Likewise the America I watched on screen was publicly exorcising it's demons on race. It looked like a progressive and hopeful place.......

Then I grew up.....and as I grew up I becamse aware of America as a political animal. The shining ideals of that earlier day were very clearly not the backbone of political America......The more I observed the more I saw that those ideals were not even a part of mainstream culture anymore ( if they ever had been) What had seemed like a passionate defense of individual rights and societal obligations began to look more and more like a propogandists missionary zeal.

Dont really know where I am going with this :P I became aware of America as a political entity with all that that implies gradually when I was about 9 or 10. But it's more than just me growing up and becoming wiser to the world. I have talked to others about this. Over the last 30 years America has gone from the World's policeman and provider of all things cool ......to the World's greatest gangleader and bringer of inequity in all it's many forms. I'm talking of perceptions here.

England is a very class ridden society. Less so than it once was but it's still there in essence. When I was growing up in the late 70's and early 80's those class divisions were much more apparent than in today's england. America looked and sounded like a nation without Class ( umm....without Class not without class ) a nation where even the most humble start could lead to greatness and where even the lowliest worker had a voice.....Imagine my surprise upon discovering that the class divisions in America are just as starkly defined. albeit by different criteria. But even then......Democracy in America still sounded like something which worked. Here in England parliament seemed very far way from the people it governed. The birthplace of democracy seemed to have settled into a staid and distinctively unrepresentative pattern......

Over the course of 25 years my perception of America has altered drastically. During the latter part of Reagan's office and during Bush senior's office I started to see America in a very negative light. As I got older and learned about the Vietnam war and then further back to the "dollar enslavement" which all A'level grade history students learn about here if they cover that period at all...........I did start to see America as a menacing and arrogant figure on the world stage.

I have ( I think) a more rounded view now. My phases of Anti American sentiment never lasted very long because in the end....I like people.

I think my point is this..... I grew up in an England only a few decades after the last crumbling blocks of it's Empire had been dismantled ( unless you count the "commonwealth") my parents' generation had still celebrated Empire Day in school........America stood as a rather shiny beacon. Not quite yet the uncontested new Empire ......but well on the way to becoming it. All the while voicing opposition to the very idea of Empire and declaiming the benefits of true Democracy.

Now America is the Empire and the shining beacon of democracy has been used to set alight wildfires which now rage across much of the globe causing destruction and mayhem. Direct and indirect influence lies behind many of the world's current conflicts and peace is only ever bought in dollars and the price of that peace is as high as an oil rig.

MMmm....yeah sorry 'bout that last rambling detour... The original question was about character traits yes?

I am bemused as I have said before as to which character traits people see as positive in Bush. Quite aside from the politics I mean, I just do not understand how an apparent lack of educated intellect leads to people having more trust in a man. Do you fear your politicians so much that intelligence could be a weapon used against you?

I like Kerry. I didnt used to, even your democrats are usually a little right wing for my tastes, but I watched a couple of the debates and came away thinking Kerry was a lot more impressive than I had given him credit for. As to Bush....My God he came across as moron. I tend to forget whilst he isnt on TV just how stupid he seems. Then he's on my screen again opening his mouth and smirking and i am reminded afresh. Stupid and uncouth.

What's this I hear about Bush not allowed to be filmed from behind? Something to do with a wire up his jacket feeding him the answers? I dont know if that's conspiracy theory or grounded journalism but frankly I wouldn't be surprised. We've had a fair few moments of proof that the President is either a) incapable of thinking fast on his feet or memorising large chunks of detailed information or b) has been advised to act as if he is incapable of thinking fast on his feet or memorising large chunks of detailed information.....


So either stupidity really does play well in the Electorates mind or stupidity is percieved as playing well in the electorates mind.....in either case "Dude, that's pretty fucked up right there"